Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

pizzaguardian wrote:

coredump wrote:Yes, and the summary is just a summary... it is not a primary rules source.

The summary also says you just add up unsaved wounds to determine combat winner. That is false also.

Check out the Box-out on p.65. It clearly states that a challenge is fought in standard init order... though it suggests a more cinematic alternative.

The box-out is the only thing that you shouldn't take seriously. Since it tells us that tyranid players have to make gurgling roar on page ago.

I had to reverse my opinion because of that boxed text.

If you can move the challenge to the end of combat OR do it in initiative order it means that the challenge is completely separate from the main combat. If it wasn't then the order would matter drastically. If you do it in initiative order and wounds could be assigned outside of the challenge a lot of models could be dead that would be able to fight when you move the challenge to after the end of regular combat.

So no would allocation out of the challenge.

coredump wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:

coredump wrote:Yes, and the summary is just a summary... it is not a primary rules source.

The summary also says you just add up unsaved wounds to determine combat winner. That is false also.

Check out the Box-out on p.65. It clearly states that a challenge is fought in standard init order... though it suggests a more cinematic alternative.

is there a reason your arn't doing the challenge after all other attacks and in inti order ?

Because there is nothing in the rules to indicate there is supposed to be two separate combats, or two different sets of initiative steps.

page 429 2nd to last bullet.
Once all models that are not in a challenge have fought, it is time to resolve any challenges,

Tangent wrote:

jcress410 wrote:
I'm also not convinced the rules are all crafted intentionally. i.e. I think a lot of the circumstances and combinations of rules were not forseen. So, we can't say the authors of the text intended X or Y on any given subject based on the text of the rules alone.

But the point I'm trying to make is that they already had practice with this sort of thing with Fantasy. Challenges exist in Fantasy, and there are Overkill rules explicitly detailed there. Challenges exist in 40K, but there are no Overkill rules explicitly detailed... one could surmise, then, that these rules were purposely left out so that Overkill can't happen in 40K. The only other way you could look at it is to say that GW either forgot to include those rules (unlikely) or that they didn't realize that this would come up (unlikely).

I'm not personally sure of any ruling on this issue, but I DO think that the fact that Overkill exists in Fantasy within the similar system of challenges and does NOT exist in 40K suggests a direction on this issue for 40K.

The issue with this argument is that Overkill in Fantasy does something entirely different than what we're talking about here (in addition to being a different game) - Fantasy Overkill specifically adds the extra wounds to the combat result only to represent you tearing their champion to bloody pieces, then jumping up and down on those pieces and hurling bits of them around the battlefield, thus weakening the enemy's morale. However, Fantasy also has fewer models eligible for challenges in their units, which is important because it negates the threat of peon sergeants tying up a Bloodthirster that was previously mentioned. I think that in the absence of a specific ruling on what to do with extra wounds, we must go back to the basic rules for what to do with wounds, which is that they spill over into the rest of the unit.

coredump wrote:

Not at all. Once you leave the 'summary' and read the rules in the appropriate location you find
Unsaved wounds negated by saves, don't count
Unsaved wounds negated by FnP, don't count
Unsaved wounds beyond the number in the unit, don't count.
Conversely,
A single Unsaved Wound, if ID causing, could count for as many as 6 towards combat resolution.

The summary is a quick and dirty reminder of the actual rules, it is *not* a replacement for them.



And again, the entire premise of the box out of p.65 is that the RULE is that challenges happen during their init steps, but they propose an ALTERNATIVE method of doing it after everything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:

coredump wrote:Yes, and the summary is just a summary... it is not a primary rules source.

The summary also says you just add up unsaved wounds to determine combat winner. That is false also.

Check out the Box-out on p.65. It clearly states that a challenge is fought in standard init order... though it suggests a more cinematic alternative.

You seem to have understand the unsaved wound wrong, of course you are supposed to count them as like that. For example a wound which was negated by a save is not an unsaved wound is it?

I agree that the summary is a reminder, but you ask us to ignore it completely as it was false .

coredump wrote:

Only if you completely ignore context.

The box out says you will find it 'more satisfying' for Nids to roar. It never treats it as a rule.
The box out says 'many players like to resolve challenges at the end', it never treats it as a rule

But the box out says "Though the characters in a challenge strike during their normal Initiative steps", it *does* treat that as a rule.

Doomaflatchi wrote:

Tangent wrote:

jcress410 wrote:
I'm also not convinced the rules are all crafted intentionally. i.e. I think a lot of the circumstances and combinations of rules were not forseen. So, we can't say the authors of the text intended X or Y on any given subject based on the text of the rules alone.

But the point I'm trying to make is that they already had practice with this sort of thing with Fantasy. Challenges exist in Fantasy, and there are Overkill rules explicitly detailed there. Challenges exist in 40K, but there are no Overkill rules explicitly detailed... one could surmise, then, that these rules were purposely left out so that Overkill can't happen in 40K. The only other way you could look at it is to say that GW either forgot to include those rules (unlikely) or that they didn't realize that this would come up (unlikely).

I'm not personally sure of any ruling on this issue, but I DO think that the fact that Overkill exists in Fantasy within the similar system of challenges and does NOT exist in 40K suggests a direction on this issue for 40K.

The issue with this argument is that Overkill in Fantasy does something entirely different than what we're talking about here (in addition to being a different game) - Fantasy Overkill specifically adds the extra wounds to the combat result only to represent you tearing their champion to bloody pieces, then jumping up and down on those pieces and hurling bits of them around the battlefield, thus weakening the enemy's morale. However, Fantasy also has fewer models eligible for challenges in their units, which is important because it negates the threat of peon sergeants tying up a Bloodthirster that was previously mentioned. I think that in the absence of a specific ruling on what to do with extra wounds, we must go back to the basic rules for what to do with wounds, which is that they spill over into the rest of the unit.

Yeah, I hear you.

But how does your interpretation jive with the fact that the rulebook specifically allows you to resolve the challenge AFTER all other blows from both units have been struck? This is a crucial point that, in my opinion, MUST be taken into account when debating this. The rulebook states that it does not matter when the challenge is resolved - before other models strike, after other models strike, in the middle of some models striking before others... it doesn't matter. And if it doesn't matter, then how would wound overflow work?

Bannzai wrote:

htj wrote:

dayio wrote:I think It is quite clear that wounds would overflow. Just my opinion though. How about when a challenger/challenge hit with a 6?(precision strike). Can they allocate a hit to a special weapon just behind the char you are in a challenge with? All those arguing for wound overflow I think would have to agree, But it doesn;t make a whole lot of sense with the whole challenge.

Pretty sure that only applies to shooting.

Precision Strike does indeed apply to assaults. Precision shots apply to shooting.

Interestingly: "Wounds from precision strikes are allocated against an engaged model (or models) of your choice in the unit he is attacking, rather than following the normal rules for Wound Allocation". Is there anything in the Challenge rules that overrides this?
Edit: [Page 63 BRB]

Well I'll be, totally missed that. Apologies,dayio!

Tangent wrote:

Doomaflatchi wrote:

Tangent wrote:

jcress410 wrote:
I'm also not convinced the rules are all crafted intentionally. i.e. I think a lot of the circumstances and combinations of rules were not forseen. So, we can't say the authors of the text intended X or Y on any given subject based on the text of the rules alone.

But the point I'm trying to make is that they already had practice with this sort of thing with Fantasy. Challenges exist in Fantasy, and there are Overkill rules explicitly detailed there. Challenges exist in 40K, but there are no Overkill rules explicitly detailed... one could surmise, then, that these rules were purposely left out so that Overkill can't happen in 40K. The only other way you could look at it is to say that GW either forgot to include those rules (unlikely) or that they didn't realize that this would come up (unlikely).

I'm not personally sure of any ruling on this issue, but I DO think that the fact that Overkill exists in Fantasy within the similar system of challenges and does NOT exist in 40K suggests a direction on this issue for 40K.

The issue with this argument is that Overkill in Fantasy does something entirely different than what we're talking about here (in addition to being a different game) - Fantasy Overkill specifically adds the extra wounds to the combat result only to represent you tearing their champion to bloody pieces, then jumping up and down on those pieces and hurling bits of them around the battlefield, thus weakening the enemy's morale. However, Fantasy also has fewer models eligible for challenges in their units, which is important because it negates the threat of peon sergeants tying up a Bloodthirster that was previously mentioned. I think that in the absence of a specific ruling on what to do with extra wounds, we must go back to the basic rules for what to do with wounds, which is that they spill over into the rest of the unit.

Yeah, I hear you.

But how does your interpretation jive with the fact that the rulebook specifically allows you to resolve the challenge AFTER all other blows from both units have been struck? This is a crucial point that, in my opinion, MUST be taken into account when debating this. The rulebook states that it does not matter when the challenge is resolved - before other models strike, after other models strike, in the middle of some models striking before others... it doesn't matter. And if it doesn't matter, then how would wound overflow work?

This is a really good point, and I actually have no idea how these two points are supposed to work together! I think the statement that it doesn't matter when wounds are resolved shows, with arguable clarity, that wound overflow wasn't specifically intended, but... BUT, I also don't think that display of 'possible intention' is solid enough to allow us to create a new wound allocation rule where none exists. Thus, I think we still have to allow wound overflow for the time being. It seems to be here until it gets FAQ'ed, if it ever does.

Personally, I'd suggest with my opponent that we always resolve challenge wounds after combat, as that just feels most balanced to me; I don't think it really matters too much one way or the other, as long as you and your opponent are consistent about it from game to game.

I'm with you up until the balanced part. If wound overflow does not exist, then why pay hundreds of points for a melee-focused character? The weak IG squad leader (or whatever) with 1 wound challenges him, removing his ability to exercise that melee prowess, and because wounds can't overflow the most that he can contribute to combat resolution is 1 wound.

Alternatively, if wound overflow DOES exist, then you're not grossly overpaying for melee-focused characters.

Tangent wrote:I'm with you up until the balanced part. If wound overflow does not exist, then why pay hundreds of points for a melee-focused character? The weak IG squad leader (or whatever) with 1 wound challenges him, removing his ability to exercise that melee prowess, and because wounds can't overflow the most that he can contribute to combat resolution is 1 wound.

Alternatively, if wound overflow DOES exist, then you're not grossly overpaying for melee-focused characters.

it says the wounds still count to see who won the combat though so the characters wounds still matter.

id like to ask my earlier question again since no one seems to have mentioned it, what about the fact that in a challenge you might be attacking completely different WS, T and SV throws from the rest of the unit. doesnt this kind of make wounds bleeding into the unit wrong?

usernamesareannoying wrote:

Tangent wrote:I'm with you up until the balanced part. If wound overflow does not exist, then why pay hundreds of points for a melee-focused character? The weak IG squad leader (or whatever) with 1 wound challenges him, removing his ability to exercise that melee prowess, and because wounds can't overflow the most that he can contribute to combat resolution is 1 wound.

Alternatively, if wound overflow DOES exist, then you're not grossly overpaying for melee-focused characters.

it says the wounds still count to see who won the combat though so the characters wounds still matter.

id like to ask my earlier question again since no one seems to have mentioned it, what about the fact that in a challenge you might be attacking completely different WS, T and SV throws from the rest of the unit. doesnt this kind of make wounds bleeding into the unit wrong?

This is an extremely valid point and one that brings me to the conclussion, after having read the challenge rules for the hundreth time. The wound overflow isn't supposed to be.

I believe that the two characters fight, wounds are directed toward each other, and any unsaved wounds are counted toward the combat resolution.

Here's an example that makes sense to me:

A chaos lord charges an IG squad.
The IG sgt. then challenges the chaos lord.
The chaos lord does 5 wounds.
The IG sgt cannot save against any of the 5 wounds due to them being AP3.
The IG sgt dies before he gets to swing because he is a lower Int than the chaos lord.
The chaos lord survives the challenge unhurt.
The remaining squad cannot swing on the chaos lord due to not having been part of the challenge and must now take a break test at a -5 for losing combat.
The IG squads break and is susequently run down while being caught in a sweeping advance.

In the example given it's pretty straight forward how this works. Now let's do another:

A chaos lord charges an space wolf squad with a wolf guard in TDA with a power fist.
The wolf guard challenges the chaos lord.
The chaos lord does 5 wounds.
The wolf guard saves 3 wounds but fails 2 due to a bad roll.
The wolf gaurd dies before he gets to swing because he is a lower Int than the chaos lord.
The chaos lord survives the challenge unhurt.
The remaining squad cannot swing on the chaos lord due to not having been part of the challenge and must now take a break test at a -2 for losing combat.
The space wolf squad pass their morale check and continues to fight the next turn.

If there had been a squad of chaos marines involved in either of these combats they would have had a chance to be involved in an assault with the other members of the opponents squad, and any results would have modified the combat resolution results either up or down respectively.

This is just my interpertation of the rules, but it seems logical to me.

bigbaboonass wrote:This is an extremely valid point and one that brings me to the conclussion, after having read the challenge rules for the hundreth time. The wound overflow isn't supposed to be.

I believe that the two characters fight, wounds are directed toward each other, and any unsaved wounds are counted toward the combat resolution.

Here's an example that makes sense to me:

A chaos lord charges an IG squad.
The IG sgt. then challenges the chaos lord.
The chaos lord does 5 wounds.
The IG sgt cannot save against any of the 5 wounds due to them being AP3.
The IG sgt dies before he gets to swing because he is a lower Int than the chaos lord.
The chaos lord survives the challenge unhurt.
The remaining squad cannot swing on the chaos lord due to not having been part of the challenge and must now take a break test at a -5 for losing combat.
The IG squads break and is susequently run down while being caught in a sweeping advance.

In the example given it's pretty straight forward how this works. Now let's do another:

A chaos lord charges an space wolf squad with a wolf guard in TDA with a power fist.
The wolf guard challenges the chaos lord.
The chaos lord does 5 wounds.
The wolf guard saves 3 wounds but fails 2 due to a bad roll.
The wolf gaurd dies before he gets to swing because he is a lower Int than the chaos lord.
The chaos lord survives the challenge unhurt.
The remaining squad cannot swing on the chaos lord due to not having been part of the challenge and must now take a break test at a -2 for losing combat.
The space wolf squad pass their morale check and continues to fight the next turn.

If there had been a squad of chaos marines involved in either of these combats they would have had a chance to be involved in an assault with the other members of the opponents squad, and any results would have modified the combat resolution results either up or down respectively.

This is just my interpertation of the rules, but it seems logical to me.

Wounds in excess of a model's Wounds characteristic do not count for determining assault results. See page 26 of the Rulebook. So your examples cannot be RAW. RAI? Maybe, but it seems just as easy to continue to follow the rules for Allocating Wounds as already described in the Assault Phase rules. Which means the wounds spill over to the next closest model.

ToBeWilly wrote:

bigbaboonass wrote:This is an extremely valid point and one that brings me to the conclussion, after having read the challenge rules for the hundreth time. The wound overflow isn't supposed to be.

I believe that the two characters fight, wounds are directed toward each other, and any unsaved wounds are counted toward the combat resolution.

Here's an example that makes sense to me:

A chaos lord charges an IG squad.
The IG sgt. then challenges the chaos lord.
The chaos lord does 5 wounds.
The IG sgt cannot save against any of the 5 wounds due to them being AP3.
The IG sgt dies before he gets to swing because he is a lower Int than the chaos lord.
The chaos lord survives the challenge unhurt.
The remaining squad cannot swing on the chaos lord due to not having been part of the challenge and must now take a break test at a -5 for losing combat.
The IG squads break and is susequently run down while being caught in a sweeping advance.

In the example given it's pretty straight forward how this works. Now let's do another:

A chaos lord charges an space wolf squad with a wolf guard in TDA with a power fist.
The wolf guard challenges the chaos lord.
The chaos lord does 5 wounds.
The wolf guard saves 3 wounds but fails 2 due to a bad roll.
The wolf gaurd dies before he gets to swing because he is a lower Int than the chaos lord.
The chaos lord survives the challenge unhurt.
The remaining squad cannot swing on the chaos lord due to not having been part of the challenge and must now take a break test at a -2 for losing combat.
The space wolf squad pass their morale check and continues to fight the next turn.

If there had been a squad of chaos marines involved in either of these combats they would have had a chance to be involved in an assault with the other members of the opponents squad, and any results would have modified the combat resolution results either up or down respectively.

This is just my interpertation of the rules, but it seems logical to me.

Wounds in excess of a model's Wounds characteristic do not count for determining assault results. See page 26 of the Rulebook. So your examples cannot be RAW. RAI? Maybe, but it seems just as easy to continue to follow the rules for Allocating Wounds as already described in the Assault Phase rules. Which means the wounds spill over to the next closest model.

Yeah. Sorry. Got hung up reading and re-reading the rules for challenges that I convinced myself that was how it was supposed to work without re-reading the basic rules for assaults. As you said maybe RAI, but hat wouldn't hold water in a tourney. This being the case, wounds spill over into the rest of the squad seems reasonable enough. Single model units / IC with a high Int definitely gain an advantage then.

Wounds in excess of a model's Wounds characteristic do not count for determining assault results


This right here should tell you they don't carry over to other models. For simple reason they say there can be wounds in excess to the model's Wounds characteristic

IF you read spill over into the rules, can you please explain the entire 'Assault Result" section on page 65? I'm not being snarky, I just see that as a huge hurdle to the spillover camp, and if you can resolved that with "Forging a Narrative" and with page 429, I'm in. But, to me, both RAI and RAW back up wounds not spilling over, due to those two entrees. It seems like you've acknowledged those hurdles, but have kinda just wrote them off, instead of making your case against them.

I really will be thrilled with either point of view on this, I just need to be able to defend my position, as I am the "tie breaker" in all club rule disputes and I have 2 super rule lawyers who book mark their books with color coded tabs and have prewritten arguments for their positions, and I have to take a stand and prove it to them (preferably the first time), and for the younger gamers, I need to get these things right.

this simple go to page 64 read last setences in fighting a challenge.

For duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.


if you read how they are placed they may not even be in base to base so it doesn't matter if they are with in 2 inches of another models they only count as base to base with each other says nothing about being close to any other model. there for even if character is touching a sergent in challenge and a tac marine he only counts as being base to base with sergent there for he cant hit the tac becues he doesnt count in base to base with him. and you cant follow normall wound allocation in the first place.

Isn't there an official battle rep or AAR in a WD or something that deals with this? That would at least shead some light on all of this. And yes, I know that an AAR even from GW is still not rules.

i thought the wd battle reports were untrustworthy and usually had mistakes in it ?

pizzaguardian wrote:i thought the wd battle reports were untrustworthy and usually had mistakes in it ?

True, but if one did have wounds being allocated to a squad after a challenge, I would say its quite telling.

okay another easy one for you guys for more proof

We can also look at it this way page 65 Moral Support
first setence "your units are reduced to bystanders"

what is a bystander "one present but not taking part in a situation or event"
if there not taking part in the event in a table top manner they are not making saves that would be taking part in the challenge.

and before someone says the challege is over when the character dies read page 64 Combatant slain.

And some one going say wait a bystander can got shot in real life and yes they can but we don't figure that in table top or missles from orks be blowing every thing up on the table.

captain-crud wrote:okay another easy one for you guys for more proof

We can also look at it this way page 65 Moral Support
first setence "your units are reduced to bystanders"

what is a bystander "one present but not taking part in a situation or event"
if there not taking part in the event in a table top manner they are not making saves that would be taking part in the challenge.

and before someone says the challege is over when the character dies read page 64 Combatant slain.

And some one going say wait a bystander can got shot in real life and yes they can but we don't figure that in table top or missles from orks be blowing every thing up on the table.

This is an odd contortion of the text.

The restrictions imposed on an assault by a challenge are clear.

Nothing about being in a challenge keeps an independent character from allocating wounds normally.

Sure it's not what we would expect a challenge to be. We may have ideas for how the rules 'should' work, or what might have been intended by the authors... but that all seems trumped by a plain text reading of the rules.

One last thing

If the Challenge is ongoing until the end of the phase, that means the "winning" character is still counted as being base to base with another model. Wounds can't be allocated away from that model until it is removed. Only when the model in base to base is killed can those wounds overflow (page 25 second bullet, right column). It doesn't die until the end of the phase (page 64). Allocation, resolution, and removal of casualties have already ended for all combat by then and the extra wounds are vapor.

"For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other... the challenge is still considered to be on going [if one is slain] until the end of the phase" page 64

"If there is no enemy models in base contact with a model... the wound is allocated to the next closest model" page 25

IF I had to make an arguement against overflow, this would be my lead and I must say, it is very strong and certainly explains the need to state that the challenge is ongoing until the end of the phase, followed by the summary in the back (429).

Your argument strongly states that challenges are on going until the end of the phase. But this still is imo intentional interpretations of the rule.

And it doesn't say the challenger doesn't die until the end of the phase . It says we count the challenge is still ongoing. This is a small but important difference between what you say and the quote in the rulebook. (Assuming you were talking about the Combatant Slain rule).

I really would like to have not overflowing wounds but your argument actually just proves what is in the book that the challengers won't be hit by anyone else. It only intends we should not overflow. Which be interpreted as we should overflow and the mechanic was added to buff the stronger model ( monstrous creatures, bigass strong characters)

No my arguement is that the book states that that both combatants are in base to base until the end of the phase (because that is what it says). The wound allocation rules are also clear that you cannot allocate to anyone else while still in base to base. There is no way to allocate outside the challenge (with the possible exception of precision strikes) unless you choose to ignore some part of the rules.

This discussion has now flipped. RAW is clear, no overflow. You'll have to head to RAI to justify overflow.

Lobukia wrote:No my arguement is that the book states that that both combatants are in base to base until the end of the phase (because that is what it says). The wound allocation rules are also clear that you cannot allocate to anyone else while still in base to base. There is no way to allocate outside the challenge (with the possible exception of precision strikes) unless you choose to ignore some part of the rules.

This discussion has now flipped. RAW is clear, no overflow. You'll have to head to RAI to justify overflow.

You can allocate to targets outside of base to base contact once there are none left in b2b. See page 25 left side, 2nd bullet.

The challenge rule only says anything about who is considered in base to base contact, it says nothing about the other combatants being not there.

It is clear that the combat and wound results are entirely between the models involved in the challenge.
Page 25 would not apply.

Shandara wrote:

Lobukia wrote:No my arguement is that the book states that that both combatants are in base to base until the end of the phase (because that is what it says). The wound allocation rules are also clear that you cannot allocate to anyone else while still in base to base. There is no way to allocate outside the challenge (with the possible exception of precision strikes) unless you choose to ignore some part of the rules.

This discussion has now flipped. RAW is clear, no overflow. You'll have to head to RAI to justify overflow.

You can allocate to targets outside of base to base contact once there are none left in b2b. See page 25 left side, 2nd bullet.

The challenge rule only says anything about who is considered in base to base contact, it says nothing about the other combatants being not there.

You're missing the point. You cannot allocate wounds outside b2b until you are no longer in b2b by virtue of having killed those in b2b. But the BRB has removed that option by stating that challenge combats can't shake b2b restrictions until the phase is over.

Option 1) b2b, allocate wounds there
Option 2) No longer b2b, allocate to other models

But it is clearly stated that the challenge lasts the entire phase and that for the entire phase the challenge combatants are considered in b2b. It's impossible to use option 2 if option 1 still applies.

Man assaulting and CC is so jacked in 6e.

60mm wrote:Man assaulting and CC is so jacked in 6e.

It's not, people are just struggling combining rules on separate pages and shaking 5e baggage (present company included)... Which is normal during a rules change

Incurus wrote:That's why it's so important - I am definately concerned that a WAAC player could well try this.

Example I previous gave was Abaddon in a unit of Chaos Space Marines, he gets charged by a unit of Eldar Banshees and the Exarch Challenges him - He has to accept or not fight - He accepts, rolls high for his weapon and scores a huge amount of wounds - yet only one would do anything - the 'shees take down the marines and take few wounds in return making the unit fail combat, break and run to be chased down and eaten!

Would make me cry somewhat

Models in terminator armor cannot sweeping advance


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well what about in 5th edition, in cc if a ic attacks another ic did the wounds overflow?

Lobukia wrote:

Shandara wrote:

Lobukia wrote:No my arguement is that the book states that that both combatants are in base to base until the end of the phase (because that is what it says). The wound allocation rules are also clear that you cannot allocate to anyone else while still in base to base. There is no way to allocate outside the challenge (with the possible exception of precision strikes) unless you choose to ignore some part of the rules.

This discussion has now flipped. RAW is clear, no overflow. You'll have to head to RAI to justify overflow.

You can allocate to targets outside of base to base contact once there are none left in b2b. See page 25 left side, 2nd bullet.

The challenge rule only says anything about who is considered in base to base contact, it says nothing about the other combatants being not there.

You're missing the point. You cannot allocate wounds outside b2b until you are no longer in b2b by virtue of having killed those in b2b. But the BRB has removed that option by stating that challenge combats can't shake b2b restrictions until the phase is over.

Option 1) b2b, allocate wounds there
Option 2) No longer b2b, allocate to other models

But it is clearly stated that the challenge lasts the entire phase and that for the entire phase the challenge combatants are considered in b2b. It's impossible to use option 2 if option 1 still applies.

Wrong, it states the challenge is ongoing regardless of which initiative step, not that b2b is retained. This prevents outsiders from attacking the challenger/challengee. You are suggesting that the model is killed but left in b2b until the end of the phase so left over wounds have no choice but be stacked on the victim which is incorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ub3rb3n wrote:
Well what about in 5th edition, in cc if a ic attacks another ic did the wounds overflow?

No and with IC they still would not as they are considered their own unit. The overkill literally only prevents an 18pt character from tarpiting a much more expensive character as a unit character is much different then an IC.