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.

First of all, Im pretty certain I know how this work, this post is just to verify my understanding of the rule.

An ork warboss on a bike (toughness 6) in a large unit of grots (toughness 2) is in a challenge with, say, a cultist champion (strength 3).
Now because the majority toughness value in the warboss' unit is a puny 2, the warboss is wounded on 3+ by the strength 3 champion. Even though the champion, in no way, can even touch a grot, as he his in a duel with the boss.

I understand the reasoning by using majority toughness values, I just dont see it justified when in a challenge.
So Dakka, have I constantly missed the paragraph saying, a model uses its own toughness value in a challenge? or is it working as intended?

Oh yeah, what about a nurgle lord on a bike, in a group of cultists, getting boon of mutation and suffers a strength 4 hit? is he wounded on 3+ or 6 +?

During a challenge the two models involved in the challenge are considered in btb contact ONLY with each other. It's resolved separate from the remainder of the CC as well.

As such I am guessing (without having my BRB in front of me) that you use the stats of the models involved in the challenge only, not majority.

 Rorschach9 wrote:
During a challenge the two models involved in the challenge are considered in btb contact ONLY with each other. It's resolved separate from the remainder of the CC as well.

As such I am guessing (without having my BRB in front of me) that you use the stats of the models involved in the challenge only, not majority.

I feel that might me RAI, however they are still attached and in the squad.
I couldn't find anything to say that you would not use (Gross Avg) stats.

If someone sees what I blatantly missed, by all means show me where.

Raw, majority Toughness and WS. HIWPI you use the models T and WS.

Yeah it seems kinda broken that if you have a challange with two identical IC's that the one attacked to the crapper squad is going to go down easier due to the majority rules.

Happyjew wrote:
Raw, majority Toughness and WS. HIWPI you use the models T and WS.

This.

rigeld2 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
Raw, majority Toughness and WS. HIWPI you use the models T and WS.

This.

Agreed, like IC's swinging on each other in 5th ^^ with the exception the squad won't eat them.

How about page 24: "... each model rolls To Hit using its own Weapon Skill."? Page 25 seems to agree on Majority WRT toughness.

Homer

 Homer S wrote:
How about page 24: "... each model rolls To Hit using its own Weapon Skill."? Page 25 seems to agree on Majority WRT toughness.

Homer

Doesn't every model always roll to hit using it's own WS?

RAI you use the character's weapon skill and toughness.

This game sucks!

 Bat Manuel wrote:
This game sucks!

Thank you for your contribution. Do you have something worthwhile to add?

ok, its good to hear its not just me then
I'll try to convince my buddies to house rule this then, thank you for your replies

I do not tolerate lameness in my opponents. I do not go to tournaments with lame TOs. It is a the ICs Toughness value, not the squad. Common sense is amazing.

 Shinkaze wrote:
I do not tolerate lameness in my opponents. I do not go to tournaments with lame TOs. It is a the ICs Toughness value, not the squad. Common sense is amazing.

Which as I said is not RAW. RAW you hit using the characters WS vs the units majority WS, and Wound using the majority Toughness. Fluff-wise this makes no sense as you are not trying to hit the unit, but only a specific model. Also you are not trying to wound the unit, but only a single model. That is why I would play it differently. If my opponent is being that guy however, I will start going RAW against him as long as it benefits me.

Page 23: WHO CAN FIGHT?: 'A model is engaged in combat, and must fight if:

* During its Initiative step, it is in base contact with one or more enemy models.

*During its initiative step, it is within 2" of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.'

Page 25: Multiple Toughness Values: '[ ] a unit will contain models that have different Toughness characteristics. [ ], roll To Wound using the Toughness value of the majority of the engaged foe.'

Page 64: FIGHTING A CHALLENGE: 'For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.'

The Multiple Toughness Values rule is only applied to the majority of ENGAGED models. Page 23 defines who is considered 'engaged', and page 64 further qualifies that the two models fighting a challenge are only engaged with each other, meaning that the To Hit and To Wound rolls are made against the two engaged models' profiles only.

Ive read those passages too, and I do believe that that is RAI. BUT Page 64: FIGHTING A CHALLENGE: 'For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.' Sadly does not mean they only are engaged with eachother, only that they are the only 2 in b2b.
Those lousy grots 2" away also counts as being engaged *During its initiative step, it is within 2" of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.'
But, it looks like we all agree on how we would handle it

I would have to agree with you Ghenghis on this one.

Happyjew wrote:

 Bat Manuel wrote:
This game sucks!

Thank you for your contribution. Do you have something worthwhile to add?

After much deliberation. I thought my statement was well thought out, proofread and play tested. If that's not what you consider worthwhile....

Without a doubt, this is the worse case of RAW witnessed. I am usually all for RAW, but in this case, I would venture that 99.9% of gamers would agree that it is wrong.

Happyjew wrote:

 Shinkaze wrote:
I do not tolerate lameness in my opponents. I do not go to tournaments with lame TOs. It is a the ICs Toughness value, not the squad. Common sense is amazing.

Which as I said is not RAW. RAW you hit using the characters WS vs the units majority WS, and Wound using the majority Toughness. Fluff-wise this makes no sense as you are not trying to hit the unit, but only a specific model. Also you are not trying to wound the unit, but only a single model. That is why I would play it differently. If my opponent is being that guy however, I will start going RAW against him as long as it benefits me.

So are the grots swinging the warboss' power klaw for him? That is what I want to really know. And please explain how the warboss suddenly gets so weak.

Happyjew wrote:
Raw, majority Toughness and WS. HIWPI you use the models T and WS.

This

 Dozer Blades wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

 Shinkaze wrote:
I do not tolerate lameness in my opponents. I do not go to tournaments with lame TOs. It is a the ICs Toughness value, not the squad. Common sense is amazing.

Which as I said is not RAW. RAW you hit using the characters WS vs the units majority WS, and Wound using the majority Toughness. Fluff-wise this makes no sense as you are not trying to hit the unit, but only a specific model. Also you are not trying to wound the unit, but only a single model. That is why I would play it differently. If my opponent is being that guy however, I will start going RAW against him as long as it benefits me.

So are the grots swinging the warboss' power klaw for him? That is what I want to really know. And please explain how the warboss suddenly gets so weak.

You are understanding this wrong. The model uses its WS and Strength to make the attack, but you use the average WS and toughness to receive the attack.

In RAW land using your example, when swinging the Warboss is a Warboss in all his glory. When taking a hit he temporarily turns into a grot with lots of wounds.

I am so glad you said that because it shows just how silly it is. So like I said the grots are controlling the warboss when it defends itself and any wounds inflicted upon them magically are transferred to the boss?? Doesn't make any sense at all.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I am so glad you said that because it shows just how silly it is. So like I said the grots are controlling the warboss when it defends itself and any wounds inflicted upon them magically are transferred to the boss?? Doesn't make any sense at all.

Sense went out of the door a while ago.

Not for everyone.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I am so glad you said that because it shows just how silly it is. So like I said the grots are controlling the warboss when it defends itself and any wounds inflicted upon them magically are transferred to the boss?? Doesn't make any sense at all.

That is how the rules work when not in a challenge as well.

The "grots are controlling the warboss when it defends itself and any wounds inflicted upon them magically are transferred to the boss" if you decide to take the wounds on the warboss before any of the grots.

You use the defending units "majority WS" when comparing the attackers WS to the opposing units majority WS. So the Warboss can not protect the grots with his higher WS.


Many rules do not "make any sense at all" in a real world environment.

But I guess that is because a fantasy world full of daemons, Psychic powers, and space Orks made from fungus should not make any sense in a real world environment.

You are trying to apply modern day real world logic to a rule set for a game that has nothing to do with modern day real life. Stop doing that.

The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now.

I think that a lot of times what people post here they wouldn't say in an actual game. This is a good example showing why it's not a good idea to blindly apply RAW all the time... If ever. There has to be some sense of a reality check at some point and we shouldn't place all the blame on the developers.

yea, im typically all for RAW to avoid any of that TFG moments, but this is, to be blunt, a slowed RAW and probably not intended but has not been FAQd for w/e reason unless I'm wrong....if im going to be playing friendly games im going with RAI. in tournies, unless the TO says otherwise...itll be RAW.

"Realism" is never a good excuse to deviate from RAW, because 40k is neither "realistic" nor internally consistent.

Also, one should always know what RAW is, even if one arguest that the game should play differently. Not trying to 'interpret' rules (basically discounting RAW) all the while claiming that the " my 'interpretation' is RAW".


This is another example of GW not taking Challenge into account at all in normal assault rules. You can find others at the FAQ. And enough people send message to GW about it, I'm 100% sure it will get FAQ'd.