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.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Ah classic nosfartu.... Baiting someone into responding to him only to pull the tenets card and reporting the post like a child tattling...

There is always one in this forum.

When they get banned, another takes their place.

Though, he is right. You don't use majority toughness for Challenges, as it's a separate combat.

Please show proof that a challenge is a separate combat.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Ah classic nosfartu.... Baiting someone into responding to him only to pull the tenets card and reporting the post like a child tattling...

There is always one in this forum.

When they get banned, another takes their place.

Though, he is right. You don't use majority toughness for Challenges, as it's a separate combat.

If it were a separate combat then the wounds caused in the challenge would have no bearing on combat resolution.

Ergo it is all one big combat.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Ah classic nosfartu.... Baiting someone into responding to him only to pull the tenets card and reporting the post like a child tattling...

There is always one in this forum.

When they get banned, another takes their place.

Though, he is right. You don't use majority toughness for Challenges, as it's a separate combat.

If it were a separate combat then the wounds caused in the challenge would have no bearing on combat resolution.

Ergo it is all one big combat.

If it was all one big combat, the wounds from the challenge would overflow into the unit....oh wait, nevermind.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Ah classic nosfartu.... Baiting someone into responding to him only to pull the tenets card and reporting the post like a child tattling...

There is always one in this forum.

When they get banned, another takes their place.

Though, he is right. You don't use majority toughness for Challenges, as it's a separate combat.

If it were a separate combat then the wounds caused in the challenge would have no bearing on combat resolution.

Ergo it is all one big combat.

If it was all one big combat, the wounds from the challenge would overflow into the unit....oh wait, nevermind.

Luckily the part about the two characters being only in B2B with each other for the duration of the combat, and the rules that say you must allocate wounds to those in base contact before allocating them to anyone else, cover us in that situation.

No issues there.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Ah classic nosfartu.... Baiting someone into responding to him only to pull the tenets card and reporting the post like a child tattling...

There is always one in this forum.

When they get banned, another takes their place.

Though, he is right. You don't use majority toughness for Challenges, as it's a separate combat.

Barbobot - totally, 100% helpful post

MR - so you have proof that it is a separate combat? Oh wait, it isnt ,because wounds from challenge count towards combat res in the wider combat involving the unit.

RAW you use majority toughness and WS. Is this unlikely to be corrrect? Of course. Now, can you stop with the insults and actually, you know, argue rules or at least point out where you are simply stating your opinion?

Who's insulting? There's always someone in YMDC that amuses themselves by arguing tortured rules interpretations for hours upon end. It's a simple fact, my friend.

Anyway, the only two models involved in the combat aspect of the challenge are the two characters. It's why you can't use "look out sir".

Yes, which has no relation to the rules which state you use the *units* majority WS / T. Have you got anything stating they are a separate unit, or that being a "separate combat" (which has no actual rules basis) has any effect on this rule?

Again: there is no tortured rules here. The rules for majority WS / T talk about the UNIT. Absolutely nothing whatsoever in the rules for challenges alters that in any way, shape or form.

NOS is 100% right on this. It's not HIWPI in a friendly game cos I think combat monster characters should still be monsters in a challange BUT that is not RAW.
You use majority ws/t to hit a unit the character is in the unit and there is nothing saying separate combat.

I don't even see a need for GW to address this... It's not even really an issue in my honest opinion.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I don't even see a need for GW to address this... It's not even really an issue in my honest opinion.

You are correct as the Rules are clear.

You use majority WS/T to hit a unit. The character is in the unit so he gets hit on WS/T and not his own stats.

Well at least you are half right...

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Well at least you are half right...

Quote rules for where I am incorrect. (But you can not as I am not incorrect).

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Well at least you are half right...

So, still no rules argument? RAW DR is 100% correct. If you disagree on the rules, please start following the tenets and back up your assertion with some actual argument

I have already stated my position several times. There is no need to repeat.

Yes, and your position lacks any form of rules backing, and therefore doesnt overturn a rules based argument.

If you read closely i wasnt asking you to repeat your position, but actually to, for once, support it from the rules. Given you are stating other people are wrong presumably you have some rules to back up your opinion?

It's kind of silly that you take into account majority WS and toughness in a challenge. While the RAW supports this claim, its unrealistic in the terms of an actual game.

When your in a challenge your allocating hits and wounds on one individual model and not the entire unit as a collective.

I think this is one of those situations in which you play by RAI instead of RAW.

 sounddemon wrote:
pI think this is one of those situations in which you play by RAI instead of RAW.

And if you read the thread most people have agreed with that.

 sounddemon wrote:
It's kind of silly that you take into account majority WS and toughness in a challenge. While the RAW supports this claim, its unrealistic in the terms of an actual game.

When your in a challenge your allocating hits and wounds on one individual model and not the entire unit as a collective.

I think this is one of those situations in which you play by RAI instead of RAW.

You do realize there are a ton of "unrealistic" aspects to the rules, right?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 sounddemon wrote:
It's kind of silly that you take into account majority WS and toughness in a challenge. While the RAW supports this claim, its unrealistic in the terms of an actual game.

When your in a challenge your allocating hits and wounds on one individual model and not the entire unit as a collective.

I think this is one of those situations in which you play by RAI instead of RAW.

You do realize there are a ton of "unrealistic" aspects to the rules, right?

I'm fully aware of this fact. I'm considering calling this game sillyhammer or whackyhammer for all the dumb things that are "realistic' or seen as "stupid" for situations like this.

That,would,be a scenario where I would not want to issue a challenge. Keep the IC part of the unit in the hopes of having enough wounds that they carry over to him.

To my knowledge, and I have looked, every major GT has basically gone with challenges functioning as PvP combats with any supporting squads ignored, except in squad-wide bonuses.

Oh, theres no doubt about that - it seems barmy to play it otherwise. The rules do not support that, however, meaning it IS a houserule

 Monster Rain wrote:
[Though, he is right. You don't use majority toughness for Challenges, as it's a separate combat.

Oh really? Why does the FAQ then state :

rulebook FAQ wrote: Q: Challenges are described in the rulebook as being resolved at the same time as the rest of the combat. However, in the summary on page 429 it implies that challenges are resolved separately from the rest of the combat. Which is it? (p64)
A: Challenges are fought at the same Initiative step as the rest of the combat they’re involved in, but make no Pile In moves as they are already in base contact with their opponent.

Challenges are explicitly part of the same combat. Even the FAQs go out and say it.

There is absolutely no rules support for claiming "Challenge is a separate combat". If there were, someone would have given rulebook or FAQ quote about it by now. Everyone who has argued about that point have provided no evidence for their viewpoint.

I haven't see any real evidence to support majority is used in a challenge.

In combat when you attack do you use each individual models Toughness or the majority for the unit?

Since a challenge is part of the combat, and the models involved are still part of their respective unit (as there is nothing saying that it is a separate combat or the the models leave their units), you follow the normal rules which means wounding against majority Toughness.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I haven't see any real evidence to support majority is used in a challenge.

Really? I've seen 3 pages worth of it.

I'm yet to see anything that, rules-wise and not RAI-Interpretation, refutes this.

Iranna.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I haven't see any real evidence to support majority is used in a challenge.

Apart from the rules quotes proving the case, for the last 3 pages?

Please, actually argue the case by pointing out WHY the rules written plain as day dont apply. You know, like the forum rules tell you to do while posting here.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I haven't see any real evidence to support majority is used in a challenge.

Even the post right above yours has pertinent information. The faq says they're the same combat. You have no permission to not use majority.

If the last three pages were brought down from the mountain by Moses that wouldn't make any difference it is said the same.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
If the last three pages were brought down from the mountain by Moses that wouldn't make any difference it is said the same.

I am so confused...

Are you trying to say that you don't care that you're wrong?

Iranna.