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.

Take, for example, if G-man was in close combat with 3 enemy units, units A, B, and C.

3 models from each unit are within 1" of G-man, for a total of 9. So, G-man elects to do his whirlwind attack, the rules for which read as follows: "Guilliman can make a number of attacks with his weapon against each enemy unit in combat equal to the number of models from that unit within 1" of him".

So, 3 models from 3 units are within 1" of him, he gets 3 attacks against each. Simple enough.

Now, lets say a character from unit A issues a challenge.

According to the challenge rules: "When allocating Wounds caused by either of these two models [referring to the challengers], they must be allocated to their opponent first."

Does this mean that all 9 of the big G's whirlwind attacks would have to be allocated to his challenger, and units B and C couldn't be hit?

Furthermore, if the challenger was a soft target, say, a runtherd with a unit of grots. In the combatant slain paragraph of the challenge section, it says: "If a character that is involved in a challenge slays his opponent, each excess Wound inflicted by the victor is then allocated, one at a time, to the next nearest enemy model that is locked in the combat."

So, if the answer to the whirlwind question was, "yes, all attacks must be allocated to the challenger", would the remaining attacks have to be allocated to the models closest to the challenger, in this case, grots?

I'm not going to lie, I am biased, and have used the above challenge rules to funnel dangerous attacks from more valuable squads, and I'm pretty sure it's legal move. I would love to be able to do so with G's attacks, but I honestly am not certain if it applies to a whirlwind type attack.

Any thoughts?

This is a very good question.

On the one hand, you could argue that he would have to funnel them all into the challenger, by challenge rules.

On the other, though, his rule is more specific and requires him to divide his attacks between the units in base contact with him. I would argue that this rule takes precedence and that he would have 3 attacks funneled into the challenger, whereas the other 6 would go between the other two units.

I'd go with what Marmatag is saying. The attacks that go against the unit that has the model challenging him would get those attacks, while the attacks on other units go to them as normal for him.

Can he use the Sweep attack while locked in a challenge? I know similar abilities (such as Yriel's Eye of Wrath) specifically state it cannot be used in a challenge.

 Happyjew wrote:
Can he use the Sweep attack while locked in a challenge? I know similar abilities (such as Yriel's Eye of Wrath) specifically state it cannot be used in a challenge.

I can't open it right now but my memory says there is no challenge prohibition in the text of it like Yriel's.

Yeah, it doesn't say he cant. The text is, I think, exactly what I quoted. (some of it was cut off from the rules pic I could find).

 Marmatag wrote:
This is a very good question.

On the one hand, you could argue that he would have to funnel them all into the challenger, by challenge rules.

On the other, though, his rule is more specific and requires him to divide his attacks between the units in base contact with him. I would argue that this rule takes precedence and that he would have 3 attacks funneled into the challenger, whereas the other 6 would go between the other two units.

Sounds logical. Weird, but logical.