A quick note on getting challenged

[Talonis]

Haha 30 guard blob watching a Tyrant rip apart there leader.... Guess they didn't like him after all

Also on that the Sgt would get 6 re-rolls to his Hit, wound or armour save rolls!! (6 total)
(30 guys watching, every 5 models outside the challenge gain the character in the challenge with a reroll)
*Note this is only if they have no one to attack because the Character in challenge is the only one in the unit/or is a single model*

[gloomfang]

The good thing is that Coredump just pointed out in Dakka that if an enemy char. is not engaged in the combat than there can be no challenge.

This is me and my MCs dancing because if I line up my charges right I can have my MCs still rip through units without being tarpitted.

[liquid405]

They would need to be more than 5" away from a charged model. This wont happen very often.

[gloomfang]

[ contactquote author=liquid405 board=general thread=39374 post=682775 time=1341622491]They would need to be more than 5" away from a charged model. This wont happen very often.[/quote]

I am counting 3" where are you getting 5"?

Its 2" from a model in BTB contact right. And they don't start to pile in until after the challenge is declared if I read right.
Of course I am chasing a toddler through office max so I could be wrong.

[coredump]

Yep, challenges are issued at the beginning of the subphase.

I think on could argue that Pile-in for Init step I10 would happen at the same time.... but I think that is stretching it.

[liquid405]

Ok, you convinced me. Good points!

[Davor]

How come the Balrog didn't wound the Fellowship, only Gandalf?

[bayne]

Jul 7, 2012 14:15:59 GMT Davor said:

How come the Balrog didn't wound the Fellowship, only Gandalf?

Because Gandalf was an independant character and left the unit the round before the charge.

[Davor]

Or he made the Challange to the Barlog so the rest of the unit would be safe?

That is the way I see it when someone would be Challenging a MC.

[atrocity]

Seriously? Movie scenes to depict a rules set? Wtf..

Wounds carry over it seems, this isn't a problem but is more balancing for all armies. I don't see the problem..

[Davor]

Jul 7, 2012 15:08:50 GMT atrocity said:

Seriously? Movie scenes to depict a rules set? Wtf..

Wounds carry over it seems, this isn't a problem but is more balancing for all armies. I don't see the problem..

Well they keep saying in the BGB about keeping the game cinematic. I thought this would have been the perfect opportunity to do so. Seems like what GW is shooting for.

[guns]

Jul 7, 2012 15:08:50 GMT atrocity said:

Seriously? Movie scenes to depict a rules set? Wtf..

Wounds carry over it seems, this isn't a problem but is more balancing for all armies. I don't see the problem..

I think this is a mistaken way to look at it, and will be disappointing when it gets FAQed.

The RAW clearly allows spillover wounds, but the RAI, as well as WHFB precedent, is obviously in contradiction to that. So play it hard RAW if that's the way you play the rest of the ruleset, but don't make the mistake of thinking that that's the way it's supposed to play, otherwise you'll rage when the FAQ arrives.

[liquid405]

And don't be surprised if you head to a tourney and this gets overturned immediately...along with the loss of quite a few sportsman points.

[atrocity]

Jul 7, 2012 17:03:17 GMT guns said:

Jul 7, 2012 15:08:50 GMT atrocity said:

Seriously? Movie scenes to depict a rules set? Wtf..

Wounds carry over it seems, this isn't a problem but is more balancing for all armies. I don't see the problem..

I think this is a mistaken way to look at it, and will be disappointing when it gets FAQed.

The RAW clearly allows spillover wounds, but the RAI, as well as WHFB precedent, is obviously in contradiction to that. So play it hard RAW if that's the way you play the rest of the ruleset, but don't make the mistake of thinking that that's the way it's supposed to play, otherwise you'll rage when the FAQ arrives.

Does anyone here actually play fantasy? If so, you'd know of something called "overkill", this is made so that a single champion can't keep you from winning a combat by the number of wounds you do.

FANTASY
Let's say a Bloodthirster runs into a 10 man unit and gets challenged by the champion. He does 5 wounds on the champion and the champion dies his 1 wound and then the remaining 4 goes to the "overkill" pile, no one else dies but the wounds still count towards resolution.
So bloodthirster wins combat by 5.

40.000
Bloodthirster runs into a 10 man unit of guardsmen, sergeant challanges. Bloodthirster does 5 wounds and the sergeant dies. Mysteriously the other 4 wounds disappear and the Bloodthirster wins combat by 1.

OR
The other 4 wounds kill 4 guardsmen and the Bloodthirster still wins combat by 5.


How is this wrong or weird or anything? I don't know if this is how it's meant to be but it seems to be the way it's written and until GW changes it with a FAQ or ERRATA I plan to play by the rules.

[guns]

Killing a Sergeant and 4 Guardsmen and winning by 5 is obviously a lot better than killing the Sergeant alone and winning by 5. Particularly in 40K, where units are half the size (or less) of units in WHFB.

The aforementioned precedent set by WHFB is that challenge wounds do not spillover into the unit. Ì guess you can argue that the precedent is "you always win by the total number of wounds you case" but that`s a really wonky, ignorant way of looking at it. The problem with the 6th edition challenge rules is that they didn`t include Overkill. But if they had intended to allow spillover wounds they would have clearly set that forth, and not hidden it in between the lines (and then contradicted it with fluff text on the same page).