Multiple Duels

[hisdudeness]

There are 2 normal ways for a unit (and by extension a model) to leave an assault.  1) unit is destroyed or 2) unit falls back. The second is only voluntary under a very specific situation.  These are the rules all assaults follow unless modified by another rule.

 

There are important foundations because GW has set the standard that challenges are modified, self contained assaults. So by extension there are only 2 ways for a unit (in this case character) to leave the challenge. Under the "Round Two" heading we are even told that the challenge continues as normal..which means under the normal assault rules as modified by the challenge rules.  Since the challenge rules do not modify the two involuntary or the single specific voluntary situation, we are still not allowed to perform an action that would voluntarily remove a model from the challenge.

 

No where in the GL rules are we given specific permission to voluntarily remove the initiating model from their self contained assault.  Additionally, absence of restriction is NOT permission to break other rules, we need specific permission to break a rule.  

 

We can go round and round with this but until you show me specific permission to leave a challenge in the GL rules you will remain a NO/GO at this station.

[dswanick]

We go round and round because youre counterargument to GI giving permission to a Character intervening in an ongoing challenge is "a characterer can't voluntarily leave a challenge ". When asked to suppport your claim witha rule, you have none. When presented with another example or a rule that can allow a voluntary exit to a challenge you ignore it. And your use of faux-military lingo doesn't have any bearing on a rules discussion for a game. So, at this point, I'm gonna block you as I really have no respect fir your rules interpretations any more

[hisdudeness]

Wow, thanks for the personal attack. One of the first signs that an argument doesn't hold water is attacking the person and not the argument.

I have supported my view...the status quo is that a unit/model/character CANNOT voluntarily leave assault. One of the basic rules of the game. A challenge is a modified assault. Show me where in GL we are told we can break that very basic rule. For the forth time, in a permissive rules the lack of a restriction is not permission.

[dswanick]

Now that I'm at a keyboard, instead of pecking at my mobile; to summarize the pro-GI position:

- The Assault Phase is summarized on pgs.20-27, making them Basic rules.  This section provides the rules for the two most common results of a round of close combat - unit destroyed and unit breaks.  It does not contain any specific prohibition on a unit voluntarily leaving a combat, but simply provides no permission for such (permissive ruleset).

- The Multiple Combat section is found on pgs.27-28, making these Basic Rules also.  They, too, contain no prohibition on a unit voluntarily leaving a combat, but provide no permission to do so.

- The Challenge rules for Characters are found on pgs.64-65, making them Advanced rules.  They include the rules for Glorious Intervention.  Glorious Intervention gives a Character specific permission to interject himself into a Challenge in place of another Character (with specific limitations; none of which include already being in a Challenge himself).  As this is an Advanced rule it would override any Basic rule with which it comes into conflict, however this is not even relevant because there is no specific Basic rule which prevents a Character from voluntarily leaving a Challenge or Close Combat, only a lack of prior permission - which GI now gives (admittedly by a lack of specific prevention).

- The same is true for Hit and Run.  H&R is an Advanced rule (USR) which gives a model specific permission to leave a Close Combat.  It does not conflict with any other rules, as there is no rule preventing a Character from leaving a Close Combat (only a lack of permission).

[Dam13n]

Glorious Intervention quoted in full:

 

 

A character can declare a glorious intervention at the start of his own fight sub-phase before any blows are struck, if a friendly character in the same combat is about to fight a second or subsequent round of a challenge.

A character cannot declare a Glorious Intervention in the first round of a challenge or during the enemy turn. Nor can a character that cannot fight or strike blows (including those that are not engaged with an enemy model) declare a Glorious Intervention.

 

Is it the start of my fight sub-phase in my turn? - in the case of the scenario discussed - yes.
Is there another friendly character in the same combat in the 2nd round of a challenge? - yes

Both pre-requisites for declaring a Glorious Intervention are therefore met.

Is it the 1st round of a challenge or the enemy turn - no
Is my character unable to fight or strike blows - no

Neither listed restriction is met - I therefore have permission to perform a Glorious Intervention.

Now you are arguing that a model cannot voluntarily leave combat (defined by a lack of permission in the assault section, which are basic rules - that you have yet to quote). This is true (except in special advanced rule cases - Hit and Run for example), however no model is leaving combat, they are being moved around within that combat according to one of the advanced game mechanics. No model will have left combat, they all remain engaged and will continue to fight until that combat ends.

A Challenge is a sub-division of a combat, not a separate combat in it's own right. The combat resolution from a challenge within a combat goes towards the overall combat result.

Now I've quoted clearly where the rules give permission to perform a Glorious Intervention and the listed restrictions which were they met would prevent a character from doing so.

So where is your quoted restriction that over-rides the permission I have obtained from the Glorious Intervention rule?

 

Official Rules Forum Rules quoted:

 

 

2. Answer the questions as listed with your opinion(s) and the rules that support your opinion.

 

[Grey Mage]

Alright guys, calm down- this is just a discussion about a game in a fictional universe where one of the greatest threats is sentient mold.

[hisdudeness]

The only part you two are missing is that GL may have given us permission to intervene in the second Challenge, but it has not given us permission to leave an on going challenge. The restriction comes from us not being told we can voluntarily leave a challenge, so we must be give specific permission to do such.  Choosing to use GL is a voluntary action, thus not allowed.

[Raeven]

Where does challenges state that you are not allowed to make voluntary actions that could take you out of combat?

 

Take Clagar and his ability to pass/fail any leadership check. He could choose to fail the morale check for losing combat and his unit fall back. That's a voluntary action.

 

You are arguing like we are twisting the rules here, but again, have failed to specify what rule we are actually breaking.

[hisdudeness]

And where are we told we can voluntarily leave a challenge? We aren't, but we aren't told we can...just like normal assaults. not a single line tells us we can't just pull a unit out of an assault, so I guess we can just pull units out whenever we want? Calgar's ability give us the specific permission required. I'm not say you guys are twisting rules. I'm saying that GL is lacking permission to leave a challenge. Like every other ability that allows us to pull an unit out of assault does. They all say something to the effect that the unit can leave the assault.

[Gentlemanloser]

The only part you two are missing is that GL may have given us

permission to intervene in the second Challenge

 

 

Choosing to use GL is a voluntary action, thus not allowed.

 

I gave you no such permission, and you cannot choose to use me.

 

Edit;

 

Time to OR Godwin this thread...

 

 

And where are we told we can voluntarily leave a challenge? We aren't,

but we aren't told we can...just like normal assaults. not a single line

tells us we can't just pull a unit out of an assault, so I guess we can

just pull units out whenever we want? Calgar's ability give us the

specific permission required. I'm not say you guys are twisting rules.

I'm saying that GL is lacking permission to leave a challenge. Like

every other ability that allows us to pull an unit out of assault does.

They all say something to the effect that the unit can leave the

assault.

 

Time to bust out the 'which side of the dice can I read from' arguement.

 

BAM!

[alex567]

No where does it state that you cannot fight two challenges at once, only that you cannot declare multiple challenges in the same combat, as previous examples have shown it is possible for now for two challenges to coexist in the same combat. Re-reading the rules shows that it doesn't say you cannot fight multiple challenges only that you cannot declare multiple challenges. I propose that you can glorious intervene, but you are not in fact leaving the previous challenge only engaging in another. Hence you would be engaged in two simultaneous challenges, following both the rules for fighting a challenge and the rules for performing glorious intervention.

[dswanick]

No where does it state that you cannot fight two challenges at once, only that you cannot declare multiple challenges in the same combat, as previous examples have shown it is possible for now for two challenges to coexist in the same combat. Re-reading the rules shows that it doesn't say you cannot fight multiple challenges only that you cannot declare multiple challenges. I propose that you can glorious intervene, but you are not in fact leaving the previous challenge only engaging in another. Hence you would be engaged in two simultaneous challenges, following both the rules for fighting a challenge and the rules for performing glorious intervention.

The only problem with that line of reasoning is this:

 

"For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.", BRB, pg.64

 

It is not possible for Model A to be in base contact only with Model B while also, simultaneously, being only in base contact with Model C.  This line prohibits a single model from being in two Challenges simultaneously.

[alex567]

 

No where does it state that you cannot fight two challenges at once, only that you cannot declare multiple challenges in the same combat, as previous examples have shown it is possible for now for two challenges to coexist in the same combat. Re-reading the rules shows that it doesn't say you cannot fight multiple challenges only that you cannot declare multiple challenges. I propose that you can glorious intervene, but you are not in fact leaving the previous challenge only engaging in another. Hence you would be engaged in two simultaneous challenges, following both the rules for fighting a challenge and the rules for performing glorious intervention.

The only problem with that line of reasoning is this:

 

"For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.", BRB, pg.64

 

It is not possible for Model A to be in base contact only with Model B while also, simultaneously, being only in base contact with Model C.  This line prohibits a single model from being in two Challenges simultaneously.

 

I did consider this when writing my previous comment. But if you read the whole paragraph it also states:

 

   "And assume the two to be in base contact for the purpose of the ensuing fight"

 

So when the character goes to fight the second challenge, he cannot be considered in base contact with the second character, but the above line says we assume he is. At no point does it say we leave the previous challenge either, so we haven't. But he cannot be in base contact with the second challenger as per your rule line. Which leaves us with either two possibilities:

A. He is in combat with both simultaneously, as he is assumed to be.

B. Cannot enter the second challenge as he hasn't left the first yet.

 

There is nothing restricting him entering the second challenge, but there is no statement causing the first challenge to end. The clauses of the challenge do not cover the challenge ending for any reason other than either characters death, or falling back. So the challenge remains.

[dswanick]

I did consider this when writing my previous comment. But if you read the whole paragraph it also states:

 

   "And assume the two to be in base contact for the purpose of the ensuing fight"

 

So when the character goes to fight the second challenge, he cannot be considered in base contact with the second character, but the above line says we assume he is.

No, this quote is only relevant to moving characters into a Challenge. You do your best to move the Challenger and Challengee into actual base contact, and if this is not possible you act as if you had accomplished it. It has no bearing on later repositioning of either model.

At no point does it say we leave the previous challenge either, so we haven't.

Not an unreasonable conclusion, except that it then runs foul of the quote about the models only being in base contact with each other, as you point out.

But he cannot be in base contact with the second challenger as per your rule line. Which leaves us with either two possibilities:

A. He is in combat with both simultaneously, as he is assumed to be.

B. Cannot enter the second challenge as he hasn't left the first yet.

 

There is nothing restricting him entering the second challenge, but there is no statement causing the first challenge to end. The clauses of the challenge do not cover the challenge ending for any reason other than either characters death, or falling back. So the challenge remains.

Actually, there is a third option : the game breaks. As there is nothing preventing you from choosing a model already in a Challenge to engage in a Glorious Intervention, and there is nothing in Glorious Intervention which explicitly ends any ongoing challenge on the part of the Intervenor then you are left in a situation where you are breaking the rule about only being in contact with each other.

 

Unless, of course, you realize that the act of moving the Intervenor away from his current Challengee, per the rules for moving a model Fighting A Challenge, overrides the previous Challenge (as it is, in effect, moving out of base contact) - in effect "overwriting" the previous ongoing challenge. And the statement that two models which enter into a Challenge are only in base contact with each other is an implicit statement that any previous base contacts (including those of a previous Challenge) are not null and void.

[alex567]

 

I did consider this when writing my previous comment. But if you read the whole paragraph it also states:

 

   "And assume the two to be in base contact for the purpose of the ensuing fight"

 

So when the character goes to fight the second challenge, he cannot be considered in base contact with the second character, but the above line says we assume he is.

No, this quote is only relevant to moving characters into a Challenge. You do your best to move the Challenger and Challengee into actual base contact, and if this is not possible you act as if you had accomplished it. It has no bearing on later repositioning of either model.

 

I see where you are coming from, but I beg to differ, when it says:

 "for the purpose of the ensuing fight"

I read it as, they are considered to be in base contact for the purposes of the fight, as in they are considered to be in base contact, so they can actually hit each other in the face. This matters greatly as to be able to hit each other they must be in base contact. So at any point in the fight they are assumed to be in base to base as such, because this is a second or further round of a challenge the rule still applies.

 

Which supports my argument for quote two. 

 

About the end of your point.

I'd agree that if this was to occur the game would break. If you conducted the challenges simultaneously referring to them as sub combats as others have previously noted, then player X's character would be shrodingered with both of player Y's characters, (both simultaneously in base to base and not in base to base). The alternative is to conduct a, as per the normal assault phase, selection of orders for the challenges to go in, this is if you interpreted to them as separate combats (not my preference but makes for a playable technical rules as written possibility), where you conducted each challenge separately, and referred to them as separate challenges.

 

Challenge 1 would go: character X is in combat with character Y1, they are assumed in base to base as per the challenge rule (see above), as the rules for the other challenge don't occur yet, blows are struck stuff happens.

 

Challenge 2 would go: character X is in combat with character Y2, they are assumed in base to base as per the challenge rule (see above), as the rules for the other challenge don't occur yet, blows are struck stuff happens.

 

Taken as different challenges like two assaults that don't interact with each other. A sketchy interpretation at best.

 

*Side note: I believe that multiple challenges should be allowed in a single assault, and that characters should be able to swap duels, It'd make for an interesting rare combat phase.

[Grimtooth]

I am leaning towards the following;

 

While Glorious Intervention allows for a character to jump into an ongoing challenge, nothing removes the initial conditions of said character if they themselves are already in a challenge (base to base, only allocate hits/wounds). With these condition in place due to the existjng challenge, the restriction of not being able to attack within the Glorious Intervention rule would trigger thus disallowing the Glorious Intervention.

 

It isn't that the character wishing to make a GI, is unallowed to make attacks but that his attacks must be directed only to the model he is currently in a challenge. This condition is enough to prevent the GI from taking place.