Hi, sorry for the badly worded title but what I am wondering is:

If a unit has a banner or ability that grants a special rule to their attacks (for example the flaming banner/razor standard or the ogre maneaters getting poison from their been there done that rule) does this ability confer itself to impact hits and stomps as well?

So, in the example above, would a ironguts unit say with the flaming banner have flaming impact hits and stomps as well as normal attacks?

Also if I take a character with the sword of anti heroes, does the strength bonus when fighting characters count for impact hits/stomps?

Finally, does a unit champion count as a character for purposes of the sword of anti heroes?

No to thunderstomps.

BRB, FAQ:

Q: Do Stomps or Thunderstomps benefit from any other special
rules, equipment or magic items? Or vice versa? (p76)
A: No to both questions.

rohansoldier wrote:

Finally, does a unit champion count as a character for purposes of the sword of anti heroes?

Yes.

 Tangent wrote:

rohansoldier wrote:

Finally, does a unit champion count as a character for purposes of the sword of anti heroes?

Yes.

No actually, he's a champion who can do some things that characters can, but all characters (usually) come from the hero and lord parts of the army.
In newer books GW has even taken the effort to put "(character)" in their unit types.

In the BRB, an Empire champion upgrade is given as an example of a "character."

A captain is a hero level character, obvious by his two wounds.

Did not know.

Impact Hits benifit from special rules.

So yes, a unit of IGs with the Flaming Banner have Flaming Impact hits.

Scragg the Slaughterer has Killing Blow on his Impact Hits(as does the Gorebeast Chariot)

DoC all have magic stomp/thunderstomp/anything attacks.

Only possible with a specific rule to override the general restriction, which their book happens to give.

So what qualifies as a "character?" It MUST be purchased from the hero or lord section?

Well in newer books they have the prefix in older ones yes unless specifically stated, like say the DE assassin who is a character but doesn't take up any form of slot. There are such characters in newer books too nasty skulkers for example are in core.

So, where in the rules is this stated? Not doubting you, just curious.

Page. 134, where it classes lords as powerful characters and heroes as lesser characters.
Like i said models outside those two groups can still be characters if they have a special rule about it.

Gotcha, I'll take a look.

So a potion of strength that increases the model's strength for the turn, does that affect stomps? Feels like it should, but ruling seems to say no on that in the FAQ.

I guess it wouldn't affect. Because you're still under the influence of that magic item. If someone had a no magic items work ability, that would include the potion.

The only thing different than the potion and a sword of strength or hat of strength or butt holder of strength is that it's one use. But that distinction isn't ever made anywhere in the FAQ.

They do increase the Stomp strength RAW.

Magic potions increase the model's Strength and (Thunder)Stomp uses the model's Strength to determine the hit's strength. The potion does not affect (Thunder)Stomp, it affects the model's Strength value.

Duke, you are incorrect about the comparison with a weapon. Sword of Might specifically states that melee attacks are made at +1S, it does not (!) say that the wielder's Strength is increased by 1.

Sword of Anti-Heroes doesn't say close combat, likewise a bunch of weapons in individual army books. But ultimately it doesn't matter, the Str. is increased via a magic item. A potion is a magic item. The FAQ specifically says

Q: Do Stomps or Thunderstomps benefit from any other special
rules, equipment or magic items? Or vice versa? (p76)
A: No to both questions.

You can't get the potion without spending on magic items. Even if it was a non-magic item it would still be equipment. There's a giant header in the BRB that says magic items that the potion is under. That clearly makes it ineligible.

Again, incorrect.

First of all, the potion is not a piece of equipment. It's an item. Would you consider a dispel scroll equipment? I don't. That's semantics though, let's get to RAW level.

The question is: does a potion's effect affect Stomp? No, it doesn't. You need to be really precise when it comes to such distinctions. What does the potion? It increases the user's strength. It does not (!) say that the model's attack are at +1S. It directly states that the model's Strength is increased by 1.

This is the important part. The description tells you why the FAQ does not (!) refer to magic potions. The potion does not (!) affect Stomp. It increases the model's Strength value.

Stomp attacks refer to the model's strength - that may be different. And thus it gets the bonus. It's a bit tricky. There are two possibilites:

a) Stomp is directly affected by certain effects. It's:

Special Effect -> Stomp

This connection is illegal as by the FAQ as no special effect may affect Stomp. This applies to every effect that affects the model's normal attacks e.g. Killing Blow.

b) Stomp is indirectly affected by certain effects. It's:

Special Effect -> (here: ) Characteristic -> Stomp

This case ignores the FAQ ruling as the special effect does not affect Stomp, it affects a basic characteristic. When it comes to stomping in the melee phase, you check the characteristic and use the current value - that is now higher than before due to the potion.

That is why a Potion of Strength will indeed affect (Thunder)Stomp.

Another example is a spell that increases the model's Strength. Would you also say that Stomp does not improve due to the elevated Strength value?

-----------

On the weapons issue: weapons are specifically mentioned to no increase the model's value but rather give you information at what S the model's attacks are handled.

If a weapon *should* literally say that it increases the model's Strength by n, then Stomp attacks are also increased by n as long as the model wields the weapon.

It's irrelevant. It's a magic item. If a magic item affects the user's initiative and the model has a rule that if his initiative goes up his str goes up, it still came from a magic item.

I already told you there are countless magic items that directly increase str. Including the sword of anti-heroes in the BRB. It's any of the weapons that say, "increases str by X reflected in profile." There's countless such items.

Q: Do Stomp or Thunderstomp hits benefit from any other special rules, equipment or magic items of the model that inflicts the hits?
(p76)
A: No.

That's the latest FAQ.

-Is a Potion of Str. a magic item? Yes
-Can a Stomp/Tstomp benefit from ANY special rules, equip or magic items of the model? No.

That's really clear. +Str. is a benefit that comes from a magic item.

It does not matter how circuitous the benefit is. Or one charge it is. It very clearly states no magic items the model has can benefit stomp. Erase every magic item the model has and its benefits when calculating stomp/tstomp, because they can't affect those abilities.

DoC gifts that are +Str don't even work because they specifically say they act like magic items. Yeah, it sucks, but that's the current FAQ.

But thats kinda contradicting the rule of Stomp now doesnt it? the rule of stomp says that it uses the models Str, so when even a model is infulenced by a magical item or a stat-increase from a special ability it doesnt apply to stomp even tho the effect apply to the MODEL and not the ability stomp itself. ( As stomp doesnt really say the models UNMODIFIED str )

I think the FAQ states that stomp isnt affected by magical items, and that means that it doesnt affect from "DIRECT" applications to stomp such as: Flaming and Poisonous attacks or similar "on hit" effects if you will.

So when the model stats is modified regardless of source its as such "permament" to the character, and as far as i know none of the warriors of chaos demonic gifts are basic stat increases, they are all special effects.

Dracoknight wrote:
But thats kinda contradicting the rule of Stomp now doesnt it? the rule of stomp says that it uses the models Str, so when even a model is infulenced by a magical item or a stat-increase from a special ability it doesnt apply to stomp even tho the effect apply to the MODEL and not the ability stomp itself. ( As stomp doesnt really say the models UNMODIFIED str )

I think the FAQ states that stomp isnt affected by magical items, and that means that it doesnt affect from "DIRECT" applications to stomp such as: Flaming and Poisonous attacks or similar "on hit" effects if you will.

So when the model stats is modified regardless of source its as such "permament" to the character, and as far as i know none of the warriors of chaos demonic gifts are basic stat increases, they are all special effects.

This is correct, Dracoknight.

Duke, I made two pretty detailed posts explaining you the matter in a very precise and clear way. If you refuse RAW, especially the rules of Stomp, you're free to do sot, but you cannot expect your fellow players or even TO having a different "interpretation" than you as especially TOs use RAW and not your version of the issue.

Rules in order of importance:

FAQ
Army Book
BRB
My mom

FAQ has clarified the rules for stomp and thunderstomp. No other RAW supercedes it. If something disagrees, the FAQ wins. It is the very latest ruling. In fact it updated the very very rules you are talking about, because it is the BRB FAQ.

Actual rules in order of importance

RAW-FAQ
RAW-Army Book
RAW-BRB
RAI
RAD (Rules as Desired)

Refusing to accept RAW does not make your interpretation RAW, but RAD.

Your logic seems flawed Sigvatr. The FAQ doesn't ask about magic items that "directly" affect stomp, it just asks about those that *may* affect it. The potion of strength affects everything involving the user's strength characteristic which brings the FAQ into play. Just because the effect is indirect does not mean there is no connection, there can be no bonuses to stomp originating from a magic item since stomps cannot benefit from magic items. That's RAW too, if the strength increase 'benefits' the stomp attack in any way and originates from a magic item, you must ignore it when resolving your stomps.

May wraiths and banshees are very happy to hear the thunder stomps from daemons and abominations are non-magical.

-Matt

DoC has a rule that says specifically their stomps are magical. They are the newest book in the game and they went out of their way to write that.

Abombs I don't think do. It's a special rule that benefits tstomp and there's no army FAQ that counterracts the BRB one. And the BRB one is newer.

Whether or not you like it (and that "sounds" sarcastic), the BRB FAQ clearly created a FAQ solely for Stomp and Thunderstomp. I can't see how people are trying to say, "yeah but that obviously doesn't apply to _____." It applies to everything they applied it to. They didn't put in any exclusions I can see.

If the exclusions people are trying to make in this thread existed, the BRB FAQ would basically have no meaning. "Stomp and Tstomp don't benefit from magic items or special rules--except always."

Look, this is the way this stuff works.

Special Rules can affect a few things, in this case the model or its attacks.

Flaming Attacks rule specifies that the attacks are flaming. Poisoned Attacks specify the attacks are poisoned. Sword of Might specifies that attacks are at +1S.

Those things affect attacks. Stomp is an attack, so the FAQ is clarifying that they do not affect it.

If a special rule affects the model itself (i.e., the model gets +1S on the turn it charges), then the model's S is now 1 more than normal. It's not affecting attacks, so the Stomp part of the FAQ doesn't apply. You go to the Stomp section of the BRB and get that it uses the mode's Strength. Since the model is at S+1, the Stomp is at S+1.

Period.

That's RAW. That's what it means. Stomp isn't affected by rules, items, etc. There's a huge difference between buffing the model and buffing the attack.

The FAQ is not limited to equipment, special rules, magic items that affect the hits. Let's quote it yet again.

Q: Do Stompor Thunderstomp hitsbenefit from anyotherspecial
rules, equipmentor magic itemsof the model that inflicts the hits?
(p76)
A: No

magic items of the model

Nowhere does it say what you wrote, "if the special rule affects the model itself." Of course it affects the model. Every special rule affects the model. From KB to Swiftwstride to Stubborn to Impact Hits. Something about that model is different than a model without that special rule. Including its attacks. They actually go out of their way to point out when this is not the case, like multi-hits or multi-wounds which often are special rules on a weapon.

Stomp itself is a special rule. KB is a special rule. KB has a line, exactly like this FAQ, that says if an attack auto-wounds, KB doesn't apply. What if the BRB had a potion, Potion of Always Wounding? By your logic every attack that model had would be insta-KB because the model itself would be modified to always wound, not a specific attack.

DukeRustfield wrote:
The FAQ is not limited to equipment, special rules, magic items that affect the hits. Let's quote it yet again.

Q: Do Stompor Thunderstomp hitsbenefit from anyotherspecial
rules, equipmentor magic itemsof the model that inflicts the hits?
(p76)
A: No

magic items of the model

Nowhere does it say what you wrote, "if the special rule affects the model itself." Of course it affects the model. Every special rule affects the model. From KB to Swiftwstride to Stubborn to Impact Hits. Something about that model is different than a model without that special rule. Including its attacks. They actually go out of their way to point out when this is not the case, like multi-hits or multi-wounds which often are special rules on a weapon.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Again, incorrect.

First of all, the potion is not a piece of equipment. It's an item. Would you consider a dispel scroll equipment? I don't. That's semantics though, let's get to RAW level.

The question is: does a potion's effect affect Stomp? No, it doesn't. You need to be really precise when it comes to such distinctions. What does the potion? It increases the user's strength. It does not (!) say that the model's attack are at +1S. It directly states that the model's Strength is increased by 1.

This is the important part. The description tells you why the FAQ does not (!) refer to magic potions. The potion does not (!) affect Stomp. It increases the model's Strength value.

Stomp attacks refer to the model's strength - that may be different. And thus it gets the bonus. It's a bit tricky. There are two possibilites:

a) Stomp is directly affected by certain effects. It's:

Special Effect -> Stomp

This connection is illegal as by the FAQ as no special effect may affect Stomp. This applies to every effect that affects the model's normal attacks e.g. Killing Blow.

b) Stomp is indirectly affected by certain effects. It's:

Special Effect -> (here: ) Characteristic -> Stomp

This case ignores the FAQ ruling as the special effect does not affect Stomp, it affects a basic characteristic. When it comes to stomping in the melee phase, you check the characteristic and use the current value - that is now higher than before due to the potion.

That is why a Potion of Strength will indeed affect (Thunder)Stomp.

Another example is a spell that increases the model's Strength. Would you also say that Stomp does not improve due to the elevated Strength value?

-----------

On the weapons issue: weapons are specifically mentioned to no increase the model's value but rather give you information at what S the model's attacks are handled.

If a weapon *should* literally say that it increases the model's Strength by n, then Stomp attacks are also increased by n as long as the model wields the weapon.

Stomp itself is a special rule. KB is a special rule. KB has a line, exactly like this FAQ, that says if an attack auto-wounds, KB doesn't apply. What if the BRB had a potion, Potion of Always Wounding? By your logic every attack that model had would be insta-KB because the model itself would be modified to always wound, not a specific attack.

Debating imaginary cases is fruitless. If your potion existed, who says GW would not FAQ it? Not to mention that we're talking of directly affecting attacks again instead of, as in this case, indirectly affecting...

Stomp without potion is at Strength Y
Stomp with a potion would be at Strength Z, which is greater than Y

How has stomp not benefited from the magic item potion?

The FAQ is woolly here. It should either specifically say unmodified strength or magic items etc which affect attacks eg flaming banner. The latter makes far more sense to me. Imagine a situation where the models stew-hth had been reduced rather than increased. Do you not think that should apply to tstomp as well?

I realise that this does not always follow, but picture the battlefield, a massive warrior, pumped up on magic steroids, suddenly can only use a bit of his strength to attack? It makes sense that his boots would not have poisoned or flaming attacks, but not that they would be weak...

Niteware wrote:
I realise that this does not always follow, but picture the battlefield, a massive warrior, pumped up on magic steroids, suddenly can only use a bit of his strength to attack? It makes sense that his boots would not have poisoned or flaming attacks, but not that they would be weak...

Logical arguments are not the best arguments. (How can poison auto wound skeletons or stone?) I have to agree with Duke here. Potions are a magic item. Stomp attacks cannot benefit from magic items.

Niteware wrote:
The FAQ is woolly here. It should either specifically say unmodified strength or magic items etc which affect attacks eg flaming banner.

They made an all-encompassing FAQ and people are faulting it for not specifically saying, poison and flaming and Swords of Awesome and Skaven Belt of Bigfoot and any the new upgrade that will be released in 4 months about a new army...

They said other special rules, magic items, equipment the model has. That's A-Z. It's not fuzzy. If they had one example, I'm sure there would be people who said that didn't apply because it only said flaming, not potion of str.

No, people are disagreeing because it says the ATTACK is not affected and that it uses the model's strength. If they meant unmodified strength, they would say unmodified strength, exactly like they do for leadership. so I agree that they have covered a - z of things affecting attacks, but we are talking about 0 - 9 of things address ring the model.

Back to my previous question though, do you think that a model who's strength has been REDUCED should be able to stomp at full strength? This would ne just as ridiculous as what you are suggesting about strength when it has increased.

No, it says Stomp cannot *benefit* from any magic item.

Is the Potion a magic item? Yes, or No. Answer the question.

Yes!

A potion is a magic item. A potion of flaming attacks affects attacks so would not affect stomp. A potion of strength affects a model characteristic not attacks. The FAQ is referring to abilities which affect attacks, such as poison, flaming, KB, HKB. This is totally separate to things which affect the model. As above, if they meant unmodified strength, they would have said unmodified strength.

Nitewarel wrote:A potion is a magic item.

So, now you have answered that: is having a greater strength to the hit (s) a benefit?

Yes or no.

Nitewarel wrote:A potion of flaming attacks affects attacks so would not affect stomp. A potion of strength affects a model characteristic not attacks. The FAQ is referring to abilities which affect attacks,

No, it isnt. It is quite clear.

Q: Do Stomp or Thunderstomp hits benefit from any other special
rules, equipment or magic itemsof the model that inflicts the hits?
(p76)
A: No

"Attacks" is not even used there. You have absolutely no ability to state that this only relates to "attacks" when it is talking about ANY special rules, equipment or MAGIC ITEMS that the model possesses. Any is quite clear.

Nitewarel wrote: such as poison, flaming, KB, HKB. This is totally separate to things which affect the model. As above, if they meant unmodified strength, they would have said unmodified strength.

They did, because they excluded any way you can alter the strength of the model - no special rules, no equipment, and no magic items. So again, why are you letting Stomp benefit from a magic item? Please show your actual rule, or concede.

You can quote it all day, but it doesn't make it the way you want it.

Does Stomp benefit... means this:

Rule says all of a model's attacks are at +1S.

Being an attack, Stomp would be affected by this, except for the FAQ.

Rule says the model has +1S.

This isn't directly affecting the Stomp, but the model instead. Stomp uses the model's Strength, which is now +1.

Look at it this way: if you had to take a Strength test on a S3 model with a great weapon, you would need a 3 or lower to pass. If you took a Strength test on that same model with Potion of Strength, you would only fail on a 6.

That's the difference between affecting a model's attacks (i.e., something that would affect Stomp without the FAQ) and something that affects the model's stats (which Stomp uses as they are).

 PinkSpaceHippy wrote:
You can quote it all day, but it doesn't make it the way you want it.

Does Stomp benefit... means this:

Rule says all of a model's attacks are at +1S.

Being an attack, Stomp would be affected by this, except for the FAQ.

Rule says the model has +1S.

This isn't directly affecting the Stomp, but the model instead. Stomp uses the model's Strength, which is now +1.

Look at it this way: if you had to take a Strength test on a S3 model with a great weapon, you would need a 3 or lower to pass. If you took a Strength test on that same model with Potion of Strength, you would only fail on a 6.

That's the difference between affecting a model's attacks (i.e., something that would affect Stomp without the FAQ) and something that affects the model's stats (which Stomp uses as they are).

I'm starting to believe that you can't accept defeat. No matter how many times you state it, the FAQ takes precedence. Stomp cannot benefit from magic items. The special rule, Equipment or Magic Item does not apply to stomp in a beneficial way. The way it works is followed:

FAQ says Stomp attacks cannot benefit from magic items/equipment/special rules.
Item says all attacks are resolved at +1 strength.

All attacks but stomp are resolved at +1 strength.

It's just plain +1S, not all attacks are resolved at +1S. That's the difference Hippy is trying to point out, I think. Like his example with the strength test. A weapon doesn't help you pass a strength test, but having +1S does.

You're right. Just plain +1 via a magic item. The FAQ, however, said Stomp/Tstomp do not receive any benefits from ANY [emphasis added] equipment, magic items, special rules that the model has.

Attacks is irrelevant and not sure where that is coming from. The only questions are is it a magic item, equipment, special rule(s) possessed by the model that would benefit Stomp/TStomp.

What exactly are you guys looking for the FAQ to say so that Stomp doesn't benefit from a magic item?

I would be looking for it to say "unmodified strength" which is unambiguous, if it actually meant that. Otherwise, I would expect it say pretty much what it does, except for possibly saying e.g. KB - especially since the section of the FAQ is answering questions about how attack modifiers, such as flaming attacks, poison attacks and killing blow affect other things.

Thar argument that unmodified strength is used is illogical, against the wording of the Stomp and Thunderstomp rules and is not explicitly written in the FAQ. This is not unwillingness to admit defeat, it is actually reading what is there. 1+1=2; no idea where you guys are getting 3 from.

On a side note

nosferatu1001 wrote:

So, now you have absolutely no ability to state that this relates to the model

Selectively quoting is not clever

+Str isn't the only thing the FAQ prevents. It prevents any magic item, special rule, equipment. Unmodified str isn't even 1/5th of the conditions it removes considering all the special rules.

In fact +str is the only thing it doesn't remove, because str is the only relevant characteristic. Any other special rule which might directly affect stomp is proscribed, but +str, which affects a characteristic instead, is not proscribed. If it were the FAQ or the rule itself, would say unmodified strength.

The rule was written that you use your strength, whatever it is, to make stomp attacks. People wondered if they could add things like flaming attacks by using a banner and so it was FAQd. They do not mention strength in the FAQ because it is clearly written in the rule.

Anyways, I'm going to email and see if they can clarify.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sent this off to GM this evening, hope people agree that it is a balanced / accurate version of the debate...

Hi,
There has been quite a bit of debate on one of the forums recently as to how to interpret the FAQ entry for Stomp and Thunderstomp. The FAQ states that these attacks are not affected by other special rules, magic items or equipment. The question is whether this is only direct effects (such as KB, poison, flaming) or also indirect (specifically, things which affect the model's str). One side says "a magic item is a magic item, end of", while the opposing view says "a model's str is a model's str, stomp uses that value". I tend towards the latter view, as it seems more logical that a Daemon on steroids stomps harder than a Deamon without (whereas them acquiring flaming or poisonous boots would be illogical). If the former case is correct, would it be possible to add "unmodified strength" to the FAQ so as to save further confusion?

Many thanks,

Nite

Nowhere does it say characteristic. Nowhere does it say directly or indirectly. Nowhere does it say strength or unmodified strength.

You've drilled-down into a vast number of criteria that doesn't exist in the ruling.

DoC have in their new book the ability to do Multi-Wounds (2). They have the ability to get +3 Str. It's got like 18 different abilities, a lot of which would benefit Stomp/Tstomp if a Greater Daemon did it to you. These are gifts to the model itself. But they work like magic items per the rules and thus the FAQ says you won't be multi-wounding on Tstomp.

Niteware wrote:
The FAQ is woolly here. It should either specifically say unmodified strength or magic items etc which affect attacks eg flaming banner. The latter makes far more sense to me. Imagine a situation where the models stew-hth had been reduced rather than increased. Do you not think that should apply to tstomp as well?

It's not unmodifed.
I can weaken your unit, reducing it's strength which reduces it's stomp, but you can't buff stomp.
Stomp is a one-way street as the rules have it. Throw a net over an ogre and he doesn't stomp as hard.

-Matt

Speaking of Ogres. In the context of something else I was looking up the gutsman earlier and his str is 5 (6) as listed in his profile because his polearm gives him +1 Str. That would be an instance where he doesn't get to stomp at the higher value because equipment is dropped.

Niteware wrote:


Hi,
There has been quite a bit of debate on one of the forums recently as to how to interpret the FAQ entry for Stomp and Thunderstomp. The FAQ states that these attacks are not affected by other special rules, magic items or equipment. The question is whether this is only direct effects (such as KB, poison, flaming) or also indirect (specifically, things which affect the model's str). One side says "a magic item is a magic item, end of", while the opposing view says "a model's str is a model's str, stomp uses that value". I tend towards the latter view, as it seems more logical that a Daemon on steroids stomps harder than a Deamon without (whereas them acquiring flaming or poisonous boots would be illogical). If the former case is correct, would it be possible to add "unmodified strength" to the FAQ so as to save further confusion?

Many thanks,

Nite

GW states on their homepage that they do not answer rules questions via e-mail, thus your only chance would be a direct call.

Regarding the entire issue - I don't see much fruit in debating this anymore. Both sides have made their points clear and backed it up with reasonable arguments. Right now, we're facing circle argumentation between dogmatics (for the most part) trying to brute-force their opinion onto the others. In the end, it's up to the TO at the tournament you play at - and in all tournaments I have yet taken part in aka at 5 different places, this issue came up twice and has always been ruled out as I stated in my very first post with the exact same reasoning I already provided (mind you, I was a player, not the TO / referee).

Well, I know some people will now jump out at yell "ZOMFG YOUR TO DOES NOT EVEN READ THE FAQ", but I am pretty much done with circle argumentations / dogmatics here. Right now, I just see this thread going on, people soon starting to offend others, warnings handed out etc...and I think offending others due to a rules question is neither fair nor a good idea.

Pretty happy though that it's been a rather reasonable discusion so far


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
Speaking of Ogres. In the context of something else I was looking up the gutsman earlier and his str is 5 (6) as listed in his profile because his polearm gives him +1 Str. That would be an instance where he doesn't get to stomp at the higher value because equipment is dropped.

That's pretty clear though as the model does not have S5, it just strikes at S6 due to a weapon.

 Sigvatr wrote:

That's pretty clear though as the model does not have S5, it just strikes at S6 due to a weapon.

Well other examples of this is basically every other weapons such as Halberds, great weapons, flails etc.

Dracoknight wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

That's pretty clear though as the model does not have S5, it just strikes at S6 due to a weapon.

Well other examples of this is basically every other weapons such as Halberds, great weapons, flails etc.

Yeah, I just don't know why Duke made that comment. Weapons have an entire chapter in the BRB and it's made clear that a model does not increase its base strength unless explicitely stated (e.g. Sword of Anti-Heroes).

Because they changed the unit's profile, which means his Str changed, not just his combat attack Str. And they did not FAQ it out that I can see.

I.e.,

-He has a magic item
-It increases his Str (included in main profile--in front and back of the book)
-It should therefore increase his Stomp
----not only that but
-He gets HKB in challenges, so any challenge his Stomp should have HKB, because if +Str applies to Stomp in this case, so should special rules

Yet it's clearly equipment. And a magic item. And it benefits Stomp. It doesn't matter if it modifies his profile (it does). The FAQ negates it.

It is not included in his profile. The rules explicitely state that the +1S only affects his close combat attacks:

When fighting with the Great Gutgouger, Bragg's close combat attacks are made at +1 Strength (included in his profile, above).

No +1 on his S characteristic mentioned anywhere.

If you bring up examples, please read the rules carefully.

Niteware - so instead of answering the questions you stitch two fragments of my post together? Classy, really, really classy

Is +1S a benefit to the monster making the stomp? Yes or No.

Page and para where you got that this only applies to Attacks. Anything to actualy prove your case, rather than your ruleless assertions, would be useful.

 Sigvatr wrote:
It is not included in his profile. The rules explicitely state that the +1S only affects his close combat attacks:

No +1 on his S characteristic mentioned anywhere.

If you bring up examples, please read the rules carefully.

5(6) is clearly in his profile. That's not decoration. But the fact it's in parenthesis I guess is an exclusion enough. Since that's what they do with like stone throwers and such. It is included in his profile, obviously, but it's in parens, which makes you look further as to why it's in parens and then you see it's close combat. None of that is RAW, it's completely RAI. He has 6 in his profile. But it's clear it should be just 5.

DukeRustfield wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
It is not included in his profile. The rules explicitely state that the +1S only affects his close combat attacks:

No +1 on his S characteristic mentioned anywhere.

If you bring up examples, please read the rules carefully.

5(6) is clearly in his profile. That's not decoration. But the fact it's in parenthesis I guess is an exclusion enough. Since that's what they do with like stone throwers and such. It is included in his profile, obviously, but it's in parens, which makes you look further as to why it's in parens and then you see it's close combat. None of that is RAW, it's completely RAI. He has 6 in his profile. But it's clear it should be just 5.

No, it's RAW. The exact reason for why it's in paranthesis is given in the very first paragraphe below the character's image. I quoted it in my previous post. RAW always refers to the entire rules. RAW does not become RAI because you have to read more than 1 sentence....

DukeRustfield wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
It is not included in his profile. The rules explicitely state that the +1S only affects his close combat attacks:

No +1 on his S characteristic mentioned anywhere.

If you bring up examples, please read the rules carefully.

5(6) is clearly in his profile. That's not decoration. But the fact it's in parenthesis I guess is an exclusion enough. Since that's what they do with like stone throwers and such. It is included in his profile, obviously, but it's in parens, which makes you look further as to why it's in parens and then you see it's close combat. None of that is RAW, it's completely RAI. He has 6 in his profile. But it's clear it should be just 5.

You can't compare this to the stone thrower. They're two different things. We're talking about characteristic profiles, not weapon profiles. Let's keep apples and apples.

The (6) is a reminder of the rule written directly below that says the +1S only affects his close combat attacks. This isn't like a Juggernaut's Murderous Charge that says it has +1S on the turn it charges for S6 not S5(6) or a Giant of Khorne that has +1S to make it S7 and not S6(7).

It's exactly like it. Because murderous charge is a special rule that benefits Stomp. And the magic weapon is...a magic weapon which benefits Stomp and a Giant of Khorne has a special rule (Mark of Khorne) which benefits Thunderstomp. Just like the Hero DukeRustfield has a potion of Strength that benefits his Stomp.

The BRB FAQ disallows all of those in the simplest of RAW sentences.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Niteware - so instead of answering the questions you stitch two fragments of my post together?

You quoted a fragment of my post as if it agreed with your point, which it did not. I think we were equally out of line.

As Sigvald said, neither side is likely to convince the other, because I believe I am right, you believe you are right and others either believe they are right or don't care. Was a nice debate though.

The FAQ page asks for questions to be emailed in, so they may update the FAQ at some point to remove the ambiguity (as they have with several other qs in the form Q1 Can x? Answer Q2 Even if Y? Answer), but maybe we won't get a definitive ruling.

Niteware wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Niteware - so instead of answering the questions you stitch two fragments of my post together?

You quoted a fragment of my post as if it agreed with your point, which it did not. I think we were equally out of line.

You stated "A potion is a magic item."

Whole sentence. I quoted the whole sentence. There was no fragment I quoted, but an entire, complete and unequivocal sentence. You altered my post by stitching two entirely unrelated sentences together. One is a correct application of quoting, the other is a fraudulent misrepresentation. I am sure you can work out which is which.

So, do you not agree that it is a magic item now? If so, please show a rules quote as to why an item picked from the magic items section of the rulebook is NOT a magic item. Once you can do that, you will convince me.

It isnt just that you are convinced you are right, you have done so without a single rule to back you up, and you have ignored the rules quotes proving you wrong. This isnt us claiming 1+1=3, this is you claiming 1 is not equal to 1. (a magic item is not a magic item)

A magic potion IS, without doubt, a magic item. The FAQ states Stomp cannot benefit from any magic items (amongst others) that affect the model making the Stomp. Therefore ANY magic item that benefits the bearer CANNOT affect the stomp hits, INCLUDING this one.

This isnt an agree to disagree, this is one side having pure written rules, and the other entirely ignoring them and claiming something other than what is written. Hell, I'm agreeing with Duke, that doesnt happen often!

I have to throw my hat in with Duke and Nos. Stomps can't benefit from magic items. A Potion of Strength is a magic item. This seems fairly clear, and I'm having a hard time understanding the opposing argument as to why this is not the case.

It doesn't seem to matter, from a RAW perspective, that the magic item doesn't increase the strength of the stomp, instead increasing the strength of the MODEL and then, tangentially, benefitting stomp. And that somehow this tangential benefit (which is still most certainly a benefit) creates a loophole through which this magic item CAN benefit a stomp when this specific situation has been FAQed to not be possible.

Exactly. The FAQ disallows magic items (to whit, this potion) from benefitting the model which is stomping.

It is entirely unambiguous, and so far not a single rules argument has been presented to show otherwise.

But am I correct in my representation of the opposing argument? That the magic item changes the model's strength, and Stomp references the model's strength characteristic and NOT some other attack form (like using a weapon of some sort)?

But that arguement does not matter because all stomp hits cannot benefit from magic items. It is pretty clear.

 Tangent wrote:
But am I correct in my representation of the opposing argument? That the magic item changes the model's strength, and Stomp references the model's strength characteristic and NOT some other attack form (like using a weapon of some sort)?

Mostly correct. The S bonus from the potion does not influence Stomp, instead, the model's base Strength is modified. Stomp refers to the model's S characteristic and thus the model's Stomp attacks are made at the model's current S - which is higher than before due to the Potion of Strength.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Tangent wrote:
But am I correct in my representation of the opposing argument? That the magic item changes the model's strength, and Stomp references the model's strength characteristic and NOT some other attack form (like using a weapon of some sort)?

Mostly correct. The S bonus from the potion does not influence Stomp, instead, the model's base Strength is modified. Stomp refers to the model's S characteristic and thus the model's Stomp attacks are made at the model's current S - which is higher than before due to the Potion of Strength.

Gotcha. So, how does this viewpoint reconcile the counter-point that stomps cannot "benefit" from magic items, and that the potion is a magic item?

"Due to the potion of strength." So it is in fact a potion of strength the model and therefore the stomp is benefiting from? I think we all see the problem there since its been mentioned many times.

Im just not seeing the logic, maybe it was in an older post and I forgot it, but how can the potion of strength be immune to what is effectively a blanket ban on magic items affecting stomp? And if you could explain it as though to a child, that'd be great.

 Tangent wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Tangent wrote:
But am I correct in my representation of the opposing argument? That the magic item changes the model's strength, and Stomp references the model's strength characteristic and NOT some other attack form (like using a weapon of some sort)?

Mostly correct. The S bonus from the potion does not influence Stomp, instead, the model's base Strength is modified. Stomp refers to the model's S characteristic and thus the model's Stomp attacks are made at the model's current S - which is higher than before due to the Potion of Strength.

Gotcha. So, how does this viewpoint reconcile the counter-point that stomps cannot "benefit" from magic items, and that the potion is a magic item?

I made a pretty detailed post on the last page...the first one iirc. The main problem is the unclear definition of "benefit". Most of the time, "benefit" is used in a direct relation to a certain ability which, in this case, clearly isn't the case. Side A argues that Stomp attacks directly benefit from a PoS (Potion of Strength), Side B argues that it does not benefit from anything.

A clear case would be an item that grants KB. Clearly benefits attacks, thus it's clear it does not affect Stomp attacks.

The side in favor of not adding the S bonus does not use "benefit" in a rules sense, they use "benefit" by their own / textbook definition of "to benefit". That's a major difference. If you argue that Stomp does not get a S bonus, you completely ignore the Stomp rules - which are still in effect and have not been overridden by the FAQ. This way of tackling the issue creates a rules loophole. Stomp requires you to use the model's Strength characterisitc value that is, at the moment of using the potion, n+3. People in favor of not allowing to add the S bonus cannot refer to a S value as at this moment, the only S value available is n+3. You cannot say that the model now has n S again - it doesn't. The characteristik value is n+3, not n.

Anyway, as I already said before: we got two sides and circle argumentation going on for the last ~10 posts. Nobody's opinion in here is worth a damn. If you're objective. What matters is the ruling at the place you play. As I said before, from my very own personal experience, the issue came up twice at tournaments I took part in, each following ETC standard rules. At both occasions, the S bonus was granted. And it wasn't just a random guy deciding on it, it's been a discussion between two judges and the head referee - who are a higher authority than anyone in this thread. I don't know how GW tournaments rule this as I refuse to play imbalanced aka vanilla WHFB games.

My point is: both sides could go on forever, but the threads either getting locked or dying because people realize you can't brute-force your interpretation (!) of the rules in other people's head. Yes, that's because they are extremly stupid, there can't be another reason.

If such an issue *could* come up, immediately call your referee and discuss the matter. And don't go in with an attitude like some people in this thread (BOTH SIDES!)...refs don't like this. At all.

 Sigvatr wrote:

I made a pretty detailed post on the last page...the first one iirc. The main problem is the unclear definition of "benefit". Most of the time, "benefit" is used in a direct relation to a certain ability which, in this case, clearly isn't the case. Side A argues that Stomp attacks directly benefit from a PoS (Potion of Strength), Side B argues that it does not benefit from anything.

A clear case would be an item that grants KB. Clearly benefits attacks, thus it's clear it does not affect Stomp attacks.

The side in favor of not adding the S bonus does not use "benefit" in a rules sense, they use "benefit" by their own / textbook definition of "to benefit". That's a major difference. If you argue that Stomp does not get a S bonus, you completely ignore the Stomp rules - which are still in effect and have not been overridden by the FAQ. This way of tackling the issue creates a rules loophole. Stomp requires you to use the model's Strength characterisitc value that is, at the moment of using the potion, n+3. People in favor of not allowing to add the S bonus cannot refer to a S value as at this moment, the only S value available is n+3. You cannot say that the model now has n S again - it doesn't. The characteristik value is n+3, not n.

I understand your desire to not argue about this, but I'm interested in clarification. And hopefully not argue, just asking.

So, my initial question was going to be, "If you don't use the word 'benefit', then how would you describe the interaction between the Potion of Strength and a Stomp attack?" But I see that you're saying that "benefit" is a "term" and not just a descriptive word, and so we have to look at how that term applies within the framework of the WHFB ruleset.

But it just seems like that's kind-of a weak argument. I mean, is there some specific example of the word "benefit" being used as a rules term and not just a part of the language in which the rules are written? You mentioned KB - does the wording of KB state something along the lines of, "A model with the KB special rule has attacks which benefit from this rule" or something? And how else could you categorize what Stomp is "getting" if not a strength bonus? It's clearly getting something - but are you arguing that it's the model's strength characteristic that's getting something, and that's all that's necessary to be able to include Stomp in that category of "attacks that benefit"?

 Tangent wrote:


So, my initial question was going to be, "If you don't use the word 'benefit', then how would you describe the interaction between the Potion of Strength and a Stomp attack? But I see that you're saying that "benefit" is a "term" and not just a descriptive word, and so we have to look at how that term applies within the framework of the WHFB ruleset.

I don't think it requires any term. Technically, the Potion of Strength does not change anything about Stomp. If you are really precise, it only increases the user's Strength. Stomp only gets active after its effect has kicked in - you don't check for any active buffs, you only check for the model's Strength value - which is n+3 at the moment. That's something you can't deny. If you say that Stomp does not use n+3 as its S value, you could not stomp at all as there is no S you can relate to.

I mean, is there some specific example of the word "benefit" being used as a rules term and not just a part of the language in which the rules are written? You mentioned KB - does the wording of KB state something along the lines of, "A model with the KB special rule has attacks which benefit from this rule" or something? And how else could you categorize what Stomp is "getting" if not a strength bonus? It's clearly getting something - but are you arguing that it's the model's strength characteristic that's getting something, and that's all that's necessary to be able to include Stomp in that category of "attacks that benefit"?

That's the direct / indirect instinction I spoke of before. KB directly affects a model's attacks, it's the same as e.g. "the wielder of this weapon strikes at +1S". It's made very clear that the attacks get a direct benefit from the item. KB's rule explicitely state that they only affect melee attacks unless otherwise stated and thus KB cannot be applied to Stomp, the FAQ disallows it.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Stomp only gets active after its effect has kicked in - you don't check for any active buffs, you only check for the model's Strength value - which is n+3 at the moment.

I see what you're saying, but my only hangup is this part. It seems like you could say that about anything. Any attack, anything. It only happens when it happens, and whatever the stats are at THAT moment are what are applied.

I don't know - ok, so, a quick example if you don't mind. Scabscrath, from the VC book, gives the wielder a scream attack like a Terrorgheist (which is referred to in the VC book as a "special attack", if it matters). The scream attack does more damage if the screaming model has more wounds. There is a vampire power that gives the model +1 wound.

Now, what if a FAQ was released regarding Scabscrath, and it said, "Scabscrath cannot benefit from any Vampire Powers." (Imagine it's worded exactly like the FAQ for Stomp, which I can't remember right now.)

Then, you tried to argue that the Vamp Power which takes the Vamp from 3 wounds to 4 DOES affect Scabscrath (in this case, making Scabscrath's scream do more damage) and is exempt from the FAQ ruling because this Vamp Power is affecting the MODEL and NOT the Scabscrath, and the scream only references what the model's wounds are when Scabscrath "gets active and its effect has kicked in."

This just doesn't seem like a reasonable argument to me.

I would like to not discuss hypothetical cases as they can lead to problems that would not occur and thus bear hardly any value, but since you're very polite and really interested in it, we can give it a try.

I am not familiar with the VC book, but isn't the +1W modifier from vampiric powers applied before the game? Anyway, this seems to be the very same case as with Stomp. If you take the vamp power, the characteristic value of the model is 4. It no longer has a characteristic value of 3, it's 4. You must take the value of 4 because you have no other value to choose from.

Yeah, it's applied before the game, but isn't that (functionally) the same as the potion of strength? In either case, the "effect" of "using" the [item/power] happens before the "attack" kicks in or happens. They both change the printed characteristic to a higher value at some point before the attack is made.

And as it is the same case as with Stomp, what do you think of the hypothetical FAQ regarding Scabscrath (which is, by the way, a magic weapon if you weren't familiar)? By your reading, does the wording prevent Scabscrath from benefiting from the Vampire Power?

I would suggest that your hypothetical case could only arose if there were other vampires powers which were intended to be excluded, else the FAQ would be specific. The difficulty with stomp is that there clearly are many abilities which should not apply to it. So in the case of many powers being ruled out, it would make equal sense to treat this as a characteristic including the extra wound.

Apologies for grammatical errors, blooming autocorrect...

I dunno about magic spells and all that, but i am pretty sure there isnt a "potion" thing that gives stats like that, most modifications to attributes are either 1 round/phase or permament ( nothing that is 2, 3, 4 or anything inbetween "once" or "permament" )

So i guess the "once" effects can be counted as such a "potion" benefit, while as a magic buff that gives a model or a unit +1 str and remains in play is a "permament" benefit.

What i am suggesting is that items, spells or effects that give permament attribute bonus is taken in effect of "stomp" and that case with the VC spell.
While in the case of a "once" effect is not, and all potions in game is only "in phase" or "in round" and not permament such as a weapon. For weapons or remains in play is not "applied" every round, they just are there as a part of the model.

I guess it depends on item wording, because some weapons have "applies +1 str to attack" or "gives +1 strenght"
where the former is stated it actually gives you +1 str to attacks but not +1str to eventually strenght checks you might take by the effect of a spell, and the former gives the model the strenght and can be applied to the strenght check. ( unless the spell says "uses the model unmodified strenght, seen spells using unmodified leadership )

Ok, lets take a walk through crazy land.
FAQ says Stomp can't benefit from magic items.

Potion of strength boosts strength by 3.
Stomp isn't given +3 strength, Strength is.
Stomp now uses current strength, which is +3.

If that is your stance,
What magic item actually exists in the game that is limited by this FAQ?

Sigvtar's flawed reading completely bypasses the FAQ in every circumstance.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Sigvtar's flawed reading completely bypasses the FAQ in every circumstance.

-Matt

It would be my interpreation of what I read, not my reading capability itself. Stay classy.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

What magic item actually exists in the game that is limited by this FAQ?

Golden Sigil Sword, Giant Sword, Obsidian Blade, Ogre Blade, Sword of Might, Tearing (?) Sword - just to mention the magic weapons from the BRB.

Flaming banner, banner of rage, banner that gives asf, gift of chaos that gives poisoned attack etc etc

 Sigvatr wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

What magic item actually exists in the game that is limited by this FAQ?

Golden Sigil Sword, Giant Sword, Obsidian Blade, Ogre Blade, Sword of Might, Tearing (?) Sword - just to mention the magic weapons from the BRB.

All those examples are already covered by a different FAQ.

Q: Does a magic item or spell that gives a bonus to a characteristic,
do so bonus for all rules purposes (e.g. the effect of spells,
characteristic tests, etc)? (p4)
A: Yes, except for magic weapons or where the description of
the item or spell specifically says otherwise.

In general, you get the bonus to stats for all purposes, unless the bonus is from a weapon, or the item says otherwise.
Try again.

Lots of things are covered twice. This is a case of general (your q here) and specific - stomp.

Try again.

HawaiiMatt, your FAQ entry refers to an item or spell specifally stating otherwise, which is not the case in this question, thus your FAQ has no relation to the Stomp question.

Please use rules with a relation to a matter at hand. Other rules bear no value for the discussion at hand.

This is one of those threads I don't understand. A simple question I think is

Does Stomp benefit from a magic item of the model?

Is the use of a magic item from the model beneficial to Stomp? Clearly the answer is yes or this thread wouldn't even need to exist. It doesn't matter if something else benefits (Str), it doesn't address that. There are only 3 criteria that are given in the FAQ: [magic item/equipment/Special Rule] of model, T/Stomp, benefit. You can't say there is RAW using anything except those concepts because they aren't there.

Break it down further into individual criteria:

-Is this a Stomp/Tstomp attack? Yes
-Is the potion a magic item of the model making the attack? Yes
-Would the the Stomp/Tstomp benefit from the magic item? Yes (clearly a higher Str attack is a benefit)

The FAQ is extremely clear this isn't allowed. If any one of those criteria is changed, however, it would be allowed. Oddly, if the magic item was detrimental, it would apply. If you had a potion of sucky strength -1, it would work on Stomp, RAW, because it wouldn't benefit the ability.

Duke, there have been multiple very detailed explanations why the other interpretation is, at the very least, just as reasonable as yours and I have already pointed out, multiple times, that your argumentation creates hole in the rules as you have no characteristic value to use for the Stomp attack - but again, it's been stated above.

DukeRustfield wrote:
This is one of those threads I don't understand. A simple question I think is

Does Stomp benefit from a magic item of the model?

Is the use of a magic item from the model beneficial to Stomp? Clearly the answer is yes or this thread wouldn't even need to exist. It doesn't matter if something else benefits (Str), it doesn't address that. There are only 3 criteria that are given in the FAQ: [magic item/equipment/Special Rule] of model, T/Stomp, benefit. You can't say there is RAW using anything except those concepts because they aren't there.

Break it down further into individual criteria:

-Is this a Stomp/Tstomp attack? Yes
-Is the potion a magic item of the model making the attack? Yes
-Would the the Stomp/Tstomp benefit from the magic item? Yes (clearly a higher Str attack is a benefit)

The FAQ is extremely clear this isn't allowed. If any one of those criteria is changed, however, it would be allowed. Oddly, if the magic item was detrimental, it would apply. If you had a potion of sucky strength -1, it would work on Stomp, RAW, because it wouldn't benefit the ability.

Let's, for arguments, say there was a Chaos Gift that only gives a character +1Strenght when he is Frenzied (I would call it Berserker's Rage), the +1S would then benefit T/Stomp since Chaos Gifts aren't considered magical?

DukeRustfield wrote:
This is one of those threads I don't understand. A simple question I think is

Does Stomp benefit from a magic item of the model?

Is the use of a magic item from the model beneficial to Stomp? Clearly the answer is yes or this thread wouldn't even need to exist. It doesn't matter if something else benefits (Str), it doesn't address that. There are only 3 criteria that are given in the FAQ: [magic item/equipment/Special Rule] of model, T/Stomp, benefit. You can't say there is RAW using anything except those concepts because they aren't there.

Break it down further into individual criteria:

-Is this a Stomp/Tstomp attack? Yes
-Is the potion a magic item of the model making the attack? Yes
-Would the the Stomp/Tstomp benefit from the magic item? Yes (clearly a higher Str attack is a benefit)

The FAQ is extremely clear this isn't allowed. If any one of those criteria is changed, however, it would be allowed. Oddly, if the magic item was detrimental, it would apply. If you had a potion of sucky strength -1, it would work on Stomp, RAW, because it wouldn't benefit the ability.

Do you realize how you're the only person left arguing?

The crux of this debate is whether "benefit" is meant directly or to include indirectly. We have our views and opinions, which are just as logically sound as yours. We've said all we have to say, and you've said all you have to say. At this point, you're repeating yourself and trying to sound pompous with new wording. You're not going to convince us, and we're not going to convince you. Leave it at that.

The Horned Messiah wrote:

Let's, for arguments, say there was a Chaos Gift that only gives a character +1Strenght when he is Frenzied (I would call it Berserker's Rage), the +1S would then benefit T/Stomp since Chaos Gifts aren't considered magical?

It's already covered. Special rules that benefit T/Stomp are also not available just like magic items. It doesn't matter if the special rule triggers a special rule which triggers a special rule that benefits Stomp. It doesn't have that limitation. Does the special rule when applied benefit stomp? Yes. Then you don't get it.

We've said all we have to say, and you've said all you have to say. At this point, you're repeating yourself and trying to sound pompous with new wording. You're not going to convince us, and we're not going to convince you. Leave it at that.

Why did you feel the need to tell someone to stop talking? On a forum designed to promote talking. If you're done then by all means stop. Don't read it. You're free to go. There's plenty of discussions. There's a wide world to explore if you're frustrated here. I heard dancing is fun. Don't tell others they should stop posting on a discussion forum because you're upset. And don't start trolling and get ad hominem just because someone responds in a way you can't defend. Not sure when logic became pompous. It's like the media elite, always using those evil facts.

I have to say Duke, regardless of whether you agree with you or not, I do enjoy reading your posts. Keep using that right to free speech

DukeRustfield wrote:
It's already covered. Special rules that benefit T/Stomp are also not available just like magic items. It doesn't matter if the special rule triggers a special rule which triggers a special rule that benefits Stomp. It doesn't have that limitation. Does the special rule when applied benefit stomp? Yes. Then you don't get it.

Ya know after rereading Stomp I agree with you that the increase of Str does not necessarily means a betterT/ Stomp, but I make the exception with the increase of bulk.
Whenever a model changes size (changes troop type), through magic or otherwise, it should get the T/Stomp that goes with it; Mo should get Thunderstomp and Mi Stomp.

Or are you suggesting that a Bray who had changed into a Hydra should use his unmodified (Gor) Str for his Thunderstomp since the Strenght increase is done through magic?
Or that he shouldn't be able to Thunderstomp at all since he had gained this ability through magic?

DukeRustfield wrote:

Why did you feel the need to tell someone to stop talking? On a forum designed to promote talking. If you're done then by all means stop. Don't read it. You're free to go. There's plenty of discussions. There's a wide world to explore if you're frustrated here. I heard dancing is fun. Don't tell others they should stop posting on a discussion forum because you're upset. And don't start trolling and get ad hominem just because someone responds in a way you can't defend. Not sure when logic became pompous. It's like the media elite, always using those evil facts.

Well, some people deny logical reasoning and embrace circle argumentation...by the way, I wouldn't tell others to stop "ad hominem" when in the very same post, you take the first exit to Ad Homincem city.

Oddly, spells are excluded. Transformation of Kaddon is not a special rule, equipment or magic item.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Oddly, spells are excluded. Transformation of Kaddon is not a special rule, equipment or magic item.

True, but if there was a magic potion that transformed a model into a Hydra, would that model then have ThunderStomp at the Hydra's Str or the unmodified model's Str?
I mean, one could argue that the Str increase and gaining the Thunderstomp ability from drinking this 'Hydra' potion works exactly the same as a Minotaur (who already has the Stomp ability) drinking a Strenght increasing potion.

No that is not true, drinking a Hydra-transformation potion would increase the model's bulk, while this is not neccessarily the case with drinking a Strenght potion.

But according to your reasoning increasing bulk through a magic potion would have no affect on Stomp since it is gained through a magic item.

Listen, from a fluff perspective, I would want the potion of strength to benefit stomps. It only makes sense.

But the argument about the word "benefit" being "directly or indirectly" applicable... that's reaching.

But come on, guys - in regular usage, the wording is SO CLEAR.

Headphones cannot benefit from big heads. You increase the size of your head from small to big. Can headphones benefit? No! It doesn't matter that you only have one head upon which the headphones may go.

SHOULD headphones benefit? Of course. But in this abstraction of rules that we exist in within this subforum, they don't.

The argument to the contrary ignores all common usage of the language.

The argument against it crates a rule gap and would not allow you to stomp at all.

As I said before, it's a circle argumentation. If you feel it might become a problem, ask your TO. All of them the issue came up (well, 2 times) at tournaments I attended to, using ETC rules, it has been ruled as I said for like five times already.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The argument against it crates a rule gap and would not allow you to stomp at all.

As I said before, it's a circle argumentation. If you feel it might become a problem, ask your TO. All of them the issue came up (well, 2 times) at tournaments I attended to, using ETC rules, it has been ruled as I said for like five times already.

You mean, because the model's strength characteristic is now n+3, "n" by itself no longer exists, and so stomp has no value to reference.

But it clearly does still exist. It's written in your armybook. The model has strength 3. This characteristic can benefit from a magic item through an improvement. However, stomp must use the original value as it cannot benefit from this improvement in the way that other attacks can. It's not like you just forgot the original value - it isn't erased from existence. In fact, you could even say that the strength is still "n" but attacks which can benefit from an improvement use a different temporary value, such as n+3 in the case of a potion of strength, or n+2 in the case of an attack using a great weapon.

 Tangent wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The argument against it crates a rule gap and would not allow you to stomp at all.

As I said before, it's a circle argumentation. If you feel it might become a problem, ask your TO. All of them the issue came up (well, 2 times) at tournaments I attended to, using ETC rules, it has been ruled as I said for like five times already.

You mean, because the model's strength characteristic is now n+3, "n" by itself no longer exists, and so stomp has no value to reference.

But it clearly does still exist. It's written in your armybook. The model has strength 3. This characteristic can benefit from a magic item through an improvement. However, stomp must use the original value as it cannot benefit from this improvement in the way that other attacks can. It's not like you just forgot the original value - it isn't erased from existence. In fact, you could even say that the strength is still "n" but attacks which can benefit from an improvement use a different temporary value, such as n+3 in the case of a potion of strength, or n+2 in the case of an attack using a great weapon.

Incorrect. If a S3 model's characteristic value is increased, it is not e.g. S3 (6). It's 6. There is no other characteristic value besides 6 you can relate to. Your last sentence refers to e.g. Halberds that provide a +1S bonus and are explicitely stated to do so i regard to melee attacks.

Alright, I see your point, and Tangent's gonna make a ruling. Here it goes guys - this is what you've all been waiting for: my opinion.

My Opinion

I think it's pretty clear that GW realized, in retrospect, that they don't want Stomps to be improvable. They're already good, and there are combinations that would make them TOO good, and they sought to rectify this.

So, I think they don't want potions of strength to improve the strength at which a stomp is used. Of course, they used poor wording. And while I think Duke's and Nos' arguments are stronger than Sigvatr's, I can see Sig's point from a RAW perspective.

Finally, if a creature increases in strength and/or size due to a magic potion, would that nominally increase the strength of every attack that creature possesses? Of course! From a fluff perspective, it should make all of the attacks stronger.

And so, my opinion: if this comes up in my gaming group, I would vote with... SIGVATR!

RAW I think you're on the losing side, but as far as RAI, you're in the right, and I tend to play and advocate for RAI when playing/discussing in person.

If we're talking RAI, I'd also agree and think that most people would agree to it naturally increasing Strength.

RAW-wise, I still take my stand of both interpretations having good points and them being equally valid, thus making it a TO / majority vote decision.

Nothing changes a model's characteristic except something that says it changes a model's characteristic. The FAQ only addresses Stomp and TStomp. That's it. There are a bunch of abilities where the model makes attacks at different values than their profile. Some examples off the top of my head, the Skaven rat tail weapon is Str3 no matter what the model's Str is. Arachnarok has one attack that is is super awesome multi-wound out of all its attacks. One of the Sphinx also has a super awesome HKB attack out of it's attacks. The new WoC Chimera has a special random attacks tail swipe. That ogre weapon can be made to do a splat attack, exchanging all his attacks. The new DoC Soulgrinder can make a single S10 attack if he has a bone claw.

None of those attacks modify the base model's characteristics permanently even though they in some cases they make changes to those values in regards to their particular ability. The FAQ only concerns Stomp/TStomp. It doesn't say that you never get to use a magic item and if you used one that changed your characteristic you're sucked into the Realm of Chaos. It says you can't use them for Stomp/TStomp. If at the exact same time you Stomp you have to take a Str characteristic test, you would take it at the modified level, because the FAQ does not mention, or hint, that the item is in any way nullified for other purposes.

I'm completely with you on RAW, Duke. But I probably wouldn't play it that way unless it was clear that the majority opinion of my club also agrees with you, in which case I would verbally agree with them and play it in the way that you advise.

RAW and RAI seem clear - when they say "NO magic item" they probably mean "NO" magic item.

"Direct" or "indirect" - given it is entirely unqualified, you must take it to mean both, otherwise you have made an arbitrary choice. Mot definitely NOT RAW

 Tangent wrote:
I think it's pretty clear that GW realized, in retrospect, that they don't want Stomps to be improvable. They're already good, and there are combinations that would make them TOO good, and they sought to rectify this.

Well, think about it. What wording do they use to say:

T/Stomp: it can benefit from magic items, equipment, special rules in some ways but not others.

It's a lot easier and more in keeping with every other ruling in the game to just cut it all out. If magic items can boost Str and affect Stomp, then why can't a Firebelly have flaming Stomps? Or why can't a DoC GD have a poison, magic, multi-wound (2), ASF thunderstomp?

You'd need a far more complex FAQ (2 sentences...) to make that available and for what? Just so you could add Str to T/Stomp? The point was Stomp and Thunderstomp were REALLY simple abilities added to unit types to make them a little better. It did not take into consideration every single model's special rules and how they would play with bonus auto-hitting attacks. Ogres without Stomp I daresay would not be nearly as good, and many monsters would be relatively worthless. But if you could modify T/Stomp, in some cases it could get really cheesy.

Instead of a FAQ for every modification possible to the abilities it's a whole lot easier to say can they all work or none can work. It's safer to say none can work. I think that's RAW and RAI. I.e., they knew +Str would get dropped as well.

DukeRustfield wrote:

 Tangent wrote:
If magic items can boost Str and affect Stomp, then why can't a Firebelly have flaming Stomps? Or why can't a DoC GD have a poison, magic, multi-wound (2), ASF thunderstomp?

GW, like you and everyone else, thought that letting abilities like poison, flaming etc be used with Stomp would be OP and ridiculous but, if they had intended it not to be able to take strength they could easily have done that.

DukeRustfield wrote:
There are a bunch of abilities where the model makes attacks at different values than their profile. Some examples off the top of my head, the Skaven rat tail weapon is Str3 no matter what the model's Str is.

"Stomp is an extra attack that hits at S5, which cannot benefit from any other rule". Done. Except that that is ridiculous, because an S7 monster should stomp harder than an S5 monster. I assume that you would agree that that is what *should* (and is what does) happen if the higher S value isin the profile to start with. Logically, you would then agree that a character with a characteristic of S7(modified *should* stomp harder than unmodified, even though you would say that the FAQ rules this out.

Given that there clearly are many things which are ruled out by the FAQ, there is an obvious way that the rule could have been written to restrict modified strength, using modified strength is more logical and Sigvatr has explained a rationalle for believing the FAQ to be ambiguous, can you see why there are two schools of thought on this issue?