"A model with Weapon Skill ‘0’ is incapacitated; they are hit automatically in close combat and cannot strike any blows."
Depends if you consider stomp attacks to be "striking blows".
There are references to "striking blows" throughout the assault phase section of the rulebook, and it seems synonymous with making attacks in terms of close combat.
I would say in terms of the rules it seems that no, it could not, although I think HIWPI may be to allow stomp attacks, but not regular close combat attacks.
Probably would depend how much I liked my opponent
I'd say that they can't Stomp. The word "any" doesn't leave room for any special attacks either. On page 9 it also says that "a model with WS 0 is incapacitated", which makes it even clearer IMO. I think the wording for striking blows is there just so it can include any and all special attacks too.
I think what Shine is saying, Is stomp an attack/striking blow or an ability that just trigger at the end. if you think it is an attack/striking blow then your answer is no. If you think is an ability then WS will have no bearing as it is trigger or not.
die toten hosen wrote: The model can still stomp as normal. WS has no bearing on stomps. Stomps are not melee attacks as normal.
The relevance of WS to Stomp attacks isn't really relevant, I would say.
If "striking blows" is synonymous with "making attacks" as it seems then that would extend to disallowing Stomp attacks.
If you think it's not, why is that?
To, the contrary, a relationship between WS 0 and Stomp is the core of the question.
Are Stomps Melee Attacks, or at least tied to it in some way besides timing and only happening while the performing model is Engaged?
From what I've read, the answer is no. In which case, WS of any level does not affect Stomping due to the lack of relationship, much like Vehicle Ramming.
If the question is the relationship between WS 0 and Stomp, it should be clear from the fact that WS has no impact on Stomp in the first place. Stomp doesn't care what the WS is of other models, it's simply an automatic hit. From a fluff perspective, the machine doesn't need to be good at combat to step on people any more than a tank needs to excel at it to run them over.
I think we should be more concerned about what 'incapacitated' means.
Incapacitated is an adjective that describes a state where you don't have the capacity, or ability, to accomplish anything. In game terms WS 0 represents an incapacity to accomplish anything in close combat - defensively and offensively.
So do stomp attacks represent a now 'incapacitated' GMC trying to accomplish something in close combat?
col_impact wrote: I think we should be more concerned about what 'incapacitated' means.
Incapacitated is an adjective that describes a state where you don't have the capacity, or ability, to accomplish anything. In game terms WS 0 represents an incapacity to accomplish anything in close combat - defensively and offensively.
So do stomp attacks represent a now 'incapacitated' GMC trying to accomplish something in close combat?
One may as well ask if immobilization is a factor of incapacitating as well. It means as much.
Charistoph wrote: To, the contrary, a relationship between WS 0 and Stomp is the core of the question.
If "strike blows" refers specifically to making melee attacks, absolutely. If it refers to making attacks during close combat generally then not really, I think.
That's of course why I pose it on the basis of whether or not striking blows includes Stomp attacks (i.e. making attacks generally during close combat) or not (making melee attacks during close combat).
col_impact wrote: I think we should be more concerned about what 'incapacitated' means.
Incapacitated is an adjective that describes a state where you don't have the capacity, or ability, to accomplish anything. In game terms WS 0 represents an incapacity to accomplish anything in close combat - defensively and offensively.
So do stomp attacks represent a now 'incapacitated' GMC trying to accomplish something in close combat?
One may as well ask if immobilization is a factor of incapacitating as well. It means as much.
No. Mobility has nothing to do with the field of close combat. WS 0 means a total inability to function insofar as close combat. WS 0 = close combat incapacitated.
Spoiler:
Zero-level Characteristics
Some creatures have been given a 0 for certain characteristics, which means that they
have no ability whatsoever in that field (the same is also occasionally represented by a
‘–’).
Are stomps part of the field of 'close combat'? Yes.
WS 0 means then you are unable to do stomp attacks. It also means you cannot perform Hammer of Wrath attacks since those also fall under the domain of close combat.
If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any
reason), then it is locked in combat. Units that are locked in close combat must fight
in the Assault phase. Units are no longer locked in combat if, at end of any phase, they no
longer have any models in base contact with an enemy model.
Units that are locked in combat cannot move in the Movement phase, Run or
shoot in the Shooting phase, and cannot fire Overwatch if charged. Similarly,
models cannot shoot at units locked in close combat – while some commanders
may wish their warriors to fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combats in the
hopes of hitting the enemy, this is not permitted.
Spoiler:
STOMP
Super-heavy Walkers engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a Stomp
attack. The Stomp attack is made in addition to the Super-heavy Walker’s normal attacks.
Stomp attacks are resolved during the Fight sub-phase at the Initiative 1 step. This does
not grant the model an additional Pile In move at the Initiative 1 step.
If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any
reason), then it is locked in combat. Units that are locked in close combat must fight
in the Assault phase. Units are no longer locked in combat if, at end of any phase, they no
longer have any models in base contact with an enemy model.
Units that are locked in combat cannot move in the Movement phase, Run or
shoot in the Shooting phase, and cannot fire Overwatch if charged. Similarly,
models cannot shoot at units locked in close combat – while some commanders
may wish their warriors to fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combats in the
hopes of hitting the enemy, this is not permitted.
Spoiler:
STOMP
Super-heavy Walkers engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a Stomp
attack. The Stomp attack is made in addition to the Super-heavy Walker’s normal attacks.
Stomp attacks are resolved during the Fight sub-phase at the Initiative 1 step. This does
not grant the model an additional Pile In move at the Initiative 1 step.
So, where does it state that Stomp is Striking Blows? Where does it state that they are Melee Attacks?
Hammer of Wrath is considered an additional Attack as part of the Melee Phase. Stomps are a Special Attack, and not a Melee Attack. That it happens in the Melee Phase is not in question. What is in question is how it is dependent on WS in any form or that WS 0 disables ALL types of Attacks in the Assault Phase.
Does WS 0 disable Overwatch? I do not see how, yet this would be applying the same principle from the perspective of Stomps.
The closest I can find to resembling a definition of Striking Blows is in "More Than One Weapon":
Spoiler:
Unless otherwise stated, if a model has more than one shooting weapon, he must choose which one to shoot – he cannot fire both in the same Shooting phase. If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows – he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons. However, it’s worth remembering that if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
In this case, Stomp does not qualify for such a definition.
Stomp attack is a special attack that occurs in close combat.
WS 0 means that you are incapacitated in close combat.
You cannot Stomp while incapacitated, because you are trying to invoke an ability in close combat while you are defined as incapable of any ability in close combat.
Stomps are attacks, if you have WS0 you cannot make attacks.
Further stomps are optional, so other than the rules saying they are an attack and you may not make attacks you may not choose to stomp as it is an attack.
Stomps are attacks, if you have WS0 you cannot make attacks.
Further stomps are optional, so other than the rules saying they are an attack and you may not make attacks you may not choose to stomp as it is an attack.
show me where it says stomps are optional.
WS0 means no attacks, because you cannot roll to hit. stomps do not roll to hit therefore bypassing this. "incapacitated" is being used a fluff term and explanation, there is no effect detailed in the USR section of the BRB or otherwise deifned outside of a fluff based explanation.
Charistoph wrote: The closest I can find to resembling a definition of Striking Blows is in "More Than One Weapon":
Spoiler:
Unless otherwise stated, if a model has more than one shooting weapon, he must choose which one to shoot – he cannot fire both in the same Shooting phase. If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows – he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons. However, it’s worth remembering that if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
In this case, Stomp does not qualify for such a definition.
That's what I was after. Agreed, with this information.
col_impact, the rulebook actually defines for us what or means when it states the model is incapacitated with what follows after the semicolon; that they are hit automatically and may not strike blows, which Christoph has found probably the closest thing to a definition for.
Charistoph wrote: The closest I can find to resembling a definition of Striking Blows is in "More Than One Weapon":
Spoiler:
Unless otherwise stated, if a model has more than one shooting weapon, he must choose which one to shoot – he cannot fire both in the same Shooting phase. If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows – he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons. However, it’s worth remembering that if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
In this case, Stomp does not qualify for such a definition.
That's what I was after. Agreed, with this information.
col_impact, the rulebook actually defines for us what or means when it states the model is incapacitated with what follows after the semicolon; that they are hit automatically and may not strike blows, which Christoph has found probably the closest thing to a definition for.
Incorrect, we are told that a model with a WS 0 has no ability in the domain of close combat and is incapacitated. Invoking a stomp attack ability in close combat is not allowed by the BRB.
Moreover, "blows" and "strike blows" is not really defined as the term "blows" is used in the BRB loosely as a catch-all for close combat attacks that threaten damage which include HOW and Stomp.
Spoiler:
5. Assault phase. During the Assault phase, units may move into combat
against enemy units in the Charge sub-phase and trade blows with them in the
Fight sub-phase.
Trading blows or striking blows means 'achieving damaging affect from close combat attacks' (or really just exchanging close combat attacks) as far as the BRB is concerned. A Stomp is included in "trading blows" or "striking blows" against your foe. Otherwise you are saying that a Stomp is not an attack and that it does not threaten or potentially deliver damage to your foe. A blow is damage delivered (at least potentially) by an attack. A miss is not a blow delivered.
Stomps are attacks, if you have WS0 you cannot make attacks.
Further stomps are optional, so other than the rules saying they are an attack and you may not make attacks you may not choose to stomp as it is an attack.
show me where it says stomps are optional.
WS0 means no attacks, because you cannot roll to hit. stomps do not roll to hit therefore bypassing this. "incapacitated" is being used a fluff term and explanation, there is no effect detailed in the USR section of the BRB or otherwise deifned outside of a fluff based explanation.
Sure, I'll show you right now.
Super-heavy Walkers engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a Stomp
attack. The Stomp attack is made in addition to the Super-heavy Walker’s normal attacks.
Stomp attacks are resolved during the Fight sub-phase at the Initiative 1 step. This does
not grant the model an additional Pile In move at the Initiative 1 step.
Stomps are attacks, if you have WS0 you cannot make attacks.
Further stomps are optional, so other than the rules saying they are an attack and you may not make attacks you may not choose to stomp as it is an attack.
show me where it says stomps are optional.
WS0 means no attacks, because you cannot roll to hit. stomps do not roll to hit therefore bypassing this. "incapacitated" is being used a fluff term and explanation, there is no effect detailed in the USR section of the BRB or otherwise deifned outside of a fluff based explanation.
Sure, I'll show you right now.
Super-heavy Walkers engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a Stomp
attack. The Stomp attack is made in addition to the Super-heavy Walker’s normal attacks.
Stomp attacks are resolved during the Fight sub-phase at the Initiative 1 step. This does
not grant the model an additional Pile In move at the Initiative 1 step.
col_impact wrote: Incorrect, we are told that a model with a WS 0 has no ability in the domain of close combat and is incapacitated. Invoking a stomp attack ability in close combat is not allowed by the BRB.
Erm, no. What the rules actually say is:
"Some creatures have been given a 0 for certain characteristics, which means that they have no ability whatsoever in that field (the same is also occasionally represented by a ‘–’)."
So in fact we're told that a model with Weapon Skill 0 has no ability in that field, i.e. the field of Weapon Skill. Weapon Skill is irrelevant for the resolution of Stomp attacks.
Moreover, "blows" and "strike blows" is not really defined as the term "blows" is used in the BRB loosely as a catch-all for close combat attacks that threaten damage which include HOW and Stomp.
Spoiler:
5. Assault phase. During the Assault phase, units may move into combat
against enemy units in the Charge sub-phase and trade blows with them in the
Fight sub-phase.
Stomp attacks are attacks that threaten damage, but are not close combat attacks - they're simply a special type of attack. Also, that trading blows is done in the Fight sub-phase does not define every action taking place therein as also necessarily being trading blows.
Trading blows or striking blows means 'achieving damaging affect from close combat attacks' (or really just exchanging close combat attacks) as far as the BRB is concerned. A Stomp is included in "trading blows" or "striking blows" against your foe. Otherwise you are saying that a Stomp is not an attack and that it does not threaten or potentially deliver damage to your foe. A blow is damage delivered (at least potentially) by an attack. A miss is not a blow delivered.
Charistoph has already provided something helpful for defining striking blows, in that when striking blows a Melee weapon must be selected. Models use Melee weapons for close combat attacks. Must models with the ability to Stomp and more than one weapon ever choose which to attack with for that purpose? Clearly not, so Stomp attacks cannot be striking blows.
col_impact wrote:WS 0 means that you are incapacitated in close combat.
Not literally. Literally, incapacitated means "they are hit automatically in close combat and cannot strike any blows."
col_impact wrote:You cannot Stomp while incapacitated, because you are trying to invoke an ability in close combat while you are defined as incapable of any ability in close combat.
I don't remember Stomp saying it cannot be used when incapacitated, which paragraph is it in? Even linking it to WS or to Attacks in general would work.
blaktoof wrote:Stomps are attacks, if you have WS0 you cannot make attacks.
They are attacks, yes, but they are not Attacks generated from the Characteristic or using any Weapon. In other words, it does not use the WS trait at all.
col_impact wrote:Incorrect, we are told that a model with a WS 0 has no ability in the domain of close combat and is incapacitated.
Incorrect. A model that has WS 0 "is incapacitated; they are hit automatically in close combat and cannot strike any blows." I do not ever see where it has no ability in the domain of close combat, though any normal abilities in that area can easily be seen as such. In other words, close combat normally involves "striking blows" with Melee Weapons based on either Attacks of the model or their own special rules (ex: Meltabombs).
Stomp, however, is a different fish. It is a Unit Type special rule that is not reliant on Weapons, Attacks stat, or the WS stat. It is not listed as a Melee Attack, but a Special Attack with no relationship with or Close Combat (aside from Timing and being Engaged).
col_impact wrote:Invoking a stomp attack ability in close combat is not allowed by the BRB.
Prove the relationship besides timing and position to support the statement.
col_impact wrote:Moreover, "blows" and "strike blows" is not really defined as the term "blows" is used in the BRB loosely as a catch-all for close combat attacks that threaten damage which include HOW and Stomp.
First you say it is not really defined, then you say it IS defined... Which is it, defined or not really?
col_impact wrote:
Spoiler:
5. Assault phase. During the Assault phase, units may move into combat
against enemy units in the Charge sub-phase and trade blows with them in the Fight sub-phase.
Trading blows or striking blows means 'achieving damaging affect from close combat attacks' (or really just exchanging close combat attacks) as far as the BRB is concerned. A Stomp is included in "trading blows" or "striking blows" against your foe. Otherwise you are saying that a Stomp is not an attack and that it does not threaten or potentially deliver damage to your foe. A blow is damage delivered (at least potentially) by an attack. A miss is not a blow delivered.
Wow, you got that from that tiny little sentence? Interesting...
See, when I actually review all the rules in the Assault Phase section, it's all about using Weapons with WS to generate Melee Attacks (aside from the bit about Overwatch, of course) to be used in close combat. I do not see anything about affecting damage achieved by attacks that can extend beyond close combat (which Stomp can and does).
col_impact wrote: I think we should be more concerned about what 'incapacitated' means.
Incapacitated is an adjective that describes a state where you don't have the capacity, or ability, to accomplish anything. In game terms WS 0 represents an incapacity to accomplish anything in close combat - defensively and offensively.
So do stomp attacks represent a now 'incapacitated' GMC trying to accomplish something in close combat?
Except you can stomp on units you are not in CC with.
col_impact wrote: I think we should be more concerned about what 'incapacitated' means.
Incapacitated is an adjective that describes a state where you don't have the capacity, or ability, to accomplish anything. In game terms WS 0 represents an incapacity to accomplish anything in close combat - defensively and offensively.
So do stomp attacks represent a now 'incapacitated' GMC trying to accomplish something in close combat?
Except you can stomp on units you are not in CC with.
If a GMC is not engaged in close combat, can they perform a Stomp attack? No.
Also, since 'strike a blow' is not a rule book defined term (it does not show up in the index or have a game definition) we must abide by English and commonsense usage. "Strike a blow" is melee combat terminology. Remember, you can only run afoul of English commonsense usage when the BRB gives explicit permission to do so. This means that if you intend to run afoul of English commonsense usage, be prepared to point explicitly at the BRB for justification.
If I hit someone with a sword in the head, have I struck a blow? Yes.
If I hit someone in the nose with my fist, have I struck a blow? Yes.
If I kick someone in the instep of the foot, have I struck a blow? Yes.
If I stomp on someone's head when they are prone on the ground, have I struck a blow? Yes.
If I stomp on a puppy, have I struck a blow to that puppy? Yes.
The burden of proof is on those who would say that Stomp is not a blow being struck by a GMC when quite clearly by ANY fair English read, a stomp is most assuredly a blow being struck by a GMC to a much smaller opponent.
If you feel otherwise, make explicit how you are defining "strike blows" and how your terminology relates semantically to fighting and warfare. Or alternately, find in the BRB where "strike any blows" is explicitly and fully defined.
Remember, the burden of proof is on those who would say Stomp is not included in the set "strike any blow" when quite clearly it is an intentional attack doing damage during close combat with the body of the assailant, which satisfies the English common sense usage of "striking a blow".
col_impact wrote: If a GMC is not engaged in close combat, can they perform a Stomp attack? No.
That is correct, but it has no bearing on the rule at hand.
Also, since 'strike a blow' is not a rule book defined term (it does not show up in the index or have a game definition) we must abide by English and commonsense usage. "Strike a blow" is melee combat terminology. Remember, you can only run afoul of English commonsense usage when the BRB gives explicit permission to do so. This means that if you intend to run afoul of English commonsense usage, be prepared to point explicitly at the BRB for justification.
Incorrect. you have to use the context of the 0 lvl characteristic.
and the context refers to Melee attacks that use WS to determine a hit.
If I hit someone with a sword in the head, have I struck a blow? Yes.
If I hit someone in the nose with my fist, have I struck a blow? Yes.
If I kick someone in the instep of the foot, have I struck a blow? Yes.
If I stomp on someone's head when they are prone on the ground, have I struck a blow? Yes.
If I stomp on a puppy, have I struck a blow to that puppy? Yes.
This has no bearing on the rules of the game
The burden of proof is on those who would say that Stomp is not a blow being struck by a GMC when quite clearly by ANY fair English read, a stomp is most assuredly a blow being struck by a GMC to a much smaller opponent.
again it has to do with the context of the Characteristic. do not ignore context.
If you feel otherwise, make explicit how you are defining "strike blows" and how your terminology relates semantically to fighting and warfare. Or alternately, find in the BRB where "strike any blows" is explicitly and fully defined.
Remember, the burden of proof is on those who would say Stomp is not included in the set "strike any blow" when quite clearly it is an intentional attack doing damage during close combat, which satisfies the English common sense usage of "striking a blow".
Stomp is not included because they are talking about having no skill in that area (That area being WS and you dont use WS to determine Stomps, just like you dont use WS to determine Hammer of Wrath attacks).
col_impact wrote: Also, since 'strike a blow' is not a rule book defined term (it does not show up in the index or have a game definition) we must abide by English and commonsense usage. "Strike a blow" is melee combat terminology. Remember, you can only run afoul of English commonsense usage when the BRB gives explicit permission to do so. This means that if you intend to run afoul of English commonsense usage, be prepared to point explicitly at the BRB for justification.
Remember, the burden of proof is on those who would say Stomp is not included in the set "strike any blow" when quite clearly it is an intentional attack doing damage during close combat with the body of the assailant, which satisfies the English common sense usage of "striking a blow".
You can't use common English and fluff to benefit your argument against an attack representing trampling an enemy underfoot on the basis of a reduction of its skill with weapons.
col_impact wrote: Also, since 'strike a blow' is not a rule book defined term (it does not show up in the index or have a game definition) we must abide by English and commonsense usage. "Strike a blow" is melee combat terminology. Remember, you can only run afoul of English commonsense usage when the BRB gives explicit permission to do so. This means that if you intend to run afoul of English commonsense usage, be prepared to point explicitly at the BRB for justification.
Remember, the burden of proof is on those who would say Stomp is not included in the set "strike any blow" when quite clearly it is an intentional attack doing damage during close combat with the body of the assailant, which satisfies the English common sense usage of "striking a blow".
You can't use common English and fluff to benefit your argument against an attack representing trampling an enemy underfoot on the basis of a reduction of its skill with weapons.
That's just stupid.
Plenty of creatures in the 40k universe use their body itself as a weapon. Why should this be any different? If you are incapacitated in combat, you can't attack the enemy with your weapons or your body.
col_impact wrote: Also, since 'strike a blow' is not a rule book defined term (it does not show up in the index or have a game definition) we must abide by English and commonsense usage. "Strike a blow" is melee combat terminology. Remember, you can only run afoul of English commonsense usage when the BRB gives explicit permission to do so. This means that if you intend to run afoul of English commonsense usage, be prepared to point explicitly at the BRB for justification.
This is not accurate. While there is no line that says, "Striking a Blow means causing damage in close combat", it is used contextually only with Attacks in Close Combat generated by Weapons and the Attacks Characteristic with success determined by the WS stat. Stomp refers to none of these conditions and neither states nor implies that it is striking blows aside from general English usage.
col_impact wrote: If you feel otherwise, make explicit how you are defining "strike blows" and how your terminology relates semantically to fighting and warfare. Or alternately, find in the BRB where "strike any blows" is explicitly and fully defined.
But we have, and you have not disproven them. You have just ignored them. How can we present a counter-argument when you have not properly argued against them?
Strike a blow has no rules definition in of itself so either it means the model with WS0 can not do anything during the assault phase, or it means nothing.
Stomping is an attack.
If a model is at WS0 it may not make any form of attacks during the assault phase.
The rules passage on models with multiple weapons choosing one to strike with is a rules passage dealing with models striking with a weapon, so it is not a valid claim to say the definition of striking blows only affects attacks with weapons. That is taking a ruling on weapons and then adding more meaning outside of its context that is just not actually written.
There are other models that have attacks that auto hit or hit on a fixed value regardless of WS, they also are attacks.
That stomp happens only during assault, is normally optional, and happens during an I step shows that it is indeed an attack that happens during the assault phase.
blaktoof wrote: Strike a blow has no rules definition in of itself so either it means the model with WS0 can not do anything during the assault phase, or it means nothing.
I have proven this wrong already. And I'll do it again.
And so is Shooting. And neither Shooting nor Stomp care what the WS of the model is.
blaktoof wrote: If a model is at WS0 it may not make any form of attacks during the assault phase.
Incorrect. Units being Charged can declare Overwatch, even if they are WS 0. Are you suggesting that Overwatch cannot be done because they cannot commit Close Combat Attacks?
blaktoof wrote: The rules passage on models with multiple weapons choosing one to strike with is a rules passage dealing with models striking with a weapon, so it is not a valid claim to say the definition of striking blows only affects attacks with weapons. That is taking a ruling on weapons and then adding more meaning outside of its context that is just not actually written.
It is providing context on how the phrase is used, and was stated as such when it was first presented. Can you provide context that Stomp is considered by the game as "striking blows" with equal context?
blaktoof wrote: There are other models that have attacks that auto hit or hit on a fixed value regardless of WS, they also are attacks.
Indeed they are. Not in argument.
blaktoof wrote: That stomp happens only during assault, is normally optional, and happens during an I step shows that it is indeed an attack that happens during the assault phase.
So is Overwatch, are you saying that WS 0 prevents it, too?
A lot of running around but nothing that actually ties Stomp to incapacitate aside from Timing and Location. And unlike every other example, can affect things not in close combat at all.
Overwatch does not happen during any initiative sequence and is stated as being a shooting attack. It has nothing to do with this discussion in any form.
The ruling on how models with weapons strike blows with weapons, has a answer that deals with weapons because the question deals only with weapons- so again it is a bad out of context point that you are stretching to make into a rule that is not a rule.
IE striking blows only can be done by weapons. which is not a rule anywhere in any book.
Having WS 0 Means you are incapacitated and cannot strike any blows, it does not say you can not make any attacks that require you to use WS.
blaktoof wrote: Overwatch does not happen during any initiative sequence and is stated as being a shooting attack. It has nothing to do with this discussion in any form.
Then you ignored what was quoted. You said that WS 0 prevented ANY attacks in the ASSAULT PHASE, not during any Initiative step. Shooting Attacks qualify as "any", and Overwatch happens during the Assault Phase.
Nor have you presented any evidence that all attacks during any initiative step are striking blows.
blaktoof wrote: The ruling on how models with weapons strike blows with weapons, has a answer that deals with weapons because the question deals only with weapons- so again it is a bad out of context point that you are stretching to make into a rule that is not a rule.
Not really. I stated that the only time "striking blows" is used is during such context as using a Weapon to Generate Attacks with Weapons and the Attacks Characteristic with success based on the WS stat. And it is only in the "More Than One Weapon" that it applies that phrase with any specifics, instead of generically such as the start of the Assault Phase sub-section.
Can you demonstrate any context where this does not apply?
blaktoof wrote: IE striking blows only can be done by weapons. which is not a rule anywhere in any book.
Yet, it is the only time it is used in context.
blaktoof wrote: Having WS 0 Means you are incapacitated and cannot strike any blows, it does not say you can not make any attacks that require you to use WS.
You have yet to demonstrate that "striking blows" is used in any specific context that does not involve using WS.
blaktoof wrote: Overwatch does not happen during any initiative sequence and is stated as being a shooting attack. It has nothing to do with this discussion in any form.
Then you ignored what was quoted. You said that WS 0 prevented ANY attacks in the ASSAULT PHASE, not during any Initiative step. Shooting Attacks qualify as "any", and Overwatch happens during the Assault Phase.
Nor have you presented any evidence that all attacks during any initiative step are striking blows.
blaktoof wrote: The ruling on how models with weapons strike blows with weapons, has a answer that deals with weapons because the question deals only with weapons- so again it is a bad out of context point that you are stretching to make into a rule that is not a rule.
Not really. I stated that the only time "striking blows" is used is during such context as using a Weapon to Generate Attacks with Weapons and the Attacks Characteristic with success based on the WS stat. And it is only in the "More Than One Weapon" that it applies that phrase with any specifics, instead of generically such as the start of the Assault Phase sub-section.
Can you demonstrate any context where this does not apply?
blaktoof wrote: IE striking blows only can be done by weapons. which is not a rule anywhere in any book.
Yet, it is the only time it is used in context.
blaktoof wrote: Having WS 0 Means you are incapacitated and cannot strike any blows, it does not say you can not make any attacks that require you to use WS.
You have yet to demonstrate that "striking blows" is used in any specific context that does not involve using WS.
Overwatch does not happen during any initiative sequence and is stated as being a shooting attack. It has nothing to do with this discussion in any form.
The ruling on how models with weapons strike blows with weapons, has a answer that deals with weapons because the question deals only with weapons- so again it is a bad out of context point that you are stretching to make into a rule that is not a rule.
IE striking blows only can be done by weapons. which is not a rule anywhere in any book.
Having WS 0 Means you are incapacitated and cannot strike any blows, it does not say you can not make any attacks that require you to use WS.
Super heavy walkers engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a stomp attack. The stomp attack is made in addition to the superheavy walkers normal attacks. Stomp attacks are resolved during the fight sub phase at the initiative 1 step.
-rulebook
absolutely by the rules as written Stomp attacks are attacks, made during the assault phase, at initiative 1, in addition to normal attacks.
If a model can make no attacks, it cannot make its normal attacks+an additional attacks it is allowed to make because it is now incapacitated and may make no attacks at all.
RAW models with WS0 may not stomp, or use other additional attacks- such as toxic miasma, attacks from wargear that go off at a set initiative, tyranid tail biomorphs etc- because they are all attacks which they are no longer allowed to make.
Further this, under zero level characteristics, it says models with Attacks= 0 may not strike blows as well, so we know striking blows are making attacks. We are told stomp is an attack.
blaktoof wrote: Overwatch does not happen during any initiative sequence and is stated as being a shooting attack. It has nothing to do with this discussion in any form.
Then you ignored what was quoted. You said that WS 0 prevented ANY attacks in the ASSAULT PHASE, not during any Initiative step. Shooting Attacks qualify as "any", and Overwatch happens during the Assault Phase.
Well, you just confirmed you're rules lawyering and attempting to push your own agenda instead of delving for the truth of the answer. You're attacking the phrasing of the argument when it's clear that he meant the Fight sub-phase of the Assault phase, his comments on Overwatch and Initiative even supporting this. Literally, you're arguing semantics when the intent of his sentence is obvious. Or in a more Warhammer perspective, arguing RAW when the RAI is clear like so many WAACs do. His claims indicate he is treating WS0 as preventing any attacks during the Fight sub-phase, including Hammer of Wrath and Stomp. Attack that claim rather than feigning ignorance or dissecting the wording of his stance as doing so would only prove you consider the statement threatening and must resort to logical fallacies. Seeing how I supported the "May still Stomp at WS0" rule earlier, we're on the same side and I'd hate to see you lose just for being petty.
blaktoof wrote: RAW models with WS0 may not stomp, or use other additional attacks- such as toxic miasma, attacks from wargear that go off at a set initiative, tyranid tail biomorphs etc- because they are all attacks which they are no longer allowed to make.
Further this, under zero level characteristics, it says models with Attacks= 0 may not strike blows as well, so we know striking blows are making attacks. We are told stomp is an attack. done.
How would you apply this logic to Cypher the Fallen? You said Overwatch was a shooting attack but I think Cypher's pistols count as shooting attacks as well. Are they exempt from the WS0 rule or is he forbidden from shooting in melee due to WS being too low?
blaktoof wrote:Overwatch does not happen during any initiative sequence and is stated as being a shooting attack. It has nothing to do with this discussion in any form.
Which goes to show how much attention you are paying to your own statements, much less the statements of others.
Your assertion was that WS 0/incapaciated disallowed any Attacks in the Assault Phase. Stomp Attacks are as much Melee Attacks as Overwatch. You did not mention anything about Inititative Step during this assertion. Will you or will you not correct yourself on this matter?
You then have another assertion is that "striking blows" is any attack during an Initiative Step, yet have yet to provide any evidence of this. Quote up.
blaktoof wrote:The ruling on how models with weapons strike blows with weapons, has a answer that deals with weapons because the question deals only with weapons- so again it is a bad out of context point that you are stretching to make into a rule that is not a rule.
IE striking blows only can be done by weapons. which is not a rule anywhere in any book.
Your inability to understand an argument is incredible. I stated that this is the closest the rulebook provides as a definition with any context. It has more context than your assertion that "striking blows" is any attack in the Assault Phase or any attack during an Initiative Step. Admittedly, this statement in "More Than One Weapon" doesn't exclude any other Attacks in close combat, either, but it doesn't do anything to include them.
blaktoof wrote:Having WS 0 Means you are incapacitated and cannot strike any blows, it does not say you can not make any attacks that require you to use WS.
Super heavy walkers engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a stomp attack. The stomp attack is made in addition to the superheavy walkers normal attacks. Stomp attacks are resolved during the fight sub phase at the initiative 1 step.
-rulebook
And it never defines what "strike any blows" means in this section. The closest thing the rulebook provides is a contextual definition is provided later during a statement you dismiss, yet, you have not yet provided any other quote to substantiate your claim otherwise.
blaktoof wrote:absolutely by the rules as written Stomp attacks are attacks, made during the assault phase, at initiative 1, in addition to normal attacks.
Not stated otherwise. We are just stating that they are not Melee Attacks, and questioning the validity of putting them under the same umbrella of "striking blows" without more evidence. And no, made up rules you do not quote will not count as evidence.
blaktoof wrote:If a model can make no attacks, it cannot make its normal attacks+an additional attacks it is allowed to make because it is now incapacitated and may make no attacks at all.
A quote on that please. I have already proven how "no attacks at all" is disproven. If you mean "no attacks during an initiative step", then you need to properly quote, or at least reference, the section that ties "Attacks during an Initiative Step" and "Striking Blows" together.
blaktoof wrote:RAW models with WS0 may not stomp, or use other additional attacks- such as toxic miasma, attacks from wargear that go off at a set initiative, tyranid tail biomorphs etc- because they are all attacks which they are no longer allowed to make.
So, a model with acidic blood and WS 0 would not be able to use it to counter-attack? Even though it has zero bearing on the model's ability to Attack?
blaktoof wrote:Further this, under zero level characteristics, it says models with Attacks= 0 may not strike blows as well, so we know striking blows are making attacks. We are told stomp is an attack.
done.
Yet, they are still able to make Shooting Attacks (provided they have a Shooting Weapon, of course) even with 0 Attacks. Stomp is not based on the Attacks Characteristic, either. So, why should it be affected by it?
Forbidding Attacks when the Skill or volume is not there to use them is understandable and easily contextual. However, with Stomp we are dealing with something that is on a different level and does not use any of the Characteristics in question. The only valid connection between Close Combat Attacks made by Weapons and Stomp is Time and Place. That's it.
Arkaine wrote:Well, you just confirmed you're rules lawyering and attempting to push your own agenda instead of delving for the truth of the answer. You're attacking the phrasing of the argument when it's clear that he meant the Fight sub-phase of the Assault phase, his comments on Overwatch and Initiative even supporting this. Literally, you're arguing semantics when the intent of his sentence is obvious. Or in a more Warhammer perspective, arguing RAW when the RAI is clear like so many WAACs do. His claims indicate he is treating WS0 as preventing any attacks during the Fight sub-phase, including Hammer of Wrath and Stomp. Attack that claim rather than feigning ignorance or dissecting the wording of his stance as doing so would only prove you consider the statement threatening and must resort to logical fallacies. Seeing how I supported the "May still Stomp at WS0" rule earlier, we're on the same side and I'd hate to see you lose just for being petty.
I was pointing out how his assertion was incorrect and gave him opportunity to correct it. It is not my fault that he continues to pursue an unsustainable assertion. Blacktoof has a tendency to use his "head rules" as Rules As Written, and cling to them stubbornly. He also has a tendency to not actually listen or attempt to understand another's paradigm. If you noticed, he kept trying to use the same statements after I disproved them and trying to argue things that are not being argued. He also has a tendency to not properly quote or reference rules to support his statements. I am trying to break him out of it, admittedly the hard way.
It does not say "cannot strike any blows that require a WS roll"
Nor does it say "cannot strike any blows except those that hit automatically or do not require a roll to hit"
It says "any blows"
"Any blows" includes blows generated from automatic hits.
Prove that "any blows" means "any damage made by attacks made in close combat". I have already demonstrated a contextual definition for striking blows, and it does not match that broad of a definition.
It does not say "cannot strike any blows that require a WS roll"
Nor does it say "cannot strike any blows except those that hit automatically or do not require a roll to hit"
It says "any blows"
"Any blows" includes blows generated from automatic hits.
Prove that "any blows" means "any damage made by attacks made in close combat". I have already demonstrated a contextual definition for striking blows, and it does not match that broad of a definition.
Actually the burden of proof is on you that Stomp is not included in "any blows."
Also, remind us what your contextual definition for "striking blows" is? You seem to think you are advancing something definitive. Please point to the definition of "striking blows" that you found in the BRB.
Exactly. In the context of the rules, prove the "blow" includes stomps. Bear in mind that stomps do not have to be limited to targets solely in close combat.
blaktoof wrote: Overwatch does not happen during any initiative sequence and is stated as being a shooting attack. It has nothing to do with this discussion in any form.
Then you ignored what was quoted. You said that WS 0 prevented ANY attacks in the ASSAULT PHASE, not during any Initiative step. Shooting Attacks qualify as "any", and Overwatch happens during the Assault Phase.
Well, you just confirmed you're rules lawyering and attempting to push your own agenda instead of delving for the truth of the answer. You're attacking the phrasing of the argument when it's clear that he meant the Fight sub-phase of the Assault phase, his comments on Overwatch and Initiative even supporting this. Literally, you're arguing semantics when the intent of his sentence is obvious. Or in a more Warhammer perspective, arguing RAW when the RAI is clear like so many WAACs do. His claims indicate he is treating WS0 as preventing any attacks during the Fight sub-phase, including Hammer of Wrath and Stomp. Attack that claim rather than feigning ignorance or dissecting the wording of his stance as doing so would only prove you consider the statement threatening and must resort to logical fallacies. Seeing how I supported the "May still Stomp at WS0" rule earlier, we're on the same side and I'd hate to see you lose just for being petty.
blaktoof wrote: RAW models with WS0 may not stomp, or use other additional attacks- such as toxic miasma, attacks from wargear that go off at a set initiative, tyranid tail biomorphs etc- because they are all attacks which they are no longer allowed to make.
Further this, under zero level characteristics, it says models with Attacks= 0 may not strike blows as well, so we know striking blows are making attacks. We are told stomp is an attack. done.
How would you apply this logic to Cypher the Fallen? You said Overwatch was a shooting attack but I think Cypher's pistols count as shooting attacks as well. Are they exempt from the WS0 rule or is he forbidden from shooting in melee due to WS being too low?
I am guessing you mean the rule "blazing weapons" which has a bunch of sub rules.
It has a rule for the shooting phase
It has a rule for overwatch
and It has a rules for how he makes his attacks during the assault phase.
so it already separates out his assault phase attacks, from his shooting, from overwatch.
Overwatch happens during part of the assault face, before models move in to strike blows, and are shooting attacks.
as Shooting attacks they are not tied to WS or the Attack characteristic, normally.
If Cypher was reduced to WS0, was charged, he would still get overwatch shots as those are from BS -albeit as snap shots, and then would be unable to make any attacks during the fight sub-phase due to being WS 0 and not being allowed to make any attacks. If he was reduced to 0 Attacks the same result would happen.
overwatch uses the rules for shooting, BS, snap shots, etc. It has nothing to do with WS and A, normally(some weapons have shots based off models Attacks)
nosferatu1001 wrote: Exactly. In the context of the rules, prove the "blow" includes stomps. Bear in mind that stomps do not have to be limited to targets solely in close combat.
I don't have to. English usage of "stomp" would include it as a "blow" just as easily as a punch or a kick or a hit from a sword. You actually have to overcome straightforward English usage here.
The rules prohibit us from "striking any blows" and that prohibits punches, kicks, swordhits, stomps, etc.
Escort the only other context we have for blows solely deals with weapons and attacking with them. So, do you have any other context that shows how GW are using them?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Exactly. In the context of the rules, prove the "blow" includes stomps. Bear in mind that stomps do not have to be limited to targets solely in close combat.
Stomps are attacks that only happen in addition to a models normal attacks.
Is a model that may not make any attacks able to make its normal attacks or additional attacks?
And a model with Attacks=0 may not strike blows. Same wording as WS0. So striking blows = making attacks.
stomp is an attack.
are people actually claiming when you are not allowed to make attacks, you can make the attacks which would be in addition to your normal attacks still?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Escort the only other context we have for blows solely deals with weapons and attacking with them. So, do you have any other context that shows how GW are using them?
Go into detail here. You sound like you have something definitive here from the BRB that overcomes the straightforward English usage of "incapacitated" and "cannot strike any blows". Please explain fully. Otherwise you have not yet advanced anything.
You should be more precise in your argument, otherwise they are this simple to show fault with. Again.
Stomps are attacks that only happen in addition to a models normal attacks.
Is a model that may not make any attacks able to make its normal attacks or additional attacks?
And a model with Attacks=0 may not strike blows. Same wording as WS0. So striking blows = making attacks.
stomp is an attack.
are people actually claiming when you are not allowed to make attacks, you can make the attacks which would be in addition to your normal attacks still?
Since you claim to know the rules, and they were also quoted in this post-
I am sure you managed to ascertain that stomp attacks may only happen when the stomping model is enganged in combat, during the fight subphase, I realize its your modus operandi of posting no rules quotes, flip flopping, and antagonizing others with side arguments to pretty much just wear people down and make them avoid discussing anything when you post-but just to be clear:
Is the basis of your argument really "Since I can attack with a BS shooting attack, I can make attacks during the fight subphase when the model would normally not be allowed to make any attacks"
or was it making up rules along the lines of "not being able to make any attacks, just means you cannot attack with melee weapons" which someone else posted earlier.
Or is it something else, like stomp attacks are not attacks that happen from engaged models in the fight subphase in addition to their normal attacks?
No, you just made something up, pretended it was a quote, and haven't directly answered the flaws in your own argument. As usual
Your claim they may make no "attacks" is false. They may make no attacks defined as "close combat attacks" using their weapon skill. So they may over watch, and they may stomp, as neither of these are close combat attacks.
Stop stating falsehoods, wpthat would be a positive step.
To be clear: your fascination with defining stomp based on its position in the sub phase is interesting, mostly because it has no bearing anywhere in the rules. The actual rules posted do not care about that distinction, so your persistence here is amusing, but utterly irrelevant to the topic.
If you're not allowed to make attacks or blows then how would you play the following with a WS0 model?
- Hammer of Wrath
- Mandiblasters (wargear that causes wounds on a 4+)
- Eldar Phoenix Gem (Wargear that causes an explosion when you die. if you kill something, you come back to life with 1W)
- Sweeping Advances (if your opponent ran due to having terrify cast on them)
- Overwatch (as nos pointed out)
These things all cause damage in the assault phase, and you're saying that a blow is any attack that causes damage. So WS 0 would somehow prevent you from shooting, your wargear from working, and basically turn the model into a tree stump.
Both over watch and hammer of wrath were mentioned prior to my posting, they were just handwaved away by blaktoof.
Col- you are told what incapacitated means, in straight forward English. That definition is indeed more restrictive than the usual definition. Same as the only time strike blows is mentioned it is more restrictive than your desired meaning.
col_impact wrote:I don't have to. English usage of "stomp" would include it as a "blow" just as easily as a punch or a kick or a hit from a sword. You actually have to overcome straightforward English usage here.
The rules prohibit us from "striking any blows" and that prohibits punches, kicks, swordhits, stomps, etc.
Except, again, you're trying to apply common English definition for blows but not to the affected ability, i.e. weapon skill.
It's inconsistent to apply common English for striking blows when applying common English to a reduction in weapon skill would clearly mean the model's ability with weapons, rather than their hand to hand or kicking/stomping ability.
That and the rules don't call out Stomp as a blow as they obviously do for close combat attacks, of course...
col_impact wrote:Go into detail here. You sound like you have something definitive here from the BRB that overcomes the straightforward English usage of "incapacitated" and "cannot strike any blows". Please explain fully. Otherwise you have not yet advanced anything.
The rulebook tells us what it means when it says incapacitated; hit automatically and unable to strike blows. That's how the semicolon works in the line in question.
So when a model has no weapon and is resorting to its hands and/or feet to strike blows do you use Weapon Skill to determine hits or is it some other characteristic?
nosferatu1001 wrote: No, you just made something up, pretended it was a quote, and haven't directly answered the flaws in your own argument. As usual
Your claim they may make no "attacks" is false. They may make no attacks defined as "close combat attacks" using their weapon skill. So they may over watch, and they may stomp, as neither of these are close combat attacks.
Stop stating falsehoods, wpthat would be a positive step.
To be clear: your fascination with defining stomp based on its position in the sub phase is interesting, mostly because it has no bearing anywhere in the rules. The actual rules posted do not care about that distinction, so your persistence here is amusing, but utterly irrelevant to the topic.
no you just made something up.
there is no such wording anywhere that they may not make attacks that use their WS, it states they may strike no blows. You have made that up completely without any basis in any rules anywhere in any book. I challenge you to quote where it states
WS=0 or Attacks=0 Means they may make no attacks that use WS" Further under A=0 it says again, they may strike no blows. Not all attacks that are made using the models Attack characteristic reference WS, as some abilities hit on a fixed number- and your made up rule means such rules continue to work when a model would not be able to make its normal attacks-which has no rules support anywhere. Stomping is absolutely defined as a a close combat attack, we are told it happens only by engaged models with stomp during the fight subphase(when close combat attacks are made) in addition to their normal attacks(during the fight subphase)
attacks that happen in addition to your normal attacks. Its a close combat attack that happens in addition to your normal close combat attacks. Or do you have rules permisson where it states it is NOT a close combat attack that happens in addition to normal attacks made during the fight subphase? If you have such a rules quote, please share it.
So when a model has no weapon and is resorting to its hands and/or feet to strike blows do you use Weapon Skill to determine hits or is it some other characteristic?
The rules tell us all models have a close combat weapon if not otherwise stated.
col_impact wrote:I don't have to. English usage of "stomp" would include it as a "blow" just as easily as a punch or a kick or a hit from a sword. You actually have to overcome straightforward English usage here.
The rules prohibit us from "striking any blows" and that prohibits punches, kicks, swordhits, stomps, etc.
Except, again, you're trying to apply common English definition for blows but not to the affected ability, i.e. weapon skill.
It's inconsistent to apply common English for striking blows when applying common English to a reduction in weapon skill would clearly mean the model's ability with weapons, rather than their hand to hand or kicking/stomping ability.
That and the rules don't call out Stomp as a blow as they obviously do for close combat attacks, of course...
col_impact wrote:Go into detail here. You sound like you have something definitive here from the BRB that overcomes the straightforward English usage of "incapacitated" and "cannot strike any blows". Please explain fully. Otherwise you have not yet advanced anything.
The rulebook tells us what it means when it says incapacitated; hit automatically and unable to strike blows. That's how the semicolon works in the line in question.
actually no where does it state blows are close combat attacks specifically, it is also highly strange you would claim you cannot apply english to the word blows to mean attacks when you have applied english to the word Weapon Skill to imply that it only affects attacks with melee weapons...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: Both over watch and hammer of wrath were mentioned prior to my posting, they were just handwaved away by blaktoof.
Col- you are told what incapacitated means, in straight forward English. That definition is indeed more restrictive than the usual definition. Same as the only time strike blows is mentioned it is more restrictive than your desired meaning.
so shooting attacks allow you to make close combat attacks. excellent, rules quote?
Sigh. No, not playing your childish games again. No, I did not state you can make close combat attacks because you can make a shooting attack. Stop making gak up
The rules give us context as to what striking blows means. It does not talk about stomp.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Sigh. No, not playing your childish games again. No, I did not state you can make close combat attacks because you can make a shooting attack. Stop making gak up
The rules give us context as to what striking blows means. It does not talk about stomp.
Is stomp a close combat attack? Is that your latest made up rule?
so you bringing up overwatch was just trolling again got it.
You were'nt trying to actually link attacks are not tied to WS because overwatch (a shooting attack) happens during part of the assault phase therefore stomp (a attack a model gets in addition to its other attacks(which are close combat attacks during the fight subphase)) so therefore you can stomp because you can overwatch was not a point you seriously brought up then accused of me handwaving away by explaining to you the difference between an attack that uses the rules for shooting and the models BS during a time other than the fight subphase is different than an attack that happens as part of a models attacks which use A and WS? It was just you bringing it up for some "other reason"
blaktoof wrote: actually no where does it state blows are close combat attacks specifically, it is also highly strange you would claim you cannot apply english to the word blows to mean attacks when you have applied english to the word Weapon Skill to imply that it only affects attacks with melee weapons...?
Not when the rules tell us what these things mean in a rules context.
blaktoof wrote: actually no where does it state blows are close combat attacks specifically, it is also highly strange you would claim you cannot apply english to the word blows to mean attacks when you have applied english to the word Weapon Skill to imply that it only affects attacks with melee weapons...?
Not when the rules tell us what these things mean in a rules context.
and that is stated what where?
im sorry are you back peddling now and claiming you did not post that weapon skill only pertains to attacks made with weapons on p.2?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Blak - and again, your argument falls apart. Reported as again you resort to "troll"
You stated, repeated, that a model may not make "attacks" when incapacitated.
I showed this to be a lie on your part, as they may make shooting attacks.
See I make up rules, and parts of discussions so I misrepresented what you said about WS not allowing someone to strike blows, and when you stated the rules for stomp which say in addition to models normal attacks I threw up a stupid strawman about overwatch which has no basis in the discussion to say that you are wrong. Much like I can say you used the word combat, which is not about Bats therefore you are wrong.
I was hoping you could, for once, concede something to appease the bottomless pit that is my pathetic ego. Sadly not.
you are a troll though.
You show nothing ever, and just make statements which are almost always incorrect, and never quote rules. I am not sure what you think "show" means, because the actual word means something very different. It usually requires you to actually support your statements with something other than your fabricated rules, and personal opinions of how things should be presented as how they are.
Love how you brought in the concede, I recall when you used to demand other poster to concede after you posted your "thoughts" with no rules support then blanket claimed how things were written when they were not.
why don't you just say something stupid like you normally do such as:
"MARK YOUR POST HYWPI UNLESS YOU CAN MAKE ME POST AN ACTUAL RULE TO SUPPORT MY MADE UP CLAIM- YOUR CONCESSION IS ACCEPTED"
you are a troll.
The entire gaming community of dakka would be better if you were unable to post ever again.
btw "your argument has no basis in rules, please mark your posts HYWPI your concession is noted."
nosferatu1001 wrote: So, instead of making up quotes, you edit a quote to state something else made up?
Wow. Just wow.
theres no point in responding with any real discussion with you, as you are inable or unwilling to do anything than make up rules and insinuate things other people say, all the while avoiding providing any quotes for the nonsense you spout.
If you dislike it being done so much, maybe you should stop doing it.
anyways you are a waste of time in every way, so back on ignore.
im sorry are you back peddling now and claiming you did not post that weapon skill only pertains to attacks made with weapons on p.2?
I'm not making that claim at all. I'm simply pointing out that if he is making that claim for one (blows) then it's inconsistent not to do the same for the other (weapon skill).
I misspoke earlier perhaps when I said the rules tell use what they mean; what I go by is when and how the rules tell us to use them, which in this case is not relevant to Stomp attacks.
We also know that we are in close combat because you can Stomp when it's the other player's turn.
Spoiler:
In close combat, both players’ models fight.
Spoiler:
5. Assault phase. During the Assault phase, units may move into combat
against enemy units in the Charge sub-phase and trade blows with them in the
Fight sub-phase. All units in close combat fight; this is an exception to the
normal turn sequence in that both sides fight, not just the side whose turn it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the fact that the Stomp Attacks occur in the context of Initiative Steps reinforces that we are in close combat.
Spoiler:
Initiative Step
In close combat, slow, lumbering opponents can often be dispatched quickly by faster and
more agile foes. However, many ponderous opponents are tough enough to withstand a
vicious pummelling and keep coming back for more. To represent this, a model’s
Initiative determines when he attacks in close combat. Work your way through the
Initiative values of the models in the combat, starting with the highest and
ending with the lowest. This means that each combat will have ten Initiative steps,
starting at Initiative 10 and working down to Initiative 1. You’ll rarely have models
fighting at all of the Initiative steps, so just skip any that don’t apply.
Models make their attacks when their Initiative step is reached, assuming they haven’t
already been killed by a model with a higher Initiative! If both sides have models with the
same Initiative, their attacks are made simultaneously. Note that certain situations,
abilities and weapons can modify a model’s Initiative.
Also we are locked in combat and cannot make shooting attacks, run, or do overwatch
Spoiler:
If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any
reason), then it is locked in combat. Units that are locked in close combat must fight
in the Assault phase. Units are no longer locked in combat if, at end of any phase, they no
longer have any models in base contact with an enemy model.
Units that are locked in combat cannot move in the Movement phase, Run or
shoot in the Shooting phase, and cannot fire Overwatch if charged. Similarly,
models cannot shoot at units locked in close combat
So, a Stomp attack is definitively an attack in close combat. Otherwise you could only do them on your turn. Close combat attacks are exceptional in that regard.
Who strikes blows first is determined by Initiative.
You do not get to Stomp if you are removed before Initiative 1, because you do not get to "strike back"
If you Stomp a TWC with a thunderhammer (hits at Initiative 1) you get to "strike blows" simultaneously.
Spoiler:
Dead Before Striking
If a model is removed as a casualty before its Initiative step, it cannot strike
back. When striking blows simultaneously, it may be convenient to resolve one side’s
attacks and simply turn the dead models around to remind you that they have yet to
attack back.
The use of the Initiative Step to sequence Stomps puts it definitively into an attack in close combat that can "strike blows simultaneously" and lose the ability to "strike back"
So when a model has no weapon and is resorting to its hands and/or feet to strike blows do you use Weapon Skill to determine hits or is it some other characteristic?
The rules tell us all models have a close combat weapon if not otherwise stated.
And a bare fist, a foot, or the whole body can be that close combat weapon and "strike blows".
Spoiler:
In an assault, troops storm forwards into a
furious close combat, screaming their battle cries, eager to strike at their foes with
shrieking chainswords, glittering power weapons (and not a few gun butts, knives and
desperate fists).
col_impact wrote:Also, remind us what your contextual definition for "striking blows" is? You seem to think you are advancing something definitive. Please point to the definition of "striking blows" that you found in the BRB.
Interesting that you do not remember it, since it was directed towards you.
Charistoph wrote:The closest I can find to resembling a definition of Striking Blows is in "More Than One Weapon":
Spoiler:
Unless otherwise stated, if a model has more than one shooting weapon, he must choose which one to shoot – he cannot fire both in the same Shooting phase. If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows – he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons. However, it’s worth remembering that if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
In this case, Stomp does not qualify for such a definition.
col_impact wrote:Who strikes blows first is determined by Initiative.
You do not get to Stomp if you are removed before Initiative 1, because you do not get to "strike back"
If you Stomp a TWC with a thunderhammer (hits at Initiative 1) you get to "strike blows" simultaneously.
Spoiler:
Dead Before Striking
If a model is removed as a casualty before its Initiative step, it cannot strike
back. When striking blows simultaneously, it may be convenient to resolve one side’s
attacks and simply turn the dead models around to remind you that they have yet to
attack back.
The use of the Initiative Step to sequence Stomps puts it definitively into an attack in close combat that can "strike blows simultaneously" and lose the ability to "strike back"
Great, you defined when it is. Which is not in argument. Everyone here has agreed that Stomps happen in the Assault Phase and during Initiative Step 1.
What is in discussion is whether ALL damage during an Initiative Step is Striking Blows. (Still waiting on the quote for that, by the way).
col_impact wrote:Also, remind us what your contextual definition for "striking blows" is? You seem to think you are advancing something definitive. Please point to the definition of "striking blows" that you found in the BRB.
Interesting that you do not remember it, since it was directed towards you.
Charistoph wrote:The closest I can find to resembling a definition of Striking Blows is in "More Than One Weapon":
Spoiler:
Unless otherwise stated, if a model has more than one shooting weapon, he must choose which one to shoot – he cannot fire both in the same Shooting phase. If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows – he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons. However, it’s worth remembering that if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
In this case, Stomp does not qualify for such a definition.
So basically you have advanced nothing in the way of an argument.
Stomp is a close combat attack that acts in the fight sub-phase and is assigned a step explicitly in the Initiative Sequence. As such, Stomp can act in the other player's turn, it can lose the ability to "strike back" if the GMC is removed from play prior to Stomp's Initiative Step and it is granted the ability to "strike blows simultaneously" against other close combat attacks that act at it's Initiative step.
"When he comes to strike blows" refers to the initiative step coming up and the player getting to use the permitted attack in close combat at that initiative step.
What is in discussion is whether ALL damage during an Initiative Step is Striking Blows. (Still waiting on the quote for that, by the way).
I have never said that ALL damage during an Initiative Step is "striking blows".
"Striking blows" are hits generated by close combat attacks allowed in the fight sub-phase that have an assigned Initiative step. An attack that has an initiative step inherits that language of referencing by the way in which Initiative sequencing is framed.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Sigh. No, not playing your childish games again. No, I did not state you can make close combat attacks because you can make a shooting attack. Stop making gak up
The rules give us context as to what striking blows means. It does not talk about stomp.
Is stomp a close combat attack? Page ref for it?
Does the BRB define what a "close combat attack" is anywhere?
col_impact wrote: And a bare fist, a foot, or the whole body can be that close combat weapon and "strike blows".
Spoiler:
In an assault, troops storm forwards into a
furious close combat, screaming their battle cries, eager to strike at their foes with
shrieking chainswords, glittering power weapons (and not a few gun butts, knives and
desperate fists).
That doesn't make a Stomp attack a close combat weapon.
col_impact wrote:Also, remind us what your contextual definition for "striking blows" is? You seem to think you are advancing something definitive. Please point to the definition of "striking blows" that you found in the BRB.
Interesting that you do not remember it, since it was directed towards you.
Charistoph wrote:The closest I can find to resembling a definition of Striking Blows is in "More Than One Weapon":
Spoiler:
Unless otherwise stated, if a model has more than one shooting weapon, he must choose which one to shoot – he cannot fire both in the same Shooting phase. If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows – he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different Melee weapons. However, it’s worth remembering that if a model has two or more Melee weapons he gains +1 attack in close combat.
In this case, Stomp does not qualify for such a definition.
So basically you have advanced nothing in the way of an argument.
Incorrect, but not surprising you would think that since you refuse to see our paradigm. One must choose which weapon to attack with when you come to strike blows. Stomp does not use any Weapons, Attacks, or WS to use it.
col_impact wrote:Stomp is a close combat attack that acts in the fight sub-phase and is assigned a step explicitly in the Initiative Sequence. As such, Stomp can act in the other player's turn, it can lose the ability to "strike back" if the GMC is removed from play prior to Stomp's Initiative Step and it is granted the ability to "strike blows simultaneously" against other close combat attacks that act at it's Initiative step.
No... Stomp is never referenced as a close combat attack. Indeed, it is listed as a "special attack". Yes, it happens in the Assault Phase. Yes, it happens in the Initiative Steps. Yes, it can only happen while Engaged. But it also extends beyond Engagement and can hit things that are not in close combat or even in engagement range.
Yet, you have yet to demonstrate that all of these make any Attack exclusively a Close Combat Attack that is considered "striking blows" which WS 0 and Attacks 0 would incapacitate.
col_impact wrote:"When he comes to strike blows" refers to the initiative step coming up and the player getting to use the permitted attack in close combat at that initiative step.
Ah, so it is Causation by Relation, then? So, if one is going to Strike Blows during Initiative Steps, then that MUST be the ONLY thing that they will be doing during an Initiative Step, right! So, nothing else could POSSIBLY happen when Striking Blows, so anything that resembles an Attack, MUST be a close combat attack and therefore Striking Blows!
... Yeah, I don't see it since Stomp specifically calls itself out as something special, aka different. And it is in addition to the normal Attacks, but not reliant on them. You do know that adding D3+0=D3, not D3+0=0.
What is in discussion is whether ALL damage during an Initiative Step is Striking Blows. (Still waiting on the quote for that, by the way).
I have never said that ALL damage during an Initiative Step is "striking blows".
Really? You seem to be asserting or implying that, at any rate. You haven't allowed room for anything else.
col_impact wrote:"Striking blows" are hits generated by close combat attacks allowed in the fight sub-phase that have an assigned Initiative step. An attack that has an initiative step inherits that language of referencing by the way in which Initiative sequencing is framed.
Well, since Stomp is not a close combat attack, but a special attack, then I guess it doesn't fit the bill now does it? Or are you just insisting that it is a close combat attack because of when and where it happens? if so, we're back to looking at the previous quote you are denying you are claiming.
1) What would Smash be classified as? Another type of special attack like Stomp? Or literally a weapon-based attack that is banned when WS0? Is it special enough as a special attack or not as special as Stomp is more special?
2) If a default Maulerfiend is reduced to WS0 and charges into combat, does hitting with his Hammer of Wrath (an attack) trigger an extra four attacks from his two Magma Cutters seeing how he has successfully hit with all of his attacks that round despite the fact that he is unable to actually punch anything with his Power Fists?
3) Does striking Lucius the Eternal in combat when his WS is reduced to 0 cause his Armor of Shrieking Souls to inflict an S4 AP2 hit on the the unit that caused the Wound? I ask because if all damage done during the Fight counts as an attack, an automatic hit from his Armor would qualify as an "attack".
If you follow Charistophe's erroneous line of reasoning and consider that Stomp is not a close combat attack . . .
one consequence is that models are then allowed to take cover saves against Stomp attacks.
Close combat attacks specifically disallow cover saves.
Spoiler:
Cover Saves
Models do not get cover saves against any Wounds suffered from close combat attacks,
and for obvious reasons, cannot Go to Ground – there is nowhere to hide!
Yet again, irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and does nothing to prove Stomp is a close combat attack and/or considered to be striking blows in terms of the rules.
If you think it's erroneous don't simply say so with nothing further. That does nothing to resolve the debate. Instead counter the points you disagree with, with proper rules support, instead of going off on fallacious tangents that have nothing to do with the point.
Mr. Shine wrote: Yet again, irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and does nothing to prove Stomp is a close combat attack and/or considered to be striking blows in terms of the rules.
If you think it's erroneous don't simply say so with nothing further. That does nothing to resolve the debate. Instead counter the points you disagree with, with proper rules support, instead of going off on fallacious tangents that have nothing to do with the point.
It's entirely to the point. Do you allow cover saves to be taken against Stomp attacks? If you do not allow them, then why not?
If you are selectively treating Stomp as a close combat attack for certain things and treating it as a wholly unique attack for other things, then there is a serious problem in your overall argument as your argument is pulling on two conflicting categorizations of Stomp and is rationally unacceptable and cannot be offered up as a viable alternative!
What categorization Stomp lies in, and the consequences of that categorization, are very much at the core of this debate. This is no tangent.
I am happy to report that my argument is consistent with not allowing cover saves to be taken against Stomp attacks and is being offered as a internally consistent and viable argument.
It's not relevant because there's no suggestion we would disallow covers saves against Stomp attacks. You're imagining a basis to refute our argument where there's nothing.
Given they're not close combat attacks, Stomp attacks should not disallow cover saves.
Mr. Shine wrote: It's not relevant because there's no suggestion we would disallow covers saves against Stomp attacks. You're imagining a basis to refute our argument where there's nothing.
Given they're not close combat attacks, Stomp attacks should not disallow cover saves.
It's not come up in a game before (I've yet to use my Wraithknight since the new codex came out) but yes, if it came up now, having gone through it in this detail of course I would.
It's not particularly counter-intuitive either, given Stomp uses the blast marker and can affect units beyond the close combat in question.
For the record also I consider Gargantuan Creatures able to fire only two weapons, so you can't claim I'm biased to my own advantage.
col_impact wrote: If you follow Charistophe's erroneous line of reasoning and consider that Stomp is not a close combat attack . . .
one consequence is that models are then allowed to take cover saves against Stomp attacks.
Close combat attacks specifically disallow cover saves.
Spoiler:
Cover Saves
Models do not get cover saves against any Wounds suffered from close combat attacks,
and for obvious reasons, cannot Go to Ground – there is nowhere to hide!
So instead of actually providing a counter-argument, you choose to appeal to BALANCE! as a reason this won't work instead of going by how the rules is written?
I have no problem modifying the game with House Rules, but that is the only place for BALANCE! to be in a rules discussion.
We have the same problem with ICs and Formation Special Rules. HYWPI is incorrectly considered RAW by some of you.
col_impact wrote: If you follow Charistophe's erroneous line of reasoning and consider that Stomp is not a close combat attack . . .
one consequence is that models are then allowed to take cover saves against Stomp attacks.
Close combat attacks specifically disallow cover saves.
Spoiler:
Cover Saves
Models do not get cover saves against any Wounds suffered from close combat attacks,
and for obvious reasons, cannot Go to Ground – there is nowhere to hide!
So instead of actually providing a counter-argument, you choose to appeal to BALANCE! as a reason this won't work instead of going by how the rules is written?
I have no problem modifying the game with House Rules, but that is the only place for BALANCE! to be in a rules discussion.
We have the same problem with ICs and Formation Special Rules. HYWPI is incorrectly considered RAW by some of you.
Stomp happens by engaged models during close combat.
it happens during the fight subphase which according to the Brb is "time to strike blows"
FIGHT SUB-PHASE
With all the assaults launched, it’s time to strike blows!
It happens as an attack by an engaged model during the fight subphase when its time to strike blows in addition to the models normal attacks.
a model reduced to 0 WS cannot strike blows.
a model reduced to 0 Attacks cannot strike blows.
strike blows= what happens during the fight sub-phase.
the dead before striking blow further shows the models attacks at various initiative steps are striking blows.
if a models attacks are striking blows, and it is not allowed to make ANY attacks [there is no rule saying it is not allowed to make its normal attacks, or attacks with weapons, it states ANY.]
If you are not allowed to strike any blows[which is shown to be making attacks] how are you making something that is an attack that you get in addition to normal attacks if you have no ability to make any attacks?
if you honestly believe stomping isn't striking a blow, and the rules define the fight subphase as "time to strike blows" as well again under dead before striking define the attacks at various I steps as "Striking blows" then stomp would have to specify it is not a close combat attack in order for it to be anything other than striking a blow.
it happens during strike blows, it happens in addition to normal attacks(striking blows)-without a rule stating they can always stomp, or it is not a close combat attack it has no permission to be anything other than an attack that happens during the fight subphase(when it is time to strike blows) by engaged models. models with WS0 or A0 cannot strike blows, so without a rule specifying it is not striking a blow, or not a close combat attack there is no rules basis to grant stomping model permission to stomp as it is placed within those categories by its own rules.
1) What would Smash be classified as? Another type of special attack like Stomp? Or literally a weapon-based attack that is banned when WS0? Is it special enough as a special attack or not as special as Stomp is more special?
2) If a default Maulerfiend is reduced to WS0 and charges into combat, does hitting with his Hammer of Wrath (an attack) trigger an extra four attacks from his two Magma Cutters seeing how he has successfully hit with all of his attacks that round despite the fact that he is unable to actually punch anything with his Power Fists?
3) Does striking Lucius the Eternal in combat when his WS is reduced to 0 cause his Armor of Shrieking Souls to inflict an S4 AP2 hit on the the unit that caused the Wound? I ask because if all damage done during the Fight counts as an attack, an automatic hit from his Armor would qualify as an "attack".
1.) Smash is an attack, models with WS0 or A0 cannot smash. Declaring smash still leaves you with the not being able to make any attacks.
2.) Models with WS0 or A0 cannot make hammer of wrath attacks, it is also an attack that happens during the fight subphase (striking blow) that it hits automatically does not change that it is an attack.
3.) armor of shrieking souls and acid blood are results of another models attacks, they are not attacks from the model and are not striking blows. They are not defined or stated to be attacks in their rules.
blaktoof wrote: Stomp happens by engaged models during close combat.
it happens during the fight subphase which according to the Brb is "time to strike blows"
FIGHT SUB-PHASE
With all the assaults launched, it’s time to strike blows!
Again, Timing not the issue. You must prove that ONLY striking blows happens in the Fight Sub-Phase to convert a Special Attack to what is covered by the WS 0 incapacitation. By that virtue, is Running a form of Shooting? Is Interceptor a form of Movement? Is the affect of Acidic Blood a form of Striking Blows?
blaktoof wrote: It happens as an attack by an engaged model during the fight subphase when its time to strike blows in addition to the models normal attacks.
a model reduced to 0 WS cannot strike blows.
a model reduced to 0 Attacks cannot strike blows.
strike blows= what happens during the fight sub-phase.
So, everything that happens during the Fight Sub-Phase is striking blows? Pile-Ins are now considered Striking Blows everyone!
blaktoof wrote: the dead before striking blow further shows the models attacks at various initiative steps are striking blows.
Does that include Special Attacks? Evidence with quote, please. Especially since every context of "attacks" you are discussing references the Attacks characteristics, and not the special Attacks that do not use any of those attending stats.
blaktoof wrote: if a models attacks are striking blows, and it is not allowed to make ANY attacks [there is no rule saying it is not allowed to make its normal attacks, or attacks with weapons, it states ANY.
Quote and reference for that, please. I see "A model with Weapon Skill ‘0’ is incapacitated; they are hit automatically in close combat and cannot strike any blows. A model with no Attacks cannot strike any blows in close combat." which uses the capital "A" in Attacks to indicate it is discussing the Characteristic, but I'm not seeing where it says, "if you cannot strike blows you cannot make any attacks."
blaktoof wrote: if you honestly believe stomping isn't striking a blow, and the rules define the fight subphase as "time to strike blows" as well again under dead before striking define the attacks at various I steps as "Striking blows" then stomp would have to specify it is not a close combat attack in order for it to be anything other than striking a blow.
Considering I have demonstrated how "striking blows" is performed by using a Weapon, and Stomp does not use a Weapon; Stomp states that it is "a special type of attack called a Stomp attack"; the only relation to being a close combat attack is timing and location to initiate, and you have yet to show how these are used to determine all close combat attacks; your assertion is on shaky ground.
blaktoof wrote: it happens during strike blows, it happens in addition to normal attacks(striking blows)-without a rule stating they can always stomp, or it is not a close combat attack it has no permission to be anything other than an attack that happens during the fight subphase(when it is time to strike blows) by engaged models. models with WS0 or A0 cannot strike blows, so without a rule specifying it is not striking a blow, or not a close combat attack there is no rules basis to grant stomping model permission to stomp as it is placed within those categories by its own rules.
So does Pile In, is it Striking Blows, too? Timing does not determine all qualifications. Is Interceptor a Moving Attack, then? No, it states it is a Shooting Attack. Stomp states it is a Special Attack that happens during an Initiative Step.
You keep repeating the same things without providing any other further evidence of connection or disrupting the connections I have made.
blaktoof wrote: 3.) armor of shrieking souls and acid blood are results of another models attacks, they are not attacks from the model and are not striking blows. They are not defined or stated to be attacks in their rules.
Interesting. Because I know that they still cause damage in the initiative step, and that seems to be one of your qualifications for such. The rules are striking blows back at what attacked them. They use WS and A as much as Stomp does. All are considered Special.
blaktoof wrote: Stomp happens by engaged models during close combat.
it happens during the fight subphase which according to the Brb is "time to strike blows"
FIGHT SUB-PHASE
With all the assaults launched, it’s time to strike blows!
Again, Timing not the issue. You must prove that ONLY striking blows happens in the Fight Sub-Phase to convert a Special Attack to what is covered by the WS 0 incapacitation. By that virtue, is Running a form of Shooting? Is Interceptor a form of Movement? Is the affect of Acidic Blood a form of Striking Blows?
blaktoof wrote: It happens as an attack by an engaged model during the fight subphase when its time to strike blows in addition to the models normal attacks.
a model reduced to 0 WS cannot strike blows.
a model reduced to 0 Attacks cannot strike blows.
strike blows= what happens during the fight sub-phase.
So, everything that happens during the Fight Sub-Phase is striking blows? Pile-Ins are now considered Striking Blows everyone!
blaktoof wrote: the dead before striking blow further shows the models attacks at various initiative steps are striking blows.
Does that include Special Attacks? Evidence with quote, please. Especially since every context of "attacks" you are discussing references the Attacks characteristics, and not the special Attacks that do not use any of those attending stats.
blaktoof wrote: if a models attacks are striking blows, and it is not allowed to make ANY attacks [there is no rule saying it is not allowed to make its normal attacks, or attacks with weapons, it states ANY.
Quote and reference for that, please. I see "A model with Weapon Skill ‘0’ is incapacitated; they are hit automatically in close combat and cannot strike any blows. A model with no Attacks cannot strike any blows in close combat." which uses the capital "A" in Attacks to indicate it is discussing the Characteristic, but I'm not seeing where it says, "if you cannot strike blows you cannot make any attacks."
blaktoof wrote: if you honestly believe stomping isn't striking a blow, and the rules define the fight subphase as "time to strike blows" as well again under dead before striking define the attacks at various I steps as "Striking blows" then stomp would have to specify it is not a close combat attack in order for it to be anything other than striking a blow.
Considering I have demonstrated how "striking blows" is performed by using a Weapon, and Stomp does not use a Weapon; Stomp states that it is "a special type of attack called a Stomp attack"; the only relation to being a close combat attack is timing and location to initiate, and you have yet to show how these are used to determine all close combat attacks; your assertion is on shaky ground.
blaktoof wrote: it happens during strike blows, it happens in addition to normal attacks(striking blows)-without a rule stating they can always stomp, or it is not a close combat attack it has no permission to be anything other than an attack that happens during the fight subphase(when it is time to strike blows) by engaged models. models with WS0 or A0 cannot strike blows, so without a rule specifying it is not striking a blow, or not a close combat attack there is no rules basis to grant stomping model permission to stomp as it is placed within those categories by its own rules.
So does Pile In, is it Striking Blows, too? Timing does not determine all qualifications. Is Interceptor a Moving Attack, then? No, it states it is a Shooting Attack. Stomp states it is a Special Attack that happens during an Initiative Step.
You keep repeating the same things without providing any other further evidence of connection or disrupting the connections I have made.
blaktoof wrote: 3.) armor of shrieking souls and acid blood are results of another models attacks, they are not attacks from the model and are not striking blows. They are not defined or stated to be attacks in their rules.
Interesting. Because I know that they still cause damage in the initiative step, and that seems to be one of your qualifications for such. The rules are striking blows back at what attacked them. They use WS and A as much as Stomp does. All are considered Special.
are pile ins said to be an attack in their rules?
Stomp is.
there are no rules for special attacks, there are special rules which gives attacks. We are told these attacks are in addition to their normal attacks. We are never told they are not close combat attacks.
I repeat the same thing because you are unable to actually disprove any of it.
you have not proven striking blows can only be done by weapons, in fact that has been disproven multiple times- that you ignore it does not make your point valid.
col_impact wrote: If you follow Charistophe's erroneous line of reasoning and consider that Stomp is not a close combat attack . . .
one consequence is that models are then allowed to take cover saves against Stomp attacks.
Close combat attacks specifically disallow cover saves.
Spoiler:
Cover Saves
Models do not get cover saves against any Wounds suffered from close combat attacks,
and for obvious reasons, cannot Go to Ground – there is nowhere to hide!
So instead of actually providing a counter-argument, you choose to appeal to BALANCE! as a reason this won't work instead of going by how the rules is written?
I have no problem modifying the game with House Rules, but that is the only place for BALANCE! to be in a rules discussion.
We have the same problem with ICs and Formation Special Rules. HYWPI is incorrectly considered RAW by some of you.
I am not appealing to balance at all. I am only checking to see if your argument is consistent in its categorization since an inconsistent application of categories makes for an untenable argument. Do you allow cover saves to be taken against Stomp attacks?
col_impact wrote: I am not appealing to balance at all. I am only checking to see if your argument is consistent in its categorization since an inconsistent application of categories makes for an untenable argument. Do you allow cover saves to be taken against Stomp attacks?
Interesting to note you've still not advanced the debate any further, instead attempting to follow the tangent as I described earlier with Charistoph after not having had a reply in your favour from me.
And then creating a poll on the tangential question in another thread presumably in the hope of winning popular opinion...
col_impact wrote: I am not appealing to balance at all. I am only checking to see if your argument is consistent in its categorization since an inconsistent application of categories makes for an untenable argument. Do you allow cover saves to be taken against Stomp attacks?
Interesting to note you've still not advanced the debate any further, instead attempting to follow the tangent as I described earlier with Charistoph after not having had a reply in your favour from me.
And then creating a poll on the tangential question in another thread presumably in the hope of winning popular opinion...
It's not a tangential matter and it's worth a separate thread and it is actually proper forum etiquette for me to initiate a separate thread. A model being reduced to WS 0 rarely if ever happens and so this thread is largely hypothetical and of little consequence. Taking cover saves against Stomp is something of definite consequence however and it is something most players have not been doing (to my knowledge). The thread is not a poll so best argument wins, not popularity.
blaktoof wrote:are pile ins said to be an attack in their rules?
Well, you've also said that all Attacks in the Assault Phase are Striking Blows, too. I'm just trying to help you bring some clarity of thought to your posts.
blaktoof wrote:there are no rules for special attacks, there are special rules which gives attacks. We are told these attacks are in addition to their normal attacks. We are never told they are not close combat attacks.
But we are not told that they are close combat attacks in its rule, and you have not provided such a definition to demonstrate that they are. That's part of the problem with what you keep not saying. Rules for Special Attacks are provided in the rules for the Special Attacks.
blaktoof wrote:I repeat the same thing because you are unable to actually disprove any of it.
But either your repetitions are not in argument or you provide no connections to support your assertion.
blaktoof wrote:you have not proven striking blows can only be done by weapons, in fact that has been disproven multiple times- that you ignore it does not make your point valid.
I've proven it better than you have proven that all Attacks in an Initiative Step are Close Combat Attacks, and it is not really disproven except that you do not accept it (which is not disproving, by the way). I've proven striking blows are used with Melee Weapons, but neither you nor I have yet to find it used in any specific fashion in any other way. It is used generally for the Assault Phase, because that is when Melee Weapons are generally used. The Assault Phase is about bringing Melee Weapons to bear and striking blows. But that does not mean EVERYTHING that involves an Attack during this Phase, or even special sections of the Phase, involves striking blows, either. Especially when such an Attack calls itself out as being special and nothing else brings it in to the fold.
For example, let's take Bombs and the Bombing Run. Bombing Runs are Special Attacks made by Bomb Weapons during the Moving Phase. Bomb Weapons are classed as a Shooting Weapons. So making the connections for Bombing Runs to being a Special Shooting Attack are there and can potentially allow for a model to declare a Jink against it.
Stomp does none of this outside of timing (Initiative Step 1), and location (Engaged). Nothing else has been provided to make a connection. It does not use a Weapon, nor is Smash able to affect it. It does not use WS or BS to determine success. In every other way that a close combat attack is determined, it does not qualify except by being caught at the scene of the "crime". You need more evidence beyond circumstantial for your case.
col_impact wrote:I am not appealing to balance at all. I am only checking to see if your argument is consistent in its categorization since an inconsistent application of categories makes for an untenable argument. Do you allow cover saves to be taken against Stomp attacks?
It sure seems that way. "If you follow Charistophe's erroneous line of reasoning..." "one consequence is that models..." Both are lines that are worried more about the consequences of the result of an assertion or determination more than how the assertion or determination is made. It is trying to use the result to determine method. As I said, this is perfectly fine when dealing with House Rules or declaring HYWPI, but not for Rules As Written.
blaktoof wrote:are pile ins said to be an attack in their rules?
Well, you've also said that all Attacks in the Assault Phase are Striking Blows, too. I'm just trying to help you bring some clarity of thought to your posts.
blaktoof wrote:there are no rules for special attacks, there are special rules which gives attacks. We are told these attacks are in addition to their normal attacks. We are never told they are not close combat attacks.
But we are not told that they are close combat attacks in its rule, and you have not provided such a definition to demonstrate that they are. That's part of the problem with what you keep not saying. Rules for Special Attacks are provided in the rules for the Special Attacks.
blaktoof wrote:I repeat the same thing because you are unable to actually disprove any of it.
But either your repetitions are not in argument or you provide no connections to support your assertion.
blaktoof wrote:you have not proven striking blows can only be done by weapons, in fact that has been disproven multiple times- that you ignore it does not make your point valid.
I've proven it better than you have proven that all Attacks in an Initiative Step are Close Combat Attacks, and it is not really disproven except that you do not accept it (which is not disproving, by the way). I've proven striking blows are used with Melee Weapons, but neither you nor I have yet to find it used in any specific fashion in any other way. It is used generally for the Assault Phase, because that is when Melee Weapons are generally used. The Assault Phase is about bringing Melee Weapons to bear and striking blows. But that does not mean EVERYTHING that involves an Attack during this Phase, or even special sections of the Phase, involves striking blows, either. Especially when such an Attack calls itself out as being special and nothing else brings it in to the fold.
For example, let's take Bombs and the Bombing Run. Bombing Runs are Special Attacks made by Bomb Weapons during the Moving Phase. Bomb Weapons are classed as a Shooting Weapons. So making the connections for Bombing Runs to being a Special Shooting Attack are there and can potentially allow for a model to declare a Jink against it.
Stomp does none of this outside of timing (Initiative Step 1), and location (Engaged). Nothing else has been provided to make a connection. It does not use a Weapon, nor is Smash able to affect it. It does not use WS or BS to determine success. In every other way that a close combat attack is determined, it does not qualify except by being caught at the scene of the "crime". You need more evidence beyond circumstantial for your case.
col_impact wrote:I am not appealing to balance at all. I am only checking to see if your argument is consistent in its categorization since an inconsistent application of categories makes for an untenable argument. Do you allow cover saves to be taken against Stomp attacks?
It sure seems that way. "If you follow Charistophe's erroneous line of reasoning..." "one consequence is that models..." Both are lines that are worried more about the consequences of the result of an assertion or determination more than how the assertion or determination is made. It is trying to use the result to determine method. As I said, this is perfectly fine when dealing with House Rules or declaring HYWPI, but not for Rules As Written.
I actually never said or implied that all attacks in the assault phase are close combat attacks, please continue to fabricate more things to make your point that has no support or permission within any of the rules.
The bombing run example is not comparable at all. It is an attack that happens during a phase that it normally cannot happen in. Stomping we are told is an attack that happens from engaged models during the fight subphase, which we are further told is the time to strike blows, in addition to a models normal attacks.
blaktoof wrote:I actually never said or implied that all attacks in the assault phase are close combat attacks, please continue to fabricate more things to make your point that has no support or permission within any of the rules.
Really?
blaktoof wrote:Strike a blow has no rules definition in of itself so either it means the model with WS0 can not do anything during the assault phase, or it means nothing.
Stomping is an attack.
If a model is at WS0 it may not make any form of attacks during the assault phase.
Sure looks like it to me.
blaktoof wrote:The bombing run example is not comparable at all. It is an attack that happens during a phase that it normally cannot happen in. Stomping we are told is an attack that happens from engaged models during the fight subphase, which we are further told is the time to strike blows, in addition to a models normal attacks.
Not comparable.
They are comparable since both are Special Attacks. What is not comparable between them is what I stated, Bombing Runs are connected to Weapons of a certain type while Stomp is not. Timing means nothing, really, since there are many situations where things are done out of sequence.
Hey guys I just made a profile after reading this because i think that everyone is digging too far into this. (of course i could be completely wrong)
When rules are concerned those are "standard" rules. A "stomp" attack is a "SPECIAL" attack. Standard rules say that if a model is reduced to 0 WS or 0 A then it cant attack, AS per standard. this is a Special case. or am i just looking at it wrong?
Mr. Shine wrote: Stomp can be an attack in cost combat, but is not exclusively or definitively so.
Because we know Stomp can affect units not even engaged in the close combat allowing the Stomp attack to occur.
So if you are saying it is not an "attack in close combat" point to a situation where a GMC can make a stomp attack while the GMC is not in close combat. You can't. Stomp is only permissible "in close combat" and is unequivocally an "attack in close combat." It happens in the fight sub-phase and uses the initiative queue and requires models that are engaged.
The fact that it can occasionally damage a model or unit outside of that close combat is nothing of note. A blast shooting attack can situationally damage units engaged in close combat even though shooting attacks aren't allowed to directly target units in close combat. Does the fact that a blast shooting attack can affect units in close combat make it not definitively a shooting attack? Nope. It uses the shooting sequence and is unequivocally a shooting attack.
Mr. Shine wrote: Stomp can be an attack in cost combat, but is not exclusively or definitively so.
Because we know Stomp can affect units not even engaged in the close combat allowing the Stomp attack to occur.
So if you are saying it is not an "attack in close combat" point to a situation where a GMC can make a stomp attack while the GMC is not in close combat. You can't. Stomp is only permissible "in close combat" and is unequivocally an "attack in close combat." It happens in the fight sub-phase and uses the initiative queue and requires models that are engaged.
An ability that occurs during a specific phase does not have to be an attack type indicative to that phase. For example, the C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer Gaze of Death occurs in the shooting phase but is not a shooting attack and thus bypasses abilities afforded to certain models from actual shooting attacks.
Mr. Shine wrote: Stomp can be an attack in cost combat, but is not exclusively or definitively so.
Because we know Stomp can affect units not even engaged in the close combat allowing the Stomp attack to occur.
So if you are saying it is not an "attack in close combat" point to a situation where a GMC can make a stomp attack while the GMC is not in close combat. You can't. Stomp is only permissible "in close combat" and is unequivocally an "attack in close combat." It happens in the fight sub-phase and uses the initiative queue and requires models that are engaged.
An ability that occurs during a specific phase does not have to be an attack type indicative to that phase. For example, the C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer Gaze of Death occurs in the shooting phase but is not a shooting attack and thus bypasses abilities afforded to certain models from actual shooting attacks.
You have lost track of the careful distinction I am making between an "attack in close combat" and a "close combat attack." I am not saying Gaze of Death is a shooting attack nor am I saying Stomp is a close combat attack.
The Gaze of Death is an attack in the shooting phase but it is not a shooting attack.
A Stomp is an attack in close combat but it is not a close combat attack.
Otherwise you need to show how a GMC can make a Stomp attack while it is not "in close combat"
col_impact wrote: So if you are saying it is not an "attack in close combat" point to a situation where a GMC can make a stomp attack while the GMC is not in close combat. You can't. Stomp is only permissible "in close combat" and is unequivocally an "attack in close combat." It happens in the fight sub-phase and uses the initiative queue and requires models that are engaged.
I never said it is not an attack in close combat. Rather it is not exclusively or definitively so. If it can affect a unit unengaged in and completely separate from any close combat, it cannot be definitively an attack in close combat.
I would agree it is an attack during close combat.
col_impact wrote: You have lost track of the careful distinction I am making between an "attack in close combat" and a "close combat attack." I am not saying Gaze of Death is a shooting attack nor am I saying Stomp is a close combat attack.
To what end? Please make your point if you have one, rather than seemingly leading us on a wild goose chase.
col_impact wrote: So if you are saying it is not an "attack in close combat" point to a situation where a GMC can make a stomp attack while the GMC is not in close combat. You can't. Stomp is only permissible "in close combat" and is unequivocally an "attack in close combat." It happens in the fight sub-phase and uses the initiative queue and requires models that are engaged.
A starting requirement does not always indicate the full result of the Attack. Not all Attacks from range are Shooting Attacks. But the affects of Stomp can reach beyond the range of the Engagement to units not even Engaged. Close Combat Attacks cannot do this. While they can reach beyond Engaged Range, they are still limited to the unit(s) that are Engaged with Attacker. This is not the situation with Stomp.
Where is it defined that all Attacks made while Engaged or in the Fight Sub-Phase are close combat attacks? Where is it defined that all such Attacks are "striking blows"? After how many pages this question is asked, why can you not provide any such definition to support this assertion?
col_impact wrote: The fact that it can occasionally damage a model or unit outside of that close combat is nothing of note. A blast shooting attack can situationally damage units engaged in close combat even though shooting attacks aren't allowed to directly target units in close combat. Does the fact that a blast shooting attack can affect units in close combat make it not definitively a shooting attack? Nope. It uses the shooting sequence and is unequivocally a shooting attack.
It is quite of note. How many close combat attacks can affect a unit not Engaged?
"striking blows" is the way close combat works.
the BRB reffers to these strikes" as close combat attacks to differ them from shooting attacks
So if we look at the section that covers the Stomp attack its already known by context that the attacks reffers to close combat and thus are close combat attacks. The fact that the timing and such are also mentioned ant absolutely match with the pattern of normal close combat attacks does improve this way of rule interperting.
Also the fact that you cant use a cover save against a stomp attack" leads to the interpetion that stomp is a close combat attack. the way its described as a "special" atrtack is only one ( and the choosen one by the writters) way to limit the stomping attacks to just 1(one) per players turn.
Other wargear and such of codexes dont interpfere with this interpetation. Codex wins over BRB so there every special wargear or SR hat to be read separately.
The mentiont thing with " you have to choose weapons you use to hit " is also not a legal argument. it only occurs when a model has more than one CCW. and CCW itself are mostly only a set of modifiers to the model stats. thats it. It doesnt matter if a model use a CCW or its are hands.
just to think about it: Could a model with BS 0 use a flame thrower to shoot? NO . and why? it doesnt need its BS to hit! Well doesnt matter cuz BS 0 tells you that you cant shoot at all. Same here. it doesnt mater if you have a autohit or anything else. If you are not able to make a attack in the CC sub phase then you cant do it. not a normal one and also not a special aditional one. and again: special rules from any Dex is a different story cuz Codex wins over BRB
I personally think there is more evidence to it not being a close combat attack. Mostly because it can hurt units not engaged in close combat.
but then again,
it occurs at the i1 step of CLOSE COMBAT. At the initiative one step of close combat, a counterargument to this is that if a vehicle explodes at i10, the explosion is not close combat.
_ghost_ wrote: "striking blows" is the way close combat works.
the BRB reffers to these strikes" as close combat attacks to differ them from shooting attacks
So if we look at the section that covers the Stomp attack its already known by context that the attacks reffers to close combat and thus are close combat attacks. The fact that the timing and such are also mentioned ant absolutely match with the pattern of normal close combat attacks does improve this way of rule interperting.
Quite true for trying to infer intent, but not all Attacks or damage that occur in close combat are from close combat attacks. This is the same argument used by Blacktoof and col_impact, but they have not supported this with a proper definition, even after repeated requests.
In fact, Stomp goes out of its way to separate itself from close combat attacks in a couple ways by not referring to itself as providing close combat attacks and being able to hit units that are far outside the Engagement zone.
_ghost_ wrote: Also the fact that you cant use a cover save against a stomp attack" leads to the interpetion that stomp is a close combat attack. the way its described as a "special" atrtack is only one ( and the choosen one by the writters) way to limit the stomping attacks to just 1(one) per players turn.
Where is this fact? Stomp says nothing about ignoring Cover Saves and does not refer to itself as a close combat attack. You can't use Cover Saves against Templates, either, but they are hardly close combat attacks.
_ghost_ wrote: The mentiont thing with " you have to choose weapons you use to hit " is also not a legal argument. it only occurs when a model has more than one CCW. and CCW itself are mostly only a set of modifiers to the model stats. thats it. It doesnt matter if a model use a CCW or its are hands.
It's more of determining when "striking blows" is used in context with anything resembling a definition. The only failure for it is that it does not limit it to such, but then, "striking blows" is not used for any other context than using Weapons with Attacks characteristic with success based on WS. The rules found in the Assault Phase's Fight Sub-Phase only consider these types of Attacks when processing them. They do not take in to account Special Attacks, and Stomp only refers to itself as a Special Attack, does not use a Weapon or the Attacks or WS Characteristics.
Currently, the only argument for Stomps being close combat attacks is timing and location, but without something to absolutely defining all attacks in this situation are "striking blows" or even close combat attacks, it is only conjecture.
_ghost_ wrote: just to think about it: Could a model with BS 0 use a flame thrower to shoot? NO . and why? it doesnt need its BS to hit! Well doesnt matter cuz BS 0 tells you that you cant shoot at all. Same here. it doesnt mater if you have a autohit or anything else. If you are not able to make a attack in the CC sub phase then you cant do it. not a normal one and also not a special aditional one. and again: special rules from any Dex is a different story cuz Codex wins over BRB
Several problems with tying this over, though.
Template Weapons are Shooting Weapons which make Shooting Attacks, since they are usually Assault types (with some Heavies, I think).
Spoiler:
Type A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found below) measure a weapon’s portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending on whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn. A shooting weapon can only be used to make shooting attacks.
Templates are from Weapons which require the proper BS or WS to use. Stomp is not from a Weapon, though. Nor does it have any connection to anything that uses any Characteristic. It is usually tied to Unit Type (some snowflakes may get it from their special Wargear or unique datasheet rules, since that is something GW does).
P. 96 BRB there it cleary talks of a additional Attac in context of a close combat. thus its a adittional close combat attack. sure its secial. but why do they call it special? right! uz the way you hit and do dammage itself differs from a normal close combat attack and is explained during the following lines. I cant make a quote for you cuz i dont own the English RBRB only a german one...
The fact that is resolved different than a normal Close combat attack itself is absolutly no implication that its not a close combat attack.
1. Its in Close Combat
2. Its called a additional attack
3. It folows the same rules ( timing when it hits , in wich phase of the game turn and so on)
To say " Hey but its so much different from normal Close combat attacks this can't be" ( wich you basicaly say) is not enough,
lokk at the BRB in the firs part you got the "Base Rules" how turns work, whta a dice is and so on. but then the next part of the RB covers the special unit Type: Bikes, Vehicles, ... and supprise. you see many cases where the "baserules" are changed regarding movement range, adding USR to unit Types and so on. So its only sane to assume that some Unit types can have close combat attacks that work different than the normal ones but still are clos combat attacks.
Regarding the WS = 0 in german tis plain written that a unit is "handlungsunfähig" wich meand " unable to make any actions at all" knowing that the english BRB had more weight cuz of the original language its written the german translation it adds a nice hint.
Regarding my Template example:
So you are telling me that it doesn't count? Cuz its linked to a Model with a weapon insted of a bare handed one? thats .. funny..
the reason i cant count your unit type tied template stomping is already written above.
_ghost_ wrote: P. 96 BRB there it cleary talks of a additional Attac in context of a close combat. thus its a adittional close combat attack. sure its secial. but why do they call it special? right! uz the way you hit and do dammage itself differs from a normal close combat attack and is explained during the following lines. I cant make a quote for you cuz i dont own the English RBRB only a german one...
The fact that is resolved different than a normal Close combat attack itself is absolutly no implication that its not a close combat attack.
1. Its in Close Combat
2. Its called a additional attack
3. It folows the same rules ( timing when it hits , in wich phase of the game turn and so on)
To say " Hey but its so much different from normal Close combat attacks this can't be" ( wich you basicaly say) is not enough,
It is also reliant on Melee Weapons which can only be used with the A and WS Characteristic. A classification which does not apply to Stomp.
_ghost_ wrote: lokk at the BRB in the firs part you got the "Base Rules" how turns work, whta a dice is and so on. but then the next part of the RB covers the special unit Type: Bikes, Vehicles, ... and supprise. you see many cases where the "baserules" are changed regarding movement range, adding USR to unit Types and so on. So its only sane to assume that some Unit types can have close combat attacks that work different than the normal ones but still are clos combat attacks.
Not in argument. What is in discussion is what the definition of close combat attacks which forces Stomp Attacks to be classified as such. The only connections we have found so far is timing and location. Tyranid Acid Blood is a hit that happens in close combat, would you call it a close combat attack? What about a Vehicle Explosion?
_ghost_ wrote: Regarding the WS = 0 in german tis plain written that a unit is "handlungsunfähig" wich meand " unable to make any actions at all" knowing that the english BRB had more weight cuz of the original language its written the german translation it adds a nice hint.
As addressed earlier, which actions are these talking about? The Assault Phase has Shooting, would WS prevent Overwatch? No, this is silly. Does this mean that a WS 0 model cannot Fall Back, or Hit & Run? Also, this is silly.
_ghost_ wrote: So you are telling me that it doesn't count? Cuz its linked to a Model with a weapon insted of a bare handed one? thats .. funny..
I have no idea where you got that from. Templates originate from Shooting Weapons which make Shooting Attacks. The Template rule defines those Attacks in terms of how it hits, etc, but it is still originating as a Shooting Attack. Stomp Attacks do not originate from a Weapon of any kind. They do not use any Characteristic at all from a model or Wargear. They only require the model to have the rule.
_ghost_ wrote: the reason i cant count your unit type tied template stomping is already written above.
Ummm... Stomp is a rule carried by two unit types. As far as I know, it has not been placed in any Wargear or Weapon as yet (but give GW time). Templates are only used by Weapons, and Shooting ones at that. If there was a Wargear that was called "Stompy Foot", and it was a Weapon with a Type of "Melee, Stomp" and all GCs and SHWs had it instead of just having Stomp, there wouldn't be any question that it would be a close combat attack from that source because it is a Melee Weapon.
However, this is not the case. Stomp is only tied to a Unit Type at this present time, and the only connections it has exclusively with close combat attacks is timing and location.
There is no actual requirement that close combat attacks use weapons. That there are rules allowing models to strike in close combat that generally use the rules for weapons does not mean all attacks must be with weapons. There is also no requirement that your close combat attacks are tied solely to your attacks characteristic- there are special rules which grant attacks that do not use WS, and close combat attacks that happen outside of a models attack characteristic (modified or not)
Looking at the rules for 'Hammer of wrath', it uses the same wording for when it happens what kind of attack it is (additional to normal attacks) as stomps, albeit at I10 instead of I1.
If you look at the rule 'Smash' it states:
all of the close combat attacks, except hammer of wrath attack, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP2..
showing in the RAW that Hammer of Wrath is a close combat attack.
Hammer of wrath has the same wording for the type of attack it is that Stomp has.
as Stomp happens during the strike blows part of assault, ie the fight subphase, we are told its an additional attack to the models normal attacks- just like Hammer of Wrath- which we are told in smash is a close combat attack, then Stomp also is a close combat attack.
as nothing in stomp states it is NOT a close combat attack, it is indeed a close combat attack during the fight sub phase which is striking a blow.
RAW a model cannot stomp, or HoW for that matter, if it has WS 0 or A 0.
blaktoof wrote: There is no actual requirement that close combat attacks use weapons. That there are rules allowing models to strike in close combat that generally use the rules for weapons does not mean all attacks must be with weapons. There is also no requirement that your close combat attacks are tied solely to your attacks characteristic- there are special rules which grant attacks that do not use WS, and close combat attacks that happen outside of a models attack characteristic (modified or not)
Looking at the rules for 'Hammer of wrath', it uses the same wording for when it happens what kind of attack it is (additional to normal attacks) as stomps, albeit at I10 instead of I1.
If you look at the rule 'Smash' it states:
all of the close combat attacks, except hammer of wrath attack, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP2..
showing in the RAW that Hammer of Wrath is a close combat attack.
Hammer of wrath has the same wording for the type of attack it is that Stomp has.
as Stomp happens during the strike blows part of assault, ie the fight subphase, we are told its an additional attack to the models normal attacks- just like Hammer of Wrath- which we are told in smash is a close combat attack, then Stomp also is a close combat attack.
as nothing in stomp states it is NOT a close combat attack, it is indeed a close combat attack during the fight sub phase which is striking a blow.
RAW a model cannot stomp, or HoW for that matter, if it has WS 0 or A 0.
So you're saying Stomp attacks are resolve at AP2?
But what caused those tests? Close combat attacks. Just as close combat attacks can cause armor saves with the wounds they inflict, a Black Mace wound causes a bunch of Toughness tests on models outside of the close combat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
raverrn wrote: So you're saying Stomp attacks are resolve at AP2?
That's...horrifying.
That's how the local store has been playing it, yes.
blaktoof wrote: There is no actual requirement that close combat attacks use weapons. That there are rules allowing models to strike in close combat that generally use the rules for weapons does not mean all attacks must be with weapons. There is also no requirement that your close combat attacks are tied solely to your attacks characteristic- there are special rules which grant attacks that do not use WS, and close combat attacks that happen outside of a models attack characteristic (modified or not)
Looking at the rules for 'Hammer of wrath', it uses the same wording for when it happens what kind of attack it is (additional to normal attacks) as stomps, albeit at I10 instead of I1.
If you look at the rule 'Smash' it states:
all of the close combat attacks, except hammer of wrath attack, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP2..
showing in the RAW that Hammer of Wrath is a close combat attack.
Hammer of wrath has the same wording for the type of attack it is that Stomp has.
as Stomp happens during the strike blows part of assault, ie the fight subphase, we are told its an additional attack to the models normal attacks- just like Hammer of Wrath- which we are told in smash is a close combat attack, then Stomp also is a close combat attack.
as nothing in stomp states it is NOT a close combat attack, it is indeed a close combat attack during the fight sub phase which is striking a blow.
RAW a model cannot stomp, or HoW for that matter, if it has WS 0 or A 0.
So you're saying Stomp attacks are resolve at AP2?
That's...horrifying.
Did not say that at all.
That's a different topic specific of stomp versus general of smash.
blaktoof wrote: There is no actual requirement that close combat attacks use weapons. That there are rules allowing models to strike in close combat that generally use the rules for weapons does not mean all attacks must be with weapons. There is also no requirement that your close combat attacks are tied solely to your attacks characteristic- there are special rules which grant attacks that do not use WS, and close combat attacks that happen outside of a models attack characteristic (modified or not)
Looking at the rules for 'Hammer of wrath', it uses the same wording for when it happens what kind of attack it is (additional to normal attacks) as stomps, albeit at I10 instead of I1.
If you look at the rule 'Smash' it states:
all of the close combat attacks, except hammer of wrath attack, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP2..
showing in the RAW that Hammer of Wrath is a close combat attack.
Hammer of wrath has the same wording for the type of attack it is that Stomp has.
as Stomp happens during the strike blows part of assault, ie the fight subphase, we are told its an additional attack to the models normal attacks- just like Hammer of Wrath- which we are told in smash is a close combat attack, then Stomp also is a close combat attack.
as nothing in stomp states it is NOT a close combat attack, it is indeed a close combat attack during the fight sub phase which is striking a blow.
RAW a model cannot stomp, or HoW for that matter, if it has WS 0 or A 0.
So you're saying Stomp attacks are resolve at AP2?
That's...horrifying.
Did not say that at all.
That's a different topic specific of stomp versus general of smash.
If Stomp is a close combat attack, and Smash makes all close combat attacks (except for HoW) AP2, then logically, Stomp is AP2.
Stomp Has not PA attached at all. there is the table that tells you what to do. and only in one case there are hits with an Ap value at all located to models
If a GMC totally kills the unit it is in combat with at Initiative 4 step using its close combat weapons, can it still Stomp at Initiative 1?
No, it cannot since it is no longer "in combat."
If Stomp were merely an "attack during combat", then the GMC would be still be able to Stomp, even if it were not currently "in combat" But that, as we know, is wrong.
Stomp is unequivocally an "attack in close combat."
If you feel otherwise show how a GMC can do a Stomp attack meeting merely the criterion of "during close combat" but not meeting the criterion of "in close combat."
Mr. Shine has asserted that Stomp is merely an "attack during combat." Charistophe has asserted that Stomp merely "shares the timing and location" of close combat but is not an "attack in close combat"
Their assertions are demonstrably false. A GMC cannot Stomp unless the Stomp is "an attack in close combat". The Stomp cannot merely meet the criterion of "during a close combat" or "close enough to a close combat". The GMC must be "in close combat" and the Stomp is unequivocally "an attack in close combat."
So are we in agreement then that Stomp is "an attack in close combat"?
Do you agree that Stomp is an "attack in close combat"?
It is an attack that can only be made when the model is locked in combat.
models making their normal attacks cannot strike blows if their A = 0, so striking blows is making attacks.
from Smash we know Hammer of Wrath is a close combat attack, from Hammer of wrath and stomp they share the same wording as to what they are "attacks" which are "in addition to a models normal attacks" If hammer of wrath is an attack that is in addition to a models normal attacks, and a close combat attack (defined as such under smash) then stomp, which has the same words governing what is has to be a close combat attack.
Stomp is an attack, which is in addition to a models normal attacks.
Such attacks are close combat attacks.
Close combat attacks happen during the fight sub-phase and are striking blows, as per the rules in the assault section, and as per the wording of A=0 being unable to strike blows.
Do you agree that Stomp is an "attack in close combat"?
It is an attack that can only be made when the model is locked in combat.
models making their normal attacks cannot strike blows if their A = 0, so striking blows is making attacks.
from Smash we know Hammer of Wrath is a close combat attack, from Hammer of wrath and stomp they share the same wording as to what they are "attacks" which are "in addition to a models normal attacks" If hammer of wrath is an attack that is in addition to a models normal attacks, and a close combat attack (defined as such under smash) then stomp, which has the same words governing what is has to be a close combat attack.
Stomp is an attack, which is in addition to a models normal attacks.
Such attacks are close combat attacks.
Close combat attacks happen during the fight sub-phase and are striking blows, as per the rules in the assault section, and as per the wording of A=0 being unable to strike blows.
Would you agree then that due to Smash, all Stomp attacks (from SHW/GC/FGC) are resolved at AP2?
col_impact wrote: Mr. Shine has asserted that Stomp is merely an "attack during combat." Charistophe has asserted that Stomp merely "shares the timing and location" of close combat but is not an "attack in close combat"
Their assertions are demonstrably false. A GMC cannot Stomp unless the Stomp is "an attack in close combat". The Stomp cannot merely meet the criterion of "during a close combat" or "close enough to a close combat". The GMC must be "in close combat" and the Stomp is unequivocally "an attack in close combat."
So are we in agreement then that Stomp is "an attack in close combat"?
No. It's demonstrably false that Stomp is merely an attack in close combat by virtue of being able to involve units not in the close combat in question.
It is usually but not always an attack in close combat, hence why I said it is not exclusively or definitively an attack in closer combat.
Several times.
Which you utterly failed to comprehend.
Thus it is more correct to state it is an attack made during close combat.
But you've still not provided a reason why it is relevant. Instead you're simply making a vague claim of insisting we agree or disagree with something you've neglected to show any relevance for despite being requested to do so.
specific of stomp versus general of smash.
