Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 PinkSpaceHippy wrote:


They're not trying to rewrite RAW in this thread (except for the arbitrary "what if this not really related scenario..." hypotheticals that get shot down quickly). They're trying to come to an RAI since RAW isn't as clear as it should be. Both sides said they're peace, and at this point it's trying really just a couple people trying to convince the other person that they're wrong over the Internet by brute forcing their opinion.

Considering making own rules is a own forum section already.

It is as PinkSpaceHippy says, we are trying to clear up on the matter wherever a spell, item, or other modifications to the strenght on a model affect "Stomp", and we all know that weapons such as flails, halberds or greatweapons is not giving strenght to the model, but is affecting the attack of the model.

The Disagreement that is as follows is whenever a modification to Strenght caused by a magic item is affecting "Stomp", the rule of "Stomp" says that it uses the MODEL strenght, but the FAQ says its not affected by magic items.

Now thats where it gets shady, because items that modify strenght isnt affecting "Stomp" but its strenght, and since its now modified it uses its current strenght stat, so here is the real disagreement if modifications to attributes is directly affecting "Stomp" while it actually is just indirectly affected due to the stat being higher.

Also its a disagreement on what GW actually meant with "affecting", because the effects "Stomp" WONT get is special such as "Flaming", "Poisonous" or "Killing Blow". Not whenver it get a indirect benefit from its str being modified.

So in theory if Stomp is not affected by the modification to the model strenght, it means that Stomp WILL attack at the models BASE strenght regardless if its been hexed and had its strenght REDUCED, if it have a 4s base stat it will hit at 4s regardless if it was reduced to 2s or increased to 6s. The rules have to work both ways.

The FAQ explicitely states "benefits" though, thus every harmful effect is immediately out of question.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The FAQ explicitely states "benefits" though, thus every harmful effect is immediately out of question.

Correct.
By writing the FAQ as no benefit, it allows Stomp to be reduced, but not increased.

Benefit /= unmodified.

Anyone have the old Daemon FAQ?
I thought at some point, GW talked about Dark Insanity Bloodthirster (S10 Gift of Chaos) stomping at S6.
GW pulled the FAQ since the new daemon book showed up.

-Matt

The new DoC book even goes out of their way to say Stomps are magical from Daemons.

Special Rules are modified all the time. Thundercrush attack, which is the TK Warsphinx special Thunderstomp it can use in exchange for all its attacks:

Q: Can a Thundercrush Attack be afected bythe Killing Blow
specialrule? (p49)
A: Yes.

So there you have what is essentially a modified Thunderstomp that is also KB. Presumably if buffed by the Nek spell. Presumably they just said, "wow, Thundercrush kinda sucks, so it's okay that they buff the hell out of it by making it KB." But the TStomp that comes after would NOT have KB.

So they could go model by model and say if it is good/bad enough to get modified Stomps/TStomps in every permutation possible, but they erred on the side of caution (and laziness).

All of Bill's attacks benefit from poison.

All of Joe's attacks benefit from Killing Blow

All of Sam's attacks benefit from his strength.

See any difference between these? (Hint; 2 include special rules and make sense, one does neither)

Attacks aren't special rules they are characteristics. Stomp and Thunderstomp are special rules.

Moreover, if there was a FAQ that said SAM's attacks didn't benefit from Strength, guess what?

Here's another FAQ that use the word:

Q: Do Breath Weapon hits benefit from any other special rules, equipment or magic items of the model that inflicts the hits? (p67)
A: No.

I found this searching around. It's about the only thing I found that is somewhat contradictory.

Q: Does a weapon that gives a bonus to a characteristic onlygive
thatbonus when being used to attack a model?(p4)
A: Most weapons, including magic weapons,state when the
bonusis given. Forexample,a model with the Fencer’s
Blades willalways have Weapon Skill 10 whilsta model with
a great weapon will only have +2 Strength when striking an
enemy in closecombat. When a weapon does notsay when
thecharacteristic bonusapplies, then it only applies when
striking, or being struck, in closecombat.


Stomp and TStomp are called "other close combat attack." So based on that ^ the BRB rules would say the weapon/items DO modify strength of Stomp. However, the FAQ on Stomp/TStomp negates it, as it comes after the BRB and it explicitly says no magic items may benefit it. Much like the FAQ for breath weapons above. You can make a Breath weapon close combat attack and without that FAQ, you could make a KB, Poison, multi-wound breath weapon attack. But both FAQs are there.

The difference being that breath weapons always state the strength at which they hit. We would agree with you if stomp did the same.

Niteware wrote:
All of Bill's attacks benefit from poison.

All of Joe's attacks benefit from Killing Blow

All of Sam's attacks benefit from his improved due to the Magic Item Potion strength.

See any difference between these? (Hint; 2 include special rules and make sense, one does neither)

Fixed that for you

His strength is higher than it was, meaning thunderstomp WOULD benefit from this higher strength. You cannot argue that a higher strength is not a benefit, not with a straight face anyway.

So, given it is most definitely a benefit, is a benefit to stomp, and is a benefit to stomp granted by a magic item, the rules are pretty clear as to what happens next - it does NOT benefit from his Improved strength statistic

HIs strength is n(n+3) for that turn. The value "n" is used, RAW, for the thudnerstomp. I would also argue that RAI is clear as well - NO MAGIC ITEM really meaning NO MAGIC ITEM and not "well actually SOME magic items, or some components of magic items....."

 Sigvatr wrote:
@Tangent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSqet2kThD0

Heh, excellent.

But here's a question: if I have a monster in base to base with a unit only numbering three models, one is a character and he is touching on of my characters with the other trickster's shard, when I roll for T-stomp and get a wound on the character, does he have to reroll ward saves?

This is basically the same rule interference, the monster isn't carrying the item and it does nothing to his T-stomp but clearly it could benefit from it. In the same way that a model can modify it's str and thus gains an indirect benefit.
Sigvatr is right about the past use of the word 'benefit.' GW uses it instead of 'has' or 'gains' all the time, as in 'the model benefits from the killing blow special rule.' This is, frankly, confusing. RAW must take in context, otherwise we ignore the basic tenants of having a written language and culture.

So, yeah I'm with Sigvatr; whatever your opinion is, just clear it up with your TO or your opponent beforehand so there aren't any problems.

Yes, he rerolls. The FAQ clearly states Stomp/Tstomp doesn't benefit from items from the MODEL MAKING THE HITS.

If another model/unit has special rules or equipment or magic items that affect the enemy, that doesn't apply to the FAQ.

Sigvatr is right about the past use of the word 'benefit.' GW uses it instead of 'has' or 'gains' all the time, as in 'the model benefits from the killing blow special rule.'

So? Replace the FAQ benefit with have it makes you happy. It works the same. Though is less grammatically correct. Because it only applies to Stomp/TStomp (and breath weapons).

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

I like that you are keeping mentioning breath weapons, because that faq backs up our points - the same wording except that breath weapons have a given strength and stomp uses the models current strength.

Niteware wrote:
I like that you are keeping mentioning breath weapons, because that faq backs up our points - the same wording except that breath weapons have a given strength and stomp uses the models current strength.

Stomp says it uses the models strength.
Don't add the word current, it isn't in the rule.

Here's one for you.
My Ghoul King charges your giant, who has had Flaming Sword cast on him.
Despite my bazillion attacks with re-rolls, I fail to kill the giant, he jumps up and down and kills my whole unit save the ghoul king.
At ASL, he thunderstomps on the Ghoul King.
Now, the Ghoul King has the dragon bane gem, and the Giant has the flaming sword. Since I have a 2+ ward vs flaming attacks; does the thunderstomp gain flaming since it isn't a benefit?




-Matt

I like that you are keeping mentioning breath weapons, because that faq backs up our points - the same wording except that breath weapons have a given strength and stomp uses the models current strength

It backs up your points in the sense it backs them into Wrongville. The FAQ is exactly the same. You don't get special rules, equipment, magic items. It's irrelevant what the BRB says the FAQ overrules it. The BRB could literally say, "Stomp gets the current strength from whatever source including Nitewire's Potion of Strength and anyone who says otherwise automatically loses the game."

But the FAQ erases that. It is the last word.

As for Matt's question, I don't believe "benefit" is a Realm of Chaos-type intelligent daemon hanging over the rule. Because there could be some instance where application of a special rule/equipment/magic item could make Thunderstomp both better and worse when hitting the same units because of particular models in it.

I.e., if there are two models remaining in a unit one who is flammable and one who has a ward to flaming. I don't think it's reasonable that flaming applies to some hits of the Thunderstomp and not others. That would be very odd and I think impossible, technically.

Flaming attacks is a special rule that benefits Thunderstomp because Flaming attacks itself is a benefit. It isn't in all situations, but you could get into real nonsense if you take it too far.

Like you might WANT to have your units killed for whatever reason. So you can charge next round with a better unit who would otherwise be blocked. So having Killing Blow apply to the Thunderstomp would actually not benefit because it would help the enemy in allowing a charge. But that's going pretty overboard and is extremely subjective.

Niteware wrote:
I like that you are keeping mentioning breath weapons, because that faq backs up our points - the same wording except that breath weapons have a given strength and stomp uses the models current strength.

Do not insert words that do not exist. It uses the models strength, and cannot benefit from any magic items. A magic item that gives the model a benefit by increasing its strength would give this same benefit to Stomp, and is thus disallowed.

Do you havea rules argument any longer? OR are you on HIWPI, in which case please mark your posts as such.

I dont get this discussion at all to be honest.
The FAQ is damn clear about it and I cant see any room here for a discussion. I mean, pots are magic items and magic items are covered by the FAQ so why are 5pages needed to beat a dead horse? Other possibilty I am just too stupid to get it

Its the idea that is needs to specify direct / indirect benefit - when by specifying neither one it automaticallly includes both - and that it ahs to say "unmodified" otherwise you can modify it to benefit the stomp.

Neither argument holds any water

Why it needs to specify? The FAQ says no benefits from any magic items so it's clear to me. So all the direct/indirect stuff doesnt matter at all.
No benefit from any magic item is pretty clear to me. It doesnt matter what kind of benefit - stats, attacks, w/e. It says no benefit from magic items.
And it doesnt neeed to be specified at all. I mean, may there are some weird linguistic freaks out there but going with the rules you just need to specify exceptions. If no exception is mentioned it means "all". Furthermore the FAQ says no benefits so all kinds of benefits are covered. The only thing I can see here is, that some really hardcore RAW'lers trying to come along with the some kind of law rules.

Stomps dont benefit from any magical items.
That means they dont benefit from <list every possible thing that might modify them>
Furthermore they cant be directly modified in the meaning of <add any possibility here>
Indirect modifications are not allowed either this includes <add every possibility here>
That means stomps use the unmodified strength <define unmodified strength> of the monster <define monster>, monst. cav. <define monst. cav> etc.


If we go this way we can screw the whole BRB and every army book because nothing is correct in terms of pure RAW and everyone with a clue about the rules for law texts can pretty much ruin your game.

 Gorbad wrote:
Why it needs to specify? The FAQ says no benefits from any magic items so it's clear to me. So all the direct/indirect stuff doesnt matter at all.
No benefit from any magic item is pretty clear to me. It doesnt matter what kind of benefit - stats, attacks, w/e. It says no benefit from magic items.
And it doesnt neeed to be specified at all. I mean, may there are some weird linguistic freaks out there but going with the rules you just need to specify exceptions. If no exception is mentioned it means "all". Furthermore the FAQ says no benefits so all kinds of benefits are covered. The only thing I can see here is, that some really hardcore RAW'lers trying to come along with the some kind of law rules.

Stomps dont benefit from any magical items.
That means they dont benefit from <list every possible thing that might modify them>
Furthermore they cant be directly modified in the meaning of <add any possibility here>
Indirect modifications are not allowed either this includes <add every possibility here>
That means stomps use the unmodified strength <define unmodified strength> of the monster <define monster>, monst. cav. <define monst. cav> etc.


If we go this way we can screw the whole BRB and every army book because nothing is correct in terms of pure RAW and everyone with a clue about the rules for law texts can pretty much ruin your game.

You know what? This might blow your mind. To those of us that disagree with you, it's also pretty clear what the FAQ means.

We can keep arguing this from now until 9th edition, but unless GW updates the FAQ in the meantime, no one's going to win this. There's no point in continuing to argue.

You keep telling us it's impossible. Yet since the first time you said that we've come across numerous instances and rules (which back up our position).

What is pretty clear is that for whatever reason you interpreted it one way and have ceased listening to anything contradictory, repeatedly telling the community it was foolhardy to try and convince you. Only coming back to the thread to state over and over that people should stop trying.

I think you may be unclear on the core concept of discussion boards and You Make Da Call in particular.

As for who won or will win, I think a straw poll at any time would clearly show how that resides. There might be one color blind person who is adamant the sky is green, but that doesn't make it so.

True, the sky is colourless. The light of the sun bending through it makes it appear many colours including blue. This is an indirect effect which gives the appearance of being direct.

Your last post could have been written by either side of the debate Duke, except that the pro strength people seem more respectful of others' opinions.

@Gorbad The word benefit has been used in specific ways by GW in the past (see Sigvatr's posts for details). This is semantics, but semantics are key to understanding rules.

@HawaiiMatt If the flaming attacks on model were from a spell, stomp would get them.

As stated before, they could have set the strength as they did for shooting attacks. The choice not to do this is corroborating evidence for the interpretation that current strength is used.

Yay Niteware for understanding science!

Duke, most of what's been brought up recently have been "let's pretend this other thing happens" (pointless because those other pretend FAQs don't exist) or "well there's this other thing that doesn't actually have to do with this stuff" (unrelated), or reiterating what's already been said. Is it a discussion when it's just the same thing over and over, or is it a broken record on repeat?

Also, just because You Make Da Call says things can get heated does not give excuse for people to generally be rude, disrespectful, or insulting. Please check yourself.

As to Flaming Attacks from a spell, it depends on the wording of the spell. If it says "attacks count as flaming", then it's coming from the spell. If it says the model gets "the Flaming Attacks Special Rule" then no, it's the special rule about attacks.

Oh, and straw polls don't amount to anything. Lore of Tzeentch spells aren't Flaming Attacks, though I'm fairly certain most WoC players would say they should be and that it's an obvious oversight.

 PinkSpaceHippy wrote:

Oh, and straw polls don't amount to anything. Lore of Tzeentch spells aren't Flaming Attacks, though I'm fairly certain most WoC players would say they should be and that it's an obvious oversight.

Lorewise the "Warpfire" special is that its not fire, its just energy that changes the targets by warping them into different forms, so its not really "flaming" per say, but a "mutation" effect more than a fire.

The DoC fluff was changed and all of the TZ stuff that was flaming was made explicitly not. Flamers, for instance, if anything should be flaming it's them. But they said it merely looks like flame. It's just warp-y magic.

So the WoC players would only say that if they had not read the DoC book.

Point well made SpaceHippy; whether flaming attacks were conferred would depend on the wording. Good old semantics again.

Edited by Manchu

There is no such thing as "counts as flaming." The game has rules. If it's not a rule, it has no effect on play. Counts as flaming is meaningless. Are they hot? Do you need to drink water after using them? If it doesn't translate into an actionable game effect, it is pointless. Counts as flaming, to have any use to either side, has to become Flaming special rule. Counts as flaming does not affect flammable units. Because they never reference that. Likewise a ward vs. flaming does nothing to it, because it never says that. Regeneration ignores it, because that only responds to Flaming Attacks. So counts as flaming is basically without any value in the game if you took it at your apparent "what's English?" face value. Flaming special rule has actual effects and side-effects and is what is required for the game to function.

I will freely admit, GW does not have the best or most consistent writing and editing. Which is why this forum has so many threads and they have FAQs and such. But there's also common sense which we can employ.

There are many cases in WHFB where something says attacks "count as flaming" or "are flaming" rather than "have the Flaming Attacks special rule". The dwarf book has this, for example. In fact, up until 8th edition, everything was this way. This is the first edition where everything has been via Special Rule. Thinks that would have previously given +1 Attack now say they give the Extra Attack Special Rule. Things that previously said "count as flaming" or "are flaming" now say "have the Flaming Attacks special rule." Not all of these have been FAQ'd/Errata'd. It's semantics, and RAI is obvious, but RAW in that case is that it's via the spell and not the Special Rule. Most of GW's inconsistent semantics are because they have books in use that were written throughout multiple previous editions, rather than everything in the previous or current editions. Common sense gives us RAI, but RAW trumps that. If it doesn't say it, it isn't that way.

Keep it civil, please.

Considering noone "won" this discussion yet is just a sign that the FAQ and the ruling is lacking in being "credible" for the so-far average reader.

'fraid to say folks, but we are stuck intil we get a offical update on it, and thus we are set to let the case go to TO or house rules until then.

Agreed Draco