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.

 _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).

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.

That just counts as collateral damage .

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?

That's...horrifying.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
Off the top of my head? The Black Mace.

Toughness tests are not close combat attacks.

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.

raverrn wrote:

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:

raverrn wrote:

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."

Why does it matter, if Stomp is an attack made in combat?

 Happyjew wrote:
Why does it matter, if Stomp is an attack made in combat?

I am asking you to agree that Stomp is an "attack in close combat" or, if you disagree, prove that it is not an "attack in close combat."

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Why does it matter, if Stomp is an attack made in combat?

I am asking you to agree that Stomp is an "attack in close combat" or, if you disagree, prove that it is not an "attack in close combat."

I never disagreed that it is not an attack made in close combat.

I do not however, understand why that matters.

This is one of those classic threads that just makes your head hurt .

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This is one of those classic threads that just makes your head hurt .

Indeed +1

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"?

But is a Stomp "striking (a) blow"?

 Happyjew wrote:
But is a Stomp "striking (a) blow"?

Do you agree that Stomp is an "attack in close combat"?

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
But is a Stomp "striking (a) blow"?

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.

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
But is a Stomp "striking (a) blow"?

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.

So then to be clear, you wholly agree that Stomp is an "attack in close combat" because you simply restated as much with more verbage. Correct?

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
But is a Stomp "striking (a) blow"?

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.

blaktoof wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
But is a Stomp "striking (a) blow"?

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.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
It is usually but not always an attack in close combat

Incorrect. It is always an attack in close combat. It is impossible for a GMC to Stomp if it is not in close combat.

If you want to continue advancing your assertion that a GMC that is not in close combat can Stomp you will have to explain how.

Or, after 5 pages and no compromise in sight, we could all just agree to disagree and move on.