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.

Well, for point 1, we don't a reference line, we just use the rules. They give us examples where there is exceptions. So unless otherwise specified, attacks made in close combat must be considered close combat attacks. I just don't think there needed to be a line pointing out that obvious answer.

The Giant's attack is special yes. It also follows the given rules for the close combat phase. We are not told otherwise, so that attack exists within the framework of the close combat phase.
Stomp does not.

If we are arguing RAI (a fruitless endeavor) then I would argue that the 2 FAQ's combined would point to a clear intention that Stomp should be going at the end of the phase. They should have worded as such, but they didn't. However, that does not change the way in which it IS worded. The hits cannot benefit from any special rules. Stomp autohits, therefore it cannot benefit from the ASF ruling. Thats FAQ 1

FAQ 2 - Stomp is an attack whose rules exist outside the close combat phase. It just so happens the attack is made during the close combat phase. So we ignore the rules for the close combat phase and instead focus on the rules for stomp, again arriving at the conclusion that ASF is not in effect, and instead ASL applies specifically because it is stated so.

I would argue that GW meant it to strike at the end of the combat, otherwise Lore of Light gives you the opportunity to Stomp/TStomp at I 10.

Please cite pages in the book where there are examples of exceptions such that the attacks do not follow the normal rules. Special or Unique attacks doesn't quite cut it, as each follows the rules of the close combat phase, but with different rules as to the nature (ie. a breath weapon still happens at a particular time, specifically the I of the model). They are in no way outside the rules of the close combat phase.

There is a close combat phase. We know that. We generally know that "in close combat" means in base to base contact with an enemy, and that attacks in close combat only occur ding the close combat phase. So when determining WHEN something happens IN CLOSE COMBAT we use the rules for the Close Combat Phase. Every attack in close combat, special or otherwise must use the rules for the Close Combat Phase. I don't see how you support that Stomp has rules exist outside the close combat phase (or what exactly you mean by that). Stomp only happens in close combat, during that phase, so how do you assume that the rules for close combat do not apply to it with the exception of rules that it specifically states do not apply to it (auto hitting, distributed as shooting, no special rules on the hits, etc.) ?

Not to mention the fact the Giant's attacks follow the rules for close combat in a much more varied way than Stomp does. Stomp just has ASL, auto hits at the Str of the model, and proceeds from there as normal. The giant's effects are rolled for, some allow I tests to avoid, some allow attacks back at the giant to avoid (!) and one just ends combat immediately. Obviously this is FAR more divergent.


I don't know what GW's intent was, but the way they wrote it seems to say that Lore of Light CAN give you the opportunity to Stamp at I 10.

Well, you are told that Stomp is not a close combat attack.

So why would you look to the close combat phase in the rule book for rules for an attack that is not a close combat attack?

The page reference is the FAQ.

**Edit**

We do end up using the rules for the close combat phase, but we are told specifically which rules to use in the Stomp rule itself. Thats entirely the point. Because Stomp is a unique attack, it has its own set of rules. GW then references how we work it out. Auto hits, distributed like shooting, unmodified S of the model, ASL. Thats the complete set of rules for Stomp.

And again, the Giants attacks are varied, but we are not expressely told that they are NOT close combat attacks. We ARE told that with Stomp. This is a distinction GW has made, so using the Giants attacks as a reference point is invalid. They are NOT the same thing. Its not the special vs. Unique... its the fact that the FAQ says that Stomp is not a close combat attack, and we have no such wording for the Giants attack.

Then when we add in the first FAQ we get that the hits caused by Stomp cannot benefit from any special rules a model may have. So the Auto hits caused by stomp cannot be affected by ASF (its a special rule) that the model has. The more I thought about this FAQ the more I've come to realize that its wording is actually fine.

You Strike first in combat, BUT your hits from stomp cannot benefit from ASF, so they don't. There is nothing mutually exclusive about the wording.

Ok, let's look at this from another angle. Stomp is affect by the ASL rule, correct? It is right there in the effect of the ability.

So what does that rule say?

1: "A model with this rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that grants this special rule) always strikes last in close combat, regardless of initiative." Ok, since it is just the attack that has it, we assume the model doesn't strike last with EVERYTHING, just the attack. Likewise, if a model had a halberd and a great weapon say, you could use the halberd and not get the ASL effect.

2: "If the model with this rule is fighting an enemy with the same ability, the Attacks are made simultaneously." Ok, so Attacks (not hits!) that have this rule all happen at the same time from everyone in the combat.

3: "If a model has both this rule and ASF, the two cancel out and neither applies so use the model's Initiative." Ok, so if the model has ASF (check) and ASL (check) they cancel and use it's initiative.

My question to you is: What tells you to ignore the third part of the ASL rule, but not the other two? ASL checks to see if the model has ASF, and if so, they cancel. ASF doesn't tell you to do that, ASL does, so it doesn't matter if the "hits" ignore ASF, as ASL is what drives the situation by checking for ASF. ASL is what the attack has, so you must follow ALL the rules for ASL.

The first FAQ would be my answer to your question. Stomp may not benefit from any special abilities the model has.

I will however pose this question to you...

Stomp is a special ability - that much we agree upon
In order to determine when you strike with stomp, you want to use the special rule ASF to say that the autohits caused by Stomp will go off at I value because of the ruling in the ASL vs ASF
However the first FAQ clearly states that the hits caused by stomp may not benefit from any special rules the model may have

So.... how could you argue that the hits caused by Stomp may be at I value, when in order for them to go off at I value we MUST apply the special rule ASF to the *hits* caused by stomp.

This distinction is important because thats all stomp is, hits. There is no attack roll. You roll to determine the number of hits, and apply those hits. I contend that in order to apply those at I value you would have to apply ASF to those hits, which is expressly forbidden by the FAQ.

But that's just it, ASF isn't doing ANYTHING other than being on the model. ASL is that rule that is changing the timing of Stomp, which you must concede because it is the rule that makes it go last. However, the ASL rule also says what happens when ASF is on the model. You will find that ASF doesn't say anything about ASL in the text. Go ahead and read those two again... I will wait...

See? Always Strike Last is the rule that says it goes at I, NOT Always Strike First.

And besides, Stomp is just an attack that automatically hits. Not just "hits", you just don't have to roll. That would be like saying if something automatically wounds you never actually did the part that causes wounds.

How could ASF not be doing anything?

Its a special rule on the model. Its the interplay between ASF and ASL that lets anything go at I value. You want the hits from stomp to go at I value because of this. This requires you to apply ASF to the hits caused by Stomp, and you are expressly forbidden from doing so. In other words, we look at the way ASL is worded. Yes, it says if the model has ASF then we must hit at I value. HOWEVER, you are told that any special abilities a unit might have, do not work with Stomp. ASF is a special ability, it does not work with stomp.

So reading ASL...

1: "A model with this rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that grants this special rule) always strikes last in close combat, regardless of initiative."
Ok clear cut

2: "If the model with this rule is fighting an enemy with the same ability, the Attacks are made simultaneously."
Again, pretty clear

3: "If a model has both this rule and ASF, the two cancel out and neither applies so use the model's Initiative." Ah... but we are specifically told we cannot use the ASF rule here.

So ASF is now no longer in affect. Does 3 resolve itself now? Yes, it does.

What we are doing is ignoring the ASF on the model, because it is a special ability that IS affecting the hits of Stomp. By involving itself with the way ASL works on Stomp it is inherently affecting the hits caused by stomp. ASL ONLY says it goes at I BECAUSE OF ASF. Its both rules interacting with one another. Both are special rules. You are told to ignore one, and apply the other.

Once we ignore ASF we come to the determination that Stomp is an ability that hits according to ASL. We cannot apply ASF because you are told not to due to FAQ 1.

I can't think of any more clear way to express it other than you are using ASF (even in the ASL rule you MUST use ASF in order to determine #3) and you are expressly told not to use a special rule, so you cannot use ASF.

**Edit**

Lets try this question...

Would you say that if we let the model stomp at I value, that the Stomp hits have now **benefitted** from the model having ASF?
I would.

Yet the FAQ says that the hits MAY NOT BENEFIT from any special rules. So how would you get around the word "Benefit" in this case.

One more time, we are NOT using ASF. We are using ASL, which says specifically that strikes go at Initiative if the model has ASF. Stomp doesn't benefit from any USRs it doesn't actually have, only ASL. The fact that ASL turns from being a penalty to a neutral sort of thing is irrelevant. Stomp either follows ALL the rules for ASL, or it doesn't follow any. You can't pick.

Also you are not using ASF when ASL changes how it works based on its presence. The process goes as such:

1: ASL checks for ASF on the MODEL.
2: If the Model has ASF, ASL returns "use initiative"
3: If no ASF, ASL returns go last.

ASL doesn't ask "Could ASF affect this attack?" it simply checks to see if the Model has ASF. If so, use the Initiative value instead of last/first. Done.

Why do you determine that Stomp going from ASL to I is neutral. I really can't believe you won't admit to that. Its clearly a benefit. So you are saying that it is benefitting from the ASL ruling.

By simply checking for the rule (ASF), it is affecting the way ASL works. If the model has ASF then ASL works differently.... thats right there in the rules. That means that ASL is AFFECTED by ASF. This is undeniable. Once we come to this conclusion, we must then accept the fact that Stomp may not benefit from any special rules the model may have, and the change in ASL CAUSED BY ASF is now benefitting the model.

Does this change in ASL, which is precipitated by the model having ASF, benefit the model... Hint.. this is not neutral. If the answer to this is yes, then it may not work. So ASF in this case needs to be ignored for determining the way in which ASL works. That is the only way to remove the BENEFIT of changing Last to I value.

**Edit**

Actually it doesnt just say to attack at Initiative.... the exact wording is that the two rules cancel each other out, and you ignore them and attack at I value.

Now that I read it, its even more clear. You are removing ASL BECAUSE OF ASF. If thats not a benefit of a special rule, then I do not know what is.

"If a model has both this rule and Always Strikes First, the two cancel out and neither applies so use the model's initiative value"

The word Both, means there are 2 separate rules at play in order to cancel each other out. This is not strictly ASL. You are wrong on this statement. This is ASF and ASL as two separate rules written under the heading Always Strikes Last.

So I challenge your assertation that we are strictly using ASL to determine the I value. We are using both rules. We are told we are not allowed to use any special rules that benefit the model, and ASF is one such rule.

AGreed with Lehnsherr, in order to strike at I ASL has to be cancelled out, meaning that not only do you no longer have ASL but you have benefitted from the presence of ASF.

To argue you are not benefitting as it is a "neutral" state, albeit one that is superior to your previous state, is the same twisting of words as people trying to justify banshees triking at I10 when moving through cover (in 40k, to make clear ) as having your I drop to 1 is clearly a negative bonus....

I really don't think we want to use normative arguments in terms of the ASL rules. Would you say that since a critter with flaming attacks trying to stomp a hero with the dragon helm would benefit from NOT using flaming (as the hero gets a 2+ ward if the attack is flaming) that the stomp should gain the Flaming ability, since it would not be benefiting, and thus getting around the ruling?

Remember as well that having ASF doesn't cancel out having ASL, it merely changes the effect of ASL (and ASF, but it is ASL that does it.) You can't just ignore that part of ASL's rules because it seems to be a "benefit".

Whether or not it is better or worse is irrelevant; ASL tells you what you do when the model has ASF, and you do it. Otherwise, what is to keep me from arguing "Striking last is totally a benefit!" and saying that part of ASL doesn't count as a result? I can think of an occasion or two where striking last is better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And having ASF doesn't change the way ASL works. All the rules for ASL are right there, it is merely a question of whether the answer to "does the model have ASF?" is yes or no. If ASF was the rule that had the bit about interacting with ASL, I would agree with you, but ASL is what is driving the entire process here.

You are using situational arguments to deny the fact that a simple change from ASL to I is not a benefit. The fact is, you are going from attacking last, to attacking at your I value. That is a benefit, and it is expressely denied by the FAQ.

The exact wording of the ASL rule is that if you have BOTH the ASF rule and the ASL rule, then they ****cancel**** each other out. Those are the words in the BRB, not my words.

That means your ASF has now CANCELLED the ASL that is in the Stomp rule. This is inherently a benefit, and strictly denied by the first FAQ.

**Edit**

And no, ASL is not driving the process. Its in the BRB. Reread it carefully.... If you have BOTH rules... it uses the word BOTH. This is important. By having ASF (a special rule) ASL is now Cancelled. Again, these are the words written clearly in the BRB. So this means that your argument that ASL is driving the process is wrong here. There are 2 rules at play and this is written right into the BRB by use of the word both.

Secondly, your argument that ASL is not cancelled is also wrong. It is again clearly written in the BRB that it is in fact cancelled out.

So then the only remaining part of your argument is that you can think of situations where ASL is more beneficial than striking at I. If thats the argument you want to lay your hat on, by all means do so. Its laughable at best.

Stomping at I means there is a greater chance that your model will be even able to stomp, as there is less chance it dies. Stomping last means that the close combat phase of the opponent can kill your model that wants to stomp. Which I believe is the situation that precipitated this thread.

How is ASL not the rule that drives this? It is the only rule that mentions the issue. The fact that ASL cancels itself after it checks to see if the model has another rule is not debatable. ASF doesn't cancel it, the ASL does the cancelling. ASF doesn't have anything in its text about cancelling anything.

You say that I am hanging my hat on a weak argument, but you are the one arguing from normative rules. Not only in arguing that Stomp is being affected by anything other than ASL, which dictates the timing of the attack, but further you seem to be forgetting that Stomp is an attack, albeit a special one, that happens at a certain initiative step and inflicts auto-hits. The HITS do not benefit, but the attack can "benefit", if only by the ONLY USR APPLIED TO THE ATTACK. If Stomp is not an attack of some sort, then ASL doesn't apply to it at all. You can't have it both ways. Either ASL applies in full, or it doesn't at all.

If you want to question benefit, here: I really don't want my critter to stomp a monster at initiative so that my champ with a great weapon has a chance to take the last hit off of it at ASL speed and get a roll on the eye of the gods table. Whoops, I guess going last due to ASL would benefit me, so it must go at initiative! This is obviously the way rules work!

The FAQ only uses the term "benefit" because every rule that modifies Hits is generally beneficial, like Killing Blow or Flaming. It is just an English phrase meaning "gain effects of", not an invitation to make normative judgments every time you want to know when stomp hits. Besides, the FAQ doesn't even address the attack, just the hits.

Which is something else that bothered me about your earlier post asserting that Stomp just goes right to hits. It doesn't; going to hits would say "Inflict X strY hits" not "automatically hits." Automatically hits implies an attack roll that simply always succeeds, for example rolling against WS0 (pg 4).

This is purely a case of "I see what I want to see and no argument whether logical or illogical will convince me otherwise."

If Stomp is not an attack of some sort, then ASL doesn't apply to it at all. You can't have it both ways. Either ASL applies in full, or it doesn't at all.

We can because we are told to. Funny how that works. The rules for Stomp tell you to apply ASL to it, so even if stomp is not considered an "attack" we can still apply the rule because the rulebook tells you to.

How is ASL not the rule that drives this? It is the only rule that mentions the issue. The fact that ASL cancels itself after it checks to see if the model has another rule is not debatable. ASF doesn't cancel it, the ASL does the cancelling. ASF doesn't have anything in its text about cancelling anything

The rule for ASL says that if your model posssesses the ASF rule, then the two rules will cancel each other out. Thats the wording in the BRB. This is once again undebatable. One rule cancels the other rule. ASL is not cancelling itself. The 2 rules cancel each other out. Any further arguing of this point will be referenced back to the BRB where the EXACT LANGUAGE is that BOTH cancel each other out.

Which is something else that bothered me about your earlier post asserting that Stomp just goes right to hits. It doesn't; going to hits would say "Inflict X strY hits" not "automatically hits."

Point to the sentence in the rulebook where Stomp includes the word "attack." You can't. Its only in the second FAQ which tells you that stomp is a unique attack, and not a close combat attack.

Automatically hits implies an attack roll that simply always succeeds, for example rolling against WS0

This comparison is to a rule that is considered a close combat attack. You cannot make this comparison as they are two separate forms of attacks. One is a close combat attack, one is unique. Again this is an important distinction as you are applying rules from different sections of the rulebook none of which can get around the issue that stomp has been classified as a unique attack and as such must follow its own set of rules.

You must stop trying to compare stomp to any other form of attack. They are not the same and as such the comparison is invalid. This is given to you by the FAQ. Stomp is unique, meaning you cannot use rules from other attacks like page 4.

If the ASL is cancelled out by ASF (again written into the rules) then the Stomp hits (which is all you actually apply in actual combat) have now benefitted.

Again we are back to the only point that is debateable, which is whether Stomping at I is a benefit.

Any potential situation you might come up with, I will simply counter with if you Stomp at the end of the combat there is a chance your model with stomp will die before he gets to stomp. Stomping at I means you have a greater chance of being alive to Stomp. This simple benefit trumps any other situation you might come up with.

Ok... so we apply ASL, except when we don't. That's awesome.

And where is the bit about cancelling... is it under the ASL rule only? Yes. That whole block of text is the ASL rule, and you can't ignore part of it. You just can't, no more than you can ignore the bit in Regeneration not working against Flaming attacks because you don't want to. Either the whole rule applies, or it doesn't.

Further, are we using the FAQ or not? The FAQ calls it a special/unique attack. That just means that it has its own rules.

It seems that by "Unique Attack" you really mean to say "Attack with any and all aspects that I deem fit to assign to it." It is an attack that uses the ASL rule, but not the whole rule. It is an attack that doesn't automatically hit, it just goes right to hits without actually hitting, therefor skipping the attack part at a certain initiative. This in spite of the fact it has a rule that affects attacks assigned to it, a rule that specifically tells what to do in certain situations.

I also love how you you get to decide what is of most benefit... that is REALLY stretching the FAQ. If I don't want to stomp at all, no no, getting to stomp when I don't want is more of a benefit. The whole reason to avoid that sort of specious reasoning is that what constitutes a "benefit" is debatable. If it is defined as "benefiting the player of the model" then no one else can reasonably say they know exactly what will benefit him the most, even if there can be some agreement as to what would generally be considered the most beneficial in a situation.

Arion wrote:This is purely a case of "I see what I want to see and no argument whether logical or illogical will convince me otherwise."

Yeah. I saw a boxing match where one guy got knocked out. He woke up 2 minutes later and wanted to keep fighting. He missed the whole part where he lost.
This thread is starting to remind me of that.

It's pretty strait forward.
FAQ says no other rules.
ASL says you need ASF (another rule) to cancel it; since you cannot have ASF (as per FAQ), you cannot cancel it.

Ding, Ding, fights over and done. Initiative5 Lehnsherr knocked out his always strike first opponent before he could stomp.


-Matt

Ok the heading for the rule is Always Strikes Last

Within that heading are the words "If a model has both this rule and Always Strikes First, the two cancel out and neither applies so use the model's initiative value"

This sentence is referencing the Always Strikes First rule. If your model possesses ASF, then ASF and ASL cancel each other out.

It does not matter which section of the rulebook it is in... READ THE WORDS. It is telling you that the two rules will cancel each other out.

Which part of the rule is being ignored that would change the way that ASF and ASL cancel each other out?

The FAQs tell you what to assign to the rule. You assign no special rule that the model has that is benefitial. Again these are the words given to you by the FAQ ie. GW

It is an attack that uses the ASL rule, but not the whole rule.

Which part of the rule does it not have? I am geniunely confused by this statement. We are using the entirety of the ASL rule. The ASL rule also tells you how ASL and ASF interact with one another. In this case your model has ASF and your Stomp has ASL. When you read this section you are told by this rule that they would cancel each other out.

So I guess what you mean to say is we aren't using that part of the rule. This part of the rule is trumped by the FAQ that says that no special ability may affect Stomp. So when we go to apply ASF to the Stomp we would be removing the ASL, and this is the part that goes against the FAQ. The only way to resolve this issue is to not apply the ASF. Once we have determined that ASF is benefitting the Stomp we must remove it. So now we look at Stomp on its own.

-Stomp may not benefit from any special rules
-Stomp has ASL
-Within ASL is the ruling that if the model has ASF we cancel ASF and ASL and strike at I
-In order to perform the cancellation we are inherently applying ASF to the Stomp attack
-We are told we cannot apply any special rule to the Stomp attack
-So we are to treat Stomp as if the special rule ASF does not apply (we do this according to the FAQ, as we cannot apply any special rule to Stomp)
-Repeat the loop
-Stomp has ASL
-Within ASL is the ruling that if the model has ASF we cancel ASF and ASL and strike at I
-We have removed the ASF's ability to apply to this situation (we are told to by the FAQ)
-Stomp now strikes last, and the ENTIRE ASL rule has now been followed. This is the argument that has been made all along. We are not ignoring part 3 just because we want to. We are ignoring part 3 because we MUST do so otherwise we are breaking the rule set out in the FAQ

This order of events breaks no rules, and follows the words in the BRB and the FAQs

As for deciding whats beneficial... the whole point of the ruling is to tell you Stomp may not benefit from any special rules the *model* may have.

So, if you argue that Stomping LAST would be better under certain situations as opposed to Stomping at I, I would argue that this still does not break the FAQ. The ASL is not a rule the MODEL has, the ASL is a rule the STOMP has. Another key distinction.

Well, I suppose that's the difference between us. I think that since ASF no where mentions cancelling anything within its rule that one can't say you are applying that rule. ASL is the one that dictates checking the model for ASF, and then alters how ASL works. We don't need to apply ASF to Stomp; ASL does the work itself. You don't even need to know what ASF is, all you need to do is follow ASL, check to see if the model has ASF, and if so, they cancel and you just use I.

And HawaiiMatt, just... no. Read the whole thread before you go responding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Good summation, by the way, Lehnsherr. I disagree as to whether it is ASF applying anything (which it does not contain any rules saying how it works with something else) as opposed to ASL which does apply, but I think the other points are well drawn out.

ASL cannot apply ASF to the Stomp without ASF being present.

It does not matter that ASL tells you to check. All the rule actually says is if the model has ASF and ASL then they cancel each other out.

ASF is cancelling ASL. ASL is not cancelling ASL due to the model having ASF. That is the portion in which you are hung up on. We know this based on the words that are given to us by the BRB. What you are trying to do is play a game of semantics. If you go by the words that are written in the book, ASF and ASL cancel each other out.

That means ASF has been applied to the Stomp regardless of whether ASL did it or not.

Wehrkind wrote:I think that since ASF no where mentions cancelling anything within its rule that one can't say you are applying that rule. ASL is the one that dictates checking the model for ASF, and then alters how ASL works. We don't need to apply ASF to Stomp; ASL does the work itself. You don't even need to know what ASF is, all you need to do is follow ASL, check to see if the model has ASF, and if so, they cancel and you just use I.

That is the most backward reasoning I have ever encountered.

For the love of dakka Wehrkind just drop it!!!
Clearly everyone but you agrees that the rules don't allow ASF to work on stomps, just move on.

If you are saying benefits = gains the use of then clearly Stomp HAS gained the use of ASF as it has cancelled ASL.

Either way you try to argue attempting to apply ASF has a benefit to the Stomp, which is disallowed by the FAQ.

Here's a question - does the Skaven Assassin's tail attack gain rerolls from ASF?

Well Hoverboy, since it causes you so much distress I will agree to disagree ;-) I don't really care how people play it, especially since I don't plan to run anyone with the ability, and would agree with whatever my opponent wanted. I will probably write GW and ask though on the off chance they decide to clarify it in the FAQ. They have been pretty good about that it seems.

I don't know about Skaven, Killjoy, sorry. Someone here probably does though.

Cool, besides both sides have stated their points repedetly for almost a full page now

Wehrkind wrote:I will probably write GW and ask though on the off chance they decide to clarify it in the FAQ.

Do it twice in two different days at different hours of the day, if the answer is the same it's probbably right

Stomp is a special rule, not an attack. The FAQ has stated how it works.