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.

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.

Mr. Shine,

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.

col_impact wrote:
Mr. Shine,

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.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

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.

Is stomp a close combat attack? Page ref for it?

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.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

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?

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.

I was hoping you could, for once, concede something with grace. Sadly not.

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."

So, instead of making up quotes, you edit a quote to state something else made up?

Wow. Just wow.

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.

Fantastic. Bye

So, we know one context for "strike blows" - meaning attacks made by weapons in close combat. Is there anything which extends this context in any way?

The discussion would remain much more productive if everyone stops accusing everyone else of trolling and starts addressing the actual rules.

blaktoof wrote:
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?

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 know definitively that the Fight Sub-phase is the time for striking blows.

So no other type of attack can occur then?

It isn't a limiting phrase at all, sadly.

We also know that we are in close combat because you can Stomp when it's the other player's turn.





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.



Also we are locked in combat and cannot make shooting attacks, run, or do overwatch



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.

That's already been covered. The fact that it's during or in close combat does nothing to define it as striking blows.

Lelith's Disarm rule happens in the Fight Sub-phase. I don't think anyone believes that is an attack or needing weapon skill to occur.

Does it have an Initiative order? It may help us here.

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.



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"





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Mr. Shine,

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".

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).

Charistoph wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:


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.

my 2c

first sentence under fight sub phase. "with all the assaults launched, it's time to strike blows!"

fighting in CC is striking blows, with a WS 0 you can not strike any blows.

ergo no stomp.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

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.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

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.

Three things:

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".