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.

This came up recently, where a player in a local league avoided stomping on some Space Marine Scouts with his Wraithknight so that they wouldn't lose the combat and be able to fall back, exposing the Wraithknight to fire. The player pointed out that the text covering Stomps noted that the language is "may" and not "must." I recall there being a similar debate about whether units could choose not to attack in order to gain similar protection, and it was ruled that units that are in combat have to attack.

While he is not wrong that stomp attacks are worded with 'may' and not 'must', I believe that's a misinterpretation.

Like you said, the rule says earlier that units in melee may not choose to not fight, so I would say that same reasoning should apply to stomps.

It says "may" so I would say that you definitely don't have to stomp. If people give you a hard time for that then just choose to stomp somewhere besides the guys in combat. I think both are legal.

Not all Super-heavy Walkers have the stomp rule though. That a walker may stomp seems like a condition rather than an option. The Lord of Skulls, for example, may not stomp.

Nomeny wrote:
Not all Super-heavy Walkers have the stomp rule though. That a walker may stomp seems like a condition rather than an option. The Lord of Skulls, for example, may not stomp.

By default, they do all have the 'Stomp' special rule. The Lord of Skulls doesn't have the rule because his datasheet specifically says he doesn't have it.

 vercingatorix wrote:
It says "may" so I would say that you definitely don't have to stomp.

Pretty much this. "May" is a word that indicates options, making anything that follows something that you make a choice on. If only one thing is listed, it is a "to do" or "do not" binary choice. If more than one thing is listed, it is a choice of those listed, though not doing it at all is a possibility as well, such as Charging or Shooting.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
While he is not wrong that stomp attacks are worded with 'may' and not 'must', I believe that's a misinterpretation.

Like you said, the rule says earlier that units in melee may not choose to not fight, so I would say that same reasoning should apply to stomps.

Even it the superheavy walker is fighting an enemy that already has allies of the Walker locked in combat, and the stomp would take out his allies in addition to the enemy?

As Cahristoph says, the rules say "may", so it is an option, not a requirement. There are situations where you shouldn't be or wouldn't want to be stomping.

It brings up the interesting question regarding sportsmanship.
I've often considered using grenades in combat despite them having no effect just to limit the damage output so I can kill the opposing squad when it benefits me rather than destroying them on the charge and being stuck out in a killing zone during my opponent's shooting phase. I personally don' see the difference between that and stacking a charge to limit the amount of models that can actually make combat but everyone I play against seems to believe there's a difference so I stack charges rather than use dud weapons.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
It brings up the interesting question regarding sportsmanship.
I've often considered using grenades in combat despite them having no effect just to limit the damage output so I can kill the opposing squad when it benefits me rather than destroying them on the charge and being stuck out in a killing zone during my opponent's shooting phase. I personally don' see the difference between that and stacking a charge to limit the amount of models that can actually make combat but everyone I play against seems to believe there's a difference so I stack charges rather than use dud weapons.

You know you can only use grenades in CC against vehicles and MCs right?

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
It brings up the interesting question regarding sportsmanship.
I've often considered using grenades in combat despite them having no effect just to limit the damage output so I can kill the opposing squad when it benefits me rather than destroying them on the charge and being stuck out in a killing zone during my opponent's shooting phase. I personally don' see the difference between that and stacking a charge to limit the amount of models that can actually make combat but everyone I play against seems to believe there's a difference so I stack charges rather than use dud weapons.

You know you can only use grenades in CC against vehicles and MCs right?

Krak Grenades
p181 "Assault"
'Unless used in assaults against vehicles, gun emplacements or Monstrous Creatures, krak grenades have no effect. When they are used in assaults against vehicles, gun emplacements or Monstrous Creatures, krak grenades have the following profile."

It says they won't have any effect, that's not the same as saying you can't do it and nowhere does it say you can't do it either.