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.

Stomp just hits anything under its template. Invisibility is not an I win button. If you don't want
your invisible units stomped don't get into combat with a unit that had stomp.

It's auto hit and there is no restriction for auto hits to auto miss invisible units.

Stomp is its own special attack as stated in its rules, its not a CC attack, nor does it roll to hit

Invisibility doesn't affect it.

Gravmyr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Hits.
So now a special attack that doesn't roll To Hit and doesn't actually hit at all (it generates hits sometimes) is restricted by something that apples to To Hit rolls?

In your opinion it only applies to To Hits rolls as opposed to limiting how they can be hit by enemy units.

Well, no... it's fact, based on the quoted rule. Not opinion at all.

Note that attacks in CC are different from CC attacks. Stomp is demonstrably not a CC attack.

I disagree that it's not a CC attack.

Please - show me a rule that says it's a CC attack. I've quoted where it's a special type of attack (so, not a CC attack at all).

Although you are correct that it's not CC attacks it is attacks. That being said I do not see a vehicle explosion as an attack nor being done by the vehicle.

Where in the rule does it mention attacks? You've quoted it, others have quoted it, I've looked it up - never is the word "attacks" mentioned. You've invented that. Please stop doing so.
(for reference: )

Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

Let's break that down.
0) This is a BLESSING that affects a friendly unit. - we'll come back to this in 3.
1) enemy units - I don't think anyone wants (or can) to shoot their own guys, so that's fine.
2) can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit - this is the main sticking point I see being argued
3) and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6 - this is mostly a parallel to #2.

From a RAW and not trying to make any logical sense since that is in RAI mode, let's look at premise #2

can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit

If you are shooting it, as a normal shooting attack, then you can only fire a snap shot at it.
snap shots say "hit on 6" and no direct targetting from blast weapons.

I think everyone is in agreement on that much. The only RAW exception I know of is Kharn, whose weapon specific, model specific, codex specific rule (always hits on a 2+) makes him hit on a 2+, which trumps the less specific BRB, but you can argue against that in his thread elsewhere if you like.


Imperial Knight and other stomps can hit in CC and out of CC alike, so they can fall under either premise #2 or #3, but it works out the same.

The argumentative part is against things that auto-hit: scattered blast templates, hammer of wrath, wall of death, etc.

Interpretation #1: "Boo Invisibility": If you fire at it, it must be a snap shot and that must roll a 6 to hit (if it needs to roll to hit). No roll to hit needed means no 6 needed.
Interpretation #2: "Yay Invisibility" : If you fire at it, it must be a snap shot and that must roll a 6 to hit. No roll to hit means you can't hit it.

I think Interpretation #1 makes more sense, but that's RAI and HIWPI. There is no RAW basis to assume #1 vs #2, or the reverse.

That said, if someone wants to 4+ it, you can be a grammar nazi back to them by looking at premise #0 and #3. Nothing in there says that it is only the non-psyker's unit that needs to roll 6's to hit in CC. Premise #3 can be read disjointed to premise #2, to affect both (or only) the BLESSED unit - balancing their unshootability by making them near useless in CC. If they want you to 4+ on their disagreement, you can 4+ it too. Or just concede the game and 4+ it again for the next until you get the result you want, or do what I do, not play with unfun rules/people.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
2) can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit - this is the main sticking point I see being argued
3) and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6 - this is mostly a parallel to #2.

Not a parallel at all really... and no, the current sticking point is #3.

SolentSanguine wrote:
And when the Knight inevitable goes bang (which mine always does quite quickly) any invisible units in range will get automatically hit by the explosion as well.

I think its the same wording for the catastrophic explosion table as stomp - "suffers a hit".

At which point they are not in close combat anymore, and can suffer hits from anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

"on To Hit rolls of a 6" is the Rule, IE:
"Invisibility states you must roll a 6 when rolling To Hit"

Misquote there my boy:

Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

Will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.
==
Will never hit models in close combat if it does not roll a To Hit roll of a 6. No matter what it hits them with.

That isnt ho rules work.

On to hit rolls of a 6, it will hit them. That is how the sentence parses. It does not mean you mut have rolled a to-hit, just that when you do, you need a result of a 6

You remain in error.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That is how the sentence parses.

That is your interpretation. The sentence very clearly says that they cannot be hit.
That's RAW, and yes it's probably not RAI, but we're currently discussing RAW and not interpretations.

his interpretation is the correct one, yours isnt.

Dont you think it funny your the only one who is trying to interpret it the other way?

morgoth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That is how the sentence parses.

That is your interpretation. The sentence very clearly says that they cannot be hit.
That's RAW, and yes it's probably not RAI, but we're currently discussing RAW and not interpretations.

No, we proved your position wasnt RAW, as unless you are rolling to hit it does nothing.

Your "interpretation" means scatterinig blasts also do not hit., yet we know they do. Good job your interpretation is neither RAW nor RAI then.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
his interpretation is the correct one, yours isnt.

Dont you think it funny your the only one who is trying to interpret it the other way?

I'm used to being surrounded by people who are wrong, and being factually right.

I'm also used to dealing with the vast number of people who think their numbers means they're right.

And I'm used to checking my facts even when I think I'm right, and being confirmed that I was right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Your "interpretation" means scatterinig blasts also do not hit., yet we know they do. Good job your interpretation is neither RAW nor RAI then.

Nope, my interpretation means that Enemy units IN the close combat can only HIT if they roll To Hit and roll 6.

Which means that enemy units NOT IN the close combat can do as they usually do, and if scattering blasts land in there, they will hit as they do on any unit, because invisibility makes no provision for that.

How hard can it really be for you to actually read the sentence that is there, and tell me where it stops being "only hit it" ?

But Stomp can extend out some 15" from the Knight itself - so presumably you're ok with it stomping invisible units that it is not locked in combat with, but not the ones at its feet?

Because that is how it parses. AS in, how I laid it out is an equivalent reading. Yours isnt. Thats one test that shows your error.

It has nothing to do with numbers, just a basic grasp of subject and object. Here the requirement is rolling a to-hit. If you dont roll a to-hit, you arent bound by a rule about to-hit

Youre giving it hard to hit, without the rule actually meaning so.

Or is this like claiming mercedes are Munich based again? Just a complete comprehension gap?

SolentSanguine wrote:
But Stomp can extend out some 15" from the Knight itself - so presumably you're ok with it stomping invisible units that it is not locked in combat with, but not the ones at its feet?

Not me, the rules.

But yes, that's how it works, you could, since the stomp is not a shooting attack, and the invisible unit not in close combat with the stomper, do that.

I think that i can pinpoint the wording/grammar causing the issue here:

"enemy units (...) in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6."

Gravmyr, as i understand it, you believe that this word "only" is a restriction on any form of attack that might exist (Stomp/Vehicle explosion/etc).

The way I/we see it, is that this word "only" is a restriction on To Hit rolls. Because that is the subject of the phrase ("on To Hit rolls of")

so
You - Only <-as opposed to-> Everything else in the game.
Me - Only <-as opposed to-> To Hit rolls of 2-3-4-5.

Now this is back to the argument: Can you really state that a Rule applies to "everything"?
If there is a Rule that restricts how far you can Run, would it restrict any form of movement in the shooting phase?

Most restrictions, as here, often refer to a specific situation or part of the rules, in this case To Hit rolls. You cannot start blanketing that statement over all the other rules we can imagine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

"on To Hit rolls of a 6" is the Rule, IE:
"Invisibility states you must roll a 6 when rolling To Hit"

Misquote there my boy:

Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

Will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.
==
Will never hit models in close combat if it does not roll a To Hit roll of a 6. No matter what it hits them with.

Please include the full post you are referring to. The quotation marks will make more sense then.

PS: Quotation marks don't always mean it's a quote from the Rulebook. Could be from another Forum user. You could also learn some politeness and courtesy, i know YMDC lacks it sometimes but if everyone puts in some effort...

 BlackTalos wrote:

"enemy units (...) in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6."

Gravmyr, as i understand it, you believe that this word "only" is a restriction on any form of attack that might exist (Stomp/Vehicle explosion/etc).

The way I/we see it, is that this word "only" is a restriction on To Hit rolls. Because that is the subject of the phrase ("on To Hit rolls of")

Now this is back to the argument: Can you really state that a Rule applies to "everything"?

1. That's exactly what is written, not what *some people believe*. Furthermore, the wording says any attack that might exist from the enemy unit in the close combat on the invisible unit it's in close combat with. Thus vehicle explosions cannot be part of that. Neither can "etc." be.

2. The way you see it is HYWPI, we're discussing RAW at this point, which is very clear to me and gravmyr at least.

3. If a rule applies to everything, it applies to everything, we don't state anything, we just read the rule and explain it for the people who don't seem to be able to translate text to meaning.


You don't feel like it should affect stomps because you read "close combat" and "To Hit rolls" and your brain automatically tells you "this must be about To Hit rolls in close combat".

But that's not what's written.

What is written is:

enemy unit in close combat with invisible unit:

add a restriction on (hit) : only on To Hit roll of a 6.

The way it is worded, anything that says "hit" will only work on a To Hit roll of a 6.

Of course it's legalese bs, but RAW always is. In my opinion you shouldn't even be able to count the stomp roll of a 6 because you're using a damn template and in every other case invisibles don't care about templates. But that's not what's written.

morgoth wrote:
1. That's exactly what is written, not what *some people believe*. Furthermore, the wording says any attack that might exist from the enemy unit in the close combat on the invisible unit it's in close combat with. Thus vehicle explosions cannot be part of that. Neither can "etc." be.

No. It does not use the word attack. If you're going to be that pedantic at least be correct.

3. If a rule applies to everything, it applies to everything, we don't state anything, we just read the rule and explain it for the people who don't seem to be able to translate text to meaning.

It doesn't apply to everything. It applies to everything that makes a To Hit roll.
According to you, the rule for blasts/templates and Snap Shots shouldn't exist.

What is written is:

enemy unit in close combat with invisible unit:

add a restriction on (hit) : only on To Hit roll of a 6.

The way it is worded, anything that says "hit" will only work on a To Hit roll of a 6.

No. If things don't roll To Hit, there's no restriction on them.

In my opinion you shouldn't even be able to count the stomp roll of a 6 because you're using a damn template and in every other case invisibles don't care about templates. But that's not what's written.

Cite where Invisibility ignores templates. Because it doesn't - it forces Snap Shots. Normally this means they can't be hit by templates, but a scattered marker or template targeted at another unit can and will still cause damage.
Again, at least be correct if you're attempting to be pedantic.

rigeld2 wrote:
It doesn't apply to everything.

It applies to every attack from an enemy unit in close combat with an invisible unit.

morgoth wrote:
1. That's exactly what is written, not what *some people believe*. Furthermore, the wording says any attack that might exist from the enemy unit in the close combat on the invisible unit it's in close combat with. Thus vehicle explosions cannot be part of that. Neither can "etc." be.

It doesn't say "attack" anywhere in the Rule, it says To Hit rolls. So no that's not how it's written.

Vehicle explosions "exist from the enemy unit in the close combat on the invisible unit it's in close combat with.", so your entire "1." is wrong.

morgoth wrote:
2. The way you see it is HYWPI, we're discussing RAW at this point, which is very clear to me and gravmyr at least.

And I am only discussing RaW at this point, maybe you see things as HYWPI.

morgoth wrote:
3. If a rule applies to everything, it applies to everything, we don't state anything, we just read the rule and explain it for the people who don't seem to be able to translate text to meaning.

Using another words here: "It doesn't apply to everything. It applies to everything that makes a To Hit roll."

Do we really need to go into phrase construction and the English language? You seem to be asserting that you are able to translate text to meaning perfectly well.

morgoth wrote:
You don't feel like it should affect stomps because you read "close combat" and "To Hit rolls" and your brain automatically tells you "this must be about To Hit rolls in close combat".

But that's not what's written.

What is written is:

enemy unit in close combat with invisible unit:

add a restriction on (hit) : only on To Hit roll of a 6.

The way it is worded, anything that says "hit" will only work on a To Hit roll of a 6.

Wrong again. It says "on To Hit rolls of a 6", not "anything that says "hit" ". The first quotation is an actual Rule from the book. The second is your invention of rules.

morgoth wrote:
Of course it's legalese bs, but RAW always is. In my opinion you shouldn't even be able to count the stomp roll of a 6 because you're using a damn template and in every other case invisibles don't care about templates. But that's not what's written.

Or sometimes the RaW actually works normally? I mean, it's what we use to play the game... if it was "legalese bulls**t" we'd find another, more fun game to play right?

Most of this is indeed "in your opinion". Because the Raw is clear: Stomp works against Invisibility.
Anything that Auto-Hits will works against Invisibility. Simple RaW.

morgoth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It doesn't apply to everything.

It applies to every attack from an enemy unit in close combat with an invisible unit.

No, it applies to all to-hit rolls made by enemies in close combat

morgoth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It doesn't apply to everything.

It applies to every attack from an enemy unit in close combat with an invisible unit.

That rolls To Hit.

You forgot to add that at the end. Because it's in the rule:
"enemy units (...) in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6."

Not "everything 6", "To Hit rolls of a 6"

5 - INVISIBILITY - Warp Charge 2

The psyker twists and obscures the perceptions of his foes to the point that he becomes completely invisible.

Invisibility is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

When do you get permission to "hit" models without doing a To Hit roll, and without rolling a 6 ?

morgoth wrote:

5 - INVISIBILITY - Warp Charge 2

The psyker twists and obscures the perceptions of his foes to the point that he becomes completely invisible.

Invisibility is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

When do you get permission to "hit" models without doing a To Hit roll, and without rolling a 6 ?

Right here:

Each model from the unit being stomped that is even partially under the blast marker suffers a Strength 6 AP4 hit.

Let's now roll To Wound...

 BlackTalos wrote:

morgoth wrote:

5 - INVISIBILITY - Warp Charge 2

The psyker twists and obscures the perceptions of his foes to the point that he becomes completely invisible.

Invisibility is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

When do you get permission to "hit" models without doing a To Hit roll, and without rolling a 6 ?

Right here:

Each model from the unit being stomped that is even partially under the blast marker suffers a Strength 6 AP4 hit.

Let's now roll To Wound...

That sounds a lot like unit a, which is in close combat with invisible unit b, hit a model from unit b.

a model in unit b suffers a hit from an ability of unit a = a model in unit b is hit by unit a = unit a hit a model from unit b


This is of course unless we can find a good reason for "unit b suffers a hit from an ability of unit a" to be different from "unit a hit a model from unit b".

Which I still haven't seen in this thread.

morgoth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It doesn't apply to everything.

It applies to every attack from an enemy unit in close combat with an invisible unit.

You keep using the word "attack" and haven't shown that it exists in the rules for Invisibility. Stop using it to support your argument.

morgoth wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

morgoth wrote:

5 - INVISIBILITY - Warp Charge 2

The psyker twists and obscures the perceptions of his foes to the point that he becomes completely invisible.

Invisibility is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

When do you get permission to "hit" models without doing a To Hit roll, and without rolling a 6 ?

Right here:

Each model from the unit being stomped that is even partially under the blast marker suffers a Strength 6 AP4 hit.

Let's now roll To Wound...

That sounds a lot like unit a, which is in close combat with invisible unit b, hit a model from unit b.

a model in unit b suffers a hit from an ability of unit a = a model in unit b is hit by unit a = unit a hit a model from unit b


This is of course unless we can find a good reason for "unit b suffers a hit from an ability of unit a" to be different from "unit a hit a model from unit b".

Which I still haven't seen in this thread.

Please show in the Stomp rules where you 'roll to hit" with a Stomp attack

Please show in the Stomp Rules where Stomp is a Close Combat attack.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


Please show in the Stomp rules where you 'roll to hit" with a Stomp attack

Please show in the Stomp Rules where Stomp is a Close Combat attack.

There is no such requirement.

A stomp roll of kerrunch makes the unit B suffer hits and happens in close combat.

Read the rule carefully, then come back to tell me why you think "suffers hits" does not match the "only hit" clause.

morgoth wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


Please show in the Stomp rules where you 'roll to hit" with a Stomp attack

Please show in the Stomp Rules where Stomp is a Close Combat attack.

There is no such requirement.

A stomp roll of kerrunch makes the unit B suffer hits and happens in close combat.

Read the rule carefully, then come back to tell me why you think "suffers hits" does not match the "only hit" clause.

And how is a hit resolve if it states it "suffers hit", there is no "roll to hit" wording there for "only hit by 6's" to apply, therefore it does not apply, as you made no roll to hit.

Stomp is its own special attack, as defined in its rules, it is neither a close combat attack, nor does it make rolls to hit. Knowing that, how does invisbility prevent Stomp, as no criteria to trigger the restrictions for Invisibility are ever invoked.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

And how is a hit resolve if it states it "suffers hit", there is no "roll to hit" wording there for "only hit by 6's" to apply, therefore it does not apply, as you made no roll to hit.

Stomp is its own special attack, as defined in its rules, it is neither a close combat attack, nor does it make rolls to hit. Knowing that, how does invisbility prevent Stomp, as no criteria to trigger the restrictions for Invisibility are ever invoked.

We're almost there.

Invisibility is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

enemy units in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.

An enemy unit (the IK)
In close combat (in base contact)
Will only hit (or cause hits, or make the enemy suffer hits or really anything that has hit in its wording)
Models in it (the invisible unit which is in base contact)
On To Hit rolls of a 6 (when a To Hit roll is made and rolls a 6)

Which line do you disagree with ?

automatically hitting means you are hit, if you needed to roll a 6 to hit, you just succeeded.

also stating that you can only hit a model by rolling, and getting a 6 is not the same as stating to hit rolls require a 6.

regardless if something hits automatically, it means it passed the required to hit roll if there was one.

when a to hit roll is made and rolls a 6, also means if there is no to hit roll to make there is no need to roll a 6.