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.

If you follow Charistophe's erroneous line of reasoning and consider that Stomp is not a close combat attack . . .

one consequence is that models are then allowed to take cover saves against Stomp attacks.

Close combat attacks specifically disallow cover saves.

Yet again, irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and does nothing to prove Stomp is a close combat attack and/or considered to be striking blows in terms of the rules.

If you think it's erroneous don't simply say so with nothing further. That does nothing to resolve the debate. Instead counter the points you disagree with, with proper rules support, instead of going off on fallacious tangents that have nothing to do with the point.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Yet again, irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and does nothing to prove Stomp is a close combat attack and/or considered to be striking blows in terms of the rules.

If you think it's erroneous don't simply say so with nothing further. That does nothing to resolve the debate. Instead counter the points you disagree with, with proper rules support, instead of going off on fallacious tangents that have nothing to do with the point.

It's entirely to the point. Do you allow cover saves to be taken against Stomp attacks? If you do not allow them, then why not?

If you are selectively treating Stomp as a close combat attack for certain things and treating it as a wholly unique attack for other things, then there is a serious problem in your overall argument as your argument is pulling on two conflicting categorizations of Stomp and is rationally unacceptable and cannot be offered up as a viable alternative!

What categorization Stomp lies in, and the consequences of that categorization, are very much at the core of this debate. This is no tangent.

I am happy to report that my argument is consistent with not allowing cover saves to be taken against Stomp attacks and is being offered as a internally consistent and viable argument.

It's not relevant because there's no suggestion we would disallow covers saves against Stomp attacks. You're imagining a basis to refute our argument where there's nothing.

Given they're not close combat attacks, Stomp attacks should not disallow cover saves.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
It's not relevant because there's no suggestion we would disallow covers saves against Stomp attacks. You're imagining a basis to refute our argument where there's nothing.

Given they're not close combat attacks, Stomp attacks should not disallow cover saves.

Is that the way you play it?

It's not come up in a game before (I've yet to use my Wraithknight since the new codex came out) but yes, if it came up now, having gone through it in this detail of course I would.

It's not particularly counter-intuitive either, given Stomp uses the blast marker and can affect units beyond the close combat in question.

For the record also I consider Gargantuan Creatures able to fire only two weapons, so you can't claim I'm biased to my own advantage.

col_impact wrote:
If you follow Charistophe's erroneous line of reasoning and consider that Stomp is not a close combat attack . . .

one consequence is that models are then allowed to take cover saves against Stomp attacks.

Close combat attacks specifically disallow cover saves.

Spoiler:

Cover Saves
Models do not get cover saves against any Wounds suffered from close combat attacks,
and for obvious reasons, cannot Go to Ground – there is nowhere to hide!

So instead of actually providing a counter-argument, you choose to appeal to BALANCE! as a reason this won't work instead of going by how the rules is written?

I have no problem modifying the game with House Rules, but that is the only place for BALANCE! to be in a rules discussion.

We have the same problem with ICs and Formation Special Rules. HYWPI is incorrectly considered RAW by some of you.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If you follow Charistophe's erroneous line of reasoning and consider that Stomp is not a close combat attack . . .

one consequence is that models are then allowed to take cover saves against Stomp attacks.

Close combat attacks specifically disallow cover saves.

Spoiler:

Cover Saves
Models do not get cover saves against any Wounds suffered from close combat attacks,
and for obvious reasons, cannot Go to Ground – there is nowhere to hide!

So instead of actually providing a counter-argument, you choose to appeal to BALANCE! as a reason this won't work instead of going by how the rules is written?

I have no problem modifying the game with House Rules, but that is the only place for BALANCE! to be in a rules discussion.

We have the same problem with ICs and Formation Special Rules. HYWPI is incorrectly considered RAW by some of you.

Stomp happens by engaged models during close combat.
it happens during the fight subphase which according to the Brb is "time to strike blows"

FIGHT SUB-PHASE
With all the assaults launched, it’s time to strike blows!

It happens as an attack by an engaged model during the fight subphase when its time to strike blows in addition to the models normal attacks.

a model reduced to 0 WS cannot strike blows.

a model reduced to 0 Attacks cannot strike blows.

strike blows= what happens during the fight sub-phase.

the dead before striking blow further shows the models attacks at various initiative steps are striking blows.

if a models attacks are striking blows, and it is not allowed to make ANY attacks [there is no rule saying it is not allowed to make its normal attacks, or attacks with weapons, it states ANY.]

If you are not allowed to strike any blows[which is shown to be making attacks] how are you making something that is an attack that you get in addition to normal attacks if you have no ability to make any attacks?

if you honestly believe stomping isn't striking a blow, and the rules define the fight subphase as "time to strike blows" as well again under dead before striking define the attacks at various I steps as "Striking blows" then stomp would have to specify it is not a close combat attack in order for it to be anything other than striking a blow.

it happens during strike blows, it happens in addition to normal attacks(striking blows)-without a rule stating they can always stomp, or it is not a close combat attack it has no permission to be anything other than an attack that happens during the fight subphase(when it is time to strike blows) by engaged models. models with WS0 or A0 cannot strike blows, so without a rule specifying it is not striking a blow, or not a close combat attack there is no rules basis to grant stomping model permission to stomp as it is placed within those categories by its own rules.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arkaine wrote:
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".

1.) Smash is an attack, models with WS0 or A0 cannot smash. Declaring smash still leaves you with the not being able to make any attacks.

2.) Models with WS0 or A0 cannot make hammer of wrath attacks, it is also an attack that happens during the fight subphase (striking blow) that it hits automatically does not change that it is an attack.

3.) armor of shrieking souls and acid blood are results of another models attacks, they are not attacks from the model and are not striking blows. They are not defined or stated to be attacks in their rules.

blaktoof wrote:
Stomp happens by engaged models during close combat.
it happens during the fight subphase which according to the Brb is "time to strike blows"

FIGHT SUB-PHASE
With all the assaults launched, it’s time to strike blows!

Again, Timing not the issue. You must prove that ONLY striking blows happens in the Fight Sub-Phase to convert a Special Attack to what is covered by the WS 0 incapacitation. By that virtue, is Running a form of Shooting? Is Interceptor a form of Movement? Is the affect of Acidic Blood a form of Striking Blows?

blaktoof wrote:
It happens as an attack by an engaged model during the fight subphase when its time to strike blows in addition to the models normal attacks.

a model reduced to 0 WS cannot strike blows.

a model reduced to 0 Attacks cannot strike blows.

strike blows= what happens during the fight sub-phase.

So, everything that happens during the Fight Sub-Phase is striking blows? Pile-Ins are now considered Striking Blows everyone!

blaktoof wrote:
the dead before striking blow further shows the models attacks at various initiative steps are striking blows.

Does that include Special Attacks? Evidence with quote, please. Especially since every context of "attacks" you are discussing references the Attacks characteristics, and not the special Attacks that do not use any of those attending stats.

blaktoof wrote:
if a models attacks are striking blows, and it is not allowed to make ANY attacks [there is no rule saying it is not allowed to make its normal attacks, or attacks with weapons, it states ANY.

Quote and reference for that, please. I see "A model with Weapon Skill ‘0’ is incapacitated; they are hit automatically in close combat and cannot strike any blows. A model with no Attacks cannot strike any blows in close combat." which uses the capital "A" in Attacks to indicate it is discussing the Characteristic, but I'm not seeing where it says, "if you cannot strike blows you cannot make any attacks."

blaktoof wrote:
if you honestly believe stomping isn't striking a blow, and the rules define the fight subphase as "time to strike blows" as well again under dead before striking define the attacks at various I steps as "Striking blows" then stomp would have to specify it is not a close combat attack in order for it to be anything other than striking a blow.

Considering I have demonstrated how "striking blows" is performed by using a Weapon, and Stomp does not use a Weapon; Stomp states that it is "a special type of attack called a Stomp attack"; the only relation to being a close combat attack is timing and location to initiate, and you have yet to show how these are used to determine all close combat attacks; your assertion is on shaky ground.

blaktoof wrote:
it happens during strike blows, it happens in addition to normal attacks(striking blows)-without a rule stating they can always stomp, or it is not a close combat attack it has no permission to be anything other than an attack that happens during the fight subphase(when it is time to strike blows) by engaged models. models with WS0 or A0 cannot strike blows, so without a rule specifying it is not striking a blow, or not a close combat attack there is no rules basis to grant stomping model permission to stomp as it is placed within those categories by its own rules.

So does Pile In, is it Striking Blows, too? Timing does not determine all qualifications. Is Interceptor a Moving Attack, then? No, it states it is a Shooting Attack. Stomp states it is a Special Attack that happens during an Initiative Step.

You keep repeating the same things without providing any other further evidence of connection or disrupting the connections I have made.

blaktoof wrote:
3.) armor of shrieking souls and acid blood are results of another models attacks, they are not attacks from the model and are not striking blows. They are not defined or stated to be attacks in their rules.

Interesting. Because I know that they still cause damage in the initiative step, and that seems to be one of your qualifications for such. The rules are striking blows back at what attacked them. They use WS and A as much as Stomp does. All are considered Special.

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Stomp happens by engaged models during close combat.
it happens during the fight subphase which according to the Brb is "time to strike blows"

FIGHT SUB-PHASE
With all the assaults launched, it’s time to strike blows!

Again, Timing not the issue. You must prove that ONLY striking blows happens in the Fight Sub-Phase to convert a Special Attack to what is covered by the WS 0 incapacitation. By that virtue, is Running a form of Shooting? Is Interceptor a form of Movement? Is the affect of Acidic Blood a form of Striking Blows?

blaktoof wrote:
It happens as an attack by an engaged model during the fight subphase when its time to strike blows in addition to the models normal attacks.

a model reduced to 0 WS cannot strike blows.

a model reduced to 0 Attacks cannot strike blows.

strike blows= what happens during the fight sub-phase.

So, everything that happens during the Fight Sub-Phase is striking blows? Pile-Ins are now considered Striking Blows everyone!

blaktoof wrote:
the dead before striking blow further shows the models attacks at various initiative steps are striking blows.

Does that include Special Attacks? Evidence with quote, please. Especially since every context of "attacks" you are discussing references the Attacks characteristics, and not the special Attacks that do not use any of those attending stats.

blaktoof wrote:
if a models attacks are striking blows, and it is not allowed to make ANY attacks [there is no rule saying it is not allowed to make its normal attacks, or attacks with weapons, it states ANY.

Quote and reference for that, please. I see "A model with Weapon Skill ‘0’ is incapacitated; they are hit automatically in close combat and cannot strike any blows. A model with no Attacks cannot strike any blows in close combat." which uses the capital "A" in Attacks to indicate it is discussing the Characteristic, but I'm not seeing where it says, "if you cannot strike blows you cannot make any attacks."

blaktoof wrote:
if you honestly believe stomping isn't striking a blow, and the rules define the fight subphase as "time to strike blows" as well again under dead before striking define the attacks at various I steps as "Striking blows" then stomp would have to specify it is not a close combat attack in order for it to be anything other than striking a blow.

Considering I have demonstrated how "striking blows" is performed by using a Weapon, and Stomp does not use a Weapon; Stomp states that it is "a special type of attack called a Stomp attack"; the only relation to being a close combat attack is timing and location to initiate, and you have yet to show how these are used to determine all close combat attacks; your assertion is on shaky ground.

blaktoof wrote:
it happens during strike blows, it happens in addition to normal attacks(striking blows)-without a rule stating they can always stomp, or it is not a close combat attack it has no permission to be anything other than an attack that happens during the fight subphase(when it is time to strike blows) by engaged models. models with WS0 or A0 cannot strike blows, so without a rule specifying it is not striking a blow, or not a close combat attack there is no rules basis to grant stomping model permission to stomp as it is placed within those categories by its own rules.

So does Pile In, is it Striking Blows, too? Timing does not determine all qualifications. Is Interceptor a Moving Attack, then? No, it states it is a Shooting Attack. Stomp states it is a Special Attack that happens during an Initiative Step.

You keep repeating the same things without providing any other further evidence of connection or disrupting the connections I have made.

blaktoof wrote:
3.) armor of shrieking souls and acid blood are results of another models attacks, they are not attacks from the model and are not striking blows. They are not defined or stated to be attacks in their rules.

Interesting. Because I know that they still cause damage in the initiative step, and that seems to be one of your qualifications for such. The rules are striking blows back at what attacked them. They use WS and A as much as Stomp does. All are considered Special.

are pile ins said to be an attack in their rules?

Stomp is.

there are no rules for special attacks, there are special rules which gives attacks. We are told these attacks are in addition to their normal attacks. We are never told they are not close combat attacks.

I repeat the same thing because you are unable to actually disprove any of it.

you have not proven striking blows can only be done by weapons, in fact that has been disproven multiple times- that you ignore it does not make your point valid.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If you follow Charistophe's erroneous line of reasoning and consider that Stomp is not a close combat attack . . .

one consequence is that models are then allowed to take cover saves against Stomp attacks.

Close combat attacks specifically disallow cover saves.

Spoiler:

Cover Saves
Models do not get cover saves against any Wounds suffered from close combat attacks,
and for obvious reasons, cannot Go to Ground – there is nowhere to hide!

So instead of actually providing a counter-argument, you choose to appeal to BALANCE! as a reason this won't work instead of going by how the rules is written?

I have no problem modifying the game with House Rules, but that is the only place for BALANCE! to be in a rules discussion.

We have the same problem with ICs and Formation Special Rules. HYWPI is incorrectly considered RAW by some of you.

I am not appealing to balance at all. I am only checking to see if your argument is consistent in its categorization since an inconsistent application of categories makes for an untenable argument. Do you allow cover saves to be taken against Stomp attacks?

col_impact wrote:
I am not appealing to balance at all. I am only checking to see if your argument is consistent in its categorization since an inconsistent application of categories makes for an untenable argument. Do you allow cover saves to be taken against Stomp attacks?

Interesting to note you've still not advanced the debate any further, instead attempting to follow the tangent as I described earlier with Charistoph after not having had a reply in your favour from me.

And then creating a poll on the tangential question in another thread presumably in the hope of winning popular opinion...

 Mr. Shine wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I am not appealing to balance at all. I am only checking to see if your argument is consistent in its categorization since an inconsistent application of categories makes for an untenable argument. Do you allow cover saves to be taken against Stomp attacks?

Interesting to note you've still not advanced the debate any further, instead attempting to follow the tangent as I described earlier with Charistoph after not having had a reply in your favour from me.

And then creating a poll on the tangential question in another thread presumably in the hope of winning popular opinion...

It's not a tangential matter and it's worth a separate thread and it is actually proper forum etiquette for me to initiate a separate thread. A model being reduced to WS 0 rarely if ever happens and so this thread is largely hypothetical and of little consequence. Taking cover saves against Stomp is something of definite consequence however and it is something most players have not been doing (to my knowledge). The thread is not a poll so best argument wins, not popularity.

blaktoof wrote:are pile ins said to be an attack in their rules?

Well, you've also said that all Attacks in the Assault Phase are Striking Blows, too. I'm just trying to help you bring some clarity of thought to your posts.

blaktoof wrote:there are no rules for special attacks, there are special rules which gives attacks. We are told these attacks are in addition to their normal attacks. We are never told they are not close combat attacks.

But we are not told that they are close combat attacks in its rule, and you have not provided such a definition to demonstrate that they are. That's part of the problem with what you keep not saying. Rules for Special Attacks are provided in the rules for the Special Attacks.

blaktoof wrote:I repeat the same thing because you are unable to actually disprove any of it.

But either your repetitions are not in argument or you provide no connections to support your assertion.

blaktoof wrote:you have not proven striking blows can only be done by weapons, in fact that has been disproven multiple times- that you ignore it does not make your point valid.

I've proven it better than you have proven that all Attacks in an Initiative Step are Close Combat Attacks, and it is not really disproven except that you do not accept it (which is not disproving, by the way). I've proven striking blows are used with Melee Weapons, but neither you nor I have yet to find it used in any specific fashion in any other way. It is used generally for the Assault Phase, because that is when Melee Weapons are generally used. The Assault Phase is about bringing Melee Weapons to bear and striking blows. But that does not mean EVERYTHING that involves an Attack during this Phase, or even special sections of the Phase, involves striking blows, either. Especially when such an Attack calls itself out as being special and nothing else brings it in to the fold.

For example, let's take Bombs and the Bombing Run. Bombing Runs are Special Attacks made by Bomb Weapons during the Moving Phase. Bomb Weapons are classed as a Shooting Weapons. So making the connections for Bombing Runs to being a Special Shooting Attack are there and can potentially allow for a model to declare a Jink against it.

Stomp does none of this outside of timing (Initiative Step 1), and location (Engaged). Nothing else has been provided to make a connection. It does not use a Weapon, nor is Smash able to affect it. It does not use WS or BS to determine success. In every other way that a close combat attack is determined, it does not qualify except by being caught at the scene of the "crime". You need more evidence beyond circumstantial for your case.

col_impact wrote:I am not appealing to balance at all. I am only checking to see if your argument is consistent in its categorization since an inconsistent application of categories makes for an untenable argument. Do you allow cover saves to be taken against Stomp attacks?

It sure seems that way. "If you follow Charistophe's erroneous line of reasoning..." "one consequence is that models..." Both are lines that are worried more about the consequences of the result of an assertion or determination more than how the assertion or determination is made. It is trying to use the result to determine method. As I said, this is perfectly fine when dealing with House Rules or declaring HYWPI, but not for Rules As Written.

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:are pile ins said to be an attack in their rules?

Well, you've also said that all Attacks in the Assault Phase are Striking Blows, too. I'm just trying to help you bring some clarity of thought to your posts.

blaktoof wrote:there are no rules for special attacks, there are special rules which gives attacks. We are told these attacks are in addition to their normal attacks. We are never told they are not close combat attacks.

But we are not told that they are close combat attacks in its rule, and you have not provided such a definition to demonstrate that they are. That's part of the problem with what you keep not saying. Rules for Special Attacks are provided in the rules for the Special Attacks.

blaktoof wrote:I repeat the same thing because you are unable to actually disprove any of it.

But either your repetitions are not in argument or you provide no connections to support your assertion.

blaktoof wrote:you have not proven striking blows can only be done by weapons, in fact that has been disproven multiple times- that you ignore it does not make your point valid.

I've proven it better than you have proven that all Attacks in an Initiative Step are Close Combat Attacks, and it is not really disproven except that you do not accept it (which is not disproving, by the way). I've proven striking blows are used with Melee Weapons, but neither you nor I have yet to find it used in any specific fashion in any other way. It is used generally for the Assault Phase, because that is when Melee Weapons are generally used. The Assault Phase is about bringing Melee Weapons to bear and striking blows. But that does not mean EVERYTHING that involves an Attack during this Phase, or even special sections of the Phase, involves striking blows, either. Especially when such an Attack calls itself out as being special and nothing else brings it in to the fold.

For example, let's take Bombs and the Bombing Run. Bombing Runs are Special Attacks made by Bomb Weapons during the Moving Phase. Bomb Weapons are classed as a Shooting Weapons. So making the connections for Bombing Runs to being a Special Shooting Attack are there and can potentially allow for a model to declare a Jink against it.

Stomp does none of this outside of timing (Initiative Step 1), and location (Engaged). Nothing else has been provided to make a connection. It does not use a Weapon, nor is Smash able to affect it. It does not use WS or BS to determine success. In every other way that a close combat attack is determined, it does not qualify except by being caught at the scene of the "crime". You need more evidence beyond circumstantial for your case.

col_impact wrote:I am not appealing to balance at all. I am only checking to see if your argument is consistent in its categorization since an inconsistent application of categories makes for an untenable argument. Do you allow cover saves to be taken against Stomp attacks?

It sure seems that way. "If you follow Charistophe's erroneous line of reasoning..." "one consequence is that models..." Both are lines that are worried more about the consequences of the result of an assertion or determination more than how the assertion or determination is made. It is trying to use the result to determine method. As I said, this is perfectly fine when dealing with House Rules or declaring HYWPI, but not for Rules As Written.

I actually never said or implied that all attacks in the assault phase are close combat attacks, please continue to fabricate more things to make your point that has no support or permission within any of the rules.

The bombing run example is not comparable at all. It is an attack that happens during a phase that it normally cannot happen in. Stomping we are told is an attack that happens from engaged models during the fight subphase, which we are further told is the time to strike blows, in addition to a models normal attacks.

Not comparable.

blaktoof wrote:I actually never said or implied that all attacks in the assault phase are close combat attacks, please continue to fabricate more things to make your point that has no support or permission within any of the rules.

Really?

blaktoof wrote:Strike a blow has no rules definition in of itself so either it means the model with WS0 can not do anything during the assault phase, or it means nothing.

Stomping is an attack.

If a model is at WS0 it may not make any form of attacks during the assault phase.

Sure looks like it to me.

blaktoof wrote:The bombing run example is not comparable at all. It is an attack that happens during a phase that it normally cannot happen in. Stomping we are told is an attack that happens from engaged models during the fight subphase, which we are further told is the time to strike blows, in addition to a models normal attacks.

Not comparable.

They are comparable since both are Special Attacks. What is not comparable between them is what I stated, Bombing Runs are connected to Weapons of a certain type while Stomp is not. Timing means nothing, really, since there are many situations where things are done out of sequence.

Can a Stomp attack be definitively asserted as an 'attack in close combat'?

This is different than asserting that Stomp is a 'close combat attack'

Hey guys I just made a profile after reading this because i think that everyone is digging too far into this. (of course i could be completely wrong)

When rules are concerned those are "standard" rules. A "stomp" attack is a "SPECIAL" attack. Standard rules say that if a model is reduced to 0 WS or 0 A then it cant attack, AS per standard. this is a Special case. or am i just looking at it wrong?

So are we in agreement then that Stomp is an "attack in close combat"?

If you feel otherwise, please explain fully how Stomp is not an "attack in close combat."

Stomp can be an attack in cost combat, but is not exclusively or definitively so.

Because we know Stomp can affect units not even engaged in the close combat allowing the Stomp attack to occur.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Stomp can be an attack in cost combat, but is not exclusively or definitively so.

Because we know Stomp can affect units not even engaged in the close combat allowing the Stomp attack to occur.

So if you are saying it is not an "attack in close combat" point to a situation where a GMC can make a stomp attack while the GMC is not in close combat. You can't. Stomp is only permissible "in close combat" and is unequivocally an "attack in close combat." It happens in the fight sub-phase and uses the initiative queue and requires models that are engaged.

The fact that it can occasionally damage a model or unit outside of that close combat is nothing of note. A blast shooting attack can situationally damage units engaged in close combat even though shooting attacks aren't allowed to directly target units in close combat. Does the fact that a blast shooting attack can affect units in close combat make it not definitively a shooting attack? Nope. It uses the shooting sequence and is unequivocally a shooting attack.

col_impact wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Stomp can be an attack in cost combat, but is not exclusively or definitively so.

Because we know Stomp can affect units not even engaged in the close combat allowing the Stomp attack to occur.

So if you are saying it is not an "attack in close combat" point to a situation where a GMC can make a stomp attack while the GMC is not in close combat. You can't. Stomp is only permissible "in close combat" and is unequivocally an "attack in close combat." It happens in the fight sub-phase and uses the initiative queue and requires models that are engaged.

An ability that occurs during a specific phase does not have to be an attack type indicative to that phase. For example, the C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer Gaze of Death occurs in the shooting phase but is not a shooting attack and thus bypasses abilities afforded to certain models from actual shooting attacks.

 Brillow80 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Stomp can be an attack in cost combat, but is not exclusively or definitively so.

Because we know Stomp can affect units not even engaged in the close combat allowing the Stomp attack to occur.

So if you are saying it is not an "attack in close combat" point to a situation where a GMC can make a stomp attack while the GMC is not in close combat. You can't. Stomp is only permissible "in close combat" and is unequivocally an "attack in close combat." It happens in the fight sub-phase and uses the initiative queue and requires models that are engaged.

An ability that occurs during a specific phase does not have to be an attack type indicative to that phase. For example, the C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer Gaze of Death occurs in the shooting phase but is not a shooting attack and thus bypasses abilities afforded to certain models from actual shooting attacks.

You have lost track of the careful distinction I am making between an "attack in close combat" and a "close combat attack." I am not saying Gaze of Death is a shooting attack nor am I saying Stomp is a close combat attack.

The Gaze of Death is an attack in the shooting phase but it is not a shooting attack.

A Stomp is an attack in close combat but it is not a close combat attack.

Otherwise you need to show how a GMC can make a Stomp attack while it is not "in close combat"

col_impact wrote:
So if you are saying it is not an "attack in close combat" point to a situation where a GMC can make a stomp attack while the GMC is not in close combat. You can't. Stomp is only permissible "in close combat" and is unequivocally an "attack in close combat." It happens in the fight sub-phase and uses the initiative queue and requires models that are engaged.

I never said it is not an attack in close combat. Rather it is not exclusively or definitively so. If it can affect a unit unengaged in and completely separate from any close combat, it cannot be definitively an attack in close combat.

I would agree it is an attack during close combat.

col_impact wrote:
You have lost track of the careful distinction I am making between an "attack in close combat" and a "close combat attack." I am not saying Gaze of Death is a shooting attack nor am I saying Stomp is a close combat attack.

To what end? Please make your point if you have one, rather than seemingly leading us on a wild goose chase.

col_impact wrote:
So if you are saying it is not an "attack in close combat" point to a situation where a GMC can make a stomp attack while the GMC is not in close combat. You can't. Stomp is only permissible "in close combat" and is unequivocally an "attack in close combat." It happens in the fight sub-phase and uses the initiative queue and requires models that are engaged.

A starting requirement does not always indicate the full result of the Attack. Not all Attacks from range are Shooting Attacks. But the affects of Stomp can reach beyond the range of the Engagement to units not even Engaged. Close Combat Attacks cannot do this. While they can reach beyond Engaged Range, they are still limited to the unit(s) that are Engaged with Attacker. This is not the situation with Stomp.

Where is it defined that all Attacks made while Engaged or in the Fight Sub-Phase are close combat attacks? Where is it defined that all such Attacks are "striking blows"? After how many pages this question is asked, why can you not provide any such definition to support this assertion?

col_impact wrote:
The fact that it can occasionally damage a model or unit outside of that close combat is nothing of note. A blast shooting attack can situationally damage units engaged in close combat even though shooting attacks aren't allowed to directly target units in close combat. Does the fact that a blast shooting attack can affect units in close combat make it not definitively a shooting attack? Nope. It uses the shooting sequence and is unequivocally a shooting attack.

It is quite of note. How many close combat attacks can affect a unit not Engaged?

Charistoph wrote:
It is quite of note. How many close combat attacks can affect a unit not Engaged?

Off the top of my head? The Black Mace.

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

Toughness tests are not close combat attacks.

I just want to ask the question, if you cannot strike blows, who cares when you automatically hit?

"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.

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.

Other wargear and such of codexes dont interpfere with this interpetation. Codex wins over BRB so there every special wargear or SR hat to be read separately.

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.

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

I personally think there is more evidence to it not being a close combat attack. Mostly because it can hurt units not engaged in close combat.

but then again,
it occurs at the i1 step of CLOSE COMBAT. At the initiative one step of close combat, a counterargument to this is that if a vehicle explodes at i10, the explosion is not close combat.