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.

Charistoph wrote:

So it doesn't happen when another unit does not Charge? Such as the turn following the last unit Charged?

What do you mean?

The unit still charged in the previous turn, and Multiple Combats doesn't dictate that the charge must have occurred in the current turn.

Charistoph wrote:
An exhaustive list would be one that gave no leeway, such as "are only considered during x events".

Which is exactly what this is. It gives you exactly 2 scenarios when the rules for Multiple Combats apply. You have no permission whatsoever to fabricate additional ones.

Charistoph wrote:

The only practicable solution is that Stomp overrides this conflict due to its ability to involve others in the Fight than what are Engaged, unless you can point out how the Stomp cannot affect those unEngaged with the Stomper.

Nope, sorry, that's far from the only practical solution.

If you want to house rule it that way in your group, fine. Just don't pretend that doing so is somehow following the rules.

The Fight Sub-phase rules are clear that they only allocate wounds to models that are 'in combat' with the GMC.

While a Stomp attack might be able to collaterally generate hits on a unit that it is not in combat with, generating those hits does not change that affected unit to being 'in combat'.

Thus, Stomp attacks allocate no wounds to units that are not 'in combat' with the GMC.

col_impact wrote:
The Fight Sub-phase rules are clear that they only allocate wounds to models that are 'in combat' with the GMC.

While a Stomp attack might be able to collaterally generate hits on a unit that it is not in combat with, generating those hits does not change that affected unit to being 'in combat'.

Thus, Stomp attacks allocate no wounds to units that are not 'in combat' with the GMC.

You are being purposefully obtuse. It is obvious that the units not in combat will still be hit and people have given you proof and you still fail to see it. No one cares if the "sub-fight phase" has no way to allocate wounds to those other units. Examples like vector strike which damage during the movement phase have been give. That also has no wound allocation method in that phase.

notredameguy10 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The Fight Sub-phase rules are clear that they only allocate wounds to models that are 'in combat' with the GMC.

While a Stomp attack might be able to collaterally generate hits on a unit that it is not in combat with, generating those hits does not change that affected unit to being 'in combat'.

Thus, Stomp attacks allocate no wounds to units that are not 'in combat' with the GMC.

You are being purposefully obtuse. It is obvious that the units not in combat will still be hit and people have given you proof and you still fail to see it. No one cares if the "sub-fight phase" has no way to allocate wounds to those other units. Examples like vector strike which damage during the movement phase have been give. That also has no wound allocation method in that phase.

I am simply following the rules that the BRB lays before me. If you want to actually counter my argument you are going to have to provide alternate rules for Wound Allocation than the rules that I have general permission to follow (the Fight Sub-phase rules).

If you have been making up rules in the way that you play Stomp, that is fine. Simply mark your proposed house rule alternative as HYWPI. We are focusing on RAW in this discussion.

col_impact wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The Fight Sub-phase rules are clear that they only allocate wounds to models that are 'in combat' with the GMC.

While a Stomp attack might be able to collaterally generate hits on a unit that it is not in combat with, generating those hits does not change that affected unit to being 'in combat'.

Thus, Stomp attacks allocate no wounds to units that are not 'in combat' with the GMC.

You are being purposefully obtuse. It is obvious that the units not in combat will still be hit and people have given you proof and you still fail to see it. No one cares if the "sub-fight phase" has no way to allocate wounds to those other units. Examples like vector strike which damage during the movement phase have been give. That also has no wound allocation method in that phase.

I am simply following the rules that the BRB lays before me. If you want to actually counter my argument you are going to have to provide alternate rules for Wound Allocation than the rules that I have general permission to follow (the Fight Sub-phase rules).

If you have been making up rules in the way that you play Stomp, that is fine. Simply mark your proposed house rule alternative as HYWPI. We are focusing on RAW in this discussion.

So skipping over the vector strike example again are ya? You keep doing that. Every time someone makes a point you cannot address, you just ignore it and tell the other person they are wrong.

notredameguy10 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The Fight Sub-phase rules are clear that they only allocate wounds to models that are 'in combat' with the GMC.

While a Stomp attack might be able to collaterally generate hits on a unit that it is not in combat with, generating those hits does not change that affected unit to being 'in combat'.

Thus, Stomp attacks allocate no wounds to units that are not 'in combat' with the GMC.

You are being purposefully obtuse. It is obvious that the units not in combat will still be hit and people have given you proof and you still fail to see it. No one cares if the "sub-fight phase" has no way to allocate wounds to those other units. Examples like vector strike which damage during the movement phase have been give. That also has no wound allocation method in that phase.

I am simply following the rules that the BRB lays before me. If you want to actually counter my argument you are going to have to provide alternate rules for Wound Allocation than the rules that I have general permission to follow (the Fight Sub-phase rules).

If you have been making up rules in the way that you play Stomp, that is fine. Simply mark your proposed house rule alternative as HYWPI. We are focusing on RAW in this discussion.

So skipping over the vector strike example again are ya? You keep doing that. Every time someone makes a point you cannot address, you just ignore it and tell the other person they are wrong.

I addressed Vector strike some time ago in the thread.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 acme2468 wrote:
Note however that most Tournaments rule you can't target units out of the combat.

I like when people say this, as if they've been involved in sufficiently large a number of totally-representative tournaments to be able to make such a claim.

Well ITC doesn't allow you to hit units your not engaged with and that is a decent representative of a lot of major events. Of course it doesn't cover the more numerous small scaled events.

 Icelord wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 acme2468 wrote:
Note however that most Tournaments rule you can't target units out of the combat.

I like when people say this, as if they've been involved in sufficiently large a number of totally-representative tournaments to be able to make such a claim.

Well ITC doesn't allow you to hit units your not engaged with and that is a decent representative of a lot of major events. Of course it doesn't cover the more numerous small scaled events.

ITC, as well as most other tournaments, just puts out a list of house rules. How they rule things might be interesting for a house rule discussion, but has very little impact on how the rules are actually written or intended to be played.

col_impact wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The Fight Sub-phase rules are clear that they only allocate wounds to models that are 'in combat' with the GMC.

While a Stomp attack might be able to collaterally generate hits on a unit that it is not in combat with, generating those hits does not change that affected unit to being 'in combat'.

Thus, Stomp attacks allocate no wounds to units that are not 'in combat' with the GMC.

You are being purposefully obtuse. It is obvious that the units not in combat will still be hit and people have given you proof and you still fail to see it. No one cares if the "sub-fight phase" has no way to allocate wounds to those other units. Examples like vector strike which damage during the movement phase have been give. That also has no wound allocation method in that phase.

I am simply following the rules that the BRB lays before me. If you want to actually counter my argument you are going to have to provide alternate rules for Wound Allocation than the rules that I have general permission to follow (the Fight Sub-phase rules).

If you have been making up rules in the way that you play Stomp, that is fine. Simply mark your proposed house rule alternative as HYWPI. We are focusing on RAW in this discussion.

So skipping over the vector strike example again are ya? You keep doing that. Every time someone makes a point you cannot address, you just ignore it and tell the other person they are wrong.

I addressed Vector strike some time ago in the thread.

Spoiler:

Both of those rules point to explicit permission for Wound Allocation to happen. Wound Allocation rules exist in 2 places in the BRB - in the context of the Shooting Sequence and in the context of the Fight Sub-phase. So the rules give explicit permission to access one of those sections directly to do Wound Allocation. The player is not explicitly told which of the two Wound Allocation rules to use. The Psychic phase rules indicate that it models itself after shooting so they very strongly 'hint' to use the Wound Allocation rules in the Shooting Sequence and Vector Strike/Random Allocation similarly 'hints' to use the Wound Allocation in the Shooting Sequence.

Ok gotcha. So how about you mark YOUR post a HYWPI as you are now agreeing that psychic and vector strikes do not actually say but only "strongly hint". Who is making up rules now?

notredameguy10 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The Fight Sub-phase rules are clear that they only allocate wounds to models that are 'in combat' with the GMC.

While a Stomp attack might be able to collaterally generate hits on a unit that it is not in combat with, generating those hits does not change that affected unit to being 'in combat'.

Thus, Stomp attacks allocate no wounds to units that are not 'in combat' with the GMC.

You are being purposefully obtuse. It is obvious that the units not in combat will still be hit and people have given you proof and you still fail to see it. No one cares if the "sub-fight phase" has no way to allocate wounds to those other units. Examples like vector strike which damage during the movement phase have been give. That also has no wound allocation method in that phase.

I am simply following the rules that the BRB lays before me. If you want to actually counter my argument you are going to have to provide alternate rules for Wound Allocation than the rules that I have general permission to follow (the Fight Sub-phase rules).

If you have been making up rules in the way that you play Stomp, that is fine. Simply mark your proposed house rule alternative as HYWPI. We are focusing on RAW in this discussion.

So skipping over the vector strike example again are ya? You keep doing that. Every time someone makes a point you cannot address, you just ignore it and tell the other person they are wrong.

I addressed Vector strike some time ago in the thread.

Spoiler:

Both of those rules point to explicit permission for Wound Allocation to happen. Wound Allocation rules exist in 2 places in the BRB - in the context of the Shooting Sequence and in the context of the Fight Sub-phase. So the rules give explicit permission to access one of those sections directly to do Wound Allocation. The player is not explicitly told which of the two Wound Allocation rules to use. The Psychic phase rules indicate that it models itself after shooting so they very strongly 'hint' to use the Wound Allocation rules in the Shooting Sequence and Vector Strike/Random Allocation similarly 'hints' to use the Wound Allocation in the Shooting Sequence.

Ok gotcha. So how about you mark YOUR post a HYWPI as you are now agreeing that psychic and vector strikes do not actually say but only "strongly hint". Who is making up rules now?

I am not making up any rules. Psychic and Vector strikes have EXPLICIT permission to access the Wound Allocation in the sections of the book that provide rules for Wound Allocation (Shooting phase and Fight Sub-phase). The player is only left to his own devices sorting out which of those will actually make sense to implement (and it actually winds up being a no-brainer sorting out which to use), but permission to use those rules has been granted.

vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

So it doesn't happen when another unit does not Charge? Such as the turn following the last unit Charged?

What do you mean?

The unit still charged in the previous turn, and Multiple Combats doesn't dictate that the charge must have occurred in the current turn.

And your point? It did not happen in the subsequent turns, so they must not be multiple Combats. But they do fit the first requirement.

vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
An exhaustive list would be one that gave no leeway, such as "are only considered during x events".

Which is exactly what this is. It gives you exactly 2 scenarios when the rules for Multiple Combats apply. You have no permission whatsoever to fabricate additional ones.

Stomp gives the permission. I have no permission to deny it when another, more advanced rule comes along to change it.

vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

The only practicable solution is that Stomp overrides this conflict due to its ability to involve others in the Fight than what are Engaged, unless you can point out how the Stomp cannot affect those unEngaged with the Stomper.

Nope, sorry, that's far from the only practical solution.

If you want to house rule it that way in your group, fine. Just don't pretend that doing so is somehow following the rules.

It is the only practical solution that considers all aspects of the points brought up so far. It accounts for Wound Allocation in the Fight Sub-Phase. It accounts for how hits are handled with blast markers. It accounts for how multiple units can be Wounded and have those Wounds applied to them in an orderly fashion.

The other alternative would be to treat Stomps and Flamers use no Wound Allocation and only apply to what is covered (a possibility, I grant, but requires Wounding and Saving rules to take its Special Attack aspect in to account, namely the difference in how Cover Saves are allowed). Col_impact's blind assertion is impossible, though.

col_impact wrote:The Fight Sub-phase rules are clear that they only allocate wounds to models that are 'in combat' with the GMC.

Fight Sub-Phase rules under the same string also are clear that Attacks can only be used against those you are Engaged with, too. So, unless you can show me where Stomp Attacks are so restricted, this dies on the vine due to a fail of proper processing.

col_impact wrote:While a Stomp attack might be able to collaterally generate hits on a unit that it is not in combat with, generating those hits does not change that affected unit to being 'in combat'.

Thus, Stomp attacks allocate no wounds to units that are not 'in combat' with the GMC.

Again, I disagree. By simply allocating Attacks to a unit you are not Engaged with, you break the string which follows the same requirements.

So, either you must use the Multiple Combat Rules in order to continue using the Fight Sub-Phase Wound Allocation rules, OR you must concede that they do not use any normal system like any other out-of-phase Wounding system like the Vector Strike.

Charistophe, you are far too creative with your RAW reasoning, to the point where you adding permissions out of the blue.

Just because Stomps allow you to generate hits on a unit out of combat, that does not give you permission to re-write the wound allocation rules in the Fight Sub-phase to allow wounds on units out of combat.

The chips fall where they may and you must strictly adhere exactly to the permissions you have.

Following strict RAW, Stomp attacks can generate hits on a unit out of combat, but the wound allocation you have permission to follow throws out the wounds on those units that you are not in combat with.

col_impact wrote:
Charistophe, you are far too creative with your RAW reasoning, to the point where you adding permissions out of the blue.

Just because Stomps allow you to generate hits on a unit out of combat, that does not give you permission to re-write the wound allocation rules in the Fight Sub-phase to allow wounds on units out of combat.

The chips fall where they may and you must strictly adhere exactly to the permissions you have.

Following strict RAW, Stomp attacks can generate hits on a unit out of combat, but the wound allocation you have permission to follow throws out the wounds on those units that you are not in combat with.

I'm being creative? With your method, you have to ignore numerous paths in order to reach your point, not the least of which is the fact that the Attacks are also to be against those same units it can allocate Wounds to.

Charistoph wrote:

I'm being creative? With your method, you have to ignore numerous paths in order to reach your point, not the least of which is the fact that the Attacks are also to be against those same units it can allocate Wounds to.

You strictly follow the paths you are provided. The Stomp rules overrule the normal manner in which hits are generated but they do not overrule Wound allocation.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

I'm being creative? With your method, you have to ignore numerous paths in order to reach your point, not the least of which is the fact that the Attacks are also to be against those same units it can allocate Wounds to.

You strictly follow the paths you are provided. The Stomp rules overrule the normal manner in which hits are generated but they do not overrule Wound allocation.

And I covered that, too, but I guess you weren't paying attention.

Charistoph wrote:

And your point? It did not happen in the subsequent turns, so they must not be multiple Combats.

Please quote where it says the charge must occur each turn for it to still count as a multiple combat.

Charistoph wrote:

Stomp gives the permission. I have no permission to deny it when another, more advanced rule comes along to change it.

Nope, sorry. You need specific permission to override it, which Stomp doesn't give you.

Charistoph wrote:

It is the only practical solution that considers all aspects of the points brought up so far.

Let me put it a different way, if you're going with this argument then you're admitting it's RAI and not RAW

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

And your point? It did not happen in the subsequent turns, so they must not be multiple Combats.

Please quote where it says the charge must occur each turn for it to still count as a multiple combat.

According to these sentences it happens when a Charge occurs. No Charge occurs in the subsequent turns unless more come Charging in, so I guess that does not count?

And I still don't see an "only" in that sentence.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Stomp gives the permission. I have no permission to deny it when another, more advanced rule comes along to change it.

Nope, sorry. You need specific permission to override it, which Stomp doesn't give you.

Stomp give permission by giving permission to attack units not initially involved in the Combat, at which point they are now "involved". Unless we can provide evidence that the Stomp does not use Wound Allocation at all (which I would actually prefer).

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

It is the only practical solution that considers all aspects of the points brought up so far.

Let me put it a different way, if you're going with this argument then you're admitting it's RAI and not RAW

No, it is using the RAW to find a practicable solution. Not everything in this game is straightforward, and there is even more not even addressed.

What we do have addressed is how Combat is resolved when multiple units are involved, and Stomp can involve multiple units during Combat. We do not have any Wounding directions in the Stomp rules presented so far (Profile is insufficient and incomplete), but we do for the Phase it is used in. So, unless we can find directions for Hits which do not have a specified Wounding process, that is the RAW we are stuck using.

Charistoph wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

And your point? It did not happen in the subsequent turns, so they must not be multiple Combats.

Please quote where it says the charge must occur each turn for it to still count as a multiple combat.

Spoiler:

These occur when one unit charges two or more enemy units, or when a unit charges into an ongoing combat.

According to these sentences it happens when a Charge occurs. No Charge occurs in the subsequent turns unless more come Charging in, so I guess that does not count? Again, why? Combats (multiple or otherwise) are ongoing, and the charges that initiated them still happened in the previous turn(s). You are inserting arbitrary time limits where none exist in the rules.

And I still don't see an "only" in that sentence. Why does there need to be? The "or" fulfils the same purpose (along with the lack of any "etc." or anything else to indicate that other scenarios can result in a multiple combat). It gives you exactly 2 scenarios where multiple combats apply, and no permission to use the rules in any other scenarios.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Stomp gives the permission. I have no permission to deny it when another, more advanced rule comes along to change it.

Nope, sorry. You need specific permission to override it, which Stomp doesn't give you.

Stomp give permission by giving permission to attack units not initially involved in the Combat, Actually, it gives no such permission. It's technically possible to do so, but this possibility isn't even acknowledged in the rules - and they certainly don't give you any special permission to do so. Moreover, you definitely aren't given permission to override any other rules of the combat phase - including the restrictions of wounding models outside of combat. at which point they are now "involved". So, do they count as being engaged? Can they can make melee attacks against the knight? Not that I accept this anyway, but you're opening a real can of worms with this. Unless we can provide evidence that the Stomp does not use Wound Allocation at all (which I would actually prefer).

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

It is the only practical solution that considers all aspects of the points brought up so far.

Let me put it a different way, if you're going with this argument then you're admitting it's RAI and not RAW

No, it is using the RAW to find a practicable solution. But you're not finding a RAW solution - that's the point. You're just making up whatever permissions you like and claiming them as RAW.Moreover, it woud be just as practical (if not more so) to instead say that the Knight can't place the templates on models outside of combat. No, it isn't RAW, but neither is what you're saying. Not everything in this game is straightforward, and there is even more not even addressed.

What we do have addressed is how Combat is resolved when multiple units are involved, and Stomp can involve multiple units during Combat. We do not have any Wounding directions in the Stomp rules presented so far (Profile is insufficient and incomplete), but we do for the Phase it is used in. So, unless we can find directions for Hits which do not have a specified Wounding process, that is the RAW we are stuck using. Sorry, no. You can't just fill in gaps in the rules with whatever you like, and then pass it off as RAW.

EDIT: Actually, I've just been rereading the rules for multiple combats, and I'm not sure they'd help your case even if we did apply them. Specifically:



Put simply, the IK does not have permission to direct attacks against units it isn't engaged with, and any wounds against units it hasn't directed attacks against are lost.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

And your point? It did not happen in the subsequent turns, so they must not be multiple Combats.

Please quote where it says the charge must occur each turn for it to still count as a multiple combat.

Spoiler:

These occur when one unit charges two or more enemy units, or when a unit charges into an ongoing combat.

According to these sentences it happens when a Charge occurs. No Charge occurs in the subsequent turns unless more come Charging in, so I guess that does not count?

Again, why? Combats (multiple or otherwise) are ongoing, and the charges that initiated them still happened in the previous turn(s). You are inserting arbitrary time limits where none exist in the rules.

And you are not setting other arbitrary limits? The sentence states literally "when", not "after", not "starting with", just "when".

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
And I still don't see an "only" in that sentence.

Why does there need to be? The "or" fulfils the same purpose (along with the lack of any "etc." or anything else to indicate that other scenarios can result in a multiple combat). It gives you exactly 2 scenarios where multiple combats apply, and no permission to use the rules in any other scenarios.

You claim that it is an exhaustive list, another way of saying no other way is available, but since "only" is not listed (nor any similar language), it is not limited to just this instance and other possibilities may occur. Therefore, not exhaustive. The rulebook does not make this claim, why do you, unless you choose?

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Stomp give permission by giving permission to attack units not initially involved in the Combat,

Actually, it gives no such permission. It's technically possible to do so, but this possibility isn't even acknowledged in the rules. You certainly aren't given permission to override any other rules of the combat phase - including the restrictions of wounding models outside of combat.

By not requiring the Blast Marker to be placed only on Engaged models, and indeed by allowing it to be placed anywhere within 3" of the previous, it gives permission to attack other units. By attacking other units, they become involved. By being involved, they are included in the combat and can be Wounded, even when not Engaged.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
at which point they are now "involved".

So, do they count as being engaged? Can they can make melee attacks against the knight? You're opening a real can of worms there.

I never said Engaged, just "involved" in the Combat. Wounds can be Allocated to models not Engaged in the Fight Sub-Phase, so long as Attacks were allocated to the units in question. It is the second bullet of Wound Allocation for both single Combat and Multiple Combat. The base rules for the Fight Sub-Phase are for single Combat, so do not take in to account Attacks being allocated to any unit but the sole one the Attacker is Engaged with. Stomp overrides this capacity by allowing Attacks to be placed on unEngaged units, therefore bypassing this restriction.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Unless we can provide evidence that the Stomp does not use Wound Allocation at all (which I would actually prefer).

So, no help on this one?

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

No, it is using the RAW to find a practicable solution.

But you're not finding a RAW solution - that's the point. You're just making up whatever permissions you like and claiming them as RAW.Moreover, it woud be just as practical (if not more so) to instead say that the Knight can't place the templates on models outside of combat. No, it isn't RAW, but neither is what you're saying.

The rules are there, I have quoted them and referenced them. Just because you do not like where it goes does not mean the rules are not there. You want to see made up rules, review how Super-Heavies do their targeting of multiple units, there is absolutely nothing on it. Anything on it is a House Rule. This situation, at least has rules that can address it, so long as you do not self-limit yourself.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
What we do have addressed is how Combat is resolved when multiple units are involved, and Stomp can involve multiple units during Combat. We do not have any Wounding directions in the Stomp rules presented so far (Profile is insufficient and incomplete), but we do for the Phase it is used in. So, unless we can find directions for Hits which do not have a specified Wounding process, that is the RAW we are stuck using.

Sorry, no. You don't get to just say "well these rules are close enough, so we'll use them." You can't just fill in gaps in the rules with whatever you like, and then pass it off as RAW.

Charistoph wrote:

And you are not setting other arbitrary limits? The sentence states literally "when", not "after", not "starting with", just "when".

By that line of reasoning, a multiple combat can never take place as the resolution will always take place after a charge, and at that point (according to you) it's apparently not a multiple combat any more.

Charistoph wrote:

You claim that it is an exhaustive list, another way of saying no other way is available, but since "only" is not listed (nor any similar language), it is not limited to just this instance and other possibilities may occur. Therefore, not exhaustive. The rulebook does not make this claim, why do you, unless you choose?

No, sorry, that isn't how English works. You are given exactly two scenarios. In order for the list to be non-exhaustive, you need something to indicate such. Examples being:
- Use of the word "usually" (or a similar word) - i.e. if Multiple Combats said "This will usually occur when..." or "These will most commonly occur when..." or somesuch.
- Ending with "ect." or any other word or phrase that indicates there are further possible examples which, for whatever reason, aren't being included (e.g. somesuch as above).
- Specifically saying that it's a non-exhaustive list.
etc.

Since none of these are present, we must assume that it is an exhaustive list.

Charistoph wrote:

By not requiring the Blast Marker to be placed only on Engaged models, and indeed by allowing it to be placed anywhere within 3" of the previous, it gives permission to attack other units.

It also doesn't say that I can't stomp enemy models by hitting them with a sledgehammer, so I guess that's legal too.

This is a permissive ruleset, not a restrictive one. Stomp gives no specific permission to attack units outside of combat. It is possible to place the templates over unengaged units, but the rules give no permission to do this.

It's the difference between being specifically allowed to do something, and not being able to find any rules actually forbidding it.

Charistoph wrote:
By being involved, they are included in the combat and can be Wounded, even when not Engaged.

Nope. You're given no permission to override the rules of the fight subphase in which these attacks are occuring.

And, as above, not finding specific rules against something is not the same as being granted permission to do it.

Charistoph wrote:

I never said Engaged, just "involved" in the Combat.

"Involved" is a useless term because it has no in-game meaning. Either they are engaged (and can attack and have attacks and wounds allocated to them), or they're not (and so can't suffer wounds from the combat). Please come back when you've decided what the stomped unit counts as.

Charistoph wrote:
Wounds can be Allocated to models not Engaged in the Fight Sub-Phase, so long as Attacks were allocated to the units in question.

Nope, that's a violation of the rules.

Charistoph wrote:
It is the second bullet of Wound Allocation for both single Combat and Multiple Combat.

And you do not have permission to allocate attacks against models you're not in base-contact with or engaged to.

Charistoph wrote:
The base rules for the Fight Sub-Phase are for single Combat, so do not take in to account Attacks being allocated to any unit but the sole one the Attacker is Engaged with. Stomp overrides this capacity by allowing Attacks to be placed on unEngaged units, therefore bypassing this restriction.

Nope, because you're given no special permission to do that, let alone special permission to wound units outside of combat. 40k is a permissive ruleset - you need specific permission to override rules, which Stomp simply doesn't give you.

Charistoph wrote:

The rules are there, I have quoted them and referenced them.

You referenced rules and then proceeded to break them. Furthermore, the permissions you keep quoting for stomp do not exist - you are literally making them up.

Charistoph wrote:
Just because you do not like where it goes does not mean the rules are not there.

I think you're the one who needs to read this, because you're fabricating rules to try and make stomping unengaged units legal.

Charistoph wrote:

Not quite. This is not like Super-Heavy targeting which has nothing to address it with. We have Attacks in the Fight Sub-Phase. These Attacks are not noted as using another Wound Allocation process unless we can find a rule on hitting models directly (some help here would be nice if any can find it) like Random Allocation references the Shooting Sequence's for Vector Strike. These Attacks can involve multiple units at which point multiple units are involved the rules for multiple combat are invoked as we have no other outlet to pursue and we can use this one. Attacks are allocated and Wounds are allocated appropriately.

But that's the point - even if you use the multiple combats rule, you're still breaking those rules to make this work.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

And you are not setting other arbitrary limits? The sentence states literally "when", not "after", not "starting with", just "when".

By that line of reasoning, a multiple combat can never take place as the resolution will always take place after a charge, and at that point (according to you) it's apparently not a multiple combat any more.

Still not a case of "only".

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

You claim that it is an exhaustive list, another way of saying no other way is available, but since "only" is not listed (nor any similar language), it is not limited to just this instance and other possibilities may occur. Therefore, not exhaustive. The rulebook does not make this claim, why do you, unless you choose?

No, sorry, that isn't how English works. You are given exactly two scenarios. In order for the list to be non-exhaustive, you need something to indicate such. Examples being:
- Use of the word "usually" (or a similar word) - i.e. if Multiple Combats said "This will usually occur when..." or "These will most commonly occur when..." or somesuch.
- Ending with "ect." or any other word or phrase that indicates there are further possible examples which, for whatever reason, aren't being included (e.g. somesuch as above).
- Specifically saying that it's a non-exhaustive list.
etc.

Since none of these are present, we must assume that it is an exhaustive list.

Okay, so you say that we must "assume that it is an exhaustive list", yet say it is RAW to treat it as an exhaustive list?

Googling the adjective and noun indicates, "British English: exhaustive If you describe a study, search, or list as exhaustive, you mean that it is very thorough and complete." No statement of completion, and finding another situation which can "involve" other units counts as exhaustive? But hey, we can count the To-Hit and To-Wound process in the Shooting Sequence as exhaustive from that paradigm, too, except they aren't.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

By not requiring the Blast Marker to be placed only on Engaged models, and indeed by allowing it to be placed anywhere within 3" of the previous, it gives permission to attack other units.

It also doesn't say that I can't stomp enemy models by hitting them with a sledgehammer, so I guess that's legal too.

This is a permissive ruleset, not a restrictive one. Stomp gives no specific permission to attack units outside of combat. It is possible to place the templates over unengaged units, but the rules give no permission to do this.

It's the difference between being specifically allowed to do something, and not being able to find any rules actually forbidding it.

Not quite. Permission is granted due to the allowance of placement involved with no further restrictions and the rules regarding Blast Markers. You are assuming a lack of permission when permission was already granted.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
By being involved, they are included in the combat and can be Wounded, even when not Engaged.

Nope. You're given no permission to override the rules of the fight subphase in which these attacks are occuring.

And, as above, not finding specific rules against something is not the same as being granted permission to do it.

Fine, then show the restriction of placing it on models on Engaged units instead of just placing it anywhere, and then counter the Stomp's rule that these same units the Blast Marker covers are hit, and these hits do not count as Attacks in the Fight Sub-Phase and ignore the rules from there.

Provide evidence of your argument.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

I never said Engaged, just "involved" in the Combat.

"Involved" is a useless term because it has no in-game meaning. Either they are engaged (and can attack and have attacks and wounds allocated to them), or they're not (and so can't suffer wounds from the combat). Please come back when you've decided what the stomped unit counts as.

"Involved" is a general term which can be used from the standard English definition without further usage to refine it. Demonstrate how a unit that is hit by an Attack is not "involved".

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Wounds can be Allocated to models not Engaged in the Fight Sub-Phase, so long as Attacks were allocated to the units in question.

Nope, that's a violation of the rules.

Quite incorrect. Reread the second bullet for both the standard Fight Sub-Phase rules and Multiple Combat rules regarding Wound Allocation. For a standard Attack string against a single unit, the Wounds are allocated to Unengaged models if no other models in the unit are Engaged. This is under the assumption that the unit in question is Engaged.

For Multiple Combat, Attacks are first parceled out to Engaged units (which Stomp Attacks bypass by their nature of generating hits). Wounds generated for these Attacks may only be Allocated to the units the Attacks were allocated to and may not be parceled out to other units that were Attacked. This Allocation may continue to be allocated to models that are not Engaged.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
It is the second bullet of Wound Allocation for both single Combat and Multiple Combat.

And you do not have permission to allocate attacks against models you're not in base-contact with or engaged to.

And I never said as such. The first bullet is forbidding Attacks against UNITs you are not Engaged with, which the Stomp Attack rules bypass just like the Blast rules bypass a whole host of rules for the Shooting Sequence such as hitting Engaged units or units in your army.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
The base rules for the Fight Sub-Phase are for single Combat, so do not take in to account Attacks being allocated to any unit but the sole one the Attacker is Engaged with. Stomp overrides this capacity by allowing Attacks to be placed on unEngaged units, therefore bypassing this restriction.

Nope, because you're given no special permission to do that, let alone special permission to wound units outside of combat. 40k is a permissive ruleset - you need specific permission to override rules, which Stomp simply doesn't give you.

Show the requirement in the Stomp's rules. I can place it ANYWHERE within 3" of the previous Marker, and those units get hit. No other restriction at this point exists, and one has been bypassing the standard Attack allocation rules at the point the Stomp rules are initiated.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

The rules are there, I have quoted them and referenced them.

You referenced rules and then proceeded to break them. Furthermore, the permissions you keep quoting for stomp do not exist - you are literally making them up.

How do Stomp Attacks generate hits? Answer that and show which I have broken.

Charistoph wrote:
Just because you do not like where it goes does not mean the rules are not there.

I think you're the one who needs to read this, because you're fabricating rules to try and make stomping unengaged units legal.

Charistophe,

Just because it is possible for Stomp attacks to generate hits on units that are not in combat with the GMC, that does not give permission to re-write the rules for Wound allocation. The Wound allocation rules only allow wounds to be allocated to units in combat with the GMC. Changing the Wound allocation rules without a specific override from the Stomp rules is house ruling and not doing things by RAW.

If you persist in insisting that you can allocate Wounds to units not in combat with the GMC, then simply mark your argument HYWPI because you are adding permissions to the Wound allocation rules that do not exist in the rules. The Stomp rules provide no specific override to the Wound allocation rules - they don't even mention Wound allocation.


I will stick with a RAW argument for myself and mark my argument RAW. It is exceedingly clear in the rules that wounds can only be allocated to units in combat with the GMC and nothing in the Stomp rules overrides that.

Stomp unlike a normal blast shooting weapon, does not target units. Given this, how are you allocating wounds at all?

Charistoph wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

And you are not setting other arbitrary limits? The sentence states literally "when", not "after", not "starting with", just "when".

By that line of reasoning, a multiple combat can never take place as the resolution will always take place after a charge, and at that point (according to you) it's apparently not a multiple combat any more.

Still not a case of "only".

Yes it is.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

You claim that it is an exhaustive list, another way of saying no other way is available, but since "only" is not listed (nor any similar language), it is not limited to just this instance and other possibilities may occur. Therefore, not exhaustive. The rulebook does not make this claim, why do you, unless you choose?

No, sorry, that isn't how English works. You are given exactly two scenarios. In order for the list to be non-exhaustive, you need something to indicate such. Examples being:
- Use of the word "usually" (or a similar word) - i.e. if Multiple Combats said "This will usually occur when..." or "These will most commonly occur when..." or somesuch.
- Ending with "ect." or any other word or phrase that indicates there are further possible examples which, for whatever reason, aren't being included (e.g. somesuch as above).
- Specifically saying that it's a non-exhaustive list.
etc.

Since none of these are present, we must assume that it is an exhaustive list.

Okay, so you say that we must "assume that it is an exhaustive list", yet say it is RAW to treat it as an exhaustive list?

Yes - because you have no permission to do otherwise. There is no leeway for similar situations, alternate situations or any such. If you insert any, then you are changing the rules.

Googling the adjective and noun indicates, "British English: exhaustive If you describe a study, search, or list as exhaustive, you mean that it is very thorough and complete." No statement of completion, and finding another situation which can "involve" other units counts as exhaustive? But hey, we can count the To-Hit and To-Wound process in the Shooting Sequence as exhaustive from that paradigm, too, except they aren't.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

By not requiring the Blast Marker to be placed only on Engaged models, and indeed by allowing it to be placed anywhere within 3" of the previous, it gives permission to attack other units.

It also doesn't say that I can't stomp enemy models by hitting them with a sledgehammer, so I guess that's legal too.

This is a permissive ruleset, not a restrictive one. Stomp gives no specific permission to attack units outside of combat. It is possible to place the templates over unengaged units, but the rules give no permission to do this.

It's the difference between being specifically allowed to do something, and not being able to find any rules actually forbidding it.

Not quite. Permission is granted due to the allowance of placement involved with no further restrictions and the rules regarding Blast Markers. You are assuming a lack of permission when permission was already granted.

No, that isn't the same at all. Permission is when the ruleset specifically grants you permission to do something. You are assuming permission where none exist.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
By being involved, they are included in the combat and can be Wounded, even when not Engaged.

Nope. You're given no permission to override the rules of the fight subphase in which these attacks are occuring.

And, as above, not finding specific rules against something is not the same as being granted permission to do it.

Fine, then show the restriction of placing it on models on Engaged units instead of just placing it anywhere, and then counter the Stomp's rule that these same units the Blast Marker covers are hit, and these hits do not count as Attacks in the Fight Sub-Phase and ignore the rules from there. Why? I haven't claimed this.

That said, it might depend on how you interpret "attack". e.g. in the multiple combat rules, you're told that if you're in combat with one unit, you have to attack that unit. Or, if you're in combat with multiple units, you can split your attacks between them. This could easily apply to Stomp attacks - meaning you'd have to place the template over the unit you're attacking.

Provide evidence of your argument. You first. You've yet to provide a shred of evidence to support your point. All you've done so far is fabricate rules.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

I never said Engaged, just "involved" in the Combat.

"Involved" is a useless term because it has no in-game meaning. Either they are engaged (and can attack and have attacks and wounds allocated to them), or they're not (and so can't suffer wounds from the combat). Please come back when you've decided what the stomped unit counts as.

"Involved" is a general term which can be used from the standard English definition without further usage to refine it. Demonstrate how a unit that is hit by an Attack is not "involved".

You've made this claim, ergo the burden of proof is on you to find the evidence in the rules to prove it. It is not up to me to disprove your increasingly ludicrous claims.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Wounds can be Allocated to models not Engaged in the Fight Sub-Phase, so long as Attacks were allocated to the units in question.

Nope, that's a violation of the rules.

Quite incorrect. Reread the second bullet for both the standard Fight Sub-Phase rules and Multiple Combat rules regarding Wound Allocation. For a standard Attack string against a single unit, the Wounds are allocated to Unengaged models if no other models in the unit are Engaged. This is under the assumption that the unit in question is Engaged.

For Multiple Combat, Attacks are first parceled out to Engaged units (which Stomp Attacks bypass by their nature of generating hits). Wounds generated for these Attacks may only be Allocated to the units the Attacks were allocated to and may not be parceled out to other units that were Attacked. This Allocation may continue to be allocated to models that are not Engaged.

I don't even know what you're talking about any more. You seem to have moved out of the rulebook entirely.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
It is the second bullet of Wound Allocation for both single Combat and Multiple Combat.

And you do not have permission to allocate attacks against models you're not in base-contact with or engaged to.

And I never said as such. The first bullet is forbidding Attacks against UNITs you are not Engaged with, which the Stomp Attack rules bypass just like the Blast rules bypass a whole host of rules for the Shooting Sequence such as hitting Engaged units or units in your army.

Irrelevant - the second point explicitly says that wounds can't be inflicted on a unit you didn't allocate attacks against - so any hits generated on such units are moot.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
The base rules for the Fight Sub-Phase are for single Combat, so do not take in to account Attacks being allocated to any unit but the sole one the Attacker is Engaged with. Stomp overrides this capacity by allowing Attacks to be placed on unEngaged units, therefore bypassing this restriction.

Nope, because you're given no special permission to do that, let alone special permission to wound units outside of combat. 40k is a permissive ruleset - you need specific permission to override rules, which Stomp simply doesn't give you.

Show the requirement in the Stomp's rules. I can place it ANYWHERE within 3" of the previous Marker, and those units get hit. No other restriction at this point exists, and one has been bypassing the standard Attack allocation rules at the point the Stomp rules are initiated.

40k is not a restrictive ruleset. I don't need to show you rules specifically forbidding something, you need to show me rules specifically permitting it.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

The rules are there, I have quoted them and referenced them.

You referenced rules and then proceeded to break them. Furthermore, the permissions you keep quoting for stomp do not exist - you are literally making them up.

How do Stomp Attacks generate hits? Answer that and show which I have broken.

40k is not a restrictive ruleset. I don't need to show you rules specifically forbidding something, you need to show me rules specifically permitting it.

Charistoph wrote:
Just because you do not like where it goes does not mean the rules are not there.

 vipoid wrote:
I think you're the one who needs to read this, because you're fabricating rules to try and make stomping unengaged units legal.

Charistoph wrote:
Placing a Marker anywhere and generating hits against those units is fabricating rules? Show the prohibition against Stomping doing so.

40k is not a restrictive ruleset. I don't need to show you rules specifically forbidding something, you need to show me rules specifically permitting it.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Not quite. This is not like Super-Heavy targeting which has nothing to address it with. We have Attacks in the Fight Sub-Phase. These Attacks are not noted as using another Wound Allocation process unless we can find a rule on hitting models directly (some help here would be nice if any can find it) like Random Allocation references the Shooting Sequence's for Vector Strike. These Attacks can involve multiple units at which point multiple units are involved the rules for multiple combat are invoked as we have no other outlet to pursue and we can use this one. Attacks are allocated and Wounds are allocated appropriately.

But that's the point - even if you use the multiple combats rule, you're still breaking those rules to make this work.

Indeed I am not. Again, quote the relevance.

Well, for a start, there's this: "Wounds from Attacks that have been directed against a unit in a multiple combat cannot be transferred to another unit, even if the original target unit is completely destroyed (in this case, any excess Wounds are simply discounted and have no further effect)." Since Stomps are attacks, you'd have to direct them at one or more engaged units. Meaning wounds generated by those Stomp Attacks couldn't be transferred to unengaged units.

I seem to have buggered up the quotes at the end, so apologies for that.

col_impact wrote:Charistophe,

Just because it is possible for Stomp attacks to generate hits on units that are not in combat with the GMC, that does not give permission to re-write the rules for Wound allocation. The Wound allocation rules only allow wounds to be allocated to units in combat with the GMC. Changing the Wound allocation rules without a specific override from the Stomp rules is house ruling and not doing things by RAW.

That is only required for single combats, not a situation involving two or more units hit. In order to even hit multiple units in the Fight Sub-Phase, it needs to be a Multiple Combat. Mutliple Combat works on a different allocation level, as I have pointed out.

col_impact wrote:If you persist in insisting that you can allocate Wounds to units not in combat with the GMC, then simply mark your argument HYWPI because you are adding permissions to the Wound allocation rules that do not exist in the rules. The Stomp rules provide no specific override to the Wound allocation rules - they don't even mention Wound allocation.

I have shown how they can using the rules.

Multiple Combat Wound Allocation does not require the units to be in Combat, only the Attacks are required to be directed to those in combat, a requirement not included in the Stomp Attack rules.

See how nothing is stated regarding Combat at all in this section?

col_impact wrote:I will stick with a RAW argument for myself and mark my argument RAW. It is exceedingly clear in the rules that wounds can only be allocated to units in combat with the GMC and nothing in the Stomp rules overrides that.

What RAW? You assume one thing, but do not follow it through both ways. If you allow Attacks to be directed at anything but unit(s) you are Engaged with in the Fight Sub-Phase, you do not follow standard Wound Allocation. Make up your mind.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Stomp unlike a normal blast shooting weapon, does not target units. Given this, how are you allocating wounds at all?

Technically speaking, targeting is not involved in the Fight Sub-Phase, Attacks are directed. In normal Fight scenarios, they can only be directed against units you are Engaged with. Stomp Attacks are different, though:

They involve using a Blast Marker to direct Attacks made. From those Attacks, hits are made against models, and subsequently, units as described in General Principles:
*No emphasis added.

The Stomp rules do not give us a method for Wounding only models hit in a unit to direct any resolution. There are no other rules to govern just models hit by an Attack in a unit, either. Closest is Random Allocation, but we are not directed to use those. Since it does not direct any other changes, we continue to use the pattern of the Phase we are in, which is to apply Wounds against models Engaged with the Stomper, and then the nearest to the Stomper from there. If Attacks are directed at multiple units, they follow the same pattern of Engaged first, nearest next, but only can have Wounds allocated to the units based on the successful Attacks directed against them.

There are only two possible arguments against this direction:
1) Stomp Attacks as Attacks in the Fight Sub-Phase cannot be directed against any unit not Engaged with the Stomper. -How the Stomp rules are written to determine hits indicate otherwise. They themselves carry no such restriction, and Melee Attacks cannot even have a chance to be directed at anything else but what the unit is Engaged with.

2) There are rules that govern when models are hit. -I'm wanting to find this one, as it would toss out the need to use the Fight Sub-Phase Wound Allocation rules. It would override the quoted section from General Principles. It would also change how Template Weapon Types are processed in normal shooting as well, since they, too, also just hit the models underneath.

The thing is though, Stomp doesn't specifically override the normal targetting of attacks, if you see what I mean. So, whilst the Stomp rules themselves place no restrictions on where the markers can be place, you're still be bound by the normal rules of only being able to direct attacks against engaged units. But, even this is weird because of how templates work, and what counts as 'directing' them.

It doesn't help that the RAI isn't clear either. it's possible that the designers intended for Stomps to be able to affect unengaged units, but equally possible that not only did they not intend that, they didn't even consider the possibility of such (hence why the rules make no mention of it).

Charistoph wrote:

Multiple Combat Wound Allocation does not require the units to be in Combat, only the Attacks are required to be directed to those in combat, a requirement not included in the Stomp Attack rules.

Spoiler:

A model that is in base contact with, or engaged with, more than one enemy unit when it strikes blows, can split its Attacks freely between those units. Declare how each model is splitting its attacks immediately before rolling To Hit. Wounds from Attacks that have been directed against a unit in a multiple combat cannot be transferred to another unit , even if the original target unit is completely destroyed (in this case, any excess Wounds are simply discounted and have no further effect).

See how nothing is stated regarding Combat at all in this section?

Charistophe, it looks like you fail at reading. Please read carefully the rules that you post. You cannot participate in a RAW discussion without careful reading.

That rule mandates that you "split your attacks" for your GMC model between "those units" that you are "in base contact with, or engaged" (this requires of course the GMC to be in combat with "those units").

Each unit in "those units" at which you will "split your attacks" is further identified as a "unit in a multiple combat".

So, this rule has the unintended negative consequence for you. The rule debunks your argument and helps further cement my RAW argument. The rule mandates that the GMC split its attacks (direct its attacks) between "those units" that it is "in base contact with, or engaged with", (ie, in combat with) and mandates that the wounds generated from those attacks that have been directed at "those units" (that have been directed at a "a unit in a multiple combat") "cannot be transferred to another unit".

The rule just further reinforces that Stomps cannot wound models that the GMC is not in combat with.

Is a stormp attack an Attack?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Is a stormp attack an Attack?

Yup. The BRB is not consistent with case.

col_impact wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Is a stormp attack an Attack?

Yup. The BRB is not consistent with case.

Spoiler:

The Stomp attack is made in addition to the Super-heavy Walker’s normal attacks.

Actually Stop is not an Attack. it does not use WS like attacks do, and it is not something that uses the Attacks Characteristic.

So Stop is not an Attack, even though it is an attack.

Slight, but important difference.