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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Niteware - so instead of answering the questions you stitch two fragments of my post together?

You quoted a fragment of my post as if it agreed with your point, which it did not. I think we were equally out of line.

As Sigvald said, neither side is likely to convince the other, because I believe I am right, you believe you are right and others either believe they are right or don't care. Was a nice debate though.

The FAQ page asks for questions to be emailed in, so they may update the FAQ at some point to remove the ambiguity (as they have with several other qs in the form Q1 Can x? Answer Q2 Even if Y? Answer), but maybe we won't get a definitive ruling.

Niteware wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Niteware - so instead of answering the questions you stitch two fragments of my post together?

You quoted a fragment of my post as if it agreed with your point, which it did not. I think we were equally out of line.

You stated "A potion is a magic item."

Whole sentence. I quoted the whole sentence. There was no fragment I quoted, but an entire, complete and unequivocal sentence. You altered my post by stitching two entirely unrelated sentences together. One is a correct application of quoting, the other is a fraudulent misrepresentation. I am sure you can work out which is which.

So, do you not agree that it is a magic item now? If so, please show a rules quote as to why an item picked from the magic items section of the rulebook is NOT a magic item. Once you can do that, you will convince me.

It isnt just that you are convinced you are right, you have done so without a single rule to back you up, and you have ignored the rules quotes proving you wrong. This isnt us claiming 1+1=3, this is you claiming 1 is not equal to 1. (a magic item is not a magic item)

A magic potion IS, without doubt, a magic item. The FAQ states Stomp cannot benefit from any magic items (amongst others) that affect the model making the Stomp. Therefore ANY magic item that benefits the bearer CANNOT affect the stomp hits, INCLUDING this one.

This isnt an agree to disagree, this is one side having pure written rules, and the other entirely ignoring them and claiming something other than what is written. Hell, I'm agreeing with Duke, that doesnt happen often!

I have to throw my hat in with Duke and Nos. Stomps can't benefit from magic items. A Potion of Strength is a magic item. This seems fairly clear, and I'm having a hard time understanding the opposing argument as to why this is not the case.

It doesn't seem to matter, from a RAW perspective, that the magic item doesn't increase the strength of the stomp, instead increasing the strength of the MODEL and then, tangentially, benefitting stomp. And that somehow this tangential benefit (which is still most certainly a benefit) creates a loophole through which this magic item CAN benefit a stomp when this specific situation has been FAQed to not be possible.

Exactly. The FAQ disallows magic items (to whit, this potion) from benefitting the model which is stomping.

It is entirely unambiguous, and so far not a single rules argument has been presented to show otherwise.

But am I correct in my representation of the opposing argument? That the magic item changes the model's strength, and Stomp references the model's strength characteristic and NOT some other attack form (like using a weapon of some sort)?

But that arguement does not matter because all stomp hits cannot benefit from magic items. It is pretty clear.

 Tangent wrote:
But am I correct in my representation of the opposing argument? That the magic item changes the model's strength, and Stomp references the model's strength characteristic and NOT some other attack form (like using a weapon of some sort)?

Mostly correct. The S bonus from the potion does not influence Stomp, instead, the model's base Strength is modified. Stomp refers to the model's S characteristic and thus the model's Stomp attacks are made at the model's current S - which is higher than before due to the Potion of Strength.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Tangent wrote:
But am I correct in my representation of the opposing argument? That the magic item changes the model's strength, and Stomp references the model's strength characteristic and NOT some other attack form (like using a weapon of some sort)?

Mostly correct. The S bonus from the potion does not influence Stomp, instead, the model's base Strength is modified. Stomp refers to the model's S characteristic and thus the model's Stomp attacks are made at the model's current S - which is higher than before due to the Potion of Strength.

Gotcha. So, how does this viewpoint reconcile the counter-point that stomps cannot "benefit" from magic items, and that the potion is a magic item?

"Due to the potion of strength." So it is in fact a potion of strength the model and therefore the stomp is benefiting from? I think we all see the problem there since its been mentioned many times.

Im just not seeing the logic, maybe it was in an older post and I forgot it, but how can the potion of strength be immune to what is effectively a blanket ban on magic items affecting stomp? And if you could explain it as though to a child, that'd be great.

 Tangent wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Tangent wrote:
But am I correct in my representation of the opposing argument? That the magic item changes the model's strength, and Stomp references the model's strength characteristic and NOT some other attack form (like using a weapon of some sort)?

Mostly correct. The S bonus from the potion does not influence Stomp, instead, the model's base Strength is modified. Stomp refers to the model's S characteristic and thus the model's Stomp attacks are made at the model's current S - which is higher than before due to the Potion of Strength.

Gotcha. So, how does this viewpoint reconcile the counter-point that stomps cannot "benefit" from magic items, and that the potion is a magic item?

I made a pretty detailed post on the last page...the first one iirc. The main problem is the unclear definition of "benefit". Most of the time, "benefit" is used in a direct relation to a certain ability which, in this case, clearly isn't the case. Side A argues that Stomp attacks directly benefit from a PoS (Potion of Strength), Side B argues that it does not benefit from anything.

A clear case would be an item that grants KB. Clearly benefits attacks, thus it's clear it does not affect Stomp attacks.

The side in favor of not adding the S bonus does not use "benefit" in a rules sense, they use "benefit" by their own / textbook definition of "to benefit". That's a major difference. If you argue that Stomp does not get a S bonus, you completely ignore the Stomp rules - which are still in effect and have not been overridden by the FAQ. This way of tackling the issue creates a rules loophole. Stomp requires you to use the model's Strength characterisitc value that is, at the moment of using the potion, n+3. People in favor of not allowing to add the S bonus cannot refer to a S value as at this moment, the only S value available is n+3. You cannot say that the model now has n S again - it doesn't. The characteristik value is n+3, not n.

Anyway, as I already said before: we got two sides and circle argumentation going on for the last ~10 posts. Nobody's opinion in here is worth a damn. If you're objective. What matters is the ruling at the place you play. As I said before, from my very own personal experience, the issue came up twice at tournaments I took part in, each following ETC standard rules. At both occasions, the S bonus was granted. And it wasn't just a random guy deciding on it, it's been a discussion between two judges and the head referee - who are a higher authority than anyone in this thread. I don't know how GW tournaments rule this as I refuse to play imbalanced aka vanilla WHFB games.

My point is: both sides could go on forever, but the threads either getting locked or dying because people realize you can't brute-force your interpretation (!) of the rules in other people's head. Yes, that's because they are extremly stupid, there can't be another reason.

If such an issue *could* come up, immediately call your referee and discuss the matter. And don't go in with an attitude like some people in this thread (BOTH SIDES!)...refs don't like this. At all.

 Sigvatr wrote:

I made a pretty detailed post on the last page...the first one iirc. The main problem is the unclear definition of "benefit". Most of the time, "benefit" is used in a direct relation to a certain ability which, in this case, clearly isn't the case. Side A argues that Stomp attacks directly benefit from a PoS (Potion of Strength), Side B argues that it does not benefit from anything.

A clear case would be an item that grants KB. Clearly benefits attacks, thus it's clear it does not affect Stomp attacks.

The side in favor of not adding the S bonus does not use "benefit" in a rules sense, they use "benefit" by their own / textbook definition of "to benefit". That's a major difference. If you argue that Stomp does not get a S bonus, you completely ignore the Stomp rules - which are still in effect and have not been overridden by the FAQ. This way of tackling the issue creates a rules loophole. Stomp requires you to use the model's Strength characterisitc value that is, at the moment of using the potion, n+3. People in favor of not allowing to add the S bonus cannot refer to a S value as at this moment, the only S value available is n+3. You cannot say that the model now has n S again - it doesn't. The characteristik value is n+3, not n.

I understand your desire to not argue about this, but I'm interested in clarification. And hopefully not argue, just asking.

So, my initial question was going to be, "If you don't use the word 'benefit', then how would you describe the interaction between the Potion of Strength and a Stomp attack?" But I see that you're saying that "benefit" is a "term" and not just a descriptive word, and so we have to look at how that term applies within the framework of the WHFB ruleset.

But it just seems like that's kind-of a weak argument. I mean, is there some specific example of the word "benefit" being used as a rules term and not just a part of the language in which the rules are written? You mentioned KB - does the wording of KB state something along the lines of, "A model with the KB special rule has attacks which benefit from this rule" or something? And how else could you categorize what Stomp is "getting" if not a strength bonus? It's clearly getting something - but are you arguing that it's the model's strength characteristic that's getting something, and that's all that's necessary to be able to include Stomp in that category of "attacks that benefit"?

 Tangent wrote:


So, my initial question was going to be, "If you don't use the word 'benefit', then how would you describe the interaction between the Potion of Strength and a Stomp attack? But I see that you're saying that "benefit" is a "term" and not just a descriptive word, and so we have to look at how that term applies within the framework of the WHFB ruleset.

I don't think it requires any term. Technically, the Potion of Strength does not change anything about Stomp. If you are really precise, it only increases the user's Strength. Stomp only gets active after its effect has kicked in - you don't check for any active buffs, you only check for the model's Strength value - which is n+3 at the moment. That's something you can't deny. If you say that Stomp does not use n+3 as its S value, you could not stomp at all as there is no S you can relate to.

I mean, is there some specific example of the word "benefit" being used as a rules term and not just a part of the language in which the rules are written? You mentioned KB - does the wording of KB state something along the lines of, "A model with the KB special rule has attacks which benefit from this rule" or something? And how else could you categorize what Stomp is "getting" if not a strength bonus? It's clearly getting something - but are you arguing that it's the model's strength characteristic that's getting something, and that's all that's necessary to be able to include Stomp in that category of "attacks that benefit"?

That's the direct / indirect instinction I spoke of before. KB directly affects a model's attacks, it's the same as e.g. "the wielder of this weapon strikes at +1S". It's made very clear that the attacks get a direct benefit from the item. KB's rule explicitely state that they only affect melee attacks unless otherwise stated and thus KB cannot be applied to Stomp, the FAQ disallows it.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Stomp only gets active after its effect has kicked in - you don't check for any active buffs, you only check for the model's Strength value - which is n+3 at the moment.

I see what you're saying, but my only hangup is this part. It seems like you could say that about anything. Any attack, anything. It only happens when it happens, and whatever the stats are at THAT moment are what are applied.

I don't know - ok, so, a quick example if you don't mind. Scabscrath, from the VC book, gives the wielder a scream attack like a Terrorgheist (which is referred to in the VC book as a "special attack", if it matters). The scream attack does more damage if the screaming model has more wounds. There is a vampire power that gives the model +1 wound.

Now, what if a FAQ was released regarding Scabscrath, and it said, "Scabscrath cannot benefit from any Vampire Powers." (Imagine it's worded exactly like the FAQ for Stomp, which I can't remember right now.)

Then, you tried to argue that the Vamp Power which takes the Vamp from 3 wounds to 4 DOES affect Scabscrath (in this case, making Scabscrath's scream do more damage) and is exempt from the FAQ ruling because this Vamp Power is affecting the MODEL and NOT the Scabscrath, and the scream only references what the model's wounds are when Scabscrath "gets active and its effect has kicked in."

This just doesn't seem like a reasonable argument to me.

I would like to not discuss hypothetical cases as they can lead to problems that would not occur and thus bear hardly any value, but since you're very polite and really interested in it, we can give it a try.

I am not familiar with the VC book, but isn't the +1W modifier from vampiric powers applied before the game? Anyway, this seems to be the very same case as with Stomp. If you take the vamp power, the characteristic value of the model is 4. It no longer has a characteristic value of 3, it's 4. You must take the value of 4 because you have no other value to choose from.

Yeah, it's applied before the game, but isn't that (functionally) the same as the potion of strength? In either case, the "effect" of "using" the [item/power] happens before the "attack" kicks in or happens. They both change the printed characteristic to a higher value at some point before the attack is made.

And as it is the same case as with Stomp, what do you think of the hypothetical FAQ regarding Scabscrath (which is, by the way, a magic weapon if you weren't familiar)? By your reading, does the wording prevent Scabscrath from benefiting from the Vampire Power?

I would suggest that your hypothetical case could only arose if there were other vampires powers which were intended to be excluded, else the FAQ would be specific. The difficulty with stomp is that there clearly are many abilities which should not apply to it. So in the case of many powers being ruled out, it would make equal sense to treat this as a characteristic including the extra wound.

Apologies for grammatical errors, blooming autocorrect...

I dunno about magic spells and all that, but i am pretty sure there isnt a "potion" thing that gives stats like that, most modifications to attributes are either 1 round/phase or permament ( nothing that is 2, 3, 4 or anything inbetween "once" or "permament" )

So i guess the "once" effects can be counted as such a "potion" benefit, while as a magic buff that gives a model or a unit +1 str and remains in play is a "permament" benefit.

What i am suggesting is that items, spells or effects that give permament attribute bonus is taken in effect of "stomp" and that case with the VC spell.
While in the case of a "once" effect is not, and all potions in game is only "in phase" or "in round" and not permament such as a weapon. For weapons or remains in play is not "applied" every round, they just are there as a part of the model.

I guess it depends on item wording, because some weapons have "applies +1 str to attack" or "gives +1 strenght"
where the former is stated it actually gives you +1 str to attacks but not +1str to eventually strenght checks you might take by the effect of a spell, and the former gives the model the strenght and can be applied to the strenght check. ( unless the spell says "uses the model unmodified strenght, seen spells using unmodified leadership )

Ok, lets take a walk through crazy land.
FAQ says Stomp can't benefit from magic items.

Potion of strength boosts strength by 3.
Stomp isn't given +3 strength, Strength is.
Stomp now uses current strength, which is +3.

If that is your stance,
What magic item actually exists in the game that is limited by this FAQ?

Sigvtar's flawed reading completely bypasses the FAQ in every circumstance.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Sigvtar's flawed reading completely bypasses the FAQ in every circumstance.

-Matt

It would be my interpreation of what I read, not my reading capability itself. Stay classy.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

What magic item actually exists in the game that is limited by this FAQ?

Golden Sigil Sword, Giant Sword, Obsidian Blade, Ogre Blade, Sword of Might, Tearing (?) Sword - just to mention the magic weapons from the BRB.

Flaming banner, banner of rage, banner that gives asf, gift of chaos that gives poisoned attack etc etc

 Sigvatr wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

What magic item actually exists in the game that is limited by this FAQ?

Golden Sigil Sword, Giant Sword, Obsidian Blade, Ogre Blade, Sword of Might, Tearing (?) Sword - just to mention the magic weapons from the BRB.

All those examples are already covered by a different FAQ.

Q: Does a magic item or spell that gives a bonus to a characteristic,
do so bonus for all rules purposes (e.g. the effect of spells,
characteristic tests, etc)? (p4)
A: Yes, except for magic weapons or where the description of
the item or spell specifically says otherwise.

In general, you get the bonus to stats for all purposes, unless the bonus is from a weapon, or the item says otherwise.
Try again.

Lots of things are covered twice. This is a case of general (your q here) and specific - stomp.

Try again.

HawaiiMatt, your FAQ entry refers to an item or spell specifally stating otherwise, which is not the case in this question, thus your FAQ has no relation to the Stomp question.

Please use rules with a relation to a matter at hand. Other rules bear no value for the discussion at hand.

This is one of those threads I don't understand. A simple question I think is

Does Stomp benefit from a magic item of the model?

Is the use of a magic item from the model beneficial to Stomp? Clearly the answer is yes or this thread wouldn't even need to exist. It doesn't matter if something else benefits (Str), it doesn't address that. There are only 3 criteria that are given in the FAQ: [magic item/equipment/Special Rule] of model, T/Stomp, benefit. You can't say there is RAW using anything except those concepts because they aren't there.

Break it down further into individual criteria:

-Is this a Stomp/Tstomp attack? Yes
-Is the potion a magic item of the model making the attack? Yes
-Would the the Stomp/Tstomp benefit from the magic item? Yes (clearly a higher Str attack is a benefit)

The FAQ is extremely clear this isn't allowed. If any one of those criteria is changed, however, it would be allowed. Oddly, if the magic item was detrimental, it would apply. If you had a potion of sucky strength -1, it would work on Stomp, RAW, because it wouldn't benefit the ability.

Duke, there have been multiple very detailed explanations why the other interpretation is, at the very least, just as reasonable as yours and I have already pointed out, multiple times, that your argumentation creates hole in the rules as you have no characteristic value to use for the Stomp attack - but again, it's been stated above.

DukeRustfield wrote:
This is one of those threads I don't understand. A simple question I think is

Does Stomp benefit from a magic item of the model?

Is the use of a magic item from the model beneficial to Stomp? Clearly the answer is yes or this thread wouldn't even need to exist. It doesn't matter if something else benefits (Str), it doesn't address that. There are only 3 criteria that are given in the FAQ: [magic item/equipment/Special Rule] of model, T/Stomp, benefit. You can't say there is RAW using anything except those concepts because they aren't there.

Break it down further into individual criteria:

-Is this a Stomp/Tstomp attack? Yes
-Is the potion a magic item of the model making the attack? Yes
-Would the the Stomp/Tstomp benefit from the magic item? Yes (clearly a higher Str attack is a benefit)

The FAQ is extremely clear this isn't allowed. If any one of those criteria is changed, however, it would be allowed. Oddly, if the magic item was detrimental, it would apply. If you had a potion of sucky strength -1, it would work on Stomp, RAW, because it wouldn't benefit the ability.

Let's, for arguments, say there was a Chaos Gift that only gives a character +1Strenght when he is Frenzied (I would call it Berserker's Rage), the +1S would then benefit T/Stomp since Chaos Gifts aren't considered magical?

DukeRustfield wrote:
This is one of those threads I don't understand. A simple question I think is

Does Stomp benefit from a magic item of the model?

Is the use of a magic item from the model beneficial to Stomp? Clearly the answer is yes or this thread wouldn't even need to exist. It doesn't matter if something else benefits (Str), it doesn't address that. There are only 3 criteria that are given in the FAQ: [magic item/equipment/Special Rule] of model, T/Stomp, benefit. You can't say there is RAW using anything except those concepts because they aren't there.

Break it down further into individual criteria:

-Is this a Stomp/Tstomp attack? Yes
-Is the potion a magic item of the model making the attack? Yes
-Would the the Stomp/Tstomp benefit from the magic item? Yes (clearly a higher Str attack is a benefit)

The FAQ is extremely clear this isn't allowed. If any one of those criteria is changed, however, it would be allowed. Oddly, if the magic item was detrimental, it would apply. If you had a potion of sucky strength -1, it would work on Stomp, RAW, because it wouldn't benefit the ability.

Do you realize how you're the only person left arguing?

The crux of this debate is whether "benefit" is meant directly or to include indirectly. We have our views and opinions, which are just as logically sound as yours. We've said all we have to say, and you've said all you have to say. At this point, you're repeating yourself and trying to sound pompous with new wording. You're not going to convince us, and we're not going to convince you. Leave it at that.

The Horned Messiah wrote:

Let's, for arguments, say there was a Chaos Gift that only gives a character +1Strenght when he is Frenzied (I would call it Berserker's Rage), the +1S would then benefit T/Stomp since Chaos Gifts aren't considered magical?

It's already covered. Special rules that benefit T/Stomp are also not available just like magic items. It doesn't matter if the special rule triggers a special rule which triggers a special rule that benefits Stomp. It doesn't have that limitation. Does the special rule when applied benefit stomp? Yes. Then you don't get it.

We've said all we have to say, and you've said all you have to say. At this point, you're repeating yourself and trying to sound pompous with new wording. You're not going to convince us, and we're not going to convince you. Leave it at that.

Why did you feel the need to tell someone to stop talking? On a forum designed to promote talking. If you're done then by all means stop. Don't read it. You're free to go. There's plenty of discussions. There's a wide world to explore if you're frustrated here. I heard dancing is fun. Don't tell others they should stop posting on a discussion forum because you're upset. And don't start trolling and get ad hominem just because someone responds in a way you can't defend. Not sure when logic became pompous. It's like the media elite, always using those evil facts.

I have to say Duke, regardless of whether you agree with you or not, I do enjoy reading your posts. Keep using that right to free speech

DukeRustfield wrote:
It's already covered. Special rules that benefit T/Stomp are also not available just like magic items. It doesn't matter if the special rule triggers a special rule which triggers a special rule that benefits Stomp. It doesn't have that limitation. Does the special rule when applied benefit stomp? Yes. Then you don't get it.

Ya know after rereading Stomp I agree with you that the increase of Str does not necessarily means a betterT/ Stomp, but I make the exception with the increase of bulk.
Whenever a model changes size (changes troop type), through magic or otherwise, it should get the T/Stomp that goes with it; Mo should get Thunderstomp and Mi Stomp.

Or are you suggesting that a Bray who had changed into a Hydra should use his unmodified (Gor) Str for his Thunderstomp since the Strenght increase is done through magic?
Or that he shouldn't be able to Thunderstomp at all since he had gained this ability through magic?