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.

DukeRustfield wrote:

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.

Well, some people deny logical reasoning and embrace circle argumentation...by the way, I wouldn't tell others to stop "ad hominem" when in the very same post, you take the first exit to Ad Homincem city.

Oddly, spells are excluded. Transformation of Kaddon is not a special rule, equipment or magic item.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Oddly, spells are excluded. Transformation of Kaddon is not a special rule, equipment or magic item.

True, but if there was a magic potion that transformed a model into a Hydra, would that model then have ThunderStomp at the Hydra's Str or the unmodified model's Str?
I mean, one could argue that the Str increase and gaining the Thunderstomp ability from drinking this 'Hydra' potion works exactly the same as a Minotaur (who already has the Stomp ability) drinking a Strenght increasing potion.

No that is not true, drinking a Hydra-transformation potion would increase the model's bulk, while this is not neccessarily the case with drinking a Strenght potion.

But according to your reasoning increasing bulk through a magic potion would have no affect on Stomp since it is gained through a magic item.

Listen, from a fluff perspective, I would want the potion of strength to benefit stomps. It only makes sense.

But the argument about the word "benefit" being "directly or indirectly" applicable... that's reaching.

But come on, guys - in regular usage, the wording is SO CLEAR.

Headphones cannot benefit from big heads. You increase the size of your head from small to big. Can headphones benefit? No! It doesn't matter that you only have one head upon which the headphones may go.

SHOULD headphones benefit? Of course. But in this abstraction of rules that we exist in within this subforum, they don't.

The argument to the contrary ignores all common usage of the language.

The argument against it crates a rule gap and would not allow you to stomp at all.

As I said before, it's a circle argumentation. If you feel it might become a problem, ask your TO. All of them the issue came up (well, 2 times) at tournaments I attended to, using ETC rules, it has been ruled as I said for like five times already.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The argument against it crates a rule gap and would not allow you to stomp at all.

As I said before, it's a circle argumentation. If you feel it might become a problem, ask your TO. All of them the issue came up (well, 2 times) at tournaments I attended to, using ETC rules, it has been ruled as I said for like five times already.

You mean, because the model's strength characteristic is now n+3, "n" by itself no longer exists, and so stomp has no value to reference.

But it clearly does still exist. It's written in your armybook. The model has strength 3. This characteristic can benefit from a magic item through an improvement. However, stomp must use the original value as it cannot benefit from this improvement in the way that other attacks can. It's not like you just forgot the original value - it isn't erased from existence. In fact, you could even say that the strength is still "n" but attacks which can benefit from an improvement use a different temporary value, such as n+3 in the case of a potion of strength, or n+2 in the case of an attack using a great weapon.

 Tangent wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The argument against it crates a rule gap and would not allow you to stomp at all.

As I said before, it's a circle argumentation. If you feel it might become a problem, ask your TO. All of them the issue came up (well, 2 times) at tournaments I attended to, using ETC rules, it has been ruled as I said for like five times already.

You mean, because the model's strength characteristic is now n+3, "n" by itself no longer exists, and so stomp has no value to reference.

But it clearly does still exist. It's written in your armybook. The model has strength 3. This characteristic can benefit from a magic item through an improvement. However, stomp must use the original value as it cannot benefit from this improvement in the way that other attacks can. It's not like you just forgot the original value - it isn't erased from existence. In fact, you could even say that the strength is still "n" but attacks which can benefit from an improvement use a different temporary value, such as n+3 in the case of a potion of strength, or n+2 in the case of an attack using a great weapon.

Incorrect. If a S3 model's characteristic value is increased, it is not e.g. S3 (6). It's 6. There is no other characteristic value besides 6 you can relate to. Your last sentence refers to e.g. Halberds that provide a +1S bonus and are explicitely stated to do so i regard to melee attacks.

Alright, I see your point, and Tangent's gonna make a ruling. Here it goes guys - this is what you've all been waiting for: my opinion.

My Opinion

I think it's pretty clear that GW realized, in retrospect, that they don't want Stomps to be improvable. They're already good, and there are combinations that would make them TOO good, and they sought to rectify this.

So, I think they don't want potions of strength to improve the strength at which a stomp is used. Of course, they used poor wording. And while I think Duke's and Nos' arguments are stronger than Sigvatr's, I can see Sig's point from a RAW perspective.

Finally, if a creature increases in strength and/or size due to a magic potion, would that nominally increase the strength of every attack that creature possesses? Of course! From a fluff perspective, it should make all of the attacks stronger.

And so, my opinion: if this comes up in my gaming group, I would vote with... SIGVATR!

RAW I think you're on the losing side, but as far as RAI, you're in the right, and I tend to play and advocate for RAI when playing/discussing in person.

If we're talking RAI, I'd also agree and think that most people would agree to it naturally increasing Strength.

RAW-wise, I still take my stand of both interpretations having good points and them being equally valid, thus making it a TO / majority vote decision.

Nothing changes a model's characteristic except something that says it changes a model's characteristic. The FAQ only addresses Stomp and TStomp. That's it. There are a bunch of abilities where the model makes attacks at different values than their profile. Some examples off the top of my head, the Skaven rat tail weapon is Str3 no matter what the model's Str is. Arachnarok has one attack that is is super awesome multi-wound out of all its attacks. One of the Sphinx also has a super awesome HKB attack out of it's attacks. The new WoC Chimera has a special random attacks tail swipe. That ogre weapon can be made to do a splat attack, exchanging all his attacks. The new DoC Soulgrinder can make a single S10 attack if he has a bone claw.

None of those attacks modify the base model's characteristics permanently even though they in some cases they make changes to those values in regards to their particular ability. The FAQ only concerns Stomp/TStomp. It doesn't say that you never get to use a magic item and if you used one that changed your characteristic you're sucked into the Realm of Chaos. It says you can't use them for Stomp/TStomp. If at the exact same time you Stomp you have to take a Str characteristic test, you would take it at the modified level, because the FAQ does not mention, or hint, that the item is in any way nullified for other purposes.

I'm completely with you on RAW, Duke. But I probably wouldn't play it that way unless it was clear that the majority opinion of my club also agrees with you, in which case I would verbally agree with them and play it in the way that you advise.

RAW and RAI seem clear - when they say "NO magic item" they probably mean "NO" magic item.

"Direct" or "indirect" - given it is entirely unqualified, you must take it to mean both, otherwise you have made an arbitrary choice. Mot definitely NOT RAW

 Tangent wrote:
I think it's pretty clear that GW realized, in retrospect, that they don't want Stomps to be improvable. They're already good, and there are combinations that would make them TOO good, and they sought to rectify this.

Well, think about it. What wording do they use to say:

T/Stomp: it can benefit from magic items, equipment, special rules in some ways but not others.

It's a lot easier and more in keeping with every other ruling in the game to just cut it all out. If magic items can boost Str and affect Stomp, then why can't a Firebelly have flaming Stomps? Or why can't a DoC GD have a poison, magic, multi-wound (2), ASF thunderstomp?

You'd need a far more complex FAQ (2 sentences...) to make that available and for what? Just so you could add Str to T/Stomp? The point was Stomp and Thunderstomp were REALLY simple abilities added to unit types to make them a little better. It did not take into consideration every single model's special rules and how they would play with bonus auto-hitting attacks. Ogres without Stomp I daresay would not be nearly as good, and many monsters would be relatively worthless. But if you could modify T/Stomp, in some cases it could get really cheesy.

Instead of a FAQ for every modification possible to the abilities it's a whole lot easier to say can they all work or none can work. It's safer to say none can work. I think that's RAW and RAI. I.e., they knew +Str would get dropped as well.

DukeRustfield wrote:

 Tangent wrote:
If magic items can boost Str and affect Stomp, then why can't a Firebelly have flaming Stomps? Or why can't a DoC GD have a poison, magic, multi-wound (2), ASF thunderstomp?

GW, like you and everyone else, thought that letting abilities like poison, flaming etc be used with Stomp would be OP and ridiculous but, if they had intended it not to be able to take strength they could easily have done that.

DukeRustfield wrote:
There are a bunch of abilities where the model makes attacks at different values than their profile. Some examples off the top of my head, the Skaven rat tail weapon is Str3 no matter what the model's Str is.

"Stomp is an extra attack that hits at S5, which cannot benefit from any other rule". Done. Except that that is ridiculous, because an S7 monster should stomp harder than an S5 monster. I assume that you would agree that that is what *should* (and is what does) happen if the higher S value isin the profile to start with. Logically, you would then agree that a character with a characteristic of S7(modified *should* stomp harder than unmodified, even though you would say that the FAQ rules this out.

Given that there clearly are many things which are ruled out by the FAQ, there is an obvious way that the rule could have been written to restrict modified strength, using modified strength is more logical and Sigvatr has explained a rationalle for believing the FAQ to be ambiguous, can you see why there are two schools of thought on this issue?

If they had made a Str exception it would have been vastly more ambiguous. Every unit that is MI has Stomp and every unit that is Monster has Tstomp. That's an awful lot of units. And some can get magic items. And some can get spells with special effects. And some can get equipment. Worrying about what unintended results "free" auto-hits get based on whatever weird combinations people come up with is hard. It's infinitely easier to say you get nothing. Stomp and TStomp were free to begin with. They blanket gave them to every book without a cost upgrade or balance concerns. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

The point of the rat tail weapon was because he seemed to be arguing that if the FAQ took away the effects from Stomp then THE UNIT WOULD HAVE NO STR CHARACTERISTIC AT ALL! I.e.,

Incorrect. If a S3 model's characteristic value is increased, it is not e.g. S3 (6). It's 6. There is no other characteristic value besides 6 you can relate to.

Which is silly because the FAQ doesn't remove the magic item/special rule/equipment benefits from anything other than Stomp/TStomp. So Str would still be increased. Saying we're lost in the void because the spell/equipment has no effect for one ability assumes we are incapable of arithmetic, which is really bad, because once that potion wears off, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO?

No, I don't understand how there are competing views or I wouldn't bother writing. It's very clear English.

The guy saying I won't change his mind (a school teacher no less...) is indicative of how people are arguing this. Saying it's literally impossible to change his mind. I certainly can't say that. If someone goes, "oh hay, there's this FAQ we totally forgot or this rule in the BRB that supersedes all this," then I'd go, well, I'm wrong. But it just seems like there's some people stomping (pun!) their feet with their arms crossed going "nah! nah! nah! nah! can't hear you!"

It reminds me of Bill Clinton's "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

DukeRustfield wrote:

Incorrect. If a S3 model's characteristic value is increased, it is not e.g. S3 (6). It's 6. There is no other characteristic value besides 6 you can relate to.

Which is silly because the FAQ doesn't remove the magic item/special rule/equipment benefits from anything other than Stomp/TStomp. So Str would still be increased. Saying we're lost in the void because the spell/equipment has no effect for one ability assumes we are incapable of arithmetic, which is really bad, because once that potion wears off, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO?

It goes back to the initial Strength because the potion's effect wears off, the model's characteristic is then decreased by 3 again. If you were interested in trying to understand other's arguments, you'd realize that any test / weapon always checks for the current characteristic value unless specifically stated - and with a PoS, it's e.g. 6, not 3. It's pretty obvious now that you're just trolling / trying to provoke others. Good manners.

But it just seems like there's some people stomping (pun!) their feet with their arms crossed going "nah! nah! nah! nah! can't hear you!"

Yes, those official TOs certainly have no idea of what the rules should be and are a bunch of angry children. And really, you're starting ad hominem again? Is that how someone who is right would behave? Do you actually realize that you behave exactly like you described the opposing group?

This thread went exactly where I predicted that it would go. People disagree, and one side starts to go ad hominem because the opposing side is "so stupid". I imagine some people shaking their monitor, yelling at it. Yeah.

At which point do you start to disagree with me then?

1. A character with s7 in his profile should logically stomp harder than a character with s5 on his profile.

2. It would therefore make sense for a character whose strength had been increased to stomp harder than one whose strength was unmodified.

3. There are other rules which are clearly ruled out by the FAQ

4. These other rules would be illogical as well as overpowered, if they were allowed to apply to stomp.

5. It would have been simple to errata the rule or FAQ it to mention strength

6. Strength boosts affect stomp in a different way than the other special rules ie by affecting something else; it is an indirect link

7. GW are not always clear on what they mean

Not sure if I have included all my axioms here, but I would be interested to know which you would dispute.

nosferatu1001 wrote:RAW and RAI seem clear - when they say "NO magic item" they probably mean "NO" magic item.

"Direct" or "indirect" - given it is entirely unqualified, you must take it to mean both, otherwise you have made an arbitrary choice. Mot definitely NOT RAW

Agreed on the language, but I don't agree that RAI is "clear." One can interpret however one wishes, and I can see the case for the interpretation that a stronger creature would stomp harder.

DukeRustfield wrote:Well, think about it. What wording do they use to say:

T/Stomp: it can benefit from magic items, equipment, special rules in some ways but not others.

It's a lot easier and more in keeping with every other ruling in the game to just cut it all out. If magic items can boost Str and affect Stomp, then why can't a Firebelly have flaming Stomps? Or why can't a DoC GD have a poison, magic, multi-wound (2), ASF thunderstomp?

You'd need a far more complex FAQ (2 sentences...) to make that available and for what? Just so you could add Str to T/Stomp? The point was Stomp and Thunderstomp were REALLY simple abilities added to unit types to make them a little better. It did not take into consideration every single model's special rules and how they would play with bonus auto-hitting attacks. Ogres without Stomp I daresay would not be nearly as good, and many monsters would be relatively worthless. But if you could modify T/Stomp, in some cases it could get really cheesy.

Instead of a FAQ for every modification possible to the abilities it's a whole lot easier to say can they all work or none can work. It's safer to say none can work. I think that's RAW and RAI. I.e., they knew +Str would get dropped as well.

Yeah man, I'm with you. I don't disagree. It seems like GW hit a snag on this and, instead of actually doing the work required to make this both clear AND balanced, they slapped a too-short FAQ onto it. Obviously, not the first time. Before you jump on this statement, realize that I agree that the FAQ is about as clear as it can get and still stay concise - how many more words does it need to contain to tell you that no magic items will benefit stomps? I think the opposing arguments are REALLY reaching as far as RAW is concerned. But that doesn't mean those arguments don't exist, and so the FAQ could have been written better.

 Sigvatr wrote:
If you were interested in trying to understand other's arguments, you'd realize that any test / weapon always checks for the current characteristic value unless specifically stated - and with a PoS, it's e.g. 6, not 3.

NOWHERE does it say that the characteristic changed. I'm not sure why you don't get that. It doesn't matter what the characteristic is/was/will be. The FAQ doesn't address that whatsoever. The FAQ doesn't say Strength once. It doesn't say tests. It doesn't say destroy the magic items the character has and take away all their benefits forever. It doesn't apply to anything except the very specific instance of Stomp/Thunderstomp.

Stomp is a special rule. If you take the text of that special rule and append at the bottom of it that: this special rule does not benefit from any other special rules, equipment or magic items the model possesses. That's it. The Stomp special rule doesn't affect characteristic tests just like Killing Blow special rule doesn't affect characteristic tests.

2. It would therefore make sense for a character whose strength had been increased to stomp harder than one whose strength was unmodified.
3. There are other rules which are clearly ruled out by the FAQ
4. These other rules would be illogical as well as overpowered, if they were allowed to apply to stomp.
5. It would have been simple to errata the rule or FAQ it to mention strength
6. Strength boosts affect stomp in a different way than the other special rules ie by affecting something else; it is an indirect link

2. yup, if there wasn't a FAQ
3. yup
4. yup
5. nope. Because there are plenty of items/effects/equipment that are partially strength. It's just messy. If you get a magic hammer of coolness that is +1 Str and KB, well the Strength applies. But the KB doesn't. I already said they make effects work or they don't. There's a lot of army books and a lot of spells and a lot of equipment. When you start splitting their effects then FAQs become a lot longer than 1 sentence. Here, ONE item as a demonstration. Ogre Thundermace. +2 str. It can also fire a template. If you're hit under the hole it is 9 str and multi-wound? Is it multi-wound? What if the user does the thunder attack and hits someone for 9 Str? Clearly there was a moment during close combat they had 9 Str. That guy they just squished can prove it. So is the Stomp unmodified str, +2, or 9? There's lots of stuff like that all over the place. So they said forget it. It would be a 1 page FAQ that would have to keep up with every new army book.
6. The FAQ does not specify direct/indirect. It is irrelevant. The FAQ does not mention Strength at all. It uses the all-encompassing, you-can't-cheat-out-of-this word, benefit.

DukeRustfield wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If you were interested in trying to understand other's arguments, you'd realize that any test / weapon always checks for the current characteristic value unless specifically stated - and with a PoS, it's e.g. 6, not 3.

NOWHERE does it say that the characteristic changed

As far as I am informed, PoS grants +3S.

 Sigvatr wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If you were interested in trying to understand other's arguments, you'd realize that any test / weapon always checks for the current characteristic value unless specifically stated - and with a PoS, it's e.g. 6, not 3.

NOWHERE does it say that the characteristic changed

As far as I am informed, PoS grants +3S.

Sure man, but just like I said, what Duke is saying is that you're acting like the original stat just disappears. It doesn't get erased from existence - it is simply temporarily modified to a higher value, but the lower value still exists and you can still reference it. In fact, the FAQ is basically saying that it gets modified to a higher value and that higher value is used except in certain circumstances, and the wording of the FAQ suggests that stomp is one of those circumstances where the lower value is used because the higher value is forbidden.

The latter case happens quite a few times and is always explicitely referend by saying e.g. using the unmodified value.

If it is not explicitely specified, you have to use the current value - which is e.g. 6. You can't deny that. Well...most can't.

As mentioned, I can see your point.

As I see yours

I can see you right now.

I dunno.
The faq clearly states that Stomp does not benefit from magic items.
Yet spells still do, right?
But aren't potions no different from bottled spells?

The way I see it is that Stomp is more related to size than strenght, so gaining or losing Str should not affect it that much.
I mean even when a Monster is affect by a -1Str Hex his bulk is still the same, right?

Furthermore I believe that Thunderstomp should always be better than Stomp.
So to simplefy things I propose that T/Stomp are not affected by anything (no potion, nor spells) and that Stomp always has Str6 and Thunderstomp Str8.
Or something like that.

We really shouldn't fluff / wishlisting for rules arguments, GW does that often enough ;D

@Tangent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSqet2kThD0

The Horned Messiah wrote:
I dunno.
The faq clearly states that Stomp does not benefit from magic items.
Yet spells still do, right?
But aren't potions no different from bottled spells?

The way I see it is that Stomp is more related to size than strenght, so gaining or losing Str should not affect it that much.
I mean even when a Monster is affect by a -1Str Hex his bulk is still the same, right?

Furthermore I believe that Thunderstomp should always be better than Stomp.
So to simplefy things I propose that T/Stomp are not affected by anything (no potion, nor spells) and that Stomp always has Str6 and Thunderstomp Str8.
Or something like that.

They're not trying to rewrite RAW in this thread (except for the arbitrary "what if this not really related scenario..." hypotheticals that get shot down quickly). They're trying to come to an RAI since RAW isn't as clear as it should be. Both sides said they're peace, and at this point it's trying really just a couple people trying to convince the other person that they're wrong over the Internet by brute forcing their opinion.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The latter case happens quite a few times and is always explicitely referend by saying e.g. using the unmodified value.

Always? I don't know about that. But those are characteristics tests. The FAQ is saying exactly the same thing as unmodified value except adding to it to make it even more restrictive. Unmodified only applies to a characteristic. But you can't have Killing Blow Weapon Skill. Or Poison Swiftstride Leadership. You are hung up on Strength because you're looking at a potion of strength. This FAQ does not modify Strength. It modifies Stomp/TStomp. There is no such thing as an unmodified Killing Blow. Or unmodified Volley Fire. Find any reference to those in any army book. Yet for some reason you demand they write unmodified Stomp for it to have the same effect.

Ref.: 3rd or 4th of my posts above.