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.

Dracoknight wrote:
Considering noone "won" this discussion yet is just a sign that the FAQ and the ruling is lacking in being "credible" for the so-far average reader.

'fraid to say folks, but we are stuck intil we get a offical update on it, and thus we are set to let the case go to TO or house rules until then.

I would disagree that no side "won" this - one side provided a rules argument that has not been removed as valid by the opposing side through a coutner rules-based argument

No magic item means, No magic item. Benefit, without restrictions, is talking about any benefit direct or otherwise.

RAW the potion does not work. RAI the potion does not work, as it i a magic item that helps improve stomp, and you've been told that this is something the designers do not want to have happen.

To continue with the same actions and expect different results is madness.

To refute a rule interpretation, then either a countermanding rule or a rational / logical explanation as to the limits of said rule is required.

Both have been provided, so I will choose not to step into madness at this point. You make your own choice.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Dracoknight wrote:
Considering noone "won" this discussion yet is just a sign that the FAQ and the ruling is lacking in being "credible" for the so-far average reader.

'fraid to say folks, but we are stuck intil we get a offical update on it, and thus we are set to let the case go to TO or house rules until then.

I would disagree that no side "won" this - one side provided a rules argument that has not been removed as valid by the opposing side through a coutner rules-based argument

No magic item means, No magic item. Benefit, without restrictions, is talking about any benefit direct or otherwise.

RAW the potion does not work. RAI the potion does not work, as it i a magic item that helps improve stomp, and you've been told that this is something the designers do not want to have happen.

Well the "winning" in a discussion is when one of the sides are convinced and go with 1 of the options, as far as i have read, noone from either side have been really convinced and gone "you know what? you're right!"

And as for the Potions, its a imaginary scenario, it doesnt even help bring up a point that helps convince me of either i am afraid.

Neither was sufficient to disprove the rules argument, as was repeatedly shown. The opposing side chose not to further debate the rules, but decided that "logically" a benefit strength would help out Stomp, despite that also being "logically" true that a model with killing blow on all attacks should also pass that benefit to stomp

I have made up my mind - one side has a tight rules based argument. The otehr relies on "it doesnt say indirect" or "it doesnt say unmodified", which are not sufficient to disprove anything.

Houserule this as PoS working on stomp, but it is only a houserule and not the RAW

Dracoknight wrote:

Well the "winning" in a discussion is when one of the sides are convinced and go with 1 of the options

If that was the case, no one has ever won a political election in the history of the world. The people disagreeing are looking for verbiage that has never been employed and ignoring very basic English.

There are people who still believe we didn't land on the moon and probably won't ever believe until they themselves are standing there. That doesn't make the moon landings in doubt, however.

[I am right because I am right]

Just a placeholder post, feel free to copy for the next few pages.

Verbiage? What is it and how does one look for it?

Dracoknight wrote:
Considering noone "won" this discussion yet is just a sign that the FAQ and the ruling is lacking in being "credible" for the so-far average reader.

'fraid to say folks, but we are stuck intil we get a offical update on it, and thus we are set to let the case go to TO or house rules until then.

QFT

Does anyone else notice that there's only like two people still trying to argue while everyone else is trying to do the mature thing here?

 PinkSpaceHippy wrote:
Does anyone else notice that there's only like two people still trying to argue while everyone else is trying to do the mature thing here?

Make fun of them?

 HoverBoy wrote:

 PinkSpaceHippy wrote:
Does anyone else notice that there's only like two people still trying to argue while everyone else is trying to do the mature thing here?

Make fun of them?

Lol, couldn't have said it better.

In my experience that's the way situations like this tend to develop online.

I marked the thread as close-able a few posts before but since mods thought it should be left open, why not take the opportunity to get some free yummy +1s?

Oh, and don't mind I used my super-foretelling abilities to foresee this outcome on page 1 already!

Well, if people really still feel like their side is The Right One, I can understand why the last handful are hesitant to back down.

Can I ask for a summary of the two arguments, so I don't have to read through all those pages again? I believe the first is as follows, but correct me if I'm wrong:

A. the FAQ says Stomps cannot benefit from magic items etc., special rules, or equipment

B. an increase in a model's Strength would be beneficial to its Stomp.

C. the increase in Strength cannot effect the Stomp.

Correct? Now, what's the other one. As simple as possible, if you please; if this debate continues, it might as well continue neatly and in a manner that's easy to follow.

I am not on the other side, but if I may:

The potion changes the model's strength. The model only has one strength - there aren't multiple values; there is only one value. Stomp references the model's strength, which, after drinking a potion of strength, becomes set at a specific value.

Then, when the model uses Stomp, it must reference this value, whatever it happens to be. If, for some reason, it is not allowed to reference this value, then there is no other value to reference, as the model has no "other" strength.

Further, and tangentially, the potion isn't benefiting Stomp - it is altering a characteristic to a higher value that Stomp MUST reference in order to be used.

The question posed by this argument is, "If I'm wrong, what is the strength of the Stomp?" The "original" strength of the model literally no longer exists - the only strength that exists is the post-potion value.

Of course it's benefiting stomp. Stomp is better. That's like, you know, the definition of a benefit. A tangential benefit is a benefit. If someone buys me a mansion, I benefit, even if they didn't cure cancer directly ON me.

There are as many values for Strength as the game says we need. If there are 50 special rules that all use strength differently, that's how many values we use.

It's absurd to say the original value no longer exists. It's not like you rip out the page from the book and reprint it and take drugs so you forget there ever was a non-potion strength. It will exist in exactly one round when the potion wears off. OR in the case of Stomp, immediately. Because the game tells you to use that. If you have a magic weapon that increases strength and that item is destroyed, you don't go, "OMG we can never find out the value it once was."

You can make your same case in every other temporary benefit. Orcs charge get +1 strength on the first round. But that's permanent because there's only one strength and we've forgotten what it was! Every buff ever is RIP and can't be cancelled, no matter what the BRB or FAQ says. Because there can only be one characteristic and despite the very clear wording that the buff ends, it can't ever end or be cancelled because the original value "no longer exists."

Tangent - prove that incresaing the strrength of stomp is not a benefit. Anything to prove that, as so far you have just an assertion

Nosferatu - prove that when GW use the word benefit they are using the broadest interpretation in English, rather than the interpretation which they normally use. Then you have a just argument.

If it's the interpretation they normally use, benefit = has/owns/possess/uses. The end result is exactly the same.

Stomps don't have/use equipment/magic items/special rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Tangent - prove that incresaing the strrength of stomp is not a benefit. Anything to prove that, as so far you have just an assertion

As I said, I'm on your side of this argument. Stomp clearly benefits from an increased strength.

I'd like to pose another hypothetical.

There is a magic sword. This sword has an ability which states, "For every wound caused in close combat, generate an extra power or dispel die in the following magic phase." It has another ability which states, "Each successful casting or dispelling of a spell permanently increases the strength characteristic of the model wielding this sword by 1, to a maximum of 10."

The model currently has strength 3 and is monstrous infantry, so it has Stomp. It dispels 2 spells and gains a permanent +2 to its strength, bringing the strength value to 5.

It then tries to Stomp.

What value is the Stomp resolved at?

I can't think of one magic item that is worded like that. They all confer their bonuses directly not indirectly. And I think they do that on purpose. So if you negate them or destroy them or otherwise change them, those abilities are gone. Your mythical sword sounds like it grants abilities even if the sword is destroyed. Which I don't think any magic item in the game does. Because then they would just make it a special ability of the model.

Basically, I thin in 8th (at least) they don't say permanent. Because stuff changes all the time and permanent implies it can't be changed. Also, they don't write a duration unless it's a limitation. It's implied that it lasts until something removes it. Or until the next turn, or the next ____ phase, or whatever specific limitation it has.

Wand of Whimsy is a new DoC item that is almost identical to what you listed. Without it saying, "HEY THIS IS PERMANENT AND CAN'T EVER BE REMOVED." The wand of whimsy increases S and A if the user casts or dispels and rolls a 5+. It can be taken by a Lord of Change who has thunderstomp and native 6S. So it's really powerful. But if he jacks his A and S up to 10, it still won't affect his Thunderstomp which will remain D6 and 6. Because the wand is technically a gift and gifts are classified as magic items and you know the rest.

@Tangent: thanks. That's just what I was looking for (sorry for the go-for-the-throat responses it incurred. Some of us can't be bothered to speak tentatively).

@Duke and Nosferatu: I completely agree that a Strength bonus benefits Stomp; I don't think a legitimate argument against that claim is possible.
But the idea that the model's Strength value changes and the original ceases to exist seems to bear considering, too.
Duke, something can cease to exist, and then come back into existence. A model has 5 Strength, drinks the potion, and now his Strength is 8. The people against you seem to say, "his Strength is not 5 (8), it's just 8, so where are you getting that 5 from? You can't use the one in the book this turn, because that number has been changed, as per the potion".

I think you guys have the right of it, but I have to say, it looks like a close call. To me, it looks something like:

- the model drinks the Potion.
- Stomp cannot benefit from the Potion.
- Stomp use the model's Strength.
And here there's a conflict of rules. But, since one of the rules is in the FAQ, we'll have to go with that. But in this case, the FAQ inadvertently re-writes how the Potion functions.

@Niteware: I...don't even know what you're trying to say. Benefit means benefit. Directly or indirectly, it just means what it means...?

Niteware wrote:
Nosferatu - prove that when GW use the word benefit they are using the broadest interpretation in English, rather than the interpretation which they normally use. Then you have a just argument.

Done. The word "benefit", without any restrictions, means exactly what we have posted

Now you must prove, without any doubt, using written rules, that when they say "benefit" they mean "direct benefit". Page and paragraph will suffice

Or concede, as you have no actual, written rules argument. None whatasoever, or you would have posted some rules by now.

The people against you seem to say, "his Strength is not 5 (8), it's just 8, so where are you getting that 5 from? You can't use the one in the book this turn, because that number has been changed, as per the potion".

This is ridiculous. The potion wears off in a round and you are back to 5. So whether it's 5 [8] or 5 (8) or 5...shhh...8 or anything, you know there is 5 because you will use it again soon enough. Just like every piece of equipment or magic item or spell. Nothing in this game is permanent. There are abilities that destroy or invalidate magic items and you thus have to be able to subtract their benefits from a model when called upon to do so.

Warpsolution wrote:

And here there's a conflict of rules. But, since one of the rules is in the FAQ, we'll have to go with that. But in this case, the FAQ inadvertently re-writes how the Potion functions.

No it doesn't. It rewrites how Stomp and Thunderstomp functions and nothing more. The word Strength is not mentioned once in the FAQ. The character model is exactly the same. Every way the model uses strength will reflect the increase of the potion. There is just one special rule whose behavior has been modified. The potion's duration does not change. It's affect on the model does not change. Stomp has changed. Stomp has its own section of rules on how it behaves and it governed by nothing more than that section and this FAQ.

I like rainbows. They make me happy.

Seriously, why is this thread still going?

-Matt

@Matt: honestly, I'm just trying to get my head around it all. But I think I got it now.

@Duke: I agree with you. But I think the idea is that your S8 will be back to 5 next round. Not this round. The value of 5 is not accessible right now.
But since it's FAQ, it has to be (which is what I was referring to with the Potion's rules).

DukeRustfield wrote:
There are abilities that destroy or invalidate magic items and you thus have to be able to subtract their benefits from a model when called upon to do so.

This is a really strong argument. The only thing I can think to say against it is that this is not a case of an ability destroying/invalidating a magic item. It's a rule limiting where the effects of a magic item apply. Still, I'd have to say this is the last nail in the coffin.

The potion says next round for the scope of the potion. The FAQ says right now for the scope of Stomp/Thunderstomp. The FAQ > the BRB.

edit:

The value of 5 is not accessible right now.

Says who? I don't recall reading anything that says values are locked away or otherwise forever inaccessible if they are modified. Even if it was, the FAQ clearly states that for T/Stomp it is in fact not modified--there is no potion of Str (or any other equipment) as far as Stomp is concerned.

edit2:

This is a really strong argument. The only thing I can think to say against it is that this is not a case of an ability destroying/invalidating a magic item. It's a rule limiting where the effects of a magic item apply

Those are synonyms. An ability that destroys an item is the same as a rule limiting the effects of the item. The ability uses rules. Its rule scope is "when activated conditions are met." The FAQ's rule scope is "Stomp/Thunderstomps only." But they are both rules.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
I like rainbows. They make me happy.

Seriously, why is this thread still going?

-Matt

Depends on whether there is a pot of gold at the end. But in general, rainbows are awesome - saw a double-rainbow yesterday at our apartment's front window just after it stopped raining

 Sigvatr wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
I like rainbows. They make me happy.

Seriously, why is this thread still going?

-Matt

Depends on whether there is a pot of gold at the end. But in general, rainbows are awesome - saw a double-rainbow yesterday at our apartment's front window just after it stopped raining

Double rainbows are not really rainbows by RAW, only as RAI. They make me less happy.
Now, lets see if we can drag this out for 6 more pages.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
I like rainbows. They make me happy.

Seriously, why is this thread still going?

-Matt

Depends on whether there is a pot of gold at the end. But in general, rainbows are awesome - saw a double-rainbow yesterday at our apartment's front window just after it stopped raining

Double rainbows are not really rainbows by RAW, only as RAI. They make me less happy.
Now, lets see if we can drag this out for 6 more pages.

-Matt

How are double rainbows not RAW? p. 69 explicitely states that the Rainbow USR stacks with itself and is an exception to the rule of USR not being able to stack with themselves (like you don't get +2A if you got both Rage and Extra Attack (1).

Looks like we're all good then.....