Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 12:50:56
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin
|
Can you stomp vs invisible targets?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 13:08:26
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Frenzied Berserker Terminator
|
Invisibility has two rules: one restricting Shooting attacks, the other restricting attacks in assault.
For shooting, Invis requires shooting attacks to make Snap Shots, which prevents weapons with the Blast special rule (amongst others) to be fired at the Invisible unit. Even though Stomp attacks are determined using a blast marker, they do not actually have the Blast special rule and so are not restricted by this rule.
For assault, the rule forces the attacker to hit Invisible models on To Hit rolls of 6. Stomp does not rely on To Hit rolls, and in fact never mentions the word "hit" at all - so, even if you could force your opponent to roll 6s To Hit, failing the roll would do nothing.
In short: yes, you may Stomp against Invisible units.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 13:09:11
Subject: Re:Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions
|
I would say yes, since you're treating the small blast template as a marker, not a blast template.
Invisibility says you need 6s on "To Hit Rolls" in cc. A stomp attack is not a "To Hit Roll".
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 14:02:02
Subject: Re:Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
House Griffith wrote:I would say yes, since you're treating the small blast template as a marker, not a blast template.
Invisibility says you need 6s on "To Hit Rolls" in cc. A stomp attack is not a "To Hit Roll".
Whats a blast template ?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 14:05:42
Subject: Re:Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Fragile wrote: House Griffith wrote:I would say yes, since you're treating the small blast template as a marker, not a blast template.
Invisibility says you need 6s on "To Hit Rolls" in cc. A stomp attack is not a "To Hit Roll".
Whats a blast template ?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 14:12:18
Subject: Re:Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Sigvatr wrote:Fragile wrote: House Griffith wrote:I would say yes, since you're treating the small blast template as a marker, not a blast template.
Invisibility says you need 6s on "To Hit Rolls" in cc. A stomp attack is not a "To Hit Roll".
Whats a blast template ?

Thats a blast marker.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 14:51:41
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
It's a template by the term's very definition.
GW themselves refer to them as "templates".
You can call them markers, templates, blast marker, blast template, 3'' template, 3'' marker etc. They all mean the same thing. Don't start nitpicking just for nitpicking's sake.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 17:42:33
Subject: Re:Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon
|
Cheexsta wrote:For assault, the rule forces the attacker to hit Invisible models on To Hit rolls of 6. Stomp does not rely on To Hit rolls, and in fact never mentions the word "hit" at all - so, even if you could force your opponent to roll 6s To Hit, failing the roll would do nothing.
House Griffith wrote:Invisibility says you need 6s on "To Hit Rolls" in cc. A stomp attack is not a "To Hit Roll".
If you never roll to hit, how can you roll a 6?
|
I don't write the rules. My ego just lives and dies by them one model at a time. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 18:17:31
Subject: Re:Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Confessor Of Sins
|
Ghenghis Jon wrote: Cheexsta wrote:For assault, the rule forces the attacker to hit Invisible models on To Hit rolls of 6. Stomp does not rely on To Hit rolls, and in fact never mentions the word "hit" at all - so, even if you could force your opponent to roll 6s To Hit, failing the roll would do nothing.
House Griffith wrote:Invisibility says you need 6s on "To Hit Rolls" in cc. A stomp attack is not a "To Hit Roll".
If you never roll to hit, how can you roll a 6?
Please quote people's full post (and read it).
Both are agreed, why turn it into an argument?
Who here denies Invisibility works with Stomp?
|
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage. Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 19:34:53
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Never Forget Isstvan!
|
Stomp uses the small blast template but is definately not a blast.
It is literally the superheavy or gargantuan creature lifting its feet/appendages and slamming them down on top of the opponent.
It is a melee attack that uses a chart instead of rolling to hits and to wounds. You have no permission from anything else other than the stomp chart to determine the results.
|
JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 19:41:59
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon
|
No. Both are agreed, why turn it into an argument? Who here denies Invisibility works with Stomp?
I do. I read both arguments (which are the same), that automatic hits do not have to roll a 6 to hit Invisible units, despite the Invisibility rule stating: 'enemy units [ ] in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.' It says right there that you HAVE to roll a 6. You say that not having to roll at all circumvents that. I disagree.
|
I don't write the rules. My ego just lives and dies by them one model at a time. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 19:43:58
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Ghenghis Jon wrote:No. Both are agreed, why turn it into an argument? Who here denies Invisibility works with Stomp?
I do. I read both arguments (which are the same), that automatic hits do not have to roll a 6 to hit Invisible units, despite the Invisibility rule stating: 'enemy units [ ] in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.' It says right there that you HAVE to roll a 6. You say that not having to roll at all circumvents that. I disagree.
#
You disagreeing doesn't matter when the rules say otherwise
They specifiy "To Hit" rolls. Do you roll to hit? No.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 19:45:07
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Rampaging Carnifex
|
Ghenghis Jon wrote:No. Both are agreed, why turn it into an argument? Who here denies Invisibility works with Stomp?
I do. I read both arguments (which are the same), that automatic hits do not have to roll a 6 to hit Invisible units, despite the Invisibility rule stating: 'enemy units [ ] in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.' It says right there that you HAVE to roll a 6. You say that not having to roll at all circumvents that. I disagree.
The stomp attack never 'hits' the unit. It doesn't even target them as far as the rules are concerned. It merely applies it's effect (rolled for on a table) to all models under the marker.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 19:45:17
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Never Forget Isstvan!
|
Does invisibility state anywhere that attacks that automatically hit are ignored? Cause i dont remember reading that anywhere.
Its not like the Hard to Hit rule zooming flyers have.
|
JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 19:49:44
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Ghenghis Jon wrote:: 'enemy units [ ] in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.' It says right there that you HAVE to roll a 6. You say that not having to roll at all circumvents that. I disagree.
The underlined is false.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 19:52:53
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Never Forget Isstvan!
|
Rig is also correct.
It doesnt say you have to roll a to hit roll of a 6; it says if you make close combat attacks you only hit on a 6.
Big difference.
|
JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 19:56:18
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon
|
This is a good step in the argument. Thank you for pointing out my logical error.
|
I don't write the rules. My ego just lives and dies by them one model at a time. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 21:25:37
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Sigvatr wrote:It's a template by the term's very definition.
GW themselves refer to them as "templates".
You can call them markers, templates, blast marker, blast template, 3'' template, 3'' marker etc. They all mean the same thing. Don't start nitpicking just for nitpicking's sake.
Blasts are markers, Templates are used with flamer type weapons.
The terms are not interchangeable, especially to create a difference in something that uses a blast marker.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 21:35:16
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Confessor Of Sins
|
Fragile wrote: Sigvatr wrote:It's a template by the term's very definition.
GW themselves refer to them as "templates".
You can call them markers, templates, blast marker, blast template, 3'' template, 3'' marker etc. They all mean the same thing. Don't start nitpicking just for nitpicking's sake.
Blasts are markers, Templates are used with flamer type weapons.
The terms are not interchangeable, especially to create a difference in something that uses a blast marker.
I've always called them Blast templates, and it's clearly different to a weapon with the Template USR, or with Template as it's range? Automatically Appended Next Post: Directly from the GW store page, Dark Vengeance: "There are also dice, templates, and a how-to-play booklet that includes six scenarios to enact on the tabletop."
Does the box contain 3 templates? If you're going to argue that, then i think you would need to get a refund for your box
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/29 21:39:09
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage. Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 21:54:49
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
BlackTalos wrote:Fragile wrote: Sigvatr wrote:It's a template by the term's very definition.
GW themselves refer to them as "templates".
You can call them markers, templates, blast marker, blast template, 3'' template, 3'' marker etc. They all mean the same thing. Don't start nitpicking just for nitpicking's sake.
Blasts are markers, Templates are used with flamer type weapons.
The terms are not interchangeable, especially to create a difference in something that uses a blast marker.
I've always called them Blast templates, and it's clearly different to a weapon with the Template USR, or with Template as it's range?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Directly from the GW store page, Dark Vengeance: "There are also dice, templates, and a how-to-play booklet that includes six scenarios to enact on the tabletop."
Does the box contain 3 templates? If you're going to argue that, then i think you would need to get a refund for your box 
Common use language in a sales poster does not equal rules. But since your in on this as well. Explain the difference between a blast template and a blast marker.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/29 21:55:10
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 22:00:24
Subject: Re:Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Confessor Of Sins
|
He even stated "marker".
this was never a RaW argument about Blast markers until you seem to have made it so...
The difference between a blast template and a blast marker is that one of them is a Pie plate. Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and the other one is a 5" Large Blast...
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/29 22:01:37
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage. Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/29 23:44:30
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Fragile wrote:
Blasts are markers, Templates are used with flamer type weapons.
The terms are not interchangeable, especially to create a difference in something that uses a blast marker.
So either you are wrong, or you better give GW a call because they use their own terms wrong.
What is it?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/30 16:10:09
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Its blast marker, it hasnt been blast template for about 4-5 editions. You can see this clearly anywhere in the rulebook where it mentions blast, and is obviously under "Blast in the special rules"
When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit. Instead, just pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the 3" blast marker with its hole entirely over the base of the target model (see diagram), or its hull if the target is a vehicle. The hole at the centre of the marker must be within the weapon’s maximum range.
template = teardrop shaped
regardless, there are not normally melee attacks which use templates or blast markers.
Invisibility requires snap shots for shooting, which affects templates/markers but stomps happen during assault which is not shooting.
in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6.
Whether this implies you need to roll a 6 if you are rolling to hit, or you must roll to hit and need a 6 attacks that do not roll to hit cannot be used is debatable. There are very few other attacks that are not shooting attacks that do not require to hit rolls. Like venomthrope toxic miasma. So not much rules precedent.
Can you not hit with a stomp because you need to roll a 6 to hit? Unknown
Do you still hit with a stomp because attacks which need to roll to hit are required to roll a 6, but stomp requires no to hit roll? Unknown
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/07/30 16:18:19
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/30 16:13:09
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
A blast template is the same as a blast marker. 100% the same.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/30 16:14:20
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
please cite a quote, and further does it matter?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/30 16:40:17
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
stomp, novas, and anything that auto hits counters invisability
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/30 16:57:10
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel
|
This shouldn't even be a question. You wont find a major tournament that would side with you on stomps not hitting invis enemies. And if someone is finding ways to trick their friends into thinking the already stupidly OP invis spell is even better than its supposed to be, that person needs to ease off the WAAC and learn how to have fun fairly.
|
warhammer 40k mmo. If I can drive an ork trukk into the back of a space marine dread and explode in a fireball of epic, I can die happy!
8k points
3k points
3k points
Admech 2.5k points
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/30 17:50:57
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Khorne Veteran Marine with Chain-Axe
|
Edited by Manchu. Rule One is Be Polite. Thanks! here is your proof...
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/31 01:18:27
"I ayn't so eezy ta kill... heheheh..."
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!!! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!!!! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/30 19:08:25
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Yes, for warhammer.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/31 19:51:48
Subject: Stomp vs invisible targets
|
 |
Confessor Of Sins
|
They are sold by GW as 'templates'.
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-NL/Warhammer-40-000?N=102317+4294966592&Nu=product.repositoryId&qty=12&sorting=phl
Which would either make 2 of them unsuited for 7th edition or establish that they are all in fact templates in general.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/31 19:52:22
Cratfworld Alaitoc (Gallery)
Order of the Red Mantle (Gallery)
Grand (little) Army of Chaos, now painting! (Blog) |
|
 |
 |
|