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.

col_impact wrote:
I think we should be more concerned about what 'incapacitated' means.

Incapacitated is an adjective that describes a state where you don't have the capacity, or ability, to accomplish anything. In game terms WS 0 represents an incapacity to accomplish anything in close combat - defensively and offensively.

So do stomp attacks represent a now 'incapacitated' GMC trying to accomplish something in close combat?

Except you can stomp on units you are not in CC with.

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I think we should be more concerned about what 'incapacitated' means.

Incapacitated is an adjective that describes a state where you don't have the capacity, or ability, to accomplish anything. In game terms WS 0 represents an incapacity to accomplish anything in close combat - defensively and offensively.

So do stomp attacks represent a now 'incapacitated' GMC trying to accomplish something in close combat?

Except you can stomp on units you are not in CC with.

If a GMC is not engaged in close combat, can they perform a Stomp attack? No.


Also, since 'strike a blow' is not a rule book defined term (it does not show up in the index or have a game definition) we must abide by English and commonsense usage. "Strike a blow" is melee combat terminology. Remember, you can only run afoul of English commonsense usage when the BRB gives explicit permission to do so. This means that if you intend to run afoul of English commonsense usage, be prepared to point explicitly at the BRB for justification.

If I hit someone with a sword in the head, have I struck a blow? Yes.

If I hit someone in the nose with my fist, have I struck a blow? Yes.

If I kick someone in the instep of the foot, have I struck a blow? Yes.

If I stomp on someone's head when they are prone on the ground, have I struck a blow? Yes.

If I stomp on a puppy, have I struck a blow to that puppy? Yes.


The burden of proof is on those who would say that Stomp is not a blow being struck by a GMC when quite clearly by ANY fair English read, a stomp is most assuredly a blow being struck by a GMC to a much smaller opponent.

If you feel otherwise, make explicit how you are defining "strike blows" and how your terminology relates semantically to fighting and warfare. Or alternately, find in the BRB where "strike any blows" is explicitly and fully defined.

Remember, the burden of proof is on those who would say Stomp is not included in the set "strike any blow" when quite clearly it is an intentional attack doing damage during close combat with the body of the assailant, which satisfies the English common sense usage of "striking a blow".

col_impact wrote:
If a GMC is not engaged in close combat, can they perform a Stomp attack? No.

That is correct, but it has no bearing on the rule at hand.

Also, since 'strike a blow' is not a rule book defined term (it does not show up in the index or have a game definition) we must abide by English and commonsense usage. "Strike a blow" is melee combat terminology. Remember, you can only run afoul of English commonsense usage when the BRB gives explicit permission to do so. This means that if you intend to run afoul of English commonsense usage, be prepared to point explicitly at the BRB for justification.

Incorrect. you have to use the context of the 0 lvl characteristic.

and the context refers to Melee attacks that use WS to determine a hit.

If I hit someone with a sword in the head, have I struck a blow? Yes.

If I hit someone in the nose with my fist, have I struck a blow? Yes.

If I kick someone in the instep of the foot, have I struck a blow? Yes.

If I stomp on someone's head when they are prone on the ground, have I struck a blow? Yes.

If I stomp on a puppy, have I struck a blow to that puppy? Yes.

This has no bearing on the rules of the game

The burden of proof is on those who would say that Stomp is not a blow being struck by a GMC when quite clearly by ANY fair English read, a stomp is most assuredly a blow being struck by a GMC to a much smaller opponent.

again it has to do with the context of the Characteristic. do not ignore context.

If you feel otherwise, make explicit how you are defining "strike blows" and how your terminology relates semantically to fighting and warfare. Or alternately, find in the BRB where "strike any blows" is explicitly and fully defined.

Remember, the burden of proof is on those who would say Stomp is not included in the set "strike any blow" when quite clearly it is an intentional attack doing damage during close combat, which satisfies the English common sense usage of "striking a blow".

Stomp is not included because they are talking about having no skill in that area (That area being WS and you dont use WS to determine Stomps, just like you dont use WS to determine Hammer of Wrath attacks).

col_impact wrote:
Also, since 'strike a blow' is not a rule book defined term (it does not show up in the index or have a game definition) we must abide by English and commonsense usage. "Strike a blow" is melee combat terminology. Remember, you can only run afoul of English commonsense usage when the BRB gives explicit permission to do so. This means that if you intend to run afoul of English commonsense usage, be prepared to point explicitly at the BRB for justification.

Remember, the burden of proof is on those who would say Stomp is not included in the set "strike any blow" when quite clearly it is an intentional attack doing damage during close combat with the body of the assailant, which satisfies the English common sense usage of "striking a blow".

You can't use common English and fluff to benefit your argument against an attack representing trampling an enemy underfoot on the basis of a reduction of its skill with weapons.

That's just stupid.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Also, since 'strike a blow' is not a rule book defined term (it does not show up in the index or have a game definition) we must abide by English and commonsense usage. "Strike a blow" is melee combat terminology. Remember, you can only run afoul of English commonsense usage when the BRB gives explicit permission to do so. This means that if you intend to run afoul of English commonsense usage, be prepared to point explicitly at the BRB for justification.

Remember, the burden of proof is on those who would say Stomp is not included in the set "strike any blow" when quite clearly it is an intentional attack doing damage during close combat with the body of the assailant, which satisfies the English common sense usage of "striking a blow".

You can't use common English and fluff to benefit your argument against an attack representing trampling an enemy underfoot on the basis of a reduction of its skill with weapons.

That's just stupid.

Plenty of creatures in the 40k universe use their body itself as a weapon. Why should this be any different? If you are incapacitated in combat, you can't attack the enemy with your weapons or your body.

Pardon my ignorance, but how are you getting said Wraithknight to WS 0 in the first place?

col_impact wrote:
Also, since 'strike a blow' is not a rule book defined term (it does not show up in the index or have a game definition) we must abide by English and commonsense usage. "Strike a blow" is melee combat terminology. Remember, you can only run afoul of English commonsense usage when the BRB gives explicit permission to do so. This means that if you intend to run afoul of English commonsense usage, be prepared to point explicitly at the BRB for justification.

This is not accurate. While there is no line that says, "Striking a Blow means causing damage in close combat", it is used contextually only with Attacks in Close Combat generated by Weapons and the Attacks Characteristic with success determined by the WS stat. Stomp refers to none of these conditions and neither states nor implies that it is striking blows aside from general English usage.

col_impact wrote:
If you feel otherwise, make explicit how you are defining "strike blows" and how your terminology relates semantically to fighting and warfare. Or alternately, find in the BRB where "strike any blows" is explicitly and fully defined.

But we have, and you have not disproven them. You have just ignored them. How can we present a counter-argument when you have not properly argued against them?

Strike a blow has no rules definition in of itself so either it means the model with WS0 can not do anything during the assault phase, or it means nothing.

Stomping is an attack.

If a model is at WS0 it may not make any form of attacks during the assault phase.

The rules passage on models with multiple weapons choosing one to strike with is a rules passage dealing with models striking with a weapon, so it is not a valid claim to say the definition of striking blows only affects attacks with weapons. That is taking a ruling on weapons and then adding more meaning outside of its context that is just not actually written.

There are other models that have attacks that auto hit or hit on a fixed value regardless of WS, they also are attacks.

That stomp happens only during assault, is normally optional, and happens during an I step shows that it is indeed an attack that happens during the assault phase.

Models with 0 WS May not stomp.

blaktoof wrote:
Strike a blow has no rules definition in of itself so either it means the model with WS0 can not do anything during the assault phase, or it means nothing.

I have proven this wrong already. And I'll do it again.

blaktoof wrote:
Stomping is an attack.

And so is Shooting. And neither Shooting nor Stomp care what the WS of the model is.

blaktoof wrote:
If a model is at WS0 it may not make any form of attacks during the assault phase.

Incorrect. Units being Charged can declare Overwatch, even if they are WS 0. Are you suggesting that Overwatch cannot be done because they cannot commit Close Combat Attacks?

blaktoof wrote:
The rules passage on models with multiple weapons choosing one to strike with is a rules passage dealing with models striking with a weapon, so it is not a valid claim to say the definition of striking blows only affects attacks with weapons. That is taking a ruling on weapons and then adding more meaning outside of its context that is just not actually written.

It is providing context on how the phrase is used, and was stated as such when it was first presented. Can you provide context that Stomp is considered by the game as "striking blows" with equal context?

blaktoof wrote:
There are other models that have attacks that auto hit or hit on a fixed value regardless of WS, they also are attacks.

Indeed they are. Not in argument.

blaktoof wrote:
That stomp happens only during assault, is normally optional, and happens during an I step shows that it is indeed an attack that happens during the assault phase.

So is Overwatch, are you saying that WS 0 prevents it, too?

blaktoof wrote:
Models with 0 WS May not stomp.

A lot of running around but nothing that actually ties Stomp to incapacitate aside from Timing and Location. And unlike every other example, can affect things not in close combat at all.

Overwatch does not happen during any initiative sequence and is stated as being a shooting attack. It has nothing to do with this discussion in any form.

The ruling on how models with weapons strike blows with weapons, has a answer that deals with weapons because the question deals only with weapons- so again it is a bad out of context point that you are stretching to make into a rule that is not a rule.

IE striking blows only can be done by weapons. which is not a rule anywhere in any book.

Having WS 0 Means you are incapacitated and cannot strike any blows, it does not say you can not make any attacks that require you to use WS.

blaktoof wrote:
Overwatch does not happen during any initiative sequence and is stated as being a shooting attack. It has nothing to do with this discussion in any form.

Then you ignored what was quoted. You said that WS 0 prevented ANY attacks in the ASSAULT PHASE, not during any Initiative step. Shooting Attacks qualify as "any", and Overwatch happens during the Assault Phase.

Nor have you presented any evidence that all attacks during any initiative step are striking blows.

blaktoof wrote:
The ruling on how models with weapons strike blows with weapons, has a answer that deals with weapons because the question deals only with weapons- so again it is a bad out of context point that you are stretching to make into a rule that is not a rule.

Not really. I stated that the only time "striking blows" is used is during such context as using a Weapon to Generate Attacks with Weapons and the Attacks Characteristic with success based on the WS stat. And it is only in the "More Than One Weapon" that it applies that phrase with any specifics, instead of generically such as the start of the Assault Phase sub-section.

Can you demonstrate any context where this does not apply?

blaktoof wrote:
IE striking blows only can be done by weapons. which is not a rule anywhere in any book.

Yet, it is the only time it is used in context.

blaktoof wrote:
Having WS 0 Means you are incapacitated and cannot strike any blows, it does not say you can not make any attacks that require you to use WS.

You have yet to demonstrate that "striking blows" is used in any specific context that does not involve using WS.

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Overwatch does not happen during any initiative sequence and is stated as being a shooting attack. It has nothing to do with this discussion in any form.

Then you ignored what was quoted. You said that WS 0 prevented ANY attacks in the ASSAULT PHASE, not during any Initiative step. Shooting Attacks qualify as "any", and Overwatch happens during the Assault Phase.

Nor have you presented any evidence that all attacks during any initiative step are striking blows.

blaktoof wrote:
The ruling on how models with weapons strike blows with weapons, has a answer that deals with weapons because the question deals only with weapons- so again it is a bad out of context point that you are stretching to make into a rule that is not a rule.

Not really. I stated that the only time "striking blows" is used is during such context as using a Weapon to Generate Attacks with Weapons and the Attacks Characteristic with success based on the WS stat. And it is only in the "More Than One Weapon" that it applies that phrase with any specifics, instead of generically such as the start of the Assault Phase sub-section.

Can you demonstrate any context where this does not apply?

blaktoof wrote:
IE striking blows only can be done by weapons. which is not a rule anywhere in any book.

Yet, it is the only time it is used in context.

blaktoof wrote:
Having WS 0 Means you are incapacitated and cannot strike any blows, it does not say you can not make any attacks that require you to use WS.

You have yet to demonstrate that "striking blows" is used in any specific context that does not involve using WS.

Overwatch does not happen during any initiative sequence and is stated as being a shooting attack. It has nothing to do with this discussion in any form.

The ruling on how models with weapons strike blows with weapons, has a answer that deals with weapons because the question deals only with weapons- so again it is a bad out of context point that you are stretching to make into a rule that is not a rule.

IE striking blows only can be done by weapons. which is not a rule anywhere in any book.

Having WS 0 Means you are incapacitated and cannot strike any blows, it does not say you can not make any attacks that require you to use WS.

Super heavy walkers engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a stomp attack. The stomp attack is made in addition to the superheavy walkers normal attacks. Stomp attacks are resolved during the fight sub phase at the initiative 1 step.

-rulebook



absolutely by the rules as written Stomp attacks are attacks, made during the assault phase, at initiative 1, in addition to normal attacks.

If a model can make no attacks, it cannot make its normal attacks+an additional attacks it is allowed to make because it is now incapacitated and may make no attacks at all.

RAW models with WS0 may not stomp, or use other additional attacks- such as toxic miasma, attacks from wargear that go off at a set initiative, tyranid tail biomorphs etc- because they are all attacks which they are no longer allowed to make.

Further this, under zero level characteristics, it says models with Attacks= 0 may not strike blows as well, so we know striking blows are making attacks. We are told stomp is an attack.

done.

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Overwatch does not happen during any initiative sequence and is stated as being a shooting attack. It has nothing to do with this discussion in any form.

Then you ignored what was quoted. You said that WS 0 prevented ANY attacks in the ASSAULT PHASE, not during any Initiative step. Shooting Attacks qualify as "any", and Overwatch happens during the Assault Phase.

Well, you just confirmed you're rules lawyering and attempting to push your own agenda instead of delving for the truth of the answer. You're attacking the phrasing of the argument when it's clear that he meant the Fight sub-phase of the Assault phase, his comments on Overwatch and Initiative even supporting this. Literally, you're arguing semantics when the intent of his sentence is obvious. Or in a more Warhammer perspective, arguing RAW when the RAI is clear like so many WAACs do. His claims indicate he is treating WS0 as preventing any attacks during the Fight sub-phase, including Hammer of Wrath and Stomp. Attack that claim rather than feigning ignorance or dissecting the wording of his stance as doing so would only prove you consider the statement threatening and must resort to logical fallacies. Seeing how I supported the "May still Stomp at WS0" rule earlier, we're on the same side and I'd hate to see you lose just for being petty.

blaktoof wrote:
RAW models with WS0 may not stomp, or use other additional attacks- such as toxic miasma, attacks from wargear that go off at a set initiative, tyranid tail biomorphs etc- because they are all attacks which they are no longer allowed to make.
Further this, under zero level characteristics, it says models with Attacks= 0 may not strike blows as well, so we know striking blows are making attacks. We are told stomp is an attack.
done.

How would you apply this logic to Cypher the Fallen? You said Overwatch was a shooting attack but I think Cypher's pistols count as shooting attacks as well. Are they exempt from the WS0 rule or is he forbidden from shooting in melee due to WS being too low?

blaktoof wrote:Overwatch does not happen during any initiative sequence and is stated as being a shooting attack. It has nothing to do with this discussion in any form.

Which goes to show how much attention you are paying to your own statements, much less the statements of others.

Your assertion was that WS 0/incapaciated disallowed any Attacks in the Assault Phase. Stomp Attacks are as much Melee Attacks as Overwatch. You did not mention anything about Inititative Step during this assertion. Will you or will you not correct yourself on this matter?

You then have another assertion is that "striking blows" is any attack during an Initiative Step, yet have yet to provide any evidence of this. Quote up.

blaktoof wrote:The ruling on how models with weapons strike blows with weapons, has a answer that deals with weapons because the question deals only with weapons- so again it is a bad out of context point that you are stretching to make into a rule that is not a rule.

IE striking blows only can be done by weapons. which is not a rule anywhere in any book.

Your inability to understand an argument is incredible. I stated that this is the closest the rulebook provides as a definition with any context. It has more context than your assertion that "striking blows" is any attack in the Assault Phase or any attack during an Initiative Step. Admittedly, this statement in "More Than One Weapon" doesn't exclude any other Attacks in close combat, either, but it doesn't do anything to include them.

blaktoof wrote:Having WS 0 Means you are incapacitated and cannot strike any blows, it does not say you can not make any attacks that require you to use WS.

Super heavy walkers engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a stomp attack. The stomp attack is made in addition to the superheavy walkers normal attacks. Stomp attacks are resolved during the fight sub phase at the initiative 1 step.

-rulebook

And it never defines what "strike any blows" means in this section. The closest thing the rulebook provides is a contextual definition is provided later during a statement you dismiss, yet, you have not yet provided any other quote to substantiate your claim otherwise.

blaktoof wrote:absolutely by the rules as written Stomp attacks are attacks, made during the assault phase, at initiative 1, in addition to normal attacks.

Not stated otherwise. We are just stating that they are not Melee Attacks, and questioning the validity of putting them under the same umbrella of "striking blows" without more evidence. And no, made up rules you do not quote will not count as evidence.

blaktoof wrote:If a model can make no attacks, it cannot make its normal attacks+an additional attacks it is allowed to make because it is now incapacitated and may make no attacks at all.

A quote on that please. I have already proven how "no attacks at all" is disproven. If you mean "no attacks during an initiative step", then you need to properly quote, or at least reference, the section that ties "Attacks during an Initiative Step" and "Striking Blows" together.

blaktoof wrote:RAW models with WS0 may not stomp, or use other additional attacks- such as toxic miasma, attacks from wargear that go off at a set initiative, tyranid tail biomorphs etc- because they are all attacks which they are no longer allowed to make.

So, a model with acidic blood and WS 0 would not be able to use it to counter-attack? Even though it has zero bearing on the model's ability to Attack?

blaktoof wrote:Further this, under zero level characteristics, it says models with Attacks= 0 may not strike blows as well, so we know striking blows are making attacks. We are told stomp is an attack.

done.

Yet, they are still able to make Shooting Attacks (provided they have a Shooting Weapon, of course) even with 0 Attacks. Stomp is not based on the Attacks Characteristic, either. So, why should it be affected by it?

Forbidding Attacks when the Skill or volume is not there to use them is understandable and easily contextual. However, with Stomp we are dealing with something that is on a different level and does not use any of the Characteristics in question. The only valid connection between Close Combat Attacks made by Weapons and Stomp is Time and Place. That's it.

Arkaine wrote:Well, you just confirmed you're rules lawyering and attempting to push your own agenda instead of delving for the truth of the answer. You're attacking the phrasing of the argument when it's clear that he meant the Fight sub-phase of the Assault phase, his comments on Overwatch and Initiative even supporting this. Literally, you're arguing semantics when the intent of his sentence is obvious. Or in a more Warhammer perspective, arguing RAW when the RAI is clear like so many WAACs do. His claims indicate he is treating WS0 as preventing any attacks during the Fight sub-phase, including Hammer of Wrath and Stomp. Attack that claim rather than feigning ignorance or dissecting the wording of his stance as doing so would only prove you consider the statement threatening and must resort to logical fallacies. Seeing how I supported the "May still Stomp at WS0" rule earlier, we're on the same side and I'd hate to see you lose just for being petty.

I was pointing out how his assertion was incorrect and gave him opportunity to correct it. It is not my fault that he continues to pursue an unsustainable assertion. Blacktoof has a tendency to use his "head rules" as Rules As Written, and cling to them stubbornly. He also has a tendency to not actually listen or attempt to understand another's paradigm. If you noticed, he kept trying to use the same statements after I disproved them and trying to argue things that are not being argued. He also has a tendency to not properly quote or reference rules to support his statements. I am trying to break him out of it, admittedly the hard way.

The rule says "cannot strike any blows."

It does not say "cannot strike any blows that require a WS roll"

Nor does it say "cannot strike any blows except those that hit automatically or do not require a roll to hit"

It says "any blows"

"Any blows" includes blows generated from automatic hits.

 KharnsRightHand wrote:
Pardon my ignorance, but how are you getting said Wraithknight to WS 0 in the first place?

You're not ignorant. This is a completely hypothetical situation.

col_impact wrote:
The rule says "cannot strike any blows."

It does not say "cannot strike any blows that require a WS roll"

Nor does it say "cannot strike any blows except those that hit automatically or do not require a roll to hit"

It says "any blows"

"Any blows" includes blows generated from automatic hits.

Prove that "any blows" means "any damage made by attacks made in close combat". I have already demonstrated a contextual definition for striking blows, and it does not match that broad of a definition.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rule says "cannot strike any blows."

It does not say "cannot strike any blows that require a WS roll"

Nor does it say "cannot strike any blows except those that hit automatically or do not require a roll to hit"

It says "any blows"

"Any blows" includes blows generated from automatic hits.

Prove that "any blows" means "any damage made by attacks made in close combat". I have already demonstrated a contextual definition for striking blows, and it does not match that broad of a definition.

Actually the burden of proof is on you that Stomp is not included in "any blows."

Also, remind us what your contextual definition for "striking blows" is? You seem to think you are advancing something definitive. Please point to the definition of "striking blows" that you found in the BRB.

Prove that a stomp is a "blow".

What's a "blow"?

Exactly. In the context of the rules, prove the "blow" includes stomps. Bear in mind that stomps do not have to be limited to targets solely in close combat.

 Arkaine wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Overwatch does not happen during any initiative sequence and is stated as being a shooting attack. It has nothing to do with this discussion in any form.

Then you ignored what was quoted. You said that WS 0 prevented ANY attacks in the ASSAULT PHASE, not during any Initiative step. Shooting Attacks qualify as "any", and Overwatch happens during the Assault Phase.

Well, you just confirmed you're rules lawyering and attempting to push your own agenda instead of delving for the truth of the answer. You're attacking the phrasing of the argument when it's clear that he meant the Fight sub-phase of the Assault phase, his comments on Overwatch and Initiative even supporting this. Literally, you're arguing semantics when the intent of his sentence is obvious. Or in a more Warhammer perspective, arguing RAW when the RAI is clear like so many WAACs do. His claims indicate he is treating WS0 as preventing any attacks during the Fight sub-phase, including Hammer of Wrath and Stomp. Attack that claim rather than feigning ignorance or dissecting the wording of his stance as doing so would only prove you consider the statement threatening and must resort to logical fallacies. Seeing how I supported the "May still Stomp at WS0" rule earlier, we're on the same side and I'd hate to see you lose just for being petty.

blaktoof wrote:
RAW models with WS0 may not stomp, or use other additional attacks- such as toxic miasma, attacks from wargear that go off at a set initiative, tyranid tail biomorphs etc- because they are all attacks which they are no longer allowed to make.
Further this, under zero level characteristics, it says models with Attacks= 0 may not strike blows as well, so we know striking blows are making attacks. We are told stomp is an attack.
done.

How would you apply this logic to Cypher the Fallen? You said Overwatch was a shooting attack but I think Cypher's pistols count as shooting attacks as well. Are they exempt from the WS0 rule or is he forbidden from shooting in melee due to WS being too low?

I am guessing you mean the rule "blazing weapons" which has a bunch of sub rules.

It has a rule for the shooting phase
It has a rule for overwatch
and It has a rules for how he makes his attacks during the assault phase.

so it already separates out his assault phase attacks, from his shooting, from overwatch.

Overwatch happens during part of the assault face, before models move in to strike blows, and are shooting attacks.

as Shooting attacks they are not tied to WS or the Attack characteristic, normally.

If Cypher was reduced to WS0, was charged, he would still get overwatch shots as those are from BS -albeit as snap shots, and then would be unable to make any attacks during the fight sub-phase due to being WS 0 and not being allowed to make any attacks. If he was reduced to 0 Attacks the same result would happen.

overwatch uses the rules for shooting, BS, snap shots, etc. It has nothing to do with WS and A, normally(some weapons have shots based off models Attacks)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Exactly. In the context of the rules, prove the "blow" includes stomps. Bear in mind that stomps do not have to be limited to targets solely in close combat.

I don't have to. English usage of "stomp" would include it as a "blow" just as easily as a punch or a kick or a hit from a sword. You actually have to overcome straightforward English usage here.

The rules prohibit us from "striking any blows" and that prohibits punches, kicks, swordhits, stomps, etc.

Escort the only other context we have for blows solely deals with weapons and attacking with them. So, do you have any other context that shows how GW are using them?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Exactly. In the context of the rules, prove the "blow" includes stomps. Bear in mind that stomps do not have to be limited to targets solely in close combat.

Stomps are attacks that only happen in addition to a models normal attacks.

Is a model that may not make any attacks able to make its normal attacks or additional attacks?

And a model with Attacks=0 may not strike blows. Same wording as WS0. So striking blows = making attacks.

stomp is an attack.

are people actually claiming when you are not allowed to make attacks, you can make the attacks which would be in addition to your normal attacks still?

Over watch is an attack

You should be more precise in your argument, otherwise they are this simple to show fault with. Again.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Escort the only other context we have for blows solely deals with weapons and attacking with them. So, do you have any other context that shows how GW are using them?

Go into detail here. You sound like you have something definitive here from the BRB that overcomes the straightforward English usage of "incapacitated" and "cannot strike any blows". Please explain fully. Otherwise you have not yet advanced anything.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Over watch is an attack

You should be more precise in your argument, otherwise they are this simple to show fault with. Again.

Stomps are attacks that only happen in addition to a models normal attacks.

Is a model that may not make any attacks able to make its normal attacks or additional attacks?

And a model with Attacks=0 may not strike blows. Same wording as WS0. So striking blows = making attacks.

stomp is an attack.

are people actually claiming when you are not allowed to make attacks, you can make the attacks which would be in addition to your normal attacks still?


Since you claim to know the rules, and they were also quoted in this post-

I am sure you managed to ascertain that stomp attacks may only happen when the stomping model is enganged in combat, during the fight subphase, I realize its your modus operandi of posting no rules quotes, flip flopping, and antagonizing others with side arguments to pretty much just wear people down and make them avoid discussing anything when you post-but just to be clear:

Is the basis of your argument really "Since I can attack with a BS shooting attack, I can make attacks during the fight subphase when the model would normally not be allowed to make any attacks"

or was it making up rules along the lines of "not being able to make any attacks, just means you cannot attack with melee weapons" which someone else posted earlier.

Or is it something else, like stomp attacks are not attacks that happen from engaged models in the fight subphase in addition to their normal attacks?

No, you just made something up, pretended it was a quote, and haven't directly answered the flaws in your own argument. As usual

Your claim they may make no "attacks" is false. They may make no attacks defined as "close combat attacks" using their weapon skill. So they may over watch, and they may stomp, as neither of these are close combat attacks.

Stop stating falsehoods, wpthat would be a positive step.

To be clear: your fascination with defining stomp based on its position in the sub phase is interesting, mostly because it has no bearing anywhere in the rules. The actual rules posted do not care about that distinction, so your persistence here is amusing, but utterly irrelevant to the topic.

If you're not allowed to make attacks or blows then how would you play the following with a WS0 model?
- Hammer of Wrath
- Mandiblasters (wargear that causes wounds on a 4+)
- Eldar Phoenix Gem (Wargear that causes an explosion when you die. if you kill something, you come back to life with 1W)
- Sweeping Advances (if your opponent ran due to having terrify cast on them)
- Overwatch (as nos pointed out)

These things all cause damage in the assault phase, and you're saying that a blow is any attack that causes damage. So WS 0 would somehow prevent you from shooting, your wargear from working, and basically turn the model into a tree stump.