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.

The very first FAQ, under MODELS, says:

FAQ v1.2 wrote:
Q: What does ‘base contact’ or ‘base-to-base contact’ mean? Are two models in base contact if one is on a step, and their bases are not in (and cannot be put in) physical contact? Or if they are more separated than that e.g. on different levels, where a charge distance is sufficient for the charging model to reach the level containing the other unit, but it cannot be placed on the level above?
A: An element of common sense is required here. If they’re only fractionally apart due to the vagaries of scenery they count as being in base contact. However, though models on different levels of a building can be locked in combat with one another, they will not be considered in base contact with one another for the purposes of special rules or equipment that require models to be in base contact to take effect.

So if all my models are on level two of a ruin, while a SH/Gargant can make Attacks, since it isn't in b2b it cannot stomp.

Stomp requires the template to be placed in base contact, but the only requirement for the attack to be made in the first place is for the superheavy to be locked in combat when the attack is made. You don't have to be in base contact with a unit to stomp.

I'll have to double-check the blast template ruling but I'm pretty certain that under this FAQ it'd hit all levels of a terrain peice too, convoluted as the geometry that'd involve is.

Ok, my mate may have misquoted the rule to me (since I haven't jumped on the SHW wagon yet).

So drats.

HOWEVER, upon review of the Stomp rule, it looks like the first template must touch, but not be over, the Walker. This means it could be placed off the end of a gun, correct?
And if we decide that stomp templates must be tied to the legs/base, this would mean that completely surrounding the Walker would make it impossible to touch the blast to the model without being over it, since my models would be in the way of physically placing the blast.

This is pedantic, I know. Still....

Edit: on thinking about it further, this wouldn't be the case. Bases are not models, so an IK actually doesn't stomp from its base--you must touch the blast to the hull of the IK and then move from there. This essentially neuters the first stomp from a SHW with a base.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'll have to double-check the blast template ruling but I'm pretty certain that under this FAQ it'd hit all levels of a terrain peice too, convoluted as the geometry that'd involve is.

Not really. It Stomps into a building, heedless of the walls and floors, it's body doing as much damage on levels 1+ as its feet do on the ground level. Some of the people in the building get squished, others die in the fall from upper levels or under the debris that falls on them.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Stomp requires the template to be placed in base contact, but the only requirement for the attack to be made in the first place is for the superheavy to be locked in combat when the attack is made. You don't have to be in base contact with a unit to stomp.

I'll have to double-check the blast template ruling but I'm pretty certain that under this FAQ it'd hit all levels of a terrain peice too, convoluted as the geometry that'd involve is.

Literally shuts down OP in First Reply

Actually, AnomanderRake is incorrect in one degree: The template must touch the model. No mention of the attacking model's base is in the Stomp rule. And bases and models are different things.

Also, commander dante, can you expand on your post? What value does it add to the discussion? I cannot see any.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Actually, AnomanderRake is incorrect in one degree: The template must touch the model. No mention of the attacking model's base is in the Stomp rule. And bases and models are different things.

Which version of Stomp are you reviewing for this?

From the Rulebook:

STOMP
...
A Stomp attack consists of D3 Stomps. To make the first Stomp, place a blast marker so that it is touching, but not over, the Super-heavy Walker model (or the Super-heavy Walker model’s base, if it has one).

I show the base being mentioned here.

He is wrong that they are required to be locked in combat, they only have to be engaged, but I didn't want to bring that argument here.

 Charistoph wrote:


He is wrong that they are required to be locked in combat, they only have to be engaged, but I didn't want to bring that argument here.

Don't try to pass off your personal house rule as the way in which the actual rules are written.

AnomanderRakeMade is correct. The models are required to be Locked in Combat. You only have permission to check the initiative values of models that are Locked in Combat per the Fight Sub-Phase rules.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Actually, AnomanderRake is incorrect in one degree: The template must touch the model. No mention of the attacking model's base is in the Stomp rule. And bases and models are different things.

Which version of Stomp are you reviewing for this?

From the Rulebook:

STOMP
...
A Stomp attack consists of D3 Stomps. To make the first Stomp, place a blast marker so that it is touching, but not over, the Super-heavy Walker model (or the Super-heavy Walker model’s base, if it has one).

I show the base being mentioned here.

He is wrong that they are required to be locked in combat, they only have to be engaged, but I didn't want to bring that argument here.

Hah, we apparently have three very bad readers at our store We all stopped at the parentheses. It's parenthetical!

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Hah, we apparently have three very bad readers at our store We all stopped at the parentheses. It's parenthetical!

It happens. It's a good example of, "don't attribute to malice that which can be an honest mistake".

"An element of common sense" is required for a lot of things in this game, but if playing 40k has taught me anything, it's that most people are incapable of understanding what that is.

col_impact wrote:

Don't try to pass off your personal house rule as the way in which the actual rules are written.

I'm not passing anything off but the Rules As Written, if you bothered to actually review the rules in context.

STOMP
Super-heavy Walkers engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a Stomp attack.

LOCKED IN COMBAT
If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any reason), then it is locked in combat. Units that are locked in close combat must fight in the Assault phase. Units are no longer locked in combat if, at end of any phase, they no longer have any models in base contact with an enemy model.

A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.

Stomp states, "engaged in combat", not "locked in combat". "Engaged" and "Locked in combat" have two different definitions.

If enough damage is done to a unit a Stomper is in close combat with, he won't be "engaged" but still "locked in combat" when it comes time to Stomp. At the very least this applies and your quote has no bearing on.

 Charistoph wrote:
He is wrong that they are required to be locked in combat, they only have to be engaged, but I didn't want to bring that argument here.

 Charistoph wrote:

Stomp states, "engaged in combat", not "locked in combat". "Engaged" and "Locked in combat" have two different definitions.

If enough damage is done to a unit a Stomper is in close combat with, he won't be "engaged" but still "locked in combat" when it comes time to Stomp. At the very least this applies and your quote has no bearing on.

Locked in Combat and 'engaged in combat' have two different definitions but you confuse their relationship. You cannot be 'engaged in combat' while not being 'Locked in Combat'. You have claimed in this thread and elsewhere that a model can be engaged in combat while not being Locked in Combat which is entirely false.

In order to be participating in the Fight Sub-Phase and eligible to perform Stomps the Stomper must be Locked in Combat and the check to see if he is still Locked In Combat does not happen again until the end of the Fight Sub-Phase.

You need to examine the full rule of the Determine Who Can Fight in context.



The Determine Who Can Fight rule requires that you have permission to be working your way through the Initiative values of the models.

You only have permission to work your way through Initiative values for those models that are in combat.



If the Stomper is not Locked in Combat then you are not checking the Stomper's initiative values and the Stomper cannot be determined to be 'engaged in combat'

The check to see whether a unit slips from being Locked in Combat to being not Locked in Combat happens at the end of the Fight Sub-Phase.



So the Stomper must be Locked in Combat to be able to Stomp. If he is not Locked in Combat then he is not participating in the Fight Sub-Phase or having his Initiative value checked and will not be able to do Stomp attacks after his normal attacks.

Minimally, the Stomper must be in a unit that is Locked in Combat and engaged in combat. This means that the unit the Stomper is in (which is Locked in Combat) must have some model in base to base combat with the enemy model in this combat.


It's important to note that Stomps do not grant Pile In moves so it is entirely possible that a Stomper will not be in base to base contact with any enemy models (perhaps the Stomper's normal melee attacks cleared a whole line of models) and therefore not be 'engaged in combat' (but still Locked in Combat!) and therefore unable to Stomp.

If the End of Combat Pile In does not bring the Stomper (or Stomper's unit) back into base to base combat with an enemy model (which is not very likely) then the Fight Sub-Phase will end with no models in base to base combat and the units will then no longer be Locked In Combat and obviously no longer engaged in combat as well.

Basically, the Stomper must be both Locked in Combat (ie granted permission by Locked in Combat rule to start the Fight Sub-Phase) and enaged in combat when it comes time to Stomp to be able to Stomp.


So once again, AnomanderRakeMade is correct insofar as being Locked in Combat is a requirement. The Stomping model is indeed required to be Locked in Combat. He is wrong however that that is the only requirement. You are also wrong when you suggest that being Locked in Combat is not a requirement when it clearly is.

In addition to being Locked in Combat the Stomping model is required to be engaged in combat as well when it comes time to Stomp.

col_impact wrote:
Locked in Combat and 'engaged in combat' have two different definitions but you confuse their relationship. You cannot be 'engaged in combat' while not being 'Locked in Combat'. You have claimed in this thread and elsewhere that a model can be engaged in combat while not being Locked in Combat which is entirely false.

It is NOT false that one can be engaged and not locked in combat. The rules quoted above demonstrate that their definitions are not the same.

col_impact wrote:
In order to be participating in the Fight Sub-Phase and eligible to perform Stomps the Stomper must be Locked in Combat and the check to see if he is still Locked In Combat does not happen again until the end of the Fight Sub-Phase.

Participating in the Fight Sub-Phase are not the definitions in question.

col_impact wrote:
You need to examine the full rule of the Determine Who Can Fight in context.

Spoiler:

Determine Who Can Fight

After models have Piled In, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step and who is engaged with an enemy model must fight.

A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.

The Determine Who Can Fight rule requires that you have permission to be working your way through the Initiative values of the models.

You only have permission to work your way through Initiative values for those models that are in combat.

That still does nothing to change the definition of "engaged". That is only determining who can strike blows (i.e. "fight"). Striking Blows requires being engaged and going through the Initiative Step Process. Engaged does not require being locked in combat. It is not provided as a requirement in the phrase "engaged", though half the definition requires it by default. If a model is within 2" of a friendly model in base contact with an enemy model, they are "engaged". To be "engaged in combat", they would be within 2" of a friendly model in base contact in the combat being referenced. This is how I see it, Tenet #6.

Do not use the location of the definition to provide exclusivity to its use. If such was the standard then the Save process would not be able to be used in Melee, as it is defined in Shooting. Where a term is called is important, not where it is defined.

col_impact wrote:

Spoiler:

Work your way through the Initiative values of the models in the combat, starting with the highest and ending with the lowest.

If the Stomper is not Locked in Combat then you are not checking the Stomper's initiative values and the Stomper cannot be determined to be 'engaged in combat'

Stomps do not require checking the Initiative Value of the model, just the Initiative Step of the fight they are engaged in. A model cannot even Pile In because of it. Stomping is not Striking Blows. Do not ignore the rules of the rule in question.

col_impact wrote:
The check to see whether a unit slips from being Locked in Combat to being not Locked in Combat happens at the end of the Fight Sub-Phase.

Yes, I believe I implied that, and I quoted the section that implied that.

col_impact wrote:

Spoiler:

Units are no longer locked in combat if, at end of any phase, they no longer have any models in base contact with an enemy model.

So the Stomper must be Locked in Combat to be able to Stomp. If he is not Locked in Combat then he is not participating in the Fight Sub-Phase or having his Initiative value checked and will not be able to do Stomp attacks after his normal attacks.

Minimally, the Stomper must be in a unit that is Locked in Combat and engaged in combat. This means that the unit the Stomper is in (which is Locked in Combat) must have some model in base to base combat with the enemy model in this combat.

"Engaged" in and of itself does not explicitly require being locked in combat. Stomp does not explicitly require being locked in combat. Most of the situations for "engaged' do involve being locked in combat, but that provides no such requirement for ALL of them.

col_impact wrote:
It's important to note that Stomps do not grant Pile In moves so it is entirely possible that a Stomper will not be in base to base contact with any enemy models (perhaps the Stomper's normal melee attacks cleared a whole line of models) and therefore not be 'engaged in combat' (but still Locked in Combat!) and therefore unable to Stomp.

Why do you constantly repeat what someone has already stated without acknowledging they stated it? That is rather patronizing.

col_impact wrote:
If the End of Combat Pile In does not bring the Stomper (or Stomper's unit) back into base to base combat with an enemy model (which is not very likely) then the Fight Sub-Phase will end with no models in base to base combat and the units will then no longer be Locked In Combat and obviously no longer engaged in combat as well.

End of Combat Pile In cannot be done before Stomp. End of Combat Pile in is performed, "After the combat has been resolved". Stomp is performed, "during the Fight sub-phase at the Initiative 1 step".

col_impact wrote:
Basically, the Stomper must be both Locked in Combat (ie granted permission by Locked in Combat rule to start the Fight Sub-Phase) and enaged in combat when it comes time to Stomp to be able to Stomp.

That's not what Stomp says, though. Only requires being engaged. Engaged does not require being locked in combat. Stomp is not "fighting", per the use of the term used throughout the book.

col_impact wrote:
So once again, AnomanderRakeMade is correct insofar as being Locked in Combat is a requirement. The Stomping model is indeed required to be Locked in Combat. He is wrong however that that is the only requirement. You are also wrong when you suggest that being Locked in Combat is not a requirement when it clearly is.

In addition to being Locked in Combat the Stomping model is required to be engaged in combat as well when it comes time to Stomp.

He is not correct because the specific requirement is "engaged in combat", not "locked in combat" and they are not synonymous, period, no matter your view on the relationship between the two.. For someone who theoretically claims to be trying to being RAW (even if it is only your own perspective of RAW), you sure seem to be glossing over the specifics of the case just to try and make a toxic discussion with me.

Per the new FAQ, the only way to avoid Stomp is to make sure the GC/SHW is no longer in combat before Initiative 1. In this case, if the Stompa is not in Combat before it can Stomp, it can't Stomp. Hit and Run is you best source of this, although simply letting it kill off everything is also a tactic.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Per the new FAQ, the only way to avoid Stomp is to make sure the GC/SHW is no longer in combat before Initiative 1. In this case, if the Stompa is not in Combat before it can Stomp, it can't Stomp. Hit and Run is you best source of this, although simply letting it kill off everything is also a tactic.

SJ

You can't use Hit and Run to avoid at least one Stomp Attack, though. Hit & Run happens at the end of the Assault Phase while Stomp happens during the Fight sub-Phase. You might be able to avoid another Stomp Attack, but that relies a lot on being able to get away. That leaves it a workable strategy only if the Stomper Charged the Hit & Run unit. Same would apply with "Our Weapons Are Useless".

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
He is wrong that they are required to be locked in combat, they only have to be engaged, but I didn't want to bring that argument here.

 Charistoph wrote:

Stomp states, "engaged in combat", not "locked in combat". "Engaged" and "Locked in combat" have two different definitions.

If enough damage is done to a unit a Stomper is in close combat with, he won't be "engaged" but still "locked in combat" when it comes time to Stomp. At the very least this applies and your quote has no bearing on.

Locked in Combat and 'engaged in combat' have two different definitions but you confuse their relationship. You cannot be 'engaged in combat' while not being 'Locked in Combat'. You have claimed in this thread and elsewhere that a model can be engaged in combat while not being Locked in Combat which is entirely false.

He actually said here that it's possible to be locked in combat but not engaged in combat in what you quoted, not the reverse. Its perfectly possible to be locked in combat but not engaged if the models that you were engaged with are all wiped out at an initiative step before you get to stomp (say, by regular attacks before the stomp, or another unit on your side wipes them out). Please don't try to sidetrack this with an argument about whether you can be engaged without being locked; we're not dealing with that in this thread unless you make it a side issue.

 doctortom wrote:
He actually said here that it's possible to be locked in combat but not engaged in combat in what you quoted, not the reverse. Its perfectly possible to be locked in combat but not engaged if the models that you were engaged with are all wiped out at an initiative step before you get to stomp (say, by regular attacks before the stomp, or another unit on your side wipes them out). Please don't try to sidetrack this with an argument about whether you can be engaged without being locked; we're not dealing with that in this thread unless you make it a side issue.

Yeah, I think he's just on a mission when it comes to me. I don't think he's actually agreed with me on much on anything and is trying to push me to getting banned. I have made few posts in this part of the board in which he has not posted soon after. I haven't read most of them, because his comments usually devolve rather quickly where he misrepresents what is written (either in the book or what others state) and just repeats himself as if it wasn't just addressed.

I was indirectly referring to the fact that "engaged" doesn't necessarily mean "locked", but as I said, I didn't want to bring that argument in to this thread. It is possible to be engaged without being locked in combat, but the ramifications of that are dependent on the statement which calls the condition in to play. Much like the Save process is defined in the Shooting Phase, but is called in to play during the Movement Phase (Dangerous Terrain) and the Assault Phase (Melee Attacks). Location of a definition does not necessarily restrict it to only that occasion.

But I guess some people get their nose out of tweak just when someone posts.

 doctortom wrote:


He actually said here that it's possible to be locked in combat but not engaged in combat in what you quoted, not the reverse. Its perfectly possible to be locked in combat but not engaged if the models that you were engaged with are all wiped out at an initiative step before you get to stomp (say, by regular attacks before the stomp, or another unit on your side wipes them out). Please don't try to sidetrack this with an argument about whether you can be engaged without being locked; we're not dealing with that in this thread unless you make it a side issue.

The rules do not support being engaged in combat without being Locked in Combat. The rules as written require that a unit is Locked in Combat if it is engaged in combat

If you accept Charistoph's house rule as rules as written (that you can be engaged in combat without being Locked in Combat) then Stomps become orders of magnitude more powerful and much more difficult to avoid.

This thread is about 'How to Avoid Stomps' so discussing the merits, or lack thereof, in Charistoph's view is well worth hashing out.

Stomps are a heck of a lot harder to avoid if a Stomper only has to be 2" away from a friendly model in b2b with an enemy model in a combat that the Stomper is not participating in. So shall we start discussing that line of tactic that a Stomping unit can take or shall we dismiss Charistoph's line of reasoning offhand? Which is it, doctortom?

It serves Charistoph's interests to avoid examining in detail the repercussions of his fallacious line of thinking that lead to absurd lines of play. But we really need to call him out on his line of reasoning here unless you want to accept the repercussions of his fallacious line of reasoning and play Stomps at the level of shenanigans his argument leads to. Charistoph needs to accept the costs of his house rule which is a broken Stomp mechanic that becomes nearly impossible to avoid.

Stack agility

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


He actually said here that it's possible to be locked in combat but not engaged in combat in what you quoted, not the reverse. Its perfectly possible to be locked in combat but not engaged if the models that you were engaged with are all wiped out at an initiative step before you get to stomp (say, by regular attacks before the stomp, or another unit on your side wipes them out). Please don't try to sidetrack this with an argument about whether you can be engaged without being locked; we're not dealing with that in this thread unless you make it a side issue.

The rules do not support being engaged in combat without being Locked in Combat. The rules as written require that a unit is Locked in Combat if it is engaged in combat

If you accept Charistoph's house rule as rules as written (that you can be engaged in combat without being Locked in Combat) then Stomps become orders of magnitude more powerful and much more difficult to avoid.

I don't necessarily accept Charistoph's house rule as RAW, I just don't see it as germane to this and don't think this is the proper thread for talking about it. We've already had one thread closed because of it, and we don't need another one closed because somebody wants to go off on a tangent about something that wasn't actually brought up in this thread until you went on about it. Locked in combat and engaged aren't the same thing. Charistoph said you can be locked in combat while not being engaged in combat here. If you want to talk about whether a model/unit can be engaged in combat without being locked in combat, you would be better off opening a new thread dedicated to that topic instead of derailing this one. There is no need to rehash the argument from the thread that got closed here just so you can get this thread closed also; that is performing a disservice to the other people in participating in the thread.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
So once again, AnomanderRakeMade is correct insofar as being Locked in Combat is a requirement. The Stomping model is indeed required to be Locked in Combat. He is wrong however that that is the only requirement. You are also wrong when you suggest that being Locked in Combat is not a requirement when it clearly is.

In addition to being Locked in Combat the Stomping model is required to be engaged in combat as well when it comes time to Stomp.

He is not correct because the specific requirement is "engaged in combat", not "locked in combat" and they are not synonymous, period, no matter your view on the relationship between the two.. For someone who theoretically claims to be trying to being RAW (even if it is only your own perspective of RAW), you sure seem to be glossing over the specifics of the case just to try and make a toxic discussion with me.

I have never said that 'engaged in combat' is synonymous with Locked in Combat. I have only pointed out that according to the rules a unit that is engaged in combat must logically also be Locked in Combat. This is important to point out to this thread for 2 reasons.

1) It means that your argument that a unit can be engaged in combat without being also Locked in Combat is against the rules as they are written and a house rule.
2) The fallaciousness of Charistoph's argument needs to be presented to the thread since it leads to a Stomp mechanic that is absurdly overpowered and nearly impossible to avoid. This is a thread on How to Avoid Stomps after all!

Let's focus on the first sentence of the Determine Who Can Fight rule . . .



In the above rule, "models" refers to models in units that are Locked In Combat, that are part of the combat that is currently being resolved, that we have permission to check the Initiative values for, and that have completed a Pile In move. "Any model" is grammatically, contextually, and logically a subset of the models that have completed the piling in move.

This is easily proven by simply reading the rules of the Fight Sub-Phase.

LOCKED IN COMBAT



FIGHT SUB-PHASE

1) CHOOSE A COMBAT


2) FIGHT CLOSE COMBAT


a) Initiative Step



b) Start of Initiative Step Pile In



c) Determine Who Can Fight



You are arguing that "any model" can refer to any friendly model on the battlefield which breaks grammatical agreement, contextual reference, and logically established set relationships.

However, simply reading the rules proves that "any models" is a subset of those models whose Initiative values we have permission to check (ie "in combat") and that have Piled In and those models that have Piled In must be part of 'this combat' - ie the current combat the active player has chosen to resolve. Further, the rule that determines what units take part in a combat is the Locked in Combat rule. Any models that are not part of units that are not Locked in Combat do not have permission to participate in the Fight Sub-Phase.

A model that is not Locked in Combat cannot make attacks at Initiative steps in the Fight Sub-Phase. Further a model that is not Locked in Combat cannot perform a Pile In move and this precludes it from consideration for the Determine Who Can Fight rule per the written words of the Determine Who Can Fight rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:


I don't necessarily accept Charistoph's house rule as RAW, I just don't see it as germane to this and don't think this is the proper thread for talking about it. We've already had one thread closed because of it, and we don't need another one closed because somebody wants to go off on a tangent about something that wasn't actually brought up in this thread until you went on about it. Locked in combat and engaged aren't the same thing. Charistoph said you can be locked in combat while not being engaged in combat here. If you want to talk about whether a model/unit can be engaged in combat without being locked in combat, you would be better off opening a new thread dedicated to that topic instead of derailing this one. There is no need to rehash the argument from the thread that got closed here just so you can get this thread closed also; that is performing a disservice to the other people in participating in the thread.

This thread is about how to avoid Stomps. Do we need to worry about GMCs Stomping units that they are not in combat with? Yes or no?

If you accept Charistoph's line of reasoning then we all have to start playing Stomps differently. A Stomper can cozy up to within 2" of a combat going on (but not charge into that combat) and then proceed to 'shoot' Stomps into that combat while being fully impervious to counter-attacks from the enemy unit. How do we avoid Stomps that are that powerful?

col_impact wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:


I don't necessarily accept Charistoph's house rule as RAW, I just don't see it as germane to this and don't think this is the proper thread for talking about it. We've already had one thread closed because of it, and we don't need another one closed because somebody wants to go off on a tangent about something that wasn't actually brought up in this thread until you went on about it. Locked in combat and engaged aren't the same thing. Charistoph said you can be locked in combat while not being engaged in combat here. If you want to talk about whether a model/unit can be engaged in combat without being locked in combat, you would be better off opening a new thread dedicated to that topic instead of derailing this one. There is no need to rehash the argument from the thread that got closed here just so you can get this thread closed also; that is performing a disservice to the other people in participating in the thread.

This thread is about how to avoid Stomps. Do we need to worry about GMCs Stomping units that they are not in combat with? Yes or no?

No, we don't. We have the rule that superheavy walkers may stomp on units they are engaged with. That's all that really needs to be said there. Dragging in stuff from the other thread that got closed and insisting that we discuss it here looks like you're just trying to troll Charistoph. Hence my statement that if you want to talk about it, open a different thread centered on a unit being engaged in combat vs. locked in combat.

col_impact wrote:

If you accept Charistoph's line of reasoning then we all have to start playing Stomps differently. A Stomper can cozy up to within 2" of a combat going on (but not charge into that combat) and then proceed to 'shoot' Stomps into that combat while being fully impervious to counter-attacks from the enemy unit. How do we avoid Stomps that are that powerful?

Did I say I accept Charistoph's line of reasoning? No. Do I think it's not worth arguing about hit here in this thread, when that argument has already gotten one thread locked? Definitely no. As I said, it really does look like you're trying to troll Charistoph here by bringing stuff up from another thread that he didn't bring up here. Please be courteous to the others here and don't troll the thread.

 doctortom wrote:


Did I say I accept Charistoph's line of reasoning? No. Do I think it's not worth arguing about hit here in this thread, when that argument has already gotten one thread locked? Definitely no. As I said, it really does look like you're trying to troll Charistoph here by bringing stuff up from another thread that he didn't bring up here. Please be courteous to the others here and don't troll the thread.

Cool. You agree with me that Charistoph has a fallacious line of reasoning here.

I just called out Charistoph for trying to pass off his house rule as RAW, which is me attempting to maintain the standards of conduct in YMDC (Tenet #4). I am also holding him to the logical consequences of his house rule. If we accept his line of reasoning then Stomps become a whole lot more difficult to avoid. So my discussion has been very on-topic.

No need to be bring ad hominem attacks or accusations of trolling into this (Tenet #2 and #5). I have no problems personally with Charistoph. I am only taking issue with his fallacious argument.

So provided that everyone on this thread recognizes Charistoph's argument as fallacious and leading to absurd Stomp mechanics then no more needs to be said on the matter.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


Did I say I accept Charistoph's line of reasoning? No. Do I think it's not worth arguing about hit here in this thread, when that argument has already gotten one thread locked? Definitely no. As I said, it really does look like you're trying to troll Charistoph here by bringing stuff up from another thread that he didn't bring up here. Please be courteous to the others here and don't troll the thread.

Cool. You agree with me that Charistoph has a fallacious line of reasoning here.

I just called out Charistoph for trying to pass off his house rule as RAW, which is attempting to maintain the standards of conduct in YMDC (Tenet #4). I am also holding him to the logical consequences of his house rule. If we accept his line of reasoning then Stomps become a whole lot more difficult to avoid. So my discussion has been very on-topic.

No need to be bring ad hominem attacks or accusations of trolling into this (Tenet #2 and #5). I have no problems personally with Charistoph. I am only taking issue with his fallacious argument.

So provided that everyone on this thread recognizes Charistoph's argument as fallacious and leading to absurd Stomp mechanics then no more needs to be said on the matter.

I'm curious, exactly what is the houserule that Charistoph is passing as RAW?

 Happyjew wrote:


I'm curious, exactly what is the houserule that Charistoph is passing as RAW?

That a model can be engaged in combat while not being Locked In Combat.

 Charistoph wrote:
It is possible to be engaged without being locked in combat

Charistoph's line of reasoning leads to models being able to attack in combats that they are not participating in. For him, a model simply needs to be within 2"/6" of a friendly model that is in combat and in base to base combat with an enemy model. A model that meets that criteria is engaged in combat but not Locked in Combat according to him.

So I could use a unit of Wraiths to tarpit some unit in assault while a Nightbringer could position itself within 2"/6" of one of the Wraiths and voila the Nightbringer gets to attack in the combat the Wraiths are locked in but not actually be in the combat. Similarly a GMC could position itself next to a friendly unit Locked in Combat and get to attack in that combat that it is not participating in and launch normal attacks and Stomps with impunity. How neat is that?

However, in addition to Charistoph's line of reasoning leading to absurd consequences, his line of reasoning is against the RAW as I have pointed out at length above.

 Happyjew wrote:

I'm curious, exactly what is the houserule that Charistoph is passing as RAW?

It doesn't matter, I think. He doesn't understand half of what I say anyway (or deliberately misrepresents it) and claims that my understanding of the written word is fallacious and a House Rule. He is violating the spirit of Tenet #6 by doing this. I presented the rules and my understanding of them, and then he comes back with near ad hominems of basically calling me a liar while ignoring what I present.

There is a reason I have him and his toxic bait on Ignore.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

I'm curious, exactly what is the houserule that Charistoph is passing as RAW?

It doesn't matter, I think. He doesn't understand half of what I say anyway (or deliberately misrepresents it) and claims that my understanding of the written word is fallacious and a House Rule. He is violating the spirit of Tenet #6 by doing this. I presented the rules and my understanding of them, and then he comes back with near ad hominems of basically calling me a liar while ignoring what I present.

There is a reason I have him and his toxic bait on Ignore.

So basically instead of defending your line of reasoning your plan is to attack me personally with ad hominems all the while dodging my critique of your argument.

Meanwhile I have only argued against your line of reasoning and not you personally. I will continue to stick to criticizing your argument. I have nothing against you personally. I suggest you do the same and not take it personally or stoop to ad hominem attacks when I am critical of your argument.

Correct me if I am wrong, Charistoph, but your line of reasoning (which says that a model can be engaged in combat while not being Locked in Combat) leads to models being able to attack in combats that they are not participating in. For you, a model simply needs to be within 2"/6" of a friendly model that is in combat and in base to base combat with an enemy model. A model that meets that criteria is engaged in combat but not Locked in Combat according to you.

So I could use a unit of Wraiths to tarpit some unit in assault while a Nightbringer could position itself within 2"/6" of one of the Wraiths and voila the Nightbringer gets to attack in the combat the Wraiths are locked in but not actually be in the combat, correct?

Similarly a GMC could position itself next to a friendly unit Locked in Combat and get to attack in that combat that it is not participating in and launch normal attacks and Stomps with impunity, correct?

That sounds pretty busted. Stomps can really be abused according to that line of reasoning.

Care to comment? Is everyone playing 40k wrong according to you?

Also feel free to comment on this post where I have laid out how your line of reasoning goes against the rules as written ... http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/709910.page#9059756

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:


I'm curious, exactly what is the houserule that Charistoph is passing as RAW?

That a model can be engaged in combat while not being Locked In Combat.

A model can be engaged without being locked. Most obvious example - vehicles. If a unit of Skitarii charge a landraider, the landraider is engaged, but not locked in combat. Presumably, the Skitarii would also not be locked in combat as well. I forget the exact wording.

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:


I'm curious, exactly what is the houserule that Charistoph is passing as RAW?

That a model can be engaged in combat while not being Locked In Combat.

A model can be engaged without being locked. Most obvious example - vehicles. If a unit of Skitarii charge a landraider, the landraider is engaged, but not locked in combat. Presumably, the Skitarii would also not be locked in combat as well. I forget the exact wording.

The rules means the unit attacking the Vehicle it's NOT locked in combat (it can be shoot at as normal) and also vehicles never become Locked in combat, also if the vehicle is destroyed nothing happens the unit can't pile in,sweeping advance or consolidate move, they just remain where they are.

But on this case it's an exception for vehicles as they operate different in Assault than normal units.