Stomp/Impact hit question...

[Durpp]

So, would bloodknights be able to use the flag of bloodkeep wardsave against stomp attacks? (ward save against all ranged attacks) also, for storm of magic, so you can actually stomp cavalry.

Before you say this is dumb, look at it a few different ways...
1; No. they are durring the close combat phase and this is silly.
2; Yes. stomps are unusual attacks durring the close combat phase but don't count as close combat attacks and have a range of "base contact"

Also, before you ignore this because, "Hey, I dun play SOM derpderpderp," note that this logic would also be used for Impact hits will all chariots and an assortment of other massive beasties.

I'm personally on the losing side of this discussion between a friend and I. But can't refute the evidence brought to the table. According to the rules, on page 42 of the BRB, you would get the save.
Which we both agree is silly. But would none-the-less like to know the actual ruling.

Thanks hommies.

[Sayber]

By process of elimination a stomp is not a range attack as if it was it would not be able to be used in close combat (as per the rules for using a ranged weapon with some exceptions but are specially stated). A range of Base Contact is a bit silly, by that logic a regular sword has a range of base contact too.

[T10]

Stomp attacks cannot be targeted at units of cavalry.

Edit: Which may happen anyway in an Storm of Magic game, I now see.

Well: What the other guy said - it's not a ranged attack.

-T10

[Mr_Rose]

For the record "distributed as shooting" =/= "is a shooting attack" instead it means "uses the wound allocation mechanism of shooting attacks" instead of the normal close combat one. Which basically means the defender gets any choices rather than the attacker.

[Senor]

I was puzzling this aswell the other time...

So there is a unit of 10 Phoenix Guard with Full Command and a Elf Noble with BSB joining them, lined up in 2 rows of 5 and 1 PG-model in the 3rd rank. The first row looked as follows (PG,Musc,St.Banner,captain,Noble with BSB)

Now a Hell Pit Abomination with D6 impact hits, gets in base contact with 4 models of the 1st rank (Musc,St.Banner,captain,Noble with BSB) sofar so good.

The HPA rolls a 6 for his D6 impact Hits.
With S6 of HPA and the T3 of the High Elves, we rolled 6 dice and 1 dice came up as 1.
5 wounded PG could not not use there modified Armour save and throwed for there 5 times of 4+ ward save.
3 PG did not make the 4+ and died....
The Noble and the PG captain still alive.

Questions...
Was this played correctly?
Can the Noble with 2W on his model's Characteristic not be hit, 1 or even 2 times at moment of impact?
Same for the captain of the PG, can he not be allocated.
Read about, "distributed as per shooting", but a clear picture out of that, I couldn't make.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

[Mr_Rose]

Impact hits are distributed as shooting, so characters joined to the unit literally can't be hit unless there are five or less rank and file troops (champions are not RnF for this purpose) so yes, you got it right.

If there had been only five PG, plus the champ and character, the elf player would have had to assign the hits to individual models; with six hits and seven models they could have chosen to avoid hitting the noble or the champion, but not both.

[Senor]

Reading your post, but not getting it...sorry.

Is it like this....
1 infantry unit of 2 ranks of 5 and 3rd rank with 1 model.
The first rank has 3 unit models, the captain of unit and noble with BSB.
HPA is in base contact with the latter 4 = 2 models, captain of unit and noble with BSB
A 6 is rolled on the D6 impact hits.
HE player is allocating out of the 4 models in base contact, the models 1 by 1 and determines which model takes howmany hits of the 6 in total?
And on that allocation the "to wound" dice are rolled, correct?

And the charging player cannot state that a character need to allocated?

[T10]

The HE player can allocate the 6 impact hits to 6 PG. He is not allowed to allocate hits on the champion or the character because there are "5 or more rank-and-file models of the same troop type in the unit".

He can allocate the hits to which-ever specific PG rank-and-file models if he wants, and these do not even have to be in base contact with the model that causes the Impact Hits. Hits-allocation to rank-and-file models does not really matter since rank-and-file casualties are removed from the rear anyway.

• A casualty caused by a hit on a model in the first rank still means a model is removed from the rear.
• Multiple casualties caused by multiple hits on the same model means multiple models are removed from the rear.

[Spudlow]

For the record "distributed as shooting" =/= "is a shooting attack" instead it means "uses the wound allocation mechanism of shooting attacks" instead of the normal close combat one. Which basically means the defender gets any choices rather than the attacker.

Thank you Mr Rose! So few people understand this! Just because it says that the attack is distributed as per shooting does NOT mean that it is a ranged attack. It is still a close combat attack but wounds are not allocated to specific models in base contact but distributed to the unit as a whole.

[Durpp]

I understand that it is not a shooting attack because it says it is distributed as such. The issue arises when they aren't considered close combat attacks. They are unusual attacks which are actually covered in the shooting phase, and only effect models in base contact. But aren't close combat attacks. or shooting. So, are they ranged? Because if it isn't a close combat attack, then it has to be a ranged attack, correct?

[Yowzo]

The issue arises when they aren't considered close combat attacks.

Yes, they are.

"Finally, as Impact Hits are close combat attacks (albeit of an unusual type) any unsaved wounds they inflict count towards combat resolution, just as any more conventional close combat attacks would." BRB 71.

Also:

"Impact Hits are resolved at the very beginning of the close combat...." BRB 71.

So they actually happen in the cc phase.

[Yrrdead]

He was talking about stomps/T-stomps which unlike Impact hits are unusual attacks without the additional blurb (about being close combat attacks) that Impact hits have.

Though if you are having this level of a rules debate in a SoM game, I think you may have missed the point of SoM.

[Durpp]

Sweet. Also, when speaking with a friend we decided that stomps must be close combat attacks as well because it states that "In addition to its other close combat attacks" thus inferring that it itself is also a close combat attack.

[Yowzo]

He was talking about stomps/T-stomps which unlike Impact hits are unusual attacks without the additional blurb (about being close combat attacks) that Impact hits have.

Well, they have the ASL rule, so they must be CC attacks.

I don't think any non-CC attack can have ASL.

[T10]

The purpose of the ASL rule appears to be to affect the initiative order, but it does not in itself define the associated attack as a close combat attack, nor is it it explicitly limited to close combat attacks...

-T10

[Yowzo]

The purpose of the ASL rule appears to be to affet the initiative order, but it does not in itself define the associated attack as a close combat attack, nor is it it explicitly limited to close combat attacks...

-T10

Where, if not in CC, do you need initiative order?

[T10]

Where, if not in CC do you need impact hits?

It is not outisde the realm of possibility that an enterprising rules writer at GW comes up with a fancy new rule that lets a model affect models at a range while fighting in close combat, using ASF, Initiative or ASL.

-T10

[Yowzo]

I'm not the one who claimed impact/stomps aren't cc attacks.

[T10]

No, but you attempted to solve the dispute (and win the thread) by claiming that any special ability associated with ASL must be a close combat attack: A simple case of confusing correlation and cause .

Correlation: "Many close combat attacks have their initiative order affected by ASL" - True.
Cause: "ASL is the reason affected attacks are close combat attacks." - False, the relevant attack is a close combat attack, aranged attack or whatever for other reasons than ASL.

-T10

[Yowzo]

No, but you attempted to solve the dispute (and win the thread) by claiming that any special ability associated with ASL must be a close combat attack: A simple case of confusing correlation and cause

As far as the current ruleset goes, the correlation between ASL rule and CC attacks is 100%. Thus the point whether one causes the other or the other way around is moot.