Paired Opportunists + Vicious Stomp: Unarmed or Armed AoO?

[ohokwy]

Right.
Character A has Vicious Stomp and Paired Opportunists.
Character B just has Paired Opportunists.
They are both adjacent (and threatening) character C.

1) Character C falls prone.

2) Character A gets an AoO from Vicious Stomp.

3) Character B gets an AoO because Character A got an AoO, as per Paired Opportunists.

This all seems fairly straightforward.
My question:
Does Character B's AoO need to be an unarmed strike, or can it be just a normal AoO?

One could argue that is does, as the ability that triggered it is the feat Vicious Stomp, which requires the AoO be an unarmed strike. On the other hand, one could argue that Vicious Stomp didn't really trigger this AoO as it was Paired Opportunists which granted it, and Paired Opportunists has no such restriction.
I'm feeling that the RAW favours the latter, but I'm interested to see what a more rules savvy person might say.

[claudekennilol]

I've never had anyone question that Character B gets to attack with his weapon.

[Sayt]

The 'unarmed only' restriction is solely on A, as it's a restriction granted by the Vicious Stomp feat, and the restriction does not transfer over to B, because the ability granting the AoO(Paired Opportunists) does not have the same restriction..

[ohokwy]

Sweet, seems my hunch was correct. Thanks guys.