Thought the rules for vehicles and walkers in particular were fairly clear so I never thought to question what is generally accepted but this question came up in another thread and instead of derailing theirs I put it to you all here.

Question: Can a unit that cannot hurt a walker make a charge move against it?

The three primary rules in question are:

"Q:Can I charge an enemy unit that I can’t hurt? (p20)
A: Yes." from the FAQ

"a unit cannot charge a vehicle that it cannot hurt" BRB page 76

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." BRB page 84

So...

Can you ignore the fact that it's a vehicle you cannot hurt and charge it like infantry per the walker rules?

-or-

Given the wording of the rules does the prohibition against charging it stand?

I suppose the crux of the debate would be the line "assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models" which could mean a couple slightly different things.
would this be slightly rephrase as:
'assault, and are assaulted, like they are Infantry models'
or
' like Infantry models, they can assault and be assaulted'

IMO when it says walkers assault like infantry and that means they make charge moves (like infantry) it creates the association between 'assault' and the ability to 'charge'. It's reasonably inferred in that case that when they say they are assaulted like infantry they can be charged (like infantry). This seemed like the obvious reading to me since charging is part of assault and they are assaulted like infantry.
Also of note, vehicles can already be assaulted, there is no need to mention it unless they mean to imply you do so as if assaulting infantry.

Discuss.

A walker is still a vehicle, nothing stops it being a vehicle. So no, you can't assault a vehicle you can't damage.

Page 76 says you can not charge a vehicle you can not hurt, so if you can not hurt the walker you can not charge it.

You know that would render the text stating they can be assaulted like infantry as meaningless?

Not at all, as you assault a vehicle and an infantry unit in the exact same way.

Save for overwatch which most vehicles do not get to use.

 Abandon wrote:
You know that would render the text stating they can be assaulted like infantry as meaningless?

Yes, when they can be assaulted they are assaulted like infantry. I think you're referencing that they "assault" like infantry though. In that they can be locked in combat and have a WS and what have you.

Like I said, by your reading the statement that they can be assaulted like infantry is meaningless as just like infantry, they can already be assaulted. It must therefore mean that they can be assault like they are infantry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also of note, as this is am more specific rule for walkers it take precedence over the general vehicle rules.

 Abandon wrote:
Like I said, by your reading the statement that they can be assaulted like infantry is meaningless..

No, it doesn't render it meaningless:

"meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat".

that's the meaning of the phrase, in this case, that they can be locked in combat when assaulted, like infantry.

 Drunkspleen wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Like I said, by your reading the statement that they can be assaulted like infantry is meaningless..

No, it doesn't render it meaningless:

"meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat".

that's the meaning of the phrase, in this case, that they can be locked in combat when assaulted, like infantry.

That they can be assaulted like infantry has nothing to do with those things. Please tell me what they meant by that considering vehicles can already be assaulted.

 Abandon wrote:

 Drunkspleen wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Like I said, by your reading the statement that they can be assaulted like infantry is meaningless..

No, it doesn't render it meaningless:

"meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat".

that's the meaning of the phrase, in this case, that they can be locked in combat when assaulted, like infantry.

That they can be assaulted like infantry has nothing to do with those things. Please tell me what they meant by that considering vehicles can already be assaulted.

Overwatch is the first thing that springs to mind.
The second being that once in base to base, both units are locked.

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." BRB page 84

The Underlined means what the orange text says, nothing more or less. how is that not clear?

They tell you what they meant, just because you think it didn't need to be worded that way doesn't change that.

There is no meaning you can reasonably attribute to the phrase "Walkers do X, meaning Y" other than Y.

To suggest the phrase is invalidated because it lacks some secret other meaning which the game designers didn't list in the book when writing out what they meant is simply asinine.

 Drunkspleen wrote:
They tell you what they meant, just because you think it didn't need to be worded that way doesn't change that.

There is no meaning you can reasonably attribute to the phrase "Walkers do X, meaning Y" other than Y.

To suggest the phrase is invalidated because it lacks some secret other meaning which the game designers didn't list in the book when writing out what they meant is simply asinine.

Well that's a bit insulting but whatever.

Saying X means Y does not mean X only means Y. To read it that way would not negate the rule on page 76

"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat"

Creating an absurd scenario where the walker is locked in combat but the opposing unit is not. So I maintain that "just like infantry" means it is treated like infantry for the purposes listed - assault and being assaulted. Which does mean, as it says, it can charge and be locked in combat. It would also mean though that it is treated like infantry for all purposes of assaulting and being assaulted.

That they state it means two things does not limit it to only those two things.

It really does. If they meant only part they would use a phrase similar to "including" or "in part".
That they didn't means that those are the only things it means.

rigeld2 wrote:
It really does. If they meant only part they would use a phrase similar to "including" or "in part".
That they didn't means that those are the only things it means.

Neither 'in part' nor 'only' is specified. I won't say anyone is wrong for reading this rule one way or the other but I am saying both would be a valid viewing of the text and stating my reasons for my opinion on the subject.

If how you see it is the common reading for TOs and your friends I am curious about one thing.

"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat" BRB page 76

If it only means the walker can charge and be locked in combat wouldn't this rule mean the walker can get locked in combat while the unit it's fighting is not?

 Abandon wrote:
Neither 'in part' nor 'only' is specified. I won't say anyone is wrong for reading this rule one way or the other but I am saying both would be a valid viewing of the text and stating my reasons for my opinion on the subject.

It doesn't have to be specified. You have no permission to include other meanings so you can't.

If it only means the walker can charge and be locked in combat wouldn't this rule mean the walker can get locked in combat while the unit it's fighting is not?

Technically yes.
It's a ludicrous (and game breaking) result and the intent is obvious however so should never be played that way.

In that case, as you also do not have permission to exclude meanings of the first part of the sentence, I'll stick to the reading that does not include this absurdity.

I've read this thread top to bottom and can't help but side with Abandon on this one.

"Walkers assault and are assaulted like infantry models." p.84

General rule gets trounced by specific vehicle rule, which in turn gets trounced by more specific walker rule.

MarsNZ wrote:
I've read this thread top to bottom and can't help but side with Abandon on this one.

"Walkers assault and are assaulted like infantry models." p.84

General rule gets trounced by specific vehicle rule, which in turn gets trounced by more specific walker rule.

So what specifically over rides the can not assault a vehicle you can not damage rules?

Page and Graph will suffice.

 DeathReaper wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
I've read this thread top to bottom and can't help but side with Abandon on this one.

"Walkers assault and are assaulted like infantry models." p.84

General rule gets trounced by specific vehicle rule, which in turn gets trounced by more specific walker rule.

So what specifically over rides the can not assault a vehicle you can not damage rules?

Page and Graph will suffice.

You quoted it.

They are 'assaulted like infantry models' page 84


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MarsNZ wrote:
I've read this thread top to bottom and can't help but side with Abandon on this one.

"Walkers assault and are assaulted like infantry models." p.84

General rule gets trounced by specific vehicle rule, which in turn gets trounced by more specific walker rule.

Precisely.

Abandon, maybe you did not see the part that asks where it specifically over rides the can not assault a vehicle you can not damage rules

page 84 does not specifically over ride the can not assault a vehicle you can not damage rules.

Do you have anything specific?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Abandon, maybe you did not see the part that asks where it specifically over rides the can not assault a vehicle you can not damage rules

page 84 does not specifically over ride the can not assault a vehicle you can not damage rules.

Do you have anything specific?

As specific rules override general rules, the rules for walkers take precedence over the general vehicle rules. Therefore the rule on page 84 actually does do just that.

 Abandon wrote:
In that case, as you also do not have permission to exclude meanings of the first part of the sentence, I'll stick to the reading that does not include this absurdity.

You absolutely do.

You're told X and you're told this means Y.

Trying to fit any other meaning of X is against the rules.

 Abandon wrote:
As specific rules override general rules, the rules for walkers take precedence over the general vehicle rules. Therefore the rule on page 84 actually does do just that.

The can't assault is more specific.

In assault you can assault a unit.

You can assault a vehicle that is a unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
In that case, as you also do not have permission to exclude meanings of the first part of the sentence, I'll stick to the reading that does not include this absurdity.

You absolutely do.

You're told X and you're told this means Y.

Trying to fit any other meaning of X is against the rules.

No.... many times X and Y have different meanings in this type of statement where X is a more general statement and Y is something(s) that X means. Perhaps the only thing(s), perhaps not.

IE:

(x)"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being 2 points better than normal.
Note that this means..."
(y)"a model with the Shrouded special rule always has a cover save of at least 5+, even if it's in the open" Shrouded, page 41 BRB

(x)"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being 1 point better than normal.
Note that this means..."
(y)"that a model with the Stealth special rule always has a cover save of at least 6+, even if it is in the open." Stealth, page 42 BRB

Does X mean only Y? No. Neither is their any 'in part' or other indication that X means more than Y but as we all know it does.

(x)"Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit, as long as it is in range, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation.
This means..."
(y)"that Precision Shots can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or even characters!" Precision Shots, page 63 BRB

If X only means Y then precision shoots can only be allocated against characters and enemies carrying specialist weapons. Which is of course incorrect.

I can come up with many more examples that X can mean more that Y if you like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
As specific rules override general rules, the rules for walkers take precedence over the general vehicle rules. Therefore the rule on page 84 actually does do just that.

The can't assault is more specific.

In assault you can assault a unit.

You can assault a vehicle that is a unit.

Are you saying that the rules for a specific type of vehicle(walkers) are less specific than the general vehicle rules(all vehicles)?

No, I am saying your line of thinking is incorrect.

Nothing over rides the rule about not being able to charge a vehicle you can not hurt.

You assault walkers like you assault infantry, but the walker is still a vehicle and still has that restriction on it.

Nothing specifically says that you can charge a walker you can not hurt as you have a restriction saying you can not assault a walker you can not hurt.

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, I am saying your line of thinking is incorrect.

Nothing over rides the rule about not being able to charge a vehicle you can not hurt.

You assault walkers like you assault infantry, but the walker is still a vehicle and still has that restriction on it.

Nothing specifically says that you can charge a walker you can not hurt as you have a restriction saying you can not assault a walker you can not hurt.

It's more or less how you choose to read the line as there are two possible meanings it can have as I've already said.

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models"<--- two ways you could take that as per my original post.

 DeathReaper wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
I've read this thread top to bottom and can't help but side with Abandon on this one.

"Walkers assault and are assaulted like infantry models." p.84

General rule gets trounced by specific vehicle rule, which in turn gets trounced by more specific walker rule.

So what specifically over rides the can not assault a vehicle you can not damage rules?

Page and Graph will suffice.

The part where it specifies that it acts as infantry in assault, I thought that was pretty clear from the bold text I included in my post. Next time I will attempt a more concise post for you.

But you missed out the last part of the sentence

meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat.

It is pretty important to include the whole sentences when referencing rules

You mean they charge and are locked in combat like infantry? I didn't see why including that text would make any difference.

Alright... they assault and are assaulted as if they were Infantry. Which means that they can be assaulted, because they are treated as an infantry unit...

General Vs. Specific: You may assault a vehicle if you cannot hurt it, but only if it's a walker. Which is a really bad idea, even if you have hit and run...

 Abandon wrote:
(x)"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being 2 points better than normal.
Note that this means..."
(y)"a model with the Shrouded special rule always has a cover save of at least 5+, even if it's in the open" Shrouded, page 41 BRB

It's like the second sentence is a continuation of the same rule...

(x)"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being 1 point better than normal.
Note that this means..."
(y)"that a model with the Stealth special rule always has a cover save of at least 6+, even if it is in the open." Stealth, page 42 BRB

Same here.

(x)"Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit, as long as it is in range, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation.
This means..."
(y)"that Precision Shots can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or even characters!" Precision Shots, page 63 BRB

In this case it's a matter of explanation rather than a rule.
It's like context matters or something.

BolterUnlimited wrote:
Alright... they assault and are assaulted as if they were Infantry. Which means that they can be assaulted, because they are treated as an infantry unit...

General Vs. Specific: You may assault a vehicle if you cannot hurt it, but only if it's a walker. Which is a really bad idea, even if you have hit and run...

Vehicles can be assault (as long as you can hurt it...) so there is no difference there, I have explained my opinion of the rule in the other thread.

Now imagine if the walker was a psychic pilot and cast Gate of Infinity then assaulted!

 loreweaver wrote:
Now imagine if the walker was a psychic pilot and cast Gate of Infinity then assaulted!

Is there any way for a psyhic dread to get gate?, didnt think there was?, plus you cant assault after gating (deep striking).

MarkyMark wrote:
Is there any way for a psyhic dread to get gate?, didnt think there was?, plus you cant assault after gating (deep striking).

Furioso Dread, IIRC? I know you can't assault after deepstriking, I was being comically snarky. Go check out OP's other thread.

Nope, cant get BRB powers, only librarians are allowed to, not a furioso librarian....

Same as GK dreadknights cant get BRB powers as it is not a GK librarian.

The biggest problem with this discussion is that the FAQ states you can charge a unit you cannot hurt. Which now people will argue that vehicle rules dont apply to that.

Fragile wrote:
The biggest problem with this discussion is that the FAQ states you can charge a unit you cannot hurt. Which now people will argue that vehicle rules dont apply to that.

Not a problem at all actually. The FAQ *clarifies* what the rulebook states (that you can charge a unit you cannot hurt) but the rules regarding Vehicles are more specific and therefore overturn the general ruling when it comes to vehicles.

The issue is certain people would like the statement that Walkers can "assault and be assaulted like infantry" to mean that a walker, when assaulting/assaulted, is no longer treated as a vehicle *at all* and can therefore be assaulted regardless of whether you can hurt it, by dismissing the 2nd half of the statement describing HOW it is like infantry in assaults.

Which they can. You can assault a unit you cannot hurt. Yet, you cannot assault a vehicle which you cannot hurt. Specific Beats General. Yet, according to the 5e BRb, Walkers assault and are assaulted as Infantry. So, it's another case of Specific Beats General.

Just my opinion. I don't have the 6e rulebook (yet).

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models,
meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked
in combat."

However, walkers are still vehicles (they do not *become* infantry) and you cannot charge a vehicle that you cannot hurt.

Neither of these rules conflict with one another. If you can hurt the walker, you can charge it. It is still a vehicle, however it behaves as an infantry model in that it CAN charge and it can be locked in combat (whereas vehicles otherwise cannot to either of those).

You cannot separate the 2nd half of that sentence from the first and have it mean the same thing. It clarifies (quite well) what can be done with (or to) that *vehicle* in assault situations outside of the normal rules for vehicles and assault.

Q:Can I charge an enemy unit that I can’t hurt? (p20)
A: Yes

The current GW FAQ (from page 4) makes this whole thread moot. Any enemy can charge any enemy unit even if they can't hurt it. Enemy unit means ANY enemy unit, including vehicles. So Nurglings can charge the Furioso and tie it up for at least a few seconds of combat

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3030001a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.3_FEBRUARY13.pdf

Rorschach9 wrote:
"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models,
meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked
in combat."

However, walkers are still vehicles (they do not *become* infantry) and you cannot charge a vehicle that you cannot hurt.

Neither of these rules conflict with one another. If you can hurt the walker, you can charge it. It is still a vehicle, however it behaves as an infantry model in that it CAN charge and it can be locked in combat (whereas vehicles otherwise cannot to either of those).

You cannot separate the 2nd half of that sentence from the first and have it mean the same thing. It clarifies (quite well) what can be done with (or to) that *vehicle* in assault situations outside of the normal rules for vehicles and assault.

However, the big kicker, which you are missing, is the subset of the second rule.

Walkers can assault, AND BE ASSAULTED, as Infantry...

You see now? They can be assaulted as infantry. You cannot be both a vehicle and infantry, so when you assault, you treat it like that annoying squad of jumppackless assault marines over there.

IT also says page 20, page 74 i think it is says you cant charge a vehicle you cant hurt, as vehicle is more specfic then a 'unit' the vehicle rule takes precdeent


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If that was the case bolter unlimited, why would they put this

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models,
meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked
in combat."


at the end of that sentence?, If they had just put what you quoted then fine but they deliberatly put the second part of that sentence in, nothing there stops it being a vehicle nor does it say you can assault something you cant hurt?. Normal vehicles cannot make charge moves nor be locked in combat IMO that rule means just that, you can assault them and be locked in combat, they can charge you and be locked in combat but nothing there to say you can charge a vehicle (walker) that you cannot hurt

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
Q:Can I charge an enemy unit that I can’t hurt? (p20)
A: Yes

The current GW FAQ (from page 4) makes this whole thread moot. Any enemy can charge any enemy unit even if they can't hurt it. Enemy unit means ANY enemy unit, including vehicles. So Nurglings can charge the Furioso and tie it up for at least a few seconds of combat

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3030001a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.3_FEBRUARY13.pdf

HOWEVER... the rulebook says you cannot assault vehicles you cannot hurt. That's the BRb, not whatever the FAQ says. The rulebook overrides the FAQ in all situations. And it's a case of Specific against General.

I could see this one going either way. It would have been really cool if walkers could leave combat versus enemy units that can't hurt them.

I tend to favor the interpretation that goes with no they can't assault it.

MarkyMark wrote:
IT also says page 20, page 74 i think it is says you cant charge a vehicle you cant hurt, as vehicle is more specfic then a 'unit' the vehicle rule takes precdeent


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If that was the case bolter unlimited, why would they put this

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models,
meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked
in combat."


at the end of that sentence?, If they had just put what you quoted then fine but they deliberatly put the second part of that sentence in, nothing there stops it being a vehicle nor does it say you can assault something you cant hurt?. Normal vehicles cannot make charge moves nor be locked in combat IMO that rule means just that, you can assault them and be locked in combat, they can charge you and be locked in combat but nothing there to say you can charge a vehicle (walker) that you cannot hurt

That was a clarification. It doesn't say it still counts as a vehicle. If it does say that, then we're all wrong and this thread is moot. But as long as it doesn't say that a walker counts as a vehicle when assaulted- which is honestly more of a Codex thing- that statement below is nothing more than a clarifcation/emphasis/repetition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I could see this one going either way. It would have been really cool if walkers could leave combat versus enemy units that can't hurt them.

I tend to favor the interpretation that goes with no they can't assault it.

text removed. No need for comments like this.
Reds8n

BolterUnlimited wrote:
. The rulebook overrides the FAQ in all situations..

Umm no.

BolterUnlimited wrote:

AND YOU... are you even here to help/hurt? If not, shut up and sit in that corner over there.

Woah...that was completely uncalled for. Learn to respect others on DakkaDakka and their opinions. Insulting people is a no no.

Also FAQ overrides rulebook but in this case specific>general. nothing stops the walker from beiing a vehicle so the vehicle rules still apply. As for the part on walkers due to it saying "meaning they can make charges moves and be locked in combat" imo clarifies how they are like infantry for assaults. in short saying "Walkers assault, and are assaulted like infantry models" and that means this "they can make charge moves and be locked in combat".

Fragile wrote:

BolterUnlimited wrote:
. The rulebook overrides the FAQ in all situations..

Umm no.

Umm, yes? The rulebook are the rules of the game, the FAQ are simply clarifications. I can banish a heretic with the rulebook, I can do no such thing with the FAQ.

BolterUnlimited wrote:

Fragile wrote:

BolterUnlimited wrote:
. The rulebook overrides the FAQ in all situations..

Umm no.

Umm, yes? The rulebook are the rules of the game, the FAQ are simply clarifications. I can banish a heretic with the rulebook, I can do no such thing with the FAQ.

No. The FAQ, errata and amendments are there to clarify issues in the rulebook and, effectivley, change the rules. GW makes shoddy FAQs often putting errata into the FAQ section but FAQ>Rulebook. They can and do change the rules.

BolterUnlimited wrote:

Fragile wrote:

BolterUnlimited wrote:
. The rulebook overrides the FAQ in all situations..

Umm no.

Umm, yes? The rulebook are the rules of the game, the FAQ are simply clarifications. I can banish a heretic with the rulebook, I can do no such thing with the FAQ.

FAQ's override the rulebook. Otherwise they could never change anything.
FAQ's are more than just clarification, they can and do change rules as well.

BolterUnlimited wrote:

Fragile wrote:

BolterUnlimited wrote:
. The rulebook overrides the FAQ in all situations..

Umm no.

Umm, yes? The rulebook are the rules of the game, the FAQ are simply clarifications. I can banish a heretic with the rulebook, I can do no such thing with the FAQ.

It would be good to play you. I would love for my Tyranid Primes to join squads in spores and use quad guns, since those pesky FAQ's dont matter. FAQs can and have changed rules in the game. So you can say they are clarifications, but they are GW's clarifications for the game of 40K. If you wanna to play Bolter40k, thats your choice.


As far as this debate goes. You can charge enemy units you cannot hurt. Even if you use the rule that Vehicles cannot be charged still, the Walker is treated as an infantry unit for the purposes of assaults. Therefore the Walker is eligible to be charged.

Why would you assault it if you can't hurt it?

Fragile wrote:
the Walker is treated as an infantry unit for the purposes of assaults. Therefore the Walker is eligible to be charged.

At what point does the walker cease to be a vehicle?

To tie it up so that it is stuck killing the unit you throw at it rather than something important.

 Satan's Little Helper wrote:
Why would you assault it if you can't hurt it?

To tie it up in combat to prevent it from shooting or assaulting units you don't want to die. But, that is from a generals point of view. If you were say and ork in a boyz unit you wouldn't charge anything you couldn't hurt as it wouldn't make sense to do it as it would result in your death.

BolterUnlimited wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models,
meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked
in combat."

However, walkers are still vehicles (they do not *become* infantry) and you cannot charge a vehicle that you cannot hurt.

Neither of these rules conflict with one another. If you can hurt the walker, you can charge it. It is still a vehicle, however it behaves as an infantry model in that it CAN charge and it can be locked in combat (whereas vehicles otherwise cannot to either of those).

You cannot separate the 2nd half of that sentence from the first and have it mean the same thing. It clarifies (quite well) what can be done with (or to) that *vehicle* in assault situations outside of the normal rules for vehicles and assault.

However, the big kicker, which you are missing, is the subset of the second rule.

Walkers can assault, AND BE ASSAULTED, as Infantry...

You see now? They can be assaulted as infantry. You cannot be both a vehicle and infantry, so when you assault, you treat it like that annoying squad of jumppackless assault marines over there.

I didn't miss that at all. They can be assaulted LIKE (not AS) infantry (please continue the sentence) ..... "meaning... it can be locked in combat" (unlike other vehicles, ergo, Like infantry, it can be locked in combat. Unlike other vehicles, walkers can charge, ergo, Like infantry, it can charge). It does not say they become infantry. Walkers are vehicles. They do not change unit type.

Specific (You cannot assault a vehicle you cannot hurt) overrides General (you can assault a unit you cannot hurt) (vehicle = specific, "unit" = general). This still applies as the unit in question is still a vehicle, though it assaults/can be assaulted "like infantry .. meaning ...."

Do not separate the meaning from the rest of the sentence. If you do, you lose context and create a dispute in rules. Leaving the meaning intact and reading the meaning as is causes no dispute in the rules (where specific overrides general).

Fragile wrote:
The biggest problem with this discussion is that the FAQ states you can charge a unit you cannot hurt. Which now people will argue that vehicle rules dont apply to that.

Except there are two rules to consider and we should strive to break no rule.

You can assault a unit you can not hurt.

You can not assault a vehicle you can not hurt.

In this case can't trumps can. Permissive ruleset and all.


Basically This: "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models" means this: "they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

The sentence could have read: Walkers can make charge moves and can be locked in combat.

This is what that whole sentence means, because they tell us what the sentence means, nothing more than what is written.

Oh... it says like? If it says like, then it's still a vehicle, which you can't assault.

If it says "as" infantry, then you can assault it. If it says "like"... anyone have a 6e rulebook handy?

deleted by me

 redkeyboard wrote:
If you were say and ork in a boyz unit you wouldn't charge anything you couldn't hurt as it wouldn't make sense to do it as it would result in your death.

I don't know, there are some pretty crazy people and aliens in 40k, and how would they know they couldn't hurt it?

I would say it just represents how a Walker could ignore them and move out of combat at its leisure.

I am one for the 'you can't charge a walker you cannot hurt'.

Like others have said, a walkers classification is a vehicle, not infantry. Any rules stating that it is treated as infantry is for the purposes of moving in the assault phase and being locked in combat.

But I have three Soul Grinders in my army so perhaps I am biased.

BolterUnlimited wrote:
Oh... it says like? If it says like, then it's still a vehicle, which you can't assault.

If it says "as" infantry, then you can assault it. If it says "like"... anyone have a 6e rulebook handy?

This is why you shouldn't really comment on this thread no offence as using a 5e rulebook is obsolete as this isn't 5th edition so arguments based on 5th edition rules are useless. YMDC is all about using quotes from the current FAQs and the current rulebook to back up your argument about rules.

 XT-1984 wrote:

 redkeyboard wrote:
If you were say and ork in a boyz unit you wouldn't charge anything you couldn't hurt as it wouldn't make sense to do it as it would result in your death.

I don't know, there are some pretty crazy people and aliens in 40k, and how would they know they couldn't hurt it?

I would say it just represents how a Walker could ignore them and move out of combat at its leisure.

I am one for the 'you can't charge a walker you cannot hurt'.

Like others have said, a walkers classification is a vehicle, not infantry. Any rules stating that it is treated as infantry is for the purposes of moving in the assault phase and being locked in combat.

But I have three Soul Grinders in my army so perhaps I am biased.

Orks would be the best to charge as they are fearless while over ten models, nids in sypnase are also good as they are fearless cultists with a chaos lord HQ again fearless, IG blob with say azreal, fearless. While in CC the walker could kill a few cheap models a turn and that would be it, bar the guard blob with azreal they will tie the walker up for a good portion of the game.

MarkyMark wrote:

 XT-1984 wrote:

 redkeyboard wrote:
If you were say and ork in a boyz unit you wouldn't charge anything you couldn't hurt as it wouldn't make sense to do it as it would result in your death.

I don't know, there are some pretty crazy people and aliens in 40k, and how would they know they couldn't hurt it?

I would say it just represents how a Walker could ignore them and move out of combat at its leisure.

I am one for the 'you can't charge a walker you cannot hurt'.

Like others have said, a walkers classification is a vehicle, not infantry. Any rules stating that it is treated as infantry is for the purposes of moving in the assault phase and being locked in combat.

But I have three Soul Grinders in my army so perhaps I am biased.

Orks would be the best to charge as they are fearless while over ten models, nids in sypnase are also good as they are fearless cultists with a chaos lord HQ again fearless, IG blob with say azreal, fearless. While in CC the walker could kill a few cheap models a turn and that would be it, bar the guard blob with azreal they will tie the walker up for a good portion of the game.

I change my example to Eldar Guardian. They wouldn't charge a dreadnought or another walker to tie it up as it means loss of life and from a fluff perspective (yes I know fluff with rules is bad but this isn't really rules I'm talking about more a common sense thing) as every eldar life is sacred. But Im basically just saying with common sense you won't charge somehting you can't kill as it would mean death.

Seems pretty clear that yes, walkers are vehicles (as they have an armor value). Walkers assault and can be assaulted as infantry do. Those are both clear from the rules quoted. But there is one important exception to this that the BRB also stipulates... namely, that IF the enemy unit in question has nothing that can hurt the vehicle (walker in this case) then they can't charge it. But if the enemy unit CAN hurt the vehicle (again, the walker in this case) then they CAN assault it. That is just a further modification to the other more general rules... JMHO though...

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
(x)"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being 2 points better than normal.
Note that this means..."
(y)"a model with the Shrouded special rule always has a cover save of at least 5+, even if it's in the open" Shrouded, page 41 BRB

It's like the second sentence is a continuation of the same rule...

(x)"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being 1 point better than normal.
Note that this means..."
(y)"that a model with the Stealth special rule always has a cover save of at least 6+, even if it is in the open." Stealth, page 42 BRB

Same here.

(x)"Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit, as long as it is in range, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation.
This means..."
(y)"that Precision Shots can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or even characters!" Precision Shots, page 63 BRB

In this case it's a matter of explanation rather than a rule.
It's like context matters or something.

Please demonstrate the difference between the comparisons and what contextual difference you find.

They state a rule then stat some thing(s) that rule means. Limiting all rules to only the stated meanings after they say 'this means' and ignoring all other meanings of the rule created before it would cause you to be playing something other than 40k.

Rorschach9 wrote:"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models,
meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked
in combat."

However, walkers are still vehicles (they do not *become* infantry) and you cannot charge a vehicle that you cannot hurt.

Neither of these rules conflict with one another. If you can hurt the walker, you can charge it. It is still a vehicle, however it behaves as an infantry model in that it CAN charge and it can be locked in combat (whereas vehicles otherwise cannot to either of those).

You cannot separate the 2nd half of that sentence from the first and have it mean the same thing. It clarifies (quite well) what can be done with (or to) that *vehicle* in assault situations outside of the normal rules for vehicles and assault.

If you charge a walker like a vehicle(applying assaulting vehicle rules), are you assaulting the walker like infantry? No, you'd be assaulting it like a vehicle. You are told to use the rules for assaulting infantry(basic assault rules) when it says they are 'assaulted just like infantry'

MarkyMark wrote:
If that was the case bolter unlimited, why would they put this

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models,
meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked
in combat."


at the end of that sentence?, If they had just put what you quoted then fine but they deliberatly put the second part of that sentence in, nothing there stops it being a vehicle nor does it say you can assault something you cant hurt?. Normal vehicles cannot make charge moves nor be locked in combat IMO that rule means just that, you can assault them and be locked in combat, they can charge you and be locked in combat but nothing there to say you can charge a vehicle (walker) that you cannot hurt

The additions and clarifications added after 'this means' do not negate the rule created before it. This happens throughout the BRB as I have already demonstrated. Also as I said, if your using the rules for assaulting vehicles while charging a walker you are not 'assaulting it just like infantry' for which you only use the basic assault rules.

grendel083 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
the Walker is treated as an infantry unit for the purposes of assaults. Therefore the Walker is eligible to be charged.

At what point does the walker cease to be a vehicle?

It doesn't. You are told to assault it like infantry though which means you ignore that it's a vehicle for purpose of assaulting it. Just like the walker itself ignores the vehicles assault rules and is allowed to charge.... just like infantry.



And lets not forget this line:
"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat" BRB page 76

If you choose to read the rule ""Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." as meaning only that they can charge and be locked in combat then enemy units in CC with the walker are not locked in combat while the walker is.

It make much more sense IMO to read the line to mean they are treated just like infantry for purposes of assaulting and being assaulted. In that case they can be charged without regard to your ability to hurt them and units engaged with the walker in CC are also locked in combat just like they would be with infantry.

I won't call anyone wrong for reading it one way or the other but it makes more sense to me that units should be locked in combat with walkers.

 Abandon wrote:

It doesn't. You are told to assault it like infantry though which means you ignore that it's a vehicle for purpose of assaulting it. Just like the walker itself ignores the vehicles assault rules and is allowed to charge.... just like infantry.



And lets not forget this line:
"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat" BRB page 76

If you choose to read the rule ""Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." as meaning only that they can charge and be locked in combat then enemy units in CC with the walker are not locked in combat while the walker is.

It make much more sense IMO to read the line to mean they are treated just like infantry for purposes of assaulting and being assaulted. In that case they can be charged without regard to your ability to hurt them and units engaged with the walker in CC are also locked in combat just like they would be with infantry.

I won't call anyone wrong for reading it one way or the other but it makes more sense to me that units should be locked in combat with walkers.

The problem with your logic is it undoes itself, with itself. The second problem is no less than the 10th post down on the first page the full rule is quoted and specifically states in what ways and situations to treat the walker like infantry.

Here, I'll quote Deathreaper again for you.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." BRB page 84

The Underlined means what the orange text says, nothing more or less. how is that not clear?

Walkers never stop being a vehicle, they follow all the basic rules for a vehicle with the above exception for when they assault and are assaulted. Vehicles are not normally allowed to make a charge move, this rule specifically allows for it. Vehicles are not normally locked in combat, this rule allows for that too. This rule does not allow an enemy unit to make a charge move against the walker if they are unable to inflict a glancing or penetrating hit. Saying that as they can be assaulted 'like' infantry if the allowance is incorrect as the rules for vehicles are not superseded. But as it stands the walker never stops being a vehicle and only with the specific explained exception listed above is it allows to make a charge move and be locked in combat, nothing else.

This discussion should have been over two pages ago.

 Bausk wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

It doesn't. You are told to assault it like infantry though which means you ignore that it's a vehicle for purpose of assaulting it. Just like the walker itself ignores the vehicles assault rules and is allowed to charge.... just like infantry.



And lets not forget this line:
"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat" BRB page 76

If you choose to read the rule ""Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." as meaning only that they can charge and be locked in combat then enemy units in CC with the walker are not locked in combat while the walker is.

It make much more sense IMO to read the line to mean they are treated just like infantry for purposes of assaulting and being assaulted. In that case they can be charged without regard to your ability to hurt them and units engaged with the walker in CC are also locked in combat just like they would be with infantry.

I won't call anyone wrong for reading it one way or the other but it makes more sense to me that units should be locked in combat with walkers.

The problem with your logic is it undoes itself, with itself. The second problem is no less than the 10th post down on the first page the full rule is quoted and specifically states in what ways and situations to treat the walker like infantry.

Here, I'll quote Deathreaper again for you.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." BRB page 84

The Underlined means what the orange text says, nothing more or less. how is that not clear?

Walkers never stop being a vehicle, they follow all the basic rules for a vehicle with the above exception for when they assault and are assaulted. Vehicles are not normally allowed to make a charge move, this rule specifically allows for it. Vehicles are not normally locked in combat, this rule allows for that too. This rule does not allow an enemy unit to make a charge move against the walker if they are unable to inflict a glancing or penetrating hit. Saying that as they can be assaulted 'like' infantry if the allowance is incorrect as the rules for vehicles are not superseded. But as it stands the walker never stops being a vehicle and only with the specific explained exception listed above is it allows to make a charge move and be locked in combat, nothing else.

This discussion should have been over two pages ago.

So you believe that if the BRB states a rule (X) and says 'this means' (Y), that (Y) is the only thing(s) the rule counts for? That would pretty much break the game as I've already pointed out.

Speaking from RAI, I would say you can. The reason to prevent the assault on vehicles you can’t hurt is to prevent units from getting free movement, since that would be the only outcome the assault would have. This is not the case with walkers; the result would be that the two would be locked in combat, plus the assaulting unit could suffer casualties from overwatch and in the assault itself, meaning its not free.

Speaking from RAW, both sides bring up decent points, but I lean towards Abandon’s argument.

I have to agree with DeathReaper and Bausk.

The second part of that sentence limits the impact of the "like Infantry" part to only charge moves and being locked in combat. Which means it's additive to the existing vehicle rules, not a replacement.

The next paragraph then goes on to say that In close combat, Walkers fight like Infantry models. Which the only place we can find permission for it to hit something; without that statement the walker couldn't hit. However what it doesn't say is that enemies treat it like Infantry.

In short, other than being locked in combat and other minor changes further in the paragraph, they only covered the combat from the perspective of the walker and not from the unit that is charging it. So, the specific rule about not being able to charge a vehicle that you can't hurt is still in effect. Bad wording? probably, who knows.

As others have pointed out though, the entire reason for the no assault what you can't hurt rule seems to be to prevent a pretty big free movement. So, RAI: I *think* it means walkers can be tied down in combat with weak units. However, the RAW reading just isn't there.

clively wrote:
I have to agree with DeathReaper and Bausk.

The second part of that sentence limits the impact of the "like Infantry" part to only charge moves and being locked in combat. Which means it's additive to the existing vehicle rules, not a replacement.

The next paragraph then goes on to say that In close combat, Walkers fight like Infantry models. Which the only place we can find permission for it to hit something; without that statement the walker couldn't hit. However what it doesn't say is that enemies treat it like Infantry.

In short, other than being locked in combat and other minor changes further in the paragraph, they only covered the combat from the perspective of the walker and not from the unit that is charging it. So, the specific rule about not being able to charge a vehicle that you can't hurt is still in effect. Bad wording? probably, who knows.

As others have pointed out though, the entire reason for the no assault what you can't hurt rule seems to be to prevent a pretty big free movement. So, RAI: I *think* it means walkers can be tied down in combat with weak units. However, the RAW reading just isn't there.

"Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit, as long as it is in range, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation.
This means...
that Precision Shots can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or even characters!" Precision Shots, page 63 BRB

By your reading precision shots can only be allocated to characters and enemies with specialist weapons.

Shrouded confers only a 5+ cover save and does nothing else. page 41 BRB

Stealth confers only a 6+ cover save and does nothing else. page 42 BRB

Specifying a thing or things a rule means does not limit it to only those meanings.

Well those examples have no bearing on the Walker charging rules.

Basically the BRB Page 84 says this:
Walkers assault (make charge moves) and are assaulted (can be locked in combat) like Infantry models.

Nothing gets past the restriction on not being able to assault a vehicle you can not hurt as nothing specifically over rides the vehicle rules.

 Abandon wrote:

clively wrote:
I have to agree with DeathReaper and Bausk.

The second part of that sentence limits the impact of the "like Infantry" part to only charge moves and being locked in combat. Which means it's additive to the existing vehicle rules, not a replacement.

The next paragraph then goes on to say that In close combat, Walkers fight like Infantry models. Which the only place we can find permission for it to hit something; without that statement the walker couldn't hit. However what it doesn't say is that enemies treat it like Infantry.

In short, other than being locked in combat and other minor changes further in the paragraph, they only covered the combat from the perspective of the walker and not from the unit that is charging it. So, the specific rule about not being able to charge a vehicle that you can't hurt is still in effect. Bad wording? probably, who knows.

As others have pointed out though, the entire reason for the no assault what you can't hurt rule seems to be to prevent a pretty big free movement. So, RAI: I *think* it means walkers can be tied down in combat with weak units. However, the RAW reading just isn't there.

"Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit, as long as it is in range, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation.
This means...
that Precision Shots can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or even characters!" Precision Shots, page 63 BRB

By your reading precision shots can only be allocated to characters and enemies with specialist weapons.

CAN be .. not MUST be. "against a model (or models) OF YOUR CHOICE". Meaning, they Can be allocated against these types of units (unlike the normal rules for wounds that would simply allocate them to the nearest model). You are not being told they MAY ONLY/CAN ONLY/MUST.

Shrouded confers only a 5+ cover save and does nothing else. page 41 BRB

x)"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being 2 points better than normal.
Note that this means..."
(y)"a model with the Shrouded special rule always has a cover save of at least 5+, even if it's in the open" Shrouded, page 41 BRB

AT LEAST 5+, even in the open. Not ONLY 5+. It confers 2 points better than normal. No cover = 5+, normal cover of 6+ is now 4+, etc.
What cover do you get in the open? None. Therefore they must stipulate that with shrouded you will have "at least 5+" (thus the "even in the open"), otherwise you are improving "no cover" by 2 points (which would still be no cover).

Stealth confers only a 6+ cover save and does nothing else. page 42 BRB

As with Shrouded.

Specifying a thing or things a rule means does not limit it to only those meanings.

When they are telling you what it means, that is what it means. When they state "this is not a comprehensive list", then it is not a complete list and you must find (or interpret) other items that would be in that list.

None of those rules are broken by telling you what they mean, unless you interpret the meanings incorrectly (as you clearly have in these cases above). CAN does not equal MUST.

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

clively wrote:
I have to agree with DeathReaper and Bausk.

The second part of that sentence limits the impact of the "like Infantry" part to only charge moves and being locked in combat. Which means it's additive to the existing vehicle rules, not a replacement.

The next paragraph then goes on to say that In close combat, Walkers fight like Infantry models. Which the only place we can find permission for it to hit something; without that statement the walker couldn't hit. However what it doesn't say is that enemies treat it like Infantry.

In short, other than being locked in combat and other minor changes further in the paragraph, they only covered the combat from the perspective of the walker and not from the unit that is charging it. So, the specific rule about not being able to charge a vehicle that you can't hurt is still in effect. Bad wording? probably, who knows.

As others have pointed out though, the entire reason for the no assault what you can't hurt rule seems to be to prevent a pretty big free movement. So, RAI: I *think* it means walkers can be tied down in combat with weak units. However, the RAW reading just isn't there.

"Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit, as long as it is in range, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation.
This means...
that Precision Shots can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or even characters!" Precision Shots, page 63 BRB

By your reading precision shots can only be allocated to characters and enemies with specialist weapons.

CAN be .. not MUST be. "against a model (or models) OF YOUR CHOICE". Meaning, they Can be allocated against these types of units (unlike the normal rules for wounds that would simply allocate them to the nearest model). You are not being told they MAY ONLY/CAN ONLY/MUST.

Shrouded confers only a 5+ cover save and does nothing else. page 41 BRB

x)"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being 2 points better than normal.
Note that this means..."
(y)"a model with the Shrouded special rule always has a cover save of at least 5+, even if it's in the open" Shrouded, page 41 BRB

AT LEAST 5+, even in the open. Not ONLY 5+. It confers 2 points better than normal. No cover = 5+, normal cover of 6+ is now 4+, etc.
What cover do you get in the open? None. Therefore they must stipulate that with shrouded you will have "at least 5+" (thus the "even in the open"), otherwise you are improving "no cover" by 2 points (which would still be no cover).

Stealth confers only a 6+ cover save and does nothing else. page 42 BRB

As with Shrouded.

Specifying a thing or things a rule means does not limit it to only those meanings.

When they are telling you what it means, that is what it means. When they state "this is not a comprehensive list", then it is not a complete list and you must find (or interpret) other items that would be in that list.

None of those rules are broken by telling you what they mean, unless you interpret the meanings incorrectly (as you clearly have in these cases above). CAN does not equal MUST.

And here I thought you argued the when a rule tells you what it means that those are the only things that count as rules. Here you're creating rules form the parts previous to the 'this means' part. Glad to see you understand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well those examples have no bearing on the Walker charging rules.

Basically the BRB Page 84 says this:
Walkers assault (make charge moves) and are assaulted (can be locked in combat) like Infantry models.

Nothing gets past the restriction on not being able to assault a vehicle you can not hurt as nothing specifically over rides the vehicle rules.

They do however demonstrate the flaws in believing that "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

Means only "that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." as you are ignoring the first part of the rule.

 Abandon wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

It doesn't. You are told to assault it like infantry though which means you ignore that it's a vehicle for purpose of assaulting it. Just like the walker itself ignores the vehicles assault rules and is allowed to charge.... just like infantry.



And lets not forget this line:
"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat" BRB page 76

If you choose to read the rule ""Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." as meaning only that they can charge and be locked in combat then enemy units in CC with the walker are not locked in combat while the walker is.

It make much more sense IMO to read the line to mean they are treated just like infantry for purposes of assaulting and being assaulted. In that case they can be charged without regard to your ability to hurt them and units engaged with the walker in CC are also locked in combat just like they would be with infantry.

I won't call anyone wrong for reading it one way or the other but it makes more sense to me that units should be locked in combat with walkers.

The problem with your logic is it undoes itself, with itself. The second problem is no less than the 10th post down on the first page the full rule is quoted and specifically states in what ways and situations to treat the walker like infantry.

Here, I'll quote Deathreaper again for you.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." BRB page 84

The Underlined means what the orange text says, nothing more or less. how is that not clear?

Walkers never stop being a vehicle, they follow all the basic rules for a vehicle with the above exception for when they assault and are assaulted. Vehicles are not normally allowed to make a charge move, this rule specifically allows for it. Vehicles are not normally locked in combat, this rule allows for that too. This rule does not allow an enemy unit to make a charge move against the walker if they are unable to inflict a glancing or penetrating hit. Saying that as they can be assaulted 'like' infantry if the allowance is incorrect as the rules for vehicles are not superseded. But as it stands the walker never stops being a vehicle and only with the specific explained exception listed above is it allows to make a charge move and be locked in combat, nothing else.

This discussion should have been over two pages ago.

So you believe that if the BRB states a rule (X) and says 'this means' (Y), that (Y) is the only thing(s) the rule counts for? That would pretty much break the game as I've already pointed out.

No, as its not broken by a full stop so the elaboration of the specific meaning of the rule is what is used. But again if you persist in believing that the walker is an infantry unit/model for all intents and purposes for assault then its automatically killed as it has no toughness or wounds value. Because as we all know a unit/model is removed as a casualty is its wounds or toughness are lowered to 0.

 Abandon wrote:


"Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit, as long as it is in range, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation.
This means...
that Precision Shots can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or even characters!" Precision Shots, page 63 BRB

By your reading precision shots can only be allocated to characters and enemies with specialist weapons.

Shrouded confers only a 5+ cover save and does nothing else. page 41 BRB

Stealth confers only a 6+ cover save and does nothing else. page 42 BRB

Specifying a thing or things a rule means does not limit it to only those meanings.

Precision shots is a good one actually. It states in one sentence the rule allowance with the rules specific restrictions. Just like the walkers assault rule in question, thanks for bringing that up.

Shrouded and stealth are USR's that have a few paragraphs explaining what they do in what situation....much like the walker rule explains what to do in the specific situations it is applied to.

 Abandon wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well those examples have no bearing on the Walker charging rules.

Basically the BRB Page 84 says this:
Walkers assault (make charge moves) and are assaulted (can be locked in combat) like Infantry models.

Nothing gets past the restriction on not being able to assault a vehicle you can not hurt as nothing specifically over rides the vehicle rules.

They do however demonstrate the flaws in believing that "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

Means only "that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." as you are ignoring the first part of the rule.

Nope, they demonstrate that;

Precision Shots Allow you to pick the models the wounds are allocated to, providing they are in LoS/Range etc.

= "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." BRB page 84

Stealth/Shrouded grant a cover save, if your in the open.

= "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." BRB page 84

Stealth/Shrouded improve a cover save, if you are allowed a cover save.

= "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." BRB page 84

They list a rule with stipulations, restrictions and or allowances specifically listed in specific situations. For instance, Stealth and Shrouded do not over ride the rules for Jink and can, in fact, be used together to improve the Jink save with stealth or shrouded's bonus to existing cover save.

Does not matter how many sentences used to state rules and then tell you what they can mean.

Looks like an elaborate double standard... have fun with that.

So, you are still trying to say that ", meaning that" does not actually mean "meaning that" but "sometimes means that"?

Despite the examples, including the ones you gave, proving otherwise?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, you are still trying to say that ", meaning that" does not actually mean "meaning that" but "sometimes means that"?

Despite the examples, including the ones you gave, proving otherwise?

That's what I figure Abandon contends; "meaning that" actually means "sometimes means that" or "means that X .. but can mean more too".

What I was trying to get at earlier and accused of "creating rules" by Abandon (I guess my language is not clear enough for these things) is "that means" actually means "that means" unless they clarify further (such as in the case of "who can shoot" where they specifically state it is not a comprehensive list). If something "means" X .. it actually means X, not "X but sometimes you can add Y".

Especially when it is not a separate sentence, or further modifies the meaning by using "can" to imply there is a choice involved.

Essentially this is another "interesting" rules reading that jsut happens to ignore the written rules in favour of removing context AND the structure of the sentence and assuming it doesnt exist.

 Abandon wrote:
Does not matter how many sentences used to state rules and then tell you what they can mean.

Looks like an elaborate double standard... have fun with that.

You're 100% right there, it does not matter how many sentences they use to describe or state a rule. But actually reading those sentences, in full, and paragraphs does matter. Picking one snippet from a sentence to ignore a page of rules does not make for a good argument.

And for the record, 'Double standard' does not mean "I was proven wrong with my own argument and examples" either, no matter how elaborate it is.

Abandon, no you can't charge a walker you can't hurt. This should be the end of the discussion.

P1. The general rule is; "You can assault a unit you cannot hurt".

P2. The specific exception is; "You cannot assault a vehicle you cannot hurt".

P3. Walkers are vehicles.

C. You cannot assault a Walker you cannot hurt.

I'm not going to make an argument since Abandon made up his mind before he ever started this thread and is NOT going to change his mind no matter how obvious it is.
I just want to say that I agree; you CANNOT assault a vehicle/walker that you can't hurt.

 Bausk wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Does not matter how many sentences used to state rules and then tell you what they can mean.

Looks like an elaborate double standard... have fun with that.

You're 100% right there, it does not matter how many sentences they use to describe or state a rule. But actually reading those sentences, in full, and paragraphs does matter. Picking one snippet from a sentence to ignore a page of rules does not make for a good argument.

And for the record, 'Double standard' does not mean "I was proven wrong with my own argument and examples" either, no matter how elaborate it is.

Quite correct on all points here, no one should ignore any of the text.

They say that "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models..."The first part of the statement is rather general indicating every assault action involving a walker is preformed as if the walker were infantry. This is rather broad and would include using all of the standard assault rules and exempting them from the vehicle assault rules.

They go on to finish the sentence "...meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

Now by my reading this is just a clarification of the rule created by the first part assuring you they can charge and be locked in combat.

By your reading, rules are only derived from the second part because you read "this means" as "this only means" but as their wording does not include anything to indicate the listed meanings either preclude or include others it is assumption to treat it as indication of either.

 Abandon wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Does not matter how many sentences used to state rules and then tell you what they can mean.

Looks like an elaborate double standard... have fun with that.

You're 100% right there, it does not matter how many sentences they use to describe or state a rule. But actually reading those sentences, in full, and paragraphs does matter. Picking one snippet from a sentence to ignore a page of rules does not make for a good argument.

And for the record, 'Double standard' does not mean "I was proven wrong with my own argument and examples" either, no matter how elaborate it is.

Quite correct on all points here, no one should ignore any of the text.

They say that "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models..."The first part of the statement is rather general indicating every assault action involving a walker is preformed as if the walker were infantry. This is rather broad and would include using all of the standard assault rules and exempting them from the vehicle assault rules.

They go on to finish the sentence "...meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

Now by my reading this is just a clarification of the rule created by the first part assuring you they can charge and be locked in combat.

By your reading, rules are only derived from the second part because you read "this means" as "this only means" but as their wording does not include anything to indicate the listed meanings either preclude or include others it is assumption to treat it as indication of either.

That's because they are the only rules that apply as they are the only rules stated in the exception. Much like your examples of Precision Shots that follow all the standard rules for wound allocation, but allow the shooting player to allocate instead. Or stealth/Shrouded that state that they receive a covers save, if they are in the open. Or gain a bonus to their cover save, if they are in cover. The elaboration an clarification only allows for the exceptions listed. Again, if it was assaulted and assaults like infantry for all intents and purposes;

1) The clarification would be unneeded in the first place,

2) The previously mentioned removal of the walker as it has two 0 attributes (toughness and wounds) by the full assault rules for infantry would be removed as a casualty.

3) Overwatch would also not need to be specifically listed with its exception as its covered in the full infantry assault rules.

4) Any shots fired from overwatch would be measured from the base and LoS from the models 'Eyes', rather than the weapon itself. As this too is in the full assault rules for infantry.

5) But most importantly, it remains a Vehicle by unit type. If for some crazy reason it was also considered infantry for all assault purposes it would still be a vehicle. And the rules for charging ANY vehicle you cannot inflict a glancing or penetrating hit on still apply regardless of any additional/temporary/subjective/irrational unit types it has.

 Abandon wrote:

They go on to finish the sentence "...meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

Now by my reading this is just a clarification of the rule created by the first part assuring you they can charge and be locked in combat.

By your reading, rules are only derived from the second part because you read "this means" as "this only means" but as their wording does not include anything to indicate the listed meanings either preclude or include others it is assumption to treat it as indication of either.

So what else does it mean.

Page and Graph please.

 Bausk wrote:


That's because they are the only rules that apply as they are the only rules stated in the exception. Much like your examples of Precision Shots that follow all the standard rules for wound allocation, but allow the shooting player to allocate instead. Or stealth/Shrouded that state that they receive a covers save, if they are in the open. Or gain a bonus to their cover save, if they are in cover. The elaboration an clarification only allows for the exceptions listed. Again, if it was assaulted and assaults like infantry for all intents and purposes;

1) The clarification would be unneeded in the first place,
- Clarifications exist to detail a rule already stated so that it will be taken the correct way and cover fine points that may not be clear. They are often unneeded but invaluable when they are.

2) The previously mentioned removal of the walker as it has two 0 attributes (toughness and wounds) by the full assault rules for infantry would be removed as a casualty.
- Neither that they assault or are assaulted just like infantry states a change in how it takes damage or leadership tests.

3) Overwatch would also not need to be specifically listed with its exception as its covered in the full infantry assault rules.
- Yes it does, that they assault and are assaulted like infantry does not exactly clarify how a walker reacts to being assaulted or that it does at all. It must be pointed out that they can take overwatch shots to prevent confusion.

4) Any shots fired from overwatch would be measured from the base and LoS from the models 'Eyes', rather than the weapon itself. As this too is in the full assault rules for infantry.
- A perfectly valid clarification to prevent confusion.

5) But most importantly, it remains a Vehicle by unit type. If for some crazy reason it was also considered infantry for all assault purposes it would still be a vehicle. And the rules for charging ANY vehicle you cannot inflict a glancing or penetrating hit on still apply regardless of any additional/temporary/subjective/irrational unit types it has.
- Treating one thing like another never actually changes what it actually is. Shooting at a building causes you to treat it like a vehicle but it is indeed still a building.

"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat"

Q: If you have a dreadnought in CC and you opponent on his turn just moved them out of base contact, shoots the dreadnaught and then re-assaults it. What rule makes that illegal?

hint: just like infantry

Still need that citation for what else that rule means...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

They go on to finish the sentence "...meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

Now by my reading this is just a clarification of the rule created by the first part assuring you they can charge and be locked in combat.

By your reading, rules are only derived from the second part because you read "this means" as "this only means" but as their wording does not include anything to indicate the listed meanings either preclude or include others it is assumption to treat it as indication of either.

So what else does it mean.

Page and Graph please.

It means they 'assault and are assaulted just like infantry' (Don't feel the need to repeat this page #) and all that entails. This part indicates there is a little more to it than just charging and getting locked in combat.

Is that your interpretation and you are ignoring the "This Means" part of the rule?

"...meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

All that means is they make charge moves and can be locked in combat just like infantry.

Is a Walker still a vehicle?

 Abandon wrote:


"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat"

Q: If you have a dreadnought in CC and you opponent on his turn just moved them out of base contact, shoots the dreadnaught and then re-assaults it. What rule makes that illegal?

hint: just like infantry

Answer please or we'll have to assume your reading of the RAW in this case is wrong due to being absurd.

That is overridden by the rule that tells us "they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

Is a Walker still a vehicle?

Answer please or we'll have to assume your reading of the RAW in this case is wrong due to being absurd.

I answered that question in the post you partially quoted in your last post. That you ignore answers and repeat the same questions is getting tiresome. To facilitate your understanding I'll give you the short answer.

Yes.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your turn to answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:


"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat"

Q: If you have a dreadnought in CC and you opponent on his turn just moved his unit out of base contact, shoots the dreadnaught and then re-assaults it. What rule makes that illegal?

hint: just like infantry

altered slightly for grammatical error^

Since you're having trouble answering this question I'll just tell you. By your reading (which must therefore be incorrect) nothing makes this illegal per RAW.

By my reading(which seems to make more sense here) you are treating the walker just like infantry for purpose of assaulting and being assaulted so that enemy unit must treat the walker just like infantry and is therefore locked in combat with it. That also means though that when making assault moves an enemy unit can charge a walker they can't hurt because they are would treat it just like infantry.

Can't have one without the other. One way is very broken the other is not.

 Abandon wrote:

 Bausk wrote:


That's because they are the only rules that apply as they are the only rules stated in the exception. Much like your examples of Precision Shots that follow all the standard rules for wound allocation, but allow the shooting player to allocate instead. Or stealth/Shrouded that state that they receive a covers save, if they are in the open. Or gain a bonus to their cover save, if they are in cover. The elaboration an clarification only allows for the exceptions listed. Again, if it was assaulted and assaults like infantry for all intents and purposes;

1) The clarification would be unneeded in the first place,
- Clarifications exist to detail a rule already stated so that it will be taken the correct way and cover fine points that may not be clear. They are often unneeded but invaluable when they are.

2) The previously mentioned removal of the walker as it has two 0 attributes (toughness and wounds) by the full assault rules for infantry would be removed as a casualty.
- Neither that they assault or are assaulted just like infantry states a change in how it takes damage or leadership tests.

3) Overwatch would also not need to be specifically listed with its exception as its covered in the full infantry assault rules.
- Yes it does, that they assault and are assaulted like infantry does not exactly clarify how a walker reacts to being assaulted or that it does at all. It must be pointed out that they can take overwatch shots to prevent confusion.

4) Any shots fired from overwatch would be measured from the base and LoS from the models 'Eyes', rather than the weapon itself. As this too is in the full assault rules for infantry.
- A perfectly valid clarification to prevent confusion.

5) But most importantly, it remains a Vehicle by unit type. If for some crazy reason it was also considered infantry for all assault purposes it would still be a vehicle. And the rules for charging ANY vehicle you cannot inflict a glancing or penetrating hit on still apply regardless of any additional/temporary/subjective/irrational unit types it has.
- Treating one thing like another never actually changes what it actually is. Shooting at a building causes you to treat it like a vehicle but it is indeed still a building.

"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat"

Q: If you have a dreadnought in CC and you opponent on his turn just moved them out of base contact, shoots the dreadnaught and then re-assaults it. What rule makes that illegal?

hint: just like infantry

So a War Truck with a Ram is for all intents and purposes a Tank and not a fast vehicle or open topped? A Furioso Librarian that uses wings is for all intents and purposes jump infantry and no longer a walker at all?

No, you are incorrect that it replaces the unit type, it only behaves like the additional unit type under the specific restrictions a situations listed under the rule that allows it. This is in addition to remaining a vehicle at ALL times. If it replaced it it wouldn't be a vehicle, and be subject to all of the points I made in the previous post. You can't say it replaces one unit type with another but still have it follow the rules for a unit type it allegedly loses. You are just failing to see that your argument is undoing itself, with itself.

The infantry unit in combat would be locked and unable to disengage if they did not have Hit and Run, be subject to the Our weapons are useless rule or lost combat in the previous assault phase and just regrouped. The reason they can't normally disengage from a walker is the specific rule stating they are locked and can be locked in combat. "Like infantry". Not "Becomes infantry in place of walker/vehicle".

Where do you keep getting this 'for all intents and purposes' as a general and broad statement? I was specific to 'regarding assaulting and being assaulted' as that is what the book states.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bausk wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 Bausk wrote:


That's because they are the only rules that apply as they are the only rules stated in the exception. Much like your examples of Precision Shots that follow all the standard rules for wound allocation, but allow the shooting player to allocate instead. Or stealth/Shrouded that state that they receive a covers save, if they are in the open. Or gain a bonus to their cover save, if they are in cover. The elaboration an clarification only allows for the exceptions listed. Again, if it was assaulted and assaults like infantry for all intents and purposes;

1) The clarification would be unneeded in the first place,
- Clarifications exist to detail a rule already stated so that it will be taken the correct way and cover fine points that may not be clear. They are often unneeded but invaluable when they are.

2) The previously mentioned removal of the walker as it has two 0 attributes (toughness and wounds) by the full assault rules for infantry would be removed as a casualty.
- Neither that they assault or are assaulted just like infantry states a change in how it takes damage or leadership tests.

3) Overwatch would also not need to be specifically listed with its exception as its covered in the full infantry assault rules.
- Yes it does, that they assault and are assaulted like infantry does not exactly clarify how a walker reacts to being assaulted or that it does at all. It must be pointed out that they can take overwatch shots to prevent confusion.

4) Any shots fired from overwatch would be measured from the base and LoS from the models 'Eyes', rather than the weapon itself. As this too is in the full assault rules for infantry.
- A perfectly valid clarification to prevent confusion.

5) But most importantly, it remains a Vehicle by unit type. If for some crazy reason it was also considered infantry for all assault purposes it would still be a vehicle. And the rules for charging ANY vehicle you cannot inflict a glancing or penetrating hit on still apply regardless of any additional/temporary/subjective/irrational unit types it has.
- Treating one thing like another never actually changes what it actually is. Shooting at a building causes you to treat it like a vehicle but it is indeed still a building.

"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat"

Q: If you have a dreadnought in CC and you opponent on his turn just moved them out of base contact, shoots the dreadnaught and then re-assaults it. What rule makes that illegal?

hint: just like infantry

So a War Truck with a Ram is for all intents and purposes a Tank and not a fast vehicle or open topped? A Furioso Librarian that uses wings is for all intents and purposes jump infantry and no longer a walker at all?

No, you are incorrect that it replaces the unit type, it only behaves like the additional unit type under the specific restrictions a situations listed under the rule that allows it. This is in addition to remaining a vehicle at ALL times. If it replaced it it wouldn't be a vehicle, and be subject to all of the points I made in the previous post. You can't say it replaces one unit type with another but still have it follow the rules for a unit type it allegedly loses. You are just failing to see that your argument is undoing itself, with itself.

The infantry unit in combat would be locked and unable to disengage if they did not have Hit and Run, be subject to the Our weapons are useless rule or lost combat in the previous assault phase and just regrouped. The reason they can't normally disengage from a walker is the specific rule stating they are locked and can be locked in combat. "Like infantry". Not "Becomes infantry in place of walker/vehicle".

I never claimed it 'replaces the unit type', just that it is 'treated as' and that only for the purpose of 'assault and being assaulted'.

As for you answer to the question, no. A statement by itself that they can be locked in combat does not negate the rule that units in base contact with vehicles are not locked in combat. In that instance the walker is locked in combat but the enemy unit is not... which is of course ridiculous. The only possible solution to this we are given, is in the first part of the statement.(underline is my own)

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

 Abandon wrote:
Where do you keep getting this 'for all intents and purposes' as a general and broad statement? I was specific to 'regarding assaulting and being assaulted' as that is what the book states.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bausk wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 Bausk wrote:


That's because they are the only rules that apply as they are the only rules stated in the exception. Much like your examples of Precision Shots that follow all the standard rules for wound allocation, but allow the shooting player to allocate instead. Or stealth/Shrouded that state that they receive a covers save, if they are in the open. Or gain a bonus to their cover save, if they are in cover. The elaboration an clarification only allows for the exceptions listed. Again, if it was assaulted and assaults like infantry for all intents and purposes;

1) The clarification would be unneeded in the first place,
- Clarifications exist to detail a rule already stated so that it will be taken the correct way and cover fine points that may not be clear. They are often unneeded but invaluable when they are.

2) The previously mentioned removal of the walker as it has two 0 attributes (toughness and wounds) by the full assault rules for infantry would be removed as a casualty.
- Neither that they assault or are assaulted just like infantry states a change in how it takes damage or leadership tests.

3) Overwatch would also not need to be specifically listed with its exception as its covered in the full infantry assault rules.
- Yes it does, that they assault and are assaulted like infantry does not exactly clarify how a walker reacts to being assaulted or that it does at all. It must be pointed out that they can take overwatch shots to prevent confusion.

4) Any shots fired from overwatch would be measured from the base and LoS from the models 'Eyes', rather than the weapon itself. As this too is in the full assault rules for infantry.
- A perfectly valid clarification to prevent confusion.

5) But most importantly, it remains a Vehicle by unit type. If for some crazy reason it was also considered infantry for all assault purposes it would still be a vehicle. And the rules for charging ANY vehicle you cannot inflict a glancing or penetrating hit on still apply regardless of any additional/temporary/subjective/irrational unit types it has.
- Treating one thing like another never actually changes what it actually is. Shooting at a building causes you to treat it like a vehicle but it is indeed still a building.

"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat"

Q: If you have a dreadnought in CC and you opponent on his turn just moved them out of base contact, shoots the dreadnaught and then re-assaults it. What rule makes that illegal?

hint: just like infantry

So a War Truck with a Ram is for all intents and purposes a Tank and not a fast vehicle or open topped? A Furioso Librarian that uses wings is for all intents and purposes jump infantry and no longer a walker at all?

No, you are incorrect that it replaces the unit type, it only behaves like the additional unit type under the specific restrictions a situations listed under the rule that allows it. This is in addition to remaining a vehicle at ALL times. If it replaced it it wouldn't be a vehicle, and be subject to all of the points I made in the previous post. You can't say it replaces one unit type with another but still have it follow the rules for a unit type it allegedly loses. You are just failing to see that your argument is undoing itself, with itself.

The infantry unit in combat would be locked and unable to disengage if they did not have Hit and Run, be subject to the Our weapons are useless rule or lost combat in the previous assault phase and just regrouped. The reason they can't normally disengage from a walker is the specific rule stating they are locked and can be locked in combat. "Like infantry". Not "Becomes infantry in place of walker/vehicle".

I never claimed it 'replaces the unit type', just that it is 'treated as' and that only for the purpose of 'assault and being assaulted'.

As for you answer to the question, no. A statement by itself that they can be locked in combat does not negate the rule that units in base contact with vehicles are not locked in combat. In that instance the walker is locked in combat but the enemy unit is not... which is of course ridiculous. The only possible solution to this we are given, is in the first part of the statement.(underline is my own)

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

It takes two to tango as they say. You can't be subject to being locked if the enemy unit is not, even if you normally are. Being locked is not a rule for a unit type but being subject to its effects or not is. Being locked in combat is a paired affair, as infantry are already subject that rule the only thing to do is make the walker subject to being locked as well and both units will be. Which still does not discount the fact that it remains a vehicle at all times regardless of additional rules, that is the key point your missing. Which, getting back to the original issue, is the only reason you need to be disallowed from charging a walker you are unable to inflict a glancing or penetrating hit on.

As you have nothing to back up your claim that a walker is not bound by the basic vehicle rules at all times or is replaced by other rather than just being added to then I have nothing more to say unless you have a citation or have a new perspective.

We have a rule. I will quote it in two parts.

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models,"

Normally we would ave to use the BRB to determine the meaning of this rule, however the whole rule states

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

Therefore this "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models," Means this "they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

They are still vehicles, so even if they are assaulted like infantry, they are still a vehicle (By your own admission) and they can not be assaulted if the unit can not hurt them.

 Bausk wrote:


It takes two to tango as they say. You can't be subject to being locked if the enemy unit is not, even if you normally are. Being locked is not a rule for a unit type but being subject to its effects or not is. Being locked in combat is a paired affair, as infantry are already subject that rule the only thing to do is make the walker subject to being locked as well and both units will be. Which still does not discount the fact that it remains a vehicle at all times regardless of additional rules, that is the key point your missing. Which, getting back to the original issue, is the only reason you need to be disallowed from charging a walker you are unable to inflict a glancing or penetrating hit on.

As you have nothing to back up your claim that a walker is not bound by the basic vehicle rules at all times or is replaced by other rather than just being added to then I have nothing more to say unless you have a citation or have a new perspective.

Not quite correct.

"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat" page 76, BRB , SUCCESSIVE TURNS

This is a special rule for vehicles and therefore overrides the basic assault rules regarding units being locked in combat. By your reading of the Walker rules nothing negates this for them. The fact that it says walkers 'can be locked in combat' does not say anything about the 'enemy models' they are engaged with and since none of the basic assault rules take precedence over either you end up with broken assault rules.

If you want to play with this broken reading of the RAW, that's fine. As I said, the way you read the Walker rules is valid per the English language, it is just not the only valid way that statement can be taken. I prefer to look at it in a way that makes the rules make more sense and doesn't break the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
We have a rule. I will quote it in two parts.

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models,"

Normally we would ave to use the BRB to determine the meaning of this rule, however the whole rule states

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

Therefore this "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models," Means this "they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

They are still vehicles, so even if they are assaulted like infantry, they are still a vehicle (By your own admission) and they can not be assaulted if the unit can not hurt them.

If you assault a vehicle in the same manner you normally assault a vehicles, are you assaulting it "just like infantry"?

This has been going on for 4 pages now. I get the feeling some people are trying to inject common sense, and other's are holding up the rulebook like it's an ancient stone tablet, refusing to budge even an inch on their own interpretation.

Those kind of argument's, are never ending loops.

 Evileyes wrote:
This has been going on for 4 pages now. I get the feeling some people are trying to inject common sense, and other's are holding up the rulebook like it's an ancient stone tablet, refusing to budge even an inch on their own interpretation.

Those kind of argument's, are never ending loops.

Spoiler:

100% agreement, excepting that nothing is eternal and one day even the internet may fall.

 Abandon wrote:

 Bausk wrote:


It takes two to tango as they say. You can't be subject to being locked if the enemy unit is not, even if you normally are. Being locked is not a rule for a unit type but being subject to its effects or not is. Being locked in combat is a paired affair, as infantry are already subject that rule the only thing to do is make the walker subject to being locked as well and both units will be. Which still does not discount the fact that it remains a vehicle at all times regardless of additional rules, that is the key point your missing. Which, getting back to the original issue, is the only reason you need to be disallowed from charging a walker you are unable to inflict a glancing or penetrating hit on.

As you have nothing to back up your claim that a walker is not bound by the basic vehicle rules at all times or is replaced by other rather than just being added to then I have nothing more to say unless you have a citation or have a new perspective.

Not quite correct.

"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat" page 76, BRB , SUCCESSIVE TURNS

This is a special rule for vehicles and therefore overrides the basic assault rules regarding units being locked in combat. By your reading of the Walker rules nothing negates this for them. The fact that it says walkers 'can be locked in combat' does not say anything about the 'enemy models' they are engaged with and since none of the basic assault rules take precedence over either you end up with broken assault rules.

If you want to play with this broken reading of the RAW, that's fine. As I said, the way you read the Walker rules is valid per the English language, it is just not the only valid way that statement can be taken. I prefer to look at it in a way that makes the rules make more sense and doesn't break the game.

If you want to talk English then you frankly came to the wrong place. But while we are on the subject.... "Walkers assault and are assaulted like infantry models, meaning they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." Could be argued subjectively from an English stand point that the 'They' being used is in fact inclusive of the walker and its enemy rather than just the walker itself. But we could argue semantics all day and come up with new ways to twist the rules.

But I guess everyone else must be wrong and only you are right because we must have no grasp of 40k rules interpretation or the English language in general. Guess I better sign up for the next English lesson Abandon is teaching so I can master this language I've been speaking all my life.

I am going to articulate how I see the rules playing out.

The three rules in question are, in order from most general to most specific:

“Q: Can I charge an enemy Unit I Can't Hurt? A: Yes

“A Unit can not charge a vechile it cannot hurt”

“"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat.”


The question becomes can a unit that can't hurt the walker charge it because they they are assaulted like Infantry model, or can they not because they remain vehicles?

The point of contention is does the phrase “meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat” serve as a reminder of part of what being treated like infantry means, or serve to limit the extent to which the walker is treated like infantry?

I lean towards the first one. No one should take the phrase “Joe is an American, meaning he can vote in an election” to mean that the only thing Joe being an American means is that he can vote. I thus believe that when you charge a walker you act as if you were charging an infantry model in every respect.


To be honest, my stake in the argument is fairly low. If you get to the point where you have nothing that can blow up the walker and your only option is to try to tie it up I would imagine your army has taken enough of a pounding that you are in trouble. I do however feel that this thread is starting to get a bit nasty with the snide comments and sarcasm, and would not be surprised to see it locked soon.

 Abandon wrote:
If you assault a vehicle in the same manner you normally assault a vehicles, are you assaulting it "just like infantry"?

Yes, as you make assaults against infantry and vehicles in the same way.

You declare the charge, take overwatch if any, then roll charge range and move models.

The only difference with a walker is you are locked with a walker, and you are not locked with a non walker vehicle.

Plus you can not charge a vehicle you can not hurt.

a Walker is a vehicle.

While you have made a great case Abandon , I have to point out the fact that the Walker is considered a unit. Please see the FaQ in regards to your question.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
If you assault a vehicle in the same manner you normally assault a vehicles, are you assaulting it "just like infantry"?

Yes, as you make assaults against infantry and vehicles in the same way.*

You declare the charge, take overwatch if any, then roll charge range and move models.

The only difference with a walker is you are locked with a walker, and you are not locked with a non walker vehicle.

Plus you can not charge a vehicle you can not hurt.

a Walker is a vehicle.

So you found something that overrides the rule? You keep saying it's still a vehicle so the rules regarding assaulting vehicles still apply. Since you are not treating it like just like infantry and keep treating it like a vehicle for assaults...

"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat" on page 76.

Something that says enemy models in base contact with Walkers are locked in combat? page # pls.

*Also, the part in orange is incorrect, there are several differences in assaulting a vehicle vs assaulting infantry.

 Abandon wrote:
So you found something that overrides the rule? You keep saying it's still a vehicle so the rules regarding assaulting vehicles still apply. Since you are not treating it like just like infantry and keep treating it like a vehicle for assaults...

"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat" on page 76.

Something that says enemy models in base contact with Walkers are locked in combat? page # pls.

*Also, the part in orange is incorrect, there are several differences in assaulting a vehicle vs assaulting infantry.

You seem to have the quote wrong, specifically the underlined. Who said to treat it just like Infantry?

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." BRB page 84

Walkers are assaulted like infantry. That part means "they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

If you assault a Walker and lock it in combat then you are assaulting a walker " like Infantry models"

This "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models" Means this "they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
So you found something that overrides the rule? You keep saying it's still a vehicle so the rules regarding assaulting vehicles still apply. Since you are not treating it like just like infantry and keep treating it like a vehicle for assaults...

"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat" on page 76.

Something that says enemy models in base contact with Walkers are locked in combat? page # pls.

*Also, the part in orange is incorrect, there are several differences in assaulting a vehicle vs assaulting infantry.

You seem to have the quote wrong, specifically the underlined. Who said to treat it just like Infantry?

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." BRB page 84

Walkers are assaulted like infantry. That part means "they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

If you assault a Walker and lock it in combat then you are assaulting a walker " like Infantry models"

This "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models" Means this "they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

Actually the subject of that sentence is Walkers, so when it says they 'can be locked in combat' it means 'Walkers can be locked in combat'. The statement says nothing about enemy units being locked in combat unless you look at the 'are assaulted just like infantry' part a little differently then you have been.

As far as 'treating them just like infantry for purposes of assault', that is a perfectly valid interpretation of the walker rule per the English language you have yet to acknowledge.

If I say 'I like blue, and I like white, like many other people, meaning I look at the sky often' nothing limits the meaning of the statement to 'I look at the sky often'.

Likewise 'Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." is not limited to meaning only "that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

 Abandon wrote:
Likewise 'Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." is not limited to meaning only "that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

This thinking has amused me greatly.
So you have a rule, which then has its meaning defined.
But wait, it can mean something else as well! Something not stated!
This logic is great, truly great. So I can use the rule for Rage (defined as +2 attacks on the charge) and add the extra meaning of Rending to it as well! I mean the book says the meaning of the rule right there, but I can always add extra meanings not defined right?

Yes it does mean only that. It states the meaning of the rule right there where it says "meaning that..."

 grendel083 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Likewise 'Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." is not limited to meaning only "that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

This thinking has amused me greatly.
So you have a rule, which then has its meaning defined.
But wait, it can mean something else as well! Something not stated!
This logic is great, truly great. So I can use the rule for Rage (defined as +2 attacks on the charge) and add the extra meaning of Rending to it as well! I mean the book says the meaning of the rule right there, but I can always add extra meanings not defined right?

Yes it does mean only that. It states the meaning of the rule right there where it says "meaning that..."

'I like blue, and I like white, like many other people, meaning I look at the sky often.'

So you believe this^ statement means only 'I look at the sky often'. That's interesting.

 Abandon wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Likewise 'Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." is not limited to meaning only "that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

This thinking has amused me greatly.
So you have a rule, which then has its meaning defined.
But wait, it can mean something else as well! Something not stated!
This logic is great, truly great. So I can use the rule for Rage (defined as +2 attacks on the charge) and add the extra meaning of Rending to it as well! I mean the book says the meaning of the rule right there, but I can always add extra meanings not defined right?

Yes it does mean only that. It states the meaning of the rule right there where it says "meaning that..."

'I like blue, and I like white, like many other people, meaning I look at the sky often.'

So you believe this^ statement means only 'I look at the sky often'. That's interesting.

I believe if a hundred scientists proved the sky was blue, you'd argue it was red.

I want to play Abandon in a game in which he cannot bog down my dreadnoughts and defilers with annoying infantry.

 grendel083 wrote:

I believe if a hundred scientists proved the sky was blue, you'd argue it was red.

I take this to mean you believe my credibility is lacking and therefore any point I make is automatically invalid and/or incorrect. That's interesting as well.

But a serious question for Abandon, if a unit could have two unit types, would it not follow the rules for both?

You're taking a very much "one or the other" approach. It's infantry, so only restrictions for infantry apply.
A vehicle, treated like infantry in some respects, is still a vehicle.

Munga wrote:
I want to play Abandon in a game in which he cannot bog down my dreadnoughts and defilers with annoying infantry.

As it is easier in person, I'm sure we could come to agreement about the walker assault rules before deployment (better than interrupting the game) and playing is much more fun than posting so I'd like this as well.

I've been following this, and while I personally love the idea of throwing peons at a Dreadnought to tie him up for awhile, I did have a question about the opposite. I'm assuming the answer is yes here, but can I be charged by a Walker I cannot hurt? If so, what happens to me, am I stuck in combat with that walker? Or no? (Assuming I survive more than a round).

 Alfndrate wrote:
I've been following this, and while I personally love the idea of throwing peons at a Dreadnought to tie him up for awhile, I did have a question about the opposite. I'm assuming the answer is yes here, but can I be charged by a Walker I cannot hurt? If so, what happens to me, am I stuck in combat with that walker? Or no? (Assuming I survive more than a round).

You can be charged by a walker that you can not hurt. You would then do the round of combat, and could then chose to either take the leadership test or automatically fail it with the Our Weapons are Useless! rule, unless something prevented you from doing this such as being fearless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Likewise 'Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." is not limited to meaning only "that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

This thinking has amused me greatly.
So you have a rule, which then has its meaning defined.
But wait, it can mean something else as well! Something not stated!
This logic is great, truly great. So I can use the rule for Rage (defined as +2 attacks on the charge) and add the extra meaning of Rending to it as well! I mean the book says the meaning of the rule right there, but I can always add extra meanings not defined right?

Yes it does mean only that. It states the meaning of the rule right there where it says "meaning that..."

The opposing side of your argument is not trying to imply that the rule means something unstated. It is implying that the phrase "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models" means that when they are assaulted they are treated as infantry models in every respect, and the phrase "meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat" is meant to remind the player of crucial details to what being treated like infantry entails.

Regardless of were people stand on this point, I think they can agree it would have been better to have been worded "Walkers can make charge moves and can be locked in combat as if they were infantry" if that is what Games Workshop wanted to mean. It can be annoying some times spending so much money on a game with such poorly worded rules....

 grendel083 wrote:
But a serious question for Abandon, if a unit could have two unit types, would it not follow the rules for both?

You're taking a very much "one or the other" approach. It's infantry, so only restrictions for infantry apply.
A vehicle, treated like infantry in some respects, is still a vehicle.

I never mentioned changing it's unit type, only what it is 'treated as' for assault purposes. Regardless, this is a good point. Does the statement "assaulted just like infantry" allow you to ignore it actual unit type? ...or does it only mean you are allowed treat it as infantry as well as it actual type?

Initially I'd bring up two points here:

1. The term 'just like' to me, indicates an exact manner/likeness or exact as possible. IE, if you place a baseball on home plate and are told to use you bat to hit it just like a golf ball you are being told to wield the bat as if it were a golf club instead of a baseball bat and to strike as if at a golf ball(though a giant one) instead of a baseball. This means that, in whatever weird game your playing on the field, you are allowed to take action on the ball as if it were a golf ball instead of a baseball. Direct comparison would look like this:
-Baseballs are hit just like golf balls
-Walkers are assaulted just like infantry

2. Enemy units would still not be locked in combat because you would be treating it as a infantry/vehicle model for assault purposes. That would mean you are treating it as a vehicle still for which we are specifically told enemy units are not locked in combat but walkers are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

greatergoodjones wrote:

Regardless of were people stand on this point, I think they can agree it would have been better to have been worded "Walkers can make charge moves and can be locked in combat as if they were infantry" if that is what Games Workshop wanted to mean. It can be annoying some times spending so much money on a game with such poorly worded rules....

I quite agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I've been following this, and while I personally love the idea of throwing peons at a Dreadnought to tie him up for awhile, I did have a question about the opposite. I'm assuming the answer is yes here, but can I be charged by a Walker I cannot hurt? If so, what happens to me, am I stuck in combat with that walker? Or no? (Assuming I survive more than a round).

Yes it can charge you, no question there.

As for 'are you locked in combat?' That is something being debated. If you are treating the walker as infantry for assault purposes, yes because an ongoing assault with enemy infantry would qualify you as locked in combat. If you are treating it like a vehicle for assault purposes other than that charges and the it itself can be locked in combat, it is locked in combat but you are not locked in combat with the walker. I'm in favor of the first scenario.

Abandon, you are wrong.

Walkers get locked in combat. You can't assault a walker you can't hurt. The rules as written are clear, your grasp of language isn't.

As I said in your other ridiculous thread, no TO would agree with your interpretation. If someone tried this against me in a friendly game, I'd pickup my models and walk.

The bigger question, I guess is, do you actually play or enjoy 40k? I don't think you do.

 loreweaver wrote:
Abandon, you are wrong.

Walkers get locked in combat. You can't assault a walker you can't hurt. The rules as written are clear, your grasp of language isn't.

As I said in your other ridiculous thread, no TO would agree with your interpretation. If someone tried this against me in a friendly game, I'd pickup my models and walk.

The bigger question, I guess is, do you actually play or enjoy 40k? I don't think you do.

So, if in a friendly game, someone suggested that they think they can assault your walker for the reason given above, rather then disagreeing and resolving the issue with a die roll, or asking the store manager for how they want it to be played in that game store, you would pick up your models and walk away.

greatergoodjones wrote:

 loreweaver wrote:
Abandon, you are wrong.

Walkers get locked in combat. You can't assault a walker you can't hurt. The rules as written are clear, your grasp of language isn't.

As I said in your other ridiculous thread, no TO would agree with your interpretation. If someone tried this against me in a friendly game, I'd pickup my models and walk.

The bigger question, I guess is, do you actually play or enjoy 40k? I don't think you do.

So, if in a friendly game, someone suggested that they think they can assault your walker for the reason given above, rather then disagreeing and resolving the issue with a die roll, or asking the store manager for how they want it to be played in that game store, you would pick up your models and walk away.

The reason given above breaks the rule about not being able to charge a vehicle you can not hurt. Therefore can not be the correct interpretation.

I would not walk, but I would explain to my opponent why his action was not legal.

I would not settle it with a die roll as the rules are clear.

I'd be happy to go along with the idea my Hormagaunts can't charge your walker in an actual game and whatever the house rules are as well(assuming nothing unfair). As I said, it is a valid way to read to rule, it's just not the only way it can be taken. I would then explain that walkers 'can be locked in combat' but 'enemy units in base contact a vehicles are not' and show you why.

and then we default to the rules on Page 23 that state "Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat."

Your unit is definitely locked in combat.

The Vehicle rules are what prevents vehicles from being locked in combat. Which is in turn over-ridden by the walker rules that state they can be locked.

 Abandon wrote:
I'd be happy to go along with the idea my Hormagaunts can't charge your walker in an actual game and whatever the house rules are as well(assuming nothing unfair).

This implies that gaunts not being able to charge a walker is a house rule, it is not a house rule it is RAW.

Playing by the actual rules are not house rules, no matter how many times you try to assert otherwise Abandon.

 DeathReaper wrote:
and then we default to the rules on Page 23 that state "Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat."

Your unit is definitely locked in combat.

The Vehicle rules are what prevents vehicles from being locked in combat. Which is in turn over-ridden by the walker rules that state they can be locked.

 Abandon wrote:
I'd be happy to go along with the idea my Hormagaunts can't charge your walker in an actual game and whatever the house rules are as well(assuming nothing unfair).

This implies that gaunts not being able to charge a walker is a house rule, it is not a house rule it is RAW.

Playing by the actual rules are not house rules, no matter how many times you try to assert otherwise Abandon.

That rule is overridden by the more specific vehicle rule "Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat" on page 76, Successive Turns.

I was just clarifying that I'm actually fairly flexible when it comes to playing. That's why I used to words 'and whatever house rules' meaning, 'in addition to'.

 DeathReaper wrote:

greatergoodjones wrote:

 loreweaver wrote:
Abandon, you are wrong.

Walkers get locked in combat. You can't assault a walker you can't hurt. The rules as written are clear, your grasp of language isn't.

As I said in your other ridiculous thread, no TO would agree with your interpretation. If someone tried this against me in a friendly game, I'd pickup my models and walk.

The bigger question, I guess is, do you actually play or enjoy 40k? I don't think you do.

So, if in a friendly game, someone suggested that they think they can assault your walker for the reason given above, rather then disagreeing and resolving the issue with a die roll, or asking the store manager for how they want it to be played in that game store, you would pick up your models and walk away.

The reason given above breaks the rule about not being able to charge a vehicle you can not hurt. Therefore can not be the correct interpretation.

I would not walk, but I would explain to my opponent why his action was not legal.

I would not settle it with a die roll as the rules are clear.

And if counter with why he believed it was, and you both rejected each others arguments, how would you move forward?

I think we've gone around in circles here for long enough. Moving on.