Pretty simple, which facing is it resolved against? The Hammer of Wrath states that its resolved against the facing you are in base to base contact with however the Walker rules say CC hits are resolved against the front armour and so do Chariots.

IF the rules for walkers and chariots they they resolve all CC hits on front armor then front armor is the way you resolve it. Walker and chariot rules are more specific then the HOW special rule.

Not really. I kind of think this is a case of two special rules going head to head.

If anything the HOW is even more specific than the Walker close combat rules.

Hollismason wrote:
If anything the HOW is even more specific than the Walker close combat rules.

Not really, HoW has a rule against Vehicles. That's a wide variety of many types.
Specifically it's being used on a walker, which has strict rules on facings.

Is it a vehicle? Yes, specifically a Walker.

 grendel083 wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
If anything the HOW is even more specific than the Walker close combat rules.

Not really, HoW has a rule against Vehicles. That's a while variety of many types.
Specifically it's being used on a walker, which has strict rules on facings.

Is it a vehicle? Yes, specifically a Walker.

This.

Yeah Walkers have their own basic rules, but this is a advanced special rule.

Your gonna have to argue why the Walker rule has more weight than the HOW rule.

I would say HoW isn't a normal cc attack. For example, it hits automatically and at initiative 10, whereas a model without grenades makes its "cc attacks" at initiative 1 when charging into cover, etc. etc.

Also, HoW hits automatically instead of a 6 against invisibility, which says cc attacks hit on a 6. I would argue it's different from a normal cc attack.

Yeah I just think that the HOW is so specific in how it works that it has more weight over how the Walker rules work.

Hollismason wrote:
Your gonna have to argue why the Walker rule has more weight than the HOW rule.

Because HoW states how it affects vehicles. You're applying it to a specific type of vehicle that has its own rule.

You would think "Walker" is a general rule, "HoW" is a special rule. Therefor special rule wins. That's just me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fluff purposes: Bikers are sweeping in behind the dread, it takes a minute to turn around and attack back.
Crunch purposes: iirc aren't HoW attacks resolved before all cc attacks by rule? again iirc, walkers play as if turning to face cc attacks, if this is resolved before them, he hasnt had time to turn.

Sorry I'm at work and dont have my BRB on me.

 Pyeatt wrote:
You would think "Walker" is a general rule,

Are all units walkers?

Crunch purposes: iirc aren't HoW attacks resolved before all cc attacks by rule?

HoW attacks are close combat attacks made at I10.

Wouldn't you say they're a SPECIAL cc attack, and therefore despite the walker's rules for how to handle cc attacks, this is a special case?

 Spellbound wrote:
Wouldn't you say they're a SPECIAL cc attack, and therefore despite the walker's rules for how to handle cc attacks, this is a special case?

Sure, if it said that in part of its rules. But it doesn't.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Spellbound wrote:
Wouldn't you say they're a SPECIAL cc attack, and therefore despite the walker's rules for how to handle cc attacks, this is a special case?

Sure, if it said that in part of its rules. But it doesn't.

It literally does say that, like Hammer of Wrath literally says that it's a special rule.

If a model with this special rule ends its charge move in base or hull contact with an enemy model, it makes one additional Attack that hits automatically and is resolved at the model’s unmodified Strength with AP-. This Attack does not benefit from any of the model’s special rules (such as Furious Charge, Rending etc.). This Attack is resolved during the Fight sub-phase at the Initiative 10 step, but does not grant the model an additional Pile In move.
If a model with this special rule charges a building or vehicle, the hit is resolved against the Armour Value of the facing the charging model is touching. If a model with this special rule charges a building or vehicle that is a Transport or a Chariot, the hit is resolved against the building or vehicle, not the occupants or the rider.

Hollismason wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Spellbound wrote:
Wouldn't you say they're a SPECIAL cc attack, and therefore despite the walker's rules for how to handle cc attacks, this is a special case?

Sure, if it said that in part of its rules. But it doesn't.

It literally does say that, like Hammer of Wrath literally says that it's a special rule.

Yes it says it's a special rule. But that alone doesn't make it any more specific. It needs more that just being special.

It has a rule for how it gets used against vehicles. Walkers (being a specific sub-group of vehicles) has a rule for how CC attacks are used against it?

Which one is more specific? A rule that applies to vehicles in general, or a rule that applies specifically to walkers?

I don't think you can have it both ways here. Either it is a CC attack, hitting rear armor on vehicles and front on walkers, or it is a special attack, hitting vehicle facings and then, later in CC it hits rear/front as specified.

Since the rules distinctly say it is not a normal CC attack by denying rear armor and a pile in move, it is not a standard CC attack so the dreadnaught rule would not apply.

My .02

I'd say special overrides the general rule walkers have. Thats the basic rules for Walkers.

Hollismason wrote:
I'd say special overrides the general rule walkers have. Thats the basic rules for Walkers.

Since HoW does not say anything about hitting Walkers on the facing they come from, the Walker rule will override. HoW does not address Walkers or Chariots therefore it is not more specific about how to handle CC attacks.

I'm on the Walker side of the argument.
HoW calls out "vehicles" of which walkers are a specific variety.
Walkers call out CC attacks of which HoW is a specific variety.

To me these are equally specific and requires a judgement call. The general policy for tournament rulings is that the decision favors the defender, which in this case is the walker.

This is HIWPI. Perhaps create a poll thread? It seems people are pretty varied on this one.

I just needed to state that Special Rules are classified as 'Advanced Rules' by the Rules which define such things. Sorry, but it makes me twitch when people state things like 'Special Rules win' in Rule as Written debates, because there is no such Rule in the book to my knowledge. In situations where there is a true conflict between a Special Rule and another Rule, such as a Unit Type, we actually reach a 'Rules as Written Break' outcome, a massive flaw in the way the Rules telling us how to resolve such conflicts work.

Special Rules being a higher tier then Advanced Rules would be a very good inclusion into Basic Vs Advanced, if you ask me....

JinxDragon wrote:
I just needed to state that Special Rules are classified as 'Advanced Rules' by the Rules which define such things. Sorry, but it makes me twitch when people state things like 'Special Rules win' in Rule as Written debates, because there is no such Rule in the book to my knowledge. In situations where there is a true conflict between a Special Rule and another Rule, such as a Unit Type, we actually reach a 'Rules as Written Break' outcome, a massive flaw in the way the Rules telling us how to resolve such conflicts work.

Special Rules being a higher tier then Advanced Rules would be a very good inclusion into Basic Vs Advanced, if you ask me....

Jinx, I think your dented wall is calling. Again.

Seems clear to me that this one goes in the walkers favour.

I've been informed I can't hit my head against walls while at work....
Seems to upset people around me, though I can't fathom why.

Those are the GENERAL rules for how walkers treat close combat attacks. There are also general rules for how close combat attacks are worked out against infantry (which is part of the walker's rules, which say roll to hit as normal, etc). Hammer of wrath supersedes all that, skipping the roll to hit and telling you exactly how it's supposed to work against vehicles.

A hammer of wrath attack hits vehicles automatically and in the arc you're in. It doesn't roll to hit, it doesn't get rear armor regardless of facing (regular vehicle cc rules). It also doesn't roll to hit, and doesn't hit the front regardless of facing (walker cc rules). It hits automatically and against whatever facing you're in (hammer of wrath vs vehicles rules).

No its not a general rule for how walkers treat CC attacks.

The walker rule itself is an advanced rule for vehicles type.

The entire walker rule is advanced.

Walker rule states all CC attacks go to front armor and HoW is a CC attack. Case is over.

Hammer of Wrath is a CC attack, in that it is resolved at initiative step 10 of the close combat phase.

The walker rule specifically states that unless it is immobilised "models hitting a walker in colse combat ALWAYS roll for armour penetration against its front armour"

To the check would go:

Hammer of Wrath
Is it a vehicle? Yes
In general this hits the rear armour
Is it a Walker? Yes
Walkers are specifically ALWAYS hit in front armour in close combat.
Walker rule overrides.

If a walker is always hit in the front armour in close combat, and you are trying to hit something other than the front armour, you can by the very nature of the rule not hit the walker.

Emphasis mine but to summarise, if a walker is ALWAYS hit in the front armour in CC, you either hit the front armour or nothing.

I don't have my rule book in front of me, but one person quoted the HoW rule above. If that quote is accurate, I think it's important to point out that it specifically avoids calling it a close combat attack. It calls it an "attack" in the generic sense, not specifying CC or shooting. This would put the HoW attack outside of the jurisdiction of the walker rule, and it would be resolved against the facing hit rather than the front armor.

 NightHowler wrote:
I don't have my rule book in front of me, but one person quoted the HoW rule above. If that quote is accurate, I think it's important to point out that it specifically avoids calling it a close combat attack. It calls it an "attack" in the generic sense, not specifying CC or shooting. This would put the HoW attack outside of the jurisdiction of the walker rule, and it would be resolved against the facing hit rather than the front armor.

It makes "one additional attack". What other types of attacks are you doing during the Fight Subphase ?

 NightHowler wrote:
I don't have my rule book in front of me, but one person quoted the HoW rule above. If that quote is accurate, I think it's important to point out that it specifically avoids calling it a close combat attack. It calls it an "attack" in the generic sense, not specifying CC or shooting. This would put the HoW attack outside of the jurisdiction of the walker rule, and it would be resolved against the facing hit rather than the front armor.

Most of the book specifically avoids calling things close combat attacks. "Close combat attack" is never defined in the book. Even if you look in the back of the book, it directs you to page 49 where it simply says "each engaged model makes a number of attacks..." as it describes how models fight in close combat. The only thing a "close combat attack" can be is an attack that is made by a model engaged in close combat. Since hammer of wrath is an attack that is made when the model is engaged in close combat, it is considered a close combat attack.

Hammer of Wrath appears to modify the facing in which its CC Attack is made versus vehicles. Per the Vehicle entry, all CC Attacks are made against the Rear facing. Per the Walker entry, all CC Attacks are made against the Front facing. Per Hammer of Wrath, this type of CC Attack is made against the actual facing the unit is in base contact with. As such, HoW does modify the facing of Vehicles, be they Walkers or not, for its specific CC Attack.

HoW appears to be a hard counter to CC specific targeting restrictions.

SJ

So how does this affect HoW attacks made against a non-walker vehicle's front facing? HoW says you hit the facing the model is in. Vehicle rule says cc attacks are always against rear armour.

If you rule one way, it favours walkers but not other vehicles. If you rule the other way, vice versa.

I don't buy that the Walker rule should trump a Special Rule. The rules for how a Walker works in Close Combat is part of the normal Advanced Rules, so except for being particular for a specific type of vehicle, they are still "normal" rules. The argument for why HoW should trump the Walker's ability to always take hits on the front armor is no different from the argument that HoW trumps other vehicles' ability to always take hits on the rear armor. That argument is that that's what Special Rules do: they trump regular rules (advanced or basic).

Where else would you argue that a part of the regular rules trumps a Special Rule?

Unfortunately it's not stated very clearly, but the introduction to the Special Rules appendix does state that

Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule.

Walkers have a game rule. Hammer of Wrath breaks that rule.

It's not a very clear argument, but it definitely makes me come down on the HoW side.

Indeed. In the argument of Advanced > Basic or Specific > General, HoW is more advanced than the Vehicle rules (which includes Walkers). As a Special Rule, HoW specifically gives permission to bypass the "facing rules" for Vehicles in CC.

SJ

Basic Versus Advanced wrote:Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise...
Advanced rules apply to specific types of models...

We're dealing with 2 advanced rules. The rules don't ever introduce the concept of "more advanced".

You have an Advanced rule that applies to all vehicles.
You have an Advanced rule that specifically applies to a Vehicle Sub-Type (Walker) only.

The Basic Vs Advanced rule does not tell you which carries great weight.

If you want to apply the gaming convention of Specific Vs. General, the walker rule wins out.

This scenerio never occured to me. I would like to support you grendel and I am urged to because it "feels" right, but jeffersonian000's logic is consistent with RAW and RAI (the later of course is opinion). His logic seems reasonable and HIWPI.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Hammer of Wrath appears to modify the facing in which its CC Attack is made versus vehicles. Per the Vehicle entry, all CC Attacks are made against the Rear facing. Per the Walker entry, all CC Attacks are made against the Front facing. Per Hammer of Wrath, this type of CC Attack is made against the actual facing the unit is in base contact with. As such, HoW does modify the facing of Vehicles, be they Walkers or not, for its specific CC Attack.

HoW appears to be a hard counter to CC specific targeting restrictions.

SJ

They both modify the facing that the CC attack is made.

But "More Advanced" is not a rule that exists.

RaW there is nothing that indicates which rule carries more weight. They are both Advanced rules.

For a HIWPI answer, I look to to the part in the Walker rules: "This is because, unlike other vehicles, the Walker turns to face it's enemies and rampages through the melee." - Fluff yes, but it's the justification for why the rule exists.
If it can turn to face an Axe blow, it can turn to face a ramming bike.

The exact same logic could be applied inversely.

Per Hammer of Wrath, this type of CC Attack is made against the actual facing the unit is in base contact with. As such, HoW does modify the facing of Vehicles, be they Walkers or not, for its specific CC Attack.

Per the Walker rules, this type of vehicle receives all CC Attacks on it's front facing. As such, the Walker rule does modify the facing of CC attacks, be they Hammer of Wrath or not, for its specific Walker rule.


Those statements are equally true, as I said before this has to be a judgement call as neither rule is more advanced than the other as per the "basic vs advanced" definitions on page 13. Given the common tournament practice to give the decision to the defenders, I personally would choose the Walker rule to take priority.

I know it is a dirty concept to approach in the YMDC forum, but when you have two rules which have potentially equal weight towards being the 'more specific' it sometimes actually helps to read the full rules text (fluff text included) for context.

The basic rules for armor penetration for vehicles states (emphasis mine):

"Armour Penetration is worked out the same was as for shooting. In close combat, however, all hits are resolved against the vehicle's rear armour, to represent the chance of attacking a vulnerable spot."


Now let's look at the Walkers Assault rules (again, emphasis mine):

"In close combat, Walkers fight like Infantry. However, any hits scored against them must roll for armour penetration and damage as for a vehicle. Models hitting a Walker in close combat always roll for armour penetration against its front armour unless it has been Immobilised. Against an Immobilised Walker, models always roll for armour penetration against its rear armour. This is because, unlike other vehicles, the Walker turns to face its enemies and rampages through the melee."


Finally, let's look at Hammer of Wrath:

"If a model with this special rule charges a building or vehicle, the hit is resolved against the Armour Value of the facing the charging model is touching."


So let's break this down:


1) Normal CC attacks against vehicles are resolved against their rear arc, to represent the attacking models finding a vulnerable spot on the vehicle.

2) Against walkers, this benefit does not apply, because the walker is able to turn to face its attackers.

3) However, Hammer of Wrath attacks DO NOT automatically count as hitting a standard vehicle's rear armor, logically because these attacks represent impact damage from the charging model and therefore have no possibility of finding a weak spot.

4) When you take point #3 into consideration, it makes no sense to apply the Walker rule to HoW attacks, because these types of attacks already do not benefit from hitting weak spots on the vehicle, and therefore this normal 'penalty' would not be ignored by walkers anymore than if the walker is immobilized that HoW attacks could/should (magically) automatically strike the Walkers rear armor.



So in short: Based on the full evidence of the rules, I believe HoW attacks are always resolved against the facing of the vehicle the charging model is touching, even if that vehicle is a walker.

Can you provide more reasoning for why you're giving #3 more weight than #2?

Fluff/context-wise, why would Hammer of wrath hit the side/rear armour of a model that turns to face it?

If hammer of wrath always hits the side you're in contact with, and the model always turns to face the attacker, then how could you hit any facing other than the front?

Bojazz wrote:
Can you provide more reasoning for why you're giving #3 more weight than #2?

Fluff/context-wise, why would Hammer of wrath hit the side/rear armour of a model that turns to face it?

If hammer of wrath always hits the side you're in contact with, and the model always turns to face the attacker, then how could you hit any facing other than the front?

Again, the reasoning behind CC attacks always hitting a vehicle's rear armor is because attacking models can find a weak spot. On walkers, that penalty is ignored because the walker can turn to face its attackers except when the walker is immobilized, then it is hit on its rear (again representing models attacking the weak spot of the walker).

So in the case of HoW, against normal vehicles, it never hits the 'weak spots' of the vehicle, it just hits the arc of the target that the charging model is actually touching. So if the reasoning for CC attacks to hit the rear armor of a vehicle is because it is hitting 'weak spots' and HoW doesn't do that, then the ability of a walker to turn to face its attacker has no bearing on HoW attacks, because those attacks are never hitting the 'weak spots' of the walker.

Or in other words, it is the same reason it would make no sense for HoW attacks to automatically hit a walker's rear arc when it is immobilized...if that were something HoW could/should do (automatically hit a vehicle's rear arc), it would already do that all the time against normal vehicles.

Okay I think I get your reasoning. You don't believe that Walkers actually turn to face their attackers. You believe that they are just able to turn and be mobile enough to negate the "critical chance" of normal auto attacks, which doesn't work with Hammer of Wrath attacks because since they have no critical chance, there's nothing to negate.

By that line of reasoning it would make sense to choose Hammer of Wrath over Walkers. I can't tell you you're wrong because this is just interpretation of fluff and context, and you're able to provide logical reasoning for your decision.

My personal opinion differs in that I believe the walkers actually turn to face the Hammer of Wrath hits, and so it is not there to negate a "critical effect" but rather to protect the vehicle's vulnerable areas, which would apply to a close combat attack whether it has a critical effect or not.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Hammer of Wrath appears to modify the facing in which its CC Attack is made versus vehicles. Per the Vehicle entry, all CC Attacks are made against the Rear facing. Per the Walker entry, all CC Attacks are made against the Front facing. Per Hammer of Wrath, this type of CC Attack is made against the actual facing the unit is in base contact with. As such, HoW does modify the facing of Vehicles, be they Walkers or not, for its specific CC Attack.

HoW appears to be a hard counter to CC specific targeting restrictions.

SJ

This.

Most CC attacks do not tell you where to distribute the attacks against either a vehicle or a walker. The vehicles rule tells you to resolve all CC attacks against the back armor. The walker rule tells you to resolve all CC attacks against the front armor. However, the HoW rule tells exactly where you are supposed to resolve all HoW attacks: against the side of the vehicle that is in contact with the model and this would override both the vehicle rule and the walker rule for where to distribute the attacks. This differentiates it from normal CC attacks which have no such specifications on where they go, and IMHO should therefore override both the vehicle and walker rules for distribution.

Bojazz wrote:
Okay I think I get your reasoning. You don't believe that Walkers actually turn to face their attackers. You believe that they are just able to turn and be mobile enough to negate the "critical chance" of normal auto attacks, which doesn't work with Hammer of Wrath attacks because since they have no critical chance, there's nothing to negate.

By that line of reasoning it would make sense to choose Hammer of Wrath over Walkers. I can't tell you you're wrong because this is just interpretation of fluff and context, and you're able to provide logical reasoning for your decision.

My personal opinion differs in that I believe the walkers actually turn to face the Hammer of Wrath hits, and so it is not there to negate a "critical effect" but rather to protect the vehicle's vulnerable areas, which would apply to a close combat attack whether it has a critical effect or not.

Since we are talking about context and fluff, etc, obviously your opinion on the matter can't be 'wrong', but please answer me this about your position if you wouldn't mind:


Vehicles normally resolve all damage against their rear armor in CC, yet we intuitively understand that HoW attacks instead target the arc that the charging model is touching, because otherwise that line in the HoW rules would be pointless.

Walkers that are immobilized also resolve all damage against their rear armor in CC, would you still play that HoW attacks against an immobile walker would auto-target their rear armor? If your answer is yes (as I imagine it will be), then how do you resolve that position against how HoW affects normal vehicles? Why would an immobile walker suddenly be MORE vulnerable to HoW attacks than any other vehicle (even other immobile vehicles)? It just doesn't make any logical sense IMHO to try to play that way.

Actually, my answer is no. Fluff/Context-wise, the reason normal cc attacks are resolved against rear armour is because the vehicle they are fighting is not mobile enough to protect it's vulnerable areas. The same would apply to an immobilized walker, since it has lost it's mobility.

As you said earlier, hammer of wrath attacks do not have this inherent ability to target vulnerable locations, they simply smash into the side they charge into. Since the walker is not mobile enough to face the hammer of wrath attack, it is resolved against whichever side they smash into. It wouldn't make sense for the hammer of wrath attack to be made against rear armour in either of our interpretations.

Rules-wise this fits in nicely, since the rule in question (which I interpret to override hammer of wrath) is now disabled, hammer of wrath works normally.

In your interpretation an immobile walker is equally vulnerable to Hammer of Wrath attacks as a mobile walker, which doesn't make logical sense to me since walkers are supposed to be more capable in close combat than regular vehicles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NightHowler wrote:
Most CC attacks do not tell you where to distribute the attacks against either a vehicle or a walker. The vehicles rule tells you to resolve all CC attacks against the back armor. The walker rule tells you to resolve all CC attacks against the front armor. However, the HoW rule tells exactly where you are supposed to resolve all HoW attacks: against the side of the vehicle that is in contact with the model and this would override both the vehicle rule and the walker rule for where to distribute the attacks. This differentiates it from normal CC attacks which have no such specifications on where they go, and IMHO should therefore override both the vehicle and walker rules for distribution.

Again, the exact same logic for that can be applied invsersely.

Normal CC attacks do not have a hit location associated with them
Vehicle rules tell us to hit the rear armour
HoW rules tell us to hit the armour in base contact
However the Walker rules tell you exactly where you are supposed to resolve ALL CC attacks (which includes HoW): against the front armour and this would override both the vehicle rule and the HoW rule for where to distribute the attacks. This differentiates them from normal vehicles which have other specifications on where attacks go.

Both statements are equally true. It's a judgement call.

Bojazz wrote:
Actually, my answer is no. Fluff/Context-wise, the reason normal cc attacks are resolved against rear armour is because the vehicle they are fighting is not mobile enough to protect it's vulnerable areas. The same would apply to an immobilized walker, since it has lost it's mobility.

As you said earlier, hammer of wrath attacks do not have this inherent ability to target vulnerable locations, they simply smash into the side they charge into. Since the walker is not mobile enough to face the hammer of wrath attack, it is resolved against whichever side they smash into. It wouldn't make sense for the hammer of wrath attack to be made against rear armour in either of our interpretations.

Rules-wise this fits in nicely, since the rule in question (which I interpret to override hammer of wrath) is now disabled, hammer of wrath works normally.

In your interpretation an immobile walker is equally vulnerable to Hammer of Wrath attacks as a mobile walker, which doesn't make logical sense to me since walkers are supposed to be more capable in close combat than regular vehicles.

But that…doesn't make any sense!

The walker rules between how they handle attacks between when they are mobile or immobile are essentially identical in their wording! Emphasis mine:

"Models hitting a Walker in close combat always roll for armour penetration against its front armour unless it has been Immobilised. Against an Immobilised Walker, models always roll for armour penetration against its rear armor".


So how can HoW be superseded in the first case when the walker is mobile but suddenly the HoW rules take precedence when the walker is immobile?

If you're going to play that HoW attacks automatically hit the front armor of a walker when it is mobile, then you *have* to play that they auto-hit the walker's rear armor when it is immobile or else you are not applying the rules uniformly.

Hmm... that's a very good point. I was under the assumption that it was just re-iterating the general vehicle rules in the immobilization point. But that is an assumption. I'm going to have to go over the relevant sections again to see if I can find reasoning for this. Of course, this wouldn't be the first time Games Workshop rules didn't make logical sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alright so we've got two separate rules telling us the exact same thing.
Vehicle rules tell us to hit rear armour
Immobilized walkers rules tell us to hit rear armour

My supposition was that Walker rules are favoured as the defender of the contending rules (Hammer of Wrath vs Walkers) as is the tournament standard for resolving unclear rules debates.

Ironically, if this choice is made, then immobilized walkers become WEAKER against Hammer of Wrath (which I did not realize earlier).

From a game design standpoint, I have to change my vote to pick Hammer of Wrath as the favoured rule as it will keep the exact same interaction all game long and will prevent paradoxical interpretation. I have no RAW reasoning for this choice, it is merely what i feel to be the least complicated and more logically consistent option.

Thanks for the debate, yakface!

Taking fluff and content into it, I can understand close combat Attacks finding a vulnerable spot.

But Hammer of Wrath is running into something, an impact hit. In the case of MC's a shoulder barge as they charge in. The impact of a bike...

Can't see that finding a weak spot.

Let me try to put it another way in an attempt to put this argument to bed.

There are only two valid interpretations of how to play here, based on whether you believe the HoW rules are more specific or whether you believe the walker rules are more specific. Let's lay out how those two interpretations actually play:


A) If the Walker rules take precedence (are more specific), then HoW attacks against a non-immobile walker will always hit its front armor, regardless of the attacker's position. However HoW attacks against an immobile walker will always hit its rear armor, regardless of the attacker's position.

B) If the HoW rules take precedence (are more specific), then HoW attacks against a walker (whether it is immobile or not) are always resolved based on the attacker's position.


Now, either interpretation from a RAW position is equally correct. It is not exhaustively clear which rule is more specific than (and therefore overrides) the other. However, if you choose to play with interpretation 'A', it means that a HoW attack against an immobile walker is somehow *more* dangerous than a HoW attack against a standard vehicle, even if that standard vehicle is also immobilized (because against a standard vehicle it is 100% clear that the HoW attacks are still resolved based on the attacker's position, even if the vehicle being hit is immobilized).

As it makes no logical sense for an immobile walker to somehow be *more* vulnerable to a HoW attack than an immobile standard vehicle is, we can logically conclude that option 'B' is the correct way to play.

A doesnt work, because HOW gets broken if you follow it.

B doesnt work because then Walker rules are broken.

Neither is valid.


The correct way to play it is:

You assault the walker, at init. 10 your hammer of wrath attacks go off. They are CC attacks, albeit special ones. All CC attacks hit front armor on walker.

If however, the walker is immobilized, it is counted as a normal vehicle in assault (effectively loosing the part of its walker rule that states CC attacks go to front armor), so you then just follow the HoW special condition and hit the facing your on.


Thats the correct way to do it. People who argue that you "HAVE TO HIT REAR" on immobilized walkers in CC are being too literal with the wording. All immobilized is doing effectively is removing the part of the walker rules that say CC attacks go to the front (and negating its overwatch if you charge from the back or side).

 Eihnlazer wrote:
A doesnt work, because HOW gets broken if you follow it.

B doesnt work because then Walker rules are broken.

Neither is valid.


The correct way to play it is:

You assault the walker, at init. 10 your hammer of wrath attacks go off. They are CC attacks, albeit special ones. All CC attacks hit front armor on walker.

If however, the walker is immobilized, it is counted as a normal vehicle in assault (effectively loosing the part of its walker rule that states CC attacks go to front armor), so you then just follow the HoW special condition and hit the facing your on.


Thats the correct way to do it. People who argue that you "HAVE TO HIT REAR" on immobilized walkers in CC are being too literal with the wording. All immobilized is doing effectively is removing the part of the walker rules that say CC attacks go to the front (and negating its overwatch if you charge from the back or side).

I believe Yakface has already answered that line of thought, in the fact that the Walker rules do not say they are hit in close combat on the rear armor as normal vehicles. It simply states all close combat attacks are resolved on it's rear armor. If you apply the first half of the Walker rule, you must apply the second half also.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
A doesnt work, because HOW gets broken if you follow it.

B doesnt work because then Walker rules are broken.

Neither is valid.


The correct way to play it is:

You assault the walker, at init. 10 your hammer of wrath attacks go off. They are CC attacks, albeit special ones. All CC attacks hit front armor on walker.

If however, the walker is immobilized, it is counted as a normal vehicle in assault (effectively loosing the part of its walker rule that states CC attacks go to front armor), so you then just follow the HoW special condition and hit the facing your on.


Thats the correct way to do it. People who argue that you "HAVE TO HIT REAR" on immobilized walkers in CC are being too literal with the wording. All immobilized is doing effectively is removing the part of the walker rules that say CC attacks go to the front (and negating its overwatch if you charge from the back or side).

I believe Yakface has already answered that line of thought, in the fact that the Walker rules do not say they are hit in close combat on the rear armor as normal vehicles. It simply states all close combat attacks are resolved on it's rear armor. If you apply the first half of the Walker rule, you must apply the second half also.

Yakface's line of reasoning is more of an aside and he admits as much. The real question is what principle do you apply when two advanced rules conflict? Keep in mind that we are not just talking about walkers here, but also chariots. Are we going to look at fluff and common sense to find a reasonable answer for walkers and then look at fluff and common sense to find a separate answer for chariots (and maybe take two totally divergent paths as we sort those out) or are we going to find some principle like "defense over offense" to apply to both of them? Logically, fluff-wise, and commonsensically , a chariot can face a HOW CC attack and so chariot rules seem to always override HOW rules. Chariots cannot be immobilized like walkers can. So as we come up with a general principle to apply to HOW do we give more weight to walker logic or chariot logic?

Let's be crystal clear here. The rules are breaking here. We don't have a clear way forward.

However, I would rather have a general principle to apply to all cases that break in this way (like "defense over offense") than take one isolated example like walkers vs HOW and then use the fluff logic of that particular case as a way to justify HOW vs everything. Why don't we just take chariots vs HOW as the isolated example and apply that to everything?

Also, I already explained at the bottom of the post that its clearly just another badly written by GW thing.

I guess I should mark it HIWPI to be in line with the tennets but its pretty obvious to me at least that you do ignore half of the walker rule when its immobilized.

Hammer of Wrath, as a special rule, has permission to bend or break the general rules of the game, specifically the AV facing in which a HoW attack rolls Pen against. The general rules HoW is bending/breaking?

Vehicle rules for facing hit in CC, including Walkers, Chariots, and Buildings.

SJ

yakface wrote:
There are only two valid interpretations of how to play here, based on whether you believe the HoW rules are more specific or whether you believe the walker rules are more specific.

Disagreed. More specific vs less specific is a fine rule of thumb, but I don't agree that it's set in stone. And in any case I don't believe you can use it here, because it isn't clear which rule is the more specific one - it comes down to point of view.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Hammer of Wrath, as a special rule, has permission to bend or break the general rules of the game, specifically the AV facing in which a HoW attack rolls Pen against. The general rules HoW is bending/breaking?

Vehicle rules for facing hit in CC, including Walkers, Chariots, and Buildings.

SJ

This, however, I agree with completely. I think Special Rules are designed to trump normal rules whenever there's a disagreement. The introductory text in the appendix practically says as much.

tgjensen wrote:

yakface wrote:
There are only two valid interpretations of how to play here, based on whether you believe the HoW rules are more specific or whether you believe the walker rules are more specific.

Disagreed. More specific vs less specific is a fine rule of thumb, but I don't agree that it's set in stone. And in any case I don't believe you can use it here, because it isn't clear which rule is the more specific one - it comes down to point of view.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Hammer of Wrath, as a special rule, has permission to bend or break the general rules of the game, specifically the AV facing in which a HoW attack rolls Pen against. The general rules HoW is bending/breaking?

Vehicle rules for facing hit in CC, including Walkers, Chariots, and Buildings.

SJ

This, however, I agree with completely. I think Special Rules are designed to trump normal rules whenever there's a disagreement. The introductory text in the appendix practically says as much.

This is an interesting line of reasoning.

From the rulebook



Your argument runs thus

Codex rules > Special Rules (e.g. HoW) > Specific Core Rules (e.g. Chariot) > General Core Rules (e.g. Vehicle)

Offhand, I don't see a counter to the BRB endorsement of special rules as trumping any rule that is one of the "main game rules" which would essentially be anything that is in the BRB and not included in the Special Rules appendix.

A few dakka-ites have been exploring BvA for a while (grendel083, JinxDragon, Fragile) and I am wondering what their response is to the argument you have put forward.

Hammer of Wrath is not a CC attack. Case closed.

morgoth wrote:
Hammer of Wrath is not a CC attack. Case closed.

1) Unless I have missed something, there's no such thing as a "close combat attack". There are Attacks, and they are resolved in the Fight sub-phase of the Assault Phase. Hammer of Wrath is an Attack that is resolved in the Fight sub-phase of the Assault Phase.

2) The Walker rule does not specify "close combat attacks", only that

[...] any hits scored against them must roll for armour penetration and damage as for a vehicle. Models hitting a Walker in close combat always roll for armour penetration against its front armour unless it has been Immobilised.

Case re-opened.

The vehicle rules tell you that all CC attacks are directed against the back armor. The walker is a special vehicle and is different in that when you assault a walker all CC attacks are directed against the front armor. Nothing in either of these rules give any indication that they override USRs.

If you argue that the walker rules override all USRs, then you have to also try and argue that vehicle rules do the same. Both arguments are indefensible. USRs override basic rules and the walker rule is a basic rule that governs walkers.

tgjensen wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Hammer of Wrath is not a CC attack. Case closed.

1) Unless I have missed something, there's no such thing as a "close combat attack". There are Attacks, and they are resolved in the Fight sub-phase of the Assault Phase. Hammer of Wrath is an Attack that is resolved in the Fight sub-phase of the Assault Phase.

2) The Walker rule does not specify "close combat attacks", only that

[...] any hits scored against them must roll for armour penetration and damage as for a vehicle. Models hitting a Walker in close combat always roll for armour penetration against its front armour unless it has been Immobilised.

Case re-opened.

Well, if that's the wording, then when a model automatically hits with a HoW attack in close combat, they always roll for armour penetration...

Case closed again, there is no doubt that USR are more specific than the basic rules that govern vehicles or infantry.



Either way, both those rules are terribly bad from an intent standpoint, from the Walker that can face surrounding enemies at all times to the speeding vehicle that gets hit on its rear armor because ninja can place their sword slashes so precisely they hit a sweet spot on any tank passing by at 120Kph.

Luckily, we can expect a v8 in two years that may be a lot better w/ regard to CC and Vehicles.

Let's talk about fluffy. The walker did just turn and face the bikers to fire over watch and then spins back to its original facing to recieve HOW. Then turn again after HOW to take damage from the other CC attacks like it's rules say it does with all of them.

I don't like either rule really. But, walkers are spinning like tops in here, and I think equal wording either way should make logic apply. I tend to lean on side of walkers taking HOW on the nose.

Rule A: cc attacks hit vehicles on rear armor
Rule A, exception 1. Walkers. cc attacks on walkers hit front armor. If immobilized then hits are on rear armor.

Rule B. HoW hits are resolved against whatever side of the vehicle they hit.

I think it is obvious here that HoW wins. Because HoW overides the normal rules for facing armor attacks. The walker rule is just how you handle allocation for walkers in close combat, but HoW is it's own type of charge that has its own rules.

So even if the walker is immobilized, the HoW would still hit the side that was charged, despite the Walker rule saying that cc attacks hit rear armor.

General rules for vehicles are the general rules for vehicles.

HoW is a specific rule for a specific type of attack. That makes it more advanced than the normal rules for following close combat attacks on Walkers.

I have my book out now. I really think the quote in Hammer of Wrath needs more information to make it look like "Vehicles, Walkers, and Chariots." I only say this because in the blurb about transports and passengers it specifies Chariots. If so, then why didn't they specify walkes and chariots in the above section about vehicles and hits against vehicles?

Being a fan of friendly play and making fun house rules, I'd say do a classic roll-off on the matter. If you win, your dreadnought turned in time to incercept the enemy. They win, your dreadnought was too slow. Ta-da, impossible to settle debate settled.

Personally I'd say the dreadnought would win though. Hammer of wrath makes a general statement that applies to vehicles. Walkers THEN say "we're not normal vehicles".

This bit might just be something we do that's not in the rules, but when two units enter melee we turn the models to face each other. A walker, moving like infantry, would also turn. That might just be house fluff rules, but that's what we'd go on.

It would seem though that the debate is able to be settled.

Included in the description of Special Rules is this



It would appear that by definition in the BRB, Special Rules are given permission to trump rules found elsewhere in the main rule book.

Does anyone have a counter to this statement?

I am interested in hearing any counter argument to Special Rules trumping all other rules in the main rule book that are not Special Rules themselves.

That statement is just a definition for Special rules, it has no bearing on the "strength" of the rule for overriding things in this type of situation.

col_impact wrote:
It would seem though that the debate is able to be settled.

Included in the description of Special Rules is this

Spoiler:

Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule.

It would appear that by definition in the BRB, Special Rules are given permission to trump rules found elsewhere in the main rule book.

Does anyone have a counter to this statement?

I am interested in hearing any counter argument to Special Rules trumping all other rules in the main rule book that are not Special Rules themselves.

Yes, a special rule breaks ONE of the main game rules. It breaks one rule: you hit vehicles on the side facing, not the rear. However, there is another separate rule that changes said change: it's a walker, you hit the front.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
That statement is just a definition for Special rules, it has no bearing on the "strength" of the rule for overriding things in this type of situation.

By definition it says

Special Rule > everything else in the main rule book except other Special Rules



That statement alone indicates that a Special Rule can conflict with a main game rule ("break" or "bend" ) and that the Special Rule trumps in that case.

Also, what should be noted, is that the rules recognize a category called Special Rule as opposed to "main game rule" and that HoW would be in the former and walker and chariot rules would be in the latter.

Special rules must trump the other rules otherwise none of them would do anything and there wouldn't be any point having them.

Eternal Warrior USR, for example, negates the effect of doubling out a target's toughness as described in the main rules.

What makes that one tiny bit of the HoW rule different from the rest of the USRs?

Just because a Walker is a sub category of Vehicle doesn't make it immune to the effect of a USR on Vehicles in general.

Indeed. The 'universal special rules' are in a block, with weapon, vehicle, and oher special rules, together in the back of the book, from And They Shall Know No Fear through to Zealot, and they are stated to be allowed to 'break' more general rules. Hammer of Wrath is in that section. Walker isn't.

'Walker' is in the vehicles rules. It's a unit type, and the rules associated with that unit type are part of the normal rules


Narratively, Hammer of Wrath is a non-vehicle version of a Ram. Ramming is resolved against the facing you hit, and I believe walkers still takes the hit on the facing where he's struck.

Walkers fight like infantry.

HoW has information on how to handle assaults against infantry. And nothing about treating infantry as a vehicle.

Walkers have information on how to handle penetration rolls, on front facing of AV.

In the section of HoW and vehicles they did not specify walkers and chariots but felt in the section about transports and How felt they had to specify chariots.. Why?

HoW is a CC attack resolved at I10.

Vehicles take CC on rear AV to represent hitting weak spots on vehicle.

HoW has an exception to its CC to represent hitting the facing they are in B2B with.

Walkers and chariots are both agile enough to turn to face units with HoW so they can fire over watch.

Many in this thread are suggesting, that the way the rules are intended to be interpreted, is for the walker or chariot, that just fired over watch, to now turn and expose it's rear AV for HoW, before turning again to face attacks in CC.

The problem I have is there seems to be no fault with USR. Walkers clearly are treated like infantry and HoW covers that.

My 2 cents:

HoW: "If a model with this special rule charges a building or vehicle, the hit is resolved against the Armour Value of the facing the charging model is touching."

If the Walker is on a Base, he gets to "always roll for armour penetration against its front armour unless it has been Immobilised", because you cannot "touch the facing" of said target vehicle.

HoW V Defilers will be hard to argue that the HoW rule doesn't take precedence. Walkers are vehicles, whatever Rules they use as other Types say.

walker is a vehicle.type, but is still a vehicle. The.walker rules may be more specific than the.general vehi le.rules, but walker is not a special or advanced.rule.

HoW is a advanced rule.by.virtue of being a special.rule.

HoW specifies how it affects vehicles, as an advanced rule this takes precedence over basic rules such as.vehicles, or the.specific yet still basic rules for walkers.

...which seems to suggest that HoW will punch the Walker in the face, if that is the facing of the Walker IRT the HoW-possessing model. If you, say, podded into the rear of the enemy line and then assaulted the rear of the Walker-containing unit, then you could punch it in the butt against rear AV... but getting those conditions to be in place seems like it would be awful difficult.

I agree.

close to nothing can assault on the turn it arrives by deepstrike, so the chances you can actually pull off a rear hammer of wrath attack are low, it would involve tying the unit up you wish to HOW and having openings around its rear, then having things that can actually assault with HoW into its rear....

im going to stop now

Blaktoff,
How does the book define an Advanced Rule?

JinxDragon wrote:
Blaktoff,
How does the book define an Advanced Rule?

Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule.

vehicle(walker) is a main rule, as it is in the core rules.

HoW is a special rule, which is not a main rule.

as above it bends the main rule.

Regardless of the Advanced vs Basic or BRB vs Codex, HoW seems pretty explicit in its wording on how to handle it vs a Walker.

If your HoW-possessing unit assaults a unit that is/contains a Walker, you will strike against the AV of whatever facing of the Walker you are in. This will, likely, be the front facing. This is because this is how HoW tells us to resolve its attacks.

You don't suddenly get to ignore this bit of its rules and auto-hit against the rear AV without getting your units into B2B against the rear facing of the model. Now, if you have an entire unit of HoW models against one single big Walker or something, and manage to surround it, then, yeah, a lot of hits are going to be against the rear AV... but not all of them.

Otherwise, you're not handling HoW correctly.

In a challenge, the HOW attack is allocated to the challenge even if the impact hit was from a different model right? All that matters is initiative order.

So I would say that when it is time to hit at initiative 10, the walker has already turned to face front armor.

blaktoof wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Blaktoff,
How does the book define an Advanced Rule?

Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule.

vehicle(walker) is a main rule, as it is in the core rules.

HoW is a special rule, which is not a main rule.

as above it bends the main rule.

That's the definition of a Special rule, not an Advanced rule.

"Advanced rules apply to specific types of models"

A Walker is a Specific type of Vehicle. We're dealing with 2 Advanced rules.

 Psienesis wrote:
Regardless of the Advanced vs Basic or BRB vs Codex, HoW seems pretty explicit in its wording on how to handle it vs a Walker.

Explicit?
"stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt."

So the rule actually says "Agaist Walkers do the following..."?
If not then it is not explicit. And this debate wouldn't be happening.

Yeah, it's explicit.

HoW either hits the model (Infantry) on whatever facing it has against its regular Armor Save. This is if your HoW guy HoW-punches some infantry.

Or, as HoW tells us, if your HoW guy rolls up on a vehicle, it HoW-punches the vehicle on whatever facing it's on.

Is the Walker a Vehicle?

Yes. Then the HoW hits on the facing of the Walker that the HoW-possessing model is on. This is probably going to be in the face, unless your Walker turned around for some reason.

 grendel083 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Blaktoff,
How does the book define an Advanced Rule?

Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule.

vehicle(walker) is a main rule, as it is in the core rules.

HoW is a special rule, which is not a main rule.

as above it bends the main rule.

That's the definition of a Special rule, not an Advanced rule.

"Advanced rules apply to specific types of models"

A Walker is a Specific type of Vehicle. We're dealing with 2 Advanced rules.

 Psienesis wrote:
Regardless of the Advanced vs Basic or BRB vs Codex, HoW seems pretty explicit in its wording on how to handle it vs a Walker.

Explicit?
"stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt."

So the rule actually says "Agaist Walkers do the following..."?
If not then it is not explicit. And this debate wouldn't be happening.

actually vehicles, and walkers are main rules, and special rules trump main rules as per the beginning of the section on special rules.

therefore100% RAW HoW resolves against facing of vehicle, regardless of vehicle type. If the vehicle itself had a special rule, which walker is not, then there would be a discussion.

all of the rules are core rules until you hit the appendix of the book which has special rules, wargear, weapons, psychic powers. and if those each explicitly call out they do something , it bends the main rules.

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah, it's explicit.

HoW either hits the model (Infantry) on whatever facing it has against its regular Armor Save. This is if your HoW guy HoW-punches some infantry.

Or, as HoW tells us, if your HoW guy rolls up on a vehicle, it HoW-punches the vehicle on whatever facing it's on.

Is the Walker a Vehicle?

Yes. Then the HoW hits on the facing of the Walker that the HoW-possessing model is on. This is probably going to be in the face, unless your Walker turned around for some reason.

Then I can attack your Walker on the rear armor in close combat because its a vehicle right?

close combat isnt a special rule, but if there was a special rule close combat attack that said it hit vehicles on the facing closest to the model making xxx attack, then yes 100% you could.

Fragile wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah, it's explicit.

HoW either hits the model (Infantry) on whatever facing it has against its regular Armor Save. This is if your HoW guy HoW-punches some infantry.

Or, as HoW tells us, if your HoW guy rolls up on a vehicle, it HoW-punches the vehicle on whatever facing it's on.

Is the Walker a Vehicle?

Yes. Then the HoW hits on the facing of the Walker that the HoW-possessing model is on. This is probably going to be in the face, unless your Walker turned around for some reason.

Then I can attack your Walker on the rear armor in close combat because its a vehicle right?

No, because that is not how HoW is resolved. Please quote a rule that tells us to ignore the stricture of HoW that directs us to apply the hit against the facing that we are in.

ETA: Also, another argument I have heard on this (but do not necessarily agree with) is that it also does not auto-hit the rear armor, because this is a HoW attack... not a CC attack.

Blaktoff,
Where does it state that we Resolve Special Rules above Advanced Rules?

What you have posted simply informs me there will be Rules which bend the rules, it does not inform us how to go about resolving any conflicts that might occur from applying Rules that are found within this Group. Those instructions are found much further back in the book, in Basic Vs Advanced. It is a terrible system if you ask me, but it doesn't change that this is the only set of Rule as Written instructions telling us how to determine which Rule is allowed to proceed in situations where we will break one by applying the other and it does not inform us that Special Rules can trump Unit Types.

There is something else I would like to bring to your attention:
unusual skills (such as the ability to regenerate)
and
special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun)
- Basic Vs Advanced

Not only does Basic vs Advance tell us how to resolve these situations, something your quote is lacking, it informs us that ability granted by Special Rules are only 'Advanced.'

PS:
If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence.
- Example used in Basic vs Advanced, showing that Special Rule are only Advanced....

Agreed that Special Rules are only Advanced rules and so you can't use Basic vs Advanced as an argument here.

However, the blurb in the beginning of the Special Rules appendix does not specify that Special Rules only bend or break Basic rules; it seems to be a catch-all term to specify that Special Rules can break ALL of the main rules.

That said, it's a circumstantial argument. It's an introductory text, not a specified ruling. However, the intent seems clear to me and on the balance, I would say the arguments are stronger for letting the Special rule trump the main rule.

So I'll ask this: Are there any examples to counter this interpretation? Are there any instances where an Advanced rule from the main rules section trumps a Special rule?

tgjensen wrote:
So I'll ask this: Are there any examples to counter this interpretation? Are there any instances where an Advanced rule from the main rules section trumps a Special rule?

"Unstoppable" (Guargantuan Creatures) trumps Instant Death, Sniper and poisoned.

"Heavy" (Vehicle type) Trumps Jink.

Heavy vehicles are just specified to not have Jink, that's not really 'trumping'.

But fair point on Gargantuan Creatures, though I feel like it's a bit of a different case when the rule specifically states how the effect of specific Special rules are modified

tgjensen wrote:
Heavy vehicles are just specified to not have Jink, that's not really 'trumping'.

Good point, I'll replace that with "Monstrous Creature - Shooting" trumps "Pinning".

But fair point on Gargantuan Creatures, though I feel like it's a bit of a different case when the rule specifically states how the effect of specific Special rules are modified

That's the whole point. If Special rules always trump Advanced, then it wouldn't matter if the Advanced rule specified it effects it, as the Special rule would then trump it.

Poison would trump Unstoppable, and cause the Gargantuan creature to be wounded on a 4+, despite what the Advanced rule says.


Edit: let's look at it the other way round. Is there an example of a Special Rule trumping an Advanced rule, and where this is the case, is this because it specifies that it effects that rule?

For example: "Skyfire" trumps "Zooming" - and specifies that this is the case.

Unsure of intent.
Neither one is particular more specific, least not obviously. HoW attacks are resolved against a specific armor facing against vehicles (irrelevant of the vehicle rules). But a walker is a specific type of vehicle. Does 'Vehicle' under HoW include the sub types?

To be fair I would lean HoW resolved as in its entry, based on the word 'vehicle' to usually mean 'vehicle or any subset vehicle'. In much the same way subset's of any other unit type are included in those generalized banners, like those examples I can't think of right now.

 Nem wrote:
Unsure of intent.
Neither one is particular more specific, least not obviously. HoW attacks are resolved against a specific armor facing against vehicles (irrelevant of the vehicle rules). But a walker is a specific type of vehicle. Does 'Vehicle' under HoW include the sub types?

Agreed.

We have two Advanced rules.
Both alter the facing of a CC Attack.

One might be a Special rule, but there is no evidence to show that Special Rules carry more weight than Advanced rules. Special rules are Advanced rules, and the rules seem to treat them no differently.

To be fair I would lean HoW resolved as in its entry, based on the word 'vehicle' to usually mean 'vehicle or any subset vehicle'. In much the same way subset's of any other unit type are included in those generalized banners, like those examples I can't think of right now.

That's fair enough.
Personally I see the rules as carrying equal weight.

It's the Overwatch interaction that does it for me. If the Walker can effectively turn to face the target to fire Overwatch, it wouldn't turn back again to receive the ram. Totally fluff, but I feel it's justification for two equal rules.

The Specific > General argument seems to get people confused. It is not a rule or a statement, it is a method of interpreting how rules and statements interact. In this case, we have the rule found under Vehicles, and more rules found under Vehicles (subtype: Walker), in which are detailed to rules for determining which Facing Armor Value is used for Close Combat attacks (I.e., Rear facing for Vehicles, Front facing for non-immobile Walkers). We also have the Special Rule "Hammer of Wrath", which follows the statement for Special Rukes bending or breaking the main rules of the book, as well as its own rule that tells us to just hit the Facing we are in base to base contact with.

When parsing out the interaction between the Special Rule, the main rules for Vehicles, and the more specific rules for Vehicle (subtype: Walker), the Soecial Rule "Hammer of Wrath" has permission to bypass the Facing rules for Vehicles (which includes Subtype: Walkers). This permission occurs because the Special Rule tells us how it interacts with Vehicles, while the Vehicles do not include any language informing us that all units in CC must hit a specific Facing "even if model may hit a different Facing using rules on its profile" (such as found on units like Monstrous and Gargantuan Creatures). If it did, then its specific exceptions would override the Special Rule's permission to bypass the rules for Vehicles.

In any case of Specific > General, you have to look for exceptions > permissions.

SJ

 grendel083 wrote:

tgjensen wrote:
Heavy vehicles are just specified to not have Jink, that's not really 'trumping'.

Good point, I'll replace that with "Monstrous Creature - Shooting" trumps "Pinning".

That's a really good point. I don't think a lot of people would interpret Pinning to overrule MCs' inability to Go to Ground.That kind of ruins the rules hierarchy I was trying to construct. Back to the drawing board...

Not that it's either here or there, but BAO/LVO plays that HoW hits the assaulted facing not front on walkers.

 Lobukia wrote:
Not that it's either here or there, but BAO/LVO plays that HoW hits the assaulted facing not front on walkers.

That's because BAO/LVO ruled correctly.

SJ

Lets just face it. The Walker rules are really bad. A superheavy walker surrounded by dread knights has dread knights attacking from the rear hitting front facing. It's incredibly poor ruling. They should have made walker rules in CC simple. The controller of the walker should be able to control which way the walker is facing after all moves have been made. After the turn facing is made all attacks should be made against the relative facing of the walker. My opinion of the as worded rules for walkers overrule HOW.

Actually, if they just kept all "moves as Infantry" units on round bases, there would be no issues. Oval bases create a facing bias, which becomes inconsistent as more and more rules referencing facing are applied to vehicle "infantry".

SJ

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets just face it. The Walker rules are really bad. A superheavy walker surrounded by dread knights has dread knights attacking from the rear hitting front facing. It's incredibly poor ruling. They should have made walker rules in CC simple. The controller of the walker should be able to control which way the walker is facing after all moves have been made. After the turn facing is made all attacks should be made against the relative facing of the walker. My opinion of the as worded rules for walkers overrule HOW.

How does that overrule HoW since, in your example, anyone standing behind the Walker is going to be hitting on the rear armor...exactly in the manner HoW tells us to resolve the hits?

No rulebook near me ATM, is it true that walkers can pivot to fire overwatch?

If that's so then the walker would in most cases be receiving the charge on its front facing...unless it was charged by multiple hammer-of-wrath causing hits....oh the insanity.

Walkers can fire overwatch even if the unit charging is not in it's current facing unless it is immobilized.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets just face it. The Walker rules are really bad. A superheavy walker surrounded by dread knights has dread knights attacking from the rear hitting front facing. It's incredibly poor ruling. They should have made walker rules in CC simple. The controller of the walker should be able to control which way the walker is facing after all moves have been made. After the turn facing is made all attacks should be made against the relative facing of the walker. My opinion of the as worded rules for walkers overrule HOW.

How does that overrule HoW since, in your example, anyone standing behind the Walker is going to be hitting on the rear armor...exactly in the manner HoW tells us to resolve the hits?

I was just stating my opinion on how the rule should have been made for walkers. Right now walkers are literally able to face every direction at all times and that is beyond stupid. However my interpretation of the as worded rules is that walkers take all CC hits on front armor, even when surrounded seems to overrule HoW. To me this is a rule that states "ignore everything to do with armor facing when walkers are in CC." I think the intent of HoW wording was to actually reduce it's effectiveness against vehicles not increase it as vehicles have weaker rear armor almost in every case and CC attacks ordinarily always hit rear facing, HoW does not.

I agree with your last point there, though in the specific case of Walkers, I think it's going to be a bit of both, given how fairly-specifically the rule for HoW is written, mainly because we have such a mess of a confluence of rules going on here.

On one side, we have the "all CC attacks hit vehicles on the rear armor" rule in effect, about as basic and general as it gets.

On another we have "... unless they're Walkers, in which case they take it in the face". Which is fairly specific, though presents issues when dealing with multiple attackers.

And on the third we have "Unless you are Hammer of Wrathing (it's a word), in which case you hit whatever side you're standing on"

So, in a fictional scenario where we have two boxy Rhinos and a Walker being attacked by a blob of infantry, some of which have HoW attacks...

All the non-HoW Infantry hit the Rhinos in the Rear Armor, regardless of facing.

All the non-HoW Infantry hit the Walker in the face, as its chicken-dancing around, spinning in place at high speeds or whatever.

All the HoW attacks land against whatever facing of either the Rhinos or the Walker they're in, based on how the models sit on the table... any additional, non-HoW CC attacks from these models will hit either the Rear Armor (vs Rhinos) or the Front (vs Walker), mainly because this rule is pretty specific, in that it is providing us with a clear and specific "you hit that Armor right there in front of you" instructions.

I want to bring up this interpretation again.

For all those in favor of the Walker talking HoW hits on front armor regardless of facing, you would also have to agree that if the walker is immobilized, all HoW hits go against rear armor.

Because in the Walker Rules, it specifically says that if the walker is immobilized, all attacks go against rear armor.

And as was argued, people are saying the walker rule is more specific than the HoW rule.

 Icculus wrote:
I want to bring up this interpretation again.

For all those in favor of the Walker talking HoW hits on front armor regardless of facing, you would also have to agree that if the walker is immobilized, all HoW hits go against rear armor.

Because in the Walker Rules, it specifically says that if the walker is immobilized, all attacks go against rear armor.

And as was argued, people are saying the walker rule is more specific than the HoW rule.

I hadn't thought of that. Good point.

 Icculus wrote:
I want to bring up this interpretation again.

For all those in favor of the Walker talking HoW hits on front armor regardless of facing, you would also have to agree that if the walker is immobilized, all HoW hits go against rear armor.

Because in the Walker Rules, it specifically says that if the walker is immobilized, all attacks go against rear armor.

And as was argued, people are saying the walker rule is more specific than the HoW rule.

I'd have no problem with that.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Icculus wrote:
I want to bring up this interpretation again.

For all those in favor of the Walker talking HoW hits on front armor regardless of facing, you would also have to agree that if the walker is immobilized, all HoW hits go against rear armor.

Because in the Walker Rules, it specifically says that if the walker is immobilized, all attacks go against rear armor.

And as was argued, people are saying the walker rule is more specific than the HoW rule.

I'd have no problem with that.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

But then doesn't that go against what HoW is all about? HoW always goes against facing armor because it's just a blunt attack and doesn't really target any weakness. So why should the immobilized walker get hit with HoW against rear armor?

 Icculus wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Icculus wrote:
I want to bring up this interpretation again.

For all those in favor of the Walker talking HoW hits on front armor regardless of facing, you would also have to agree that if the walker is immobilized, all HoW hits go against rear armor.

Because in the Walker Rules, it specifically says that if the walker is immobilized, all attacks go against rear armor.

And as was argued, people are saying the walker rule is more specific than the HoW rule.

I'd have no problem with that.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

But then doesn't that go against what HoW is all about? HoW always goes against facing armor because it's just a blunt attack and doesn't really target any weakness. So why should the immobilized walker get hit with HoW against rear armor?

There's no way to be consistent and have everything make sense.

If you think HoW takes presidence, the walker turns to face the target to Overwatch, turns back to get rammed, the faces it again to fight. Makes no sense. It is consistent with the rules though.

Ramming the front of a immobilised walker and hitting the rear doesn't make much sense either, but again is consistent. But you can use the same justification of a rhino being hit in the front and penning the rear - it's a strike to a vulnerable spot.

 Icculus wrote:
I want to bring up this interpretation again.

For all those in favor of the Walker talking HoW hits on front armor regardless of facing, you would also have to agree that if the walker is immobilized, all HoW hits go against rear armor.

Because in the Walker Rules, it specifically says that if the walker is immobilized, all attacks go against rear armor.

And as was argued, people are saying the walker rule is more specific than the HoW rule.

I feel this is exactly how it should be played. If it is immobilized it would go against the rear even if HoW says to hit the front.

If you think HoW takes presidence, the walker turns to face the target to Overwatch, turns back to get rammed, the faces it again to fight. Makes no sense. It is consistent with the rules though.

Ramming the front of a immobilized walker and hitting the rear doesn't make much sense either, but again is consistent. But you can use the same justification of a rhino being hit in the front and penning the rear - it's a strike to a vulnerable spot.

I just see it as the immobilized walker has collapsed on the ground so yeah its going to take more damage from a charge. But Im sure you can fluff anything up to appear right.

Overwatch is a bad example to use to describe how unrealistic HoW is versus Walkers, when Overwatch is horribly misplaced in the current timing of the game. However, if one must, it can be viewed that when a Walker "pivots" to Overwatch, it is firing at an extreme angle and therefore is actually firing out of its side axis, to the point of over-extending to hit enemy units behind it. It's a Snap Shot, after all.

SJ

 grendel083 wrote:

 Icculus wrote:
I want to bring up this interpretation again.

For all those in favor of the Walker talking HoW hits on front armor regardless of facing, you would also have to agree that if the walker is immobilized, all HoW hits go against rear armor.

Because in the Walker Rules, it specifically says that if the walker is immobilized, all attacks go against rear armor.

And as was argued, people are saying the walker rule is more specific than the HoW rule.

I'd have no problem with that.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

Agreed - I believe this is the intent of the ruling.