Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Opinions please....

The swooping hawk exarch power "intercept" reads...

"The exarch and his squad are so skilled at aerial combat that they can disable even speeding enemy skimmers. In assaults, they never require worse than 4+ to hit a vehicle"

That is the power explanation in its entirety. My question is this...

Does this 4+ override the rule that states to place a grenade on a dread in close combat that 6's are required to hit. I know that the intention of the rule was to allow the easier hitting of vehicles, but does this apply to something actively fighting back?

Opinions wanted...

I don't have the book, but if that's really the entire rule, that sounds legit. The rulebook is ok with it, as long as the rule you quoted from the codex is the entire rule.

It says vehichles period. If it where mentioning skimmers only then, it would just be skimmers only. Instead it just says Vehichles, so I say walkers fall in that range as well.

That was the exact wording from the codex.

Others have been giving the opinion that since walkers are treated differently in close combat, the rule would not apply to attacking walkers. In the rulebook it says that in an assault, walkers are treated as infantry. Does that classification trump the rule?

Poisonrogue, just because they fight like infantry doesn't make them not vehicles. For a moment your opponents' arguments seemed reasonable, but this is really no different from preferred enemy. You hit on an unmodifiable dice roll. The walker is a vehicle. It fights as infantry. Fine, so typically you'd hit it on a whatever it is you'd hit it on. But whatever you hit on will never be worse than a 4+. Period. We have broken no rule.

Walkers are hit with grenades on a 4+ by swooping hawks with intercept. It works.

As I understand the rule (along with the GW staff) it only works against vehicles that do not have a WS eg Landraiders, Predators etc. If the vehicle has a WS eg Talos or Drednought then normal HtH rules apply.

Galderon, what, in the text provided by poisonrogue, says that the skill does not apply to vehicles with a weapon skill?

Here is the wording from the codex..

"The exarch and his squad are so skilled at aerial combat that they can disable even speeding enemy skimmers. In assaults, they never require worse than 4+ to hit a vehicle"

Skimmers that are not immobilsed require a 6+ to hit regardless of how far they moved, vehicles that move 6" or less require 4+ to hit, pg 71. Which is where the advantage of Intercept comes in in that they will hit a vehicle on 4+ regardless of how fast that vehicle moves.

Vehicles with a WS (Walkers and Drednoughts etc) while they are vehicles count as infantry once engaged in HtH ,pg 72, so Intercept is of no advantage as the models are engaged/locked in HtH and the HtH rules take over.

So, is this the elusive intent monster rearing its' ugly head again? If GW intended it to work that way, it would have been a very easy one liner to interject-does not work if in assault with a vehicle with a weapon skill.

Time will tell if GW addresses this.

Okay, been looking closely at this one and it looks to me like a straight up contradiction.  I know people hate that answer, but it appears that there is no way to determine the answer from the rules as written.

Intercept rule: "In assaults they never require worse than 4+ to hit a vehicle."

A walker is a type of vehicle (p 60), so the intercept rule also logically says "In assaults they (swooping hawks with intercept) never require worse than 4+ to hit a walker."

And then, further, a grenade attack is a type of assault that takes place against vehicles, which leaves this rule:

1. In grenade attacks, swooping hawks (with intercept) never require worse than 4+ to hit a walker.

The rule Galderon cites  from page 72 isn't relevant.  "Walkers fight in an assault in the same way as infantry." (72)  This interacts fine with the Intercept rule and tells us that intercept hawks never need a 5 to hit a walker in ordinary WS-based close combat.

The rule that matters is the grenade rule.  You don't use haywire grenades in an assault with infantry, so it is impossible to use a haywire against a walker "in the same way as infantry."  The only rule that says how to use a grenade against a walker is this one: "A model will only manage to score a hit with a grenade against a walker on a roll of 6." (72)

A swooping hawk is a type of model, so the grenade rule also logically says

2. "A swooping hawk will only manage to score a hit with a grenade against a walker on a roll of 6."

So that leaves us with these two contradictory rules:

1. In grenade attacks, swooping hawks (with intercept) never require worse than 4+ to hit a walker.
2. A swooping hawk will only manage to score a hit with a grenade against a walker on a roll of 6

Both rules are equally specific, so there's no way to do a "specific overrides general" thing to figure a way out.  It's a straight up, unsolvable contradiction.

 

I find the swooping hawk rule more specific than the grenade rule.

The rule with grenades applies to any model, whereas the swooping hawks have a special rule that just applies to them.

The other side of your argument, Skyth, would be that the rule with grenades applies to any *walker,* which is more specific than the hawk rule that applies to the more general category of *vehicle.*

That's the central problem with trying to say one rule is more specific than the other. Both rules have a more general category and a more specific category:
1. hawks (specific) attacking a vehicle (general)
2. models(general) attacking a walker (specific)

So they sort of cancel out.

Damnit, Tom. I think you're right.

Wow. A true question for a FAQ. Daddy needs to tell us how to play this.

Posted By Flavius Infernus on 10/28/2006 9:24 AM
The other side of your argument, Skyth, would be that the rule with grenades applies to any *walker,* which is more specific than the hawk rule that applies to the more general category of *vehicle.*

That's the central problem with trying to say one rule is more specific than the other. Both rules have a more general category and a more specific category:
1. hawks (specific) attacking a vehicle (general)
2. models(general) attacking a walker (specific)

So they sort of cancel out.

You have a point there.  I hadn't considered that.

Thanks for explaining things better for me

Not to hijack this thread, but skimmers moving fast can only be glanced even in assault right?

Yes.

Posted By logan007 on 10/28/2006 12:04 PM
Not to hijack this thread, but skimmers moving fast can only be glanced even in assault right?

Correct.

But Intercept will give Hawks more opportunities to cause Glancing Hits.

What about with haywire grenades?

Glancing only.

Keep in mind that GW had to have had grenades specifically in mind when making the intercept rules for the hawks. I say this because there is no way to get a hawk over strength 3, so it would be impossible for them to take out a vehicle in any other fashion except grenades. maybe this will clarify the arguement more, though more likely it will create more problems...

Tom, I follow your logic, but I think it's worth considering the use of a hierarchy of specificity. Something like General Rule < Subcategory Rule < Specific Unit or Wargear Rule.

Assaulting Vehicles is a broad category, and assaulting Walkers is more specific, but the rule for the individual unit (Swooping Hawks) which applies to assaulting vehicles is even more specific. At least that's how I see it.

Similar to how the rules for Smoke Launchers take precedence over the rules for an Obscured Target, which in turn take precedence over the general rules for penetrating vehicle armor.

If the hawk rule even mentioned grenades, Ragnar, I'd agree with you that it is more specific. But I can't see either trumping the other as they are written.

C'mon, let's get real here. If some fairy boy in with a pair of metal wings came up and was like "Hold up while I put this grenade on you, boss" I would be like "WTF noob" and scythe him in half with my DCCW. Pizzow.

Hawks is still a specific unit in a specific codex, with an even more specific special rule. Walkers are indeed a more specific classification than "vehicle," but that doesn't matter because they are still a general BGB game rule. I think it's quite clear which is more specific in this case.

Since the wording is "worse than" I would say than yes you can hit a walker on a 4+, as the only two rolls you need to hit vehicles are a 6 or 4. You could hit an immobilized walker on a 3+.

OMFZ!!!1!1Eleventyone!11!! Joo got the hawks! They are the borken! I will trade joo the ass canns for them! OMFZ1!! Poisonroque!!1!

Sorry, it had to be said by someone.

I cant wait for the discussion about thunderhammers and dreadnoughts now.

Posted By Flavius Infernus on 10/28/2006 5:04 PM
If the hawk rule even mentioned grenades, Ragnar, I'd agree with you that it is more specific. But I can't see either trumping the other as they are written.

I think you can legitimately make a case that they they HAVE to be talking about grenades.  Since, as Poisonrogue pointed out, grenades are the only way they can even hurt a Walker in assault.

Okay, just my 1.864 cents worth...

My basic understanding is that any Codex or Chapter Approved rule specifically superceeds any rule from the rulebook with which it might come in conflict (that's the whole point of having special rules for special units/powers/wargear for specific armies, right?). With that basic understanding, the Exarch power means that Hawks always need no worse that 4+ to hit any vehicle in assault, no matter what other considerations there may be.

Now I also know that GW has been notorious in the past for creating paradoxical rules, but in this instance I really don't see a conflict here any more than I would if someone questioned something more obvious like "Avatar is immune to melta but the rulebook says this weapon wounds x toughness on a roll of x+" (I know that's a bad analogy but hopefully you get the idea).

I would just take it as read. The thing about skimmers just illustrates the amazing dexterity it confers the unit versus vehicles. Granted a dreadnaught can fight back in hth, but then a dreadnaught isn't moving at the fantastic speeds of a full-out Falcon either! Which would be harder to do: Land a haywire grenade close enough to a dreadnaught trying to land a punch, or on a Falcon skimming 24" in a turn? (What would that be? like 150 mile an hour or something? Dang fast at any rate.)

Feel free to opine, bloviate or otherwise tell me I'm fulla poo!

swooping hawks! come one, come all, come see the glorious tzeentch dreadnought!

awesome close combat attacks with an AP4...can't wait.