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.

its worth noting that super heavy walkers cannot fire overwatch...

Eihnlazer wrote:
I would put forth, that I think fearless models "should" be allowed to charge vehicles they cant hurt, but that would be the only exception.

Not really as it gets a bit silly. The Knight is a 3 story tall 100 ton engine of destruction. My ripper swarms are fearless swarms of claws and teeth.

I love my Nids, but honestly I would not expect the Knight pilot to do more than turn on the windshield wipers if I charged him with 9 stands of rippers. If they can't hurt it then the pilot would ignore it.

Now 3 genestealers climbing up your hull? Then you stop to get those things off before they get inside! =)

blaktoof wrote:
its worth noting that super heavy walkers cannot fire overwatch...

retracted.

serves me right for going off memory

 nutty_nutter wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
its worth noting that super heavy walkers cannot fire overwatch...

it's worth noting this isn't true in any way.

since you know....walkers have permission to shoot overwatch...and super heavy walkers follow the rules for walkers.

thanks for playing

you should look under the movement and shooting rules for super heavy walkers.

Which the knight is.

Super-heavy Walkers can move 12" in the Movement phase unless specified otherwise.
Apart from this, they obey the movement rules for Walkers. In addition, Super-heavy
Walkers cannot fire Overwatch

thanks for playing

I enjoyed played good sir.

but considering their main weapons are all blasts which cannot be fired as overwatch at best you would see 1-2 stubber hits at str4 ap 6 if they have overwatch anyways.

I thought the Imperial Knights weren't going to be classified as super heavies.

They are super heavy walkers according to the WD that has their rules.

All of that does not change the fact that if you are not treating them like infantry when assaulting you are not observing a rule.

Also none of the specific exceptions determine that units in base contact with a walker are locked in combat despite the specific rule stating that the walker is. Going solely off those creates broken assault situations.

That aside any number of specific permissions can be given but that does not change the over all rule 'walkers assault and are assaulted just like infantry'. It is a rule and it must be observed. Treating them just like infantry for these purposes means that if you could charge them as an infantry model you can charge them period.

'Just like infantry'. If you really stop and let those words sink in you'll realize that this means if you have an assault option that can be used vs infantry it can be used vs walkers. Otherwise you are not treating it 'just like infantry' but are in fact treating it some other way. Perhaps like a vehicle... but you are not told to treat it 'like a infantry-vehicle' you are told to treat it 'just like infantry'. In other words act as if you were assaulting infantry. In fact for all intents and purposes as far as rules are concerned, you are assaulting infantry. 'Just like' means it is 'exactly the same as' and no different.

As to the notion that this 'infantry' unit has a rule that does not allow the charge, that is still not quite right. There is a rule that prevents a vehicle from being charged and for purposes of charging it is, per the rule, just like infantry... and infantry is not a vehicle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It comes down to the wording used.

1. When Z is in effect, X is just like Y. -This means X is exactly the same as Y under condition Z.

2. When Z is in effect, X is treated as Y. -This means more or less the same except X retains its original state as X and only the mechanics around it are changed under condition Z.

3. When Z is in effect, X counts as Y. -This means X is acted upon and proceeded with as if it were both X and Y under condition Z.

In any of these cases X is Y for all rules purposes but in each case X is adjusted slightly differently. You are using #2 one when the book indicates #1.

Walkers(X) are just like (exactly the same as) infantry(Y) when assaulting or being assaulted (condition Z).

And still have the restriction of being a vehicle in which you can not assault if you can not hurt.

So while it is assaulted like it is infantry, you still can not assault it if you can not hurt it because it is still a vehicle and you can not assault a vehicle you can not hurt, even one that is assaulted like infantry.

Assaulting it like just like infantry necessarily entails no other consideration in that regard. For all rules purposes you are not assaulting a vehicle, you are assaulting infantry and proceed as such. That is the only way to assault it just like infantry... It is exactly the same as assaulting infantry. No if, ands or buts about it. Otherwise you are doing something other than considering it 'just like infantry'.

The fact that it is a vehicle is of no consequence because you are not assaulting a vehicle as far as the rules are concerned. Why would you apply a rule restricting assaults on vehicles when you are assaulting infantry? If you are truly assaulting it just like it is infantry why are you taking vehicle rules into consideration?

 Abandon wrote:
Assaulting it like just like infantry necessarily entails no other consideration in that regard.

False.

It is still a vehicle, and you must take all rules into account. It doe not count as infantry for assaulting, if it did you would have a point, but that is not what it says so you do not.

For all rules purposes you are not assaulting a vehicle, you are assaulting infantry and proceed as such.

False, see the counts as point above.

That is the only way to assault it just like infantry... It is exactly the same as assaulting infantry. No if, ands or buts about it. Otherwise you are doing something other than considering it 'just like infantry'.

Re-read the rule because it does not say what you think it says.

Nothing taes away vehicle status.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It doe not count as infantry for assaulting, if it did you would have a point, but that is not what it says so you do not.

The BRB directly disagrees with you. "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models" -first line of the Walkers and Assaults section, page 84.

 DeathReaper wrote:

That is the only way to assault it just like infantry... It is exactly the same as assaulting infantry. No if, ands or buts about it. Otherwise you are doing something other than considering it 'just like infantry'.

Re-read the rule because it does not say what you think it says.

Nothing taes away vehicle status.

So... you disagree with what is stated in the BRB? That it is treated 'just like infantry'?

 DeathReaper wrote:

The fact that it is a vehicle is of no consequence because you are not assaulting a vehicle as far as the rules are concerned. Why would you apply a rule restricting assaults on vehicles when you are assaulting infantry? If you are truly assaulting it just like it is infantry why are you taking vehicle rules into consideration?

False, you are assaulting a vehicle. you assault a walker like you assault infantry, but it is still a vehicle.

You assault a Land raider the same way you assault infantry as well, Minus the overwatch from the vehicle...

that is what they are talking about. The overwatch, since a walker can overwatch and a vehicle can not, you assault just like thewalker were infantry, meaning it gets to overwatch...

'like infantry'. Meaning use the exact same rules for assaulting infantry.

Can you assault infantry you cannot hurt?
Can you assault a walker you cannot hurt?

If your answers were different to those questions you are not assaulting the walker just like you assault infantry... Which is exactly what it tell you to do.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It doe not count as infantry for assaulting, if it did you would have a point, but that is not what it says so you do not.

The BRB directly disagrees with you. "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models" -first line of the Walkers and Assaults section, page 84.

You do realize that does not say "Counts As" Right?

If you do not then I can see your confusion.

Yeah, it's not that walkers count as infantry for assaulting, it's that they can assault and be locked in combat like infantry do.

Walkers are assaulted like infantry. We know what they mean by this because they then give the meaning by clearly saying "meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat".
This gives no allowance to ignore other parts of the vehicle rules.
Saying that Armour value is the only difference is completely made up and not part of the rules.
You can't cherry pick the rules you like, conveniently ignore the ones you don't, and claim that's what it says.
The rule is very clear what it means by that.

Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat. Walkers that are locked in combat cannot be shot at.

Walkers can be assaulted 'just like infantry' as you keep saying. However do you roll to wound them? Do they do morale checks?

The answers to these are of course no, because they are a vehicle, and not actually infantry.

Because they are a vehicle, you must take the vehicle rules into consideration, one of which states you can not charge a vehicle you cannot hurt.

If you assault them like infantry then you proceed in the same way as if you where assaulting infantry. I don't know how that is not clear.

Just because they list two things the statement means does not negate the rest of the meanings. If I tell you 'black is its own color meaning it's not red or green' does that mean it's not different than blue? No. The meaning of the first part is not limited to the second part.

Damage and other combat rules are specifically defined in the walker description because it does not act like a vehicle in assault with the exception of the specifically noted means of taking damage. That's something they don't need to note for other vehicles because they act like vehicles in assault and the general rules cover it for them.

How can you say you're assaulting it like infantry if you're not acting upon it like it's infantry?

In any case, I've made my arguments. Be convinced or not, it's up to you. I'm moving on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: Added note before I go.

In any logical system stating something to the effect of:

When Z, X operates like Y

Any deviation from treating X like Y under condition Z is forbidden by the rule unless noted (which the walker rules do note several variations)

I assault it like infantry

Nothing states you ignore the rules on assaulting vehicles.

You are making a claim of exclusivity when there is no supporting language

 Abandon wrote:
If you assault them like infantry then you proceed in the same way as if you where assaulting infantry. I don't know how that is not clear.

Because this: Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models...

Means this: they make charge moves and can be locked in combat. Walkers that are locked in combat cannot be shot at.

End of.

Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models means exactly what they say it means, and that does not include counting it as infantry, it just means walkers can make charge moves and can be locked in combat.

RAW and RAI are tricky in situations like this. I would, and have always seen played, that you can assault a walker regardless of ability to deal damage. RAI would imply that you can't assault a vehicle you can't hurt, but they also can't assault you. Walkers can, this leads me to believe that you should be able to. Also if you can't and we are going pure RAW, from now on, when fighting a walker, I plan on using the vehicle rules which state I can leave combat and re-assault each turn, though it can't because the rules specifically say, "It is locked it combat" not that the enemy unit is locked in combat.

RAI is clear here, they behave like infantry, meaning you cannot re-assault each turn and they can be bogged down by tarpits who can't hurt them.

 JoshTheMadTitan wrote:
RAI would imply that you can't assault a vehicle you can't hurt,

RAW actually says this, it does not just imply it, it outright explicitly says it...

 JoshTheMadTitan wrote:
RAI is clear here... they can be bogged down by tarpits who can't hurt them.

This is only true if you flat out ignore the vehicle rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JoshTheMadTitan wrote:
RAI would imply that you can't assault a vehicle you can't hurt,

it does not just imply it,.

See what happens when you ignore the second half of a sentence, it doesn't sound right. When I said RAI seems... there was a a second half to that sentence you ignored to make it look stupid. Context. I can't discuss with someone who has as little integrity as to simply cut off a sentence to make it look asinine. Also thank you for addressing the fact that you can, according to RAW leave and re assault when fighting a walker.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry you flustered me with your attempt at quoting me and I got off topic.

The point of what I was saying, is that if you are going to follow RAW then you need to follow RAW and never consider RAI, and we all know where that leads. I bet you are fun to play against.

Why does following RAW on a single issue mean you can never consider RAI? Only a Sith deals in absolutes you know

Haha so true.

So lets just say we are using only RAW in this case as we are clearly not using RAI. The entire assault would be broken, and placing walkers at a huge disadvantage as I can re-assault every turn or leave, and they cannot choose to do so. If this is not the case then we are not using RAW.

 JoshTheMadTitan wrote:
Haha so true.

So lets just say we are using only RAW in this case as we are clearly not using RAI. The entire assault would be broken, and placing walkers at a huge disadvantage as I can re-assault every turn or leave, and they cannot choose to do so. If this is not the case then we are not using RAW.

Again not at all true as walkers have a specific provision for being locked in combat despite being a vehicle...

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat. Walkers that are locked in combat cannot be shot at." (84)

and we know the model in base with the walker are locked as per page 23 "Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat."

As above. You are told, exhaustively, what being assaulted..... As means. You have no permission to pretend you treat them as infantry for anything else.

Chrysis wrote:

 Zande4 wrote:
GWS FAQ:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3440036a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.5_September_13.pdf

Bottom of page 4, right column.

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

Considering a vehicle is a unit doesn't this conflict with the BRB?

Yes, but the BRB rules saying you can't charge a vehicle you can't hurt is more specific (as vehicles are a subset of units) and so wins out. So while you may be allowed to charge a unit you can't hurt, you still are forbidden from charging a vehicle you can't hurt.

This doesn't apply as the prohibition on charging vehicles is not on page 20.

Like Infantry does not mean they are the same as infantry

Pandas look like bears, but are not in fact, bears.

Walkers can do stuff infantry can, but they are not infantry, they're still vehicles