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.

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.