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.

A recent opponent maintained that because he had immobilized my Dreadnought in close combat, his attacks the following turn would auto-hit (citing the rule that immobilized vehicles are auto-hit in assault). I thought there was something squirrely, since vehicles with a WS are treated somewhat differently in assault. I didn't bother looking it up at the time as we were trying to finish up our game. The fight ended epically with the Dreadnought blowing up as it smashed a Talos' last wound off of it.

Afterwards, I looked in the rules under Walkers in Assault. It says that Walkers fight as infantry. Ok, cool. But they take damage as vehicles. All right. The only reference that I could find about immobilized walkers in assault stated that (paraphrased from memory): "A stunned/immobilized walker *attacks* normally, but has one less attack than normal."

That's great, but the use of the word "Attacks" might be construed to mean that it does not supersede the "immobilized vehicles are hit automatically", since *attack* does not equal *defend*.

So what does YMDC think? Are immobilized walkers/(other vehicles with a WS) auto-hit in assault, or are they not?

Cheers,

-S

If you immobilise a walker, your grenades hit on WS and the walker gets 1 less attack.

Other than that, there is no difference to normal combat.

Dread has one less attack. Use WS as normal.

it has a WS so no, if it's immobilized your nades will hit off WS instead of the normally needed 6 tho

Thx i was just about to post the same

There's this amazing thing called the 'rulebook' and it has lots of things we call 'rules' in it.
So maybe, if you took yours out a read it, more carefully, like the paragraph above the one you referenced would glean you the RAW answer. (you were on page 73 btw)

Strangelooper wrote:That's great, but the use of the word "Attacks" might be construed to mean that it does not supersede the "immobilized vehicles are hit automatically", since *attack* does not equal *defend*.

There is no such distinction in the 40K rules. In close combat, both sides attack. There is no 'defender'... All models that have a WS involved in the combat will attack.

Thanks to all who clarified in a helpful manner! I'll accept that "attacks normally" includes using WS when being attacked in turn. I thought that was the case, but I wanted to make sure.

ChrisCP, I was not referring to grenades at all, but to normal close combat attacks. As such, the paragraph to which you refer is irrelevant, as it deals only with grenades. Last time I checked, Talos are not equipped with grenades...maybe if you lern2read original posts more carefully, you won't make such mistakes in the future and waste your breath, lol

@Strangelooper

I don't think that Chris' comment was unreasonable at all. He merely pointed out a reference to a related, on-topic scenario.

Harsh posts are harsh.

Chris was merely pointing out where the opponent may have mistakenly thouhgt Immobilised did something to walkers other than losing the attack, in that it changes the grenade to-hit rolls.

strangelooper wrote:ChrisCP, I was not referring to grenades at all, but to normal close combat attacks. As such, the paragraph to which you refer is irrelevant, as it deals only with grenades. Last time I checked, Talos are not equipped with grenades...maybe if you lern2read original posts more carefully, you won't make such mistakes in the future and waste your breath, lol

Strangelooper wrote:
So what does YMDC think? Are immobilized walkers/(other vehicles with a WS) auto-hit in assault, or are they not?
-S

Question was this.

"Immobilised and/or stunned walkers fight in close combat with one less attack than usual (to a minimum of 1), but otherwise attack normally, no matter how many immobilised and stunned results they suffered" page 73

Given you'd already "paraphrased from memory" that passage, I trusted you could have gone back read the whole thing no? Especially when reminded of the page number You could have read it from the start even and noticed "In close combat, walkers fight like XXXX models." so obviously, they won't fight like vehicles, so on, so forth. Cut and dried rules questions aren't that impressive thb, so I pointed you to the relevent page and hopefully a helpful entry as that's the only other thing that changes in CC except the item you'd already mentioned.

liam0404 wrote:@Strangelooper

I don't think that Chris' comment was unreasonable at all. He merely pointed out a reference to a related, on-topic scenario.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Harsh posts are harsh.

Chris was merely pointing out where the opponent may have mistakenly thouhgt Immobilised did something to walkers other than losing the attack, in that it changes the grenade to-hit rolls.

There're these amazing things called 'posts' and they have lots of things we call 'words' in them.
So maybe, if you scrolled up a read it, more carefully, you would glean the condescension in ChrisCP's reply. (it's post #6 btw)


-s

I think my comprehension of the post was just fine thanks. You're being exceptionally rude to an additional piece of information that was provided to you.

Thats like you walking up to someone in the street and saying "Excuse me, where is the post office?". The poor person tells you its on Street X which is miles away. You go to leave, but then they tell you of a short cut to get there in half the time - then you rage out on them for providing extra info. How terrible of them!

liam0404 wrote:I think my comprehension of the post was just fine thanks. You're being exceptionally rude to an additional piece of information that was provided to you.

Whoa dude, that's irony fail #2. My reply to you was virtually an exact copy of ChrisCP's original reply to me. Almost word for word in fact. I only went there because you missed it when I tried to copy his tone in my first response to him! Apparently that was too subtle, who knew?

To spell it out: if you find either of my replies to be rude, then why are you surprised that I found ChrisCP's original reply to be rude? I was merely mirroring his own tone and style!

Sheesh.

Because Chris actually directed you to a point in the rules, whereas you have....? Trolled your own thread?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because Chris actually directed you to a point in the rules, whereas you have....? Trolled your own thread?

(facepalm). No, because his reply amounted to "Rtfm, noob", and mocked me for daring to ask a rules question in the rules forum. Imagine! It's like I deliberately set out to waste his time....(rolleyes)

Several other posters managed to answer my question without being rude. To whom I am most grateful for the clarification.

Edited for spelling (damned iPhone!)

Strangelooper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because Chris actually directed you to a point in the rules, whereas you have....? Trolled your own thread?

(facepalm). No, because his reply amounted to "Rtfm, noob", and mocked me for daring to ask a rules question in the rules forum. Imagine! It's like I deliberately set out to waste his time....(rolleyes)

Several other posters managed to answer my question without being rude. To whom I am most grateful for the clarification.

Edited for spelling (damned iPhone!)

In Chris's defence it was a pretty strange question you actually said in your OP.
"Walkers fight like infantry but take damage like vehicles"

Strangelooper - no, you asked a really confused question, appeared to answer it yourself and then you ignored part of the page referenced to still appear to have a question.

A question that was answered on the page you were reading, if only you had read all of it.

Chris went with the "teach a man to fish" option, not the "tell the poster the answer", which apparently you didnt appreciate. Not his fault but yours.

Additionally if you want people to spend the time answering you being a little more gracious and less likely to blow up over a perceived insult will help.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because Chris actually directed you to a point in the rules, whereas you have....? Trolled your own thread?

Chris's post was out of line. Strangelooper's response was similarly out of line. The rest of the thread after that got progressively sillier. Moving on.