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 I just saw that on the forum and I was wondering.

In cc, a unit always attack the rear armor of the vehicule to simulate attacking weak pints (windows, gas tank, ammo supplies, etc). But I read on the forum that this does not apply to walkers.

Is it true and why?

because walkers "walk" and thus are considered to be a little more agile than a tank pivoting on a tread mechanism, easily followed by any infantry behind it circling with it. Walkers are assumed to be able to spin around, torso twist, flail about with with fists or feet or whatever appendage, as opposed to just backing up, going foreward, and turning.

Try getting in a fight while in your car, and some people with crowbars. see if you can maneuver around and 'fight' them off from in your car before one of them shatters your back window. Now imagine if your car has some semblance of humanlike mobility, the ability to bend at the waist, hips, twist around a bit, and lash out with appendages instead of just trying to clip one of the crowbar thugs with your wing mirror or a corner shot from your hood if he isn't quick enough to jump away as you crank the steering wheel around to 'face' him. Now assume that a 40k table, while looking like a golf course where 'clear' terrain is perfectly flat with evenly cut grass, or a rocky stretch of wasteland is as smooth and flat as an asphapt parking lot... assume that table is not actually flat, that is just a game abstraction that explains why a vehicle, even a very speedy one, is only able to cover at most 3x the same distance in a battle situation as a fully packed out gun toting person running as fast as they can. These abstractions are meant to explain away the ambiguities so we don't have to roll for each individual pothole in the road, or potential tisted ankle stepping on a rabbit hole while running, or busted axle from hitting a shrub with your undercarriage, etc. and instead make a difficult/dangerous terrain test. These are the same kind of abstractions for why a fragmentation grenade cannot actually kill anyone, just facilitate the abstraction of assault such that someone can better be killed, or why it is assumed that you can smack the back of a stodgy vehicle (nowadays some people need a friggin computer to parallel park for them.. no vehicle martial arts belt for them...), but not necessarily of a moving twisting walking limb flailing humanoid monstrosity.

This is why walkers have WS and Init characteristics and tanks do not.

See "Assaulting Walkers". It tells you that a walker in CC will turn to face whoever is attacking it.

so if I understand correctly, in CC, we always hit the front armor?

Or, a unit in CC with a walker hits the armor he is facing (I dont think so, but just want to make sure because that will make kill walkers that much harder now)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ok, thanks Jidmah, guess I skipped that part of the rule book when I read it.

follow the rules for walkers in close assaults. it spells it out clearly.

Yeah, I didn't knew about that section, like I said, I must,ve skipped it since the rule book is 375 pages long and kinda heavy to read

Wuss

Serder wrote:Yeah, I didn't knew about that section, like I said, I must,ve skipped it since the rule book is 375 pages long and kinda heavy to read

yeah but only like 95 of them have the rules you need, most of the rest are just Fluff, with the exception of the army lists and charts at the back.

Serder wrote:so if I understand correctly, in CC, we always hit the front armor?

Yes, in CC you ALWAYS resolve the attacks against the front AV, even if it's immobilized.

that came up in a game I played over the weekend and is good to know. I couldn't find reference to av if it was immobilized.

Lord_Osma wrote:that came up in a game I played over the weekend and is good to know. I couldn't find reference to av if it was immobilized.

Only changes to an immobilized walker: 1 less attack and grenades go off on WS, as opposed to needing 6's to hit.

Note: tis applies to ALL walkers, not just Dreads.


not sure if it applies to Super Heavy walkers though.