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.

This came up over in my battle report, courtesy of Deeaybur's sharp eyes.

Scenario: a horde of Termagants want to assault an Ironclad Dreadnought. Are they allowed to?

Potentially relevant rules:
p. 76: "A unit can charge a vehicle in their charge sub-phase...however a unit cannot charge a vehicle that it cannot hurt - it must have some possibility...of being able to inflict at least a glancing hit."

p. 84: "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models...."

Thoughts?

Good question; not sure which controls. The rules for Walkers in assault (84) are more specific than the rules for assaulting vehicles; but then, the specific situation of a unit not being able to charge a vehicle it can't hurt may be more specific than that broad and general statement on page 84.

RAI - you can't tarpit him is what I'd bet. They worked pretty hard at removing tarpits (but then removed fearless wounds... wat).

RAW - Unclear. Going to need an FAQ imo.

I say....nay.

Although walkers assault as infantry, they are still actually vehicles. I'm guessing the bit about assaulting as infantry refers to all the rules for infantry assault - charge distances, moving through terrain, wound allocation, combat resolution, pile-in, etc. - with the caveat that the walker is still a vehicle (thus, no need to take morale, can explode when killed, cannot be charged by a unit that cannot it, etc.).

Yeah, assault like infantry =/= assault as infantry (annoying hair splitting, I know).

So as to the scenario, "no", they cannot assault the Ironclad.

Janthkin wrote:p. 76: "A unit can charge a vehicle in their charge sub-phase...however a unit cannot charge a vehicle that it cannot hurt - it must have some possibility...of being able to inflict at least a glancing hit."

This right here brought me tho think of a follow-up question. Does that also mean the chargers have to use the option that lets them maybe inflict a glance, or can you still use something crappy like frags in order to not kill the walker in your own assault phase? People always suggested that when Ork MANz looked at their useless Stikkbombs.

In order to charge you have to be able to hurt, but you have no requirement to then use weapons which can hurt while IN close combat

No tarpitting the dreadnought for the termagants.

A tervigon with SMASH however, should have made short work of the dread, even with AV 13

nosferatu1001 wrote:In order to charge you have to be able to hurt, but you have no requirement to then use weapons which can hurt while IN close combat

This. Though... why would you?! If somehow you DID manage to take the opponent out, you get your tarpit unit back!

I would say you should be able to charge a Walker that you cannot hurt, in the same way you can charge infantry that you cannot hurt.

For situations where the Walker charge or is being charged you consult the infantry rules. For other situations you consult the vehicle rules.

Of course it could be better worded, and what GW's intention is, is anyone's guess. I hope it will be adressed in the coming FAQ.

Super Ready wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:In order to charge you have to be able to hurt, but you have no requirement to then use weapons which can hurt while IN close combat

This. Though... why would you?! If somehow you DID manage to take the opponent out, you get your tarpit unit back!

So you kill it the second player turn, meaning you are safe from being shot.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Super Ready wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:In order to charge you have to be able to hurt, but you have no requirement to then use weapons which can hurt while IN close combat

This. Though... why would you?! If somehow you DID manage to take the opponent out, you get your tarpit unit back!

So you kill it the second player turn, meaning you are safe from being shot.

To further elaborate;

You charge something easy to kill with your beefy cc unit, use your crappy weaponry so that you are still engaged on their turn and cannot be shot, and then kill what you assaulted on their assault phase, freeing you up to move and assault something else on your turn.

"Being assaulted as infantry" does not make walkers not vehicles. Both rules apply, and so the vehicle assault restriction will still be checked when you try to declare a charge.

In a general situation of a ST3 model trying to assault a walker with minimom AV 10 I will follow the rule, no tarpit anymore.

In the specific case of Termagants, in particular of termagants starting the assault phase from 6" of a Tervigon equipped with Adrenal Glands, I consider them with Furious Charge rule in effect.

So I don't see problems for them in assaulting a back-AV 10 with ST4 in the charge.

A sub-question, that however could come from this situation is: what will happens in the following turn assuming both the units are still in combat?
Once they're in combat they stay even without any possibilities for the Gants to hurt the Ironcald?
Does this will stuck the Ironclad forever in a 3-gants-less-per-turn situation just because once in combat they can't leave? Even in a completly illogical melee?

This is a trikcy question.

Toban wrote:In a general situation of a ST3 model trying to assault a walker with minimom AV 10 I will follow the rule, no tarpit anymore.

In the specific case of Termagants, in particular of termagants starting the assault phase from 6" of a Tervigon equipped with Adrenal Glands, I consider them with Furious Charge rule in effect.

So I don't see problems for them in assaulting a back-AV 10 with ST4 in the charge.

A sub-question, that however could come from this situation is: what will happens in the following turn assuming both the units are still in combat?
Once they're in combat they stay even without any possibilities for the Gants to hurt the Ironcald?
Does this will stuck the Ironclad forever in a 3-gants-less-per-turn situation just because once in combat they can't leave? Even in a completly illogical melee?

This is a trikcy question.

They can't charge. Aainst walkers, you always fight against its front AV (AV13 for ironclads). S4 can't do anything to dreads so you can't charge them at all.

jy2 wrote:

Toban wrote:In a general situation of a ST3 model trying to assault a walker with minimom AV 10 I will follow the rule, no tarpit anymore.

In the specific case of Termagants, in particular of termagants starting the assault phase from 6" of a Tervigon equipped with Adrenal Glands, I consider them with Furious Charge rule in effect.

So I don't see problems for them in assaulting a back-AV 10 with ST4 in the charge.

A sub-question, that however could come from this situation is: what will happens in the following turn assuming both the units are still in combat?
Once they're in combat they stay even without any possibilities for the Gants to hurt the Ironcald?
Does this will stuck the Ironclad forever in a 3-gants-less-per-turn situation just because once in combat they can't leave? Even in a completly illogical melee?

This is a trikcy question.

They can't charge. Aainst walkers, you always fight against its front AV (AV13 for ironclads). S4 can't do anything to dreads so you can't charge them at all.

They would be able to assault it if it was immobilized. Immobilized walkers are hit on their rear armor now in combat.

jy2 wrote:They can't charge. Aainst walkers, you always fight against its front AV (AV13 for ironclads). S4 can't do anything to dreads so you can't charge them at all.

Ah yeah.. my fault.

rogueeyes wrote:They would be able to assault it if it was immobilized. Immobilized walkers are hit on their rear armor now in combat.

May be the only exception so.

Toban wrote:In a general situation of a ST3 model trying to assault a walker with minimom AV 10 I will follow the rule, no tarpit anymore.

In the specific case of Termagants, in particular of termagants starting the assault phase from 6" of a Tervigon equipped with Adrenal Glands, I consider them with Furious Charge rule in effect.

So I don't see problems for them in assaulting a back-AV 10 with ST4 in the charge.

A sub-question, that however could come from this situation is: what will happens in the following turn assuming both the units are still in combat?
Once they're in combat they stay even without any possibilities for the Gants to hurt the Ironcald?
Does this will stuck the Ironclad forever in a 3-gants-less-per-turn situation just because once in combat they can't leave? Even in a completly illogical melee?

This is a trikcy question.

The only time this will come into play is when you have a front-AV 10 walker, or a back-AV 10 immobilized walker. As the previous post pointed out you always use front armor with a walker, unless it is immobilized. Now if your gaunts assault an immobilized dread with S4 they can tie up the Dreadnought for the other rounds of combat, but remember the dread has 3 attacks that hit on a 3+, wound on a 2+, and ignore the gaunt's armor. If they are in synapse they can survive for a bit, but if not they inevitably run from combat. In fact, if they are in Synapse they can't even choose to run away due to the new Our Weapons Are Useless, so if you want to or not they are locked in combat until dead or out of Synapse.

Captain Antivas wrote:

Toban wrote:In a general situation of a ST3 model trying to assault a walker with minimom AV 10 I will follow the rule, no tarpit anymore.

In the specific case of Termagants, in particular of termagants starting the assault phase from 6" of a Tervigon equipped with Adrenal Glands, I consider them with Furious Charge rule in effect.

So I don't see problems for them in assaulting a back-AV 10 with ST4 in the charge.

A sub-question, that however could come from this situation is: what will happens in the following turn assuming both the units are still in combat?
Once they're in combat they stay even without any possibilities for the Gants to hurt the Ironcald?
Does this will stuck the Ironclad forever in a 3-gants-less-per-turn situation just because once in combat they can't leave? Even in a completly illogical melee?

This is a trikcy question.

The only time this will come into play is when you have a front-AV 10 walker, or a back-AV 10 immobilized walker. As the previous post pointed out you always use front armor with a walker, unless it is immobilized. Now if your gaunts assault an immobilized dread with S4 they can tie up the Dreadnought for the other rounds of combat, but remember the dread has 3 attacks that hit on a 3+, wound on a 2+, and ignore the gaunt's armor. If they are in synapse they can survive for a bit, but if not they inevitably run from combat. In fact, if they are in Synapse they can't even choose to run away due to the new Our Weapons Are Useless, so if you want to or not they are locked in combat until dead or out of Synapse.

3 attacks all hit all wound for simplicity sake. 30 wounds over 5 turns. You've just tarpitted a walker with 30 guants. Probably not the best tactical decision ... but it would work if you immobilized it first turn before charging with hive guard or something. Still hive guard would be better than the tarpit.

Janthkin wrote:Potentially relevant rules:
p. 76: "A unit can charge a vehicle in their charge sub-phase...however a unit cannot charge a vehicle that it cannot hurt - it must have some possibility...of being able to inflict at least a glancing hit."

p. 84: "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models...."

Yes the bugs can charge the walker. The walkers are assaulted like infantry models and Infantry being charged is covered by the assault rules on page 20. Other vehicles would have the rules from page 76 to protect them. The walker has to abide by page 84 in this regard so it never gets the protection of the rules regarding charging a vehicle.

I see no conflict in the wording here.

Walkers are assaulted like Infantry.

Units may not assault a vehicle they cannot hurt.


If you cannot hurt the walker, you cannot assault it because its also a vehicle.

No conflict occurs in this situation.

But the walker is not assaulted like a vehicle, it is assaulted like infantry.

If you are assaulted like infantry, you use the infantry rules, not the vehicle rules.

If you move like a skimmer, you use the skimmer rules.
If you embark a building like a vehicle, you use the vehicle rules.


Getting assaulted like a vehicle, and getting assaulted like infantry are almost exactly the same. If you get assaulted like infantry, then the differences should be ignored.

The two rules are not in conflict so one does not override the other. The Walkers and Assault rules say:

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like infantry models meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

The rule is self-contained. The ways in which walkers are treated like infantry are that they make charge moves like normal and get locked in combat, unlike other vehicles.

Captain Antivas wrote:The two rules are not in conflict so one does not override the other. The Walkers and Assault rules say:

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like infantry models meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

The rule is self-contained. The ways in which walkers are treated like infantry are that they make charge moves like normal and get locked in combat, unlike other vehicles.

I would like to disagree strongly with this interpretation. No language suggesting exclusivity is contained in the phrase you bolded - it serves as an example. Yes, it does mean those things. It also means other things, and nothing in that sentence even suggests that those other things should be ignored.

Janthkin wrote:p. 76: "A unit can charge a vehicle in their charge sub-phase...however a unit cannot charge a vehicle that it cannot hurt - it must have some possibility...of being able to inflict at least a glancing hit."

This rule governs units attempting to charge a vehicle. Key point: This rule applies to the charging unit, not the vehicle itself. Requiring that they be able to hurt the vehicle is a restriction placed on the charging unit, not an innate descriptor for vehicles.

Janthkin wrote:p. 84: "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models...."

This rule applies a different set of assault restrictions to Walkers - namely, those outlined in the infantry section, in which a unit may charge enemies that it cannot hurt. If you rule that a unit cannot charge a Walker that they cannot hurt, then you are not treating the Walker like infantry for the purposes of being assaulted. The fact that the Walker is still a vehicle is irrelevant - the unit treats the charge as though they were assaulting infantry, which renders them free of the restriction against charging vehicles they cannot hurt.

Doomaflatchi wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:The two rules are not in conflict so one does not override the other. The Walkers and Assault rules say:

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like infantry models meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

The rule is self-contained. The ways in which walkers are treated like infantry are that they make charge moves like normal and get locked in combat, unlike other vehicles.

I would like to disagree strongly with this interpretation. No language suggesting exclusivity is contained in the phrase you bolded - it serves as an example. Yes, it does mean those things. It also means other things, and nothing in that sentence even suggests that those other things should be ignored.

We are reading my sentence, right? The one that says that they are assaulted like infantry and what that means, right? What part of that sentence suggests it means other things other than what the sentence specifically says it means?

By your logic a Walker that fails a Dangerous Terrain test while assaulting would simply take a wound instead of being immobilized, since that is what happens to infantry. Tell me, how does a Walker take a wound?

Captain Antivas wrote:

Doomaflatchi wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:The two rules are not in conflict so one does not override the other. The Walkers and Assault rules say:

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like infantry models meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

The rule is self-contained. The ways in which walkers are treated like infantry are that they make charge moves like normal and get locked in combat, unlike other vehicles.

I would like to disagree strongly with this interpretation. No language suggesting exclusivity is contained in the phrase you bolded - it serves as an example. Yes, it does mean those things. It also means other things, and nothing in that sentence even suggests that those other things should be ignored.

We are reading my sentence, right? The one that says that they are assaulted like infantry and what that means, right? What part of that sentence suggests it means other things other than what the sentence specifically says it means?

By your logic a Walker that fails a Dangerous Terrain test while assaulting would simply take a wound instead of being immobilized, since that is what happens to infantry. Tell me, how does a Walker take a wound?

A Dangerous Terrain test is not part of assaulting, and so the Walker does not take a wound as infantry does. The Dangerous Terrain test is caused by assaulting, meaning that the Walker is forced to take the test as per assaulting infantry - but as the test itself is not part of "assaulting", but part of "taking a dangerous terrain test", it resolves the test as a vehicle does, and becomes immobilized.

Yes it is. Page 22, under Charging Through Dangerous Terrain. It says that a unit that charges through Dangerous Terrain must pass a Dangerous Terrain test as described on page 90, which says when failed they suffer a wound. Since walkers follow all rules for infantry this would apply too since this is included in the infantry assault rules.

Not to mention that since the Dangerous Terrain test is caused by assaulting, and Walkers assault like infantry, they would count as infantry during the Dangerous Terrain test that happened while they are assaulting. You don't get to have it both ways. Either Walkers ignore all vehicle rules while assaulting and are counted as infantry for all purposes or they don't.

No, the rule doesn't say they become infantry, the rules say they assault like infantry.
When infantry assault, they may need to take DT tests when going through Dang Ter.
So when walkers assault, they must also take a Dang Ter test.

that is all the assault rules specifiy, for the outcome of a dangerous terrain test, you need to look elsewhere and follow other rules.

Note, it does not say that walkers "take dangerous terrain tests as if they were infantry"

It also does not say that walkers "assault, and get assaulted, like they are vehicles and like they are infantry"

Aside from the rule in question, can you provide one way that the walker is assaulted like a vehicle, that is not specifically spelled out in their rules?

The assault rules for infantry tell you exactly where to go to resolve the DTT, they do not leave it open. Just be consistent with your argument. Either walkers assault like infantry and follow all rules associated with that or they don't. You don't get to cherry pick certain rules that apply to suit your needs.

I don't have to find rules to support the fact that a vehicle is assaulted like a vehicle. I already gave you everything you need, you just choose to interpret the rule in a way that defies basic understanding of the English language.

"meaning" is entirely inclusive - it defines exactly xwhat "assaulting like infantry" MEANS to a walker.

There is no evidence in that sentence that any other meanings of "assaultng like infantry" are allowed