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.

deleted by me

I have to agree with DeathReaper and Bausk.

The second part of that sentence limits the impact of the "like Infantry" part to only charge moves and being locked in combat. Which means it's additive to the existing vehicle rules, not a replacement.

The next paragraph then goes on to say that In close combat, Walkers fight like Infantry models. Which the only place we can find permission for it to hit something; without that statement the walker couldn't hit. However what it doesn't say is that enemies treat it like Infantry.

In short, other than being locked in combat and other minor changes further in the paragraph, they only covered the combat from the perspective of the walker and not from the unit that is charging it. So, the specific rule about not being able to charge a vehicle that you can't hurt is still in effect. Bad wording? probably, who knows.

As others have pointed out though, the entire reason for the no assault what you can't hurt rule seems to be to prevent a pretty big free movement. So, RAI: I *think* it means walkers can be tied down in combat with weak units. However, the RAW reading just isn't there.