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.

Rule A: cc attacks hit vehicles on rear armor
Rule A, exception 1. Walkers. cc attacks on walkers hit front armor. If immobilized then hits are on rear armor.

Rule B. HoW hits are resolved against whatever side of the vehicle they hit.

I think it is obvious here that HoW wins. Because HoW overides the normal rules for facing armor attacks. The walker rule is just how you handle allocation for walkers in close combat, but HoW is it's own type of charge that has its own rules.

So even if the walker is immobilized, the HoW would still hit the side that was charged, despite the Walker rule saying that cc attacks hit rear armor.

General rules for vehicles are the general rules for vehicles.

HoW is a specific rule for a specific type of attack. That makes it more advanced than the normal rules for following close combat attacks on Walkers.

I have my book out now. I really think the quote in Hammer of Wrath needs more information to make it look like "Vehicles, Walkers, and Chariots." I only say this because in the blurb about transports and passengers it specifies Chariots. If so, then why didn't they specify walkes and chariots in the above section about vehicles and hits against vehicles?

Being a fan of friendly play and making fun house rules, I'd say do a classic roll-off on the matter. If you win, your dreadnought turned in time to incercept the enemy. They win, your dreadnought was too slow. Ta-da, impossible to settle debate settled.

Personally I'd say the dreadnought would win though. Hammer of wrath makes a general statement that applies to vehicles. Walkers THEN say "we're not normal vehicles".

This bit might just be something we do that's not in the rules, but when two units enter melee we turn the models to face each other. A walker, moving like infantry, would also turn. That might just be house fluff rules, but that's what we'd go on.

It would seem though that the debate is able to be settled.

Included in the description of Special Rules is this



It would appear that by definition in the BRB, Special Rules are given permission to trump rules found elsewhere in the main rule book.

Does anyone have a counter to this statement?

I am interested in hearing any counter argument to Special Rules trumping all other rules in the main rule book that are not Special Rules themselves.

That statement is just a definition for Special rules, it has no bearing on the "strength" of the rule for overriding things in this type of situation.

col_impact wrote:
It would seem though that the debate is able to be settled.

Included in the description of Special Rules is this

Spoiler:

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.

It would appear that by definition in the BRB, Special Rules are given permission to trump rules found elsewhere in the main rule book.

Does anyone have a counter to this statement?

I am interested in hearing any counter argument to Special Rules trumping all other rules in the main rule book that are not Special Rules themselves.

Yes, a special rule breaks ONE of the main game rules. It breaks one rule: you hit vehicles on the side facing, not the rear. However, there is another separate rule that changes said change: it's a walker, you hit the front.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
That statement is just a definition for Special rules, it has no bearing on the "strength" of the rule for overriding things in this type of situation.

By definition it says

Special Rule > everything else in the main rule book except other Special Rules



That statement alone indicates that a Special Rule can conflict with a main game rule ("break" or "bend" ) and that the Special Rule trumps in that case.

Also, what should be noted, is that the rules recognize a category called Special Rule as opposed to "main game rule" and that HoW would be in the former and walker and chariot rules would be in the latter.

Special rules must trump the other rules otherwise none of them would do anything and there wouldn't be any point having them.

Eternal Warrior USR, for example, negates the effect of doubling out a target's toughness as described in the main rules.

What makes that one tiny bit of the HoW rule different from the rest of the USRs?

Just because a Walker is a sub category of Vehicle doesn't make it immune to the effect of a USR on Vehicles in general.

Indeed. The 'universal special rules' are in a block, with weapon, vehicle, and oher special rules, together in the back of the book, from And They Shall Know No Fear through to Zealot, and they are stated to be allowed to 'break' more general rules. Hammer of Wrath is in that section. Walker isn't.

'Walker' is in the vehicles rules. It's a unit type, and the rules associated with that unit type are part of the normal rules


Narratively, Hammer of Wrath is a non-vehicle version of a Ram. Ramming is resolved against the facing you hit, and I believe walkers still takes the hit on the facing where he's struck.

Walkers fight like infantry.

HoW has information on how to handle assaults against infantry. And nothing about treating infantry as a vehicle.

Walkers have information on how to handle penetration rolls, on front facing of AV.

In the section of HoW and vehicles they did not specify walkers and chariots but felt in the section about transports and How felt they had to specify chariots.. Why?

HoW is a CC attack resolved at I10.

Vehicles take CC on rear AV to represent hitting weak spots on vehicle.

HoW has an exception to its CC to represent hitting the facing they are in B2B with.

Walkers and chariots are both agile enough to turn to face units with HoW so they can fire over watch.

Many in this thread are suggesting, that the way the rules are intended to be interpreted, is for the walker or chariot, that just fired over watch, to now turn and expose it's rear AV for HoW, before turning again to face attacks in CC.

The problem I have is there seems to be no fault with USR. Walkers clearly are treated like infantry and HoW covers that.

My 2 cents:

HoW: "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."

If the Walker is on a Base, he gets to "always roll for armour penetration against its front armour unless it has been Immobilised", because you cannot "touch the facing" of said target vehicle.

HoW V Defilers will be hard to argue that the HoW rule doesn't take precedence. Walkers are vehicles, whatever Rules they use as other Types say.

walker is a vehicle.type, but is still a vehicle. The.walker rules may be more specific than the.general vehi le.rules, but walker is not a special or advanced.rule.

HoW is a advanced rule.by.virtue of being a special.rule.

HoW specifies how it affects vehicles, as an advanced rule this takes precedence over basic rules such as.vehicles, or the.specific yet still basic rules for walkers.

...which seems to suggest that HoW will punch the Walker in the face, if that is the facing of the Walker IRT the HoW-possessing model. If you, say, podded into the rear of the enemy line and then assaulted the rear of the Walker-containing unit, then you could punch it in the butt against rear AV... but getting those conditions to be in place seems like it would be awful difficult.

I agree.

close to nothing can assault on the turn it arrives by deepstrike, so the chances you can actually pull off a rear hammer of wrath attack are low, it would involve tying the unit up you wish to HOW and having openings around its rear, then having things that can actually assault with HoW into its rear....

im going to stop now

Blaktoff,
How does the book define an Advanced Rule?

JinxDragon wrote:
Blaktoff,
How does the book define an Advanced Rule?

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.

vehicle(walker) is a main rule, as it is in the core rules.

HoW is a special rule, which is not a main rule.

as above it bends the main rule.

Regardless of the Advanced vs Basic or BRB vs Codex, HoW seems pretty explicit in its wording on how to handle it vs a Walker.

If your HoW-possessing unit assaults a unit that is/contains a Walker, you will strike against the AV of whatever facing of the Walker you are in. This will, likely, be the front facing. This is because this is how HoW tells us to resolve its attacks.

You don't suddenly get to ignore this bit of its rules and auto-hit against the rear AV without getting your units into B2B against the rear facing of the model. Now, if you have an entire unit of HoW models against one single big Walker or something, and manage to surround it, then, yeah, a lot of hits are going to be against the rear AV... but not all of them.

Otherwise, you're not handling HoW correctly.

In a challenge, the HOW attack is allocated to the challenge even if the impact hit was from a different model right? All that matters is initiative order.

So I would say that when it is time to hit at initiative 10, the walker has already turned to face front armor.

blaktoof wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Blaktoff,
How does the book define an Advanced Rule?

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.

vehicle(walker) is a main rule, as it is in the core rules.

HoW is a special rule, which is not a main rule.

as above it bends the main rule.

That's the definition of a Special rule, not an Advanced rule.

"Advanced rules apply to specific types of models"

A Walker is a Specific type of Vehicle. We're dealing with 2 Advanced rules.

 Psienesis wrote:
Regardless of the Advanced vs Basic or BRB vs Codex, HoW seems pretty explicit in its wording on how to handle it vs a Walker.

Explicit?
"stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt."

So the rule actually says "Agaist Walkers do the following..."?
If not then it is not explicit. And this debate wouldn't be happening.

Yeah, it's explicit.

HoW either hits the model (Infantry) on whatever facing it has against its regular Armor Save. This is if your HoW guy HoW-punches some infantry.

Or, as HoW tells us, if your HoW guy rolls up on a vehicle, it HoW-punches the vehicle on whatever facing it's on.

Is the Walker a Vehicle?

Yes. Then the HoW hits on the facing of the Walker that the HoW-possessing model is on. This is probably going to be in the face, unless your Walker turned around for some reason.

 grendel083 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Blaktoff,
How does the book define an Advanced Rule?

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.

vehicle(walker) is a main rule, as it is in the core rules.

HoW is a special rule, which is not a main rule.

as above it bends the main rule.

That's the definition of a Special rule, not an Advanced rule.

"Advanced rules apply to specific types of models"

A Walker is a Specific type of Vehicle. We're dealing with 2 Advanced rules.

 Psienesis wrote:
Regardless of the Advanced vs Basic or BRB vs Codex, HoW seems pretty explicit in its wording on how to handle it vs a Walker.

Explicit?
"stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt."

So the rule actually says "Agaist Walkers do the following..."?
If not then it is not explicit. And this debate wouldn't be happening.

actually vehicles, and walkers are main rules, and special rules trump main rules as per the beginning of the section on special rules.

therefore100% RAW HoW resolves against facing of vehicle, regardless of vehicle type. If the vehicle itself had a special rule, which walker is not, then there would be a discussion.

all of the rules are core rules until you hit the appendix of the book which has special rules, wargear, weapons, psychic powers. and if those each explicitly call out they do something , it bends the main rules.

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah, it's explicit.

HoW either hits the model (Infantry) on whatever facing it has against its regular Armor Save. This is if your HoW guy HoW-punches some infantry.

Or, as HoW tells us, if your HoW guy rolls up on a vehicle, it HoW-punches the vehicle on whatever facing it's on.

Is the Walker a Vehicle?

Yes. Then the HoW hits on the facing of the Walker that the HoW-possessing model is on. This is probably going to be in the face, unless your Walker turned around for some reason.

Then I can attack your Walker on the rear armor in close combat because its a vehicle right?

close combat isnt a special rule, but if there was a special rule close combat attack that said it hit vehicles on the facing closest to the model making xxx attack, then yes 100% you could.

Fragile wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah, it's explicit.

HoW either hits the model (Infantry) on whatever facing it has against its regular Armor Save. This is if your HoW guy HoW-punches some infantry.

Or, as HoW tells us, if your HoW guy rolls up on a vehicle, it HoW-punches the vehicle on whatever facing it's on.

Is the Walker a Vehicle?

Yes. Then the HoW hits on the facing of the Walker that the HoW-possessing model is on. This is probably going to be in the face, unless your Walker turned around for some reason.

Then I can attack your Walker on the rear armor in close combat because its a vehicle right?

No, because that is not how HoW is resolved. Please quote a rule that tells us to ignore the stricture of HoW that directs us to apply the hit against the facing that we are in.

ETA: Also, another argument I have heard on this (but do not necessarily agree with) is that it also does not auto-hit the rear armor, because this is a HoW attack... not a CC attack.

Blaktoff,
Where does it state that we Resolve Special Rules above Advanced Rules?

What you have posted simply informs me there will be Rules which bend the rules, it does not inform us how to go about resolving any conflicts that might occur from applying Rules that are found within this Group. Those instructions are found much further back in the book, in Basic Vs Advanced. It is a terrible system if you ask me, but it doesn't change that this is the only set of Rule as Written instructions telling us how to determine which Rule is allowed to proceed in situations where we will break one by applying the other and it does not inform us that Special Rules can trump Unit Types.

There is something else I would like to bring to your attention:
unusual skills (such as the ability to regenerate)
and
special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun)
- Basic Vs Advanced

Not only does Basic vs Advance tell us how to resolve these situations, something your quote is lacking, it informs us that ability granted by Special Rules are only 'Advanced.'

PS:
If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence.
- Example used in Basic vs Advanced, showing that Special Rule are only Advanced....

Agreed that Special Rules are only Advanced rules and so you can't use Basic vs Advanced as an argument here.

However, the blurb in the beginning of the Special Rules appendix does not specify that Special Rules only bend or break Basic rules; it seems to be a catch-all term to specify that Special Rules can break ALL of the main rules.

That said, it's a circumstantial argument. It's an introductory text, not a specified ruling. However, the intent seems clear to me and on the balance, I would say the arguments are stronger for letting the Special rule trump the main rule.

So I'll ask this: Are there any examples to counter this interpretation? Are there any instances where an Advanced rule from the main rules section trumps a Special rule?

tgjensen wrote:
So I'll ask this: Are there any examples to counter this interpretation? Are there any instances where an Advanced rule from the main rules section trumps a Special rule?

"Unstoppable" (Guargantuan Creatures) trumps Instant Death, Sniper and poisoned.

"Heavy" (Vehicle type) Trumps Jink.

Heavy vehicles are just specified to not have Jink, that's not really 'trumping'.

But fair point on Gargantuan Creatures, though I feel like it's a bit of a different case when the rule specifically states how the effect of specific Special rules are modified

tgjensen wrote:
Heavy vehicles are just specified to not have Jink, that's not really 'trumping'.

Good point, I'll replace that with "Monstrous Creature - Shooting" trumps "Pinning".

But fair point on Gargantuan Creatures, though I feel like it's a bit of a different case when the rule specifically states how the effect of specific Special rules are modified

That's the whole point. If Special rules always trump Advanced, then it wouldn't matter if the Advanced rule specified it effects it, as the Special rule would then trump it.

Poison would trump Unstoppable, and cause the Gargantuan creature to be wounded on a 4+, despite what the Advanced rule says.


Edit: let's look at it the other way round. Is there an example of a Special Rule trumping an Advanced rule, and where this is the case, is this because it specifies that it effects that rule?

For example: "Skyfire" trumps "Zooming" - and specifies that this is the case.

Unsure of intent.
Neither one is particular more specific, least not obviously. HoW attacks are resolved against a specific armor facing against vehicles (irrelevant of the vehicle rules). But a walker is a specific type of vehicle. Does 'Vehicle' under HoW include the sub types?

To be fair I would lean HoW resolved as in its entry, based on the word 'vehicle' to usually mean 'vehicle or any subset vehicle'. In much the same way subset's of any other unit type are included in those generalized banners, like those examples I can't think of right now.