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.

 Nem wrote:
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?

Agreed.

We have two Advanced rules.
Both alter the facing of a CC Attack.

One might be a Special rule, but there is no evidence to show that Special Rules carry more weight than Advanced rules. Special rules are Advanced rules, and the rules seem to treat them no differently.

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.

That's fair enough.
Personally I see the rules as carrying equal weight.

It's the Overwatch interaction that does it for me. If the Walker can effectively turn to face the target to fire Overwatch, it wouldn't turn back again to receive the ram. Totally fluff, but I feel it's justification for two equal rules.

The Specific > General argument seems to get people confused. It is not a rule or a statement, it is a method of interpreting how rules and statements interact. In this case, we have the rule found under Vehicles, and more rules found under Vehicles (subtype: Walker), in which are detailed to rules for determining which Facing Armor Value is used for Close Combat attacks (I.e., Rear facing for Vehicles, Front facing for non-immobile Walkers). We also have the Special Rule "Hammer of Wrath", which follows the statement for Special Rukes bending or breaking the main rules of the book, as well as its own rule that tells us to just hit the Facing we are in base to base contact with.

When parsing out the interaction between the Special Rule, the main rules for Vehicles, and the more specific rules for Vehicle (subtype: Walker), the Soecial Rule "Hammer of Wrath" has permission to bypass the Facing rules for Vehicles (which includes Subtype: Walkers). This permission occurs because the Special Rule tells us how it interacts with Vehicles, while the Vehicles do not include any language informing us that all units in CC must hit a specific Facing "even if model may hit a different Facing using rules on its profile" (such as found on units like Monstrous and Gargantuan Creatures). If it did, then its specific exceptions would override the Special Rule's permission to bypass the rules for Vehicles.

In any case of Specific > General, you have to look for exceptions > permissions.

SJ

 grendel083 wrote:

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".

That's a really good point. I don't think a lot of people would interpret Pinning to overrule MCs' inability to Go to Ground.That kind of ruins the rules hierarchy I was trying to construct. Back to the drawing board...

Not that it's either here or there, but BAO/LVO plays that HoW hits the assaulted facing not front on walkers.

 Lobukia wrote:
Not that it's either here or there, but BAO/LVO plays that HoW hits the assaulted facing not front on walkers.

That's because BAO/LVO ruled correctly.

SJ

Lets just face it. The Walker rules are really bad. A superheavy walker surrounded by dread knights has dread knights attacking from the rear hitting front facing. It's incredibly poor ruling. They should have made walker rules in CC simple. The controller of the walker should be able to control which way the walker is facing after all moves have been made. After the turn facing is made all attacks should be made against the relative facing of the walker. My opinion of the as worded rules for walkers overrule HOW.

Actually, if they just kept all "moves as Infantry" units on round bases, there would be no issues. Oval bases create a facing bias, which becomes inconsistent as more and more rules referencing facing are applied to vehicle "infantry".

SJ

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets just face it. The Walker rules are really bad. A superheavy walker surrounded by dread knights has dread knights attacking from the rear hitting front facing. It's incredibly poor ruling. They should have made walker rules in CC simple. The controller of the walker should be able to control which way the walker is facing after all moves have been made. After the turn facing is made all attacks should be made against the relative facing of the walker. My opinion of the as worded rules for walkers overrule HOW.

How does that overrule HoW since, in your example, anyone standing behind the Walker is going to be hitting on the rear armor...exactly in the manner HoW tells us to resolve the hits?

No rulebook near me ATM, is it true that walkers can pivot to fire overwatch?

If that's so then the walker would in most cases be receiving the charge on its front facing...unless it was charged by multiple hammer-of-wrath causing hits....oh the insanity.

Walkers can fire overwatch even if the unit charging is not in it's current facing unless it is immobilized.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets just face it. The Walker rules are really bad. A superheavy walker surrounded by dread knights has dread knights attacking from the rear hitting front facing. It's incredibly poor ruling. They should have made walker rules in CC simple. The controller of the walker should be able to control which way the walker is facing after all moves have been made. After the turn facing is made all attacks should be made against the relative facing of the walker. My opinion of the as worded rules for walkers overrule HOW.

How does that overrule HoW since, in your example, anyone standing behind the Walker is going to be hitting on the rear armor...exactly in the manner HoW tells us to resolve the hits?

I was just stating my opinion on how the rule should have been made for walkers. Right now walkers are literally able to face every direction at all times and that is beyond stupid. However my interpretation of the as worded rules is that walkers take all CC hits on front armor, even when surrounded seems to overrule HoW. To me this is a rule that states "ignore everything to do with armor facing when walkers are in CC." I think the intent of HoW wording was to actually reduce it's effectiveness against vehicles not increase it as vehicles have weaker rear armor almost in every case and CC attacks ordinarily always hit rear facing, HoW does not.

I agree with your last point there, though in the specific case of Walkers, I think it's going to be a bit of both, given how fairly-specifically the rule for HoW is written, mainly because we have such a mess of a confluence of rules going on here.

On one side, we have the "all CC attacks hit vehicles on the rear armor" rule in effect, about as basic and general as it gets.

On another we have "... unless they're Walkers, in which case they take it in the face". Which is fairly specific, though presents issues when dealing with multiple attackers.

And on the third we have "Unless you are Hammer of Wrathing (it's a word), in which case you hit whatever side you're standing on"

So, in a fictional scenario where we have two boxy Rhinos and a Walker being attacked by a blob of infantry, some of which have HoW attacks...

All the non-HoW Infantry hit the Rhinos in the Rear Armor, regardless of facing.

All the non-HoW Infantry hit the Walker in the face, as its chicken-dancing around, spinning in place at high speeds or whatever.

All the HoW attacks land against whatever facing of either the Rhinos or the Walker they're in, based on how the models sit on the table... any additional, non-HoW CC attacks from these models will hit either the Rear Armor (vs Rhinos) or the Front (vs Walker), mainly because this rule is pretty specific, in that it is providing us with a clear and specific "you hit that Armor right there in front of you" instructions.

I want to bring up this interpretation again.

For all those in favor of the Walker talking HoW hits on front armor regardless of facing, you would also have to agree that if the walker is immobilized, all HoW hits go against rear armor.

Because in the Walker Rules, it specifically says that if the walker is immobilized, all attacks go against rear armor.

And as was argued, people are saying the walker rule is more specific than the HoW rule.

 Icculus wrote:
I want to bring up this interpretation again.

For all those in favor of the Walker talking HoW hits on front armor regardless of facing, you would also have to agree that if the walker is immobilized, all HoW hits go against rear armor.

Because in the Walker Rules, it specifically says that if the walker is immobilized, all attacks go against rear armor.

And as was argued, people are saying the walker rule is more specific than the HoW rule.

I hadn't thought of that. Good point.

 Icculus wrote:
I want to bring up this interpretation again.

For all those in favor of the Walker talking HoW hits on front armor regardless of facing, you would also have to agree that if the walker is immobilized, all HoW hits go against rear armor.

Because in the Walker Rules, it specifically says that if the walker is immobilized, all attacks go against rear armor.

And as was argued, people are saying the walker rule is more specific than the HoW rule.

I'd have no problem with that.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Icculus wrote:
I want to bring up this interpretation again.

For all those in favor of the Walker talking HoW hits on front armor regardless of facing, you would also have to agree that if the walker is immobilized, all HoW hits go against rear armor.

Because in the Walker Rules, it specifically says that if the walker is immobilized, all attacks go against rear armor.

And as was argued, people are saying the walker rule is more specific than the HoW rule.

I'd have no problem with that.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

But then doesn't that go against what HoW is all about? HoW always goes against facing armor because it's just a blunt attack and doesn't really target any weakness. So why should the immobilized walker get hit with HoW against rear armor?

 Icculus wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Icculus wrote:
I want to bring up this interpretation again.

For all those in favor of the Walker talking HoW hits on front armor regardless of facing, you would also have to agree that if the walker is immobilized, all HoW hits go against rear armor.

Because in the Walker Rules, it specifically says that if the walker is immobilized, all attacks go against rear armor.

And as was argued, people are saying the walker rule is more specific than the HoW rule.

I'd have no problem with that.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

But then doesn't that go against what HoW is all about? HoW always goes against facing armor because it's just a blunt attack and doesn't really target any weakness. So why should the immobilized walker get hit with HoW against rear armor?

There's no way to be consistent and have everything make sense.

If you think HoW takes presidence, the walker turns to face the target to Overwatch, turns back to get rammed, the faces it again to fight. Makes no sense. It is consistent with the rules though.

Ramming the front of a immobilised walker and hitting the rear doesn't make much sense either, but again is consistent. But you can use the same justification of a rhino being hit in the front and penning the rear - it's a strike to a vulnerable spot.

 Icculus wrote:
I want to bring up this interpretation again.

For all those in favor of the Walker talking HoW hits on front armor regardless of facing, you would also have to agree that if the walker is immobilized, all HoW hits go against rear armor.

Because in the Walker Rules, it specifically says that if the walker is immobilized, all attacks go against rear armor.

And as was argued, people are saying the walker rule is more specific than the HoW rule.

I feel this is exactly how it should be played. If it is immobilized it would go against the rear even if HoW says to hit the front.

If you think HoW takes presidence, the walker turns to face the target to Overwatch, turns back to get rammed, the faces it again to fight. Makes no sense. It is consistent with the rules though.

Ramming the front of a immobilized walker and hitting the rear doesn't make much sense either, but again is consistent. But you can use the same justification of a rhino being hit in the front and penning the rear - it's a strike to a vulnerable spot.

I just see it as the immobilized walker has collapsed on the ground so yeah its going to take more damage from a charge. But Im sure you can fluff anything up to appear right.

Overwatch is a bad example to use to describe how unrealistic HoW is versus Walkers, when Overwatch is horribly misplaced in the current timing of the game. However, if one must, it can be viewed that when a Walker "pivots" to Overwatch, it is firing at an extreme angle and therefore is actually firing out of its side axis, to the point of over-extending to hit enemy units behind it. It's a Snap Shot, after all.

SJ

 grendel083 wrote:

 Icculus wrote:
I want to bring up this interpretation again.

For all those in favor of the Walker talking HoW hits on front armor regardless of facing, you would also have to agree that if the walker is immobilized, all HoW hits go against rear armor.

Because in the Walker Rules, it specifically says that if the walker is immobilized, all attacks go against rear armor.

And as was argued, people are saying the walker rule is more specific than the HoW rule.

I'd have no problem with that.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

Agreed - I believe this is the intent of the ruling.