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.

As the title says, the rulebook says "no" (p. 76), the Official Update v1.0a says "yes" (first page of FAQs).

Which is to be believed?

I would say yes.

The Infinite wrote:
As the title says, the rulebook says "no" (p. 76), the Official Update v1.0a says "yes" (first page of FAQs).

Which is to be believed?

I can not find that in the FAQ, can I get some more specific directions please.

40k FAQ found here

I believe he refers to page3 second column.

Q: Can I charge an enemy unit that I can’t hurt? (p20)
A: Yes.

Unit, yes.

Vehicles, no. P.76

The rulebook never said you couldn't charge a unit you couldn't hurt, it only ever said you couldn't charge a vehicle you had no chance of hurting. This was to avoid letting people get a free potential 12" move against something that doesn't get overwatch.

So in General you can assault a unit you can't hurt.
More Specifically you can't assault a vehicle you can't hurt.

 Kevin949 wrote:
Unit, yes.

Vehicles, no.

The rulebook never said you couldn't charge a unit you couldn't hurt, it only ever said you couldn't charge a vehicle you had no chance of hurting. This was to avoid letting people get a free potential 12" move against something that doesn't get overwatch.

So, can Scarabs charge a Land Raider then?
And if yes, what about another unit charging the Land Raider in the same phase, they'd be relying of the Scarabs' ES knocking the AV down?

The Infinite wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Unit, yes.

Vehicles, no.

The rulebook never said you couldn't charge a unit you couldn't hurt, it only ever said you couldn't charge a vehicle you had no chance of hurting. This was to avoid letting people get a free potential 12" move against something that doesn't get overwatch.

So, can Scarabs charge a Land Raider then?

Yes, they have the ability to damage it.

The Infinite wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Unit, yes.

Vehicles, no.

The rulebook never said you couldn't charge a unit you couldn't hurt, it only ever said you couldn't charge a vehicle you had no chance of hurting. This was to avoid letting people get a free potential 12" move against something that doesn't get overwatch.

So, can Scarabs charge a Land Raider then?
And if yes, what about another unit charging the Land Raider in the same phase, they'd be relying of the Scarabs' ES knocking the AV down?

I'd say they can't charge on the same time if they at the moment of the charge can't score a hit to the AV, need to wait for the scarabs to soften it up a turn.

Next question then, is the rider of a chariot having a Warscythe enough justification to allow the chariot to charge a Land Raider (they are not the same unit after all)?
(can you see a theme developing for my upcoming battle?)

No, the unit charging, the Chariot, CANNOT hurt it. The embarked model is not the one charging it, which is why you get no assault bonus, no furious charge etc.

 grendel083 wrote:
So in General you can assault a unit you can't hurt.
More Specifically you can't assault a vehicle you can't hurt.

There is no substantial difference here. Units can be made up of vehicles, therefore that FAQ overrides and allows you to charge vehicles you cannot hurt.

"units" of vehicles are squadrons, not units. I can't remember having seen that they deviate from this distinction.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, the unit charging, the Chariot, CANNOT hurt it. The embarked model is not the one charging it, which is why you get no assault bonus, no furious charge etc.

Probably why chariots get sweep attacks, eh?

 SgtSixkilla wrote:
"units" of vehicles are squadrons, not units. I can't remember having seen that they deviate from this distinction.

Pg 3. A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right

Fragile wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
So in General you can assault a unit you can't hurt.
More Specifically you can't assault a vehicle you can't hurt.

There is no substantial difference here. Units can be made up of vehicles, therefore that FAQ overrides and allows you to charge vehicles you cannot hurt.

There is a substantial difference.
Even a single vehicle is a unit.
You can assault a unit you cannot hurt. Unless that unit is a vehicle.

I'm with grendel. The FAQ on p20 is referring to general charge rules, while the p76 is specifically for vehicles, and overrides the general rule.

Someone above said you don't get furious charge or bonus attacks on the charge when assaulting a vehicle is that true?

Ub3rb3n wrote:
Someone above said you don't get furious charge or bonus attacks on the charge when assaulting a vehicle is that true?

Someone is wrong.

I can't find any reference denying Furious Charge and +1A for charging a vehicle.

Okay just making sure

He was saying the *vehicle* (the chariot in this case) would not get the +1 atttack...

 grendel083 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
So in General you can assault a unit you can't hurt.
More Specifically you can't assault a vehicle you can't hurt.

There is no substantial difference here. Units can be made up of vehicles, therefore that FAQ overrides and allows you to charge vehicles you cannot hurt.

There is a substantial difference.
Even a single vehicle is a unit.
You can assault a unit you cannot hurt. Unless that unit is a vehicle.

The FAQ makes no distinction. You can charge a unit. A vehicle is a unit.

I'm with grendel. The FAQ on p20 is referring to general charge rules, while the p76 is specifically for vehicles, and overrides the general rule.

Which would be fine, except the FAQ overrides that. That FAQ needs an exception for vehicles put in it.

Doesn't Basic vs Advanced on p7 address this? The FAQ specifically refers to the basic rules for assaults (references p20) , and the vehicle rules then go on to provide an exception.

Fragile wrote:

The FAQ on p20 is referring to general charge rules, while the p76 is specifically for vehicles, and overrides the general rule.

Which would be fine, except the FAQ overrides that. That FAQ needs an exception for vehicles put in it.

The faq entry does not create a new super-rule that overrides all previous rules. It answers a question about a rule, in this case, the basic rules for charging.

I would follow the principle of specific > general.

Fragile wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
So in General you can assault a unit you can't hurt.
More Specifically you can't assault a vehicle you can't hurt.

There is no substantial difference here. Units can be made up of vehicles, therefore that FAQ overrides and allows you to charge vehicles you cannot hurt.

There is a substantial difference.
Even a single vehicle is a unit.
You can assault a unit you cannot hurt. Unless that unit is a vehicle.

The FAQ makes no distinction. You can charge a unit. A vehicle is a unit.

I'm with grendel. The FAQ on p20 is referring to general charge rules, while the p76 is specifically for vehicles, and overrides the general rule.

Which would be fine, except the FAQ overrides that. That FAQ needs an exception for vehicles put in it.

Sorry gotta go specific> general hear bud. No Exception needed.
The Faq does not override as you say.

foolishmortal wrote:

Fragile wrote:

The FAQ on p20 is referring to general charge rules, while the p76 is specifically for vehicles, and overrides the general rule.

Which would be fine, except the FAQ overrides that. That FAQ needs an exception for vehicles put in it.

The faq entry does not create a new super-rule that overrides all previous rules. It answers a question about a rule, in this case, the basic rules for charging.

I would follow the principle of specific > general.

As above. The advanced rule for chargin vehicles overrides the basic allowance to charge any unit

Seeing as it's an FAQ and not an errata, nothing should operate differently than it did prior to the FAQ. It's pretty clear (to most people) that the FAQ was addressing a unit with a toughness value (made more clear by the pg20 reference in the FAQ).

 Kevin949 wrote:
Seeing as it's an FAQ and not an errata, nothing should operate differently than it did prior to the FAQ. It's pretty clear (to most people) that the FAQ was addressing a unit with a toughness value (made more clear by the pg20 reference in the FAQ).

Agreed

GW actually takes the time to seperate "answering questions" from "changes to rules"... and yet people ignore the distinction

 Lobukia wrote:
GW actually takes the time to seperate "answering questions" from "changes to rules"... and yet people ignore the distinction

It's because GW change rules in the FAQ answers all the time and everyone who has actually read the FAQs should know this. This was true in 5e and it is true in 6e. And it is trivial to prove: 6e Necron FAQ V1.1, last question in FAQ portion. Note this is not Errata/Amendment.

6e Necron FAQ V1.1 wrote:Q: Is there any way to embark back onto a Night Scythe?
A: Yes – follow the rules for Embarking on page 78, treating the Night Scythe’s base as its Access Point. Note that this is possible despite the Night Scythe being a Zooming Flyer.

Underlined portion is explicitly changing rules. Do you still think that GW somehow separates "answering questions" from "changing Rules" in FAQs?

As for the original question, the FAQ about charging answer refers to general case. The specific case about not allowed to charge vehicles one cannot hurt still stands.