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.

Thought the rules for vehicles and walkers in particular were fairly clear so I never thought to question what is generally accepted but this question came up in another thread and instead of derailing theirs I put it to you all here.

Question: Can a unit that cannot hurt a walker make a charge move against it?

The three primary rules in question are:

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

"a unit cannot charge a vehicle that it cannot hurt" BRB page 76

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." BRB page 84

So...

Can you ignore the fact that it's a vehicle you cannot hurt and charge it like infantry per the walker rules?

-or-

Given the wording of the rules does the prohibition against charging it stand?

I suppose the crux of the debate would be the line "assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models" which could mean a couple slightly different things.
would this be slightly rephrase as:
'assault, and are assaulted, like they are Infantry models'
or
' like Infantry models, they can assault and be assaulted'

IMO when it says walkers assault like infantry and that means they make charge moves (like infantry) it creates the association between 'assault' and the ability to 'charge'. It's reasonably inferred in that case that when they say they are assaulted like infantry they can be charged (like infantry). This seemed like the obvious reading to me since charging is part of assault and they are assaulted like infantry.
Also of note, vehicles can already be assaulted, there is no need to mention it unless they mean to imply you do so as if assaulting infantry.

Discuss.

A walker is still a vehicle, nothing stops it being a vehicle. So no, you can't assault a vehicle you can't damage.

Page 76 says you can not charge a vehicle you can not hurt, so if you can not hurt the walker you can not charge it.

You know that would render the text stating they can be assaulted like infantry as meaningless?

Not at all, as you assault a vehicle and an infantry unit in the exact same way.

Save for overwatch which most vehicles do not get to use.

 Abandon wrote:
You know that would render the text stating they can be assaulted like infantry as meaningless?

Yes, when they can be assaulted they are assaulted like infantry. I think you're referencing that they "assault" like infantry though. In that they can be locked in combat and have a WS and what have you.

Like I said, by your reading the statement that they can be assaulted like infantry is meaningless as just like infantry, they can already be assaulted. It must therefore mean that they can be assault like they are infantry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also of note, as this is am more specific rule for walkers it take precedence over the general vehicle rules.

 Abandon wrote:
Like I said, by your reading the statement that they can be assaulted like infantry is meaningless..

No, it doesn't render it meaningless:

"meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat".

that's the meaning of the phrase, in this case, that they can be locked in combat when assaulted, like infantry.

 Drunkspleen wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Like I said, by your reading the statement that they can be assaulted like infantry is meaningless..

No, it doesn't render it meaningless:

"meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat".

that's the meaning of the phrase, in this case, that they can be locked in combat when assaulted, like infantry.

That they can be assaulted like infantry has nothing to do with those things. Please tell me what they meant by that considering vehicles can already be assaulted.

 Abandon wrote:

 Drunkspleen wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Like I said, by your reading the statement that they can be assaulted like infantry is meaningless..

No, it doesn't render it meaningless:

"meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat".

that's the meaning of the phrase, in this case, that they can be locked in combat when assaulted, like infantry.

That they can be assaulted like infantry has nothing to do with those things. Please tell me what they meant by that considering vehicles can already be assaulted.

Overwatch is the first thing that springs to mind.
The second being that once in base to base, both units are locked.

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." BRB page 84

The Underlined means what the orange text says, nothing more or less. how is that not clear?

They tell you what they meant, just because you think it didn't need to be worded that way doesn't change that.

There is no meaning you can reasonably attribute to the phrase "Walkers do X, meaning Y" other than Y.

To suggest the phrase is invalidated because it lacks some secret other meaning which the game designers didn't list in the book when writing out what they meant is simply asinine.

 Drunkspleen wrote:
They tell you what they meant, just because you think it didn't need to be worded that way doesn't change that.

There is no meaning you can reasonably attribute to the phrase "Walkers do X, meaning Y" other than Y.

To suggest the phrase is invalidated because it lacks some secret other meaning which the game designers didn't list in the book when writing out what they meant is simply asinine.

Well that's a bit insulting but whatever.

Saying X means Y does not mean X only means Y. To read it that way would not negate the rule on page 76

"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat"

Creating an absurd scenario where the walker is locked in combat but the opposing unit is not. So I maintain that "just like infantry" means it is treated like infantry for the purposes listed - assault and being assaulted. Which does mean, as it says, it can charge and be locked in combat. It would also mean though that it is treated like infantry for all purposes of assaulting and being assaulted.

That they state it means two things does not limit it to only those two things.

It really does. If they meant only part they would use a phrase similar to "including" or "in part".
That they didn't means that those are the only things it means.

rigeld2 wrote:
It really does. If they meant only part they would use a phrase similar to "including" or "in part".
That they didn't means that those are the only things it means.

Neither 'in part' nor 'only' is specified. I won't say anyone is wrong for reading this rule one way or the other but I am saying both would be a valid viewing of the text and stating my reasons for my opinion on the subject.

If how you see it is the common reading for TOs and your friends I am curious about one thing.

"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat" BRB page 76

If it only means the walker can charge and be locked in combat wouldn't this rule mean the walker can get locked in combat while the unit it's fighting is not?

 Abandon wrote:
Neither 'in part' nor 'only' is specified. I won't say anyone is wrong for reading this rule one way or the other but I am saying both would be a valid viewing of the text and stating my reasons for my opinion on the subject.

It doesn't have to be specified. You have no permission to include other meanings so you can't.

If it only means the walker can charge and be locked in combat wouldn't this rule mean the walker can get locked in combat while the unit it's fighting is not?

Technically yes.
It's a ludicrous (and game breaking) result and the intent is obvious however so should never be played that way.

In that case, as you also do not have permission to exclude meanings of the first part of the sentence, I'll stick to the reading that does not include this absurdity.

I've read this thread top to bottom and can't help but side with Abandon on this one.

"Walkers assault and are assaulted like infantry models." p.84

General rule gets trounced by specific vehicle rule, which in turn gets trounced by more specific walker rule.

MarsNZ wrote:
I've read this thread top to bottom and can't help but side with Abandon on this one.

"Walkers assault and are assaulted like infantry models." p.84

General rule gets trounced by specific vehicle rule, which in turn gets trounced by more specific walker rule.

So what specifically over rides the can not assault a vehicle you can not damage rules?

Page and Graph will suffice.

 DeathReaper wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
I've read this thread top to bottom and can't help but side with Abandon on this one.

"Walkers assault and are assaulted like infantry models." p.84

General rule gets trounced by specific vehicle rule, which in turn gets trounced by more specific walker rule.

So what specifically over rides the can not assault a vehicle you can not damage rules?

Page and Graph will suffice.

You quoted it.

They are 'assaulted like infantry models' page 84


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MarsNZ wrote:
I've read this thread top to bottom and can't help but side with Abandon on this one.

"Walkers assault and are assaulted like infantry models." p.84

General rule gets trounced by specific vehicle rule, which in turn gets trounced by more specific walker rule.

Precisely.

Abandon, maybe you did not see the part that asks where it specifically over rides the can not assault a vehicle you can not damage rules

page 84 does not specifically over ride the can not assault a vehicle you can not damage rules.

Do you have anything specific?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Abandon, maybe you did not see the part that asks where it specifically over rides the can not assault a vehicle you can not damage rules

page 84 does not specifically over ride the can not assault a vehicle you can not damage rules.

Do you have anything specific?

As specific rules override general rules, the rules for walkers take precedence over the general vehicle rules. Therefore the rule on page 84 actually does do just that.

 Abandon wrote:
In that case, as you also do not have permission to exclude meanings of the first part of the sentence, I'll stick to the reading that does not include this absurdity.

You absolutely do.

You're told X and you're told this means Y.

Trying to fit any other meaning of X is against the rules.

 Abandon wrote:
As specific rules override general rules, the rules for walkers take precedence over the general vehicle rules. Therefore the rule on page 84 actually does do just that.

The can't assault is more specific.

In assault you can assault a unit.

You can assault a vehicle that is a unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
In that case, as you also do not have permission to exclude meanings of the first part of the sentence, I'll stick to the reading that does not include this absurdity.

You absolutely do.

You're told X and you're told this means Y.

Trying to fit any other meaning of X is against the rules.

No.... many times X and Y have different meanings in this type of statement where X is a more general statement and Y is something(s) that X means. Perhaps the only thing(s), perhaps not.

IE:

(x)"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being 2 points better than normal.
Note that this means..."
(y)"a model with the Shrouded special rule always has a cover save of at least 5+, even if it's in the open" Shrouded, page 41 BRB

(x)"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being 1 point better than normal.
Note that this means..."
(y)"that a model with the Stealth special rule always has a cover save of at least 6+, even if it is in the open." Stealth, page 42 BRB

Does X mean only Y? No. Neither is their any 'in part' or other indication that X means more than Y but as we all know it does.

(x)"Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit, as long as it is in range, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation.
This means..."
(y)"that Precision Shots can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or even characters!" Precision Shots, page 63 BRB

If X only means Y then precision shoots can only be allocated against characters and enemies carrying specialist weapons. Which is of course incorrect.

I can come up with many more examples that X can mean more that Y if you like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
As specific rules override general rules, the rules for walkers take precedence over the general vehicle rules. Therefore the rule on page 84 actually does do just that.

The can't assault is more specific.

In assault you can assault a unit.

You can assault a vehicle that is a unit.

Are you saying that the rules for a specific type of vehicle(walkers) are less specific than the general vehicle rules(all vehicles)?

No, I am saying your line of thinking is incorrect.

Nothing over rides the rule about not being able to charge a vehicle you can not hurt.

You assault walkers like you assault infantry, but the walker is still a vehicle and still has that restriction on it.

Nothing specifically says that you can charge a walker you can not hurt as you have a restriction saying you can not assault a walker you can not hurt.

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, I am saying your line of thinking is incorrect.

Nothing over rides the rule about not being able to charge a vehicle you can not hurt.

You assault walkers like you assault infantry, but the walker is still a vehicle and still has that restriction on it.

Nothing specifically says that you can charge a walker you can not hurt as you have a restriction saying you can not assault a walker you can not hurt.

It's more or less how you choose to read the line as there are two possible meanings it can have as I've already said.

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models"<--- two ways you could take that as per my original post.

 DeathReaper wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
I've read this thread top to bottom and can't help but side with Abandon on this one.

"Walkers assault and are assaulted like infantry models." p.84

General rule gets trounced by specific vehicle rule, which in turn gets trounced by more specific walker rule.

So what specifically over rides the can not assault a vehicle you can not damage rules?

Page and Graph will suffice.

The part where it specifies that it acts as infantry in assault, I thought that was pretty clear from the bold text I included in my post. Next time I will attempt a more concise post for you.

But you missed out the last part of the sentence

meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat.

It is pretty important to include the whole sentences when referencing rules

You mean they charge and are locked in combat like infantry? I didn't see why including that text would make any difference.