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.

Alright... they assault and are assaulted as if they were Infantry. Which means that they can be assaulted, because they are treated as an infantry unit...

General Vs. Specific: You may assault a vehicle if you cannot hurt it, but only if it's a walker. Which is a really bad idea, even if you have hit and run...

 Abandon wrote:
(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

It's like the second sentence is a continuation of the same rule...

(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

Same here.

(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

In this case it's a matter of explanation rather than a rule.
It's like context matters or something.

BolterUnlimited wrote:
Alright... they assault and are assaulted as if they were Infantry. Which means that they can be assaulted, because they are treated as an infantry unit...

General Vs. Specific: You may assault a vehicle if you cannot hurt it, but only if it's a walker. Which is a really bad idea, even if you have hit and run...

Vehicles can be assault (as long as you can hurt it...) so there is no difference there, I have explained my opinion of the rule in the other thread.

Now imagine if the walker was a psychic pilot and cast Gate of Infinity then assaulted!

 loreweaver wrote:
Now imagine if the walker was a psychic pilot and cast Gate of Infinity then assaulted!

Is there any way for a psyhic dread to get gate?, didnt think there was?, plus you cant assault after gating (deep striking).

MarkyMark wrote:
Is there any way for a psyhic dread to get gate?, didnt think there was?, plus you cant assault after gating (deep striking).

Furioso Dread, IIRC? I know you can't assault after deepstriking, I was being comically snarky. Go check out OP's other thread.

Nope, cant get BRB powers, only librarians are allowed to, not a furioso librarian....

Same as GK dreadknights cant get BRB powers as it is not a GK librarian.

The biggest problem with this discussion is that the FAQ states you can charge a unit you cannot hurt. Which now people will argue that vehicle rules dont apply to that.

Fragile wrote:
The biggest problem with this discussion is that the FAQ states you can charge a unit you cannot hurt. Which now people will argue that vehicle rules dont apply to that.

Not a problem at all actually. The FAQ *clarifies* what the rulebook states (that you can charge a unit you cannot hurt) but the rules regarding Vehicles are more specific and therefore overturn the general ruling when it comes to vehicles.

The issue is certain people would like the statement that Walkers can "assault and be assaulted like infantry" to mean that a walker, when assaulting/assaulted, is no longer treated as a vehicle *at all* and can therefore be assaulted regardless of whether you can hurt it, by dismissing the 2nd half of the statement describing HOW it is like infantry in assaults.

Which they can. You can assault a unit you cannot hurt. Yet, you cannot assault a vehicle which you cannot hurt. Specific Beats General. Yet, according to the 5e BRb, Walkers assault and are assaulted as Infantry. So, it's another case of Specific Beats General.

Just my opinion. I don't have the 6e rulebook (yet).

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

However, walkers are still vehicles (they do not *become* infantry) and you cannot charge a vehicle that you cannot hurt.

Neither of these rules conflict with one another. If you can hurt the walker, you can charge it. It is still a vehicle, however it behaves as an infantry model in that it CAN charge and it can be locked in combat (whereas vehicles otherwise cannot to either of those).

You cannot separate the 2nd half of that sentence from the first and have it mean the same thing. It clarifies (quite well) what can be done with (or to) that *vehicle* in assault situations outside of the normal rules for vehicles and assault.

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

The current GW FAQ (from page 4) makes this whole thread moot. Any enemy can charge any enemy unit even if they can't hurt it. Enemy unit means ANY enemy unit, including vehicles. So Nurglings can charge the Furioso and tie it up for at least a few seconds of combat

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3030001a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.3_FEBRUARY13.pdf

Rorschach9 wrote:
"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models,
meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked
in combat."

However, walkers are still vehicles (they do not *become* infantry) and you cannot charge a vehicle that you cannot hurt.

Neither of these rules conflict with one another. If you can hurt the walker, you can charge it. It is still a vehicle, however it behaves as an infantry model in that it CAN charge and it can be locked in combat (whereas vehicles otherwise cannot to either of those).

You cannot separate the 2nd half of that sentence from the first and have it mean the same thing. It clarifies (quite well) what can be done with (or to) that *vehicle* in assault situations outside of the normal rules for vehicles and assault.

However, the big kicker, which you are missing, is the subset of the second rule.

Walkers can assault, AND BE ASSAULTED, as Infantry...

You see now? They can be assaulted as infantry. You cannot be both a vehicle and infantry, so when you assault, you treat it like that annoying squad of jumppackless assault marines over there.

IT also says page 20, page 74 i think it is says you cant charge a vehicle you cant hurt, as vehicle is more specfic then a 'unit' the vehicle rule takes precdeent


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If that was the case bolter unlimited, why would they put this

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


at the end of that sentence?, If they had just put what you quoted then fine but they deliberatly put the second part of that sentence in, nothing there stops it being a vehicle nor does it say you can assault something you cant hurt?. Normal vehicles cannot make charge moves nor be locked in combat IMO that rule means just that, you can assault them and be locked in combat, they can charge you and be locked in combat but nothing there to say you can charge a vehicle (walker) that you cannot hurt

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

The current GW FAQ (from page 4) makes this whole thread moot. Any enemy can charge any enemy unit even if they can't hurt it. Enemy unit means ANY enemy unit, including vehicles. So Nurglings can charge the Furioso and tie it up for at least a few seconds of combat

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3030001a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.3_FEBRUARY13.pdf

HOWEVER... the rulebook says you cannot assault vehicles you cannot hurt. That's the BRb, not whatever the FAQ says. The rulebook overrides the FAQ in all situations. And it's a case of Specific against General.

I could see this one going either way. It would have been really cool if walkers could leave combat versus enemy units that can't hurt them.

I tend to favor the interpretation that goes with no they can't assault it.

MarkyMark wrote:
IT also says page 20, page 74 i think it is says you cant charge a vehicle you cant hurt, as vehicle is more specfic then a 'unit' the vehicle rule takes precdeent


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If that was the case bolter unlimited, why would they put this

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


at the end of that sentence?, If they had just put what you quoted then fine but they deliberatly put the second part of that sentence in, nothing there stops it being a vehicle nor does it say you can assault something you cant hurt?. Normal vehicles cannot make charge moves nor be locked in combat IMO that rule means just that, you can assault them and be locked in combat, they can charge you and be locked in combat but nothing there to say you can charge a vehicle (walker) that you cannot hurt

That was a clarification. It doesn't say it still counts as a vehicle. If it does say that, then we're all wrong and this thread is moot. But as long as it doesn't say that a walker counts as a vehicle when assaulted- which is honestly more of a Codex thing- that statement below is nothing more than a clarifcation/emphasis/repetition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I could see this one going either way. It would have been really cool if walkers could leave combat versus enemy units that can't hurt them.

I tend to favor the interpretation that goes with no they can't assault it.

text removed. No need for comments like this.
Reds8n

BolterUnlimited wrote:
. The rulebook overrides the FAQ in all situations..

Umm no.

BolterUnlimited wrote:

AND YOU... are you even here to help/hurt? If not, shut up and sit in that corner over there.

Woah...that was completely uncalled for. Learn to respect others on DakkaDakka and their opinions. Insulting people is a no no.

Also FAQ overrides rulebook but in this case specific>general. nothing stops the walker from beiing a vehicle so the vehicle rules still apply. As for the part on walkers due to it saying "meaning they can make charges moves and be locked in combat" imo clarifies how they are like infantry for assaults. in short saying "Walkers assault, and are assaulted like infantry models" and that means this "they can make charge moves and be locked in combat".

Fragile wrote:

BolterUnlimited wrote:
. The rulebook overrides the FAQ in all situations..

Umm no.

Umm, yes? The rulebook are the rules of the game, the FAQ are simply clarifications. I can banish a heretic with the rulebook, I can do no such thing with the FAQ.

BolterUnlimited wrote:

Fragile wrote:

BolterUnlimited wrote:
. The rulebook overrides the FAQ in all situations..

Umm no.

Umm, yes? The rulebook are the rules of the game, the FAQ are simply clarifications. I can banish a heretic with the rulebook, I can do no such thing with the FAQ.

No. The FAQ, errata and amendments are there to clarify issues in the rulebook and, effectivley, change the rules. GW makes shoddy FAQs often putting errata into the FAQ section but FAQ>Rulebook. They can and do change the rules.

BolterUnlimited wrote:

Fragile wrote:

BolterUnlimited wrote:
. The rulebook overrides the FAQ in all situations..

Umm no.

Umm, yes? The rulebook are the rules of the game, the FAQ are simply clarifications. I can banish a heretic with the rulebook, I can do no such thing with the FAQ.

FAQ's override the rulebook. Otherwise they could never change anything.
FAQ's are more than just clarification, they can and do change rules as well.

BolterUnlimited wrote:

Fragile wrote:

BolterUnlimited wrote:
. The rulebook overrides the FAQ in all situations..

Umm no.

Umm, yes? The rulebook are the rules of the game, the FAQ are simply clarifications. I can banish a heretic with the rulebook, I can do no such thing with the FAQ.

It would be good to play you. I would love for my Tyranid Primes to join squads in spores and use quad guns, since those pesky FAQ's dont matter. FAQs can and have changed rules in the game. So you can say they are clarifications, but they are GW's clarifications for the game of 40K. If you wanna to play Bolter40k, thats your choice.


As far as this debate goes. You can charge enemy units you cannot hurt. Even if you use the rule that Vehicles cannot be charged still, the Walker is treated as an infantry unit for the purposes of assaults. Therefore the Walker is eligible to be charged.

Why would you assault it if you can't hurt it?

Fragile wrote:
the Walker is treated as an infantry unit for the purposes of assaults. Therefore the Walker is eligible to be charged.

At what point does the walker cease to be a vehicle?

To tie it up so that it is stuck killing the unit you throw at it rather than something important.

 Satan's Little Helper wrote:
Why would you assault it if you can't hurt it?

To tie it up in combat to prevent it from shooting or assaulting units you don't want to die. But, that is from a generals point of view. If you were say and ork in a boyz unit you wouldn't charge anything you couldn't hurt as it wouldn't make sense to do it as it would result in your death.

BolterUnlimited wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models,
meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked
in combat."

However, walkers are still vehicles (they do not *become* infantry) and you cannot charge a vehicle that you cannot hurt.

Neither of these rules conflict with one another. If you can hurt the walker, you can charge it. It is still a vehicle, however it behaves as an infantry model in that it CAN charge and it can be locked in combat (whereas vehicles otherwise cannot to either of those).

You cannot separate the 2nd half of that sentence from the first and have it mean the same thing. It clarifies (quite well) what can be done with (or to) that *vehicle* in assault situations outside of the normal rules for vehicles and assault.

However, the big kicker, which you are missing, is the subset of the second rule.

Walkers can assault, AND BE ASSAULTED, as Infantry...

You see now? They can be assaulted as infantry. You cannot be both a vehicle and infantry, so when you assault, you treat it like that annoying squad of jumppackless assault marines over there.

I didn't miss that at all. They can be assaulted LIKE (not AS) infantry (please continue the sentence) ..... "meaning... it can be locked in combat" (unlike other vehicles, ergo, Like infantry, it can be locked in combat. Unlike other vehicles, walkers can charge, ergo, Like infantry, it can charge). It does not say they become infantry. Walkers are vehicles. They do not change unit type.

Specific (You cannot assault a vehicle you cannot hurt) overrides General (you can assault a unit you cannot hurt) (vehicle = specific, "unit" = general). This still applies as the unit in question is still a vehicle, though it assaults/can be assaulted "like infantry .. meaning ...."

Do not separate the meaning from the rest of the sentence. If you do, you lose context and create a dispute in rules. Leaving the meaning intact and reading the meaning as is causes no dispute in the rules (where specific overrides general).

Fragile wrote:
The biggest problem with this discussion is that the FAQ states you can charge a unit you cannot hurt. Which now people will argue that vehicle rules dont apply to that.

Except there are two rules to consider and we should strive to break no rule.

You can assault a unit you can not hurt.

You can not assault a vehicle you can not hurt.

In this case can't trumps can. Permissive ruleset and all.


Basically This: "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models" means this: "they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

The sentence could have read: Walkers can make charge moves and can be locked in combat.

This is what that whole sentence means, because they tell us what the sentence means, nothing more than what is written.

Oh... it says like? If it says like, then it's still a vehicle, which you can't assault.

If it says "as" infantry, then you can assault it. If it says "like"... anyone have a 6e rulebook handy?