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.

deleted by me

 redkeyboard wrote:
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.

I don't know, there are some pretty crazy people and aliens in 40k, and how would they know they couldn't hurt it?

I would say it just represents how a Walker could ignore them and move out of combat at its leisure.

I am one for the 'you can't charge a walker you cannot hurt'.

Like others have said, a walkers classification is a vehicle, not infantry. Any rules stating that it is treated as infantry is for the purposes of moving in the assault phase and being locked in combat.

But I have three Soul Grinders in my army so perhaps I am biased.

BolterUnlimited wrote:
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?

This is why you shouldn't really comment on this thread no offence as using a 5e rulebook is obsolete as this isn't 5th edition so arguments based on 5th edition rules are useless. YMDC is all about using quotes from the current FAQs and the current rulebook to back up your argument about rules.

 XT-1984 wrote:

 redkeyboard wrote:
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.

I don't know, there are some pretty crazy people and aliens in 40k, and how would they know they couldn't hurt it?

I would say it just represents how a Walker could ignore them and move out of combat at its leisure.

I am one for the 'you can't charge a walker you cannot hurt'.

Like others have said, a walkers classification is a vehicle, not infantry. Any rules stating that it is treated as infantry is for the purposes of moving in the assault phase and being locked in combat.

But I have three Soul Grinders in my army so perhaps I am biased.

Orks would be the best to charge as they are fearless while over ten models, nids in sypnase are also good as they are fearless cultists with a chaos lord HQ again fearless, IG blob with say azreal, fearless. While in CC the walker could kill a few cheap models a turn and that would be it, bar the guard blob with azreal they will tie the walker up for a good portion of the game.

MarkyMark wrote:

 XT-1984 wrote:

 redkeyboard wrote:
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.

I don't know, there are some pretty crazy people and aliens in 40k, and how would they know they couldn't hurt it?

I would say it just represents how a Walker could ignore them and move out of combat at its leisure.

I am one for the 'you can't charge a walker you cannot hurt'.

Like others have said, a walkers classification is a vehicle, not infantry. Any rules stating that it is treated as infantry is for the purposes of moving in the assault phase and being locked in combat.

But I have three Soul Grinders in my army so perhaps I am biased.

Orks would be the best to charge as they are fearless while over ten models, nids in sypnase are also good as they are fearless cultists with a chaos lord HQ again fearless, IG blob with say azreal, fearless. While in CC the walker could kill a few cheap models a turn and that would be it, bar the guard blob with azreal they will tie the walker up for a good portion of the game.

I change my example to Eldar Guardian. They wouldn't charge a dreadnought or another walker to tie it up as it means loss of life and from a fluff perspective (yes I know fluff with rules is bad but this isn't really rules I'm talking about more a common sense thing) as every eldar life is sacred. But Im basically just saying with common sense you won't charge somehting you can't kill as it would mean death.

Seems pretty clear that yes, walkers are vehicles (as they have an armor value). Walkers assault and can be assaulted as infantry do. Those are both clear from the rules quoted. But there is one important exception to this that the BRB also stipulates... namely, that IF the enemy unit in question has nothing that can hurt the vehicle (walker in this case) then they can't charge it. But if the enemy unit CAN hurt the vehicle (again, the walker in this case) then they CAN assault it. That is just a further modification to the other more general rules... JMHO though...

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

Please demonstrate the difference between the comparisons and what contextual difference you find.

They state a rule then stat some thing(s) that rule means. Limiting all rules to only the stated meanings after they say 'this means' and ignoring all other meanings of the rule created before it would cause you to be playing something other than 40k.

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.

If you charge a walker like a vehicle(applying assaulting vehicle rules), are you assaulting the walker like infantry? No, you'd be assaulting it like a vehicle. You are told to use the rules for assaulting infantry(basic assault rules) when it says they are 'assaulted just like infantry'

MarkyMark wrote:
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

The additions and clarifications added after 'this means' do not negate the rule created before it. This happens throughout the BRB as I have already demonstrated. Also as I said, if your using the rules for assaulting vehicles while charging a walker you are not 'assaulting it just like infantry' for which you only use the basic assault rules.

grendel083 wrote:

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?

It doesn't. You are told to assault it like infantry though which means you ignore that it's a vehicle for purpose of assaulting it. Just like the walker itself ignores the vehicles assault rules and is allowed to charge.... just like infantry.



And lets not forget this line:
"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat" BRB page 76

If you choose to read the rule ""Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." as meaning only that they can charge and be locked in combat then enemy units in CC with the walker are not locked in combat while the walker is.

It make much more sense IMO to read the line to mean they are treated just like infantry for purposes of assaulting and being assaulted. In that case they can be charged without regard to your ability to hurt them and units engaged with the walker in CC are also locked in combat just like they would be with infantry.

I won't call anyone wrong for reading it one way or the other but it makes more sense to me that units should be locked in combat with walkers.

 Abandon wrote:

It doesn't. You are told to assault it like infantry though which means you ignore that it's a vehicle for purpose of assaulting it. Just like the walker itself ignores the vehicles assault rules and is allowed to charge.... just like infantry.



And lets not forget this line:
"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat" BRB page 76

If you choose to read the rule ""Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." as meaning only that they can charge and be locked in combat then enemy units in CC with the walker are not locked in combat while the walker is.

It make much more sense IMO to read the line to mean they are treated just like infantry for purposes of assaulting and being assaulted. In that case they can be charged without regard to your ability to hurt them and units engaged with the walker in CC are also locked in combat just like they would be with infantry.

I won't call anyone wrong for reading it one way or the other but it makes more sense to me that units should be locked in combat with walkers.

The problem with your logic is it undoes itself, with itself. The second problem is no less than the 10th post down on the first page the full rule is quoted and specifically states in what ways and situations to treat the walker like infantry.

Here, I'll quote Deathreaper again for you.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"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?

Walkers never stop being a vehicle, they follow all the basic rules for a vehicle with the above exception for when they assault and are assaulted. Vehicles are not normally allowed to make a charge move, this rule specifically allows for it. Vehicles are not normally locked in combat, this rule allows for that too. This rule does not allow an enemy unit to make a charge move against the walker if they are unable to inflict a glancing or penetrating hit. Saying that as they can be assaulted 'like' infantry if the allowance is incorrect as the rules for vehicles are not superseded. But as it stands the walker never stops being a vehicle and only with the specific explained exception listed above is it allows to make a charge move and be locked in combat, nothing else.

This discussion should have been over two pages ago.

 Bausk wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

It doesn't. You are told to assault it like infantry though which means you ignore that it's a vehicle for purpose of assaulting it. Just like the walker itself ignores the vehicles assault rules and is allowed to charge.... just like infantry.



And lets not forget this line:
"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat" BRB page 76

If you choose to read the rule ""Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." as meaning only that they can charge and be locked in combat then enemy units in CC with the walker are not locked in combat while the walker is.

It make much more sense IMO to read the line to mean they are treated just like infantry for purposes of assaulting and being assaulted. In that case they can be charged without regard to your ability to hurt them and units engaged with the walker in CC are also locked in combat just like they would be with infantry.

I won't call anyone wrong for reading it one way or the other but it makes more sense to me that units should be locked in combat with walkers.

The problem with your logic is it undoes itself, with itself. The second problem is no less than the 10th post down on the first page the full rule is quoted and specifically states in what ways and situations to treat the walker like infantry.

Here, I'll quote Deathreaper again for you.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"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?

Walkers never stop being a vehicle, they follow all the basic rules for a vehicle with the above exception for when they assault and are assaulted. Vehicles are not normally allowed to make a charge move, this rule specifically allows for it. Vehicles are not normally locked in combat, this rule allows for that too. This rule does not allow an enemy unit to make a charge move against the walker if they are unable to inflict a glancing or penetrating hit. Saying that as they can be assaulted 'like' infantry if the allowance is incorrect as the rules for vehicles are not superseded. But as it stands the walker never stops being a vehicle and only with the specific explained exception listed above is it allows to make a charge move and be locked in combat, nothing else.

This discussion should have been over two pages ago.

So you believe that if the BRB states a rule (X) and says 'this means' (Y), that (Y) is the only thing(s) the rule counts for? That would pretty much break the game as I've already pointed out.

Speaking from RAI, I would say you can. The reason to prevent the assault on vehicles you can’t hurt is to prevent units from getting free movement, since that would be the only outcome the assault would have. This is not the case with walkers; the result would be that the two would be locked in combat, plus the assaulting unit could suffer casualties from overwatch and in the assault itself, meaning its not free.

Speaking from RAW, both sides bring up decent points, but I lean towards Abandon’s argument.

I have to agree with DeathReaper and Bausk.

The second part of that sentence limits the impact of the "like Infantry" part to only charge moves and being locked in combat. Which means it's additive to the existing vehicle rules, not a replacement.

The next paragraph then goes on to say that In close combat, Walkers fight like Infantry models. Which the only place we can find permission for it to hit something; without that statement the walker couldn't hit. However what it doesn't say is that enemies treat it like Infantry.

In short, other than being locked in combat and other minor changes further in the paragraph, they only covered the combat from the perspective of the walker and not from the unit that is charging it. So, the specific rule about not being able to charge a vehicle that you can't hurt is still in effect. Bad wording? probably, who knows.

As others have pointed out though, the entire reason for the no assault what you can't hurt rule seems to be to prevent a pretty big free movement. So, RAI: I *think* it means walkers can be tied down in combat with weak units. However, the RAW reading just isn't there.

clively wrote:
I have to agree with DeathReaper and Bausk.

The second part of that sentence limits the impact of the "like Infantry" part to only charge moves and being locked in combat. Which means it's additive to the existing vehicle rules, not a replacement.

The next paragraph then goes on to say that In close combat, Walkers fight like Infantry models. Which the only place we can find permission for it to hit something; without that statement the walker couldn't hit. However what it doesn't say is that enemies treat it like Infantry.

In short, other than being locked in combat and other minor changes further in the paragraph, they only covered the combat from the perspective of the walker and not from the unit that is charging it. So, the specific rule about not being able to charge a vehicle that you can't hurt is still in effect. Bad wording? probably, who knows.

As others have pointed out though, the entire reason for the no assault what you can't hurt rule seems to be to prevent a pretty big free movement. So, RAI: I *think* it means walkers can be tied down in combat with weak units. However, the RAW reading just isn't there.

"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...
that Precision Shots can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or even characters!" Precision Shots, page 63 BRB

By your reading precision shots can only be allocated to characters and enemies with specialist weapons.

Shrouded confers only a 5+ cover save and does nothing else. page 41 BRB

Stealth confers only a 6+ cover save and does nothing else. page 42 BRB

Specifying a thing or things a rule means does not limit it to only those meanings.

Well those examples have no bearing on the Walker charging rules.

Basically the BRB Page 84 says this:
Walkers assault (make charge moves) and are assaulted (can be locked in combat) like Infantry models.

Nothing gets past the restriction on not being able to assault a vehicle you can not hurt as nothing specifically over rides the vehicle rules.

 Abandon wrote:

clively wrote:
I have to agree with DeathReaper and Bausk.

The second part of that sentence limits the impact of the "like Infantry" part to only charge moves and being locked in combat. Which means it's additive to the existing vehicle rules, not a replacement.

The next paragraph then goes on to say that In close combat, Walkers fight like Infantry models. Which the only place we can find permission for it to hit something; without that statement the walker couldn't hit. However what it doesn't say is that enemies treat it like Infantry.

In short, other than being locked in combat and other minor changes further in the paragraph, they only covered the combat from the perspective of the walker and not from the unit that is charging it. So, the specific rule about not being able to charge a vehicle that you can't hurt is still in effect. Bad wording? probably, who knows.

As others have pointed out though, the entire reason for the no assault what you can't hurt rule seems to be to prevent a pretty big free movement. So, RAI: I *think* it means walkers can be tied down in combat with weak units. However, the RAW reading just isn't there.

"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...
that Precision Shots can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or even characters!" Precision Shots, page 63 BRB

By your reading precision shots can only be allocated to characters and enemies with specialist weapons.

CAN be .. not MUST be. "against a model (or models) OF YOUR CHOICE". Meaning, they Can be allocated against these types of units (unlike the normal rules for wounds that would simply allocate them to the nearest model). You are not being told they MAY ONLY/CAN ONLY/MUST.

Shrouded confers only a 5+ cover save and does nothing else. page 41 BRB

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

AT LEAST 5+, even in the open. Not ONLY 5+. It confers 2 points better than normal. No cover = 5+, normal cover of 6+ is now 4+, etc.
What cover do you get in the open? None. Therefore they must stipulate that with shrouded you will have "at least 5+" (thus the "even in the open"), otherwise you are improving "no cover" by 2 points (which would still be no cover).

Stealth confers only a 6+ cover save and does nothing else. page 42 BRB

As with Shrouded.

Specifying a thing or things a rule means does not limit it to only those meanings.

When they are telling you what it means, that is what it means. When they state "this is not a comprehensive list", then it is not a complete list and you must find (or interpret) other items that would be in that list.

None of those rules are broken by telling you what they mean, unless you interpret the meanings incorrectly (as you clearly have in these cases above). CAN does not equal MUST.

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

clively wrote:
I have to agree with DeathReaper and Bausk.

The second part of that sentence limits the impact of the "like Infantry" part to only charge moves and being locked in combat. Which means it's additive to the existing vehicle rules, not a replacement.

The next paragraph then goes on to say that In close combat, Walkers fight like Infantry models. Which the only place we can find permission for it to hit something; without that statement the walker couldn't hit. However what it doesn't say is that enemies treat it like Infantry.

In short, other than being locked in combat and other minor changes further in the paragraph, they only covered the combat from the perspective of the walker and not from the unit that is charging it. So, the specific rule about not being able to charge a vehicle that you can't hurt is still in effect. Bad wording? probably, who knows.

As others have pointed out though, the entire reason for the no assault what you can't hurt rule seems to be to prevent a pretty big free movement. So, RAI: I *think* it means walkers can be tied down in combat with weak units. However, the RAW reading just isn't there.

"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...
that Precision Shots can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or even characters!" Precision Shots, page 63 BRB

By your reading precision shots can only be allocated to characters and enemies with specialist weapons.

CAN be .. not MUST be. "against a model (or models) OF YOUR CHOICE". Meaning, they Can be allocated against these types of units (unlike the normal rules for wounds that would simply allocate them to the nearest model). You are not being told they MAY ONLY/CAN ONLY/MUST.

Shrouded confers only a 5+ cover save and does nothing else. page 41 BRB

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

AT LEAST 5+, even in the open. Not ONLY 5+. It confers 2 points better than normal. No cover = 5+, normal cover of 6+ is now 4+, etc.
What cover do you get in the open? None. Therefore they must stipulate that with shrouded you will have "at least 5+" (thus the "even in the open"), otherwise you are improving "no cover" by 2 points (which would still be no cover).

Stealth confers only a 6+ cover save and does nothing else. page 42 BRB

As with Shrouded.

Specifying a thing or things a rule means does not limit it to only those meanings.

When they are telling you what it means, that is what it means. When they state "this is not a comprehensive list", then it is not a complete list and you must find (or interpret) other items that would be in that list.

None of those rules are broken by telling you what they mean, unless you interpret the meanings incorrectly (as you clearly have in these cases above). CAN does not equal MUST.

And here I thought you argued the when a rule tells you what it means that those are the only things that count as rules. Here you're creating rules form the parts previous to the 'this means' part. Glad to see you understand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well those examples have no bearing on the Walker charging rules.

Basically the BRB Page 84 says this:
Walkers assault (make charge moves) and are assaulted (can be locked in combat) like Infantry models.

Nothing gets past the restriction on not being able to assault a vehicle you can not hurt as nothing specifically over rides the vehicle rules.

They do however demonstrate the flaws in believing that "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

Means only "that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." as you are ignoring the first part of the rule.

 Abandon wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

It doesn't. You are told to assault it like infantry though which means you ignore that it's a vehicle for purpose of assaulting it. Just like the walker itself ignores the vehicles assault rules and is allowed to charge.... just like infantry.



And lets not forget this line:
"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat" BRB page 76

If you choose to read the rule ""Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." as meaning only that they can charge and be locked in combat then enemy units in CC with the walker are not locked in combat while the walker is.

It make much more sense IMO to read the line to mean they are treated just like infantry for purposes of assaulting and being assaulted. In that case they can be charged without regard to your ability to hurt them and units engaged with the walker in CC are also locked in combat just like they would be with infantry.

I won't call anyone wrong for reading it one way or the other but it makes more sense to me that units should be locked in combat with walkers.

The problem with your logic is it undoes itself, with itself. The second problem is no less than the 10th post down on the first page the full rule is quoted and specifically states in what ways and situations to treat the walker like infantry.

Here, I'll quote Deathreaper again for you.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"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?

Walkers never stop being a vehicle, they follow all the basic rules for a vehicle with the above exception for when they assault and are assaulted. Vehicles are not normally allowed to make a charge move, this rule specifically allows for it. Vehicles are not normally locked in combat, this rule allows for that too. This rule does not allow an enemy unit to make a charge move against the walker if they are unable to inflict a glancing or penetrating hit. Saying that as they can be assaulted 'like' infantry if the allowance is incorrect as the rules for vehicles are not superseded. But as it stands the walker never stops being a vehicle and only with the specific explained exception listed above is it allows to make a charge move and be locked in combat, nothing else.

This discussion should have been over two pages ago.

So you believe that if the BRB states a rule (X) and says 'this means' (Y), that (Y) is the only thing(s) the rule counts for? That would pretty much break the game as I've already pointed out.

No, as its not broken by a full stop so the elaboration of the specific meaning of the rule is what is used. But again if you persist in believing that the walker is an infantry unit/model for all intents and purposes for assault then its automatically killed as it has no toughness or wounds value. Because as we all know a unit/model is removed as a casualty is its wounds or toughness are lowered to 0.

 Abandon wrote:


"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...
that Precision Shots can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or even characters!" Precision Shots, page 63 BRB

By your reading precision shots can only be allocated to characters and enemies with specialist weapons.

Shrouded confers only a 5+ cover save and does nothing else. page 41 BRB

Stealth confers only a 6+ cover save and does nothing else. page 42 BRB

Specifying a thing or things a rule means does not limit it to only those meanings.

Precision shots is a good one actually. It states in one sentence the rule allowance with the rules specific restrictions. Just like the walkers assault rule in question, thanks for bringing that up.

Shrouded and stealth are USR's that have a few paragraphs explaining what they do in what situation....much like the walker rule explains what to do in the specific situations it is applied to.

 Abandon wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well those examples have no bearing on the Walker charging rules.

Basically the BRB Page 84 says this:
Walkers assault (make charge moves) and are assaulted (can be locked in combat) like Infantry models.

Nothing gets past the restriction on not being able to assault a vehicle you can not hurt as nothing specifically over rides the vehicle rules.

They do however demonstrate the flaws in believing that "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

Means only "that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." as you are ignoring the first part of the rule.

Nope, they demonstrate that;

Precision Shots Allow you to pick the models the wounds are allocated to, providing they are in LoS/Range etc.

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

Stealth/Shrouded grant a cover save, if your in the open.

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

Stealth/Shrouded improve a cover save, if you are allowed a cover save.

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

They list a rule with stipulations, restrictions and or allowances specifically listed in specific situations. For instance, Stealth and Shrouded do not over ride the rules for Jink and can, in fact, be used together to improve the Jink save with stealth or shrouded's bonus to existing cover save.

Does not matter how many sentences used to state rules and then tell you what they can mean.

Looks like an elaborate double standard... have fun with that.

So, you are still trying to say that ", meaning that" does not actually mean "meaning that" but "sometimes means that"?

Despite the examples, including the ones you gave, proving otherwise?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, you are still trying to say that ", meaning that" does not actually mean "meaning that" but "sometimes means that"?

Despite the examples, including the ones you gave, proving otherwise?

That's what I figure Abandon contends; "meaning that" actually means "sometimes means that" or "means that X .. but can mean more too".

What I was trying to get at earlier and accused of "creating rules" by Abandon (I guess my language is not clear enough for these things) is "that means" actually means "that means" unless they clarify further (such as in the case of "who can shoot" where they specifically state it is not a comprehensive list). If something "means" X .. it actually means X, not "X but sometimes you can add Y".

Especially when it is not a separate sentence, or further modifies the meaning by using "can" to imply there is a choice involved.

Essentially this is another "interesting" rules reading that jsut happens to ignore the written rules in favour of removing context AND the structure of the sentence and assuming it doesnt exist.

 Abandon wrote:
Does not matter how many sentences used to state rules and then tell you what they can mean.

Looks like an elaborate double standard... have fun with that.

You're 100% right there, it does not matter how many sentences they use to describe or state a rule. But actually reading those sentences, in full, and paragraphs does matter. Picking one snippet from a sentence to ignore a page of rules does not make for a good argument.

And for the record, 'Double standard' does not mean "I was proven wrong with my own argument and examples" either, no matter how elaborate it is.

Abandon, no you can't charge a walker you can't hurt. This should be the end of the discussion.

P1. The general rule is; "You can assault a unit you cannot hurt".

P2. The specific exception is; "You cannot assault a vehicle you cannot hurt".

P3. Walkers are vehicles.

C. You cannot assault a Walker you cannot hurt.

I'm not going to make an argument since Abandon made up his mind before he ever started this thread and is NOT going to change his mind no matter how obvious it is.
I just want to say that I agree; you CANNOT assault a vehicle/walker that you can't hurt.

 Bausk wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Does not matter how many sentences used to state rules and then tell you what they can mean.

Looks like an elaborate double standard... have fun with that.

You're 100% right there, it does not matter how many sentences they use to describe or state a rule. But actually reading those sentences, in full, and paragraphs does matter. Picking one snippet from a sentence to ignore a page of rules does not make for a good argument.

And for the record, 'Double standard' does not mean "I was proven wrong with my own argument and examples" either, no matter how elaborate it is.

Quite correct on all points here, no one should ignore any of the text.

They say that "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models..."The first part of the statement is rather general indicating every assault action involving a walker is preformed as if the walker were infantry. This is rather broad and would include using all of the standard assault rules and exempting them from the vehicle assault rules.

They go on to finish the sentence "...meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

Now by my reading this is just a clarification of the rule created by the first part assuring you they can charge and be locked in combat.

By your reading, rules are only derived from the second part because you read "this means" as "this only means" but as their wording does not include anything to indicate the listed meanings either preclude or include others it is assumption to treat it as indication of either.

 Abandon wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Does not matter how many sentences used to state rules and then tell you what they can mean.

Looks like an elaborate double standard... have fun with that.

You're 100% right there, it does not matter how many sentences they use to describe or state a rule. But actually reading those sentences, in full, and paragraphs does matter. Picking one snippet from a sentence to ignore a page of rules does not make for a good argument.

And for the record, 'Double standard' does not mean "I was proven wrong with my own argument and examples" either, no matter how elaborate it is.

Quite correct on all points here, no one should ignore any of the text.

They say that "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models..."The first part of the statement is rather general indicating every assault action involving a walker is preformed as if the walker were infantry. This is rather broad and would include using all of the standard assault rules and exempting them from the vehicle assault rules.

They go on to finish the sentence "...meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

Now by my reading this is just a clarification of the rule created by the first part assuring you they can charge and be locked in combat.

By your reading, rules are only derived from the second part because you read "this means" as "this only means" but as their wording does not include anything to indicate the listed meanings either preclude or include others it is assumption to treat it as indication of either.

That's because they are the only rules that apply as they are the only rules stated in the exception. Much like your examples of Precision Shots that follow all the standard rules for wound allocation, but allow the shooting player to allocate instead. Or stealth/Shrouded that state that they receive a covers save, if they are in the open. Or gain a bonus to their cover save, if they are in cover. The elaboration an clarification only allows for the exceptions listed. Again, if it was assaulted and assaults like infantry for all intents and purposes;

1) The clarification would be unneeded in the first place,

2) The previously mentioned removal of the walker as it has two 0 attributes (toughness and wounds) by the full assault rules for infantry would be removed as a casualty.

3) Overwatch would also not need to be specifically listed with its exception as its covered in the full infantry assault rules.

4) Any shots fired from overwatch would be measured from the base and LoS from the models 'Eyes', rather than the weapon itself. As this too is in the full assault rules for infantry.

5) But most importantly, it remains a Vehicle by unit type. If for some crazy reason it was also considered infantry for all assault purposes it would still be a vehicle. And the rules for charging ANY vehicle you cannot inflict a glancing or penetrating hit on still apply regardless of any additional/temporary/subjective/irrational unit types it has.

 Abandon wrote:

They go on to finish the sentence "...meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

Now by my reading this is just a clarification of the rule created by the first part assuring you they can charge and be locked in combat.

By your reading, rules are only derived from the second part because you read "this means" as "this only means" but as their wording does not include anything to indicate the listed meanings either preclude or include others it is assumption to treat it as indication of either.

So what else does it mean.

Page and Graph please.

 Bausk wrote:


That's because they are the only rules that apply as they are the only rules stated in the exception. Much like your examples of Precision Shots that follow all the standard rules for wound allocation, but allow the shooting player to allocate instead. Or stealth/Shrouded that state that they receive a covers save, if they are in the open. Or gain a bonus to their cover save, if they are in cover. The elaboration an clarification only allows for the exceptions listed. Again, if it was assaulted and assaults like infantry for all intents and purposes;

1) The clarification would be unneeded in the first place,
- Clarifications exist to detail a rule already stated so that it will be taken the correct way and cover fine points that may not be clear. They are often unneeded but invaluable when they are.

2) The previously mentioned removal of the walker as it has two 0 attributes (toughness and wounds) by the full assault rules for infantry would be removed as a casualty.
- Neither that they assault or are assaulted just like infantry states a change in how it takes damage or leadership tests.

3) Overwatch would also not need to be specifically listed with its exception as its covered in the full infantry assault rules.
- Yes it does, that they assault and are assaulted like infantry does not exactly clarify how a walker reacts to being assaulted or that it does at all. It must be pointed out that they can take overwatch shots to prevent confusion.

4) Any shots fired from overwatch would be measured from the base and LoS from the models 'Eyes', rather than the weapon itself. As this too is in the full assault rules for infantry.
- A perfectly valid clarification to prevent confusion.

5) But most importantly, it remains a Vehicle by unit type. If for some crazy reason it was also considered infantry for all assault purposes it would still be a vehicle. And the rules for charging ANY vehicle you cannot inflict a glancing or penetrating hit on still apply regardless of any additional/temporary/subjective/irrational unit types it has.
- Treating one thing like another never actually changes what it actually is. Shooting at a building causes you to treat it like a vehicle but it is indeed still a building.

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

Q: If you have a dreadnought in CC and you opponent on his turn just moved them out of base contact, shoots the dreadnaught and then re-assaults it. What rule makes that illegal?

hint: just like infantry

Still need that citation for what else that rule means...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

They go on to finish the sentence "...meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

Now by my reading this is just a clarification of the rule created by the first part assuring you they can charge and be locked in combat.

By your reading, rules are only derived from the second part because you read "this means" as "this only means" but as their wording does not include anything to indicate the listed meanings either preclude or include others it is assumption to treat it as indication of either.

So what else does it mean.

Page and Graph please.

It means they 'assault and are assaulted just like infantry' (Don't feel the need to repeat this page #) and all that entails. This part indicates there is a little more to it than just charging and getting locked in combat.