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.

Is that your interpretation and you are ignoring the "This Means" part of the rule?

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

All that means is they make charge moves and can be locked in combat just like infantry.

Is a Walker still a vehicle?

 Abandon wrote:


"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

Answer please or we'll have to assume your reading of the RAW in this case is wrong due to being absurd.

That is overridden by the rule that tells us "they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

Is a Walker still a vehicle?

Answer please or we'll have to assume your reading of the RAW in this case is wrong due to being absurd.

I answered that question in the post you partially quoted in your last post. That you ignore answers and repeat the same questions is getting tiresome. To facilitate your understanding I'll give you the short answer.

Yes.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your turn to answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:


"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 his unit out of base contact, shoots the dreadnaught and then re-assaults it. What rule makes that illegal?

hint: just like infantry

altered slightly for grammatical error^

Since you're having trouble answering this question I'll just tell you. By your reading (which must therefore be incorrect) nothing makes this illegal per RAW.

By my reading(which seems to make more sense here) you are treating the walker just like infantry for purpose of assaulting and being assaulted so that enemy unit must treat the walker just like infantry and is therefore locked in combat with it. That also means though that when making assault moves an enemy unit can charge a walker they can't hurt because they are would treat it just like infantry.

Can't have one without the other. One way is very broken the other is not.

 Abandon wrote:

 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

So a War Truck with a Ram is for all intents and purposes a Tank and not a fast vehicle or open topped? A Furioso Librarian that uses wings is for all intents and purposes jump infantry and no longer a walker at all?

No, you are incorrect that it replaces the unit type, it only behaves like the additional unit type under the specific restrictions a situations listed under the rule that allows it. This is in addition to remaining a vehicle at ALL times. If it replaced it it wouldn't be a vehicle, and be subject to all of the points I made in the previous post. You can't say it replaces one unit type with another but still have it follow the rules for a unit type it allegedly loses. You are just failing to see that your argument is undoing itself, with itself.

The infantry unit in combat would be locked and unable to disengage if they did not have Hit and Run, be subject to the Our weapons are useless rule or lost combat in the previous assault phase and just regrouped. The reason they can't normally disengage from a walker is the specific rule stating they are locked and can be locked in combat. "Like infantry". Not "Becomes infantry in place of walker/vehicle".

Where do you keep getting this 'for all intents and purposes' as a general and broad statement? I was specific to 'regarding assaulting and being assaulted' as that is what the book states.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bausk wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 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

So a War Truck with a Ram is for all intents and purposes a Tank and not a fast vehicle or open topped? A Furioso Librarian that uses wings is for all intents and purposes jump infantry and no longer a walker at all?

No, you are incorrect that it replaces the unit type, it only behaves like the additional unit type under the specific restrictions a situations listed under the rule that allows it. This is in addition to remaining a vehicle at ALL times. If it replaced it it wouldn't be a vehicle, and be subject to all of the points I made in the previous post. You can't say it replaces one unit type with another but still have it follow the rules for a unit type it allegedly loses. You are just failing to see that your argument is undoing itself, with itself.

The infantry unit in combat would be locked and unable to disengage if they did not have Hit and Run, be subject to the Our weapons are useless rule or lost combat in the previous assault phase and just regrouped. The reason they can't normally disengage from a walker is the specific rule stating they are locked and can be locked in combat. "Like infantry". Not "Becomes infantry in place of walker/vehicle".

I never claimed it 'replaces the unit type', just that it is 'treated as' and that only for the purpose of 'assault and being assaulted'.

As for you answer to the question, no. A statement by itself that they can be locked in combat does not negate the rule that units in base contact with vehicles are not locked in combat. In that instance the walker is locked in combat but the enemy unit is not... which is of course ridiculous. The only possible solution to this we are given, is in the first part of the statement.(underline is my own)

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

 Abandon wrote:
Where do you keep getting this 'for all intents and purposes' as a general and broad statement? I was specific to 'regarding assaulting and being assaulted' as that is what the book states.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bausk wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 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

So a War Truck with a Ram is for all intents and purposes a Tank and not a fast vehicle or open topped? A Furioso Librarian that uses wings is for all intents and purposes jump infantry and no longer a walker at all?

No, you are incorrect that it replaces the unit type, it only behaves like the additional unit type under the specific restrictions a situations listed under the rule that allows it. This is in addition to remaining a vehicle at ALL times. If it replaced it it wouldn't be a vehicle, and be subject to all of the points I made in the previous post. You can't say it replaces one unit type with another but still have it follow the rules for a unit type it allegedly loses. You are just failing to see that your argument is undoing itself, with itself.

The infantry unit in combat would be locked and unable to disengage if they did not have Hit and Run, be subject to the Our weapons are useless rule or lost combat in the previous assault phase and just regrouped. The reason they can't normally disengage from a walker is the specific rule stating they are locked and can be locked in combat. "Like infantry". Not "Becomes infantry in place of walker/vehicle".

I never claimed it 'replaces the unit type', just that it is 'treated as' and that only for the purpose of 'assault and being assaulted'.

As for you answer to the question, no. A statement by itself that they can be locked in combat does not negate the rule that units in base contact with vehicles are not locked in combat. In that instance the walker is locked in combat but the enemy unit is not... which is of course ridiculous. The only possible solution to this we are given, is in the first part of the statement.(underline is my own)

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

It takes two to tango as they say. You can't be subject to being locked if the enemy unit is not, even if you normally are. Being locked is not a rule for a unit type but being subject to its effects or not is. Being locked in combat is a paired affair, as infantry are already subject that rule the only thing to do is make the walker subject to being locked as well and both units will be. Which still does not discount the fact that it remains a vehicle at all times regardless of additional rules, that is the key point your missing. Which, getting back to the original issue, is the only reason you need to be disallowed from charging a walker you are unable to inflict a glancing or penetrating hit on.

As you have nothing to back up your claim that a walker is not bound by the basic vehicle rules at all times or is replaced by other rather than just being added to then I have nothing more to say unless you have a citation or have a new perspective.

We have a rule. I will quote it in two parts.

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models,"

Normally we would ave to use the BRB to determine the meaning of this rule, however the whole rule states

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

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

They are still vehicles, so even if they are assaulted like infantry, they are still a vehicle (By your own admission) and they can not be assaulted if the unit can not hurt them.

 Bausk wrote:


It takes two to tango as they say. You can't be subject to being locked if the enemy unit is not, even if you normally are. Being locked is not a rule for a unit type but being subject to its effects or not is. Being locked in combat is a paired affair, as infantry are already subject that rule the only thing to do is make the walker subject to being locked as well and both units will be. Which still does not discount the fact that it remains a vehicle at all times regardless of additional rules, that is the key point your missing. Which, getting back to the original issue, is the only reason you need to be disallowed from charging a walker you are unable to inflict a glancing or penetrating hit on.

As you have nothing to back up your claim that a walker is not bound by the basic vehicle rules at all times or is replaced by other rather than just being added to then I have nothing more to say unless you have a citation or have a new perspective.

Not quite correct.

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

This is a special rule for vehicles and therefore overrides the basic assault rules regarding units being locked in combat. By your reading of the Walker rules nothing negates this for them. The fact that it says walkers 'can be locked in combat' does not say anything about the 'enemy models' they are engaged with and since none of the basic assault rules take precedence over either you end up with broken assault rules.

If you want to play with this broken reading of the RAW, that's fine. As I said, the way you read the Walker rules is valid per the English language, it is just not the only valid way that statement can be taken. I prefer to look at it in a way that makes the rules make more sense and doesn't break the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
We have a rule. I will quote it in two parts.

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models,"

Normally we would ave to use the BRB to determine the meaning of this rule, however the whole rule states

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

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

They are still vehicles, so even if they are assaulted like infantry, they are still a vehicle (By your own admission) and they can not be assaulted if the unit can not hurt them.

If you assault a vehicle in the same manner you normally assault a vehicles, are you assaulting it "just like infantry"?

This has been going on for 4 pages now. I get the feeling some people are trying to inject common sense, and other's are holding up the rulebook like it's an ancient stone tablet, refusing to budge even an inch on their own interpretation.

Those kind of argument's, are never ending loops.

 Evileyes wrote:
This has been going on for 4 pages now. I get the feeling some people are trying to inject common sense, and other's are holding up the rulebook like it's an ancient stone tablet, refusing to budge even an inch on their own interpretation.

Those kind of argument's, are never ending loops.

Spoiler:

100% agreement, excepting that nothing is eternal and one day even the internet may fall.

 Abandon wrote:

 Bausk wrote:


It takes two to tango as they say. You can't be subject to being locked if the enemy unit is not, even if you normally are. Being locked is not a rule for a unit type but being subject to its effects or not is. Being locked in combat is a paired affair, as infantry are already subject that rule the only thing to do is make the walker subject to being locked as well and both units will be. Which still does not discount the fact that it remains a vehicle at all times regardless of additional rules, that is the key point your missing. Which, getting back to the original issue, is the only reason you need to be disallowed from charging a walker you are unable to inflict a glancing or penetrating hit on.

As you have nothing to back up your claim that a walker is not bound by the basic vehicle rules at all times or is replaced by other rather than just being added to then I have nothing more to say unless you have a citation or have a new perspective.

Not quite correct.

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

This is a special rule for vehicles and therefore overrides the basic assault rules regarding units being locked in combat. By your reading of the Walker rules nothing negates this for them. The fact that it says walkers 'can be locked in combat' does not say anything about the 'enemy models' they are engaged with and since none of the basic assault rules take precedence over either you end up with broken assault rules.

If you want to play with this broken reading of the RAW, that's fine. As I said, the way you read the Walker rules is valid per the English language, it is just not the only valid way that statement can be taken. I prefer to look at it in a way that makes the rules make more sense and doesn't break the game.

If you want to talk English then you frankly came to the wrong place. But while we are on the subject.... "Walkers assault and are assaulted like infantry models, meaning they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." Could be argued subjectively from an English stand point that the 'They' being used is in fact inclusive of the walker and its enemy rather than just the walker itself. But we could argue semantics all day and come up with new ways to twist the rules.

But I guess everyone else must be wrong and only you are right because we must have no grasp of 40k rules interpretation or the English language in general. Guess I better sign up for the next English lesson Abandon is teaching so I can master this language I've been speaking all my life.

I am going to articulate how I see the rules playing out.

The three rules in question are, in order from most general to most specific:

“Q: Can I charge an enemy Unit I Can't Hurt? A: Yes

“A Unit can not charge a vechile it cannot hurt”

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


The question becomes can a unit that can't hurt the walker charge it because they they are assaulted like Infantry model, or can they not because they remain vehicles?

The point of contention is does the phrase “meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat” serve as a reminder of part of what being treated like infantry means, or serve to limit the extent to which the walker is treated like infantry?

I lean towards the first one. No one should take the phrase “Joe is an American, meaning he can vote in an election” to mean that the only thing Joe being an American means is that he can vote. I thus believe that when you charge a walker you act as if you were charging an infantry model in every respect.


To be honest, my stake in the argument is fairly low. If you get to the point where you have nothing that can blow up the walker and your only option is to try to tie it up I would imagine your army has taken enough of a pounding that you are in trouble. I do however feel that this thread is starting to get a bit nasty with the snide comments and sarcasm, and would not be surprised to see it locked soon.

 Abandon wrote:
If you assault a vehicle in the same manner you normally assault a vehicles, are you assaulting it "just like infantry"?

Yes, as you make assaults against infantry and vehicles in the same way.

You declare the charge, take overwatch if any, then roll charge range and move models.

The only difference with a walker is you are locked with a walker, and you are not locked with a non walker vehicle.

Plus you can not charge a vehicle you can not hurt.

a Walker is a vehicle.

While you have made a great case Abandon , I have to point out the fact that the Walker is considered a unit. Please see the FaQ in regards to your question.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
If you assault a vehicle in the same manner you normally assault a vehicles, are you assaulting it "just like infantry"?

Yes, as you make assaults against infantry and vehicles in the same way.*

You declare the charge, take overwatch if any, then roll charge range and move models.

The only difference with a walker is you are locked with a walker, and you are not locked with a non walker vehicle.

Plus you can not charge a vehicle you can not hurt.

a Walker is a vehicle.

So you found something that overrides the rule? You keep saying it's still a vehicle so the rules regarding assaulting vehicles still apply. Since you are not treating it like just like infantry and keep treating it like a vehicle for assaults...

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

Something that says enemy models in base contact with Walkers are locked in combat? page # pls.

*Also, the part in orange is incorrect, there are several differences in assaulting a vehicle vs assaulting infantry.

 Abandon wrote:
So you found something that overrides the rule? You keep saying it's still a vehicle so the rules regarding assaulting vehicles still apply. Since you are not treating it like just like infantry and keep treating it like a vehicle for assaults...

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

Something that says enemy models in base contact with Walkers are locked in combat? page # pls.

*Also, the part in orange is incorrect, there are several differences in assaulting a vehicle vs assaulting infantry.

You seem to have the quote wrong, specifically the underlined. Who said to treat it just like Infantry?

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

Walkers are assaulted like infantry. That part means "they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

If you assault a Walker and lock it in combat then you are assaulting a walker " like Infantry models"

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

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
So you found something that overrides the rule? You keep saying it's still a vehicle so the rules regarding assaulting vehicles still apply. Since you are not treating it like just like infantry and keep treating it like a vehicle for assaults...

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

Something that says enemy models in base contact with Walkers are locked in combat? page # pls.

*Also, the part in orange is incorrect, there are several differences in assaulting a vehicle vs assaulting infantry.

You seem to have the quote wrong, specifically the underlined. Who said to treat it just like Infantry?

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

Walkers are assaulted like infantry. That part means "they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

If you assault a Walker and lock it in combat then you are assaulting a walker " like Infantry models"

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

Actually the subject of that sentence is Walkers, so when it says they 'can be locked in combat' it means 'Walkers can be locked in combat'. The statement says nothing about enemy units being locked in combat unless you look at the 'are assaulted just like infantry' part a little differently then you have been.

As far as 'treating them just like infantry for purposes of assault', that is a perfectly valid interpretation of the walker rule per the English language you have yet to acknowledge.

If I say 'I like blue, and I like white, like many other people, meaning I look at the sky often' nothing limits the meaning of the statement to 'I look at the sky often'.

Likewise 'Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." is not limited to meaning only "that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

 Abandon wrote:
Likewise 'Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." is not limited to meaning only "that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

This thinking has amused me greatly.
So you have a rule, which then has its meaning defined.
But wait, it can mean something else as well! Something not stated!
This logic is great, truly great. So I can use the rule for Rage (defined as +2 attacks on the charge) and add the extra meaning of Rending to it as well! I mean the book says the meaning of the rule right there, but I can always add extra meanings not defined right?

Yes it does mean only that. It states the meaning of the rule right there where it says "meaning that..."

 grendel083 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Likewise 'Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." is not limited to meaning only "that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

This thinking has amused me greatly.
So you have a rule, which then has its meaning defined.
But wait, it can mean something else as well! Something not stated!
This logic is great, truly great. So I can use the rule for Rage (defined as +2 attacks on the charge) and add the extra meaning of Rending to it as well! I mean the book says the meaning of the rule right there, but I can always add extra meanings not defined right?

Yes it does mean only that. It states the meaning of the rule right there where it says "meaning that..."

'I like blue, and I like white, like many other people, meaning I look at the sky often.'

So you believe this^ statement means only 'I look at the sky often'. That's interesting.

 Abandon wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Likewise 'Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." is not limited to meaning only "that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

This thinking has amused me greatly.
So you have a rule, which then has its meaning defined.
But wait, it can mean something else as well! Something not stated!
This logic is great, truly great. So I can use the rule for Rage (defined as +2 attacks on the charge) and add the extra meaning of Rending to it as well! I mean the book says the meaning of the rule right there, but I can always add extra meanings not defined right?

Yes it does mean only that. It states the meaning of the rule right there where it says "meaning that..."

'I like blue, and I like white, like many other people, meaning I look at the sky often.'

So you believe this^ statement means only 'I look at the sky often'. That's interesting.

I believe if a hundred scientists proved the sky was blue, you'd argue it was red.

I want to play Abandon in a game in which he cannot bog down my dreadnoughts and defilers with annoying infantry.

 grendel083 wrote:

I believe if a hundred scientists proved the sky was blue, you'd argue it was red.

I take this to mean you believe my credibility is lacking and therefore any point I make is automatically invalid and/or incorrect. That's interesting as well.

But a serious question for Abandon, if a unit could have two unit types, would it not follow the rules for both?

You're taking a very much "one or the other" approach. It's infantry, so only restrictions for infantry apply.
A vehicle, treated like infantry in some respects, is still a vehicle.

Munga wrote:
I want to play Abandon in a game in which he cannot bog down my dreadnoughts and defilers with annoying infantry.

As it is easier in person, I'm sure we could come to agreement about the walker assault rules before deployment (better than interrupting the game) and playing is much more fun than posting so I'd like this as well.

I've been following this, and while I personally love the idea of throwing peons at a Dreadnought to tie him up for awhile, I did have a question about the opposite. I'm assuming the answer is yes here, but can I be charged by a Walker I cannot hurt? If so, what happens to me, am I stuck in combat with that walker? Or no? (Assuming I survive more than a round).

 Alfndrate wrote:
I've been following this, and while I personally love the idea of throwing peons at a Dreadnought to tie him up for awhile, I did have a question about the opposite. I'm assuming the answer is yes here, but can I be charged by a Walker I cannot hurt? If so, what happens to me, am I stuck in combat with that walker? Or no? (Assuming I survive more than a round).

You can be charged by a walker that you can not hurt. You would then do the round of combat, and could then chose to either take the leadership test or automatically fail it with the Our Weapons are Useless! rule, unless something prevented you from doing this such as being fearless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Likewise 'Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat." is not limited to meaning only "that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

This thinking has amused me greatly.
So you have a rule, which then has its meaning defined.
But wait, it can mean something else as well! Something not stated!
This logic is great, truly great. So I can use the rule for Rage (defined as +2 attacks on the charge) and add the extra meaning of Rending to it as well! I mean the book says the meaning of the rule right there, but I can always add extra meanings not defined right?

Yes it does mean only that. It states the meaning of the rule right there where it says "meaning that..."

The opposing side of your argument is not trying to imply that the rule means something unstated. It is implying that the phrase "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models" means that when they are assaulted they are treated as infantry models in every respect, and the phrase "meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat" is meant to remind the player of crucial details to what being treated like infantry entails.

Regardless of were people stand on this point, I think they can agree it would have been better to have been worded "Walkers can make charge moves and can be locked in combat as if they were infantry" if that is what Games Workshop wanted to mean. It can be annoying some times spending so much money on a game with such poorly worded rules....

 grendel083 wrote:
But a serious question for Abandon, if a unit could have two unit types, would it not follow the rules for both?

You're taking a very much "one or the other" approach. It's infantry, so only restrictions for infantry apply.
A vehicle, treated like infantry in some respects, is still a vehicle.

I never mentioned changing it's unit type, only what it is 'treated as' for assault purposes. Regardless, this is a good point. Does the statement "assaulted just like infantry" allow you to ignore it actual unit type? ...or does it only mean you are allowed treat it as infantry as well as it actual type?

Initially I'd bring up two points here:

1. The term 'just like' to me, indicates an exact manner/likeness or exact as possible. IE, if you place a baseball on home plate and are told to use you bat to hit it just like a golf ball you are being told to wield the bat as if it were a golf club instead of a baseball bat and to strike as if at a golf ball(though a giant one) instead of a baseball. This means that, in whatever weird game your playing on the field, you are allowed to take action on the ball as if it were a golf ball instead of a baseball. Direct comparison would look like this:
-Baseballs are hit just like golf balls
-Walkers are assaulted just like infantry

2. Enemy units would still not be locked in combat because you would be treating it as a infantry/vehicle model for assault purposes. That would mean you are treating it as a vehicle still for which we are specifically told enemy units are not locked in combat but walkers are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

greatergoodjones wrote:

Regardless of were people stand on this point, I think they can agree it would have been better to have been worded "Walkers can make charge moves and can be locked in combat as if they were infantry" if that is what Games Workshop wanted to mean. It can be annoying some times spending so much money on a game with such poorly worded rules....

I quite agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I've been following this, and while I personally love the idea of throwing peons at a Dreadnought to tie him up for awhile, I did have a question about the opposite. I'm assuming the answer is yes here, but can I be charged by a Walker I cannot hurt? If so, what happens to me, am I stuck in combat with that walker? Or no? (Assuming I survive more than a round).

Yes it can charge you, no question there.

As for 'are you locked in combat?' That is something being debated. If you are treating the walker as infantry for assault purposes, yes because an ongoing assault with enemy infantry would qualify you as locked in combat. If you are treating it like a vehicle for assault purposes other than that charges and the it itself can be locked in combat, it is locked in combat but you are not locked in combat with the walker. I'm in favor of the first scenario.

Abandon, you are wrong.

Walkers get locked in combat. You can't assault a walker you can't hurt. The rules as written are clear, your grasp of language isn't.

As I said in your other ridiculous thread, no TO would agree with your interpretation. If someone tried this against me in a friendly game, I'd pickup my models and walk.

The bigger question, I guess is, do you actually play or enjoy 40k? I don't think you do.

 loreweaver wrote:
Abandon, you are wrong.

Walkers get locked in combat. You can't assault a walker you can't hurt. The rules as written are clear, your grasp of language isn't.

As I said in your other ridiculous thread, no TO would agree with your interpretation. If someone tried this against me in a friendly game, I'd pickup my models and walk.

The bigger question, I guess is, do you actually play or enjoy 40k? I don't think you do.

So, if in a friendly game, someone suggested that they think they can assault your walker for the reason given above, rather then disagreeing and resolving the issue with a die roll, or asking the store manager for how they want it to be played in that game store, you would pick up your models and walk away.