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.

Can you assault a walker with a unit that can't harm them?
Under vehicles it says you cannot assault a vehicle if you can't a least glance it.
Under walkers is says that they fight like infantry and unlike other vehicles can be locked in CC, however there is no text to negate the general vehicle rule mentioned above.

Your thoughts and am I missing anything?

Walkers are still vehicles so still can't be assaulted by a unit that can't hurt it

I would agree with Crownaxe. Also, if the Walker was immobilised, you get to strike rear armour. So things like Krak grenade would be viable against Walkers with front AV13 but rear AV 11.

With the new Imperial Knights however, Kraks won't work, as they cannot be Immobilized due to Superheavy Walker rules, so you'll always hit the front armor.

Is there still a Drive Damaged/Immobilised rule for Superheavies? Or has that been taken out?

I read some FW Errata which mentioned that an Explodes result removes HP instead and would cause another roll on the vehicle damage chart, which may end up with an Immobilised result.

Taken out. You ignore all damage results except explodes.

Interesting. This means that any units without a str7 melee weapon cannot even charge the new knights. Stay away you gribblies!

Or be S4 with rending, or have haywire grenades, etc.

GWS FAQ:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3440036a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.5_September_13.pdf

Bottom of page 4, right column.

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

Considering a vehicle is a unit doesn't this conflict with the BRB?

 Zande4 wrote:
GWS FAQ:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3440036a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.5_September_13.pdf

Bottom of page 4, right column.

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

Considering a vehicle is a unit doesn't this conflict with the BRB?

Yes, but the BRB rules saying you can't charge a vehicle you can't hurt is more specific (as vehicles are a subset of units) and so wins out. So while you may be allowed to charge a unit you can't hurt, you still are forbidden from charging a vehicle you can't hurt.

And in the case of a conflict denial of permission wins, as does a more specific rule.

Deathleaper'd

 Zande4 wrote:
GWS FAQ:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3440036a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.5_September_13.pdf

Bottom of page 4, right column.

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

Considering a vehicle is a unit doesn't this conflict with the BRB?

This is more for units like great daemons of nurgle with T10.

A unit can assault and tarpit it even if it can't hurt it/

Yeah, that's about the only current rule that makes it a bonus to be a walker instead of an MC...

Just remember as long as one model in the unit can hurt the walker the turn it charges then the unit can assault.

So a rending claw prime in with 30 termigaunts can charge a Knight.

I didn't think you could lock a shw in combat.... I guess you could surround it.

nm, I pulled the book out.. rules isn't in there any longer.

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models..." page 84, BRB

You can assault it like it's an infantry model.

(continued from above quote)
"...meaning that they make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

This is often mistaken for the only meaning of the first part of the statement but that's not what it says and to believe so is pure assumption. It would also create broken situations where the walker is locked in combat but the enemy unit is not. See Successive Turns, page 76, BRB

With the exception of taking damage, they are treated like infantry in assault and thus can be charged by any unit.

At what point does it stop being a vehicle?

The only exception is damage? What rule says that? Non at all.

There is no rule allowing you to ignore the restriction placed on all vehicles.

 Abandon wrote:
"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models..." page 84, BRB

You can assault it like it's an infantry model.

So you have permission to assault and denial of permission to assault. You could have a thousand rules giving you permission to assault and only one denial and the denial still wins unless you have a rule that allows you to ignore it.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models..." page 84, BRB

You can assault it like it's an infantry model.

So you have permission to assault and denial of permission to assault. You could have a thousand rules giving you permission to assault and only one denial and the denial still wins unless you have a rule that allows you to ignore it.

Assault vehicles out of reserve spring to mind.
2 restrictions, only one is overridden.

So far no rule allows the ignoring of the "can't assault a vehicle you can't hurt" restriction.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models..." page 84, BRB

You can assault it like it's an infantry model.

So you have permission to assault and denial of permission to assault. You could have a thousand rules giving you permission to assault and only one denial and the denial still wins unless you have a rule that allows you to ignore it.

Except it is a specific walker rule which takes precedence over the general vehicle rules.

 Abandon wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models..." page 84, BRB

You can assault it like it's an infantry model.

So you have permission to assault and denial of permission to assault. You could have a thousand rules giving you permission to assault and only one denial and the denial still wins unless you have a rule that allows you to ignore it.

Except it is a specific walker rule which takes precedence over the general vehicle rules.

There is no specific rule that says "you can assault a walker, even if you can't damage it".
No rule says anything like that for any type of vehicle.

 grendel083 wrote:
There is no specific rule that says "you can assault a walker, even if you can't damage it".
No rule says anything like that for any type of vehicle.

There is a rule that says they are assaulted 'just like infantry'. Denying a unit the ability to assault it based on a vehicle rule is not treating it like infantry for said purpose and would be a misapplication of the rule.

For purposes of assault and being assaulted it is treated 'just like infantry'. Can you charge infantry you cannot hurt? Yes. Specific permission granted.

 Abandon wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models..." page 84, BRB

You can assault it like it's an infantry model.

So you have permission to assault and denial of permission to assault. You could have a thousand rules giving you permission to assault and only one denial and the denial still wins unless you have a rule that allows you to ignore it.

Except it is a specific walker rule which takes precedence over the general vehicle rules.

specific vs general only matters if there is a rules conflict which there isn't in this case

 Abandon wrote:
For purposes of assault and being assaulted it is treated 'just like infantry'. Can you charge infantry you cannot hurt?

Yes, unless they have a rule that says you can't, like Walkers do.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models..." page 84, BRB

You can assault it like it's an infantry model.

So you have permission to assault and denial of permission to assault. You could have a thousand rules giving you permission to assault and only one denial and the denial still wins unless you have a rule that allows you to ignore it.

Except it is a specific walker rule which takes precedence over the general vehicle rules.

specific vs general only matters if there is a rules conflict which there isn't in this case

'Assaulting and being assaulted just like infantry' naturally entails conflict with the general vehicles and assault rules so I don't understand how you cannot see it. Please explain your position.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
For purposes of assault and being assaulted it is treated 'just like infantry'. Can you charge infantry you cannot hurt?

Yes, unless they have a rule that says you can't, like Walkers do.

Are infantry vehicles?

 Abandon wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
For purposes of assault and being assaulted it is treated 'just like infantry'. Can you charge infantry you cannot hurt?

Yes, unless they have a rule that says you can't, like Walkers do.

Are infantry vehicles?

Normally no, but in this case, the thing being treated like Infantry for the purpose of assault is indeed a vehicle.

If we go by specific trumps general, doesn't that mean they can be charged?

General: vehicles cannot be charged if you can't harm them
Specific: walkers (unlike other vehicles) can assault and be assaulted just like infantry

So your saying that for purposes of assault it is treated as both a vehicle and infantry at the same time?

Well there's a specific vehicle rule that overrides the general assault rules stating:

"Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat" -Page 76, BRB, Successive Turns

So your saying that an MC is not locked in combat with a Walker but the Walker is locked in combat with the MC?

No, walkers are treated just like infantry for assault and do not follow the standard vehicle rules regarding it. That is, unless you want a very broken assault system when it comes to walkers where enemy units are allowed to move out of base contact, shoot the walker and charge it again while the walker is unable to move out of base contact and unable to shoot, etc.

Lets look at this logically. Start off on pg76 Vehicles and Assaults.

Vehicles can not charge (unless it is a walker or chariot)-Notice explicit permission to charge.

You can not charge a vehicle you can not harm.

Vehicles can not Overwatch.

Vehicles can not Pile In and cannot be locked in combat.

Vehicles can not perform a sweeping advance, no Pile Ins and no consolidation moves.

Vehicles never take morale checks.

Ok on to pg 84.

Walkers move using Infantry movement rules: Specific exemption from being a vehicle for movement only.

Walkers have a facing unlike Infantry: Specific exemption to the above exception for Infantry movement rules as a reminder that it is still a vehicle.

Walkers can Fire Overwatch.:Specific exemption to Vehicle rule.

Walkers can make charge moves: Reiteration of the exemption from the vehicle rules.

Walkers can be locked in combat: Specific exemption from the vehicle rules.

Walkers fight like Infantry models in combat. :Specific exemption from being a vehicle for resolving Fight-Subphase.

Walkers take all CC hits against front armor if not Immobilized. If Immobilized all hit go to rear armor.: Specific exemption from normal vehicle rules on how hits are resolved.

Walkers may make Sweeping advances, Pile In moves and consolidations.: Specific exemption from normal vehicle rules.

So we have a HUGE list of very detailed exemptions for when a walker is NOT treated like a Vehicle. Only for those specific rules are they not treated like a vehicle.

Honestly it would have been easier to just say that they are an infantry model that uses AV values and HP rather than Toughness and Wounds. But they didn't. Because if they did they would not have to give special allowances for Overwatch and consolidation moves and close combat.

However at the end of the day all these exemptions just show that the unit is NOT treated like Infantry for anything other than what is specifically called out.

The real nail in the coffin of your argument is the specific permission to violate the vehicle rules to fire Overwatch.

At the time that the charge is declared the model MUST be treated as a vehicle and not a Infantry model or else the rules would not have to specifically spell out the fact that it can fire Overwatch when being charged. Despite being a vehicle.

If it could be "Assaulted, like Infantry models," then they would inherently be able to fire Overwatch and not need the "Unlike other vehicles, Walkers can fire Overwatch". Or if they intended for the rules to be as you say they were the sentence would have read "Walkers assault and can be assaulted like Infantry models. This means that they make charge moves, can be locked in combat and fire Overwatch."

But it doesn't. If you wanted to clean up the messy punctuation the sentence would read:
"Walkers make charge moves, and can be locked in combat, like Infantry models when they assault, and are assaulted."

But then we are getting into RAI and not RAW.

I would put forth, that I think fearless models "should" be allowed to charge vehicles they cant hurt, but that would be the only exception.