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.

So, the BRB says you can't charge a vehicle you can't hurt, the FAQ says you can, what do you guys think?

Knight Titans, hooooo!! We try these awesome new models out in a bat rep, Raw Dogger vs. Reecius' Junkticrons!




Rules video!

BOOOO! No paint on it!

lol

We can only do so much, sir! haha

Yea you cannot charge what what you cannot hurt,that how the tounys out here has been playing.

The stomp attack from the knight does not replace the normal attacks anymore like it did last edition.

You still get to make your 3 D weapon attacks at initiative 4.

Thanks for the report! I was under the impression that the Knights were not Lords of War and thus don't give the bonus victory points or +1 to seize.

Definitely interested to see more of the Knight, especially against a more powerful list (no offense to the mighty Junkticrons).

Great report I look forward to more to see what other things the Knight can do besides being locked up by a bunch of scarabs lol. From what i've seen he seems perfectly costed just like what you guys said. The only problem I see is that if you let one unit into the tourney scene with D weaponry then i'm sure people will start wanting everything else.

Reece thanks for the great batrep showing off the new IK. I look forward to you testing to show what it can do and how it balances out.

patrickekirby wrote:Yea you cannot charge what what you cannot hurt,that how the tounys out here has been playing.

That is incorrect though as the FAQ is pretty clear.

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

Eihnlazer wrote:The stomp attack from the knight does not replace the normal attacks anymore like it did last edition.

You still get to make your 3 D weapon attacks at initiative 4.

This is absolutely correct.

Trying to hold up the knight with hordes will not work for very long. However any 10 model unit with 3+ saves and WS 4+ is likely to only take ~3.7 deaths on the charge and ~3 deaths every turn after. This means your average TAC squad (cough, or CSM) with a big nasty in it can do a great job at taking one of these out. BTW a single wraithknight is almost assured to die in exchange for ~3-5 HP. The IK is definitely better than a WK in most ways but for the pts he better be (not to mention when he dies don't forget the SH explosion).

Also as said above it is not a LoW so you don't get any of those benefits.

I totally agree however that he is good or great but still reasonably balanced.

As I see it, you cannot charge a vehicle you cannot hurt.

The FAQ refers to page 20, which is the general outline on how to launch an assault, but on page 76, under 'Assaulting Vehicles' it says you cannot charge a vehicle you cannot hurt. That's, btw, where it also says vehicles cannot make overwatch fire. So, you can charge a Wraithknight with some Grots, but not a Dreadnought.

And, as others have said, the Knight is not a LoW, so no victory points for taking off hull points, and it gets to stomp in addition to normal attacks. And it's apparently scoring.

Thud has it. The vehicle rules prohibit the charge, not the general assault rules.

One of the few ways Walkers are better than MCs.

Good to see these coming out. I agree in that I don't think they can be charged by units that can't hurt them.

As for movement, with escalation doesn't make it clear. I would guess until it is FAQ'd you will see a lot of people playing it straight up move through cover.

Add at all in with you should have still got to swing you main weapon, I think the outcome of the game would have changed a fair amount.

On page 84. It says you assault a walker just like you would assault infantry units. Which means that can you assault the knight with things that can't hurt him. There's nothing stopping guardsmen from assaulting a wraithknight.

Silent_Tempest wrote:
On page 84. It says you assault a walker just like you would assault infantry units. Which means that can you assault the knight with things that can't hurt him. There's nothing stopping guardsmen from assaulting a wraithknight.

And so the plot thickens.

I think the designers get some sort of sick sexual gratification from going on forums and reading the rules arguments that arise from their labyrinthine writings. They probably have bets on how long it takes before someone digs up the relevant rule that overrides everything buried somewhere deep in the rules book.

Silent_Tempest wrote:
On page 84. It says you assault a walker just like you would assault infantry units. Which means that can you assault the knight with things that can't hurt him.

Does pg. 84 also say Walkers are no longer vehicles?

There's nothing stopping guardsmen from assaulting a wraithknight.

What does this have to do with it?

I do not believe removing HP from a Kight awards VP's as it is not a Lord of War.

Hey fellas,

So a lot of rules issues came up.

Stomp and attacks= yes, sorry, I totally misread the rule to say either or, my mistake.

Can you assault the walker if you can't hurt it? I think yes per the FAQ, but some folks argue no.

Do stomp attacks hit the entire unit or just the models under the template? The rules indicate that it may be the entire unit which is absurd.

Moving through difficult terrain. Per RAW, they would slow down to 3d6, take the highest, so a max of 6". That feels wrong, what are your thoughts?

Lords of War and HP, scoring status, etc. Nothing official tells us if the Knight is a scoring unit or gives up VP's for HP yet, that is just something said on the GW FB page, but we will know for sure with the codex.

Thanks for all the feedback! Knights are fun to use!

For the assault rules q, lets start with whether you can assault a vehicle you cannot hurt.

Premise 1: Page 7 of the rule book tells us that Basic rules are the ones found on pages 10-31. Rest of the rules governing vehicles are on the other pages and are considered Advanced. Advanced over-rule Basic.

Premise 2: "Q: Can I charge an enemy unit that I can’t hurt? (p20) A: Yes"

That FAQ is for basic rules, so would be over written by advanced rules.

Premise 3: "However a unit cannot charge a vehicle that it cannot hurt - it must have some possibility, no matter how small, of being able to inflict at least a glancing hit." p76.

Conlusion 1: You cannot charge a vehicle you cannot hurt, as the rules rule in premise 3 over rule the rules in premise 2, due to premise 1. I believe the idea here is to keep people from using vehicle charges as free movement (something I did all the time with gants since 4ed).

However, as pointed out walkers work differently -- so more advanced rules to consider:

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

This is where things break down to semantics. Does this mean that premise 1 applies? Or would premise 1 only apply by being specifically mentioned (like all the other assault rules are called out in the rest of the text)?

I've gone back and forth on this but to me it seems like Conclusion 1 is meant to prevent free movement, not to stop valid assaults that result in combat (even if they are otherwise futile). Its not as clear cut as people are making it out to be though, in my opinion.

You summed it up, well.

I believe that as it is a Walker you CAN assault it, even if you can't hurt it but it certainly isn't clear.

Here is my thoughts on it:

P1: You cannot assault a vehicle you cannot hurt.
P2: A Knight is a vehicle.
P3: You assault walkers like infantry.
P4: A Knight is a walker.
P5: You can assault infantry, even if you cannot hurt them.

So, in my mind, the logical conclusion is that the the specific overrides the general. Therefore, as each premise was more specific than the last in the above argument, you can assault a walker even if you cannot hurt it.

More Frankie Dark Eldar battle reports pleaaaaase!!!

 Reecius wrote:
You summed it up, well.

I believe that as it is a Walker you CAN assault it, even if you can't hurt it but it certainly isn't clear.

Here is my thoughts on it:

P1: You cannot assault a vehicle you cannot hurt.
P2: A Knight is a vehicle.
P3: You assault walkers like infantry.
P4: A Knight is a walker.
P5: You can assault infantry, even if you cannot hurt them.

So, in my mind, the logical conclusion is that the the specific overrides the general. Therefore, as each premise was more specific than the last in the above argument, you can assault a walker even if you cannot hurt it.

I think you have finally reached the bottom of the rabbit hole. Reward yourself with some cake!

You guys should do some more batreps with Knights, though. I think they're a really interesting meta unit as they kinda balls things up for death stars, without taking everything else down with them as well (see: Revenant).

@Thud

Yeah, I think that argument makes the most sense. I shall enjoy my cake! haha

And for sure, the Knights are really fun to play. They create a lot of tension in a good way, like, oh gak, the Knight is almost on me! lol

 winterman wrote:

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

this sentence only indicates the two specific things listed in said sentence:

1. Walkers make charge moves.
2. Walkers can be locked in combat.

That's it. It even prefaces these things with "meaning" telling you EAXCTLY what the rule means. This isn't a case of "Assaults as Infantry" with no specific instructions to the scope of the rule. The scope is plainly laid out. Otherwise Walkers would also roll for morale in assault if they lose.

I've read quite a lot into the old 'assaulting a walker' argument.

I would say models who cannot hurt a Walker can Assault it, since the intention of the rule seems to be so that models cannot gain extra movement for 'free' in their assault phase.

Assaulting a walker they can't hurt isn't without its dangers.

(EDIT: Here comes the RAI vs RAW reply. Please don't bother )


I've always enjoyed your bat reps and while waiting for my Knights to arrive this was particularly great viewing!

Thanks for the upload man, looking forward to the next one.

It easiest just to go to YMDC and see the thread there on charging things you cannot hurt.

I try to avoid YMDC =) Too much arguing, not enough actual debate, often.

@XT

Glad you liked it! I agree with you, too.

Silent_Tempest wrote:
On page 84. It says you assault a walker just like you would assault infantry units. Which means that can you assault the knight with things that can't hurt him. There's nothing stopping guardsmen from assaulting a wraithknight.

That actually refers to the method of rolling assault distance, overwatch, pile ins, how to fight etc. It is the general rule, the more specific rule is vehicles which cannot be hurt may not be assaulted. [although super heavy walkers may not make overwatch attacks ever, due to the super heavy walker rule saying so, but not this discussion..,]

The faq ruling mentioned above allows you to assault models you cannot hurt due to Strength versus Toughness, it doesn't supercede the specific rule for vehicles and assault.

Stomp reads a lot like the necrons death ray. Deathray got faq'd to be just the models under it, I'd assume the same thing for the stomp.

Why no meltacannon on the knight...

I actually posted the assault question in YMDC before. It happened between my soulgrinder and a unit of gants that assaulted it to try to lock it in place. Even Yakface chimed in.

The consensus then by most of the rules people (including Yakface) was that no, the gants shouldn't have been able to charge the walker.