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.

Pretty simple, which facing is it resolved against? The Hammer of Wrath states that its resolved against the facing you are in base to base contact with however the Walker rules say CC hits are resolved against the front armour and so do Chariots.

IF the rules for walkers and chariots they they resolve all CC hits on front armor then front armor is the way you resolve it. Walker and chariot rules are more specific then the HOW special rule.

Not really. I kind of think this is a case of two special rules going head to head.

If anything the HOW is even more specific than the Walker close combat rules.

Hollismason wrote:
If anything the HOW is even more specific than the Walker close combat rules.

Not really, HoW has a rule against Vehicles. That's a wide variety of many types.
Specifically it's being used on a walker, which has strict rules on facings.

Is it a vehicle? Yes, specifically a Walker.

 grendel083 wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
If anything the HOW is even more specific than the Walker close combat rules.

Not really, HoW has a rule against Vehicles. That's a while variety of many types.
Specifically it's being used on a walker, which has strict rules on facings.

Is it a vehicle? Yes, specifically a Walker.

This.

Yeah Walkers have their own basic rules, but this is a advanced special rule.

Your gonna have to argue why the Walker rule has more weight than the HOW rule.

I would say HoW isn't a normal cc attack. For example, it hits automatically and at initiative 10, whereas a model without grenades makes its "cc attacks" at initiative 1 when charging into cover, etc. etc.

Also, HoW hits automatically instead of a 6 against invisibility, which says cc attacks hit on a 6. I would argue it's different from a normal cc attack.

Yeah I just think that the HOW is so specific in how it works that it has more weight over how the Walker rules work.

Hollismason wrote:
Your gonna have to argue why the Walker rule has more weight than the HOW rule.

Because HoW states how it affects vehicles. You're applying it to a specific type of vehicle that has its own rule.

You would think "Walker" is a general rule, "HoW" is a special rule. Therefor special rule wins. That's just me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fluff purposes: Bikers are sweeping in behind the dread, it takes a minute to turn around and attack back.
Crunch purposes: iirc aren't HoW attacks resolved before all cc attacks by rule? again iirc, walkers play as if turning to face cc attacks, if this is resolved before them, he hasnt had time to turn.

Sorry I'm at work and dont have my BRB on me.

 Pyeatt wrote:
You would think "Walker" is a general rule,

Are all units walkers?

Crunch purposes: iirc aren't HoW attacks resolved before all cc attacks by rule?

HoW attacks are close combat attacks made at I10.

Wouldn't you say they're a SPECIAL cc attack, and therefore despite the walker's rules for how to handle cc attacks, this is a special case?

 Spellbound wrote:
Wouldn't you say they're a SPECIAL cc attack, and therefore despite the walker's rules for how to handle cc attacks, this is a special case?

Sure, if it said that in part of its rules. But it doesn't.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Spellbound wrote:
Wouldn't you say they're a SPECIAL cc attack, and therefore despite the walker's rules for how to handle cc attacks, this is a special case?

Sure, if it said that in part of its rules. But it doesn't.

It literally does say that, like Hammer of Wrath literally says that it's a special rule.

If a model with this special rule ends its charge move in base or hull contact with an enemy model, it makes one additional Attack that hits automatically and is resolved at the model’s unmodified Strength with AP-. This Attack does not benefit from any of the model’s special rules (such as Furious Charge, Rending etc.). This Attack is resolved during the Fight sub-phase at the Initiative 10 step, but does not grant the model an additional Pile In move.
If a model with this special rule charges a building or vehicle, the hit is resolved against the Armour Value of the facing the charging model is touching. If a model with this special rule charges a building or vehicle that is a Transport or a Chariot, the hit is resolved against the building or vehicle, not the occupants or the rider.

Hollismason wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Spellbound wrote:
Wouldn't you say they're a SPECIAL cc attack, and therefore despite the walker's rules for how to handle cc attacks, this is a special case?

Sure, if it said that in part of its rules. But it doesn't.

It literally does say that, like Hammer of Wrath literally says that it's a special rule.

Yes it says it's a special rule. But that alone doesn't make it any more specific. It needs more that just being special.

It has a rule for how it gets used against vehicles. Walkers (being a specific sub-group of vehicles) has a rule for how CC attacks are used against it?

Which one is more specific? A rule that applies to vehicles in general, or a rule that applies specifically to walkers?

I don't think you can have it both ways here. Either it is a CC attack, hitting rear armor on vehicles and front on walkers, or it is a special attack, hitting vehicle facings and then, later in CC it hits rear/front as specified.

Since the rules distinctly say it is not a normal CC attack by denying rear armor and a pile in move, it is not a standard CC attack so the dreadnaught rule would not apply.

My .02

I'd say special overrides the general rule walkers have. Thats the basic rules for Walkers.

Hollismason wrote:
I'd say special overrides the general rule walkers have. Thats the basic rules for Walkers.

Since HoW does not say anything about hitting Walkers on the facing they come from, the Walker rule will override. HoW does not address Walkers or Chariots therefore it is not more specific about how to handle CC attacks.

I'm on the Walker side of the argument.
HoW calls out "vehicles" of which walkers are a specific variety.
Walkers call out CC attacks of which HoW is a specific variety.

To me these are equally specific and requires a judgement call. The general policy for tournament rulings is that the decision favors the defender, which in this case is the walker.

This is HIWPI. Perhaps create a poll thread? It seems people are pretty varied on this one.

I just needed to state that Special Rules are classified as 'Advanced Rules' by the Rules which define such things. Sorry, but it makes me twitch when people state things like 'Special Rules win' in Rule as Written debates, because there is no such Rule in the book to my knowledge. In situations where there is a true conflict between a Special Rule and another Rule, such as a Unit Type, we actually reach a 'Rules as Written Break' outcome, a massive flaw in the way the Rules telling us how to resolve such conflicts work.

Special Rules being a higher tier then Advanced Rules would be a very good inclusion into Basic Vs Advanced, if you ask me....

JinxDragon wrote:
I just needed to state that Special Rules are classified as 'Advanced Rules' by the Rules which define such things. Sorry, but it makes me twitch when people state things like 'Special Rules win' in Rule as Written debates, because there is no such Rule in the book to my knowledge. In situations where there is a true conflict between a Special Rule and another Rule, such as a Unit Type, we actually reach a 'Rules as Written Break' outcome, a massive flaw in the way the Rules telling us how to resolve such conflicts work.

Special Rules being a higher tier then Advanced Rules would be a very good inclusion into Basic Vs Advanced, if you ask me....

Jinx, I think your dented wall is calling. Again.

Seems clear to me that this one goes in the walkers favour.

I've been informed I can't hit my head against walls while at work....
Seems to upset people around me, though I can't fathom why.

Those are the GENERAL rules for how walkers treat close combat attacks. There are also general rules for how close combat attacks are worked out against infantry (which is part of the walker's rules, which say roll to hit as normal, etc). Hammer of wrath supersedes all that, skipping the roll to hit and telling you exactly how it's supposed to work against vehicles.

A hammer of wrath attack hits vehicles automatically and in the arc you're in. It doesn't roll to hit, it doesn't get rear armor regardless of facing (regular vehicle cc rules). It also doesn't roll to hit, and doesn't hit the front regardless of facing (walker cc rules). It hits automatically and against whatever facing you're in (hammer of wrath vs vehicles rules).

No its not a general rule for how walkers treat CC attacks.

The walker rule itself is an advanced rule for vehicles type.

The entire walker rule is advanced.

Walker rule states all CC attacks go to front armor and HoW is a CC attack. Case is over.

Hammer of Wrath is a CC attack, in that it is resolved at initiative step 10 of the close combat phase.

The walker rule specifically states that unless it is immobilised "models hitting a walker in colse combat ALWAYS roll for armour penetration against its front armour"

To the check would go:

Hammer of Wrath
Is it a vehicle? Yes
In general this hits the rear armour
Is it a Walker? Yes
Walkers are specifically ALWAYS hit in front armour in close combat.
Walker rule overrides.

If a walker is always hit in the front armour in close combat, and you are trying to hit something other than the front armour, you can by the very nature of the rule not hit the walker.

Emphasis mine but to summarise, if a walker is ALWAYS hit in the front armour in CC, you either hit the front armour or nothing.

I don't have my rule book in front of me, but one person quoted the HoW rule above. If that quote is accurate, I think it's important to point out that it specifically avoids calling it a close combat attack. It calls it an "attack" in the generic sense, not specifying CC or shooting. This would put the HoW attack outside of the jurisdiction of the walker rule, and it would be resolved against the facing hit rather than the front armor.

 NightHowler wrote:
I don't have my rule book in front of me, but one person quoted the HoW rule above. If that quote is accurate, I think it's important to point out that it specifically avoids calling it a close combat attack. It calls it an "attack" in the generic sense, not specifying CC or shooting. This would put the HoW attack outside of the jurisdiction of the walker rule, and it would be resolved against the facing hit rather than the front armor.

It makes "one additional attack". What other types of attacks are you doing during the Fight Subphase ?

 NightHowler wrote:
I don't have my rule book in front of me, but one person quoted the HoW rule above. If that quote is accurate, I think it's important to point out that it specifically avoids calling it a close combat attack. It calls it an "attack" in the generic sense, not specifying CC or shooting. This would put the HoW attack outside of the jurisdiction of the walker rule, and it would be resolved against the facing hit rather than the front armor.

Most of the book specifically avoids calling things close combat attacks. "Close combat attack" is never defined in the book. Even if you look in the back of the book, it directs you to page 49 where it simply says "each engaged model makes a number of attacks..." as it describes how models fight in close combat. The only thing a "close combat attack" can be is an attack that is made by a model engaged in close combat. Since hammer of wrath is an attack that is made when the model is engaged in close combat, it is considered a close combat attack.

Hammer of Wrath appears to modify the facing in which its CC Attack is made versus vehicles. Per the Vehicle entry, all CC Attacks are made against the Rear facing. Per the Walker entry, all CC Attacks are made against the Front facing. Per Hammer of Wrath, this type of CC Attack is made against the actual facing the unit is in base contact with. As such, HoW does modify the facing of Vehicles, be they Walkers or not, for its specific CC Attack.

HoW appears to be a hard counter to CC specific targeting restrictions.

SJ