HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityFAQUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Hammer of Wrath and walkers

Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
Aschen
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 261
Join date : 2013-01-06

PostSubject: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Mon Oct 06 2014, 01:51

So with our new str 6 HoW attacks, taking low armor out with reavers charing seems like a good plan. However, a question came up when I was reading the rules. So without further ado.....

Hammer of wrath states that hits are resolved against the vehicle facing the model comes into contact with.

Walkers state that all close combat attacks are resolved against front armor, unless it is immobilized.

Two core rules in the rulebook....

Now I think that Hammer of Wrath would hit the armor facing, since Hammer of Wrath trumps the vehicle rule of close combat attacks being resolved against the rear, it would also trump the walker rule. Thoughts?
Back to top Go down
Thor665
Archon
avatar

Posts : 5496
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Venice, FL

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Mon Oct 06 2014, 02:02

The walker rule trumps the rear rule too - so what makes one more trump worthy than others?

I see your argument and will agree it's a gray area.
I would rule and would expect others to rule, that you target the front armor facing - the more specific rule of the sub-set of vehicle (walker) trumping the more generic rule (HoW vs. all types of vehicles). Which is how they tend to rule on specificity of rules.

_________________


The Title Troupe! - Nom fellow posters for custom titles.
Back to top Go down
Aschen
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 261
Join date : 2013-01-06

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Mon Oct 06 2014, 04:34

I see what you are saying, but I would personally argue that walker is the generic rule, and Hammer of Wrath is the special rule.

Pg 156: Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule.

Seems to say to me that special rules trump the other rules in the book
Back to top Go down
Thor665
Archon
avatar

Posts : 5496
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Venice, FL

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Mon Oct 06 2014, 04:59

Basic rule - in assault you hit a vehicles' rear armor.

Specific rule - Hammer of Wrath hits vehicle armor on the facing it touches.

Specific rule - Walkers, in assault, are hit on their front facing.

Hammer of wrath applies to all vehicles in assault affected by the hit.
Walkers' facing affect applies only to walkers in assault affected by the hit.
Ergo - it is more specific and per the rules would take precedence in my opinion.

_________________


The Title Troupe! - Nom fellow posters for custom titles.
Back to top Go down
Strategist
Slave


Posts : 9
Join date : 2012-12-25

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Tue Oct 07 2014, 02:29

Here is a clarification for your guesses fellas...pg 13 "Basic vs Advanced"(black box, bottom right), without completely quoting the BRB, it states that when it is a rule in brb vs one printed in codex, the codex Always takes precedence.

I am sure this will not make many happy, other than DE players. Laughing
Back to top Go down
Thor665
Archon
avatar

Posts : 5496
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Venice, FL

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Tue Oct 07 2014, 05:47

Doesn't matter, all the relevant rules are BRB though.

Walker being hit on front facing and HoW hitting vehicle armor facing they touch. Both are BRB rules, neither is a codex rule.

_________________


The Title Troupe! - Nom fellow posters for custom titles.
Back to top Go down
Strategist
Slave


Posts : 9
Join date : 2012-12-25

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Tue Oct 07 2014, 19:47

I'm not responding to create a lengthy debate, but also since that rule i had mentioned is in the BRB, under circumstances as such still take precedence of the other issues? It specifically says that when it is uncertain, that the codex trumps the BRB if there are any confilcts. To me, this is RAW and RAI.  I do agree with the normal circumstances. But this seems situational.
Back to top Go down
Thor665
Archon
avatar

Posts : 5496
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Venice, FL

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Tue Oct 07 2014, 21:11

I agree with you about the rule and what it does.

I simply disagree that it helps solve the issue - as none of the rules we're debating about here appear in a codex. They are all from the BRB, and therefore the rule you mentioned doesn't affect them beyond the 'specific' part.

And we're debating which is *more* specific.

_________________


The Title Troupe! - Nom fellow posters for custom titles.
Back to top Go down
Aschen
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 261
Join date : 2013-01-06

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Thu Oct 09 2014, 06:18

After reading the book I dont think its about specifics, since Hammer of Wrath is a special rule, it trumps basic rules...and the walker and its rules is under basic rules...

Though I've seen some people argue that the fact that the walker rule states 'always' it trumps even the special rule.

Also, funny to note, but the PDF version of the rules doesnt have the full hammer of wrath rules. It doesnt state that hammer of wrath hits armor facing (apparently a lot of people have been playing that it hits vehicle back armor)
Back to top Go down
merse24
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 213
Join date : 2014-06-14
Location : Texas

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Thu Oct 09 2014, 06:43

I'm pretty sure that How hits at initiative 10, so that would mean that it is part of the CC sub phase. If I'm correct, then I would have to say that it is resolved against front armor.
Back to top Go down
Leninade
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 102
Join date : 2014-09-23

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Thu Oct 09 2014, 19:19

Vehicles are always hit on their rear armor in cc. I would say how trumps dreadnoughts always front rule.
Back to top Go down
Thor665
Archon
avatar

Posts : 5496
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Venice, FL

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Thu Oct 09 2014, 20:11

@Aschen wrote:
After reading the book I dont think its about specifics, since Hammer of Wrath is a special rule, it trumps basic rules...and the walker and its rules is under basic rules...
The problem is that it doesn't clarify special rules as more specific than walker rules.

Basic rules are defined as the rules for movement, shooting, assault, and morale.

Advanced rules are defined as 'everything else' (including the mere act of being a vehicle).

They tell you what to do in a conflict between advanced and basic (advanced trumps basic)
They tell you what to do if two advanced rules conflict between codex and BRB (codex trumps BRB)
They do not tell you what to do when two BRB advanced rules conflict.

You can argue that special rules take precedence.
You can also argue that walker rules to close combat take precedence.

I see no clear evidence to support either ruling. I personally tend to think the walker one holds as it is most specific, but that is just an opinion.

Edit - page 156 might be a key though. It does say special rules 'break or bend' other rules. One could argue that the HoW ruling breaks the Walker ruling, as that isn't a special rule and has nothing saying it breaks or bends other rules (even though it does - but they don't state that)

_________________


The Title Troupe! - Nom fellow posters for custom titles.
Back to top Go down
merse24
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 213
Join date : 2014-06-14
Location : Texas

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Thu Oct 09 2014, 20:30

In the BRB (don't know the pg #, as I have the digital version), it states:

"Models hitting a Walker in close combat always roll for armor penetration against its front armor unless it has been immobilized."

Also, under the Hammer of Wrath special rule it states:

"This attack is resolved in the fight sub-phase at Initiative step 10, but does not grant the model an additional pile in move."

Considering that HoW is resolved in the fight sub-phase, which IS part of close combat, then it's pretty clear that Hammer of Wrath is resolved against the Walker's front armor.
Back to top Go down
aurynn
Incubi


Posts : 1626
Join date : 2013-04-23

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Thu Oct 09 2014, 22:40

Its even easier IMHO. Walkers fight like infantry, therefore they turn towards their enemies. Therefore HOW facing rule is irrelevant as he just turns the front armour towards the reavers during the charge.
Back to top Go down
Thor665
Archon
avatar

Posts : 5496
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Venice, FL

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Fri Oct 10 2014, 05:24

@merse24 wrote:
In the BRB (don't know the pg #, as I have the digital version), it states:

"Models hitting a Walker in close combat always roll for armor penetration against its front armor unless it has been immobilized."

Also, under the Hammer of Wrath special rule it states:

"This attack is resolved in the fight sub-phase at Initiative step 10, but does not grant the model an additional pile in  move."

Considering that HoW is resolved in the fight sub-phase, which IS part of close combat, then it's pretty clear that Hammer of Wrath is resolved against the Walker's front armor.
I agree with you that the Walker rule seems to take precedence.
I don't think I'd call it "pretty clear" though.

As noted above, special rules admit they break or bend rules.
Perhaps the Walker rule is one they break?
The Walker rule does not say it breaks rules though, so how can it take precedence over HoW?

_________________


The Title Troupe! - Nom fellow posters for custom titles.
Back to top Go down
merse24
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 213
Join date : 2014-06-14
Location : Texas

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Fri Oct 10 2014, 05:38

Because all of this occurs during the close combat phase, which it states that during close combat, attacks against walkers are resolved against the front armor
Back to top Go down
Calyptra
Wych
avatar

Posts : 802
Join date : 2013-03-25
Location : Boston

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Fri Oct 10 2014, 08:27

Special rules can bend or break main rules. Hammer of Wrath is a special rule, and Walker is a main rule. Doesn't that establish which rule trumps which?

_________________
Dark Eldar plog: Drug-Crazed Space Elves
Stupid humans plog: Calyptra's Stupid Humans
Vampire Counts plog: Bat Country
Back to top Go down
Klaivex Charondyr
Wych
avatar

Posts : 918
Join date : 2014-09-08

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Fri Oct 10 2014, 10:51

HoW rule trumps walker rule.
If this would not be the case HoW would also always hit (non walker) vehicles in the rear.

Furthermore I dont see HoW as an ordinary CC attack. It doesnt follow most of the CC rules - it is a special ability that happens to take place in the fight-subphase.
Back to top Go down
The_Burning_Eye
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2501
Join date : 2012-01-16
Location : Rutland - UK

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Fri Oct 10 2014, 11:04

HoW is not even an attack, it's a hit.

For me the key part is the statement that special rules (such as HoW) can bend or break main rules, and therefore the comment about HoW hits seems logical that they would strike against the armour facing the model making them is in contact with.

Without the acknowledgement that special rules can bend or break main rules, I'd agree that the walker rule would take precedence.

_________________
Tan? You're joking, I'm a gamer, you're lucky I'm wearing deodorant!

My Blog - The Burning Eye Blog (check it out - comments always welcome)

My Project Log - Visions of the Burning Eye

My Gaming Log - Chronicles of the Burning Eye

My Club - MAD Wargaming

My Fluff - Kabal of the Burning Eye, Cult of the Shadowed Blade and Coven of Distorted Perfection
Back to top Go down
http://theburningeye.blogspot.com
aurynn
Incubi


Posts : 1626
Join date : 2013-04-23

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Fri Oct 10 2014, 11:24

HOW is an attack as stated in BRB (got digital, so no page, but its under Special Rules - HOW): "If a model with this special rule ends its charge move in base or hull contact with one or more enemy models, it makes one additional ATTACK that hits automatically..."

Thats confirmation enough for me.
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 7192
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Fri Oct 10 2014, 11:27

Seems to be arguments on both sides and no clear resolution. Personally I'd lean towards HoW hitting whatever facing the attack comes from and then the walker swivels to face the attacker for the normal melee attacks but that's purely because it seems 'right' to me, not for any strict rules reason as the rules are ambiguous (IMO).

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
aurynn
Incubi


Posts : 1626
Join date : 2013-04-23

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Fri Oct 10 2014, 11:54

Okay I think I got it now...

1) Attacks in CC against walkers are resolved against front armour - true
2) HOW attacks are CC attacks - true IMHO
3) As ALL CC attacks ag. walkers are resolved against front armour, this has nothing to do with ini or pile-in moves, because otherwise attacks prior to walker's ini-step would hit him on the facing the attacks come from. - true
4) HOW attacks hits on the facing they come from - true

The only situation all these rules are met and true is that the walker turns to face his assailants during the charge move. If this were not true, point 3 would not be met.

EDIT: To further the argument - Walker can fire overwatch 360° around, therefore they MUST be able to turn prior to firing Overwatch - ergo prior to HOW.

Therefore the HOW hits on front armour.
Back to top Go down
Calyptra
Wych
avatar

Posts : 802
Join date : 2013-03-25
Location : Boston

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Fri Oct 10 2014, 15:10

I'm not sure about the logic of the walker turning when charged. We're getting into trouble because infantry don't have facing, but walkers do. Saying that the walker turns implies that it still has a rear arc after being charged, but that isn't the case in terms of the game mechanic. In game terms, the model's rear arc disappears entirely, and its front arc extends to 360 degrees. (When surrounded, dreadnoughts become lightning-fast ninja.)

It's irrelevant in terms of both precedent and game mechanics, but the relationship between walkers being charged by things with Hammer of Wrath and walkers being rammed by other vehicles is causing me a bit of cognitive dissonance. It doesn't make sense that the dread would be able to spin around to snap shoot at the Reavers coming at it from behind, but not a Rhino. It doesn't make sense that the Reavers would resolve HoW against its rear armor having been just shot at from its front. It doesn't make sense that a dread that was already in combat, being assaulted from behind, wouldn't be forced to expose its rear armor to somebody.

@aurynn wrote:
HOW is an attack as stated in BRB (got digital, so no page, but its under Special Rules - HOW): "If a model with this special rule ends its charge move in base or hull contact with one or more enemy models, it makes one additional ATTACK that hits automatically..."

But then the special rule goes on to specify a location; being a special rule, that should overrule the location specified by the main rule.

I think this is definitely unclear. Special rules overriding main rules seems like the RAW way to go with this. That said, I'll probably play it the other way because the walker was able to fire overwatch before being charged, and because I think it's polite, in cases of truly unclear rules interactions, to use the interpretation that advantages my opponent.
Back to top Go down
Laughingcarp
Wych
avatar

Posts : 562
Join date : 2013-09-03
Location : The insane asylum of the universe

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Fri Oct 10 2014, 16:36

I agree that it is entirely unclear. While I feel like the majority here votes the walker "pivots" to meet the hammer of wrath attacks with its face, I fully believe the same argument for importance of rules and priority of wording can be made the other way around.

There is nothing specific that says so one way or the other, just lots of good opinions to use either way.

_________________
I dedicate these deaths to Odin Allfather, Spearshaker, One Eye.
Fleet Shadowmaker - Kabal of the Dying Sun; Cult of Marrow Excised; Coven of Lambent Hunger
Sons of the Last Breath - Chaos Space Marines
Host of Shattered Purity - Chaos Daemons
Back to top Go down
Thor665
Archon
avatar

Posts : 5496
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Venice, FL

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Fri Oct 10 2014, 16:53

Agreed.

I am actually coming around to the belief that the HoW attacks would land on the facing they touch, as I am thinking it's more defensible within the context of the rules. That said, it is very unclear in my opinion, and I could see it ruled either way and not be shocked.

_________________


The Title Troupe! - Nom fellow posters for custom titles.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   

Back to top Go down
 
Hammer of Wrath and walkers
Back to top 
Page 1 of 3Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
THE DARK CITY :: 

COMMORRAGH TACTICA

 :: Rules: Queries & Questions
-
Jump to: