HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityFAQUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Hammer of Wrath and walkers

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
shadowseercB
Wych
avatar

Posts : 538
Join date : 2012-10-21
Location : Los Angeles

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Fri Oct 10 2014, 17:28

I believe the HoW attack will only hit the front armor of a walker because most walkers are on bases and we would treat it as a normal based model and the only time we wouldnt is when it specifically states that it is immobalized.

HoW happens in the melee phase at the initiative 10 step so I think it is safe to assume it is a melee attack that hits front armor like any other melee attack would.

And if it still isnt clear there is always the good ol' flip a coin/roll a D6 to see if it does or not.
Back to top Go down
BetrayTheWorld
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2665
Join date : 2013-04-04

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Sat Oct 11 2014, 06:34

@Thor665 wrote:

The problem is that it doesn't clarify special rules as more specific than walker rules.

While I often find myself in agreement with your assessments, Thor, this is one in which I feel there is a common misconception that you're falling into. There is not, nor has there been for several editions of the game, any wording that states "more specific rules trump general".

That is a common misconception because the books HAVE said that "Special" rules trump general rules. People took Special/General to mean Specific/General, which it does NOT. Special rules are specifically defined in the rulebook, while "Specific" rules are not.

The rulebook spells it out this way: When rules are in conflict, FAQ takes precedence over everything. Supplement takes precedence over codex. Codex takes precedence over rulebook. Special rules(In the rulebook) take precedence over general rules(in the rulebook.)

Specific doesn't even get honorable mention. It's just a word that people derived from "special" rules and ran with it, spreading a rumor like a virus through the 40k community that simply isn't true.

_________________
Back to top Go down
aurynn
Incubi


Posts : 1626
Join date : 2013-04-23

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Sun Oct 12 2014, 07:57

But is there really a conflict? HOW hits walkers on the facing it comes from. Walkers are hit on the front in CC because he TURNS... I dont see a conflict really...
Back to top Go down
Aschen
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 261
Join date : 2013-01-06

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Fri Oct 17 2014, 22:33

aurynn. I see what you are saying, but there is no actual turning involved. The model stays facing the direction he is facing, but he is allowed to overwatch 360 due to his own rules.

Hammer of wrath rule trumps walker rule due to being a special rule. Just like hammer of wrath rule trumps "vehicles always being hit in the rear armor" rule. To me, the vehicle rule for hitting rear armor, and the walker rule for hitting front armor are pretty much the same, and so for HoW to trump one, they should also trump the other
Back to top Go down
aurynn
Incubi


Posts : 1626
Join date : 2013-04-23

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Fri Oct 17 2014, 23:48

That was actually just a minor addon to my arguments. My point was that if there is a way to satisfy both Basic rule and Special rule, there is no need of one overruling the other and such solutions should be pursued in the first place.
Back to top Go down
shadowseercB
Wych
avatar

Posts : 538
Join date : 2012-10-21
Location : Los Angeles

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Sat Oct 18 2014, 01:25

@Aschen wrote:
Hammer of wrath rule trumps walker rule due to being a special rule.  Just like hammer of wrath rule trumps "vehicles always being hit in the rear armor" rule.  To me, the vehicle rule for hitting rear armor, and the walker rule for hitting front armor are pretty much the same, and so for HoW to trump one, they should also trump the other

I think you just changed my mind on the situation.
Back to top Go down
Timatron
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 443
Join date : 2013-03-12
Location : Brighton

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Sat Oct 18 2014, 23:04

I agree with Aschen.
Back to top Go down
aurynn
Incubi


Posts : 1626
Join date : 2013-04-23

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Sun Oct 19 2014, 17:21

Well I am going to play it that they hit on the front. Its a INI 10 CC attack. If I had INI 10, I would hit on the front armour. So basically if I chose to resolve my normal INI 10 attacks, the walker would turn to face me (thus hitting front) and then the HOW attacks and the walker would be hit on the side for example? Like he turned away during a CC phase? Na-ah... My opinion is that he turns towards his attackers during Overwatch phase and STAYS that way.
Back to top Go down
Klaivex Charondyr
Wych
avatar

Posts : 918
Join date : 2014-09-08

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Sun Oct 19 2014, 17:29

And when he is bound in CC and gets assaulted in the rear next turn?
Are you going to enforce the vehicle rules too (always hit in the rear) over the HoW rules (always hit the facing it touches) or do you decide which rules goes first on a subjective case by case basis?
Back to top Go down
aurynn
Incubi


Posts : 1626
Join date : 2013-04-23

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Sun Oct 19 2014, 17:54

CC attack - front. If I had my rhino assaulted by 3x20 Hellions and had to put them all around the vehicle, I wouldnt argue that all 60 hellions cant possibly hit the rear. Anyway, I am not asking you to play it that way. I am just "giving an inch" to the defender, as I believe we all should in case of unclear rules... and I am also acknowledging the clear mobility difference between normal vehicle and a walker.

EDIT: not mentioning that we are not questioning infantry ability to fight someone attacking from the rear...

EDIT 2:
Quote :
In close combat, Walkers fight like Infantry models. However, any hits scored against them must roll for armour penetration and damage as for a vehicle. Models hitting a Walker in close combat always roll for armour penetration against its front armour unless it has been Immobilised. Against an Immobilised Walker, models always roll for armour penetration against its rear armour. This is because, unlike other vehicles, the Walker turns to face its enemies and rampages through the melee.

Always means at INI 10, 9, 8, 7... etc... Anytime during CC! Anytime, even if it means 10 times in one round of CC...
As he turns, the HOW hits on front facing because he turns because it IS a CC attack and happens in CC.

Anyone disagreeing with that, please point me to the rule that says that I cannot turn the walker at the beginning of INI step 10 towards any enemy I choose and anytime during any ini step do it again. Even gazillion times during one ini step.
Back to top Go down
Aschen
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 261
Join date : 2013-01-06

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Thu Oct 23 2014, 02:21

New faqs out...that say nothing about rules.... just sayin..
Back to top Go down
Tittliewinks22
Hellion


Posts : 89
Join date : 2014-02-11
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Thu Oct 23 2014, 04:49

Vehicles being hit from the rear in cc and walkers being hit from the front in cc do not matter because HoW states that it hits the vehicle from facing armor. If you are going to say that walkers are hit in the front, then you also have to say that non-walkers are hit in the rear. If you claim that, then why did GW bother with the "facing armor" clause in the first place?

Its clear as day HoW hits facing armor.
Back to top Go down
aurynn
Incubi


Posts : 1626
Join date : 2013-04-23

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Thu Oct 23 2014, 11:22

@Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Vehicles being hit from the rear in cc and walkers being hit from the front in cc do not matter because HoW states that it hits the vehicle from facing armor.  If you are going to say that walkers are hit in the front, then you also have to say that non-walkers are hit in the rear.  If you claim that, then why did GW bother with the "facing armor" clause in the first place?

Its clear as day HoW hits facing armor.

Yes and in regards of walkers he turns himself towards the HOW unit as quoted from BRB in my post above. Therefore HOW hits on the armour it is coming from - the front - because the walker turns.

Clear as day.
Back to top Go down
Tittliewinks22
Hellion


Posts : 89
Join date : 2014-02-11
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Thu Oct 23 2014, 13:29

The turning clause is not rule its "forging a narrative" if you are using that quotation as a rule then you should use the entire sentence "and rampages through". Does this now mean walkers have rampage?  By that logic our razor wings have strafing run because its mentioned in the fluff... the walker turning is clearly fluff to support the reasoning behind "always use front armor in cc."


A fine way to discern rule from fluff. If turning was a rule the book would say "turn the model so it faces incoming assaulter". Instead it is worded "this is because" which is a means to give reason as to why front armor is used.
Back to top Go down
aurynn
Incubi


Posts : 1626
Join date : 2013-04-23

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Thu Oct 23 2014, 14:08

No argument there - Its a narrative explanation of the rule that they are hit on the front which is included in the same paragraph. They are hit on the front - rule - because they turn - narrative and explanatory.
Back to top Go down
Thor665
Archon
avatar

Posts : 5526
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Venice, FL

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Thu Oct 23 2014, 15:33

But they aren't hit on the front, unless the front is the facing the Jetbikes touch.
That is also a rule.

Why do you think the one rule trumps the other as opposed to the other way around?

_________________


The Title Troupe! - Nom fellow posters for custom titles.
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 7207
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Thu Oct 23 2014, 15:40

Can I just ask where it actually says that HoW hits are resolved on the facing that is struck? I can't actually see it anywhere in the HoW rule.

_________________

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
BetrayTheWorld
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2665
Join date : 2013-04-04

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Thu Oct 23 2014, 15:44

@aurynn wrote:
No argument there - Its a narrative explanation of the rule that they are hit on the front which is included in the same paragraph. They are hit on the front - rule - because they turn - narrative and explanatory.

But a special rule(Hammer of Wrath) conflicts with that general walker rule. When a USR is in conflict with a general rule from the BRB, the USR takes precedent. It's the same as the general rule saying vehicles are hit in the rear. Against HoW's, they are not. They are hit in the facing the HoW comes from. End of story.

It might make fluffy sense for you, and even me, for it to work the way you're arguing, but it doesn't. Those are the rules. They don't always make sense.

@Count Adhemar wrote:
Can I just ask where it actually says that HoW hits are resolved on the facing that is struck? I can't actually see it anywhere in the HoW rule.

It's not listed on the page right before "Tanks" where it describes Hammer of Wrath. It's in the section where the special rule is listed in list format, later in the book. Speaking of which, I really dislike the organization of the 7th edition rulebook. 6th was nice, with all USRs neatly placed together in an easy to find list.

_________________


Last edited by BetrayTheWorld on Thu Oct 23 2014, 15:53; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Timatron
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 443
Join date : 2013-03-12
Location : Brighton

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Thu Oct 23 2014, 15:48

Count, read it again, it's in the second paragraph.
Back to top Go down
Timatron
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 443
Join date : 2013-03-12
Location : Brighton

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Thu Oct 23 2014, 15:54

@BetrayTheWorld wrote:

But a special rule(Hammer of Wrath) conflicts with that general walker rule. When a USR is in conflict with a general rule from the BRB, the USR takes precedent.

Can you point to this being said in the rulebook? Or is this just your own interpretation. The reason I wonder is that 'USR' is not a thing any more; they're just called special rules now.
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 7207
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Thu Oct 23 2014, 15:57

Stupid bloody Games Workshop. Same rule in two different places and with different wording!

Quote :
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 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 subphase 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 that is either a Transport or Chariot, the Hammer of Wrath hit is resolved against the building or vehicle, not the occupants or rider.

Quote :
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.

_________________

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
Thor665
Archon
avatar

Posts : 5526
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Venice, FL

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Thu Oct 23 2014, 16:05

@Count Ad - Laughing though in their defense the one was a quick blurb whereas the other is the official listing.

@Timatron - page 156, second paragraph, it was discussed earlier in this thread as well.

_________________


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

Posts : 2665
Join date : 2013-04-04

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Thu Oct 23 2014, 16:13

@Timatron - Meh, they still refer to them as universal special rules. Just not as fervently as they did before.

From the beginning of the "Special Rules" section:

RULEBOOK wrote:
That’s why we have universal special rules –
uncommon rules to govern uncommon circumstances.
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.

_________________
Back to top Go down
aurynn
Incubi


Posts : 1626
Join date : 2013-04-23

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Thu Oct 23 2014, 17:10

@BetrayTheWorld wrote:
But a special rule(Hammer of Wrath) conflicts with that general walker rule. When a USR is in conflict with a general rule from the BRB, the USR takes precedent.

It does not conflict. Where is the conflict? Walker turns at ini 10 before HOW hits, HOW hits on the facing it comes from - front. NO conflict here.
Back to top Go down
Klaivex Charondyr
Wych
avatar

Posts : 918
Join date : 2014-09-08

PostSubject: Re: Hammer of Wrath and walkers   Thu Oct 23 2014, 17:14

And let me guess if he is surrounded he turns at all sides at once Rolling Eyes

Fluff explainaton =/= rules.
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 2 of 3Go to page : Previous  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: