Hammer of Wrath and walkers

Find something saying he does not. As I said before. He can obviously turn infinite number of times at any point of any ini step, provided he has enemies to turn towards. I am sorry but the rules do say that. I would LOVE our bikes HOWing walkers on the rear armour, but until it is FAQed otherwise, I will play it this way as it is RAW. My LGS TO agrees with me as do other people.

Especially if it is the ONLY way to satisfy both rules.

aurynn wrote:

My LGS TO agrees with me as do other people.

Especially if it is the ONLY way to satisfy both rules.

It's not satisfying both rules. And there doesn't seem to be much support for your position here, so "X people agree with me" isn't really a legitimate argument.

There is NO RULE that allows walkers to pivot multiple times in the assault phase. They can't pivot at all in the assault phase, for that matter. They ARE a vehicle, so they follow the vehicle rules except where given special permission to do otherwise, which they have not received in regard to pivoting. When vehicles may pivot is clearly outlined in the vehicle rules. Walkers have a rule that says you always roll to penetrate against their front armor in combat. That's it. That's the rule. No more, no less.

The Hammer of Wrath special rule says you roll to penetrate against the armor facing you're touching. One is a special rule. The other is a general rule for walkers. Special rules specifically say they break normal rules. There is no real debate to be had here. If you're using fluff to justify not following the rules, and your TO is allowing that, then there are tons of arguments that could be made for units being able to do things that they cannot actually do in game, and your TO should be fired for setting a bad precedent.

I literally can't find a way to agree more, BetrayTheWorld.

The BRB supports my position, while your positon rides only on your conclusion that there is a rules conflict and that I need some kind of rule to allow the walker turning. The rulebook SAYS the walker turns. It is a direct explanation of the walker rule. He does turn. Its a fact. I dont even need to pivot the model. Although there is nothing saying I cannot while the rule I quoted can very easily be considered as permission to do so. Its still part of the Walker rules section. Not fluff. Therefore the rulebook supports that I can and does not say that I can't. Anywhere. There is only one other possible understanding of this - that the model does not pivot, but is considered as it does so. Always. Period.

Actually there is another rule and precedence:
The rulebook says that Walker fights like infantry. Infantry fights its enemies from the front. Even if it is one kabalite surrounded by 50 orks, he still gets hit on the front and defends himself as he is hit against his WS. He does not care if he is hit in the back or the number of surrounding enemies or that he would need to turn 50 times during one INI step for this resemble anything close to reality. He is therefore considered as turning and defending himself (even without the model turning, but again, there is nothing saying it cannot turn in CC). As is the walker due to the rule in question. Infantry does not get any penalty from getting attacked from the back. Walker fights like infantry. He is therefore considered as facing all his enemies, always, and does not have any penalties from getting attacked from the back.

I would like now hear anything from the rulebook that says that any of this is not true. Please do not say that I need a specific rule to permit me to do something I am NOT normally forbidden to do. I DONT. I believe Ihave given you quotes from the rulebook and precedence. I expect you give me the same if I am to change my mind. The only thing I heard from you is that the two rules are in conflict and HOW overrules. And that I need some kind of a rule to turn the walker. I gave you a quotation from rulebook that even in minimalistic understanding supports the walker turning, while I heard nothing from the rulebook supporting your side. I say that the ruling I am advocating does not conflict in any way with HOW and I am very certain that it is right.

I move bikes - make my HOW, walker is considered FACING me or turns to FACE me, because he turns to FACE his enemies, I make my rolls against front armour. No conflict. Even the "touching facing" is not a problem because there is nothing preventing turning of the model.

It might not be RAI, but we cannot rule according to RAI. Some rules do not make sense, they are just rules. Any lawyers here who could make a ruling according to RAW? :-)

aurynn wrote:

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.

I would agree with this if the model actually physically turned due to its rule.
The model does not turn however - therefore I'm not touching it's front facing if I assaulted from the side or back.

Quote :

Infantry fights its enemies from the front.

Infantry does not have facings and thus does not have a "front"

Yea... and they are using their WS with their agile backsides against attacks from the rear. :-)

And it does not disprove that it can turn during Assault phase.

@Aurynn - Per your understanding of the rules; if a walker is immobilized, does hammer of wrath affect it on the side it is hit from or upon its rear facing?

aurynn wrote:

Yea... and they are using their WS with their agile backsides against attacks from the rear. :-)

And it does not disprove that it can turn during Assault phase.

You cant turn during the assault phase. Turns happen in the movement phase.
This is called a "representation". Does not change the fact that a Walker has facings. He does not turn at all. The general rule assumes that every attack is made against his front, even when models stand in his back.
The special rule tells us to ignore the general rule and resolve the HOW against the facing you are actually in contact with.

If the Walker is immobilised the rules assume all attacks do hit his rear. Whats your explanation here? That the immobilised and surrounded walker shows his butt to all sides?

The rule that usually CC attacks are resolved against the front armour of a walker represents the walker being able to protect it's more vulnerable parts, just as the rule regarding other vehicles being resolved against rear armour represents the attackers finding weak points.
This is all absolutely pointless arguing, as the 'Special Rules trump general rules' thing takes precedence anyway. The comparison to Infantry models is, frankly, nonsensical and doesn't progress the debate whatsoever.
Oh,and if you really want to bring fluff into it, in what universe does a Dreadnought spin about it's axis rapidly enough to intercept a unit of Reavers flying at it from all angles? That is never going to happen.

@Thor
THAT is an interesting question. I cannot say "rear", because I would question the validity of the HOW against ANY vehicle.

Immobilize prevents the Walker from turning. In my understanding of the HOW against a mobile Walker, he just turns as explained before. The model turns as there is nothing saying it cant and the rules of W40K work on the "what is not forbidden, is permitted" basis. As in "unit can move max 6 inches" or "weapon has max range of X inches". All the rules that say that you CAN do something are always expanding a previously made limitation. Like "Aether Sails add extra 6'' to your flat-out" or "Eldar can move extra in shooting phase". At least I cannot remember any rule stating a unrestricted thing that can be done. It always includes a limitation or it is not mentioned at all an taken as permitted.

Pivoting is not a movement. So it can happen in Assault phase. I do consider the clause about Walker turning a rule. Because it is in rules section of a rulebook and I cannot selectively discount the whole or part of it as fluff or narrative. It also has a condition - there have to be enemies in CC. And since it is not otherwise limited to phase or ini step or number of times and it says "always".

Following the non-conflicting-rules path, I conclude that "side" is the correct answer. HOW would and does overrule the "always hit on the back". But does neither overrule nor conflict with turning of the walker prior to rolling HOW.

@Chardonyr
Point me to anything saying that I cannot pivot the Walker in assault phase. Even if you do not take the whole paragraph we are talking about as a rule, which I call a selective and uncalled for ommision of something you do not like or doubt. But even if you dont consider it a rule, the rulebook at least suggests its turning, which is much more than you suggesting its not-turning without even a narrative support of the rulebook.

@Timatron
Even though the walker rules say "Walker fights like infantry"? I think infantry comparison is relevant even if not 100% precise.

Guys I am aware how blurry this is. But I think that even a sidenote mention or suggestion that actually is included in the rules section of the rulebook is more of an evidence than any subjective conclusion of any of us.

It is not "blurry" in the slightest I'm afraid. P13, black box, 'Basic Versus Advanced'. Is the ability for Walkers to have attacks resolved against their front armour listed or indicated in any Army List Entries/Datasheets? The answer is no, because this is a Basic rule.
Now, is Hammer Of Wrath listed on unit's entries? Yes, because this is an Advanced rule.
The section on P13 tells us that advanced rules "...alwaysoverride any contradicting basic rules."
There is no argument or debate possible: Hammer Of Wrath hits the armour facing that the models with this rule come into contact with, sorry. I can't for the life of me compehend how this thread has gone on for four pages.

Again, and this time for the last time - there is nothing contradicting! There is no conflict of basic vs. advanced. THAT is the problem. The rule you are citing is valid, true, but not applicable for this case.

aurynn wrote:

Again, and this time for the last time

You do not get to talk to me like that. I am not your child and that is just rude.

Of course there is a contradiction. One rule say 'always resolved against front armour', the other says 'always resolved against armour facing contacted': the very definition of a contradiction.

It's clear to me that you aren't going to agree with the correct ruling and go by the rulebook; just looking to find a way that your cheating interpretation can be justified when it absolutely cannot.

I refuse to engage any further with this, you are clearly being wilfully obtuse and I'm over it.