Are walkers affected by a thunder hammer special ability?

[Spear of Achilles]

Not sure if this has been covered (any time recently) When you look at the special ability of a Thunder Hammer to reduce Initiative, a logical reading of the rule seems to indicate they are never shaken/reduced to Init 1.

 

Before you say 'Yes they are!" Ask yourself this: Does a walker have wounds (or a Wound stat)? If the answer is no, then it can't suffer wound results. So requirement #1 is not met for the hammer. Does a walker have an Init stat? Yes. So requirement #2 for the Shaken vehicle result is also not met.

 

Even looking at the Black Templar FAQ:Page 29 – Thunder Hammer

Change “but any model wounded by it and not killed” to

“but any model that suffers an unsaved wound from it and

is not killed”.

 

Walkers don't take wounds. Nor are they killed. They take glances or penetrations, or are destroyed. The only time these effects are treated as wounds is for combat resolution. There is a concrete distinction between the two. Reference to wounding would only be for multiple wound foes like MC or IC. If it affected ALL vehicles, it would not bother with the 'Vehicles without a Init' like, and the walker would automatically be shaken. One more example of the banass'ness of the dreadnought.

[dswanick]

Walkers don't take wounds. Nor are they killed. They take glances or penetrations, or are destroyed. The only time these effects are treated as wounds is for combat resolution. There is a concrete distinction between the two. Reference to wounding would only be for multiple wound foes like MC or IC. If it affected ALL vehicles, it would not bother with the 'Vehicles without a Init' like, and the walker would automatically be shaken. One more example of the banass'ness of the dreadnought.

I don't know if this has been discussed here, either - but, in my opinion, you are correct. This is one small area were Walkers get a leg up on either MCs or non-Walker Vehicles.

My guess is that the pilot is sufficiently insulated from the world to not be affected while still being so intimately married to the chassis that he can override the effects on the mechanical components...

[Jacinda]

Ask yourself this: Does a walker have wounds (or a Wound stat)?

Yes. Each roll on the damage table counts as a wound.

[breng77]

I could see it either way. A shaken result in close combat would not have any effect in the first place. Beyond that, I could see that the inclusion of the statement about vehicle initiative indicates that walkers would be I1. That said, it could also indicate that the walker is unaffected. I usually play it as the former (as I believe that is the intention of the rule)

[dswanick]

Ask yourself this: Does a walker have wounds (or a Wound stat)?

Yes. Each roll on the damage table counts as a wound.

Not at all.

WALKERS AND ASSAULT

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.

This part bypasses the wound roll, so there are no To Wound rolls made and consequently no Wounds to be saved against. Therefore, there are no unsaved wounds.

Each roll made on the Vehicle Damage table against a walker counts as a single wound for the purposes of working out who won the combat.

This part makes Damage Table rolls equal to Wounds, but only for the purpose of determining who won the combat, not for any other purpose (including triggering Wounding-based special abilities).

[Gentlemanloser]

I'm sure the intention is Walkers are reduced to I1, and not Shaken/Stunned (like other vehicles), but the rules are once again badly written.

 

And Walkers escape any sort of punishment.

 

If you can stun a Land Raider with a Thunderhammer hit, you can stun a Dreadnought...

[SeattleDV8]

I'm sure the intention is Walkers are reduced to I1, and not Shaken/Stunned (like other vehicles), but the rules are once again badly written.

 

And Walkers escape any sort of punishment.

 

If you can stun a Land Raider with a Thunderhammer hit, you can stun a Dreadnought...

Ahem, you mean 'shaken'

 

BRB pg.42

....all models that suffer an unsaved wound....

are reduced to Int 1....Walkers do not suffer wounds as dswanick has shown.

 

Against vehicles with no Initiative value....

are shaken with any damage result.

Walkers are clearly not shaken and seem to be immune to the Int drop.

[Chengar Qordath]

I have to agree that, by RAW, Thunder Hammers don't get a bonus against Walkers. It might well be an oversight in the rules, with the intention being that they get knocked back to Initiative 1, but we have to play the game by the rules as they're written, not the rules as we think they ought to work.

[Gentlemanloser]

Ahem, you mean 'shaken'

 

Yup.

 

I couldn't remember which of the two TH inflict. Dreads would be penalised from 'shaken', but the obvious intent is that that suffer the I1 penalty instead.

 

Unfortunately, more badly written rules mean they escape this punishment.

 

For now. :)

[Brother Valerius]

I have to agree that, by RAW, Thunder Hammers don't get a bonus against Walkers. It might well be an oversight in the rules, with the intention being that they get knocked back to Initiative 1, but we have to play the game by the rules as they're written, not the rules as we think they ought to work.

 

Actually, that is quite false... but also outside the scope of an OR discussion.

[Chengar Qordath]

I have to agree that, by RAW, Thunder Hammers don't get a bonus against Walkers. It might well be an oversight in the rules, with the intention being that they get knocked back to Initiative 1, but we have to play the game by the rules as they're written, not the rules as we think they ought to work.

 

Actually, that is quite false... but also outside the scope of an OR discussion.

Not seeing what's false there.

[Isiah]

Actually, that is quite false... but also outside the scope of an OR discussion.

 

 

You need to tell us why and why.

[Valerian]

Actually, that is quite false... but also outside the scope of an OR discussion.

 

 

You need to tell us why and why.

 

I believe he was challenging the assertion that we 'have to play the game with the rules as written'. Not related to OR discussions, which do seek to find RAW answers, but we are free to play the game however we wish to- it even says so in the rulebook! The only requirements is agreement with your opponent.

 

Valerian

[Isiah]

OK I see.

[Chengar Qordath]

Actually, that is quite false... but also outside the scope of an OR discussion.

 

 

You need to tell us why and why.

 

I believe he was challenging the assertion that we 'have to play the game with the rules as written'. Not related to OR discussions, which do seek to find RAW answers, but we are free to play the game however we wish to- it even says so in the rulebook! The only requirements is agreement with your opponent.

 

Valerian

Yeah, you can always house-rule (I'd be tempted to house-rule the issue under discussion), but house-rules don't have any place in an Official Rules discussion.

[Valerian]

Actually, that is quite false... but also outside the scope of an OR discussion.

 

 

You need to tell us why and why.

 

I believe he was challenging the assertion that we 'have to play the game with the rules as written'. Not related to OR discussions, which do seek to find RAW answers, but we are free to play the game however we wish to- it even says so in the rulebook! The only requirements is agreement with your opponent.

 

Valerian

Yeah, you can always house-rule (I'd be tempted to house-rule the issue under discussion), but house-rules don't have any place in an Official Rules discussion.

 

Which is why he said, ".. but also outside the scope of an OR discussion."

 

Regardless, looks like this one's been answered, so let's put a fork in it; she's done.

[Chengar Qordath]

Actually, that is quite false... but also outside the scope of an OR discussion.

You need to tell us why and why.

I believe he was challenging the assertion that we 'have to play the game with the rules as written'. Not related to OR discussions, which do seek to find RAW answers, but we are free to play the game however we wish to- it even says so in the rulebook! The only requirements is agreement with your opponent.

Valerian

Yeah, you can always house-rule (I'd be tempted to house-rule the issue under discussion), but house-rules don't have any place in an Official Rules discussion.

Which is why he said, ".. but also outside the scope of an OR discussion."

True, but why raise the matter of house-ruling in the OR forum at all, especially in such a confrontational manner? It's like going into the army list forums and calling out anyone who points out that a list has an illegal unit configuration as a liar, because the players could always house-rule that unit into legality.

[Something Wycked]

True, but why raise the matter of house-ruling in the OR forum at all, especially in such a confrontational manner?

Many discussions in the OR end with the matter of house-ruling because, even though the +OR+ forum is only interested in RAW, the members of the +OR+ are interested in fun, functional games with their opponents- not trying to force the literal RAW down their throats.

 

So your assertion that we must play with RAW was correctly called false (we may play with just RAW, depending on the situation), and he was also correct in stating that the discussion of why was not appropriate to the +OR+ :lol: What have the last few posts been but not discussion of + Official Rules +, particularly those of Thunder Hammer versus Walker? :blink:

 

Admittedly, he could have done it with more smilies so it didn't seem so confrontational, but that's the cold, hard text of the internets for you. :tu:

[Gentlemanloser]

Unless you're in a thread about making your own rules, or setting up a Tournament FAQ or the like, I don't see the point in mentioning House rules in the slightest.

 

Check my sig for an example. :)

 

Yeah, we *can* use House Rules. We *can* opt not to play with someone. I'm sure everyone takes that as a given.

 

But when we're playing with, or discussing 40K with people outside our usual clique, then the base standard we *must* use is the RAW.

[Isiah]

OK we're done here. Original question has been answered. Things now getting well out of the realms of what is OR discussion material – where RAW is king wherever possible.

 

 

Cheers

I