Walkers, Grandes, Chaplains and WTN.

[xxvaderxx]

So here are the questions, when assaulting a walker:

Does using grenades count as a regular assault attack?

If so can you re roll to hit with a chaplain?

Do models equiped with wolf tooth necklace get to hit with 3+ as their target does have a WS stat?

[Nabterayl]

So here are the questions, when assaulting a walker:

Does using grenades count as a regular assault attack?
I don't think there is such a concept as a "regular assault attack."


If so can you re roll to hit with a chaplain?
You can re-roll to hit because of a chaplain, though. An attack with a grenade against a walker is a roll to hit; that's all you need to know.


Do models equiped with wolf tooth necklace get to hit with 3+ as their target does have a WS stat?
Only if the walker is stunned or immobilized. Remember that the WTN is not hit targets with a WS on a 3+; it's hit on a 3+ regardless of comparative Weapon Skill. A non-stunned, non-immobilized walker is not hit with grenades in assault based on comparative weapon skill, so the WTN does not apply. However, a stunned and/or immobilized walker is hit with grenades in assault based on comparative weapon skill, so the WTN would apply in that case.

[xxvaderxx]

Only if the walker is stunned or immobilized. Remember that the WTN is not hit targets with a WS on a 3+; it's hit on a 3+ regardless of comparative Weapon Skill. A non-stunned, non-immobilized walker is not hit with grenades in assault based on comparative weapon skill, so the WTN does not apply. However, a stunned and/or immobilized walker is hit with grenades in assault based on comparative weapon skill, so the WTN would apply in that case.

That has been errated to:
Page 62, Wolftooth Necklace, replace the last
sentence with:
Against models with a WS value, a model with a
wolftooth necklace always hits in close combat on
the roll of a 3+.

[Nabterayl]

Ah, thanks for pointing that out to me. In that case, yes, technically, a WTN would work against a walker even using grenades. I'm fairly certain that most people would consider my original answer the intent of the rule, but that is no longer what's written.