Question regarding walker being assaulted by unit that cant hurt it

[krispy]

so i played last night and im a bit unsure if this was right.....so heres what happened

my ironclad was charged and bogged down by a bunch of daemonettes
ironclad -> AV 13
Daemonettes strength 3

the daemonettes could not actually hurt my dread but charged it anyway (i argued against it but their player argued and i folded cos it was wasting time)

it tarpitted my dread and wasted my turns while he had to plinked away for 3 turns killing them one or two at a time per round of CC

the rulebook says a unit cant charge a vehicle it cant damage (or something to that effect) so should this not have stopped the initial charge?

and furthermore - if my walker had charged then they could have done a "our weapons are useless" and scarpered which again seems odd no?

according to the fluff dreads are badass and i think it should have been able to just walk away or not be locked in combat, its flamers and stuff was all wasted there.

so any suggestions corrections or explanations on this? or did we do it right?

thanks
/k

[david5th]

Main rulebook - Pg 76 - "However, a unit cannot charge a vehicle that it cannot hurt - it must have some possibility, no matter how small, of being vale to inflict at least a glancing hit."

They shouldn't have charged it. Even with rending they couldn't have hurt it unless it was immobilised.

If you had charged they could have chosen to fail it morale check for Our Weapons Are Useless.

[DWest]

Daemonettes *can* hurt an Ironclad -- they have the Rending rule, as part of being a Daemon of Slannesh. So there is a chance, however small (Str 3 + To-pen 6 + d3 of 3 = 13) of being able to inflict Glancing hits.

[Wolfshade]

3 + 6 + 3 = 12,

S3 + D6 Pen + D3 Rend

Where is your extra 1 coming from?

[DWest]

That's . . . a good question. My apologies, I can't math today apparently.

[Wolfshade]

No, I didn't know if I was missing something? You know like using a previous edition rules as they seemed similiar when I skimmed them.

[Mr Mystery]

And lo, your opponent did ignore one of the best rules changes in 40k ever.

[Katharon]

I can't remember where the FAQ is on this, but there is one that mentioned the fact that you can charge for one turn at something that you cannot physically hurt, but that you could not lock that target in combat for successive rounds.

[krispy]

so he should not have been able to charge my ironclad and tarpit it for 3 rounds - this is what lost the game as it was unable to attack his lord of change who only had one wound left :P

i will remember this

thanks all

/k

[Mr Mystery]

I can't remember where the FAQ is on this, but there is one that mentioned the fact that you can charge for one turn at something that you cannot physically hurt, but that you could not lock that target in combat for successive rounds.

Not familiar with that one skip. Also sounds completely contrary to the original rule, suggesting to be an offical eratta rather than an FAQ, as it has fundamentally changed the rule rather than clarified.

You're not thinking of what happens when you're charged by the invincible beast are you?