I ran into an interesting situation during a tournament a while ago...

The boarding plank in the ork codex is a piece of wargear that you can attach to ork vehicles. It lets a single embarked ork make its close combat attacks against an enemy vehicle "as if disembarked and charging" without having to disembark as long as neither vehicles has moved more than 12".

IE, you drive up next to a vehicle, drop four STR9 powerklaw attacks on it and explode it without the boyz unit taking casualties from the explosion or worrying about a counterassault from the enemy inside.

A dreadnought counts as a vehicle, and when you make your attacks as if disembarked and charging (IE, you get furious charge and +1 for assaulting) you pit your weapon skill against their weapon skill. My opponent didn't think it was fair that his dreadnought wouldn't get to swing back. I said that the ork is embarked in a vehicle, and you can't hurt him. He also thought that an exploding vehicle should hit the ork.

The judge ruled in my favor because you don't enter close combat, you just take your attacks and stay in the vehicle....but it seems a little hazy. Thoughts?

I might be wrong but a Dreadnought is a Walker and not a vehicle.

Yes, a walker is not a vehicle as such in an assault, as it has a weapon skill.

A dreadnought is a walker, which is a vehicle. In fact, if you look at page 72 of the rulebook, it identifies walkers as vehicles in the first sentence, noting that instead of wheels or tracks, they have mechanical limbs....which is why they are walkers.

Boarding planks work against enemy vehicles, not against non-walker enemy vehicles. I'd rather this not turn into a discussion about whether you can boarding plank a walker - because the rules pretty clearly say ya can.

Rather, what happens when you do.

*EDIT* And here's some great exerpts to keep us away from that route...


"While other vehicles can only move int he Movement phase, walkers can also run...."

"When firing at a walker, work out which of its Armour Values to use as you would for any other vehicle..."

""roll for armor penetration and damage as for a vehicle..."

"Each roll made on the Vehicle Damage table against the walker..."

"Squadrons of walkers follow all normal rules for vehicle...."

Alright, then what prohibits the Walker from attacking back? Also in what phase is this item used? Movement? Shooting? Assault?

My friends and I play it exactly the way in which your predicament was ruled, Dash. It may seem harsh, sure... but he should keep his Dreadnought out of your way!

IMHO if a unit is making close combat attacks against a vehicle "as if disembarking and charging" it seems to me that all the normal rules would apply.

In that case the rules for making close combat attacks against a vehicle that happens to be a walker is that you have to roll against its weapon skill and it can attack you back (and if it's initiative is higher that means your nob might get his but knocked the heck off the boarding plank).

Also since it is a single model you elect to make those attacks "as if disembarking and charging", I would hold that all wounds made upon the model by the walker would have to be allocated to that model itself, since it alone is charging.

That's my two cents but it is a very Grey area and it would def be something to clear up beforehand

Only one model is "making attacks as if in close combat", the other is not.

The Dradnought does NOT get to make attacks back. Please search, this has come up before....

nosferatu1001 wrote:Only one model is "making attacks as if in close combat", the other is not.

The Dradnought does NOT get to make attacks back. Please search, this has come up before....

nosferatu1001 is spot on here

Agreed. I'd imagine it as a sort of hit-and-run. The Ork leans out and takes a swipe at the Dread, then ducks back into the Trukk before it can hit back.

Ok I did search... and no where in that thread was it even close to proven that the dread doesn't make any attacks back. In fact, the only proof I took from that thread was that GW feels that you shouldn't be able to even MAKE boarding plank attacks vs. Dreadnoughts.

So my previous statement stands, if you have to make attacks exactly as if you disembarked and were attacking, and you can do it to a dread, then there's absolutely no reason (yet stated at least) that the dread shouldn't make its attacks back (just like if you were assaulting a tau tank with its anti cc ability you would be wounded on a 4+).

The only reason that an exploding vehicle wouldn't damage the nob in question, is that when the explosion is measured there is no model on the board to hit.

So, out of the two models that are in question, which is the model that "counts as if disembarked and assaulting" and which isn't?

Hint: one of them makes attacks, the other doesn't

If it makes you feel any better about it, INAT ruled exactly as you played it, Dash. I know INAT doesn't count as an authority per the YMDC tenets, but I certainly don't see anything in the rule that would imply that the walker gets to attack back nor that an exploding vehicle would put damage on the Nob.

I'd say you played it RAW.

Gwar! wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please search, this has come up before....

nosferatu1001 is spot on here

Thanks for the help? Links please? I searched for "Boarding plank vs dreadnought" "Boarding plank vs walker" "boarding planks AND dreadnoughts" and came up empty, and was short on time before leaving the house so made a post.

Dashofpepper wrote:Links please?

Isn't "Gwar! said so" good enough for you young folk today? Bah, Humbug! HUMBUG I SAY!

Adamah wrote:Ok I did search... and no where in that thread was it even close to proven that the dread doesn't make any attacks back. In fact, the only proof I took from that thread was that GW feels that you shouldn't be able to even MAKE boarding plank attacks vs. Dreadnoughts.

So my previous statement stands, if you have to make attacks exactly as if you disembarked and were attacking, and you can do it to a dread, then there's absolutely no reason (yet stated at least) that the dread shouldn't make its attacks back (just like if you were assaulting a tau tank with its anti cc ability you would be wounded on a 4+).

The only reason that an exploding vehicle wouldn't damage the nob in question, is that when the explosion is measured there is no model on the board to hit.

Except for a couple of problems:

-The Ork swinging on the vehicle never gets out of the vehicle. You can't target a unit in a vehicle, so how can the dreadnought attack a unit embarked in a vehicle in close combat?

-The defender always chooses where to allocate wounds. Worst case, you'd swing back at the nob and I kill a boy in the trukk - but again, that breaks the rules too.

Aren't we supposed to take the path of least resistance, or what least breaks the rules? I can buy the idea of a nob taking a swing at the dreadnought that they're flying by, but not the dreadnought and the nob getting engaged in an epic close combat. If that were the case, the nob would be striking at I1 with the powerklaw, and the dread would kill the nob before the nob ever got to swing. That would make it an irrelevant piece of wargear....but this is a 5th edition codex.

Dashofpepper wrote:but this is a 5th edition codex.

Wrong. It's a 4th edition Codex. The First 5th edition one was Chaos Dæmons.

Dashofpepper wrote:
-The Ork swinging on the vehicle never gets out of the vehicle.

See, that's where my opinion on this differs from yours. I think a strict RAW reading of "as if the ork were disembarked and charging" makes me feel that for the purpose of resolving that attack the nob is out of the vehicle.

Also, this whole "taking a swipe at the dreadnought as they speed by" fluff argument (not that I mind fluff arguments) really doesn't make sense either because if that were the case then why does the nob have time to make all of his attacks and not just one swipe?

ALSO, the whole "would make the rule completely useless" argument is flawed as well because the most effective use of the boarding plank would be done at Initiative 4 just like a Dread (That is a Tankbusta Nob w/ Str 10 Tankhamma mounted in a battlewagon w/ boarding plank). Plus, its still effective other vehicles.

Finally, seeing (from reading other threads, as indicated, and here's the thread I found http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/224646.page#477576) as it appears its GW's intention for boarding attacks to not be allowed to be made on walkers (if the info in the thread is to be trusted), then for sheer balance issues if you're going to play by the rule it at least seems to be fair to me to allow the Dread a possible chance to shred a poorly prepared nob hanging out on the end of a boarding plank waiting to bash him.

"Allows a single embarked Ork to make its close combat attack against an enemy vehicle within 2" exactly as if the Ork were disembarked and charging."

Now let me alter the context slightly to show how silly the argument is.

"Allows a horse to run exactly as if its legs were on fire"

The horse doesn't suffer burns to its legs, the horse merely runs as if its legs were on fire. Likewise, the Ork gets to _attack_ as if it were disembarked and charging, but it doesn't disembark and it doesn't charge, it just gets the attacks, so there is no retaliation.

Simple simile use.

But the wording "as if the ork were disembarked and charging" tells us that the ork is NOT actually disembarked and charging. The rule could have said *the ork disembarks to attack the vehicle and then reenters the truk after his attack* but they decided to not write the rule that way. The ork doesnt actually disembark, so hes never a legal target for the dread to attack back.

Now GW's RAI may well have been something completely different, as we know that GW is not in the habit of writing what they mean at all times. In fact, we know from the little change they made to the SW faq that GW's RAI may change from week to week. But RAW does seem pretty clear on this one.


Sliggoth

PS Can hardly wait to see what they come up with for the tyranid faq, couple things in there that will be very interesting to see.

Shouldn't the Powerklaw attacks be at Strength 8 not 9, I may be wrong but wouldn't "exactly as if disembarked and charging" fall into the same category as Counter-Attack's "exactly as if they too had assaulted"?

the walker cannot attack back statement is pretty much like what happened to FC/CA statement in SW FAQ. first it says CA is a kind assault charge so it can triger FC. and then it says CA is not charge so it does not take the effect of defensive grenade. i am glad that they finally adjusted it.

so now you are saying that when nob assaults the vehicle by using boarding plank is disembarked and charging. when the walker attacks back, you say oh wait, my nob is not disembarked and not charging. it just sound weird.

and fluffy wise, ork is generally slow, i do not think they have agile to do that kind of hit and run move.

Drunkspleen wrote:Shouldn't the Powerklaw attacks be at Strength 8 not 9, I may be wrong but wouldn't "exactly as if disembarked and charging" fall into the same category as Counter-Attack's "exactly as if they too had assaulted"?

No, because of the parts you left off of those quotes. For the boarding plank, you get to attack as if you charged. For counter attack, you get the bonus attack exactly as if you had assaulted. The first does not cause you to become locked, and the second does not trigger furious charge.

Ok, so this is how i see it, and this is how i generally seen it ruled. The Ork zips in with the trukk/battlewagon/rock they put wheels on and a two by four. Then he pokes his claw out and hits something driving by a few times, swipes really. So technically by RAW he dosn't get counter hit, but he -does- go against the dreadnaughts weaponskill (not to shabby) then to pen he goes against the Armour facing he struck at (if the ork is useing theses Cheesy tactics then prolly rear or side)

Now, as i see it in my Head. i see the ork rig moving in at a fast speed with a nob holding onto a board lowered from the side of the rig, with a couple of grots holding onto his pants so he dosn't fall off as they bounce around crazy like, as he prepairs to hit a Dreadnaught. Now, looking at that image i have burned into most peoples heads, the dreadnaught see's him coming and raises his hand and crushes the thing flat. Or what if he misses big and the ork stabs him a bunch and he blows up? Or better yet what if the ork hits the thing, and does nothing, or rolls all on his roll (personally i find it orky to have the ork fall out of the battlewagon and be in b2b and in close combat with the vehicle/dreadnaught at that point, laughs all around)

But strickly RaW the Dreadnaught is a vehicle, the boarding plank just lets a model get a hit on it if it is within two, as if it was chargeing and attacking, this dosn't change the fact that if its just like "assualting" then he would go against the Dreadnaughts WS then Armour. just my opinion.


Also, i personally find this move kinda cheap, but thats me, and i tend to like fluffy more story orientated battles, but i don't get that often so i learned to deal that it -is- a good tactic to use as orks don't have -to- much Tank popping if you , you know, remove all those nobs + Pklaws!

dpredator666 wrote:
so now you are saying that when nob assaults the vehicle by using boarding plank is disembarked and charging. when the walker attacks back, you say oh wait, my nob is not disembarked and not charging. it just sound weird.

Correct. The Nob makes his attacks as if he disembarked and charged. The attacks are made. The dreadnaught is never called upon to make attacks, because the Ork is not actually assaulting, he's just making his attacks.

@Nightrave: He'd roll to hit against the front, unless the dread is immobilized, because again, he makes his attacks if assaulting, and that's how attacks are done in assault.

The critical words here are "AS IF" which you should all know as meaning an object or movement acting in such a way that it looks like it is doing something, however it never actually does it, so the ork gains all the benefits as if he was assulting and charging BUT he is not, therefore the drednaught will never act as the unit never made that assult or charge, but something like it.

just think about it.

another question, if ork uses boarding plank on a vhicle squad, the whole squad takes the damage right?

Sounds like a lot of people want to have their cake and eat it too.... And based on a VERY liberal interpretation of the RAW at that. If it came up in a tournatment I was running, I would rule for the least powerful interpretation, which is to let the Dread hit back against the individual model attacking him... If you want to play around with Dreads in CC, you take your chances...

Edit: crappy grammar

Beast - except that it is the correct interpretation.

Only *1* model counts as attacking. That is it. You cannot attack "back" as you are a) not attacking and b) there is no model in base contact with you to attack

You may not like the rule, but that is irrelevant.

Oh I see... Your $.02 is better than my $.02 because you say your interpretation is the correct one... Makes sense to me.

dpredator666 wrote:another question, if ork uses boarding plank on a vhicle squad, the whole squad takes the damage right?

This is interesting - I assume you're correct, the unit would spread the hits, there's nothing to mention otherwise.

Beast wrote:Oh I see... Your $.02 is better than my $.02 because you say your interpretation is the correct one... Makes sense to me.

When one is backed by the rules, yes, my 2p is better than your 2c

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Beast wrote:Oh I see... Your $.02 is better than my $.02 because you say your interpretation is the correct one... Makes sense to me.

When one is backed by the rules, yes, my 2p is better than your 2c

'Cept the problem here is that we are talking about interpretations of a fuzzy wargear rule as it applies to a particular situation that the writers haven't deigned to clarify yet. So the standing guidance in cases like this (where there are several possible interpretations) is to use the least powerful interpretation. You are advocating the most-powerful interpretation.

I love playing Orks and would love nothing better than to go with your interpretation, but this case is unclear enough to justify using the least-powerful interpretation, in my humble opinion.

edit: spelling

Except your interpretation requires:
1) that another model is considered to be attacking, despite the wargear making no allowance for this
and
2) is making attacks against a model that is not in base to base. In fact no models are in base to base.

2) by itself prohibits the Dreadnought from attacking. Nothing else is needed.

Just because you have a different interpretation of a rule you consider fuzzy doers not make it a valid one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except your interpretation requires:
1) that another model is considered to be attacking, despite the wargear making no allowance for this
and
2) is making attacks against a model that is not in base to base. In fact no models are in base to base.

2) by itself prohibits the Dreadnought from attacking. Nothing else is needed.

Just because you have a different interpretation of a rule you consider fuzzy doers not make it a valid one.

And just because you think the issue is cut and dried, does not make it resolved. Your point #1 is not necessarily true. The Ork is considered to be disembarking and charging so, to me, that means he is attacking. If he is attacking something with CC weapons in the Assault phase, then that something he is attacking gets to hit back if it has the means to. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Your point #2 is rather meaningless because the Ork model itself is not in base-to-base, so this situation is definitely "fuzzy" and requires some sort of interpretation. Your last (second #2) point is incorrect. The rule says nothing of the kind. You are just making stuff up now... The rule does not address walkers in any specific way and it certainly doesn't specifically prohibit them from hitting back. So there are definitely enough uncertainties here to justify using a "least-powerful" interpretation. Again, in my humble opinion... This is definitely a vague enough situation to warrant discussion before the game or a judges ruling in a tourney. Do what you want in your games though.

Huh? Please explain how the Dreadnought can make it's attacks when nothing is in base to base?

Hint: it cannot, unless you have a rule stating otherwise. Which you don't. So it can't. PLease reread the Assault rules, note the requirements under "which models can fight", and perhaps see why point 2) above is correct.

The ONLY REASON the ork can attack at all, breaking the requirement to be in base to base or "engaged", is because the wargear states the Ork can.

Just because you want the rules for a piece of wargear to reiterate basic Assault rules (to whit: you can only make attacks when you are in base to base contact with a model, or engaged with an enemy unit which a walker cannot be (it is btb or nothing)) does not mean it has to.

The Ork gets to attack as if charging. That's all.


A different example. You come across the following sentence in a story:
"The man ran as if he was being chased by a tornado".

Do you logically think "Okay, next page he gets blown up into the air and swirled around"? No, you do not. It's the same here. The Ork attacks as if he were charging. The Ork does not get attacked as if he were charging.

maybe it is off-topic, it is not restricted that only the model BTB can make CC attack. in many CC case, the rule is the model within 2" can attack. and the boarding plank also has 2" requirement. so the distance does not effect the attack.

but the rule "if as...." does make senses.

Not quite dredator666 - you need to be within 2" of a model *in your unit* who is in btb in order to make your attacks.

Which is why I stated "engaged or btb" - however the Dreadnought CANNOT make attacks *unless it is in btb* - it is a unit of one model and therefore *cannot* be within 2" of another model in its' unit that is in btb.

Hence, the fact the Dreadnought is not in btb with any member of the Ork unit alone is sufficient to prove it cannot make attacks - it would require special permission to do so. The Ork has special permission to make attacks (frmo the wargeear) which is why it can make attacks - the dreadnought lacks this permission so it cannot.

Beast wrote: So there are definitely enough uncertainties here to justify using a "least-powerful" interpretation.

I thought the guidance was to use the path of least resistance, that broke the fewest rules? If the dreadnought gets attacks against the nob or against his squad, a couple of problems occur, that I've already outlined:

1. Treating this like a regular assault...the nob would never actually GET to attack since he'd be going at I1, while the dread would be at I2+ That would mean that the wargear doesn't actually work.

2. If the dread takes its attacks against the nob's unit...that is embarked inside the truck, you enter close combat for a turn with an embarked unit, and have to start making up rules about how to resolve it. How do you resolve close combat with an embarked unit? If you do it as normal, how are they supposed to test leadership? If they fail, do they get out of the speeding truck and run away?

3. If the dread takes its attacks against a single model (the nob), then we're breaking the rule that the defender allocates wounds. But #1 would override this, that the nob would never get its attacks because of I1.

There are actually a few other problems as well, but lemme stick with #1: If the dread gets its attacks back, then the nob never gets to swing. If we make up rules on the spot that the dread will swing out of initiative order, then we're breaking more rules.

Make sense?

You also have th=o break the number 1 rule of ASsaults - that you must be in btb or 2" "engaged" in order to attack.

The dreadnought MUST be in btb to attack, and isnt. It therefore cannot attack.

Its remarkably simple, and stating something is "unclear" doesnt make it so.

Since only the ork using the boarding plank is given special permission to attack and since letting the dreadnought attack back raises alot of issues that there´s no rules for, I agree that only the ork using the plank gets to make its attacks.

Not to be rude, and although I think the dread can't attack back, I find something humourous in your justifications Dash. If you treat this like a regular assault and the nob never gets to attack back.... how is this different from regular assault? That the wargear allows regular combat that had the nob doomed normally? Would you call normal to and fro broken because a grot dies to a space marine before it gets to attack? Now I find it not working cause technically the trukk is moving/has moved and innertia would rip the combatants apart before anything serious could happen bar one getting off a volley of blows, but that's more mental imaging than rule interrogation.

Dash, it would be innaccurate to say that, because of your first point, the wargear doesn't work... It just doesn't work particularly well, and bear in mind we're only discussing attacking walkers with it. It still works excellently against tanks.

Even if the ruling was that it doesn't work versus walkers, it's hardly redundant.

Good job it does work against walkers

nosferatu1001 wrote:Good job it does work against walkers

Hahah, yeah. I actually agree, but just saying...

Notice that the rule for boarding planks say that it " (...) allows a single embarked Ork to make its close combat attacks against an enemy vehicle within 2" exactly as if the Ork were disembarked and charging (...)"

What models can normally make their close combat attacks? Models that are "engaged" as defined on page 35 of the BRB: A. "Models in base contact with any enemy models." or B. "Models within 2" of at least one model in their unit that is in base contact with any enemy models."

So the "as if the Ork were disembarked and charging" effect is only there to allow the Ork to make the at attacks at all, despite being embarked in a vehicle and thus not having any models in the unit in base contact with any enemy models. So in other words: The Ork and the walker doen't fight an assault. The Ork makes his attacks, because his vehicle has a wargear upgrade that let's him do that without fighting an assault.

Edit: spelling

Just curious, but if you think that the ork actually gets out of the vehicle to assault the dread how do you deal with the broken unit coherency?
some of the squad would be disembarked, others not? That doesn't work does it.
If you believe the dread also attacks, how do you deal with a drawn combat?
Would you suggest the trukk drives off, splitting the unit?

The simplier interpretation of the rule:

The ork using the plank is making a 'drive by assault'. No return attacks, no combat resolution etc etc just a 'drive by'

Beast wrote:Oh I see... Your $.02 is better than my $.02 because you say your interpretation is the correct one... Makes sense to me.

It should, because nosferatu1001 is right, and you are wrong.

I agree with Beast. This rule is a tad too hazy, so we should go with the weaker choice.

Oh, and you know those storm shields and how they've suddenly become a 3++ in CC and range? Well that's rather confusing, what with the Dark Angels codex and the previous Space Marine one, so I think they should only be 4++ and in assault.

It's a boarding plank, of course the dreadnaught is going to smack the nob. As far as INAT FAQ this is another example of them shafting SM in general. It's not like the nob calls the dread over, opens a hatch then punches it from inside the trukk.

G

Dashofpepper wrote:

Adamah wrote:Ok I did search... and no where in that thread was it even close to proven that the dread doesn't make any attacks back. In fact, the only proof I took from that thread was that GW feels that you shouldn't be able to even MAKE boarding plank attacks vs. Dreadnoughts.

So my previous statement stands, if you have to make attacks exactly as if you disembarked and were attacking, and you can do it to a dread, then there's absolutely no reason (yet stated at least) that the dread shouldn't make its attacks back (just like if you were assaulting a tau tank with its anti cc ability you would be wounded on a 4+).

The only reason that an exploding vehicle wouldn't damage the nob in question, is that when the explosion is measured there is no model on the board to hit.

Except for a couple of problems:

-The Ork swinging on the vehicle never gets out of the vehicle. You can't target a unit in a vehicle, so how can the dreadnought attack a unit embarked in a vehicle in close combat?

-The defender always chooses where to allocate wounds. Worst case, you'd swing back at the nob and I kill a boy in the trukk - but again, that breaks the rules too.

Aren't we supposed to take the path of least resistance, or what least breaks the rules? I can buy the idea of a nob taking a swing at the dreadnought that they're flying by, but not the dreadnought and the nob getting engaged in an epic close combat. If that were the case, the nob would be striking at I1 with the powerklaw, and the dread would kill the nob before the nob ever got to swing. That would make it an irrelevant piece of wargear....but this is a 5th edition codex.

Green Blow Fly wrote:It's a boarding plank, of course the dreadnaught is going to smack the nob. As far as INAT FAQ this is another example of them shafting SM in general. It's not like the nob calls the dread over, opens a hatch then punches it from inside the trukk.

G

So, no rules to back that assertion up?

Can't tell if its your usual humour at play.

If you have to use fluff to attempt to justify your position you;ve lost already, dreads dont get to swing back because there is no allowance in the rules for them to do so.

I'll join the throng. Boarding plank isn't CC, you bop them with the PK and the walker can't swing back.

Beast wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except your interpretation requires:
1) that another model is considered to be attacking, despite the wargear making no allowance for this
and
2) is making attacks against a model that is not in base to base. In fact no models are in base to base.

2) by itself prohibits the Dreadnought from attacking. Nothing else is needed.

Just because you have a different interpretation of a rule you consider fuzzy doers not make it a valid one.

And just because you think the issue is cut and dried, does not make it resolved. Your point #1 is not necessarily true. The Ork is considered to be disembarking and charging so, to me, that means he is attacking. If he is attacking something with CC weapons in the Assault phase, then that something he is attacking gets to hit back if it has the means to. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Your point #2 is rather meaningless because the Ork model itself is not in base-to-base, so this situation is definitely "fuzzy" and requires some sort of interpretation. Your last (second #2) point is incorrect. The rule says nothing of the kind. You are just making stuff up now... The rule does not address walkers in any specific way and it certainly doesn't specifically prohibit them from hitting back. So there are definitely enough uncertainties here to justify using a "least-powerful" interpretation. Again, in my humble opinion... This is definitely a vague enough situation to warrant discussion before the game or a judges ruling in a tourney. Do what you want in your games though.

I think the boarding plank allows dreads to hit the vehicle for free, and doesn't allow orks to use it. That's less powerful than yours... so it's more right, right?

The rule says that the Ork model gets to make ITS attacks AS IF it were charging.
It does not say it actually assaults or charges. It does not say it counts as assaulting or charging. It makes no rules allowances for anything to strike back, which it would have to for doing so to work at all.
Saying that the model is now somehow engaged in an assault with the walker and not simply making its attacks as the rule specifies is simply wrong.

Dashofpepper wrote:Thanks for the help? Links please? I searched for "Boarding plank vs dreadnought" "Boarding plank vs walker" "boarding planks AND dreadnoughts" and came up empty, and was short on time before leaving the house so made a post.

Here's one! Remove "VS" from your search.
Also, you made a thread about this last year!

Well, regardless of actual ruling, I think this is a pretty gakky thing to do. I think (since we're all just throwing out conjecture at this point), that Vehicle(Tank) and Vehicle(Walker) should really be treated differently whenever an assault is involved. Tanks don't have WS, don't have I values, or A values, or anything else. Walkers are a confusing mix of infantry rules and vehicle rules.

I do think that Dash and the Ork camp are trying to squeeze a little cheese out of the tube, here, though. If I had to just rule it, I'd say the Dread would get a chance at an attack back against the Trukk, maybe even a Death or Glory. Driving up next to a Rhino is easy. It doesn't have a DCCW it can use to clean your tailpipe.

I'm a Guard player (who almost always loses to Orks without planks, btw) and I don't think that not letting Walkers strike back against plank attacks is trying to cheese the system. It's very clear that Walkers do not get to attack back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reading through the Boarding Plank entry, I've got a question: Are Boarding Planks usable in the enemy's assault phase, so long as the Battlewagon is still within 2" of an enemy vehicle (say, if it was Grabbin' Klawed)? The rules do not specify that they only work in the Ork player's phase.

No, you can't use it in the enemy turn, because you can only charge during your turn.

if the walker did get to attack, it would be a really messy combat, (IE who gets hit? Does the nob have to take a wound? Or can one of the boyz inside get the wound alocated to him?) so I think most people rule in the spirty of simplicity.

Simplicity and, thankfully, the rules both agree on this.

No walker attack, as the wargear neither allows it, nor is it in btb with anything to be able to attack it.

Green Blow Fly wrote:As far as INAT FAQ this is another example of them shafting SM in general. It's not like the nob calls the dread over, opens a hatch then punches it from inside the trukk.

G

While I don't agree with your thinking on the rules or on INAT shafting SM in general (the Orks got their share) the visual of a Dread peering into an open hatch and getting poked in the eye is amusing.

That was my first impression on hearing about this boarding plank vs walker question. Walkers are a confusing blend of infantry and vehicle rules, but in assaults, the walker is invariably treated more as an infantry unit than as a vehicle. The only time vehicle rules apply is when damaging the walker.

I would think the boarding plank shouldn't work for the same reason it wouldn't work on a Monsterous Creature. It assaults (and is assaulted) like infantry.

Unfortunately the rules dont agree with you.

The walker is, and always (probably..) will be, a Vehicle. It is a special vehicle, yes, however if you try to state this somehow makes it immune then so are transport vehicles - they are different to normal vehicles.
Oh, and Skimmers should be immune, after all they are VERY different! And what about Fast vehicles? They fire really differently...

So no, Dreadnoughts are a) hit as any other vehicle, except with comparison to WS, and b) dont get to hit back.

That is the only way that a) follows the rule, and is b) is *simple*

The Adepticon FAQ has already ruled on this. Walker does not hit back. Doesn't necessarily make sense, but here's the reality: if you don't stop the walker, it rips the living **** out of your trukk next turn, so there is some risk to the maneuver. 4 PK attacks do not guarantee dead walker by any means.

LeperMessiah wrote:The Adepticon FAQ has already ruled on this.

...which applies to games using the Adepticon FAQ, but (and with no disrespect intended to those responsible for it) doesn't actually mean anything anywhere else.

Home-brew FAQ's, no matter how widespread they are, do not constitute actual rules. They're clarifications for the sole purpose of simplifying the house rule process for those who agree to use them.

insaniak wrote:

LeperMessiah wrote:The Adepticon FAQ has already ruled on this.

...which applies to games using the Adepticon FAQ, but (and with no disrespect intended to those responsible for it) doesn't actually mean anything anywhere else.

Home-brew FAQ's, no matter how widespread they are, do not constitute actual rules. They're clarifications for the sole purpose of simplifying the house rule process for those who agree to use them.

QFT

They are no more offical(ie, from GW) than anything posted on this forum.

jbunny wrote:They are no more offical(ie, from GW) than anything posted on this forum.

Errm, I beg to differ.

Doesn't make your FAQ official Gwar, just means that GW chose to side with you in their official FAQ.

Would be nice to see an errata from GW changing the wording to "non-walker vehicles" as that really does make more sense and causes less confusion but I'm not holding my breath.

Ozymandias wrote:Doesn't make your FAQ official Gwar, just means that GW chose to side with you in their official FAQ.

No, if they had answered the same as me, then it would be them choosing to side with me.

Down right copying of the FAQ down to the exact word is a whole other story.

I was going to post, but I decided (5 to 7 against) not to.

If the boarding plank allowed the Nob to make its attacks against an infantry unit, rather than a vehicle, otherwise using the same phrasing, it would still not create an assault.

The units are not engaged in combat, by any definition used in the rules. Wargear makes specific exceptions to the rules, and it’s a terrible idea to infer extra consequences into this than the minimum necessary to make the wargear work. The nob is allowed to make his attacks “as if” he were in an assault and charging. He does not actually charge. He is not actually in an assault. Therefore no other rules of an assault apply, because the wargear does not specifically say they do, and because the situation does not create an actual assault.

Does he count as charging then (+1A, +1S)?

Doesn't it explicitly say so in the text of the rule?

"...allows a single embarked Ork to make its close combat attacks against an enemy vehicle within 2" exactly as if the Ork were disembarked and charging..."

Sorry, the way I read your previous post it sounded like you were saying he wouldn't. Upon rereading, I can see what you're saying.

40kenthusiast wrote:I'll join the throng. Boarding plank isn't CC, you bop them with the PK and the walker can't swing back.

so it is a psychic shooting attack and does you have to roll to hit it?

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:If the boarding plank allowed the Nob to make its attacks against an infantry unit, rather than a vehicle, otherwise using the same phrasing, it would still not create an assault.

The units are not engaged in combat, by any definition used in the rules. Wargear makes specific exceptions to the rules, and it’s a terrible idea to infer extra consequences into this than the minimum necessary to make the wargear work. The nob is allowed to make his attacks “as if” he were in an assault and charging. He does not actually charge. He is not actually in an assault. Therefore no other rules of an assault apply, because the wargear does not specifically say they do, and because the situation does not create an actual assault.

I have no clue where you are going with this. It's obvious to me the rule was written intended to attack vehicles not dreadnaughts. What you have postulated has no real basis since we do not know what was intended and a RAW solution is pure fail.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I have no clue where you are going with this. It's obvious to me the rule was written intended to attack vehicles not dreadnaughts.

For starters, Dreadnoughts are vehicles.

But would you care to explain why it's obvious?

What you have postulated has no real basis since we do not know what was intended and a RAW solution is pure fail.

We don't need to know what was intended, as the RAW works just fine. The model using the boarding plank makes an attack as if he was charging.

Green Blow Fly wrote:]

I have no clue where you are going with this. It's obvious to me the rule was written intended to attack vehicles not dreadnaughts. What you have postulated has no real basis since we do not know what was intended and a RAW solution is pure fail.

G

It's obvious to me that I should win on a 2+ with rerolls. Where are you going with this?

The RAW saying I cannot win on a 2+ is fail.

Gwar! wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:Doesn't make your FAQ official Gwar, just means that GW chose to side with you in their official FAQ.

No, if they had answered the same as me, then it would be them choosing to side with me.

Down right copying of the FAQ down to the exact word is a whole other story.

- Edit by moderator. Let's stick to the topic, and leave discussion of Gwar's home-brew FAQ to its own thread, please -

I do agree with the nob attacking and the dread not attacking.

I have a similar problem, but with one difference

1. have a group of boys in a battlewagon with a PK wielding nob /w a boarding plank
2. Im 2" away from a dreadnought, but this dreadnought is locked in CC with another mob

Can I make this attack?
My understanding of the rule says yes cause I can still assault the dreadnought even if it is locked in combat. If there are any objections please say so.

Im actually in the middle of the game right now. My opponent went to work for 4 hours. So I'm looking for an answer.

edit: wording

Yes, as long as you can get within 2"

* sniff sniff *

I smell a troll...

G

I smell a painful question.

I say you can, because you are not actually disembarked and charging, the attacks are only made as if you were.

I smell I thought they locked this thread.

I smell.

of rum?

Can we get an answer for the question?

You can always call the rules boyz.

G

Well I got no objections to it.. I was just reading over this thread and I got my answers. Just didn't see anything about the walker being in CC. Thought I'd ask.

Thx! Now im off to kill a dreadnought.

I can only say to this last question... I'd call absolute BS.

Not based upon any rules mind you, but simply because I would find myself filled with such rage I would be incapable of stopping myself from doing the stompy crush dance of doom on my opponents miniatures after flinging them and the table into the air and choking-to-unconsciousness my opponent.

This is just another example of Ork cheese. Technically is it legal? ....ehhh yeah.

However, if it visibly inspires a ridiculous degree of discord and visceral loathing there's a good chance something needs to be done and maybe, just MAYBE GW should get off its @$$ and fix it.

Once again though, per RAW.. it is what it is.

Technically it breaks the existing rules and would be in bad form to do in a game.

Don't feed the troll.

G

Sorry? Why the sudden hate? It's not an assault, so why should it be bound by the usual assault rules?

What's the issue with letting the Dreadnought be boarded? There's no reason to think it can't.

If it's not an assault or shooting attack then what is it? If it is an assault then surely the dreadnaught can hit the nob on the plank.

G

Frankly being able to assault at all without being considered in B2B even if just for the duration of the exchange of blows is broken just because of this nightmare situation.

It's a mjor hell gap, but I can't see a way out of it that doesn't bring up base contact.

'oh you have to be in b2b to assault': nope magic ork cheese

'oh in assault you have to be able to actually move into contact with enemy model, i.e. a clear path to the foe to assault/attack': nope- magic ork cheese. If there's a foot tall wall 1" thick and solid in between the ork here and the walker/regular vehicle the magicv cheese wallop lets them assault.

Apparently the plank is actually a transdimensional gateway which open a tunnel for the nob to punch things through.

Like I said-- absolutely cheese-- which necessitates the choking and the stomping and the rending of limbs and bathing in the blood of ino....well.. *cough* it makes for meanness.

The second they pull that on me though I'm going right to the book of Gwar and I'm going to utilize absolutely every LAST SINGLE OBSCURE RULE REFERENCE they never thought could exist.

...As my signature states-- they get the Scientologist treatment.

Ummm, wow. The rule appears extremely clear. However, the counter seems fairly obvious...

Don't let a vehicle with a boarding plank roll up next to your Dreadnought.

If you're not stomping the armor 10 fast trukks or able to avoid a freakin' Battlewagon lumbering its way across the table at your own Dreadnought, not sure what else to say.

Green Blow Fly wrote:If it's not an assault or shooting attack then what is it? If it is an assault then surely the dreadnaught can hit the nob on the plank.

G

A special ability, like the Grabba Klaw. You make your attacks. That's all. It's not assault or a shooting attack.



@Dragon: Cheese stays out of YMDC, because if we want to play the making up rules game, I declare that not allowing me to win on a 2+ infinite re-rolls is legal. BTW, what's the source of that quote? Which rule was in question?

The rule states the ork counts as charging, so it's an assault and the dreadnaught can hit it.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:The rule states the ork counts as charging, so it's an assault and the dreadnaught can hit it.

G

As much as I know you hate RaW, there is no such thing as charging, so the ork actually only counts as Disembarked and the Dread cannot hit back.

Actually the rules clearly describe the charge. It's simple and easy too.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Actually the rules clearly describe the charge. It's simple and easy too.

G

No, it doesn't. The rule simply says "as if the Ork were disembarked and charging". It, nor the Rulebook, defines what charging is.

I mean I hate it, but it IS RAW. I can even see how it's fluffy and basically okay for play. I know HOW to play at the moment folks I'm just saying I like it about as much as chowing down on garbage can sludge.

If they would just make an exception that states if you engage something with WS it can get a hit back I'd be okay. I'm not even saying back on JUST the nob/hitting model either, a few licks on the unit would be just as fine.

Likewise, I think it would be neat if the plank could be used on monstrous creatures as well. If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander, right?

Unfortunately, these are things which just aren't going to happen unitl another Ork codex... and that... seems very, very far away.

That's not even talking about morale tests for the unit in vehicles.. jesus.

So for the moment, blatant inadequacies and warp tunnely punches are the order of the day.

I think this thread is about done. I'm surprised insaniak hasn't canned it already.

Quick --->someone start talking about Nids and the DoM.

Green Blow Fly wrote:If it's not an assault or shooting attack then what is it? If it is an assault then surely the dreadnaught can hit the nob on the plank.

G

The Dreadnought has models in base to base so it would have to attack that base to base unit. Regardless of what you think about boarding planks and walkers, there's no ambiguity in this case.

Is the model on the plank in contact with the target?

G

sigh.... no it's not. Thus the warp-tunnel-fist.

All the sane limitatations prohibiting such an attack are based upon factors involving bases and actual model presence---- factors pointless when all the vehicle has to do to initiate the miraculous rocket fist is be within 2".

But it's not a warp tunnel by any stretch.

G

According to Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ v.3.1 it states;

ORK.93C.01 – Q: If a Boarding Plank is used to attack a Walker does the Walker get to strike back?
A: No [RAW].

it may not be law, but it is a pretty good indicator.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Is the model on the plank in contact with the target?

G

No, however it is given special permission to attack.

What you fail to see is that the Dreadnought is NOT given any special permission to attack. Is it in BtB? No. This means it cannot attack unless it is given special permission to do so. Has it been given special permission to do so? I'll leave you to answer that.

This has been explained many times now, and you accuse others of trolling?

The best way to explain this was the language swap done on page 1.

The [horse] [runs] exactly as if [its legs were on fire]

The noun of the single embarked ork is replaced with horse, the verb attack is replace by runs, and the ?adverb disembarked and assaulted is replaced with legs on fire.

Normally, ones legs being on fire has consequences, just like assaulting a dred has consequences. But the ?adverb? (my language lessons were so long ago!) only modifies the verb. Thus, the only thing that happens in regards to disembarking and charging in this case is to have the ork attack.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Technically it breaks the existing rules and would be in bad form to do in a game.

How?

It doesn't, GBF doesnt have any rules to back that assertion up and has been asked many times to explain it, to no success.

I wouldnt hold out much hope.

<wall of text=long>
So I registered just now specifically to point out to everyone saying that the boarding plank does not work on dreadnoughts or that dreadnoughts should get a counterattack are wrong. RAW are pretty clear here. Vehicles get hit; dreadnoughts are vehicles. It may not make complete sense, but you have to roll with the punches, not bitch about how they were illegal.

That said, it is the lamest and dumbest rule ever, and I have faith in GW that they will fix this inadequacy immediately. Just about every rule in WH40k is to serve either gameplay or the reality of the game. The concept of a boarding plank is fine. Truck rolls up to a tank, they lower a 2x4, a nob walks out, wails on the tank a bit, and runs back. Seems like a lot of work to happen in any short bit of time, but fine.

The problem is, in the time it would take for an I2/I1(w/PK) ork to lower a 2x4 onto MY head (and certainly the head of the dreadnought I will one day be in control of) I would deliver him my own 40 lb. box of rape. The piece of wargear in question is a "Boarding Plank." It is not a driveby rail, and nothing about it's name or description indicates that the vehicle need be moving. For the sake of reality, the vehicle would have to be quite stationary for a boarding plank to be used. But hey, that's a lame point, so I'll move on.

When attacking a vehicle, you just hit it, because it cannot dodge your attacks. The exception is that if it moved, you might miss. Makes sense. Infantry (and walkers) have a WS, which means they are always hard to hit, because they have skill in melee combat, so there's no such thing as a free hit, because they actively avoid attacks. If my deadnought is paying enough attention to backstep/parry your attack, why can he not riposte? Presumably you're standing on a plank no more than inches (to scale) from my DCCW. If the ork is, at any point, close enough to deal CC damage to a dreadnought, then, logically, the dreadnought would be close enough to use his. The only fluff argument that could possibly be made is that the dreadnought must not be paying attention.

So it seems that this argument boils down to whether or not the pilots (or whatever you might call them; inhabitants/residents, prisoners, etc) of dreadnoughts are attentive in combat. I think the answer is a definite yes. Realistically, in any situation, getting within spitting distance of a dreadnought is a bad idea. I could see some form of driveby attack being effective to avoid counterattack (though I think a dreadnought would still just hulk smash the trukk). However, a boarding plank would be useless in a driveby (except perhaps as a weapon). As the boarding plank exists, it would make sense that the user of the boarding plank would only have time for one attack if a walker's retaliation is impossible, and multiple if it is. I could see a fix in that. Hell, make the attacks simultanous if you want. As it stands, if your trukk gets within 2" of my dreadnought, odds are he's dining in hell tonight. That's just not fair, since that wargear is basically "magic thing - pick a vehicle within 2" and kill it. Then spit in your opponents face as you claim orks are balanced"

Don't get me wrong, I love orks. They're just a lot cooler than most of the other races. The only problem is that it seems that the rules changes recently have converted them from a numerous melee powerhouse to a "jack of all trades, and heck, while we're at it, master of all trades too" race. I'd play them if I didn't already get enough gak for playing crons (that's right, I dual lith at 1500. cry more.)

IMO Free, unanswered attacks are fine if they cost points. A full array of vehicle-popping attacks utilized against a vehicle that is supposed to be a melee powerhouse is a bit far. In my opinion, the least you could do is make the plank only work on a 4+ or something against dreadnoughts, because at least half of the time the dreadnought would just crunch the plank in half if they tried to lower one onto it.
</wall of text>

PS. Hello dakka²

I don't get the arguments about it being unrealistic to boarding plank a dreadnought - it's not like this is reality, but even aside from that... Nowhere does it say that the Ork vehicle in question drives up, parks next to the dreadnought and busts out a boarding plank.

Hitting an Ork leaning out of a fast moving Trukk would probably be pretty hard, that is if you even notice him. Anyway, plank attacks don't hit automatically so there essentially already is a "only works on a 4+" in place.

Also, Orks are balanced and Necrons are generally considered one of the worst armies in 5th editions

Oh and welcome to Dakka =]

I've already explained why the dreadnaught gets to hit. This is one case where I don't agree with the INAT FAQ and it is far from an official document.

G

This is just another Opinion, i know im not a Raw Master, but..... if we all step back and take a look at the situation at hand. Yes not words or rules, but imagine a fluff'd out picture. We all See this Attack as something different, and in all honosty the upgrade is just allowing you to do something "interesting" which is what i think Orks are all about, i mean seriously, Wierdboys are just Hilarious, as are Shokk attack Guns.

But the story i would like to express, the Vision i see of this "Grand" Cheese, this Amazing Warp tunnel and all around fun of the "Plank" is this (this happened to me in a fight, and i got angry, but its ok, cause i eventually got that darn trukk) This is a very abusable abilite to take down vehicles, but i dygress.

I see the trukk speeding up, and the nob inside getting ready by the makeshift ramshackled metal plates held in place by Grots, Glue, and some other stuff we dun wanna know about, a few Grots inside begin to lower a makeshift pip with some planks nailed to it, as the ork leans out holding this thing as if his life depended on it (and it does) as he lets his other power klaw'd hand hangs loose in the open air as he readys his attack on the unsespecting vehicle.

Now, that bit o fluff makes sence to the rule, what dosn't is that there are no "negative" effects to this rule. Almost everything orkish has some negativity to it right? Wierd boys can kill themselves, Stormboyz can crash and burn, Shokk guns can shoot the gunner into an enemy. So Deffrolla's Bikers, and Planks have no downside? Sooo the game i played had the guy running 6 trukks, with 6 boy squads with 6 nobs, with 6 power klawz, and they jumped all over the place and popped vehicles cause as long as they are in 2" they can no problem.

Now, looking at that, and back into the fluff and the sitting back, we get back to the nob, who is speeding toward the vehicle. So he misses? nothing bad happens right? he just wiffed it, no biggie! We can all see this easy enough, if he hits, the Trukk speed + power klaw = Ouchie! we can all see that too, the problem now is that he isn't preying on some random Rhino! oh no! he is going after the big bad dreadnaught, the thing that makes eldar cry at night, Hormogaunts run for their Tyrants, and Orks get their Nobbies! So what happens when our Dashing Ork Nob swings at the Dreadnaught? well unlike a rhino, this thing moves, and fights back, and is generally SKILLED at it! So the ork swings, and misses? uh oh, if it was truly orkish, he would probably get knocked out of the trukk and be standing infront of the doom machine that knocked him out, if he hits the thing, then the Dreadnaught suffers Trukk speed + Powerklaw = Ouch equasion.

Sooooo that afor mentioned game, He popped 3 rhinos, 1 Razorback, and 2 Dreadnaughts, both Venerable, and i didn't even scratch the trukk, since he moved it 6" forward, and 6" back for the 12" roll, where i now need "6"s to hit. And sometimes he just LoS'd me behind a wall and hit me from 2" away though i couldn't see to shoot. Ugh.

That dosn't scream Orky... Is it what GW intended? who cares! we are the players, we discussed it as the players we are (i know! blasphamey!) and decided if he rolled 1's with his nobs the next game, his nob would fall out on its face and be locked into combat with the dread. But only on Dreads since Vehicles can't do nothing anyhow!



Now. Sitting back and rumaging threw that rubbish i just posted, i admit i hate boarding planks, Deffrollas, and nob bikers, and i know that threw Raw Ork players can Easily Abuse their lists. We may not like it, we may not agree with it........and i actually enjoy reading everyone's take on it. this is just one solution we used, it made me feel better (cause he did roll a few 1's and nob is out!) and he felt better cause he didn't make a fellow gamer feel bad :(

Nightrave wrote:Sitting back and rumaging threw that rubbish i just posted, i admit i hate boarding planks, Deffrollas, and nob bikers, and i know that threw Raw Ork players can Easily Abuse their lists.

How does playing by the rules in the rulebook = abuse?

And GBF has no RAW legs to stand on, at all.
The ork doesn't count as disembarked or assaulting or charging or in base contact... he doesn't count as anything. THE ORK gets to make ITS attacks AS IF it were disembarked and charging. That's all that the rule says happens, so that's all that happens.

You get the attacks, dread does not, even in cc.

Sooooo that afor mentioned game, He popped 3 rhinos, 1 Razorback, and 2 Dreadnaughts, both Venerable, and i didn't even scratch the trukk, since he moved it 6" forward, and 6" back for the 12" roll, where i now need "6"s to hit. And sometimes he just LoS'd me behind a wall and hit me from 2" away though i couldn't see to shoot. Ugh.

How the hell do you not kill an AV10, open topped trukk before it kills half your army? I mean, do you realize how incredibly insanely lucky it'd have to be to accomplish all of this? Either that, or you didn't have a single ranged weapon in the entire army.

I mean, BOLTERS can kill trukks for crying out loud >_<

Btw, if you move 6" forward and then 6" back, it only counts as moving 6", you only measure how far it went from its starting position when it comes to determining this stuff.

@number9dream & Nightrave: I'm pretty sure that moving 6" forward and 6" back is specifically mentioned as not moving at all in the area where the rulebook also mentions fast vehicles getting their invulnerable save.

@The rest: The question you are all asking is, "is this boarding plank too OP?" and the answer is no. What happend in the tourny is what should have happend if for no other reason then to teach the other player to pay attention, there is no reason that a AV10 vehicle should get within 2" of a dread esspecially if the vehicle in question is < 12" away!

Now to answer Dashes question: I think that if the Dread was capable of assault the previous turn then the Nob has to roll against his WS. If the Dread is in CC with another unit or any other situation where it would not be able to fight in CC then it's an automatic hit for the Nob. This is brutailly OP but the use of a boarding plank in this fashion is increadibly risky since popping those ork trucks is kind of easy, in addition to the casualties the infantry WILL sustain distracting the walker. Also, in the event that the Nob does miss then the Truck is toast the next turn as long as the Dread isn't tied up in CC.

The idea of treating a Dread as a stationary vehicle is a contridiction to fluff. If it's standing it's ground it would be more ready for an assault then if it were running, this is quite the opposite of a vehicle which would need to be driving to avoid being hit.

You are correct, my bad. (funny thing is I actually looked the rule up to be sure but still wrote the wrong thing in my reply ;]). It's right after the Vehicles and Assaults table.

Poor Bjorn the super-dread always dies a pathetic death when my boarding planks show up.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I've already explained why the dreadnaught gets to hit. This is one case where I don't agree with the INAT FAQ and it is far from an official document.

G

No, you have explained why you *think* the dreadnought shoudl get to hit, unfortunately the rules entirely disagree with you.

You are *entirely* unable to show permission for the Dread to hit, as it is not in BtB with the Ork and thereffore cannot hit.

Doesn't the rule state the ork counts as charging?

G

Yes, now find the rule that states the Ork is in BtB

Hint: it isn't.

"Counts as Charging" /= "is actually charging", otherwise it wouldnt be "counts as"

Clues in the language used, oddly enough.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, now find the rule that states the Ork is in BtB

Hint: it isn't.

"Counts as Charging" /= "is actually charging", otherwise it wouldnt be "counts as"

Clues in the language used, oddly enough.

And making an orks attacks as if it were charging, which is what the rule actually calls for =/= ork counts as charging or actually charging

Green Blow Fly wrote:Doesn't the rule state the ork counts as charging?

G

It says "A Single Embarked Ork to make his close combat attacks against the enemy vehicle within 2" exactly as if the ork were disembarked and charging, provided neithe vehicle has moved more than 12"."

NOUN: "A Single Embarked Ork"
Action Allowed by the rules: "to make his close combat attacks against the enemy vehicle within 2"
Limits or modifications to the action: "exactly as if the ork were disembarked and charging, provided neither vehicle has moved more than 12"

The rule does not grant anything to happen except the attacks of the embarked ork. Rules are permissive.

What you are reading the rule to say is: "A Single Embarked Ork is allowed to resolve a round of combat against the enemy vehicle within 2" by allowing the ork to disembarked and assault into BtB, provided neither vehicle has moved more than 12". During combat, the single model counts as a unit for combat resolution. At the end of combat resolution, the model immediately re-embarks on to the vehicle.

The rule doesn't say any of this. Which makes your interpretation RAI by definition.

Rules say what you can do... And this rule as written doesn't allow in any way for the normal rules of close combat to be executed. It simply doesn't due to the definition of the English phrase "as if" and sentence structure.

The rule states the model counts as charging? What does charging mean in 5th Ed. 40k? So what attacks can the Ork make? It is asking for a situation not covered by the rules. So surely the plank is entirely useless by RAW?

You certainly don't get +1A +1S +1I by RAW as it doesn't say you are initiating an assault.

What does making it's attacks as is disembarked and charging allow it to do? What attacks does a charging model make? I can find no reference to this in the BRB please enlighten me?

Like I said it breaks the rules when used against a walker.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Like I said it breaks the rules when used against a walker.

G

Again, you make a statement with no rules backing, which is in fact in complete contrary to what the *actual* rules say.

Troll much?

To make it clear: when used against a vehicle (walker) it breaks no rules.

To make it clear: when used against a vehicle (walker) it breaks no rules.

But what rules does it use to resolve the attacks? What "attacks" does a model make when charging? What does charging mean by RaW in 5th Ed.?

Exactly! Does it hit Based on far the dread moved?

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Exactly! Does it hit Based on far the dread moved?

G

Errm... What? Do you normally hit based on how far the dread moved? Or are you just trolling, as usual?

wOw next you'll say it hits on hte rear armor.

* face palimony *