Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Icemyn wrote:You keep saying that.
Except there is no rule for charging in the BRB so you may never charge.

You're right "Charge" is never actually defined, which means, not only do Boarding Planks not work, but Hunting Lances (IG), Cerberus Launcher (SM, possibly variants not sure), possibly a few more things cannot be used. However, via context, we know that charging=assaulting (much like in FNP, injury=wound).

So interesting, the only way you can use it in your opponents phase is if you re-write the rule and then quote the made up rule and call it RAW...

That is a new one for YMTC...

Just because wrecking ball works a specific way doesn't mean boarding plank works the same way. The only Assumption is the boarding plank is allowing you to make limited assault actions which is only on your turn as you cannot disembark and assault on your opponents turn. You are not engaged in close combat which gives you no permission to begin executing close combat attacks on your opponents phase.

You have to make up rules for it to work on your opponents turn which makes it wrong.

nkelsch wrote:That is a new one for YMTC...

I wouldn't say that

how many times must it be said.

the boarding plank at no time Initiates an Assault.

nkelsch wrote:So interesting, the only way you can use it in your opponents phase is if you re-write the rule and then quote the made up rule and call it RAW...

That is a new one for YMTC...

Just because wrecking ball works a specific way doesn't mean boarding plank works the same way. The only Assumption is the boarding plank is allowing you to make limited assault actions which is only on your turn as you cannot disembark and assault on your opponents turn. You are not engaged in close combat which gives you no permission to begin executing close combat attacks on your opponents phase.

You have to make up rules for it to work on your opponents turn which makes it wrong.

You have to make up rules to make it work at all.
At no point have I called it RAW.
You keep saying that you have to be able to disembark or assault and those by RAW are not even remotely true. Everything you have said that prohibits using BP in the opponents phase prohibits you from using it in your own phase.

If you are going to show up and quote the same tired argument over and over again you could at least address the fact that you are not assaulting or disembarking. Once you get past proving that you have to be able to do either of those things you can start talking about what prevents use in the opponents phase.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:how many times must it be said.

the boarding plank at no time Initiates an Assault.

The Boarding Plank rules disagree with you.

"Boarding Plank: Orks often employ hinged planks that allow them to make daring assaults on nearby vehicles. A boarding plank allows a single embarked Ork to make its close combat attacks against an enemy vehicle within 2" exactly as the Ork was disembarked and charging provided neither vehicle has moved more than 12"

"exactly as the Ork was disembarked and charging" allows "a single embarked Ork to make its close combat attacks" but only exactly like the Ork was disembarked (Could not otherwise make attacks from an embarked vehicle, this part allows it) and charging (This is what tells us that the Ork acts as if he were actually launching an assault). Something that can not be done in the opponents turn.

Icemyn wrote:

nkelsch wrote:So interesting, the only way you can use it in your opponents phase is if you re-write the rule and then quote the made up rule and call it RAW...

That is a new one for YMTC...

Just because wrecking ball works a specific way doesn't mean boarding plank works the same way. The only Assumption is the boarding plank is allowing you to make limited assault actions which is only on your turn as you cannot disembark and assault on your opponents turn. You are not engaged in close combat which gives you no permission to begin executing close combat attacks on your opponents phase.

You have to make up rules for it to work on your opponents turn which makes it wrong.

You have to make up rules to make it work at all.
At no point have I called it RAW.
You keep saying that you have to be able to disembark or assault and those by RAW are not even remotely true. Everything you have said that prohibits using BP in the opponents phase prohibits you from using it in your own phase.

If you are going to show up and quote the same tired argument over and over again you could at least address the fact that you are not assaulting or disembarking. Once you get past proving that you have to be able to do either of those things you can start talking about what prevents use in the opponents phase.

DeathReaper wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:how many times must it be said.

the boarding plank at no time Initiates an Assault.

The Boarding Plank rules disagree with you.

"Boarding Plank: Orks often employ hinged planks that allow them to make daring assaults on nearby vehicles. A boarding plank allows a single embarked Ork to make its close combat attacks against an enemy vehicle within 2" exactly as the Ork was disembarked and charging provided neither vehicle has moved more than 12"

"exactly as the Ork was disembarked and charging" allows "a single embarked Ork to make its close combat attacks" but only exactly like the Ork was disembarked (Could not otherwise make attacks from an embarked vehicle, this part allows it) and charging (This is what tells us that the Ork acts as if he were actually launching an assault). Something that can not be done in the opponents turn.

damn icemyn ninjaed me

Yeah, if there were two RAI and we had to pick the closest one to RAW, it would be the one where you follow as much RAW as possible which is only when you can disembark and assault, which is your own turn. The more liberal approach doesn't fly where the restrictive one actually is somewhat supported and makes actual sense.

And when someone tries to argue absurd intent like some people here are, the answer is 'If intent is absurd, then we follow raw which is nothing'

Which is why " I am thankful my opponent allows me to use the BP at all" is correct because it is a poorly written rule with lots of important info left out... (which is one of the reasons boarding plank is 2" of the hull not 2" of the upgrade like other ork upgrades)

DeathReaper wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:how many times must it be said.

the boarding plank at no time Initiates an Assault.

The Boarding Plank rules disagree with you.

"Boarding Plank: Orks often employ hinged planks that allow them to make daring assaults on nearby vehicles. A boarding plank allows a single embarked Ork to make its close combat attacks against an enemy vehicle within 2" exactly as the Ork was disembarked and charging provided neither vehicle has moved more than 12"

"exactly as the Ork was disembarked and charging" allows "a single embarked Ork to make its close combat attacks" but only exactly like the Ork was disembarked (Could not otherwise make attacks from an embarked vehicle, this part allows it) and charging (This is what tells us that the Ork acts as if he were actually launching an assault). Something that can not be done in the opponents turn.

I think you are missing the "as if" Is a chaos lord with wings Jump infantry or not?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:Yeah, if there were two RAI and we had to pick the closest one to RAW, it would be the one where you follow as much RAW as possible which is only when you can disembark and assault, which is your own turn. The more liberal approach doesn't fly where the restrictive one actually is somewhat supported and makes actual sense.

And when someone tries to argue absurd intent like some people here are, the answer is 'If intent is absurd, then we follow raw which is nothing'

Which is why " I am thankful my opponent allows me to use the BP at all" is correct because it is a poorly written rule with lots of important info left out... (which is one of the reasons boarding plank is 2" of the hull not 2" of the upgrade like other ork upgrades)

I agree with your last paragraph.
But, at what point do you decide when intent is absurd? How do you know for certain that this was not intended to be used during the opponents assault phase? Nothing in the rule supports that stance, so I am merely putting forward the possibility that it is usable then.

I have already stated several times how the rule is broken in more ways than one and any one of them would keep it from working at all. That is not the point, All I have been arguing is that the RAI that everyone seems to believe in allow you to use it during the opponents phase.

If that is the issue that everyone has a problem with then I will just quote RAW for the duration of this thread which as we all know is that it doesn't work.

I took the quote from someone earlier in the thread. I should have actually ready the book and gave the actual quote which I will do now.

The actual wording is:
"Boarding Plank: Orks often employ hinged planks that allow them to make daring attacks on nearby vehicles, A boarding plank 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, provided neither vehicle has moved more than 12"."

So it only allows "a single embarked Ork to make its close combat attacks against an enemy vehicle" but only "exactly as if the Ork were disembarked "(which creates an allowance to attack while embarked.) and he only does so "exactly as if the Ork were charging".

So you may only use it when you are allowed to be in a phase that allows the Ork to charge.

Icemyn wrote:I agree with your last paragraph.
But, at what point do you decide when intent is absurd? How do you know for certain that this was not intended to be used during the opponents assault phase? Nothing in the rule supports that stance, so I am merely putting forward the possibility that it is usable then.

When the official FAQs clearly show a consistant line of thinking on how the rule should be applied in interaction with other rules, like planking a different unit than what you shot heavily supporting the plank functions as an assault action and would normally be restricted like one. Also clearly showing with the dreadnaught rules where the model is not engaged in combat and that also adds credence that you are not capable of being engaged on your opponents turn.

The train of thought from the multiple FAQs is pretty clear, and the only on your own turn is the least advantagous result which also makes it the better application and more conservative RAI which makes your interpretation absurd by comparison and the even more absurd where since it doesn;t actually specify the assault phase you can make the attack during shooting, movement and multiple times because not specifying becomes license to do anything you want.

Icemyn wrote:I think you are missing the "as if" Is a chaos lord with wings Jump infantry or not?

According to the wording of "Wings" P.85 CSM Codex, "Models equipped with wings move in the same way as Jump Infantry..."

they are not Jump Infantry because the only move in the same way as JI.

How does this have any bearing on what we are discussing?

DeathReaper wrote:I took the quote from someone earlier in the thread. I should have actually ready the book and gave the actual quote which I will do now.

The actual wording is:
"Boarding Plank: Orks often employ hinged planks that allow them to make daring attacks on nearby vehicles, A boarding plank 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, provided neither vehicle has moved more than 12"."

So it only allows "a single embarked Ork to make its close combat attacks against an enemy vehicle" but only "exactly as if the Ork were disembarked "(which creates an allowance to attack while embarked.) and he only does so "exactly as if the Ork were charging".

So you may only use it when you are allowed to be in a phase that allows the Ork to charge.

If you change charging to assaulting then we have precedent for how one handles "as if assaulting" in Counter-Attack. It only serves to denote the number of attacks and assault bonuses nothing else. It is not a prerequisite for use of the Boarding Plank.

The important bit is "a single embarked Ork to make its close combat attacks ... as if the Ork were disembarked and charging" . If you read it that way it is obvious that he is not actually disembarking or assaulting and as such you don't need to be able to.

Again unless of course you think Chaos Lords with wings are actually Jump infantry.

People are just making stuff up now... this thread has no value anymore as nothing supports the broken RAI being proposed.

nkelsch wrote:

Icemyn wrote:I agree with your last paragraph.
But, at what point do you decide when intent is absurd? How do you know for certain that this was not intended to be used during the opponents assault phase? Nothing in the rule supports that stance, so I am merely putting forward the possibility that it is usable then.

When the official FAQs clearly show a consistant line of thinking on how the rule should be applied in interaction with other rules, like planking a different unit than what you shot heavily supporting the plank functions as an assault action and would normally be restricted like one. Also clearly showing with the dreadnaught rules where the model is not engaged in combat and that also adds credence that you are not capable of being engaged on your opponents turn.

The train of thought from the multiple FAQs is pretty clear, and the only on your own turn is the least advantagous result which also makes it the better application and more conservative RAI which makes your interpretation absurd by comparison and the even more absurd where since it doesn;t actually specify the assault phase you can make the attack during shooting, movement and multiple times because not specifying becomes license to do anything you want.

Q: Can an Ork that is attacking an enemy vehicle by
using a boarding plank do so even if his unit fired at a
different target in the Shooting phase? (p93)
A: Yes.

Clearly this means it is not an assault. here is why

BRB pg. what ever. you must assault what ever you shoot.

So unless this FAQ is a direct contradiction of the rules and sets a precedent for something or other, IT is Not an Assault.

Icemyn wrote:If you change charging to assaulting then we have precedent for how one handles "as if assaulting" in Counter-Attack. It only serves to denote the number of attacks and assault bonuses nothing else. It is not a prerequisite for use of the Boarding Plank.

The important bit is "a single embarked Ork to make its close combat attacks ... as if the Ork were disembarked and charging" . If you read it that way it is obvious that he is not actually disembarking or assaulting and as such you don't need to be able to.

"he is not actually disembarking or assaulting" but he is making attacks as if he were.

And since you can only charge on your turn, you can only make attacks as if the Ork were disembarked and charging, which you can only do in your assault phase.

DeathReaper wrote:

Icemyn wrote:If you change charging to assaulting then we have precedent for how one handles "as if assaulting" in Counter-Attack. It only serves to denote the number of attacks and assault bonuses nothing else. It is not a prerequisite for use of the Boarding Plank.

The important bit is "a single embarked Ork to make its close combat attacks ... as if the Ork were disembarked and charging" . If you read it that way it is obvious that he is not actually disembarking or assaulting and as such you don't need to be able to.

"he is not actually disembarking or assaulting" but he is making attacks as if he were.

And since you can only charge on your turn, you can only make attacks as if the Ork were disembarked and charging, which you can only do in your assault phase.

You can only disembark in your assault phase weird.
Joking aside, as I have stated they are not requirements only instructions in how to reconcile the wargears rules with the BRB.

How do I make CC attacks if Im embarked? Oh as if disembarked.
How many attacks do I get? Oh as if charging so +1.

Really not hard.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Icemyn wrote:I agree with your last paragraph.
But, at what point do you decide when intent is absurd? How do you know for certain that this was not intended to be used during the opponents assault phase? Nothing in the rule supports that stance, so I am merely putting forward the possibility that it is usable then.

When the official FAQs clearly show a consistant line of thinking on how the rule should be applied in interaction with other rules, like planking a different unit than what you shot heavily supporting the plank functions as an assault action and would normally be restricted like one. Also clearly showing with the dreadnaught rules where the model is not engaged in combat and that also adds credence that you are not capable of being engaged on your opponents turn.

The train of thought from the multiple FAQs is pretty clear, and the only on your own turn is the least advantagous result which also makes it the better application and more conservative RAI which makes your interpretation absurd by comparison and the even more absurd where since it doesn;t actually specify the assault phase you can make the attack during shooting, movement and multiple times because not specifying becomes license to do anything you want.

Q: Can an Ork that is attacking an enemy vehicle by
using a boarding plank do so even if his unit fired at a
different target in the Shooting phase? (p93)
A: Yes.

Clearly this means it is not an assault. here is why

BRB pg. what ever. you must assault what ever you shoot.

So unless this FAQ is a direct contradiction of the rules and sets a precedent for something or other, IT is Not an Assault.

No, it doesn't mean that... It means it is an assault and they are giving an exception. If it was not an assault then there would be no need to ask the question.

And nothing in this FAQ allows you to make the combat attacks in your opponents phase. Not a shred of proof has been shown that allows it without making up rules.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:So unless this FAQ is a direct contradiction of the rules and sets a precedent for something or other, IT is Not an Assault.

Not out of the question, see: Tyranid FAQs.

nkelsch wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Icemyn wrote:I agree with your last paragraph.
But, at what point do you decide when intent is absurd? How do you know for certain that this was not intended to be used during the opponents assault phase? Nothing in the rule supports that stance, so I am merely putting forward the possibility that it is usable then.

When the official FAQs clearly show a consistant line of thinking on how the rule should be applied in interaction with other rules, like planking a different unit than what you shot heavily supporting the plank functions as an assault action and would normally be restricted like one. Also clearly showing with the dreadnaught rules where the model is not engaged in combat and that also adds credence that you are not capable of being engaged on your opponents turn.

The train of thought from the multiple FAQs is pretty clear, and the only on your own turn is the least advantagous result which also makes it the better application and more conservative RAI which makes your interpretation absurd by comparison and the even more absurd where since it doesn;t actually specify the assault phase you can make the attack during shooting, movement and multiple times because not specifying becomes license to do anything you want.

Q: Can an Ork that is attacking an enemy vehicle by
using a boarding plank do so even if his unit fired at a
different target in the Shooting phase? (p93)
A: Yes.

Clearly this means it is not an assault. here is why

BRB pg. what ever. you must assault what ever you shoot.

So unless this FAQ is a direct contradiction of the rules and sets a precedent for something or other, IT is Not an Assault.

No, it doesn't mean that... It means it is an assault and they are giving an exception. If it was not an assault then there would be no need to ask the question.

And nothing in this FAQ allows you to make the combat attacks in your opponents phase. Not a shred of proof has been shown that allows it without making up rules.

That or the FAQ is a clarification for people like yourself who believe as if assaulting actually means assaulting. Sometimes FAQ's don't just make up rules or change the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:So unless this FAQ is a direct contradiction of the rules and sets a precedent for something or other, IT is Not an Assault.

Not out of the question, see: Tyranid FAQs.

True FAQ's change rules all the time, but how are we to know which it is?
Being that the Rule is already pretty clear about it not being an assault, I don't think there is any question that this is a clarification.

Icemyn wrote:
True FAQ's change rules all the time, but how are we to know which it is?
Being that the Rule is already pretty clear about it not being an assault, I don't think there is any question that this is a clarification.

It isn't engaged in combat either so nothing allows you to use it in your opponents phase. It is not a wrecking ball.

You are arguing RAI which is a radical version of RAI which there is a much more plasuible and conservative RAI out there which is widley accepted. If you try to make rules up which is what you have done, prepare for RAW to take your toys away.

There is not a single rule anywhere allowing it to work in your opponents phase and no clear line of thougt supported anywhere in the FAQ. It doesn't exist.

Icemyn wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:And since you can only charge on your turn, you can only make attacks as if the Ork were disembarked and charging, which you can only do in your assault phase.

You can only disembark in your assault phase weird.
Joking aside, as I have stated they are not requirements only instructions in how to reconcile the wargears rules with the BRB.

How do I make CC attacks if Im embarked? Oh as if disembarked.
How many attacks do I get? Oh as if charging so +1.

and when can you charge? Oh in your own assault phase.

The "as if the Ork were disembarked and charging" is a stipulation on how the power works. So it is a requirement.

and it says "as if the Ork were disembarked and charging" Note how Disembarked is past tense.

AKA Not in the vehicle and charging.

you can not act "as if the Ork were disembarked and charging" in your opponents assault phase. since you can be disembarked, but you can not be charging.

It really saddens me how one person yells out "YOU'RE MAKING THAT UP!!!" and the entire argument is ignore, just to be argued again three pages later. YMDC's discussions have really dropped to a new low.

DeathReaper wrote:and when can you charge? Oh in your own assault phase.

Except, that's irrelevant. The only requirement for the boarding plank is to be able to make close combat attacks and being and ork.

The "as if the Ork were disembarked and charging" is a stipulation on how the power works. So it is a requirement.

You can bark as if you were a dog without being a dog.
A daemon prince can move as if he were jump infantry, without being jump infantry.
An ork can make attacks as if disembarked and charging without being disembarked and charging.

As orks, like all models with an attack value can make close combat attacks during an opponents assault phase, they may also make attacks "as if disembarked and charging" during the opponents phase.
"As if" can never define a requirement.

and it says "as if the Ork were disembarked and charging" Note how Disembarked is past tense.

AKA Not in the vehicle and charging.

you can not act "as if the Ork were disembarked and charging" in your opponents assault phase. since you can be disembarked, but you can not be charging.

Except you are explicitly told to act that way when resolving the attacks from one ork via the boarding plank. There is no rule against that.

Might not the key to this entire debate be the line "providing neither vehicle has moved more than 12" "

If the attack isn't allowed in the opponent's turn then there could never be a situation where the enemy vehicle had moved at all much less >12".

Magpie wrote:Might not the key to this entire debate be the line "providing neither vehicle has moved more than 12" "

If the attack isn't allowed in the opponent's turn then there could never be a situation where the enemy vehicle had moved at all much less >12".

Sadly not relevant at all.
That would be the same as auto-hitting a vehicle in combat because it hasn't moved this (player) turn. You go by the distance the vehicle traveled in its last movement phase.

nkelsch wrote:

Icemyn wrote:
True FAQ's change rules all the time, but how are we to know which it is?
Being that the Rule is already pretty clear about it not being an assault, I don't think there is any question that this is a clarification.

It isn't engaged in combat either so nothing allows you to use it in your opponents phase. It is not a wrecking ball.

You are arguing RAI which is a radical version of RAI which there is a much more plasuible and conservative RAI out there which is widley accepted. If you try to make rules up which is what you have done, prepare for RAW to take your toys away.

There is not a single rule anywhere allowing it to work in your opponents phase and no clear line of thougt supported anywhere in the FAQ. It doesn't exist.

Thank you for your opinions, but they are only that. I have stated time and again rules actual RAW with support from other codexes and the rule book. And the best you and DeathReaper can muster is nuh-uh. Kind of sad really.

You sit back and claim that I am arguing a radical RAI when I am only taking your conservative RAI and applying it more broadly. RAW it doesn't work.

"as if" is not "is". Show me one instance where it is. Just one and I will concede this argument. I have shown you counter-Attack "as if assaulting" I have shown you Chaos Lord "Moves as if Jump Infantry" and yet you still claim (wrongly) that being able to disembark or assault (charge) are required.

grendel083 wrote:

Magpie wrote:Might not the key to this entire debate be the line "providing neither vehicle has moved more than 12" "

If the attack isn't allowed in the opponent's turn then there could never be a situation where the enemy vehicle had moved at all much less >12".

Sadly not relevant at all.
That would be the same as auto-hitting a vehicle in combat because it hasn't moved this (player) turn. You go by the distance the vehicle traveled in its last movement phase.

That is because the rule specifically says that, not so for planks

Icemyn wrote:Thank you for your opinions, but they are only that. I have stated time and again rules actual RAW with support from other codexes and the rule book. And the best you and DeathReaper can muster is nuh-uh. Kind of sad really.

You sit back and claim that I am arguing a radical RAI when I am only taking your conservative RAI and applying it more broadly. RAW it doesn't work.

"as if" is not "is". Show me one instance where it is. Just one and I will concede this argument. I have shown you counter-Attack "as if assaulting" I have shown you Chaos Lord "Moves as if Jump Infantry" and yet you still claim (wrongly) that being able to disembark or assault (charge) are required.

It is actually on you guys to find proof that it does work in your opponents turn.

We have cited, and shown you do not have permission, it is on you to prove permission, something which you have not done.

you know Permissive rule set and all.

DeathReaper wrote:

Icemyn wrote:Thank you for your opinions, but they are only that. I have stated time and again rules actual RAW with support from other codexes and the rule book. And the best you and DeathReaper can muster is nuh-uh. Kind of sad really.

You sit back and claim that I am arguing a radical RAI when I am only taking your conservative RAI and applying it more broadly. RAW it doesn't work.

"as if" is not "is". Show me one instance where it is. Just one and I will concede this argument. I have shown you counter-Attack "as if assaulting" I have shown you Chaos Lord "Moves as if Jump Infantry" and yet you still claim (wrongly) that being able to disembark or assault (charge) are required.

It is actually on you guys to find proof that it does work in your opponents turn.

We have cited, and shown you do not have permission, it is on you to prove permission, something which you have not done.

you know Permissive rule set and all.

No I have clearly stated it doesnt work at all. Maybe you missed that?
Also I note that you didn't show that that "as if assaulting" is assaulting.
I have only said that once you grant permission to use it on your turn it allows use on the opponents and nothing you have said contradicts that. So please try again.

So you think this permissive rule set allows use on your turn?
What part of the rule keeps you from using it on theirs?

Slow & Purposeful (always counts as moving through difficult terrain). If the model assaults, his Initiative is reduced to 1.