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.

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

"counts as" is not "as if".
Counts as has been shown many times in YMDC to mean "is".
Writhing Worldscape would be an example of this, a quick search will find you that debate I am sure.

Additionally if Slow & Purposeful said "moves as if in difficult terrain" then you would still be slowed. The as if is only there to tell you how and when you count as slowed. At no point are you actually in difficult terrain and can't claim mobile cover. Same as you are at no point required to be assaulting or able to be assaulting.

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

Wrong.

And you are not engaged and the boarding plank gives you no ability to be engaged so how do you make your close combats attack on your opponents phase with no explicit permission to do so and not being engaged with any models in CC?

No permission exists anywhere. There is nothing that allows the rule to be executed on your opponents turn (or any turn actually) and nothing gives the impression you can use it on your opponents turn without making up rules and adding language fromthe wrecking ball upgrade.

nkelsch wrote:

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

Wrong.

And you are not engaged and the boarding plank gives you no ability to be engaged so how do you make your close combats attack on your opponents phase with no explicit permission to do so and not being engaged with any models in CC?

No permission exists anywhere. There is nothing that allows the rule to be executed on your opponents turn (or any turn actually) and nothing gives the impression you can use it on your opponents turn without making up rules and adding language fromthe wrecking ball upgrade.

Wrong.

The reason there is no permission to use BP on your opponents turn is that there exists no permission to use it on your own turn.

Icemyn wrote:The reason there is no permission to use BP on your opponents turn is that there exists no permission to use it on your own turn.

So how about we stop going in circles then? Let's just use it in the ork turn's assault phase and be happy.

Although for ork vs ork games I'd be happy to agree on enemy turn too, just to see the two Battlewagons going at each other. ;-)

Spetulhu wrote:

Icemyn wrote:The reason there is no permission to use BP on your opponents turn is that there exists no permission to use it on your own turn.

So how about we stop going in circles then? Let's just use it in the ork turn's assault phase and be happy.

Although for ork vs ork games I'd be happy to agree on enemy turn too, just to see the two Battlewagons going at each other. ;-)

Its obvious that it doesn't work by RAW.
Unfortunately, some people seem to think that there is some restriction keeping you from using BP during the other turn based on the words "as-if".
That is where the argument is at this point, its no longer about BP working everyone seems to agree they don't. This is a Rules forum not a HIWPI forum and as such I am just pointing out that if BP functioned at all nothing in the rules precludes use in the opponents turn.

Initially, I said it cannot be used because you cannot charge in your opponents turn. As it is, I do see that that is wrong. I, do however, agree that since you do not have specific permission to use it in your opponents turn, it cannot be used.

Icemyn wrote:
Wrong.

The reason there is no permission to use BP on your opponents turn is that there exists no permission to use it on your own turn.

But there is Intent as they describe the behavior of the attacking ork. You are trying to parse 4th edition rules into a fake version of 5th edition RAW and claiming intent.

You can't claim RAW and parse 'exactly as if' and then turn and claim it was RAI. You can't only analyze part of a rule with RAW to get RAI either. That doesn't wash... The intent is painfully clear for this poorly worded 4th edition rule and you are trying to parse it with 5th edition RAW and fill in any blanks with personally advantagous results.

So either you accept the Rule does nothing or accept you can't make RAW arguments when claiming intent which means you can parse 'exactly as if' until your brain explodes and no one anywhere gives a crap because whatever you make up is RAI because RAW shows a broken, nonfunctional piece of gear and the true intent is also painfully clear for people not trying to gain a personal advantage.

nkelsch wrote:

Icemyn wrote:
Wrong.

The reason there is no permission to use BP on your opponents turn is that there exists no permission to use it on your own turn.

But there is Intent as they describe the behavior of the attacking ork. You are trying to parse 4th edition rules into a fake version of 5th edition RAW and claiming intent.

You can't claim RAW and parse 'exactly as if' and then turn and claim it was RAI. You can't only analyze part of a rule with RAW to get RAI either. That doesn't wash... The intent is painfully clear for this poorly worded 4th edition rule and you are trying to parse it with 5th edition RAW and fill in any blanks with personally advantagous results.

So either you accept the Rule does nothing or accept you can't make RAW arguments when claiming intent which means you can parse 'exactly as if' until your brain explodes and no one anywhere gives a crap because whatever you make up is RAI because RAW shows a broken, nonfunctional piece of gear and the true intent is also painfully clear for people not trying to gain a personal advantage.

Take a quick gander at my sig and you will note that I don't play Orks.
The fact that you think my argument has anything to do with some personal advantage is in fact insulting. That would be like me saying that you are only continuing your long winded arguments because you are unwilling to admit that you have no leg to stand on.

The fact that you perceive this to be painfully clear does not make you any less wrong. I am not making anything up you on the other hand are. I have only quoted RAW in a Rules forum. I'm sure you can find another forum somewhere where you can talk about your feelings.

@Happyjew: Its actually good to see that there are still people who can admit a bad argument. I didnt think they existed on dakka. The usual modus operadi is to just backpeddle and misquote rules until something sticks.

Icemyn wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Icemyn wrote:
Wrong.

The reason there is no permission to use BP on your opponents turn is that there exists no permission to use it on your own turn.

But there is Intent as they describe the behavior of the attacking ork. You are trying to parse 4th edition rules into a fake version of 5th edition RAW and claiming intent.

You can't claim RAW and parse 'exactly as if' and then turn and claim it was RAI. You can't only analyze part of a rule with RAW to get RAI either. That doesn't wash... The intent is painfully clear for this poorly worded 4th edition rule and you are trying to parse it with 5th edition RAW and fill in any blanks with personally advantagous results.

So either you accept the Rule does nothing or accept you can't make RAW arguments when claiming intent which means you can parse 'exactly as if' until your brain explodes and no one anywhere gives a crap because whatever you make up is RAI because RAW shows a broken, nonfunctional piece of gear and the true intent is also painfully clear for people not trying to gain a personal advantage.

Take a quick gander at my sig and you will note that I don't play Orks.
The fact that you think my argument has anything to do with some personal advantage is in fact insulting. That would be like me saying that you are only continuing your long winded arguments because you are unwilling to admit that you have no leg to stand on.

The fact that you perceive this to be painfully clear does not make you any less wrong. I am not making anything up you on the other hand are. I have only quoted RAW in a Rules forum. I'm sure you can find another forum somewhere where you can talk about your feelings.

@Happyjew: Its actually good to see that there are still people who can admit a bad argument. I didnt think they existed on dakka. The usual modus operadi is to just backpeddle and misquote rules until something sticks.

You haven't quoted *ANY* RAW as all arguments that the boardingplay can be used in any capacity have to be RAI by the very nature of it. The idea that you are somehow using RAW to parse 5th edition rules against a 4th edition codex and come up with the only painfully clear RAI is absurd.

And no one anywhere ever plays your intepretation and it had no way of ever working this way int he oprevious edition whcih basically shows intent like all the other 4th edition ork rules 'which do nothing' like Ghazghkulls 'waaagh movement' as now there is no such thing as 'waagh movement'.

You are the one who is misquoting and backpeddling until something sticks, especially when you had to actually MODIFY THE RULES QUOTE to make it RAW. Simply posting hundreds of times an hour doesn't make you right because none of your rules actually are RAW.


And to prove no one anywhere will ever play your interpretation: The wrecking ball,
ORK.93J.01 – Q: Can a Wreckin’ Ball be used in the opponent’s assault phase?
A: No [clarification].

The only ugrade which by RAW *COULD* work in the opponents phase has an INAT clarification that it cannot be used in the opponent's assault phase. The issue is GW FAQs often take a lot of direction from INAT and most major events and even minor trickledown events use INAT in whole or in part. and *EVERYONE* follow the wrecking ball interpretation... and everyone follows the same RAI for boarding planks.

No one attempts to do these shenanigans because the Ork codex is full of broken rules which need intent and we know how they were supposed to work from 4th edition and we simply choose to follow the 4th edition itnent than a broken 5th edition where they do nothing or are over the top.

So continue to argue what you like, the reality is:
*Most people assume that it can only be used on their own phase.
*INAT supports it can only be used on your own phase which does trickle down pretty far in official, unofficial and casual play.
*RAW does not support your position at all as most ork rules break if you apply RAW
*People if having a choice between an unfair overpowered or RAW not working, they choose RAW not working. Google deathrollers from 2007-2009.

Boarding planks do not work on the opponent's phase, or don't work at all. Those are the only two choices as any other intepretation becomes 'doesn't work at all'.

nkelsch wrote:

Icemyn wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Icemyn wrote:
Wrong.

The reason there is no permission to use BP on your opponents turn is that there exists no permission to use it on your own turn.

But there is Intent as they describe the behavior of the attacking ork. You are trying to parse 4th edition rules into a fake version of 5th edition RAW and claiming intent.

You can't claim RAW and parse 'exactly as if' and then turn and claim it was RAI. You can't only analyze part of a rule with RAW to get RAI either. That doesn't wash... The intent is painfully clear for this poorly worded 4th edition rule and you are trying to parse it with 5th edition RAW and fill in any blanks with personally advantagous results.

So either you accept the Rule does nothing or accept you can't make RAW arguments when claiming intent which means you can parse 'exactly as if' until your brain explodes and no one anywhere gives a crap because whatever you make up is RAI because RAW shows a broken, nonfunctional piece of gear and the true intent is also painfully clear for people not trying to gain a personal advantage.

Take a quick gander at my sig and you will note that I don't play Orks.
The fact that you think my argument has anything to do with some personal advantage is in fact insulting. That would be like me saying that you are only continuing your long winded arguments because you are unwilling to admit that you have no leg to stand on.

The fact that you perceive this to be painfully clear does not make you any less wrong. I am not making anything up you on the other hand are. I have only quoted RAW in a Rules forum. I'm sure you can find another forum somewhere where you can talk about your feelings.

@Happyjew: Its actually good to see that there are still people who can admit a bad argument. I didnt think they existed on dakka. The usual modus operadi is to just backpeddle and misquote rules until something sticks.

You haven't quoted *ANY* RAW as all arguments that the boardingplay can be used in any capacity have to be RAI by the very nature of it. The idea that you are somehow using RAW to parse 5th edition rules against a 4th edition codex and come up with the only painfully clear RAI is absurd.

And no one anywhere ever plays your intepretation and it had no way of ever working this way int he oprevious edition whcih basically shows intent like all the other 4th edition ork rules 'which do nothing' like Ghazghkulls 'waaagh movement' as now there is no such thing as 'waagh movement'.

You are the one who is misquoting and backpeddling until something sticks, especially when you had to actually MODIFY THE RULES QUOTE to make it RAW. Simply posting hundreds of times an hour doesn't make you right because none of your rules actually are RAW.

Wrong.
I have stated time and again that by RAW it does not function.
Yes I have said that RAI is the only way that BP functions. (Page 1, go look)
I am in no way interested in how things were played under 4th edition. Or do you believe that somehow we should use 4th edition combat resolution as well?
I never modified anything to make it RAW. I modified the BP rule by the minimum amount possible to make it function at all, at which point it works in both assault phases.
Maybe if you would read you would see that is what I have said several times now.
Please show one time where I misquoted something. Show me one time where I backpeddled.
Seriously go back and look its all there for your viewing pleasure.
Your argument about having to be able to disembark and assault failed by RAW. YOU are now backpeddling and trying to find ways to be correct.

And to your edit about the INAT.
INAT is not RAW and I'm sure you know carries no weight in this forum. Would you like to find some other non-RAW source to prove me wrong again? Seriously is it too much to ask from you that you maybe post rules in a rule forum?

Will you please show where in the Boarding Plank rules it gives you specific permission to be used in your opponents turn.

Every wargear item (except BP) that can be used in your opponents turn have specific permission to be used. Where is the specific permission for a BP to be used in your opponents turn?

Icemyn wrote:[ Would you like to find some other non-RAW source to prove me wrong again? Seriously is it too much to ask from you that you maybe post rules in a rule forum?

RAW proved you wrong plenty of times, you making arguments claiming to be RAW is your failure.

RAW is the only thing that matters, we have shown dozens of RAI which shows it should work this way and you come back with a bunch of half RAW arguuments which are not supported in any capacity.

You can't argue RAI without accepting there is no right answer, and the reality is if your RAI is too absurd, people will revert to RAW.

Your RAI is absurd and not supported by any rules anywhere which means people will not use it and revert to RAW.

Happyjew wrote:Will you please show where in the Boarding Plank rules it gives you specific permission to be used in your opponents turn.

Every wargear item (except BP) that can be used in your opponents turn have specific permission to be used. Where is the specific permission for a BP to be used in your opponents turn?

If you look back you will see my response to this argument.
I've answered this at least 3 times now.

Additionally, I just found out that the Wrecking Ball which needed no FAQ, has an INAT FAQ which keeps it from working in the opponents turn. I truly don't see why this was done. The WB only mentions the assault phase. There is other wargear that is worded to work in the assault phase that carries no controllers phase rules. Emyrean Brain Mines, Mindshackle Scarabs, etc these are both CC Wargear so maybe that is the difference I do not know. Both of these don't specifically state use in the opponents turn so by your logic they wouldn't work then, but we both know that they do.

If the argument is that 4th edition codexes only allowed things in the owners phase, then I don't have a counter argument to that nor do I have access to all 4th edition codexes to check.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

Icemyn wrote:[ Would you like to find some other non-RAW source to prove me wrong again? Seriously is it too much to ask from you that you maybe post rules in a rule forum?

RAW proved you wrong plenty of times, you making arguments claiming to be RAW is your failure.

RAW is the only thing that matters, we have shown dozens of RAI which shows it should work this way and you come back with a bunch of half RAW arguuments which are not supported in any capacity.

You can't argue RAI without accepting there is no right answer, and the reality is if your RAI is too absurd, people will revert to RAW.

Your RAI is absurd and not supported by any rules anywhere which means people will not use it and revert to RAW.

Just to be clear your stance is now that wargear use during the opponents turn is absurd?
Also please show me a time that I made an argument proved wrong by RAW. (I have shown yours)
And I could just as easily state your RAI is absurd and not supported by any rules anywhere. That is why its called RAI. If it was supported we could call it RAW.

Edit: If you would refrain from blanket statements that would be great, having some idea of what in particular you think is absurd or in question makes it a bit easier to debate.

Just to say it, I think you have a rather good point Icemyn. I do not, and have not read it that way, nor actually anyone else that has even asked about playing it that way.

But it is an interesting one, nonetheless.




(Note: I play only Tyranids, so this has absolutely zero bearing on any game I will probably play. But I guarantee someone will ask me about it.)

Icemyn wrote:

Just to be clear your stance is now that wargear use during the opponents turn is absurd?

If it said the assault phase like a wrecking ball, then it would be either assault phase potentially. It has to explicitly grant permission to be used in a phase for it to be used. If it doesn't say it doesn't actually function. The only way we even knwo it is used in the assault phase is because it claims to be piggy backing on close combat mechanics and it is also piggybacking on rules for assaulting.

If you can use it in your opponents assault phase, why not in your own movement phase? Why not your shooting phase? There are situations where rules can be explicitly given permission to function out of turn like BigBombs shooting happening in the movement phase... so you are tacking NO specificity of phase or time to mean any specificty in phase and time.

The rules are permissive and the rules give no permission.

Also please show me a time that I made an argument proved wrong by RAW. (I have shown yours)

you haven't made a single argument supported by RAW, all of your arguments are RAI by definition because like most of the rules in the 4th edition ork codex, the rules do not function by RAW.

And I could just as easily state your RAI is absurd and not supported by any rules anywhere. That is why its called RAI. If it was supported we could call it RAW.

Not so... see, Mine is conservative RAI which means when there is a spectrum of RAI, obviously some interpretations have larger advantages. Technically the RAi spectrum if you follow the 'it doesn't say I can't model is:

*Boarding plank does nothing
*Boarding plank works in your own assault phase
*Boarding plank works in both assault phases
*Boarding plank works in every phase anytime the player wishes to use it
*Boarding plank works in every phase anytime the player wishes to use it as many times as you wish to use it because it is not a 'real' assault. (and I have seen people make this argument)

One of these is RAW. One of these falls in line with the FAQ, the INAT similar wargear items, falls into line with how it worked when originally written in 4th edition and intended to work and is the most conservative application of a rule which is usually the 'friendly' implementation between two players is to use the least advantagous result.

So I see a distinct difference in array of absurdity between the second and third options.

Icemyn wrote:No I have clearly stated it doesnt work at all. Maybe you missed that?

No, I saw it, it does not make it correct. your statement is an incorrect statement.

Icemyn wrote:Also I note that you didn't show that that "as if assaulting" is assaulting.

What else could it mean?

As if you were assaulting means you act as if you were making an assault move, as that is the only way to initiate CC...

Icemyn wrote: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.

The rule grants permission to use it "As if you were assaulting" which we know is used in your assault phase, because that's when you can assault.

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

The rule actually allows you to use it on your own turn.

It never allows you to use it in your opponents turn, therefore that is the part of the rule keeps you from using it on your opponents turn.

DeathReaper wrote:

Icemyn wrote:No I have clearly stated it doesnt work at all. Maybe you missed that?

No, I saw it, it does not make it correct. your statement is an incorrect statement.

RAW BP does not work it has no trigger or timing that allows you to use it.
Please show how you think that it works.

DeathReaper wrote:

Icemyn wrote:Also I note that you didn't show that that "as if assaulting" is assaulting.

What else could it mean?

As if you were assaulting means you act as if you were making an assault move, as that is the only way to initiate CC...

As I have shown RAW Counter-Attack is as if assaulting and happens during the opponents turn.
We know that the CA unit is not making an assault move or inititating CC.
You really need to give up "as if" meaning is, it is entirely unsupported by RAW.

DeathReaper wrote:

Icemyn wrote: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.

The rule grants permission to use it "As if you were assaulting" which we know is used in your assault phase, because that's when you can assault.

I agree that we know it is in an assault phase, but see above as assaulting is not a requirement by RAW.

DeathReaper wrote:

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

The rule actually allows you to use it on your own turn.

Fun Fact: The BP Rules doesn't allow you to use it ever. It is a broken piece of wargear.

DeathReaper wrote:It never allows you to use it in your opponents turn, therefore that is the part of the rule keeps you from using it on your opponents turn.

IF BP works at all nothing in its rule precludes use in the opponents turn.

@nkelsh: At this point we both agree it does not work RAW. Our argument now is whose RAI is more absurd than the others. I would think we can agree that we won't reach an agreement on Intent.

Conservative RAI? Moderate Conservative RAI? Liberal RAI? There is no difference here in a rules forum its all just RAI. It cannot be proven one way or another. As it stands once you admit you are arguing RAI your argument can be no more correct than mine.
If you truly intended to use the least advantageous result that would be the RAW that it doesn't work at all.
Currently you are trying to show how your RAI is in some way more correct.

I have made arguments supported by RAW. "as if" not being is for one. My argument for BP working in the opponents turn is of course not RAW as the BP doesn't even work RAW.

Stop brining up Counter-Attack. It has specific allowance to work in your opponents turn. It hurts your argument, not supports it.

Icemyn wrote:

Icemyn wrote:No I have clearly stated it doesnt work at all. Maybe you missed that?

RAW BP does not work it has no trigger or timing that allows you to use it.
Please show how you think that it works.

Its right in the wording. you can use it if you are within 2" and act as if you were assaulting. you can only assault in your assault phase.

Icemyn wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Icemyn wrote:Also I note that you didn't show that that "as if assaulting" is assaulting.

What else could it mean?

As if you were assaulting means you act as if you were making an assault move, as that is the only way to initiate CC...

As I have shown RAW Counter-Attack is as if assaulting and happens during the opponents turn.
We know that the CA unit is not making an assault move or inititating CC.
You really need to give up "as if" meaning is, it is entirely unsupported by RAW.

Counter-Attack is as if assaulting and happens during the opponents turn because Counter Attack specifically says that it can be used when you are assaulted, and add +1 bonus to their attacks exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn.
your viewpoint here hurts your argument, it does not support it.

Icemyn wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Icemyn wrote: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.

The rule grants permission to use it "As if you were assaulting" which we know is used in your assault phase, because that's when you can assault.

I agree that we know it is in an assault phase, but see above as assaulting is not a requirement by RAW.

except that it is, as that is a condition of how the unit with the BP acts. you can only act as if assaulting on your turn, unless otherwise specified (Counter Attack specifies otherwise, BP does not).

Icemyn wrote:Fun Fact: The BP Rules doesn't allow you to use it ever. It is a broken piece of wargear.

Fun Fact: your statement is not true.

Icemyn wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:It never allows you to use it in your opponents turn, therefore that is the part of the rule keeps you from using it on your opponents turn.

IF BP works at all nothing in its rule precludes use in the opponents turn.

It does work, and it must specify that it works on your opponents assault phase, to actually work in your opponents assault phase. It does not say that it can be used in your opponents assault phase, so you can not use it in your opponents assault phase.

@Death Reaper: At the point where you truly believe that BP works within the rules I don't think we have anything to discuss. It never states when it can be used, does not have a trigger.
You need RAI to even assume that it means the assault phase.
At which point you are outside of RAW.

Counter-Attack has a trigger that allows you to be as-if assaulting not asaulting. IF it allowed you to be assaulting you would get furious charge.

Death Reaper: "Its right in the wording. you can use it if you are within 2" and act as if you were assaulting. you can only assault in your assault phase."

Also "right in the wording" is "disembarked" will you argue next that you can disembark in the assault phase?
Or that disembarked also has something to do with timing? You can only disembark in the movement phase thus BP works in the movement phase too?
Wow your interpretation gets better and better.

Not sure where you got this from: "Also "right in the wording" is "disembarked" will you argue next that you can disembark in the assault phase?"

#1: as if Disembarked, meaning past tense, meaning as if you are already out of the vehicle, it in no way gives permission to disembark in the assault phase.

#2: If you re-read the BP entry you can tell when it can be used.

This is because they say "As if the Ork was Disembarked and charging"

When can you charge? (No RAI needed at all).

That is why it works as written.

I do not know how you missed that part.

I could make an underhanded comment about your interpretation, but I will stick to discussing the rules, as the forum dictates. Thanks for the Jab BTW, it is noted.

DeathReaper wrote:Not sure where you got this from: "Also "right in the wording" is "disembarked" will you argue next that you can disembark in the assault phase?"

#1: as if Disembarked, meaning past tense, meaning as if you are already out of the vehicle, it in no way gives permission to disembark in the assault phase.

#2: If you re-read the BP entry you can tell when it can be used.

This is because they say "As if the Ork was Disembarked and charging"

When can you charge? (No RAI needed at all).

That is why it works as written.

I do not know how you missed that part.

I could make an underhanded comment about your interpretation, but I will stick to discussing the rules, as the forum dictates. Thanks for the Jab BTW, it is noted.

My point is obviously that in one breath you say that due to the word charging it dictates use during the assault phase only to ignore the preceding word disembarked as irrelevant.
If "as if" charging indicates timing and means actual assaulting then "as if" disembarking means actual disembarking. You can't have it both ways.

The wording is very clear in the BP it allows a single embarked ork to make CC attacks against a vehicle moving no faster than cruising speed. That is the requirement. The "as if" as I have stated before is only to show how the attacks are made not prerequisites to making them.

The timing for BP that we can imply has nothing to do with as if assaulting it has to do with when we make CC attacks and nothing else.

The Jab was to make light of the absurdity of what you are implying.

Except that it does not say "as if Disembarking" It says "As if Disembarked"

See how the past tense changes the meaning of the phrase from what you mistakenly think it says?

"The "as if" as I have stated before is only to show how the attacks are made not prerequisites to making them."

you are kind of correct with this.

The "as if" shows how the attacks are made. as if you are Disembarked (Meaning not embarked in the vehicle) and Charging. (A condition you are only allowed to achieve in your own assault phase.) If it is your opponents assault phase you can be 'Disembarked', but you can not be 'Charging'

I think that could only apply if it specifically said the ability could only be used in your own assault phase.

The special rule grants you the ability to do 2 things that you normally cannot do.

Assault while embarked on a vehicle which you cannot do otherwise without disembarking and to Charge (which we mean to be assault), in your opponents assault phase.

The Codex and specific case of the Boarding plank overrules the general case of the Assault rules.

But nothing in the Ork Codex gives specific permission to override the restriction on assaulting in your opponents turn.

DeathReaper wrote:But nothing in the Ork Codex gives specific permission to override the restriction on assaulting in your opponents turn.

INAT not withstanding a Wreckin' Ball does.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:But nothing in the Ork Codex gives specific permission to override the restriction on assaulting in your opponents turn.

INAT not withstanding a Wreckin' Ball does.

That is because the Wreckin' ball is worded differently.

The "Wreckin' ball" says it causes a hit on a vehicle within X inches "at the beginning of the assault phase"

Wording the Boarding Planks lack.

the BP lets a model make its close combat attacks as if charging.

I'm saying the Boarding Plank rule does give that permission as the rule does not mention any limits on phases.

The point of that post was to prove what you were saying wrong when you said "Nothing in the ork codex gives permission"

but remember at no time does the embarked ork initiate or participate in an assault. but it does get Furious Assault as if it was Assaulting but at no time is it doing so.

Except the ork acts "Exactly as if disembarked and charging"

You are not actually in B2B but you act as if you are assaulting, something you can not do on your opponents turn.