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.

Does the boarding plank assault work at all in 5th ed. The reason being that the models resolves it's attacks as if charging but charging is not covered in 5th ed. so what attacks does the model make? Does he get 1 attack? All his normal attacks? All his normal attacks +1? All his normal attacks +10?

How do you resolve attacks from a charging model in 5th ed.?

It doesn't Work RaW, the same way Frag Assault Launchers and Berserk Charge do not work.

Given the way the last thread went, I'm happy to let this one continue only so long as people are willing to discuss it seriously.

Which doesn't mean you (the generic 'you' referring to anyone inclined to be a nuisance) can get it locked by posting drivel... Spam posts will be dealt with as normal. Keep it civil and on-topic, folks.

Cheers Gwar I'm with you on this one unless someone has a counter argument?

Please note this is not meant as a how you would play it discussion, or what the actual rules are but what the RAW is.

Well, RAW, you're right-- 'charging' doesn't exist as such on 5e.

However, this is not the RAW forum-- it's YMDC, and one of the aspects of the forum is How You Would Play It.

So, while worshiping at the RAW altar is well and good, RAI and, from my experience, RAP allow boarding planks to function properly by making the astounding logical leap of replacing the 4e term 'charging' with the 5e terminology "making an assault move."

As often seems the case in these situations, RAW types seem to go out of their way to 'break' a rule by replacing a common sense reading with a willful literalist interpretation.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this approach makes the game unplayable as the BRB doesn't tell us how to properly roll a die, move a model (do I drag it along, pick it up and place it down, put it on a tiny cart?), etc.

The point of this rant is trying to limit a discussion to pure RAW is neither the intent of this forum, nor particularly constructive towards finding a solution to a rules question-- especially a question that is contrived to begin with.


EDIT for spelling

kartofelkopf wrote:However, this is not the RAW forum-- it's YMDC, and one of the aspects of the forum is How You Would Play It.

The specific question being asked, however, was to do with RAW.

Nothing to do with 'worshipping RAW'... just asking what the RAW actually is in this situation.

The point of this rant is trying to limit a discussion to pure RAW is neither the intent of this forum, nor particularly constructive towards finding a solution to a rules question-- especially a question that is contrived to begin with.

The intent of this forum is to provide a place for people to discuss the rules. Asking for purely RAW interpretations on a rule is no less valid than asking for how people actually play it.

Please leave the moderation to the moderators.

FlingitNow wrote:Cheers Gwar I'm with you on this one unless someone has a counter argument?

Please note this is not meant as a how you would play it discussion, or what the actual rules are but what the RAW is.

But what would be the discussion then? You've identified imprecise wording in the codex vs. the updated rulebook and so as it stands the rules do not function as written.


Of course in these situations to say simply that the 'RAW' do not allow anything the ability to be used, or to say that the Warp Field on the Doom of Malan'tai 'does nothing' by the RAW isn't an entirely correct way to say it, IMHO.

Because the expectation of anyone playing a game is that a rule (i.e. an item) will have some sort of meaning or use. So when rules are updated making an upgrade effectively useless because its rules no longer present a clear way to use the item, then the 'RAW' are anything but 'clear'...quite the opposite, they are unclear.

Because there is an expectation that rules in a game should indeed do something, it is entirely reasonable for players to simply assume that the wording is supposed to be whatever the most logical similar solution would be.

While 'charging' may not be in the current assault rules, even a new player picking up the game would tend to interpret 'charging' to mean 'initiating assault' without a second thought because the word 'charging' has the same meaning in the real world.


So yes, by the RAW the boarding plank may not have completely workable rules, but that's really just a position to accept and note but never bring up as in the real world 99% of the people you meet will read that rule and come to the same conclusion on how it should be played even though the term 'charging' may not be in the current rulebook.



P.S. -- oh and looking at the actual rule in question, it still would WORK as the Ork would still count as getting to make its attacks as if engaged, its just that you wouldn't get the +1 attack, as 'charging' isn't defined. So yeah, I'd agree that by the strict 'RAW' (that will never be used in an actual game) the Ork would get to use his basic attacks but wouldn't get the +1A bonus for initiating assault.

yakface wrote:P.S. -- oh and looking at the actual rule in question, it still would WORK as the Ork would still count as getting to make its attacks as if engaged, its just that you wouldn't get the +1 attack, as 'charging' isn't defined. So yeah, I'd agree that by the strict 'RAW' (that will never be used in an actual game) the Ork would get to use his basic attacks but wouldn't get the +1A bonus for initiating assault.

This is actually what I meant by "it doesn't work". It does have an effect, but it doesn't "work" like it is supposed to.

And I disagree Yak about the new players understanding that they are one and the same. Out of all the younglings I have taught, every single one has asked me what charging meant as some point.

Yeah I'm with Gwar people that have never seen previous editions wouldn't necessarily work out what charging related to.

I often get funny looks from kids when I use 2nd Ed. wordings (like Charging, unmodifiable save etc).

The point is that on a previous thread people where going crazy over planks against walkers claiming that walkers should get to attack back (though no one offered how on earth you'd resolve such attacks). I was just wondering if someone wanted to be TFG over RAW on something what the counter argument would be.

A bit like lots of people think the Doom shouldn't effect units in transports though they clearly are by RAW. I mean an Eldar Farseer in a Wave Serpent isn't immune to a Psychic hood is he? So they say well if you're going by RAW then the Doom doesn't get his 3++ save. So you have to trade off. Personally I think the rules are supposed to be that he does effect transported units and he gets the 3++ but I'm certainly not convinced enough to put money on it.

So here we go Ork player decides to be cheesy and attack a tank behind 1.5" thick wall by driving past the other side or expects to hit my dread with impunity. I just wanted to know where I stood from a RAW perspective if I felt he was abusing the rules.

basically ensuring you know what you can pull out of the hat if someone is being TFG. In general I'll let my opponent be fairly liberal with his interpretations of the rules to gain himself a benefit as long as he's not taking the p... But as I said I just wanted to know what position I was in if someone was being TFG.

So now people who want attack backs by walkers want to simply have the rule do nothing? Fun!

Here is the rule since people like to add words and terms from other rules in thier own interpretation:

"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"."

Regardless of the definition (or lack there of ) of the action 'charging' the first part of the rule still functions.

Remove the word 'charging' assuming it is a non-functional FLUFF description and this is what you have:

"allows a single embarked ork to make its close combat attacks against an enemy vehicle within 2" exactly as if the ork were disembarked, provided neither vehicle has moved more than 12"."

You may still make your close combat attacks as we have such a thing in 5th edition. So Minimally this rule still functions like the ork had a flying 'hard knuckle' P-fist from mega man 3. The only sacrificed is the +1A and +1Str.

So I would say Strict RAW, the ork still gets his close combat attacks from range, But the movement limitations of the vehicles and any penalties from disembarking apply.

So 3 Attacks at default I and weapon strength which if he has a Pk is STR 8. Roll to hit based upon opponents movement distance or targets WS. No combat is resolved, simply the embarked Ork's attacks.

Now if people assume CHARGE=ASSAULT then the +1A for assaulting and +1S for furious assault kick in... but it is still not a round of combat and has no reason to be resolved as such. Simply make the embarked orks attacks.

So now people who want attack backs by walkers want to simply have the rule do nothing? Fun!

I don't want attacks back! Having the walker attack back just throws up too large a can of worms to even consider. I mean who does he attack? How are wounds resolved? What if the unit inside the trukk loses combat? etc etc etc.

The rules are clear the Ork makes his attack and there is no leg room for attacks back and no way to resolve them even if you decide to throw that in.

Now if people assume CHARGE=ASSAULT then the +1A for assaulting and +1S for furious assault kick in... but it is still not a round of combat and has no reason to be resolved as such. Simply make the embarked orks attacks.

Yes I agree.

However the point here is:

"allows a single embarked ork to make its close combat attacks against an enemy vehicle within 2" exactly as if the ork were disembarked,"

Exactly as if the Ork were disembarked. Well if the Ork were disembarked he wouldn't get any attacks would he? He'd only get those if he assaulted, was assaulted or was locked in combat. Hence he resolves his no attacks as he's not given permission to resolve then in any manner (i.e. as if assaulting, being assaulted or locked in combat).

insaniak wrote:
Please leave the moderation to the moderators.

Aye, aye.

My response was going to be along the same lines Yak's already addressed: this thread isn't looking for a discussion at all, as the RAW is stated, and there's not much to be said about it past that.

I was just trying to point out that RAW is not particularly useful here, and that a new player stumbling upon this thread would not be helped much at all. Someone with a legitimate question about how Boarding Planks worked would not be better off with a pure RAW thread on the subject.


As for dealing with TFG-- 'if you can't beat them, join them" seems the wrong approach to take... but that's a separate discussion altogether.

As for dealing with TFG-- 'if you can't beat them, join them" seems the wrong approach to take... but that's a separate discussion altogether.

Well it depends on how tired/patient I'm feeling at the time...

Having this sort of answer back can often stop them in their tracts and at least start a dialog going rather than having them state RAW until they are blue in the face...

If you feel this topic has no merit why bother posting on it at all?

Having them state RAW til -they're- blue in the face...? Isn't that what this thread is intended to do?

I'm posting in this thread as I do in any thread where a rule is being addressed from a (IMHO) limited, RAW-only approach. RAW isn't the game. RAP is the game, and that necessitates a RAI approach to understanding many game mechanics.

If the intent of the forum is to answer and debate rules questions, then a RAP answer should always be welcome. If someone came to dakka as a tabula rasa player, I think we (in the 40k community sense of the term) should give them the best answer possible. In this case, that answer is not RAW. It's nice to know what strict RAW is, and I honestly appreciate GWAR!'s approach to rules... but it's not the whole of the game.

So some of us can agree that charging means the ork is initiating an assault. When a unit assaults a vehicle you roll to hit based upon the distance the vehicle moved. When a unit assaults a walker you to hit based upon WS. We also know that in assault the units hits versus the front armor of a walker, not the rear. If it is an assault then the walker can also hit. To me it's just that simple.

G

If it is an assault then the walker can also hit. To me it's just that simple.

How do you resolve those hits?

Who does the walker attack back? What happens with combat resolution? What happens if the embarked unit loses combat and fials it's morale check? Do you strike at normal I value? Does the Ork count as assaulting?

FlingitNow wrote:Yes I agree.

However the point here is:

"allows a single embarked ork to make its close combat attacks against an enemy vehicle within 2" exactly as if the ork were disembarked,"

Exactly as if the Ork were disembarked. Well if the Ork were disembarked he wouldn't get any attacks would he? He'd only get those if he assaulted, was assaulted or was locked in combat. Hence he resolves his no attacks as he's not given permission to resolve then in any manner (i.e. as if assaulting, being assaulted or locked in combat).

Stop injecting the word 'RESOLVE' the rule does not say 'resolve' anywhere and the way you use it implies combat.

He doesn't need to be in combat because the rule says he doesn't. It says only make the attacks. It does not say resolve a round of close combat. Resolving close combat implies a whole lot of additional things. All it is doing is selecting a very focused sub-section of combat and executing it. nothing else.

The whole point of pointing out the 'disembarked' is that disembarking has no impact in any way on close combat for the most part except int he case of some grenades, where assaulting does as it gives +attacks and other effects.

I do not see how disembarked then implies resolve a full round of combat and all the aspects of it... and I also don't see where you *MUST* have full combat to make close combat attacks. THis specific rule grans the permission for the close combat attacks to be made without resolving combat or being locked in assault.

Green Blow Fly wrote:If it is an assault then the walker can also hit. To me it's just that simple.

Then there should be no problem, since it's not an assault, and the rule never says anything to make it one. The rule allows the ork to make close combat attacks WITHOUT being in an assault - note the us of "as though". There is no close combat, there is simply a rule allowing a model to do something in a situation where it usually could not; in this case, the ork can make close combat attacks even though it is not in close combat.

Then by what you say this is broken.

G

nkelsch wrote:The whole point of pointing out the 'disembarked' is that disembarking has no impact in any way on close combat for the most part except int he case of some grenades, where assaulting does as it gives +attacks and other effects.

nkelsch, you have it correct, I just want to add one thing: The "exactly as if the Ork were disembarked" is there to allow the Ork to make his attacks at all, since the rules require models to be in BtB with an enemy model or within 2" of at least one model in their unit that is in BtB. Boarding plank bypasses this by stating that the Ork can make its attacks regardless of being embarked and therefore not in BtB. Just nitpickin' here.

The rules for the plank don't state the ork is not BtB.

G

The rules for an Ork Trukk don't state that you can't pick it up, make 'pew pew pew!' noises, then sweep your opponents models of the table with your hand, either. What's your point?

The model doesn't physically disembark, it just behaves as though it did for that assault phase. It doesn't count as 'locked in combat' for starters, as the trukk can simply drive away in it's next movement phase. If the attacking model was in BTB, it wouldn't be able to disengage.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Then by what you say this is broken.

If that's your opinion, you're perfectly entitled to play it otherwise, assuming your opponent agrees.

To be honest, I don't see why being able to hit walkers with impunity is really any different to being able to hit any other sort of vehicle. Yes, ordinarily the walker would get a return attack... but I don't see that in itself making the rule 'broken'. There are easy counters to it.

Albatross wrote:The rules for an Ork Trukk don't state that you can't pick it up, make 'pew pew pew!' noises, then sweep your opponents models of the table with your hand, either. What's your point?

I'm gonna have to do that. To me the RAI is that whatever ork decides to dangle himself off the board gets to have all his attacks +1 for assaulting (charging ) while leaving either a broken or confused target in his wake. A side not for those who read this in the fluff it works this way because the ork believes it should .

I think there is some value to recognizing how some players might perceive this hidden attack on a walker as being a cheap trick. Sure it should be easy to recognize and prevent but on the other hand I can appreciate that there are people that might not see it coming. Everyone here in favor of it uses a trukk to illustrate their examples but it could also be a battlewagon (correct me if I'm wrong). Honestly I don't believe it's a clear cut case you can do it by RAW, I know most people disagree with this opinion of mine... So be it. To me the rule was not completely thought out and would have been better served if there had been a little bit more verbage to deal with planking a walker.

I rarely ever use any walkers outside my daemon army so you might wonder why should I even care. I spelled that out above in the first paragraph.

So now let's walk through the various steps for planking a walker and see what we can agree upon:

* The ork counts as initiating an assault. Y/N
* The ork does not gain +1 attack. Y/N
* The ork does not benefit from furious charge. Y/N
* The ork hits the walker based upon WS, not movement. Y/N
* The ork automatically hits the front armor of the walker. Y/N
* The walker can hit back. Y/N

G

I've managed to find a refernce to charging in the 5th rule book, page 74 under counter attack ".....counter-attack the charging enemy." It goes on to say about the +1 attacks but interestingly says "exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn."

So form this I feel we could conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the two terms are exchangable as far a GW is concerned?

ChrisCP wrote:I've managed to find a refernce to charging in the 5th rule book, page 74 under counter attack ".....counter-attack the charging enemy." It goes on to say about the +1 attacks but interestingly says "exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn."

So form this I feel we could conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the two terms are exchangable as far a GW is concerned?

Fluff is not rules. End of Discussion.

Gwar! wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:I've managed to find a refernce to charging in the 5th rule book, page 74 under counter attack ".....counter-attack the charging enemy." It goes on to say about the +1 attacks but interestingly says "exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn."

So form this I feel we could conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the two terms are exchangable as far a GW is concerned?

Fluff is not rules. End of Discussion.

where is the fluff? he's quoting from the rules section, not the stories and army descriptions chapters. he's quoting RAW; just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it any less RULES, AS, or WRITTEN.

Green Blow Fly wrote:

So now let's walk through the various steps for planking a walker and see what we can agree upon:

* The ork counts as initiating an assault. Y/N
* The ork does not gain +1 attack. Y/N
* The ork does not benefit from furious charge. Y/N
* The ork hits the walker based upon WS, not movement. Y/N
* The ork automatically hits the front armor of the walker. Y/N
* The walker can hit back. Y/N

G

The ork counts as assaulting (charging = assaulting, by way of common sense, edition continuity, and the terminology in counterattack that ChrisCP pointed out). So, +1 A, +1 S. The ork's attacks are worked out as if he were charging (making an assault move), so against regular vehicles, rear armor and hit Auto, 4+ or 6+ depending on movement. Against a walker, front armor and WS to hit. Since only the Ork is permitted to make attacks, the walker does not swing back.

Everyone's all stuck on the BRB system. See also "is the Mawloc's attack a shooting attack or a CC" and this debate.

The BRB shows normal shooting and normal cc. In this case, we're given something that uses some of the CC rules (assaulting, WS/vehicle speed, armor facing, etc...) while not using some of them (btb, 'locked,' both sides striking, etc...).

The ork counts as assaulting (charging = assaulting, by way of common sense, edition continuity, and the terminology in counterattack that ChrisCP pointed out).

This is a RAW discussion commonsense does not apply and ask someone who's never played before 5th Ed what a charge is and they won't be able to tell you. The exact quote from counter attack is:

"Troops with this skill beleive that attack is always the best form of defence. If assaulted they will spring forwrad themselves and ferociously counter-attack the charging enemy.

To represent this,..."

If you are claiming the first paragraph is anything other than fluff then ONLY Troops choices can use counter attack and still as "charging enemy" is not defined or even strongly implied, that section has no bearing on charging = assulting.

He doesn't need to be in combat because the rule says he doesn't. It says only make the attacks. It does not say resolve a round of close combat. Resolving close combat implies a whole lot of additional things. All it is doing is selecting a very focused sub-section of combat and executing it. nothing else.

You are so hung up on the word resolve that I've "injected" thinking that I'm implying combat. OK how do you work out hios close combat attacks? How do youi determine how he hits and what damage he makes given that you do this as if he is disembarked but not engaged, assaulting or assaulted.

You can't it only works if you make the logical leap charging = assaulting and then you can make the attacks as if in combat, without something telling you to resolve those attacks using the assault rules you can't use the attacks.

Lets just accept that some peices of wargear are useless in the new edition. Like for instance command and control nodes for Tau, a whole bunch of stuff for Dark Eldar.