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.

I made it in general for the sake of the larger audience reading this. As has been noted there is a lot of discussion regarding this rule. Is it addressed by the INAT FAQ?

G

DaRealJDB wrote:
I'm surprised sniper scouts would scare your lootas. If you gave your lootas(x15) one turn to shoot at the scouts, it would give you 5 - 15 shots that wound on 2 and don't allow armor... even if they're in cover that's scary.

They don't need an armor save when they get a 2+ cover save from the MoF's "Bolster Defenses special rule + Camo cloaks.

With that list it makes me prioritize my targets: Do I want to go for the sniper scouts (who have a 2+ cover save) that will eventually probably pin my lootas? Or do I want to shoot down those two Land speeders which are rapidly approaching with their heavy flamers at the ready?

And yes, I realize that the INAT is not universally accepted - but as whitedragon pointed out I already mentioned that my group uses it to settle rules disputes. So it works for me.

EDIT: Sorry - didn't see the last post GBF.

Remember that for a larger audience, or if you go to tournaments, you probably won't need the INAT stuff to do it anyway...its pretty clear and specifically detailed in the rules and codex. I'm a big fan of using analogies, and here's one I'd use here if my opponent was telling me that the dreadnought is going to strike back against my orks.

I'd say, "Look, there are general rules that govern our behavior. As a general rule, your space marines get 3+ saves. There are specific things that negate that general rule. You typically put milk into a recipe for macaroni and cheese. If you get a recipe that doesn't call for milk, you don't add it anyway, and here's something in the rules that does the same thing - it calls for making attacks without initiating close combat."

But then again, I like analogies. =p

8 sniper scouts will do what - 2 wounds? 4 hits, 2 wounds. Hopefully you get cover saves. If you have more than 10 models left in the Lootas mob, they're Fearless. How are they pinning you?

Dashofpepper wrote:Remember that for a larger audience, or if you go to tournaments, you probably won't need the INAT stuff to do it anyway...its pretty clear and specifically detailed in the rules and codex. I'm a big fan of using analogies, and here's one I'd use here if my opponent was telling me that the dreadnought is going to strike back against my orks.

I'd say, "Look, there are general rules that govern our behavior. As a general rule, your space marines get 3+ saves. There are specific things that negate that general rule. You typically put milk into a recipe for macaroni and cheese. If you get a recipe that doesn't call for milk, you don't add it anyway, and here's something in the rules that does the same thing - it calls for making attacks without initiating close combat."

But then again, I like analogies. =p

What do the rules specifically say? Just curious.

G

Boarding Planks:

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 that neither vehicle has moved more than 12".

That's the rule for Boarding Planks. It tells the Ork player that it gets to attack a vehicle without disembarking and charging it, and to determine the Ork's strength, number of attacks, and initiative by using the same stats as if it were charging. It says nothing about vehicles attacking back, or combat resolution, or being locked into combat, or dreads attacking the trukk in return. The ork passenger makes his attacks on the passing vehicle, but remains a passenger of the vehicle.

In order for a dreadnought smacked with a boarding plank to attack the ork that's attacking it, you have to extrapolate the rules to include things that it doesn't say, and then under those tenuous conditions, you have to literally break EVERY rule of assault to let the Dread smack on the Ork, resulting in combat resolution that defies the rules. Take this for example: Nob with powerklaw attacks a dreadnought via a boarding ramp. If you're letting the dread get its attacks, The Dread would go first, and would inflict wounds on the Nob. Wound allocation lets the defender place wounds. However, the defending unit is embarked in a transport and isn't capable of being wounded until the trukk is destroyed. If you somehow agree on how to get around this problem, you either put the wound on the nob or on someone in the trukk. If it goes on an ork in the trukk, you get a model killed inside a trukk (illegal) and can end up losing combat resolution while embarked...forcing a CC morale (illegal). If it goes onto the Nob attacking the Dread, the Nob dies and doesn't get to attack the dread at all...in which case the boarding ramp is a useless piece of wargear...and if the boarding ramp has no utility, it wouldn't be in the codex and able to be put on a trukk.

The simplest answer is often the right answer, and the right answer here is to believe that the rules were written as intended.

"As if the Ork were disembarking and charging" sure sounds like close combat to me. Doesn't this army already have enough advantages?

G

However it says nothing about initiating an assault or close combat of any sort. If you believe that the rules are permissive, then there's really no basis for the Dread to be able to swing back.

Yes, the army has a lot of advantages. However, you have to get really creative with the rules if you try to take this one away.

Since it doesn't say the Ork is ever engaged, it sounds like the Dread doesn't get to attack. Otherwise, is the trukk engaged with the dread, which can't happen.

It's pretty damn powerful, but I don't know how else to play it.

And Orky advantages are the payment for waiting so long to replace a weak codex.

sourclams wrote:However it says nothing about initiating an assault or close combat of any sort. If you believe that the rules are permissive, then there's really no basis for the Dread to be able to swing back.

Yes, the army has a lot of advantages. However, you have to get really creative with the rules if you try to take this one away.

This is where RAW can go too far IMO. The Ork is obviously assaulting as we all know. It's not like the power klaw can shoot like a boom gun. For me the statement that he is charging is enough to know that he is assaulting. That is how I see it anyways.

G

If the Ironclad is not engaged/locked in combat then it gets no attacks. Otherwise you could simply remove any casualties from other models in the Ork mob and then you have a huge mess on your hands.

Face it, the Orks get a free attack with the Boarding Plank.

Green Blow Fly wrote:
This is where RAW can go too far IMO. The Ork is obviously assaulting as we all know. It's not like the power klaw can shoot like a boom gun. For me the statement that he is charging is enough to know that he is assaulting. That is how I see it anyways.

G

I agree, and as I recall, Spencer does too. GW simply never intended for it to be used against Walkers. However, that doesn't change that it certainly does exist, and that you have to do horrible things to the rules (Dreadnought kills Nob/Warboss, forces morale on Boyz(?)/Trukk(??), sweeping advances to kill the Boyz/Trukk???) to make it work to the tune of a more "reasonable" interpretation.

I guess I am lucky. The people I play who use orks are very reasonable.

G

I don't get it. The word "exactly" kind of sticks out to me. I guess it could be referring only to the orks attacks, and not the whole situation...but if the ork was making its attacks "exactly as if it was disembarked and charging" that would involve still being attacked back...EXACTLY like if it were disembarked and charging. Initiative would still matter, people could still attack back, etc. The only other way to make it actually reasonable here would be to disallow using it on walkers at all, not getting free attacks on walkers. It's not like walkers use the same CC rules as vehicles.

I'm not too worried about the other implications (morale, etc). You can't force a check on a squad in a vehicle - they don't tend to take morale checks in other situations, so no reason for them to here. And that eliminates the other problems, sweeping advance, etc. As people pointed out, no one is actually locked in any kind of close combat. But when you attack a vehicle that can hurt you (Walker...or tau vehicle with flechettes) you run the risk.

A very reasonable explanation of how the boarding plank works is as described in the Codex, which gives an Ork free attacks during the assault phase.

Just because someone is getting attacks during the assault phase doesn't make it assaulting. Psychic attacks happen during the shooting phase, but they aren't shooting - oftentimes, no saves are allowed, or they do special things like forcing leadership tests. Tau crisis suits get assault moves that aren't part of an assault. Whether they are in assault range or not, they still get to make an assault move 6" wherever they want to. Orks have a special piece of wargear that lets them make attacks on a vehicles in passing without exposing themselves to danger. Eldar have a thing that let them explicitly take assault moves after deep striking. Zagstruk can assault after deep striking, same turn. Space Marines get to deep strike some drop pods and dreads on turn 1.

All these examples are similar in that they are special, and do special things that circumvent the default rules; they're special rules. Every army has some. Specific to the boarding plank: Hardly anyone EVER takes boarding planks on trukks because in an all-purpose list, its not an effective use of points. Trukks hardly ever end up next to another vehicle, because they're pretty much a single-use transport. You pile some boyz in there and shoot it across the field as fast as possible hoping to gain some ground before the wheels get shot out from under you.

I've rarely had the opportunity to use a trukk as a mobile vehicle killer, even though I usually take at least *one* trukk with boarding planks just in case. The opportunities simply don't really come up. You might think that its overpowered to strike on a dread like that, but the chances of that scenario coming up are so slim that it balances itself. =p

In this particular case, if he wants to build a list specific to taking down dreadnoughts that deepstrike along his back lines, then it works to keep KoS up and running without having to try another army list.

I never said it was too good, or that people would use it normally.

Listing a bunch of actual exceptions doesn't make this one an exception in this case.

Just because it says you get your attacks exactly as if you're charging IN NO WAY eliminates attacks back from whatever you've attacked. Either we think exactly means:

"everything is the same for this one attacking model"

or we think it means

everything is the same for this combat between the target and the one attacking model".

I don't have my codex here, but if the rule as quoted here is the total of the rule:

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 that neither vehicle has moved more than 12".

Then I think it's basically at best ambiguous. If you're taking your close combat attacks against an enemy WALKER (vehicle) exactly as if you were charging and disembarked...well part of that experience for a normal, disembarked, charging ork involves getting attacked first in initiative order by a scary walker.

Anyway it's a pointless argument if it's already in the INAT faq. Unfortunately my gaming group insists on using it. Luckily none of them actually read it, they just bring it up for rules dispute so the few unreasonable rulings never get used because no one thinks it could be true when reading the codex.

Just because someone is getting attacks during the assault phase doesn't make it assaulting.

Classic if ever I saw one there.

G

Of course, the other option, which maybe RAI, is that you can only use it to attack vehicles without a WS. That solves a lot of problems. I can't recall, but isn't there some other items that only work on vehicles without a WS?

GBF - I thought you were a beardy powergamer! I'm disappointed in you, arguing to be 'reasonable' and not advocating the most extreme OTT interpretation. I'm disappointed in you!

Dashofpepper wrote:Boarding Planks:

In order for a dreadnought smacked with a boarding plank to attack the ork that's attacking it, you have to extrapolate the rules to include things that it doesn't say, and then under those tenuous conditions, you have to literally break EVERY rule of assault to let the Dread smack on the Ork, resulting in combat resolution that defies the rules. Take this for example: Nob with powerklaw attacks a dreadnought via a boarding ramp. If you're letting the dread get its attacks, The Dread would go first, and would inflict wounds on the Nob. Wound allocation lets the defender place wounds. However, the defending unit is embarked in a transport and isn't capable of being wounded until the trukk is destroyed. If you somehow agree on how to get around this problem, you either put the wound on the nob or on someone in the trukk. If it goes on an ork in the trukk, you get a model killed inside a trukk (illegal) and can end up losing combat resolution while embarked...forcing a CC morale (illegal). If it goes onto the Nob attacking the Dread, the Nob dies and doesn't get to attack the dread at all...in which case the boarding ramp is a useless piece of wargear...and if the boarding ramp has no utility, it wouldn't be in the codex and able to be put on a trukk.

The simplest answer is often the right answer, and the right answer here is to believe that the rules were written as intended.

This is a compelling argument. I have yet to see anyone deal with the contradictions dashofpepper has identified above. If the only way you can deal with the above contradictions is to wing it or make up your own rules then you are causing more damage to the rules than is caused by allowing the nob to attack without being hit back.

olympia wrote:

This is a compelling argument. I have yet to see anyone deal with the contradictions dashofpepper has identified above. If the only way you can deal with the above contradictions is to wing it or make up your own rules than you are causing more damage to the rules than is caused by allowing the nob to attack without being hit back.

Agreed. Plank rules say the nob swings and says nothing about being hit back.

The lack of anything about the nob being attacked back could just as easily be assumed to imply you can't attack walkers at all - "Vehicles and assaults" and "walkers and assaults" are two different pages in the rulebook, with different sections.

Other rules can be used to imply that units embarked in vehicles don't take morale checks (casualty or no), such as when Aun'va dies for the Tau. If a guardsman in a small squad dies from rapid firing his plasmagun out of a chimera, does his unit fall back? Is there no rule?

Plank rule doesn't say "the nob swings", it says he attacks exactly as if he was disembarked and charging. Just because GW didn't cover an obvious case is not an argument for anything - it's just another example of GW failing to cover all the situations in their rules.

frgsinwntr wrote:

olympia wrote:

This is a compelling argument. I have yet to see anyone deal with the contradictions dashofpepper has identified above. If the only way you can deal with the above contradictions is to wing it or make up your own rules than you are causing more damage to the rules than is caused by allowing the nob to attack without being hit back.

Agreed. Plank rules say the nob swings and says nothing about being hit back.

The rules don't either state the Ork nob can attack models with WS.

G

The ork rules don't NEED to say that an Ork can attack someone with a WS. They say any vehicle. Dreadnoughts ARE a vehicle. When you say ALL vehicles, you don't need to make a list of what all vehicles comprises...its contained in the inclusion of all or any.

I agree...but that doesn't change the fact that the general result of attacking a walker or a vehicle is different, and has different rules. Anyway, again I feel it's more a question of what you think "exactly" refers to here. The lack of rules for what happens if the nob loses is meaningless. So he dies and they don't test and drive past cradling his head in their laps as he sputters "Kill...one...for...da...'gip ork". Wouldn't be the only situation where a dude can die in a vehicle.

Dash do you happen to play orks? Just curious?

G

dietrich wrote:
GBF - I thought you were a beardy powergamer! I'm disappointed in you, arguing to be 'reasonable' and not advocating the most extreme OTT interpretation. I'm disappointed in you!

Whatever made you draw that conclusion?



G

Well if you read the entry, there is no reason to assume that the Dread can fight back.

The Nob gets to attack the Dread from up to 2" away. There is no model in BtB with the Dread, so it has no one to fight. Sure it seems a little cheesy that plank let you hit something 2" away without bieng in BtB, locked in assault, or able to be attacked back...but hey, orkz are ingenious at things like that

The same thing with the wreking ball or grabbing claw. All 3 can be used 2" away...from the item, which already sticks out off the side of the truck/wagon. All 3 are great ways for orkz to be a pain, without putting themselves in too much jeapardy!

My only question about upgrades is the grabbing claw. It sticks out past the truck (about 2") then it can keep a vehicle within 2" of the claw (about 4" total from the hull of the truck/wagon) to keep the target vehicle from moving at all in their next turn...so, can you use the grabbing claw to keep a Dread from assaulting your truck/wagon, if you were close enought to it to use the claw at the begining of your opponents movement phase?

It's really getting very deep in here.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Dash do you happen to play orks? Just curious?

G

I dabble with them, but I'm a Tau player. My wife plays Orks, so I borrow hers sometimes to try something new.

Alerian wrote:but hey, orkz are ingenious at things like that

Exactly!! Ork vehicles getting to travel an extra inch simply for being painted red doesn't make sense either does it? But it works!!

And according to most ork fluff, most of the stuff they put together (weapons, vehicles, teleportation devices) make absolutely no sense. The Imperium hasn't been able to make any ork technology work because it simply falls apart or won't start.

Ork stuff doesn't need to make sense to YOU. Da boyz jus needs to believe it workz for it to work Waaugh!