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.

GBF - give it up, it IS incredibly clear that the walker does not get to hit back, as you are unable to demonstrate anything coherent showing otherwise. The Ork is *not* in btb as a) the model physically isnt (it is still not on the board) and b) nothing tells you to treat the model as being in btb in all respects.

Without a) or b) you *cannot* state that the walker gets to make its attacks. YOu might *want* the walker to, or think it is unfair for it not to be able to, however that is entirely irrelevant on a discussion in rules.

Flingitnow - you have erroneously assumed that "Troops" == "Troops FOC selection" - context tells you that it is not necessarily the Troops Choice, as you cannot infer it from the capitalisation. In fact usage throughout the book tends to the opposite interpretation, that of any non-vehicle, non-MC unit that can be a Troops, Fast Attack, elites...etc - there is no distinction made. Context is everything.

Additionally you CAN make attacks without being considered to be "Assaulting" (In ref charging) - it is simply an ongoing combat at that point. By being allowed to make your "Attacks", which are defined as being used in close combat, you are given permission to attack in close combat. The "as if charging" would, if you allowed charging == assaulting, simply allow for the benefits of assaulting to apply.

Flingitnow - you have erroneously assumed that "Troops" == "Troops FOC selection" - context tells you that it is not necessarily the Troops Choice, as you cannot infer it from the capitalisation. In fact usage throughout the book tends to the opposite interpretation, that of any non-vehicle, non-MC unit that can be a Troops, Fast Attack, elites...etc - there is no distinction made. Context is everything.

Fair enough

Additionally you CAN make attacks without being considered to be "Assaulting" (In ref charging) - it is simply an ongoing combat at that point. By being allowed to make your "Attacks", which are defined as being used in close combat, you are given permission to attack in close combat. The "as if charging" would, if you allowed charging == assaulting, simply allow for the benefits of assaulting to apply.

OK I see your point.

GBF - give it up, it IS incredibly clear that the walker does not get to hit back, as you are unable to demonstrate anything coherent showing otherwise. The Ork is *not* in btb as a) the model physically isnt (it is still not on the board) and b) nothing tells you to treat the model as being in btb in all respects.

From the walker gets to attack camp they've never statede how those attacks are resolved and that is the puzzling thing for me. they say this is how they want the rule to work but then won't tell us how that plays out. To me that smacks of trolling...

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.

I'd never played 40k before 5th edition. Before this topic, I hadn't even considered that charging wasn't the same thing as assaulting - _ -

I do own a 2nd ed rulebook, a 3rd ed rulebook but I haven't really read the rules for either. Also own an old WHFB (5th ed?) rulebook, I guess they might have used charge there.

Eitherway, it's not so much a logical leap as it is a natural assumption...

I'd never played 40k before 5th edition. Before this topic, I hadn't even considered that charging wasn't the same thing as assaulting - _ -

I do own a 2nd ed rulebook, a 3rd ed rulebook but I haven't really read the rules for either. Also own an old WHFB (5th ed?) rulebook, I guess they might have used charge there.

Eitherway, it's not so much a logical leap as it is a natural assumption...

You own loads of old rulebooks and have an old FB one that all refer to charging so for you it is obviously not going to be a logic leap. At my local store I am often involved with teaching new players and interacting with new players and those that have no knowledge of 4th ed generally give me a blank expression and have no idea what I'm talking about...

Not only not stating how to resolve them (do you assume you can only hit the Nob, for example?) but also dont give any reasno other than "its broken!!!" as to *why* the walker should get attacks.

Trolling it most definitely is.

do you assume you can only hit the Nob, for example?

Exactly along with how to do resolve wound alocation and combat result. What hapopens if the Orks are forced to flee...

Saying they can attack back just opens a huge can of worms that is not resolvable in the rules. Which to me tells you RAI this is not how it is supposed to work. Likewise RAW is pretty obvious...

This is a RAW discussion commonsense does not apply

I've thought that about almost any protracted RAW discussion.

Given your stance on common sense, I bet I know the answer, but do you think TPTB, who have stated they made the Ork codex with 5e in mind, intentionally created rules that don't function in the 5e?

Ghazgkhull's waaagh and charge bonus, boarding planks, etc...?


The only 'leaps' I'm seeing are coming from posts that try to compare 3e wargear with 4.5e wargear as a cogent argument.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Resolve" is used in the normal sense of the word-- to take to a conclusion, work through a process, etc...

Combat Resolution is the term you're probably faux-concerned about. There is no combat resolution... but close combat attacks are still resolved.

The way I see it is the Boarding plank allows an Ork to attack using rules outside of the normal assault phase rules (i.e. not being in base contact) It don't not allow any "special" rules to the target model (i.e. walker whatever) So the walker would have to adhere to normal assault rules (i.e. being in base contact, etc) so I would and do say no the walker doesn't attack back. It least that the way I see it and the way I think GW wanted it to be.

Nowhere in the rules does it state the walker cannot assault and we know that counter attack comes into play... Nice try though.

kartofelkopf wrote:

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...).

Given your stance on common sense, I bet I know the answer, but do you think TPTB, who have stated they made the Ork codex with 5e in mind, intentionally created rules that don't function in the 5e?

Ghazgkhull's waaagh and charge bonus, boarding planks, etc...?


The only 'leaps' I'm seeing are coming from posts that try to compare 3e wargear with 4.5e wargear as a cogent argument.

RAW is not concerned with any of this. RAW is about the rules as they are written not as the developer intended. I don't play RAW or claim that RAW = The rules. It is impossible to play pure RAW and RAI is always more important than RAW, RAW is just atool to determine the rules from the written text.

"Resolve" is used in the normal sense of the word-- to take to a conclusion, work through a process, etc...

Combat Resolution is the term you're probably faux-concerned about.

I'm not concerned about combat resolution, I was concern with how you resolve eth attacks. i.e. how do you determine the to hit roll and damage roll an dthe effects of that damage and how many attack sthe model makes with no direction as to what system you are using. You can't use the assault system because you are not in an assault nor are you attacking as if in an assault...

However I had missed that you can resolve close combat attacks as detailed in the assault section so that part of the argument has been solved by Nosferatu.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Nowhere in the rules does it state the walker cannot assault and we know that counter attack comes into play... Nice try though.

I'm sorry, permissive rules system - show PERMISSION for the walker to assault. We know the Ork has special permission to assault while not being in base to base, no where is there permission for the Walker to hit a unit (the boyz) they are not in base to base with (I will ignore the within 2", as that does nto apply to units of 1 model)?

"it doesn't say I can't" is complete rubbish, and you know it.

Oh and sorry - Counter Attack? Um, no. That is when you MAKE an assault MOVE, not when you get to "make your attacks as if...."

Please post some actual *rules* to support your argument, otherwise you are still trolling the thread.

Well here is a situation to make this worse

Boarding plank used against a Tau vehicle w/ flechette, goes off before any models attacking the vehicle are resolved. Can it still hurt the guy in the truk making the attack? I think a resounding Yes.

Definitely and the walker should counter charge. These are the most conservative interpretations.

G

Definitely and the walker should counter charge.

So how do you resolve this? What happens? Why won't you answer this simple question about how you think the rule should work?

It's because the ork is inititaring an assault.

G

so how do you resolve the process? What happens?

Green Blow Fly wrote:
The rules for the plank don't state the ork is not BtB.
...
If it is an assault then the walker can also hit.
...
Nowhere in the rules does it state the walker cannot assault and we know that counter attack comes into play... Nice try though.
...
Definitely and the walker should counter charge. These are the most conservative interpretations.
...
It's because the ork is inititaring an assault.

G

Is there a reason you keep posting stuff like this without any rules backing at all? Because it's quite wrong, as has been explained at least 20 times now and in multiple threads.

Your argument is unsupportable, is based on ridiculously large leaps beyond the text of the written rule, and would be basically unplayable even if it were supported. Let it go.

I havecprovided detailed step by step instructions and even asked for people to agree/disagree with each step.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:It's because the ork is inititaring an assault.

G

Wrong. The Ork is making its attacks on the vehicle as if it were disembarked (and charging). Nowhere does it say the Ork has initiated an assault. Find a rules reference to prove your statement, or give up.

Have you read all the thread?

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

Sorry, the ork has been given explicit permission to make his CC attacks without needing a full combat being initiated.

If it is an assault then the walker can also hit.

No... The rule is allowing a single embarked Ork make his CC attacks. It is not initiating an assault or a full round of combat or combat resolution.

Nowhere in the rules does it state the walker cannot assault and we know that counter attack comes into play... Nice try though.

The walker is free to assault... on his turn... Into the trukk, not the embarked models. There is no 'counter attack' as the rules do not allow it. Rules are permissive.

Definitely and the walker should counter charge. These are the most conservative interpretations.

No. The most conservative interpretation is to execute the Ork's attacks without the bonuses of +1a and +1s. You are defining 'conservative' as what is most beneficial to the walker player which isn't true. And there is nothing that allows a 'counter charge' within the rule.

It's because the ork is inititaring an assault.

Actually, the Ork is only making his CC attacks. He is not assaulting and there is no round of combat or combat resolution. The rule is only executing a sub-part of the whole 'close combat' ruleset.

You are trolling, and across multiple threads.

I havecprovided detailed step by step instructions and even asked for people to agree/disagree with each step.

Not that I've seen. so what happens? Here are my questions:

What order do the attacks take place in?
Does the Ork count as initiating assault?
Who does the Walker attack?
How do you resolve wound allocation for the Walkers attacks?
How do you resolve combat resolution after all attacks?
How do you resolve the Orks fleeing if they lose combat and fail their morale check?

So what you are saying is one rule allows you to ignore a lot of other rules. Right?

G

FlingitNow wrote:

I havecprovided detailed step by step instructions and even asked for people to agree/disagree with each step.

Not that I've seen. so what happens? Here are my questions:

What order do the attacks take place in?
Does the Ork count as initiating assault?
Who does the Walker attack?
How do you resolve wound allocation for the Walkers attacks?
How do you resolve combat resolution after all attacks?
How do you resolve the Orks fleeing if they lose combat and fail their morale check?

Almost none of these questions matter, as the answer to the second one is 'No'.
Simply making your attacks as if you were assaulting (as the rule calls for) is not the same as actually initiating a full assault with all participants. Stop encouraging him.

Green Blow Fly wrote:So what you are saying is one rule allows you to ignore a lot of other rules. Right?

G

Actually the opposite.

The special rule for the vehicle upgrade only allows the players in the game to break the minimum number of rules required to resolve what the upgrade tells us that it does.

The normal rules require two units to be in base contact, and for one of them to initiate an assault on another, for any attacks to be made.

The boarding plank specifically grants permission for one model in the ork unit to resolve a set of attacks against a vehicle, but does not grant permission for an actual assault to be initiated. And it does not grant permission for any other models (such as the target) to throw any attacks.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
What Flingitnow is trying to point out to you is that if you INFER that an actual assault is being initiated, you wind up with a whole lot of unanswered questions, because neither the normal rules nor the vehicle upgrade tell us how to work out a combat in which none of the models involved are in contact with one another, and in which one side is embarked in a vehicle. The fact that such a mess is created by that interpretation/inference should be a clue that it’s not correct.

No one answered what i said about the flechette either

Almost none of these questions matter, as the answer to the second one is 'No'.

I'm aware of this I just want to understand how he thinks the rules work as he's yet to even explain that. He's explained why because he's choosing to define the Ork making his CC attacks as a full blown assault so I'm just asking him how he imagines that would pan out. The result is that you have to break/make-up a whole load more rules to even attempt to get his interpretation to work...

Ragnar I disagree with your premise. You are also stating that one rule allows you to ignore a lot of other rules. The rule in question nowhere states it overrides any other rules.

G

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

N
N (RAW) Y (RAI)
N (RAW) Y (RAI)
Y
Y
N

No one answered what i said about the flechette either

It is a bit trickier the rules states "any model attacking the vehicle in close combat will be wounded on a d6 roll of 4+."

To me that implies it would effect the Ork Nob as usual and that could cause other problems but I'd say RAW that works.

Green Blow Fly

Still refusing to answer how you'd resolve your proposed interpretation I see. I think we can all conclude from that, that you are indeed trolling...