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.

ChrisCP wrote:Whoa whoa whoa there - the boarding plank makes it quite obvious one has the perks for this 'close combat' your speaking of, without actually being in combat.

Same with FD if this quote is accurate "Any model attacking the vehicle in close combat..." quite clear it must be in close combat.

Treated 'As If' is in no way the same as being in close combat. Otherwise that language would have been used.

Not to mention this stinks of the while "Doesn't my walker get to strike back at the nob" episode.

so for the orks you can use a loosy goosey interpretation of what they're allowed to do and how all their rules interact but for the tau you use a strict one? the tau rules don't say "attacking the vehicle in close combat in a normal round of close combat in the assault phase initiated by a charge". it simply says in close combat; if you're using *gasp* a close combat attack, you're "in" close combat. you're not in a locked combat in the assault phase. GW could clarify this easily but until they do you have to use the same level of strictness in interpreting both rules.

Some further musings on my earlier concept.

I just realised, very similar wording is present for the swarmlord / DE wyches.

Swarmlord: "The Swarmlord has a 4+ invulnerable save in close-combat."

Wyches: "They recieve a 4+ invulnerable save whist fighting in assault"

It's my view that anyone arguing the Flechette launcher would not function would also deny both of these saves, correct?

Arguably, the Wyches wording is far enough away so as to deny them the save anyway (although I don't think that is RAI) because they aren't fighting an assault properly, but I think the swarmlord should by RAW be entitled to his save against any close combat attacks directed against him.

I think the boarding plank is clear that while you don't resolve a full assault, the ork's attacks are resolved as though he disembarked and assaulted the enemy model.

I guess I see the point that people are making, and it's an issue with the poor definition of the phrase "in close-combat" which came up with the Swarmlord with regards to potentially being able to claim a 4+ invulnerable save against scattering blasts etc. when he is engaged in an ongoing melee.

Either way I'm sure any ork opponents I have will come around to my view on the RAI once I point out that a Boarding plank can't be used once either vehicle involved in the action has moved over 12" (cumulatively) in the game.

Cptn. Waaagh! wrote:Armour saves, not wounds, are allocated, and by the controlling character.

So no, the flechette discharger doesn't target the Nob specifically.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yup, sorry, you're wrong. The flechette discharger affects the specific model attacking the Tau vehicle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drunkspleen wrote:I think the boarding plank is clear that while you don't resolve a full assault, the ork's attacks are resolved as though he disembarked and assaulted the enemy model.

Exactly.

With, of course, the caveat that he's not actually engaged with the enemy vehicle... he's just making his close combat attacks against it.

So, the FD works, because it is triggered by a model making a close combat attack against the vehicle.
This is different to the walker issue... walkers don't get to attack back because they're not engaged with an enemy model.

My nob is wearing an Av10 trukk or an Av 14 BW as armor. What save value would you put that as to save against the flechette wound?

The Ork is allowed to "make its close combat attacks".

The FL works.

For the flechette launcher you actually roll for each model attacking, so if 4 orks and 1 nob with a pk attacked, you would roll for the 4 orks with 4 dice and the 1 nob with another separate dice.

If your hitting a vehicle in close combat that had flechettes, it gets a 4+ roll to try to wound you, and you get an armor save. Is this really worth fighting over? Most attackers will have 2 wounds anyway by this method. Just take a few plastic bits to the face and destroy the vehicle already.

The boarding plank is basically allowing the unit to attack a vehicle in close combat, ignoring the normal rules that "one cannot assault while in a vehicle" The unit is still assaulting the vehicle, it even stays so in the wargear description.

Well, I don't know anything about wounds from a flechette launcher, but I still think there are problems with models embarked taking wounds from a flechette discharger

Why? What's the problem with it?

juraigamer wrote:For the flechette launcher you actually roll for each model attacking, so if 4 orks and 1 nob with a pk attacked, you would roll for the 4 orks with 4 dice and the 1 nob with another separate dice.

If your hitting a vehicle in close combat that had flechettes, it gets a 4+ roll to try to wound you, and you get an armor save. Is this really worth fighting over? Most attackers will have 2 wounds anyway by this method. Just take a few plastic bits to the face and destroy the vehicle already.

The boarding plank is basically allowing the unit to attack a vehicle in close combat, ignoring the normal rules that "one cannot assault while in a vehicle" The unit is still assaulting the vehicle, it even stays so in the wargear description.

'As if'

4 attacks that need 6's to hit (unless the vehicle is immobilized, in which case you ram it, is hardly a guaranteed thing. Repeat that 2-3 times, and you could have a dead nob.

I've always viewed BP as a way to let orks bring their most effective anti-tank weapons into play from the safety of a vehicle, there's nothing quite so fun as popping a transport and losing 1/5 of your squad from the resulting explosion, followed up by being shot to death and finished off in assault.

I've chased a vehicle around at 12" a turn for three rounds and done no damage to it because I couldn't get the 6's to hit. It's usually a rare case, because you drive up and whiff on the hits, and the other vehicle has a melta in it.

If you take away the protection the BP offers from the only two vehicle damage options in the game, then what point is there to take them? (I pushed for, and got consensus in the local group that BP's can not be used against vehicles with a WS value.)

Kroot Loops wrote:Well, I don't know anything about wounds from a flechette launcher, but I still think there are problems with models embarked taking wounds from a flechette discharger

There are also problems with models embarked having melee attacks against other vehicles...

There are also problems with psychic powers that can cripple armies without psychic defense, or that IoM psyker power by far out range Tyranid psychic defense. That's what special rules in codices do though... they present special rules that allow you to do things you normally can't. Marker lights, Disruption pods, target locks, multi-trackers, blacksun filters... any of these sound familiar?

Boarding plank defends against two things for an army that's t4, BS 2 and 6+ saves. Really, if Ork vehicles are that close to your Tau Vehicles, you probably have much bigger problems than boarding planks.

So Orks have a special ability that allows them to attack vehicles while embarked... and Tau have a special ability that allows them to potentially hurt an Ork using that special ability.

Not exactly game-breaking. This doesn't make the BP suddenly useless. It simply means that one particular army has a defence against it.

no where in the FD entry (I'm looking at it) does it allow it to wound an embarked unit 'as if' it were disembarked. And yeah, it does kind of make the BP useless. I say it's payoff if the vehicle actually makes it to the Tau, instead of suffering railgun/MP/Fusion gun loving like it should have.

Then your horde of lightly armored Orks take flechettes to the face as the charge through the explosion of shrapnel, rather than driving through said shrapnel in an armored vehicle.

Kroot Loops wrote:no where in the FD entry (I'm looking at it) does it allow it to wound an embarked unit 'as if' it were disembarked.

It doesn't need to. It affects a model attacking it in close combat.

The Ork is making close combat attacks, and so is hit by the flechette discharger. The fact that the ork is embarked in a vehicle is irrelevant, because the FD doesn't follow the usual targeting rules for shooting or close combat.

insaniak wrote:

Kroot Loops wrote:no where in the FD entry (I'm looking at it) does it allow it to wound an embarked unit 'as if' it were disembarked.

It doesn't need to. It affects a model attacking it in close combat.

The Ork is making close combat attacks, and so is hit by the flechette discharger. The fact that the ork is embarked in a vehicle is irrelevant, because the FD doesn't follow the usual targeting rules for shooting or close combat.

In that case, if we are going by strict RAW and not RAI, then the Nob was never moved into base contact with the vehicle and is not in CC.

Which brings it down to whether or not you think that 'making close combat attacks' is effectively the same as 'attacking in close combat'

Personally, I think it is. YMMV.

Edit: See above.

Kroot Loops wrote:no where in the FD entry (I'm looking at it) does it allow it to wound an embarked unit 'as if' it were disembarked.

it doesn't have to. see that part that says close combat? if you're doing stuff in close combat (which the ork is), you get to wound on a 4+.

See that part dealing with CC in the BRB? Step one is moving models into base combat. That doesn't happen. The Boarding plank is essentially a firing port for a Power Klaw.

Kroot Loops wrote:See that part dealing with CC in the BRB? Step one is moving models into base combat. That doesn't happen. The Boarding plank is essentially a firing port for a Power Klaw.

And the Flechette Discharger is effectively an attack back when struck with a close combat attack.

This is why I both love and hate this forum. A Dread that has the ability to rip a BW in half can't respond against a BP attack, but a anti-infantry explosion can. I'll just agree to disagree then.

If the ork is making Close Combat Attacks, The FD is resolved before every attacking model swings. Thus 1 power claw swinging, 1 FD.

No where in the tau codex under the FD does it say they have to be in B2B, you can TRY to assume that it implies it, but the sad reality for the people trying to argue against the FD, is that it doesnt say it, so you can't stop it from happening. the FD goes off before the ork swings. the reward for your swings way out weighs the risk of the FD killing something


the ork, has a SPECIAL ill admit, close combat attack. But it is still a close combat attack. thats why it goes off.. because "Close Combat Attack"

insaniak wrote:So Orks have a special ability that allows them to attack vehicles while embarked... and Tau have a special ability that allows them to potentially hurt an Ork using that special ability.

Not exactly game-breaking. This doesn't make the BP suddenly useless. It simply means that one particular army has a defence against it.

QFT.

While a bit unusual, the interaction seems fairly clean and intuitive to me.

Kroot Loops wrote:See that part dealing with CC in the BRB? Step one is moving models into base combat. That doesn't happen. The Boarding plank is essentially a firing port for a Power Klaw.

see that part of the board plank that says you resolve the attacks as if the model charged? step one is resolved but it's a moot point. using the normal combat rules to justify something in a discussion about two vehicle upgrades THAT IGNORE MOST OF THE NORMAL CLOSE COMBAT RULES is pointless. the only reference we have is the wording of the rules themselves; the plank says you make close combat attacks and the discharges works on models making those types of attacks. it really is that simply and not game breaking.

This is really cut and dry, the nob is attacking a vehicle in melee, though not really being in melee, he is treated as if he were normally disembarked and charging. Plastic flies.

Drunkspleen wrote:

And the Flechette Discharger is effectively an attack back when struck with a close combat attack.

Actually the flechette discharger happens before the enemy models get their attacks, as per what it states in the codex.