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.

Kilkrazy wrote:There you go then!

He attacks as if he were in close combat, he gets hit by the flechettes, and tries for a save.

No, because he isn't in close combat. He's attacking as if he was, without actually doing so.
He's not in close combat. 'Attacking in close combat' requires that you actually be attacking while in close combat.

Like I said, it comes down to whether you believe the statement "exactly as if doing X" should incur the same effects as "doing X".

I personally believe it does, however if my opponent does not, then the nob should not benefit from Furious Charge, since he's not charging (and hence be S8 w/ a power klaw). Not that it matters that much, but consistency is consistency.

Gorkamorka wrote: 'Attacking in close combat' requires that you actually be attacking while in close combat.

...or be following a rule that treats you as if you are doing so.


If the model is attacking as if in close combat, then it is making close combat attacks. If not, you don't have a mechanism to use to actually make those attacks.

The boarding plank allows the attacking ork to make close combat attacks... exactly as if the ork were disembarked and charging.

I can't understand how there is any wiggle room here, without deconstructing the entire game and pre-defining every single word.

I'm an ork player. I'd take the hit.

"... 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."

To me the wording of this rule allows an embarked model to strike a vehicle as if engaged in close combat without actually being engaged in close combat. This is a specific exception to the normal close combat rules, and without an equally specific exception allowing the the vehicle to strike an embarked mode that is not in base to base contact, then I don't see how the embarked model could be affected.

If the rules stated - "... allows a single embarked Ork to assault an enemy vehicle within 2" exactly as if the Ork were disembarked and charging." Then I'd agree that he was actually in close combat and the dischargers would work.

@Frenzy: That logic doesn't work. The FD doesn't require you to be assaulting. It requires that you attack in close combat. There's a difference, as you've pointed out.

The only argument against FD working is IFF "making close combat attacks exactly as if disembarked and charging" is NOT "attacking the vehicle in close combat."

and we'll all have to agree to disagree and this certainly isn't the first time this question has come up. just like with whether marneus calgar gets an extra attack for the gauntlets of ultramar or whether models with wings get to deep strike, there is no answer that will ultimately prove one side indisputably correct.

FC will always work, because the attacks are made as if he were charging. So he gets to attack as if he were charging. So he gets FC. The enemy does not get to attack as if he were charging, so it doesn't.

Pika_power wrote:FC will always work, because the attacks are made as if he were charging. So he gets to attack as if he were charging. So he gets FC. The enemy does not get to attack as if he were charging, so it doesn't.

If you're saying that FC works, but FD doesn't, that's a double standard if I've ever heard one. FC states "add +1 to both I and S when attacking in close combat"... FD states "any model attacking the vehicle in close combat will be wounded on a D6 roll of 4+"

If you argue that the plank's "make close combat attacks exactly as if he were disembarked and charging" equates "attacking in close combat" and therefore triggers FC, then ergo it should also trigger FD, since the wording of both rules is identical as far as the trigger ("attacking in close combat").

Also, FD isn't an attack. It just states that attacking models suffer a wound on a certain roll. It bypasses the standard method for fighting in close combat.

*Note: I'm fine agreeing that the wording for the boarding plank makes it arguable (for some) that the FD doesn't work, I'm just pointing out that the same logic applies to Furious Charge.

No, I support the FD damaging the ork. He's making close combat attacks. He's not disembarked and charging, but FD doesn't do anything with that. It attacks if you hit it in CC.

My apologies. I misinterpreted your post.

TBH I really shouldn't care. I play neither Tau nor Orks.

I'd still argue that being allowed to make your close combat attacks as if you were in close combat isn't the same as attacking in close combat.

I mean, there's a world of difference between a beautiful woman and someone dressed as if a beautiful woman

Frenzy wrote:I'd still argue that being allowed to make your close combat attacks as if you were in close combat isn't the same as attacking in close combat.

You are wrong.

Aramoro

Frenzy wrote:I'd still argue that being allowed to make your close combat attacks as if you were in close combat isn't the same as attacking in close combat.

I mean, there's a world of difference between a beautiful woman and someone dressed as if a beautiful woman

Like this one?

Frenzy wrote:I'd still argue that being allowed to make your close combat attacks as if you were in close combat isn't the same as attacking in close combat.

I mean, there's a world of difference between a beautiful woman and someone dressed as if a beautiful woman

Since the codex states that it actually is exactly the same, I don't see the point of the rules lawyering.

"Beautiful woman" is also a subjective interpretation of a womans appearance, and I'd argue you're not using the same wording in your example as the codex does (the woman would look "exactly the same" not "dressed the same"). Yes, there's a difference, you're not required to disembark and inflict a tonne of movement restrictions on the vehicle for two turns, for instance.

Oh, and I'd also argue that NOT being hit with the flachette is against the spirit of the rules (which is one of those "it's RAW but at the same time it's not RAW" statements)

Frenzy wrote:I'd still argue that being allowed to make your close combat attacks as if you were in close combat isn't the same as attacking in close combat.

I mean, there's a world of difference between a beautiful woman and someone dressed as if a beautiful woman

He is not disembarked, nor is he charging, but he is indeed making close combat attacks against the vehicle, and should hence suffer the effects of the Flechette Discharger.

No, they do not work. If they did work, then Dreads would be allowed to swing back (which they aren't).

@Killkrazy A good reason to be careful on a night out

@Mahtamori

"Exactly the same" and "exactly as if" are significantly different statements. And my codex states "exactly as if".

If you want a different example along the same lines without any subjective interpretation then we could compare a post op transsexual to a genetically born woman. (this is starting to get odd isnt it...)

One was born a woman, one appears exactly as if they were born a woman. However if you were to have sex with both of them there would only be a risk of getting one of them pregnant, because despite having sex with a transsexual exactly as if they were born a woman there is a difference.

This is the same situation with the close combat attacks. While I am performing my attacks as if I was in close combat, but I not actually "..attacking the vehicle in close combat.." as required by the FD.

The spirit of the rules? as in RAI? ...impossible to say.

Gwar! wrote:No, they do not work. If they did work, then Dreads would be allowed to swing back (which they aren't).

They are totally different cases. For a dreadnought it's not an assault no attacker or defender stages so he doesn't get a chance to attack. In this case the Flechette Discharger just care if you are making a close combat attack, it doesn't care how you get there, only what you are doing. Boarding Plank lets you make a close combat attack , so Flechette Discharger will hit you. You make a Close combat attack as if whatever but that doesn't matter really.

Aramoro

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frenzy wrote:I'd still argue that being allowed to make your close combat attacks as if you were in close combat isn't the same as attacking in close combat.

I mean, there's a world of difference between a beautiful woman and someone dressed as if a beautiful woman

Like this one?

That's a trap?!

Pika_power wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frenzy wrote:I'd still argue that being allowed to make your close combat attacks as if you were in close combat isn't the same as attacking in close combat.

I mean, there's a world of difference between a beautiful woman and someone dressed as if a beautiful woman

Like this one?

That's a trap?!

If thats a trap, Id gladly spring it. Dammit KK you screw with everyones minds posting that stuff


Im on the side of if you use a boarding plank to assault a Tau vehicle with the dischargers, then that mini takes the hits from the dischargers. Arguing about weather or not its EXACTLY THE SAME or SIMILAR is just ridiculous. Read the damn sections on how both work. When you use a boarding plank, your assaulting with one model plain and simple. If your using flachette dischargers, then it works against models assaulting the tank. Whats the argument here now? The nob will probably crush the tank, and has a half ass chance of losing a wound. End of story

@Aramoro

Thats not quite right the FD requires someone to be "..attacking the vehicle in close combat" not just making close combat attacks which is all the plank allows.

@King

I think you need to read the relevant sections yourself if you think the model has jumped off the transport, performed an assault, and is now in base to base. Or is there another type of assault that I don't know about that your claiming the model has performed?

KingCracker wrote:
Im on the side of if you use a boarding plank to assault a Tau vehicle with the dischargers, then that mini takes the hits from the dischargers. Arguing about weather or not its EXACTLY THE SAME or SIMILAR is just ridiculous. Read the damn sections on how both work. When you use a boarding plank, your assaulting with one model plain and simple.

Uh... no, you're not. The fact that half a dozen posters seem intent on ignoring the actual wording of both rules or changing it to fit their definition makes it pretty hard to argue back.

Read boarding plank. Now read it again.
Now tell me how making close combat attacks (the thing the ork does) as if you had assaulted (which you didn't and don't) is the same as actually assaulting or initiating a real close combat. Or why a dread wouldn't swing back with your modified wording.

Now read the flechette rule.
Now tell me how a model who is never actually involved in a close combat with the vehicle is 'a model attacking the vehicle in close combat'. Not 'making close combat attacks' as everyone keeps claiming, but attacking while in close combat with the vehicle.
A close combat is an engagement defined in the ruleset which the ork never enters into.

It's painfully clear, if you actually read both rules closely, that the RAW ruling is that the flechette launchers can't fire back. I don't care how you would play it, which half the posters seem to be arguing since they can't back up their points with rules or change the text at will.

@KingCracker: That's a man, not a woman, just FYI.

@GorkaMorka: How can he make a close combat attack on the vehicle if he's not making a close combat attack on the vehicle? It says, literally, that he's doing it "exactly" as if charging. The Flachette doesn't care if the model is in base to base contact, only that you make a CC attack on it.

Err... I should probably add, that when I argue, I argue based on the rules I can read here since I don't own, nor would have access to, a Tau codex at work.

Mahtamori wrote:
@GorkaMorka: How can he make a close combat attack on the vehicle if he's not making a close combat attack on the vehicle? It says, literally, that he's doing it "exactly" as if charging. The Flachette doesn't care if the model is in base to base contact, only that you make a CC attack on it.

Did I say he wasn't making close combat attacks? Making close combat attacks doesn't trigger the flechettes, attacking the vehicle while in close combat with it does. You aren't in a close combat with the vehicle, you never assault it.

He's making attacks, as if he were charging. So... that means he's not actually charging, he's just making his attacks as if he had charged but without doing so.
It's really not rocket science. It's the entire functionality of the plank that you get to make CC attacks without ever actually assaulting or entering close combat.

Isn't the entire purpose of the boarding plank to not have to disembark, charge, and then re-embark? I mean, the wordings are perfectly clear that the purpose and rules are that the orc on plank actually does charge. Not getting stuck in CC with a dread is a huge side-benefit (was that even intended?), but being completely inviolate of re-active countermeasures?

Gwar! wrote:No, they do not work. If they did work, then Dreads would be allowed to swing back (which they aren't).

The dreadnought doesn't get to swing back because it relies on a different rule.

A model gets to attack in close combat if it is engaged. The dreadnought is not, and so can not attack.
Flechette Dischargers fire if the model that has then is attacked in close combat. The model with the FD's being itself engaged is not required by the rule.

We really need to define, 'in close combat'. If you attack with close combat attacks, you are attacking in close combat.

Pika_power wrote:We really need to define, 'in close combat'. If you attack with close combat attacks, you are attacking in close combat.

Funny, because I thought you were 'attacking in close combat' if you were 'attacking in close combat'.
Which the nob isn't, he never enters into a close combat with the vehicle.

That's how the boarding plank works. The nob gets to make close combat attacks without actually disembarking, charging, assaulting, entering close combat, or anything else. He just gets to make his close combat attacks. He is not 'fighting a close combat' as defined by the rules.

So does he get Furious Charge?