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.

Green Blow Fly wrote:As far as INAT FAQ this is another example of them shafting SM in general. It's not like the nob calls the dread over, opens a hatch then punches it from inside the trukk.

G

While I don't agree with your thinking on the rules or on INAT shafting SM in general (the Orks got their share) the visual of a Dread peering into an open hatch and getting poked in the eye is amusing.

That was my first impression on hearing about this boarding plank vs walker question. Walkers are a confusing blend of infantry and vehicle rules, but in assaults, the walker is invariably treated more as an infantry unit than as a vehicle. The only time vehicle rules apply is when damaging the walker.

I would think the boarding plank shouldn't work for the same reason it wouldn't work on a Monsterous Creature. It assaults (and is assaulted) like infantry.

Unfortunately the rules dont agree with you.

The walker is, and always (probably..) will be, a Vehicle. It is a special vehicle, yes, however if you try to state this somehow makes it immune then so are transport vehicles - they are different to normal vehicles.
Oh, and Skimmers should be immune, after all they are VERY different! And what about Fast vehicles? They fire really differently...

So no, Dreadnoughts are a) hit as any other vehicle, except with comparison to WS, and b) dont get to hit back.

That is the only way that a) follows the rule, and is b) is *simple*

The Adepticon FAQ has already ruled on this. Walker does not hit back. Doesn't necessarily make sense, but here's the reality: if you don't stop the walker, it rips the living **** out of your trukk next turn, so there is some risk to the maneuver. 4 PK attacks do not guarantee dead walker by any means.

LeperMessiah wrote:The Adepticon FAQ has already ruled on this.

...which applies to games using the Adepticon FAQ, but (and with no disrespect intended to those responsible for it) doesn't actually mean anything anywhere else.

Home-brew FAQ's, no matter how widespread they are, do not constitute actual rules. They're clarifications for the sole purpose of simplifying the house rule process for those who agree to use them.

insaniak wrote:

LeperMessiah wrote:The Adepticon FAQ has already ruled on this.

...which applies to games using the Adepticon FAQ, but (and with no disrespect intended to those responsible for it) doesn't actually mean anything anywhere else.

Home-brew FAQ's, no matter how widespread they are, do not constitute actual rules. They're clarifications for the sole purpose of simplifying the house rule process for those who agree to use them.

QFT

They are no more offical(ie, from GW) than anything posted on this forum.

jbunny wrote:They are no more offical(ie, from GW) than anything posted on this forum.

Errm, I beg to differ.

Doesn't make your FAQ official Gwar, just means that GW chose to side with you in their official FAQ.

Would be nice to see an errata from GW changing the wording to "non-walker vehicles" as that really does make more sense and causes less confusion but I'm not holding my breath.

Ozymandias wrote:Doesn't make your FAQ official Gwar, just means that GW chose to side with you in their official FAQ.

No, if they had answered the same as me, then it would be them choosing to side with me.

Down right copying of the FAQ down to the exact word is a whole other story.

I was going to post, but I decided (5 to 7 against) not to.

If the boarding plank allowed the Nob to make its attacks against an infantry unit, rather than a vehicle, otherwise using the same phrasing, it would still not create an assault.

The units are not engaged in combat, by any definition used in the rules. Wargear makes specific exceptions to the rules, and it’s a terrible idea to infer extra consequences into this than the minimum necessary to make the wargear work. The nob is allowed to make his attacks “as if” he were in an assault and charging. He does not actually charge. He is not actually in an assault. Therefore no other rules of an assault apply, because the wargear does not specifically say they do, and because the situation does not create an actual assault.

Does he count as charging then (+1A, +1S)?

Doesn't it explicitly say so in the text of the rule?

"...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..."

Sorry, the way I read your previous post it sounded like you were saying he wouldn't. Upon rereading, I can see what you're saying.

40kenthusiast wrote:I'll join the throng. Boarding plank isn't CC, you bop them with the PK and the walker can't swing back.

so it is a psychic shooting attack and does you have to roll to hit it?

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:If the boarding plank allowed the Nob to make its attacks against an infantry unit, rather than a vehicle, otherwise using the same phrasing, it would still not create an assault.

The units are not engaged in combat, by any definition used in the rules. Wargear makes specific exceptions to the rules, and it’s a terrible idea to infer extra consequences into this than the minimum necessary to make the wargear work. The nob is allowed to make his attacks “as if” he were in an assault and charging. He does not actually charge. He is not actually in an assault. Therefore no other rules of an assault apply, because the wargear does not specifically say they do, and because the situation does not create an actual assault.

I have no clue where you are going with this. It's obvious to me the rule was written intended to attack vehicles not dreadnaughts. What you have postulated has no real basis since we do not know what was intended and a RAW solution is pure fail.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I have no clue where you are going with this. It's obvious to me the rule was written intended to attack vehicles not dreadnaughts.

For starters, Dreadnoughts are vehicles.

But would you care to explain why it's obvious?

What you have postulated has no real basis since we do not know what was intended and a RAW solution is pure fail.

We don't need to know what was intended, as the RAW works just fine. The model using the boarding plank makes an attack as if he was charging.

Green Blow Fly wrote:]

I have no clue where you are going with this. It's obvious to me the rule was written intended to attack vehicles not dreadnaughts. What you have postulated has no real basis since we do not know what was intended and a RAW solution is pure fail.

G

It's obvious to me that I should win on a 2+ with rerolls. Where are you going with this?

The RAW saying I cannot win on a 2+ is fail.

Gwar! wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:Doesn't make your FAQ official Gwar, just means that GW chose to side with you in their official FAQ.

No, if they had answered the same as me, then it would be them choosing to side with me.

Down right copying of the FAQ down to the exact word is a whole other story.

- Edit by moderator. Let's stick to the topic, and leave discussion of Gwar's home-brew FAQ to its own thread, please -

I do agree with the nob attacking and the dread not attacking.

I have a similar problem, but with one difference

1. have a group of boys in a battlewagon with a PK wielding nob /w a boarding plank
2. Im 2" away from a dreadnought, but this dreadnought is locked in CC with another mob

Can I make this attack?
My understanding of the rule says yes cause I can still assault the dreadnought even if it is locked in combat. If there are any objections please say so.

Im actually in the middle of the game right now. My opponent went to work for 4 hours. So I'm looking for an answer.

edit: wording

Yes, as long as you can get within 2"

* sniff sniff *

I smell a troll...

G

I smell a painful question.

I say you can, because you are not actually disembarked and charging, the attacks are only made as if you were.

I smell I thought they locked this thread.

I smell.

of rum?

Can we get an answer for the question?

You can always call the rules boyz.

G

Well I got no objections to it.. I was just reading over this thread and I got my answers. Just didn't see anything about the walker being in CC. Thought I'd ask.

Thx! Now im off to kill a dreadnought.

I can only say to this last question... I'd call absolute BS.

Not based upon any rules mind you, but simply because I would find myself filled with such rage I would be incapable of stopping myself from doing the stompy crush dance of doom on my opponents miniatures after flinging them and the table into the air and choking-to-unconsciousness my opponent.

This is just another example of Ork cheese. Technically is it legal? ....ehhh yeah.

However, if it visibly inspires a ridiculous degree of discord and visceral loathing there's a good chance something needs to be done and maybe, just MAYBE GW should get off its @$$ and fix it.

Once again though, per RAW.. it is what it is.

Technically it breaks the existing rules and would be in bad form to do in a game.

Don't feed the troll.

G