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.

* The ork counts as initiating an assault. Y (RAW)
* The ork does not gain +1 attack. N, ork gains +1A (RAW)
* The ork does not benefit from furious charge. N, ork gains FC (RAW)
* The ork hits the walker based upon WS, not movement. Y (RAW)
* The ork automatically hits the front armor of the walker. Y (RAW)
* The walker can hit back. Y (RAW)

* The ork counts as initiating an assault. Y (RAW)
* The ork does not gain +1 attack. N, ork gains +1A (RAW)
* The ork does not benefit from furious charge. N, ork gains FC (RAW)
* The ork hits the walker based upon WS, not movement. Y (RAW)
* The ork automatically hits the front armor of the walker. Y (RAW)
* The walker can hit back. Y (RAW)

Just saying something is RAW doesn't make it so and you still haven't stated how you resolve those hits back...

Steve, I think you’re totally off base here.

The ork counts as initiating an assault. Y (RAW)

No. The main rulebook requires a charge to be declared and one unit to move into base contact with another for an assault to be initiated. Neither of these things is happening, and no special rule states that they count as happening. If the boarding plank rules said “this counts as initiating an assault”, it would be different.

* The ork does not gain +1 attack. N, ork gains +1A (RAW)

I think I agree with you here, but I think you’re making your statement unnecessarily confusing by making it a double negative. To my read the ork should get the +1 attack, as the boarding plank rule specifies that he makes the attacks "as if disembarked and charging."

* The ork does not benefit from furious charge. N, ork gains FC (RAW)

Again, I think I agree with you here, but I think you’re making your statement unnecessarily confusing by making it a double negative. To my read the ork should get the +1S and +1 I (not that the latter matters in this situation), as the boarding plank rule specifies that he makes the attacks "as if disembarked and charging."

* The ork hits the walker based upon WS, not movement. Y (RAW)

The attack/s should be resolved using the standard rules for resolving close combat attacks against a walker, since no part of the boarding plank rules specify otherwise. With a powerklaw, it’s WS. If it’s a grenade, it’s different.

* The ork automatically hits the front armor of the walker. Y (RAW)

Again, as the standard rules for walkers state that all close combat attacks are resolved against the front armor, and as no part of the boarding plank rules specify otherwise, it’s the front armor.

* The walker can hit back. Y (RAW)

Totally disagree with you. The walker needs a rule giving it permission. Since no assault is taking place (the boarding rules do not say an assault is taking place, and the situation does not meet the conditions the main rules give for an assault), no models may throw attacks except those given permission by a special rule. In the boarding plank situation, that’s 1 Ork Model.

* The ork counts as initiating an assault? No
* The ork does gain +1 attack? No (RAW) Yes (RAI)
* The ork does benefit from furious charge? No (RAW) Yes (RAI)
* The ork hits the walker based upon WS, not movement? Yes
* The ork automatically hits the front armor of the walker? Yes
* The walker can hit back? No

And

*Does flechette launcher hit the Ork Nob. Yes

I agree with Pika_power...

I'm not trolling and have answered your questions. It's not my fault if you ignore them. You can stop with the accusations.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I'm not trolling and have answered your questions. It's not my fault if you ignore them. You can stop with the accusations.

G

Answering a question asking for *rules* with a simple statement "RAW" is not actually answering the question.

Please find PERMISSION for the walker to make its attacks. That is what you are required to find - nothing else, and this is what you have been entirely unwilling or unable to do.

1) The Ork has permission to make attacks as if in assault, without actually being IN an assault.
2) The ork is not in BtB, because nothing states you are and the model physically isn't.
3) The walker is therefore *not* engaged as it has no enemy model in base contact
4) As the walker is not engaged it *cannot* make any close combat attacks.

Please answer the above with reference to rules, otherwise you are indeed trolling.

Steve, I’m going to break it down, ask you to check my premises and give me a quote from the rules or otherwise disprove my reasoning.

For clarity, I am arguing counter to your assertions, which follow:

The ork counts as initiating an assault.

The walker can hit back.

My line of reasoning:

Premise 1: For an assault to take place, the rulebook requires that a charge be declared and one unit move into base contact with another. If neither of these things happens, there is no assault.

Premise 2: When a Trukk drives up to 2” away from a Dreadnought, and uses a Boarding Plank, they neither declare a charge nor move into base contact with the Dread.

Premise 3: The rules for the Boarding Plank, which state “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 neither vehicle has moved more than 12" grant permission for the Ork player to resolve one set of close combat attacks against the Dreadnought.

Conclusion 1: No assault is initiated.

Conclusion 2: Since no assault is initiated, no models may attack one another, except where specifically given permission by a special rule.

A basic tenet of launching an assault is the target unit counter charges. If you need a fluff explanation imagine the walker climbing up onto the transport.

G

Not disagreeing with the tenet there, however you still have failed to realise that no Assault is initiated.

Please find rules stating an assault is initiated, or show how the Boarding plank creates such a condition. As you have been asked many, many times.

The ork counts as charging, which can be interpreted as initiating an assault. If you say charging does not apply then the rule does not work.

G

"Makes his attacks AS IF .... and charging"

So he is making attacks AS IF charging, which is NOT initiating an assault. "as if" means "you are not actually X, but are treated as X in this way" - so they are making attacks as if charging, but are NOT actually chargine. You can tell theyre not charging, as no models have been moved.

It can only be interpreted as initiating an assault if you entirely ignore the words used in the boarding plank rules.

You also entirely ignored that the Ork is NOT in base to base, therefore the walker cannot attack as it is not engaged...

Edit:Also note you continually misquote and state the incorrect phrase "counts as", despite being called on this before, at least once in the prior thread. Please be precise as you are simply muddying the issue, intentionally or no.

Green Blow Fly wrote:The ork counts as charging,

The Ork makes his attacks as if charging. That's all, because that's all the rules say to count.

No assault is initiated. The ork simply makes his attacks as if an assault were happening. The Ork does, because the rule specifically says so. Nobody else does, because no assault is actually happening.

I have to disagree with you there. You can please feel free to carry on.

: )

G

You can disagree, howeveer you are now in the realms of a houserule as you simply do not have any rules support for your position.

From your comments here and elsewhere you dont believe it should work, so you wont believe it does follow the rules, regardless of the lack of rules support you are able to show or the solid rules shown by everyone else.

"As if" *literally means* you are not the thing - if you were the thing you would not be doing something "as if".

Green Blow Fly wrote:I have to disagree with you there. You can please feel free to carry on.

: )

G

Feel free to look up the definition of the phrase "as if" and stop interchanging different terms that don't mean the same thing but changes the rule to fit how you want it to function.

So please stop using the term 'counts as' and 'assaulting'. What you keep spouting isn't RAW because RAW requires things to be written which neither of those terms are.

Redefining 'charging' into 'assault' is RAI, and redefining AS IF to mean COUNTS AS is also RAI.

You are free to believe your interpretation is RAI all day long...

I'm not trolling and have answered your questions. It's not my fault if you ignore them. You can stop with the accusations.

I've not ignored anything you still haven't answered how you intend for you interpretation to work. I asked a series of specific questions they were ignored. I asked again in more general terms. Again ignored. And I asked a again above and you responded you had already answered but you haven't You still have not even stated how you believe the rules should work!

I can't see this as anything other than trolling. Why else would you refuse to state how you think the rules work? Why you repeated refuse to bring any rules into your "RAW" arguments and how you keep shouting lalalalalalal whilst holding your hands over your ears...

Since this is just going around in circles, I'm locking this one before it gets any sillier.

Might be a good time thought to remind posters that if you are going to participate in a rules discussion, it's a good idea to back up your position with actual rules.