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.

There are a number of threads circulating regarding the use of Deff Rolla equiped Ork battlewagons. The idea is that D6 S10 attacks are granted not only when tank shocking, but also when ramming another vehicle.

The notion comes from the line in the ramming rule that describes it as a "special type of tank shock and is executed the same way...".

Let me first say that I am not an orc player, nor do I often face them. So I really don't have a dog in this fight, but I believe that a thorough reading of the RAW makes it clear that ramming with a Battlewagon should be carried out as normal, and the Deff Rolla only works when tank shocking non-vehicle units.

First: even though ramming is carried out in the same way as tank shock, it is distictly different.

Second: Normal tank shock effects are circumvented with: "Units other than vehicles are tank shocked as normal. However, if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows." Therefore when a vehicle collision occurs all tank shock rules are circumvented and the Ramming rules apply.

Third: The Deff Rolla rules make no mention of ramming or of effecting vehicles.

I understand the arguement in favor of using the Deff Rolla in ramming. I think it is a somewhat reasonable interpretation. However, I think it's strongly influenced by Ork players reading in what they want it to say, and a close reading of the RAW proves it false.

Opinions?

I think you are correct. As an Ork player, I am not comfortable using the deff rolla when ramming.

BTW, congrats again on your Gladiator win.

can you still tank shock tanks?

Ramming a tank is carried out in the same way you tank shock any other unit, but when a collision occurs special rules apply.

Strangely, I think you can. I just read the rules and they do not restrict the type of unit tank shocked.

Darrian is right.

the only real differences between a ram and a tank shock are:

when you ram you must move at max speed

when you tank shock you declare distance moved

if you are only doing a tank shock you cannot ram, but if you are doing a ram you get to tankshock whatever is in the way.

the only difference is speed. ram is a tank shock made at maximum speed in order to inflict as much damage as possible.

do you really expect a giant spiked roller infront of something the size of a land raider to NOT hurt the poor rhino about to be run over? I mean seriously

but then again.. I think the whole concept of RAW is flawed as long as GW refuses to print an accurate set of rules.

NaZ

Dreads are tank shocked and rammed in nearly the same fashion (death or glory, penalty for failing to kill it, etc..)

My opinion, the death roller SHOULD NOT work on vehicles, but under the rules, it does.

Can you explain why you believe the death roller does work under the rules?

first, I want to say that I fundamentally disagree with the concept of RAW, as it would imply that games workshop writes a well defined set of rules in the first place. if we could rely on RAW then yakface wouldn't have to put in so much effort...

but, I'll entertain the discussion anyway

I'm going to start with what the deffrolla says:

"Any tank shock .... on the victim unit" pg 55 ork codex

a unit in warhammer 40k is not limited to infantry models

then:

"ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed in the same way... the collision is resolved as follows" pg 69 main rulebook

I've chosen to paraphrase since it is copywritten material.

it seems pretty clear to me that the only differences between a normal tank shock and a ram are:

if you declare just a tank shock, you get to choose your distance moved and have to stop 1" away from vehicles.

if you declare a ram, you MUST move maximum speed, and will auto tank shock any units in the way.

however, a ram is just a speed adjustment to a normal tank shock, and has its own collision rules to model the impact's effects on both vehicles.

this does not stop the deffrolla's function. any unit hit by the vehicle during that move is affected by the deffrolla. there is no stated limit to how many units can be affected or what type of units can be hurt.

infact, the death or glory provision IMO backs up my point. if you ram a dreadnought and it attempts a death or glory, it would take the 2d6 str 10 hits. vehicles do not have that option, and they cannot move out of the way, so they suffer the normal effects of the ram and the effects of the deffrolla


feel free to debate it to death.. its already been done but whatever. since GW won't faq it I'll just have to wait to see what yakface says.

the ability is not broken, anything with a melta, fist, lascannon stands a good chance of stopping the vehicle regardless of the consequences.

I think my justification is sound, and having used this particular point to make my case with my local gaming group they agreed with me.

but I do say it with the caveat that I do not believe in RAW, since games workshop cannot write rules and errata as clear as warmachine or magic. until they do it is almost pointless to look at the book and say
"but if you read it exactly like this.. it should work like X"

if they'd get off their collective **** and do the rules right I might buy into the whole RAW debate. until then I just use RAI and resolve issues as they come up.

NaZ

From my reading of the rules, (including fluff), the deffrolla causes damage to vehicles it rams:
Ork Codex p.55: "Any Tank Shock made by a battlewagon with a Deffrolla causes d6 S10 hits on the victim unit."
With Ram being a form of tank shock, and Deffrolla saying ANY tank shock, it is included.

Fluff notes: "Another type of Battlewagon is the Krusha ... with their massive spiked deffrollas ... steamrollering enemy infantry and light vehicles"

I can't see how the combination of these paragraphs lead anyone to think that a deffrolla does NOT work vs vehicles.

Q. Does a unit that successfully stops a Deff
Rolla-equipped Battlewagon’s Tank Shock suffer
any hits?
A. Yes, it does. In fact, it suffers 2D6 S10 hits!

So if a unit manging to kill the tank still takes damage i see no reseaon that a tank wouldn't ... skimmers that mange to get out the way on there 4+ no ... well thats my view

Tri wrote:Q. Does a unit that successfully stops a Deff
Rolla-equipped Battlewagon’s Tank Shock suffer
any hits?
A. Yes, it does. In fact, it suffers 2D6 S10 hits!

So if a unit manging to kill the tank still takes damage i see no reseaon that a tank wouldn't ... skimmers that mange to get out the way on there 4+ no ... well thats my view

Agreed. From the Codex:
"Any Tank Shock made by a battlewagon with a deffrolla causes D6 S10 wounds on the victim unit. If the unit elects to make a Death Or Glory attack, it takes a further D6 S10 hits in addition to the usual effects."
So a unit Tank Shocked by a deffrolla, and deciding to Death Or Glory, will take 2d6 S10 hits, whether the Death or Glory is successful or not.
Skimmers that dodge have dodged and take no damage.

The point that is debatable is whether Ramming and tank shock are equivalent for the purposes of the Deff Rolla. It would be a simple issue if GW either made ramming a part of the tank shock rules, or they left out the "ramming is a special form of tank shock" phrase in the ramming rules. While they share facors in common, I think it is a stretch to assume that they are the same. There are clearly numerous differences between the two.

I'd give more creedence to arguements in favor that don't dismiss RAW. You may disagree with the rules, and prefer to play the game your own way, but unless ypu have an agreement with your opponent before hand you need to try to play as closely to the rules as your understanding allows. This is a case where I can see two reasonable interpretations. Were I an Ork player, I would take the interpretation that they do not. Thereby avoiding conflict should my opponent not share the interpretation that they do. If your opponent agrees, then you get a bonus. If he doesn't you avoid a fight and get to have a happier game.

TROY CLIFTON wrote:The point that is debatable is whether Ramming and tank shock are equivalent for the purposes of the Deff Rolla. It would be a simple issue if GW either made ramming a part of the tank shock rules, or they left out the "ramming is a special form of tank shock" phrase in the ramming rules. While they share facors in common, I think it is a stretch to assume that they are the same. There are clearly numerous differences between the two.

I'd give more creedence to arguements in favor that don't dismiss RAW.

Could someone explain RaW to me? Because it's written that "Any tank shock..." Perhaps I don't understand RaW, but "any" means any, right? If ramming is a "special form of tank shock" that just makes it a subset.

TROY CLIFTON wrote:The point that is debatable is whether Ramming and tank shock are equivalent for the purposes of the Deff Rolla. It would be a simple issue if GW either made ramming a part of the tank shock rules, or they left out the "ramming is a special form of tank shock" phrase in the ramming rules. While they share facors in common, I think it is a stretch to assume that they are the same. There are clearly numerous differences between the two.

The only differences is the one is a Tank Shock against a vehicle and one is a Tank Shock against non-vehicles. Just because they're worked out differently doesn't mean they're not the same thing. You work out shooting differently against vehicles, does that mean it's not shooting?

Ghaz wrote:

TROY CLIFTON wrote:The point that is debatable is whether Ramming and tank shock are equivalent for the purposes of the Deff Rolla. It would be a simple issue if GW either made ramming a part of the tank shock rules, or they left out the "ramming is a special form of tank shock" phrase in the ramming rules. While they share facors in common, I think it is a stretch to assume that they are the same. There are clearly numerous differences between the two.

The only differences is the one is a Tank Shock against a vehicle and one is a Tank Shock against non-vehicles. Just because they're worked out differently doesn't mean they're not the same thing. You work out shooting differently against vehicles, does that mean it's not shooting?

EXCELLENT ANALOGY!

I think RAW, Fluff, etc.., all combine to prove you do get the deathroller attacks against vehicles. I also can't fault GW for addressing in their FAQ, when, again, it's clear.

Troy Clifton:

At the top of page 69 of the rulebook it says: "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed in the same way,"

As crazy overpowered this may be. As the rules are worded there is no evidence that the deff rolla shouldn't work on tank shocks against vehicles. (otherwise known as rams)

Ok it seems pretty clear you get your deff rolla when you ram a tank. However! What if you ram a squad of 3 killa kans (vehicle squad) and one chooses to death or glory. Would you get 2d6 str 10 hits on the one standing in front of the tank or the whole squad? (Mind you even if you stop a wagon with a rolla with a death or glory your still taking the 2d6 hits)

the way that work work would be as follows:

the unit is fearless (walkers) so they automatically get to choose if they are going to death or glory.

the unit resolves the death or glory, then you resolve the effects of the ram, and then do 2d6 str 10 hits on the squad. those hits then need to be allocated using the standard rules.

NaZ

I don't think the Deff Rolla gets to apply those (1 v 2)D6 S10 hits to vehicles.

If a Battlewagon is making a Tank Shock move, then it must stop 1" away from any vehicle in its path. Therefore a Battlewagon cannot tank shock another vehicle, such as a Walker.

As a tank, Battlewagons can only ram other vehicles. If a Battlewagon is making a Ram move, then it will Tank Shock non-vehicles, and Ram vehicles.

Since vehicles are Rammed, and not Tank Shocked, and the Deff Rolla is specified to address units that are Tank Shocked, it is not used when a Battlewagon rams another vehicle.

Not to say it isn't good to ram other vehicles with: a Battlewagon is AV14 on the front and may re-roll dangerous terrain rolls, such as one would be required to make if moving over wreckage.

Against a unit of Killa Kans, you would move the Battlewagon into base to base contact with the first Kan. The player controlling the Kan would then, if the Kan were not being rammed from the rear quarter, have the options of either bracing, or Death or Glory.

If the Death or Glory fails to stop the Battlewagon, or the Kan was braced, then the players resolve the impact on both the Battlewagon and the Kan as normal, with at least D6+5 for the Battlewagon's penetration roll (Armour and Mass),

If the Kan suffers a Destroyed - Explodes, then the Battlewagon continues onto the next Kan with the additional momentum (Speed bonus) conferred by the distance between the two Kans, and goes through the same process of the Kan choosing to brace or Death or Glory (or just takes it in the tail-pipe) until it either runs out of Kans to confetti, runs out of distance to move, or a Kan fails to explode.

Please explain my reasoning away:

Ramming is a special type of tank shock.

It has four apparent differences.

1) Must move at highest speed.
2) May not shoot.
3) Ram hits go against the armor facing the ramming vehicle (exception applies for walkers).
4) Do not need to stop 1" away from enemy vehicles.

Everything else says it's a tank shock.

Why would it not be treated as such?

====================

Fluffy moment. Phil Kelly said last year that if you tank shock vehicles in 4th, you got the deff rolla hits on them. Why would this stop in 5th? The wording seems even more clear?

What Stelek said. Only louder.

Regarding Phil Kelly's comment, there was no specific rules governing ramming in 4th edition. In 4th edition tank shock attacks affected both infantry and vehicles, and when you input the Deff Roller rules into the 4th edition, the logical consequence was that vehicles would suffer 1D6 S10 hits if tank shocked.

This stops in 5th edition because vehicles cannot be attacked with tank shock attacks in 5th edition. Vehicles can only be rammed.

Perhaps it might help you to think of it like this: ramming is a special type of tank shock just as a graphing calculator is a special type calculator: a calculates that calculates and draws graphs. Similarly, a ram is a special type of tank shock that allows a vehicle to ram vehicles as well as tank shock. But perhaps it won't help get my point across, because that's an analogy, and they tend to import lots of superfluous information into any discussion of logical structures such as rules (hence the utility and development of formal languages).

Enough digression, here's how the Tank Shock and Ramming rules compare:

Tank Shock
1. Move at any speed
2. May shoot
3. Must stop 1" short of any vehicle
4. May tank shock attack non-vehicles

Ramming
1. Move at top speed
2. May not shoot
3. May ram enemy vehicles
4. May tank shock attack non-vehicles

It seems there are only three formal differences: that a ramming tank must move as fast as possible, may not shoot, and may make ram attacks against vehicles. There is one similarity, that they can both make tank shock attacks against non-vehicles.

The problem, it seems, is twofold.

The first thing is that there is a confusion (called 'amphiboly' in the logic trade) whereby name of a rule, Tank Shock, is used to describe one part of that rule's structure, tank shock attacks.

The second thing is that Ramming is being read as a sub-type of Tank Shock, rather than a special type of Tank Shock.

This is false, because the layout does not place Ramming as a sub-rule of Tank Shock, unlike Death or Glory, and they only share one sub-rule, the one permitting tank shock attacks on non-vehicles.

Edit: When making argument about amphiboly, it helps not to commit the sin oneself...

I think it boils down to whether you believe ramming is tank shocking, it seems clear it is to me, but equally clear it isn't to others.

To stray down the murky path of analogy, if I stuck a mustache on a banana, it's a special kind of banana, but a banana none the less.


Yep, I think that made it loads clearer.


FAQ please GW.

Well, that's the problem with saying something is 'clear' isn't it? Clarity is subjective, unless there's a public standard of clarity which we can cite in order to prove statements about clarity to be either true or false.

I'm not saying that the rule is clear, since if it was clear there would be no serious disagreement. In fact, I think that since the matter at hand is definitely unclear, since it involves the notational error of amphiboly. It's most definitely another case where the Design Studio's proficiency at technical writing has let the community down.

All that said, I think that if we notice the amphiboly and distinguish between Tank Shock and tank shock attacks so that we don't get mislead into thinking the fact that Ramming is a sub-type of Tank Shock (when, really, Tank Shock is a sub-type of Ramming!), then we don't need an FAQ: A tank cannot Tank Shock (notice the capitals used in the codex, indicating a title or name) another vehicle.

See, the way I read it boils down to:

Ork Codex Pg 55: 'Any tank shock...'

Rule book: 'Ramming is a special kind of tank shock'

There lies the crux of my argument.

Sure, but it doesn't boil down to that.

On p.55 of the Ork Codex it actually says: "Any Tank Shock..."

The capitalization is quite important, since in English we capitalize the beginnings of sentences and proper names, such as the names of rules. The referent is the Tank Shock rule. The Tank Shock rule does not permit a Battlewagon to make tank shock attacks against vehicles; the Battlewagon must stop 1" away from vehicles during a Tank Shock.

Likewise on p.69 of the rulebook, it says:

"Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed is is capable of. Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal. However, if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows."

Basically, if you're going to predicate your argument on the term "special kind" to indicate that Ramming is a sub-type of Tank Shock, then you're going to have to explain:

1. Why only "[u]nits other than vehicles...are tank shocked as normal",

2. Why, when a ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, a "collision" and not a 'tank shock' is resolved.

3. Why Ramming is not a sub-heading of Tank Shock.

4. How Ramming is a sub-type of Tank Shock when Ramming requires full speed, prohibits shooting, and allows vehicles to collide as well as non-vehicle units to be subject to tank shock attacks.

As an argument, this 'boiling down' seems to ignore crucial information on the page.

I'm going to say up front this is not a personal attack on any poster.

again.. I go back to the point that trying to hold this mess up as RAW is just silly.

the assumption that the ork codex was written with the specific wording of the 5th book in mind is just rediculous.

but is a rhino really not going to suffer from any damage by a giant mechanical spiked roller on the front of a vehicle 2x its size? I doubt it.

RAW only works when there is enough errata to make a clear distinction. I use magic the gathering as a good example. they have multiple levels of judges that have a progressive understanding of the rules. card text is playtested several sets ahead of release. even they don't catch all the broken mess. but atleast they actively try to fix issues as they come up.

in an average game, I run into between 3 and 10!!! rules issues with my opponent. this to me is a rediculously high number for a newly released set of rules

and sadly the FAQ's didn't answer most of the questions out there. I have a lot of hope that yakface is going to release an updated version of his FAQ. my whole gaming group is waiting for a consensus on the rules.

I think the majority agree that the interpetation that the deff rolla works in this situation

there are a couple of minority speakers that point to RAW and say it does not work. I have to ask.. do you play orks or against them frequently? have you run into a deffrolla and thought it broken? if not why are you complaining so loudly?

I play orks.. and I use the deffrolla in this way. none of my opponents have ever given me grief about it. they all thought it was a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the rules. and so do the majority of the posters in this thread.

for any standard game, thats how it goes. come up with a ruling or roll a dice.

feel free to continue debating RAW to death. but until there is a definitive FAQ (which we all know ISN'T going to come from GW) there really is no point in examining the exact wording of things.

to further my point... look at the rules for assaulting a squad after you blow up its transport.

there are directly contradicting points in the rulebook on this matter. 2 different pages with exactly opposite rules.

without getting into that whole mess, it does illustrate my point that as much of an improvement 5th has been, it still was badly proofread, and obviously needed further playtesting.

but then again, so is EVERY SINGLE BOOK GW PRODUCES.

if they would just get people who want to put in as much effort as yakface to come up with a decent set of rules, we wouldnt be having these debates.

it is not unreasonable to expect rules to be:

clearly written
clearly defined
able to cover all instances
successfully errated to cover unforseen interactions of rules
written in such a way that they are balanced, and fun.

until GW manages to pull this off, I'm not willing to stand in the RAW camp

NaZ

Nurglitch wrote:Sure, but it doesn't boil down to that.

On p.55 of the Ork Codex it actually says: "Any Tank Shock..."

The capitalization is quite important, since in English we capitalize the beginnings of sentences and proper names, such as the names of rules. The referent is the Tank Shock rule. The Tank Shock rule does not permit a Battlewagon to make tank shock attacks against vehicles; the Battlewagon must stop 1" away from vehicles during a Tank Shock.

Likewise on p.69 of the rulebook, it says:

"Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed is is capable of. Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal. However, if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows."

Basically, if you're going to predicate your argument on the term "special kind" to indicate that Ramming is a sub-type of Tank Shock, then you're going to have to explain:

1. Why only "[u]nits other than vehicles...are tank shocked as normal",

Because there are no rules in the vehicle section for tank shocking normally against vehicles, only executing 'a special kind of tank shock executed the same way'

Nurglitch wrote:2. Why, when a ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, a "collision" and not a 'tank shock' is resolved.

Collision isn't used as a game term, it's used in a fluffy sense. There's no precedent or capitalization, that's not an issue.

Nurglitch wrote:3. Why Ramming is not a sub-heading of Tank Shock.

Not an issue, if the rules for powerfists weren't in the section marked close combat weapons, you still wouldn't be able to shoot with them.

Nurglitch wrote:4. How Ramming is a sub-type of Tank Shock when Ramming requires full speed, prohibits shooting, and allows vehicles to collide as well as non-vehicle units to be subject to tank shock attacks.

Because it says clear as day in the rules, as I've quoted many times, that ramming is a type of tank shock. It prohibits shooting because of the speed, and allows vehicles to collide because that's what it was designed to do.

Nurglitch wrote:As an argument, this 'boiling down' seems to ignore crucial information on the page.

I still don't know how you can just ignore the sentences provided above, and Stelek's points. Also, to try a different, RAI tack for a second, the upgrade costs 20 points, 4 times as much as a reinforced ram or a big shoota, and twice as much as a kannon. Surely an upgrade so expensive was intended to be good? D6 S10 hits against infantry isn't worth it, vehicles, yes. I'm so absolutely convinced that this is how it should be played that I'm building an army based around battlewagons and deffrollas, I guess it's good I won't be playing you Nurglitch.