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.

OK,

There seems to be some debate about the KFF and what save if confers to vehicles. The rule book says a vehicle granted obscured status by a piece of wargear gets a 4+ save unless specified otherwise by the wargear's codex. Some argue this means that the vehicle gets a 5+ since the ork codex says that units within 6" of the kff toting mek.

That seems like a bit of a stretch to me, since it does specifically say that vehicles count as obscured. If the vehicles were only supposed to get a 5+ like all other units why bother specifying they count as obscured.

A reinforced ram allows a trukk to tank shock. Ramming is a special type of tank shock. I have heard it argued that in the tank shock section of the ramming rules that it specifies the word tank, so a non-tank can't ram. I don't have my rulebook here, but I would be supprised if there weren't the word tank somewhere in the tank shock section of the rulebook.

By the argument given, the trukk couldn't tank shock since it isn't a tank and the word tank is the the tank shock entry of the rulebook.
This seems like following the letter of the rules dogmatically, while ignoring the spirit of the rules. It seems silly that you could put a reinforced RAM on a trukk adn then not be able to ram with it.

Has GW made any comments on these rulings? Do they still have the roolz boyz to answer stuff like this? Have people had any rulings made at official GW events?

Thanks,
AZ

KFF confers 5+ save to units with a model within 6". KFF obscures vehicles within 6". That's what the Codex says. BBB says Obscured Vehicles get a 4+ cover save. Seems pretty clear to me. Beat the rules lawyer over the head with your rulebook.

As for the Trukk ramming... don't think so. But it can Tank Shock.

If a vehicle can Tank Shock, it can Ram.

how can a vehicle get a better cover save then a regular model from the same piece of wargear ? if you stand behind a hedge you get a 5+ for your vehicle and your regualar models how come you say its different with KFF ?

Skurk3n wrote:how can a vehicle get a better cover save then a regular model from the same piece of wargear ? if you stand behind a hedge you get a 5+ for your vehicle and your regualar models how come you say its different with KFF ?

ORK MAGIC!!!

Or, as is the case here, bad wording on GWs part....

The Ork Codex specifies that vehicles are obscured by the Kustom Force Field, which gives them a 4+ cover save.

Likewise, the Reinforced Ram only permits Tank Shock, and does not permit Ramming.

And Ramming is a type of Tank Shock per the rulebook, so it is permitted.

Please, not the 'ramming is tankshock' argument again...

Then perhaps you should ask these posters who are saying that he can't Ram say that there's no clear concensus on the matter instead.

says right in the rule book ramming is a "special" tank shock attack

And just because it's "special" doesn't mean it's still not a Tank Shock. A Golden Delicious is a "special" type of apple. Are you telling us it's not an apple anymore?

Wrong. The rulebook states that Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock.

Funny how you keep leaving that key word out.

According to the rulebook:

Tank Shock
1. May move at any speed
2. May shoot if allowed by speed
3. Must stop 1" short of vehicles
4. May tank shock attack non-vehicles

Ramming
1. Must move at top speed
2. Cannot shoot
3. Rams vehicles across its path of movement
4. May tank shock attack non-vehicles

Clearly, Ramming has 1/4 elements in common with Tank Shock, specifically the element of applying tank shock attacks to non-vehicles. Likewise, the other 3/4 elements distinguish Ramming from Tank Shock.

Because Ramming has 1/4 elements in common with Tank Shock, it is clearly a special type of Tank Shock.

In other words, there is a special case, tank shock attacks against non-vehicles, in which the rules for Tank Shock are applied when Ramming.

Because Ramming does not have 4/4 elements in common with Tank Shock, and indeed 3/4 elements disagree, Ramming is not Tank Shock and references to Tank Shock cannot implicitly also refer to Ramming.

Speaking of disagreements between these rules, what are they?

A vehicle that makes a Tank Shock can move at any speed, hence the player has the option of the speed the vehicle will move at. A vehicle that Rams must move at its top speed, and the player does not have any choice in the matter.

A vehicle that makes a Tank Shock can shoot, if it is otherwise able to by its speed and available weapons, again giving the player the option of shooting given conditions. By contrast a vehicles that Rams cannot shoot, regardless of whether its top speed would otherwise allow it to use available weapons (i.e. the Necron Monolith).

Finally, Tank Shock cannot affect vehicles, and a vehicle that is making a Tank Shock move must stop 1" short of enemy vehicles. Ramming does affect vehicles.

Therefore permission to Tank Shock does not also include permission to Ram vehicles.

But let's talk about the key word here: "special".

Anytime something is a type of something else, say like apples are a type of fruit, and that hierachy of types is well-founded, we can substitute the type-token for any references to the type-class. If we are asked for fruit, for example, and we have apples, we can provide an apple to satisfy that request.

Certain people will take this fact to mean that because Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock, that references to Tank Shock imply Ramming. After all, if apples are a type of fruit and hence references to fruit must imply apples.

Unfortunately that's wrong. Only unqualified references to fruit must imply apples. Qualified references, such as 'special' fruit or 'citrus' fruit does not imply apples.

That is why 'special' is a key-word here, because it qualifies a reference and changes what it implies!

In Warhammer 40k there are two opposing key-words: 'normal' and 'special'. Normal refers to whatever is going on in the rules that applies to all models. Special refers to whatever is going on in the rules that only applies to specific models.

Normal rules include a model's type, its profile, and so on. A bike's normal rules for movement, for example, are covered by the rules for bikes in the rulebook.

Special rules include all Special Rules, Wargear, and Weapons.

'Special', in 40k, lets us know that something in the general or normal rules is being subject to some exception or amendment. Its conjunction with 'type of Tank Shock' in the rules clearly, then, refers to the fact that a vehicle that is Ramming can make tank shock attacks as well as ramming attacks, rather than to the erroneous supposition that all references to Tank Shock imply Ramming.

Dictionary.com wrote:Special
–adjective
1. of a distinct or particular kind or character: a special kind of key.
2. being a particular one; particular, individual, or certain: You'd better call the special number.
3. pertaining or peculiar to a particular person, thing, instance, etc.; distinctive; unique: the special features of a plan.
4. having a specific or particular function, purpose, etc.: a special messenger.
5. distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual: a special occasion; to fix something special.
6. extraordinary; exceptional, as in amount or degree; especial: special importance.
7. being such in an exceptional degree; particularly valued: a special friend.

why they can't update the ork errata, its in the DE errata

Nurglitch wrote:
Because Ramming does not have 4/4 elements in common with Tank Shock, and indeed 3/4 elements disagree, Ramming is not Tank Shock and references to Tank Shock cannot implicitly also refer to Ramming.

Every time you spew this out, a heretic burns for all eternity.

Seriously, your logic on this whole rant is flawed, as I have pointed out innumerable times. Please stop quoting it as gospel truth when this board can't get a genuine consensus on how it should work.

cerdival:

Please, by all means point out how any of what I've written is flawed. Oh, wait, you haven't and you can't.

Just to muddy the waters a little further, Dark Eldar have a vehicle upgrade called the Torture Amp that allows the vehicle to perform tank shocks.

The DE FAQ on the GW website has this to say:

Q. Does a torture amp allow a Raider to ram other vehicles?

A. No.

Unfortunately, they didn't bother to give any clarification as to the thought process that went into making that decision, so we are hard pressed to use that as a precedent. However, it does tell us that having the ability to tank shock does not, necessarily grant the ability to ram.

Or...and this is just a CRAZY idea... You could have the Ramming vs. Tank Shock conversation ELSEWHERE and leave THIS THREAD out of it, since THIS THREAD isn't about Tank Shock vs. Ramming.

Saldiven:

Good point. Likewise, John Spencer seems to be of the opinion that the Deff Rolla cannot be used with Ramming, which would extend to the Reinforced Ram because both rules refer only to Tank Shock and do not mention Ramming.

MagickalMemories:

The Ramming vs Tank Shock conversation is quite germaine to this thread. The original poster has asked whether the Reinforced Ram allows a Trukk to Ram other vehicles.

Given that the Reinforced Ram specifies enabling Tank Shock, and some people are erroneously trying to extend that to Ramming, then pointing out how that is in error is relevant, because this thread is, at least in part, about what the Reinforced Ram permits.

The Green Git wrote:KFF confers 5+ save to units with a model within 6". KFF obscures vehicles within 6". That's what the Codex says. BBB says Obscured Vehicles get a 4+ cover save. Seems pretty clear to me. Beat the rules lawyer over the head with your rulebook.

As for the Trukk ramming... don't think so. But it can Tank Shock.

exactly, non-vehicles get a 5+ cover save, vehicles count as being "Obscured targets" (ork codex) in the Rule Book (dont know the page) but obscured targets receive a 4+ cover save.

Only tanks can tank shock a trukk is not a tank, however a rein. ram allows the vehicle to tank shock and Ramming is a Type of tank shock so it can Ram.

So unless you are a tank or have wargear that allows you to act as a tank (rein. ram), or changes your type to tank then you cant tank shock or Ram (thus you cant ram with a bike or a skimmer or a dreadnaught or anything else that isnt a "tank" This is not to be confused with being Rammed. A vehicle that can Ram can Ram any vehicle with a armor value, being as Bikes have toughness and a LD value they would get tank shocked instead (I know it wasnt in the question its just for clarification).

The only current 'official' answer to this question of the Tank Shock/Ram is to ask your opponent or your tournament supervisor.

Except that Ramming isn't a type of Tank Shock, it is a special type of Tank Shock...

Don't let the facts get in the way of an incoherent argument though.

A 'special' type of Tank Shock is still a type of Tank Shock. Saying otherwise is just ludicrous.

Also your argument that because it's not a carbon copy of Tank Shock so it can't be a Tank Shock is just as ludicrous. Where do the rules say that it has to have to share 50% more of it's rules with Tank Shock to be considered a Tank Shock? Ramming is a Tank Shock because the rules say it is. That is the only requirement.

Seems you're the one who's incoherent arguments are getting in the way of the facts.

Nurglitch wrote:Except that Ramming isn't a type of Tank Shock, it is a special type of Tank Shock...

Don't let the facts get in the way of an incoherent argument though.

Humans aren't a type of mammal, we are a "special" type of mammal! Don't worry, I won't let the "facts" get in the way of an incoherent argument though.

LOGIC

Nurglitch wrote:cerdival:

Please, by all means point out how any of what I've written is flawed. Oh, wait, you haven't and you can't.

I have. On two seperate threads. That you failed to acknowledge any of them is further testament how you don't usually listen to anything other than the sound of your own voice. Here goes:

A tank shock is more similar to ramming than dissimilar as you keep claiming over and over again. Your three points of difference are flawed because you can't shoot with a vehicle that tank shocks its maximum distance. You can't shoot while ramming, which requires a tank shock of maximum distance.

As a special kind of tank shock, it has one extra requirement, moving at your maximum speed, that allows it to circumvent one difference in rules, that of stopping short when encountering a vehicle.

There is one (1) difference between a tank shock and a ram in actual function, that of being able to affect vehicles.



It also doesn't help that you go out of your way to be condescending in defining 'special'. You're a 'special' kind of gamer, but it doesn't stop making you a gamer. Except by your logic, you being a special kind of 40k player doesn't actually make you a 40k player.


Edit: adding links of prior refute:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/220185/420250.page#420250

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/222055.page

Ghaz:

No, saying that "special type" is the same as "type" is what's 'ludicrous' as you put it. I would simply call it 'mistaken'.

I would call it that because it mistakes identities under special conditions with identities under general or 'normal' conditions.

Hence the fact that Tank Shock and Ramming only have the tank shock attack effect in common is exactly what makes Ramming a special type of Tank Shock rather than a type of Tank Shock.

There's one situation in which they are the same, and that one special situation is what's require to make Ramming a special type of Tank Shock.

In other words, Ramming is a type of Tank Shock where tank shock attacks are concerned, and in no other, such as ramming vehicles, as well as its options for movement and firing weapons.

So perhaps your pride won't prevent you from agreeing that pointing out what the rules say and showing what they state is hardly incoherent.

But keep arguing the controversy, it's easier than defending a bad argument, or presenting a logically valid positive argument for your own opinion.

Mekniakal:

Wrong on both counts: Humans are mammals in all ways, and hence are a type of mammal. Humans would only be a special type of mammal is there was one special condition under which they were mammals, and otherwise not mammals.

You fail at logic. Don't feel bad about it, because in both the introductory logic classes I've TA'd for, the vast majority of the class tended to fail by a wide margin (35% being an average mark on initial tests, before we resorted to multiple choice tests...).

cervidal:

Ah, now I think it would be something to point out the difference between thinking you have refuted an argument and actually refuting an argument.

If I have failed to acknowledge a valid argument on your part, it's because you fail to provide them, as I would prefer to correct my mistakes than 'win' at some intarweb pissing contest.

When have you presented an invalid argument?

Well, to take the most recent example, you claim that the three points of difference I have pointed out are flawed because:

1. A vehicle that engages in Tank Shock and moves its maximum distance cannot fire its weapons.

2. A vehicle that engages in Ramming cannot fire its weapons.

3. Therefore, because such a vehicle engaging in Tank Shock cannot fire, and a vehicle engaging in Ramming cannot fire, they are more similar than I have claimed.

Wrong, and here's why:

Vehicles engaging in Tank Shock may fire if they move at the right speed, while vehicle engaging in Ramming cannot fire regardless of speed. Firing a weapon is not an option for a vehicle engaging in Ramming regardless of whether it could fire at its maximum speed.

The difference is that firing during Tank Shock depends upon the speed of the vehicle; a Monolith, for example, could fire and Tank Shock even if it was moving at its maximum speed. A Monolith that was Ramming could not fire even though its maximum movement is combat speed, and combat speed would permit it to fire one main weapon.

Likewise, in Tank Shock, the player has the option of moving the vehicle at any speed. In Ramming, the player has no such option.

So that's two options that Tank Shock permits that Ramming does not.

Hence your conclusion that Tank Shock and Ramming are more similar than I have claimed does not follow from your premises, and hence constitutes an invalid argument. 'Invalid', of course, is fancy logic-ese for "the conclusion of the argument does not follow deductively from your premises".

The process of ramming follows every single rule of tank shock save one - the ability to contact vehicles.

A ram is a tank shock that forces the vehicle to move at maximum speed, continuing to do so until it contacts impassable terrain or an opposing vehicle. This is a very similar principle as a vehicle declaring a tank shock at any other speed; they continue on until they contact impassable terrain or come within 1" of a vehicle.

Spell it out from the basic rulebook. Forget the Ork wargear for a moment - where on earth does anything in the basic rulebook show any statement whatsoever that would have ramming not be a tank shock? Infantry under the path of a ramming vehicle respond in exactly the same way as a vehicle doing a standard tank shock. There is no 'infantry react this way when rammed'. Doesn't exist.

At most, a slim majority agree with your logic, and with far less insult than what you throw out. Judging by the overall reaction to these threads, though, the divide between whether or not you can use this piece of Ork vehicle wargear is fairly even. Your opinion/logic/condescending attitude is not the authority on this topic, nor should you continue to state in thread after thread as though it is the finalized, official answer to this question.

cervidal wrote:where on earth does anything in the basic rulebook show any statement whatsoever that would have ramming not be a tank shock?

The basic layout of the rulebook shows you this. Each section has a section heading, eg: TANKS, this tells us how to use our tanks on the board and what they can do.

Within each section there are further headings that differentiate each rule that applies to that section, eg: TANK SHOCK!

Within each of those there are further sub-headings for rules and clarifications that can happen within the last heading, eg: Death or Glory!

Sometimes a rule may refer to another rule instead of repeating itself, ( i would imagine this is to save space - can you imagine if the RAPID FIRE WEAPONS section told you how to roll to hit / wound / roll saves, then the ASSAULT WEAPONS section told you how to roll to hit / wound / roll saves ...? How long and tedious would the rulebook be? and how much would it cost you in extra pages? A bad thing indeed. ). The section RAMMING for example, tells us to refer to the TANK SHOCK! section to work out some of the effects of the ram.

The reinforced ram lets an Ork trukk make a tank shock attack. It is not normally allowed to do this as it is not a tank, but it's vehicle upgrade allows it to make this kind of attack, and would you look at that, it also affects the sub heading of tank shocking - Death or Glory. So what is a reinforced ram for? "Ram"ming? no. I can see the confusion in the reinforced rams name and it's effect but it only allows tank shock attacks and not ramming.

You cannot take two rules and combine them together when it suits you.

Just a quick note which many people forget, there's a piece of wargear Identical to the reinforced ram in the Dark Eldar codex that was FAQd to allow only tank-shock moves but not ram moves.

Mekniakal wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Except that Ramming isn't a type of Tank Shock, it is a special type of Tank Shock...

Don't let the facts get in the way of an incoherent argument though.

Humans aren't a type of mammal, we are a "special" type of mammal! Don't worry, I won't let the "facts" get in the way of an incoherent argument though.

LOGIC

Except that we aren't a special kind of mammal. We're just mammals.

Fail.

middle wrote:
You cannot take two rules and combine them together when it suits you.

To which I reply:

"Ramming is a special kind of tank shock."

I'm not combining anything together when it suits me. I'm looking at the sentence in the rulebook. Ramming is tank shock. It's a specific kind of tank shock, but it is tank shock nonetheless.

Now find any passage whatsoever in the rulebook that says ramming is not a kind of tank shock.

Whether the reinforced ram allows vehicle ramming wasn't my point, anyways, but rather that Nurglitch keeps copy/pasting his poorly conceived logic as the final truth in this when there is ample support opposing his point of view. Ghaz had it right to begin with very early in this thread:


"Then perhaps you should ask these posters who are saying that he can't Ram say that there's no clear concensus on the matter instead."