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.

A friend of mine asked me to post this. The rules state that the Deathrolla can be used in tankshocks and those are similar to ramming. Now, I'm not familiar with the exact tankshock or ramming rules, so I though I just ask here.

I think that it's been ruled that it can't. Not 100% sure though. You can check through some other threads as I'm pretty sure it's been answered before.

Some people will tell you that a Ram is only a special kind of tank shock, and therefore not a tank shock, and thus Deffrolla cannot be used against vehicles.

Other people will tell you that a Ram is a special kind of tank shock, and therefore a tank shock, and a Deffrolla can be used against vehicles.

I'm of the mind that a Ram is a tank shock and the Deffrolla applies to both simply because that's how the rule structure in 5e is written. I don't think GW intended it this way but it's what we end up with.

So yes, 120 point Battlewagons can roll over 250 point Land Raiders all day.

Hello, I am an Ork player myself

I do not allow (myself) to use a reinforced Ram to ram.

Here is why: The rule for Ramming and tank shocking tells the owning player to 'call out' what his intentions are prior to doing either. Pg 68- 69. A player can not do both. He may Ram but must also have a vehicle target and go full speed. If he tank shocks he can go a desired distance and must have a non-vehicle target.

The Ork Codex specifically says the owning player may "Tank Shock", so by my own codex, the only word I am allowed to say to my opponent is "Tank Shock". Therefore I can never declare a "Ram".

IMHO it doesn't matter that a Ram may be a 'special' tank shock, as I am not allowed by the Ork codex to declare a Ram anyways. Only "Tank Shock"

Yes, this is a very strict RAW reading. But this is also an ambiguous situation, so a strict RAW reading seems to be a very viable option for both players.

Either way, You play how both you and your opponent agree to play. period. And talk to the TO before any tournament to get a firm set of rules for that tournament prior to playing in it. This requires forming a set of questions to either e-mail him/her or talk in person about.

Although I agree with your decision regarding a RAW interpretation of Reinforced Ram, I believe the gentleman is asking about Deffrollas on battlewagons, which are tanks and can most assuredly ram and tank shock.

Ah, thats what I get for reading too much between the lines.

Yea, well anyway, same thing I said before, Ork codex only says 'Tank shock' blah blah yadda yadda. So you can only 'tank shock' with it.

I don't have the codex with me so I can't pull the exact wording for the deff rolla at the moment, but I distinctly recall it mentioning that the target of the tank shock takes the D6 S10 hits, what this means is that when you tank shock through multiple units only the "target of the tank shock" is affected.

I consider this to mean that either, only a single unit can ever recieve the hits at a time, or alternatively the tank shock referred to is actually the effect applied to each unit that is hit by a tank shock or ram move, however, a tank can never suffer this tank shock effect and thus can never have the D6 S10 hits applied.

Sorry I can't be more precise but this is my take on it, and I hope you guys understand.

That's what I thought, but the author of the Ork Taktikka wasn't sure himself, so I was hoping to get another view.

There are a few threads already where deathrollaz ramming vehicles has been discussed. (at length, as is the YMDC way )
Search them out if you enjoy reading the same arguments over and over again!

John Spencer the GW rules guy says no they can't. (because ram is not the same as tankshock).

I tried the search function, but I didn't get anything out of it.

Anung Un Rama wrote:I tried the search function, but I didn't get anything out of it.

Maybe mind that Ram is a 5th ed rule and wasn't existant when codex orks was released.
No way to balance both options for a tank in points or do a 5thed compatible description of the rules.

I do believe it was meant vs infantry, because the deathrolla grants to retaliate with "death or glory" and vehicles (except walkers)
can't do this.

And tankshock still isn't ramming. tankshock = vs non-vehicles. Ramming = vs vehicles.

1hadhq wrote:And tankshock still isn't ramming.

But ramming is tank shock.

Very Simply Yes a deathrolla can be and should be used vs. a vehicle IF it chose to Ram of course.

Pg. 69 BRB: "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 it is capable of."

Also the tank can Tank shock and ram in the same move action following the rules.

Pg.69 BRB: "Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal."

Question now is in what order do you work out the deffrolla and the ramming effect!

on another forum someone send a mail to gw with this question:

answer: no it doesn't work if you are ramming

knowing how well GW reread their codexes I would say that It can be discussed over and over till gw put it in a faq

Ghaz wrote:

1hadhq wrote:And tankshock still isn't ramming.

But ramming is tank shock.

Still 2 different rules.

Makari wrote:Pg.69 BRB: "Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal."

Only these "units other than vehicles" get hit with the deathrolla.

1hadhq wrote:

Ghaz wrote:

1hadhq wrote:And tankshock still isn't ramming.

But ramming is tank shock.

Still 2 different rules.

So? Just because they're 'different' doesn't mean that one can't be a subset of the other. Ramming is a Tank Shock rule as per the rulebook.

Ghaz wrote:

1hadhq wrote:

Ghaz wrote:

1hadhq wrote:And tankshock still isn't ramming.

But ramming is tank shock.

Still 2 different rules.

So? Just because they're 'different' doesn't mean that one can't be a subset of the other. Ramming is a Tank Shock rule as per the rulebook.

Pg. 69 BRB: "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 it is capable of."


=> special type

so its not a standard "tankshock" and its not incuded in the description of the deathrolla.

You would not declare "tankshock" as your move and RAM someone then?

Again, so what? Just because it's a 'special' type of tank shock doesn't mean it's not a tank shock. It is a tank shock, it's just not a 'normal' tank shock. Where does the deathrolla say that it only works with a 'normal' type of tank shock and not a 'special' tank shock? It doesn't, so stop saying that it does. Ramming is a tank shock.

Ghaz wrote:Again, so what? Just because it's a 'special' type of tank shock doesn't mean it's not a tank shock. It is a tank shock, it's just not a 'normal' tank shock. Where does the deathrolla say that it only works with a 'normal' type of tank shock and not a 'special' tank shock? It doesn't, so stop saying that it does. Ramming is a tank shock.

And again:

Ramming is a special type of tankshock.

A deathrolla entitles you to: tankshock.
Does not entitle you to RAM.

Find Ramming worded in codex orks vehicle upgrades if you can

And how many times must I repeat myself?

RAMMING IS A TANK SHOCK, PERIOD.

Just because it's a special type of Tank Shock does not mean it's not a Tank Shock. If it were not a Tank Shock, then they would not have called it a Tank Shock in the first place. The use of the word 'special in no way, shape or form make it a 'non-Tank Shock'. 'Tank Shock' covers all types of tank shocks, be they the normal kind against infantry or the special kind called ramming that takes place against vehicles.

So once again, the use of the word 'Tank Shock' in the deathrolla entry does not say that it only applies to 'normal' tank shocks' against infantry. and you have nothing that says anything to the contrary except a lame excuse that a 'special' tank shock is not a tank shock.

Ghaz wrote:And how many times must I repeat myself?

RAMMING IS A TANK SHOCK, PERIOD.

Just because it's a special type of Tank Shock does not mean it's not a Tank Shock. If it were not a Tank Shock, then they would not have called it a Tank Shock in the first place. The use of the word 'special in no way, shape or form make it a 'non-Tank Shock'. 'Tank Shock' covers all types of tank shocks, be they the normal kind against infantry or the special kind called ramming that takes place against vehicles.

So once again, the use of the word 'Tank Shock' in the deathrolla entry does not say that it only applies to 'normal' tank shocks' against infantry. and you have nothing that says anything to the contrary except a lame excuse that a 'special' tank shock is not a tank shock.

endless?

nonsense doesnt get RAW if you post it 100 times.

There is a reason for this line:
Pg.69 BRB: "Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal."

wouldn't be needed IF a ramming move would be a tankshock.

Then why do you keep posting your 'nonsense'? When it says 'tank shock', you have nothing that proves that they're only talking about a 'normal' tank shock, do you? No. So why do you keep on with the nonsense that it does? "Tank Shock' means the 'normal' tank shock against infantry and the 'special' tank shock against vehicles known as Ramming.

And your quote from the rulebook doesn't back up your claims in the least. You declare a Ram against a vehicle and any other units in the way are Tank Shocked. It does NOT say that Ramming is not a Tank Shock. It simply tells us what happens to units that are in the way, nothing more.

The line Pg.69 BRB: "Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal." is there stating that you can Ram another vehicle and if when ramming a Vehicle you run through a unit they are tank shocked.

Yes Ramming is Tankshock. Thus the Deff Rolla can infact be used.

Ghaz wrote:Then why do you keep posting your 'nonsense'? When it says 'tank shock', you have nothing that proves that they're only talking about a 'normal' tank shock, do you? No. So why do you keep on with the nonsense that it does? "Tank Shock' means the 'normal' tank shock against infantry and the 'special' tank shock against vehicles known as Ramming.

And your quote from the rulebook doesn't back up your claims in the least. You declare a Ram against a vehicle and any other units in the way are Tank Shocked. It does NOT say that Ramming is not a Tank Shock. It simply tells us what happens to units that are in the way, nothing more.

"known as ramming"



It simply tells us that ramming IS a special type of tankshock and therefore different.
It tells us also that ramming is handled different than tankshock.
So its still a seperate rule.

You have to declare "tankshock" OR "ramming" so its NOT: tankshock=> move => hit infantry (tankshock) or hit a vehicle (ram).

Seperate rules needing to be declared before movement.
Seperate rules with their own paragraph.
2 words used in the BRB. Not to describe the same thing with 2 words. The BRB talks on different pages about tankshock and ramming and it is always a precise difference between tankshock vs non-vehicle and ramming vs vehicles.

Remember: codex ork release was before 5th ed. Ramming doesn't exist in 4th.

Bollocks. In 4th ed ramming another vehicle was certainly possible - it was called 'tank shock' - and no one doubted that the Deffrolla worked for it.

The only limitation on tank shocking other vehicles in 4th was that the victim had to have lower front armour than the attacking vehicle.

Ghaz wrote:Then why do you keep posting your 'nonsense'? When it says 'tank shock', you have nothing that proves that they're only talking about a 'normal' tank shock, do you? No. So why do you keep on with the nonsense that it does? "Tank Shock' means the 'normal' tank shock against infantry and the 'special' tank shock against vehicles known as Ramming.

And your quote from the rulebook doesn't back up your claims in the least. You declare a Ram against a vehicle and any other units in the way are Tank Shocked. It does NOT say that Ramming is not a Tank Shock. It simply tells us what happens to units that are in the way, nothing more.

Sorry Ghaz, but you don't have anything to prove otherwise either. You have nothing to prove that it isn't talking about a 'normal' tank shock, do you? Your own logic fails you. By RAW, the Ork codex calls for tank shock and must be used against a 'victim unit'. By RAW you 'have' to only use a 'tank shock' because that is what is in the codex. Not Ram. I'm sorry Ghaz, you may very well be right and a Ram is a tank shock. But that has no bearing on the Deff rolla or a reinforced ram because they only say "Tank Shock" and the word "Ram" is no where to be found.

What you are doing is called a 'logical jump'. Where because it says one thing that is related to something else, you *assume* that you are allowed to use the related item. And there is no room for *assumptions* in RAW.

RAW says Tank shock and there is no mention of Ram anywhere in the codex. Again, whether you argue Ram and Tank shock are the same is irrelevant, because the codex only calls for one of them and anything else is an *assumption*.

Just because it's different does not mean that it's not a type of Tank Shock. It does not have to have identical rules. If it did, then it wouldn't be a 'special' type of Tank Shock, but the normal type. The only requirement for it to be a type of Tank Shock is that the rules tell us that it is. And guess what? They do. When they say that Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock, that is exactly what they mean. It is a Tank Shock.

Are you going to try and claim that a bolt pistol is not a type of bolt weapon because it's rules are different than those of a bolter? That's exactly what you're trying to do.

padixon wrote:Sorry Ghaz, but you don't have anything to prove otherwise either.

You're the one's who are claiming that when they say 'tank shock', that they don't really mean 'tank shock'. The onus of proof is on your heads, not mine. The rules clearly say that Ramming is a tank shock. That's our proof. Now show us where it's not for the Deathrolla.

Ok first I will state as RAW in the Big rulebook it cannot possibly be interpreted any other way. pg 69 BRB "RAMMING IS A SPECIAL TYPE OF TANK SHOCK MOVE AND IS EXECUTED THE SAME WAY, exceptthat the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of.

Ramming = Tank shock (but Ramming is Tank shock vs. Vehicles)

Same paragraph as above "Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal."

What the BRB is telling us RAW is a Tank can attempt Ramming (=Tank Shock) and if it does attempt to ram a vehicle that has enemy non vehicle units in the way they are treated as tank shocked and then the Ramming happens, provided one of the enemy units does not do a Death or Glory attack and stop the tank.

Pretty straight forward.

Ghaz wrote:Just because it's different does not mean that it's not a type of Tank Shock. It does not have to have identical rules. If it did, then it wouldn't be a 'special' type of Tank Shock, but the normal type. The only requirement for it to be a type of Tank Shock is that the rules tell us that it is. And guess what? They do. When they say that Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock, that is exactly what they mean. It is a Tank Shock.

Are you going to try and claim that a bolt pistol is not a type of bolt weapon because it's rules are different than those of a bolter? That's exactly what you're trying to do.

padixon wrote:Sorry Ghaz, but you don't have anything to prove otherwise either.

You're the one's who are claiming that when they say 'tank shock', that they don't really mean 'tank shock'. The onus of proof is on your heads, not mine. The rules clearly say that Ramming is a tank shock. That's our proof. Now show us where it's not for the Deathrolla.

No, the onus is on you dude. Simply put you can not prove that Ram and Tank shock are the same. The rulebook is ambiguous at best on it. And can easily be seen as the same or different. Whatever quotes you want to throw that they are the same, I can through quotes showing you they are not.

The point is neither of us can prove one way or the other that Tank shock means both "tank shock" or "ram".

So, We are only left with one option: Read the Rule with RAW. And RAW points out that the Ork codex only mentions "tank shock", so we are left with that as are only option.

I don't need to prove anything. The codex says "tank shock" and not Ram, and you can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ram and Tank shock are the same. So we *must* follow RAW as it is are only option. Hence Ork upgrades may only "Tank Shock" because that is what it says they may do, and nothing else.

Edit: @ Makari, I like how you try to point out that they are the same, then you list 3 exceptions on how they are different, awesome. 2 points. And going by that logic, I will assume that all vehicles are tanks because a tank is a vehicle except that it is listed as a tank, and all types of saves are the same, except they are different, and...you get the picture. The quote of Ramming is a special type of tank shock is to help the reader understand that they are similar, not the same. Just like the examples I gave when I was poking fun.

Again, the jury is out on the RAM = Tank shock malarkey. So, we are left with reading the codex in a strict RAW setting.

**sigh**

Just wait for the Games workshop FAQ.

In the meantime, ponder this: Does Marneus Calgar's God of War rule cause No Retreat! wounds if you choose to pass?