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.

Democratus wrote:Deffrolla does not work against vehicles. Ramming has it's own special rules for dealing damage that involve relative armor values and speed. You use these rules instead of the S10 hits because that's what the Ramming rules say.

While I don't feel like there's enough merit in either argument to really sustain a YMDC thread on the topic, in game-my rebuttal would be:
That would be akin to saying that deffrolla doesn't work on a tank shock because a model failing a death or glory attempt is killed. Effects of the rolla are in addition to any other ramifications of the tank shock move.

The Ramming rules say:

Rulebook page 69 wrote:Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is
executed the same way

Ramming is a type of tank shock, it's there, it can't be ignored.

Deffrollas definitely work against vehicles, it's even in the Deffrolla fluff.

NaZ wrote:
ruled at the most recent GT and at 'Ard boyz:

tank shock = ram
wargear that effects one effects the other

therefore:

reinforced ram lets trukks ram
deffrollas work against anything hit by the battlewagon. vehicles included

NaZ

This thread, and the debate, ended at this post. Anything after this is just "what i want it to be" and not what has been ruled on.

why is this even a discussion?

and why is it overpowered? to make it work, you need to get your fragile av10 open-topped-rear into close quarters with a vehicle that's at least as fast as you. You're in no more danger from a death rolla than you are from a carnifex, and the 'fex isn't much slower any more.

An isolated ruling at a GW event is hardly set in stone. Rulings at GTs are meant to be fast and hard so as not to slow down gameplay. Until its FAQed we will hardly know the RAI.

Deff Rolla= Titan Killa

I really follow the logic of Ramming = Type of tank shock but Tank Shock is not a type of ramming. Therefore I personally don't think a Def Rolla hit should be used when ramming.

While RAW you can argue both ways as it is NOT SPELLED OUT (Ramming wasn't in the game back when the codex was writen)

GW should FAQ this.

If I could write the rules I think a better solution would be a Battle Wagon with a deff Rolla should get +1 to the ram strength.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:An isolated ruling at a GW event is hardly set in stone. Rulings at GTs are meant to be fast and hard so as not to slow down gameplay. Until its FAQed we will hardly know the RAI.

GT's and 'Ardboyz are hardly "isolated events". The rest of your post is pure conjecture.

Actually they are. They are some GW employee walking around answering questions to the best of their abilities. They have nothing official from the developers at all. They are instructed to answer questions with actual rules or tell the players to dice off. At least that's how its been for all the GTs I have attended.

That's not conjecture, that's what the Judges have told me their instructions were, and were my instructions when I helped judge an event (as a Redshirt myself).

So I call one guy basically fliping a coin in his head (becase the rules are unclear) an "isolated event" and hardly has the weight of a FAQ.

Or, you know, people could just read the rules closely and carefully.

Democratus wrote:Deffrolla does not work against vehicles. Ramming has it's own special rules for dealing damage that involve relative armor values and speed. You use these rules instead of the S10 hits because that's what the Ramming rules say.

None of that matters. All the rules for Ramming could be totally different from Tank Shock and it would not change a thing. It is a type of Tank Shock, thus it works.

Harkainos wrote:Tank shock does not equal ramming,
Ramming equals tank shock.

Not quite accurate. Your post should look like this:

All Ramming is Tank Shock.
Not all Tank Shocks are Ramming.

Since the Deffrolla affect Tank Shock, it affects all types of Tank Shock including Ramming. If the Deffrolla only worked for Ramming, then it would not work for all types of Tank Shock, since Ramming is a more specific type of Tank Shock.

asugradinwa wrote:I really follow the logic of Ramming = Type of tank shock but Tank Shock is not a type of ramming. Therefore I personally don't think a Def Rolla hit should be used when ramming.

Which does not matter one bit. All that matters is that Ramming is a type of Tank Shock. Just because all Tank Shocks are not Ramming is meaningless. Your logic is flawed. Nothing in the rules say that you can't use the Deffrolla to Ram just because 'Tank Shock is not a type of Ramming'.

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

Ramming is not Tank Shock.

Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock, just as a Cuttlefish is a special type of fish.

Yes, Ramming is Tank Shock. Once again, the rules can be completely different and it would not make one iota of difference. The rules say it is a type of Tank Shock, thus it is a Tank Shock.

Support your claims that just because the rules are different that it can't be a Tank Shock.

Tank Shock!, p.68, Rulebook wrote:When moving a tank, the player can declare that the vehicle is going to attempt to make a tank shock attack instead of moving normally.

...

Regardless of the result of the test, the vehicle keeps moving straight on, possibly tank shocking more enemy units until it reaches its final position. If the tank accidentally moves into contact with a friendly model or comes to within 1" of an enemy vehicle, it immediately stops moving.

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, p.69, Rulebook wrote:This means it may not shoot in that turn's Shooting phase...

...

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. 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.

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

Deff Rolla, p.55, Codex: Orks wrote:Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit.

"Any Tank Shock made" refers to the "tank shock attack" described by the Tank Shock rule.

The Tank Shock rule describes how, normally, a tank that is tank shocking stops 1" away from any vehicle in its path.

The Ramming rule describes how, as a special type of tank shock move, a tank that is ramming tank shocks non-vehicles as normal (as in the Tank Shock rule), if it does not shoot and moves at top speed, and may also damage other vehicles in collisions.

Tank Shock simply doesn't involve any interaction between vehicle models. Vehicles can ram other vehicles, as the rules addressing the ramming of skimmers and walkers show, but tank shock is an action that applies only to "an enemy unit other than a vehicle".

As the Ramming rule says:

Ramming, p.69, Rulebook wrote:Both players roll for armour penetration against their enemy vehicle and any result is immediately applied. If the vehicle that is rammed is not removed, the rammer halts. However, if the rammed vehicle is removed because it suffers a 'destroyed - explodes!' damage result, the rammer continues its move, until it reaches its maximum move distance or another enemy (which it will tank shock or ram again!).

Ramming is a special type of tank shock, it is a tank shock move that allows you to tank shock non-vehicles as normal, and/or ram vehicles as an extra bonus.

Nurglitch wrote:

Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock, just as a Cuttlefish is a special type of fish.

And I use the same #5 black wobbler to catch both cuttlefish and any other type of fish.

The D6 S10 hits work on a ram (which is a type of tankshock) and any other type of tankshock (it doesn't matter that there is currently only one other type).

Nurglitch wrote:Ramming is not Tank Shock.

Nurglitch wrote:Ramming is a special type of tank shock...

So which is it? If it's Tank Shock, then anything that works for Tank Shock also works for Ramming. You can't have it both ways.

Ghaz:

It may have occurred to you that my argument, as a point of record, is that Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock and hence not Tank Shock.

Saying that "You can't have it both ways" is presenting us with a false dilemma, and disingenuous considering that I have shown not only that we can have it both ways, but having it both ways is what the text indicates.

As I have noted, Tank Shock and Ramming share four characteristics, or properties, as we say in the biz.

These properties are:

1. Constraint on movement
2. Constraint on shooting
3. Constraint on affected units
4. Constraint on identity

These two rules differ in regard to the first three properties, and remain identical in regard to one property. Given that each rule has four properties and only share an identity on only one property, neither can be said to be a type of the other.

If a duck is something that walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feather like a duck, and has a bill like a duck, and someone claims that a platypus having a bill is sufficient to make a platypus a type of duck, that person is making a false claim of identity, and fails to understand the logic of types.

Since the rules state that they are only identical in one regard, such that only one thing that works for Tank Shock works for Ramming (each move can make tank shock attacks against non-vehicles), then it is false to conclude that anything that works for Tank Shock also works for Ramming.

In fact, it is only truthful to infer that Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock where tank shock attacks against non-vehicle units are concerned, since that is the only property in which the rules are identical.

Hence it is truthful both to say that Ramming is not Tank Shock because they do not share an identity, differing in three ways out of four, and to say that Ramming is special type of Tank Shock because under one special condition, tank shock attacks against non-vehicle units, they are the same.

To summarize:

Where Tank Shock and Ramming have 1/4 things in common they cannot be substituted for each other except in that special case, and they do not share an identity.

Nurglitch wrote:
If a duck is something that walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feather like a duck, and has a bill like a duck, and someone claims that a platypus having a bill is sufficient to make a platypus a type of duck, that person is making a false claim of identity, and fails to understand the logic of types.

No one cares about the similarities. We care that the rulebook says ram is a special kind of tank shock move.

Like saying: A mallard is a special kind of duck.

Still a duck

I'm sure with proper use of higher educational grammar and advanced word theory knowledge someone could make the argument that a duck is not a duck.

However, most of us would just ask "Did that just go quack?" And if the answer is yes, we will still call it a duck.

Nurglitch wrote:It may have occurred to you that my argument, as a point of record, is that Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock and hence not Tank Shock.

So once again, you're saying it is a Tank Shock but it's not a Tank Shock. Your 'argument' makes no sense. Just because it's a 'special type' of Tank Shock does not mean it's not a Tank Shock.

As was written before.

Square is a special type of Rectangle.
Not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles.

If there is a special rule affecting Rectangles, all squares are affected.

Squares vs Rectangles is better than Platypus vs Duck, because after all, a Platypus is not a special type of duck.

Moz:

I agree. That the rulebook calls Ramming a special type of Tank Shock is the crux of the matter. As I've explained, however, the facts about how type-identities works means that Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock because Ramming is not Tank Shock. Whether people care is, ironically, irrelevant to whether the logic of identity is relevant.

As I've explained, the relation is not that of Mallard:uck, but of Platypus:uck.

I suggest to people that if someone tries to pull this bullshiat on you and tries to run a vehicle model of yours over with a vehicle, and argues that all the rules for tank shock apply to ramming in justification for such a dick move, point out that the tank shock rules require the vehicle to stop 1" short of all vehicles.

Jayden63:

Actually, no, the proper use of "higher educational grammar and advanced word theory knowledge" would prevent a person from making the argument that a duck is not a duck. In fact, the proper use of basic grammar skills and introductory logic would prevent a person from seriously making such an argument.

One would think that common sense alone would be all that was necessary to preventing anyone from making the argument that if something has only one thing in common with a duck that the something in question is a duck. But the evidence suggests otherwise.

Ghaz:

Let me see if I can break this down for you, since you seem easily confused.

I am saying:

1. Ramming is not Tank Shock. They only have 1/4 things in common. If Ramming was Tank Shock, they would have 4/4 things in common.

2. Ramming is a special kind of Tank Shock. They have at least 1/4 things in common. There is a special condition under which they are the same.

3. What makes Ramming not Tank Shock is the same thing that makes it a special kind of Tank Shock.

damn ascii images...

nevermind

You're the one who seems confused. I have no trouble following the total lack of logic in your 'argument', but its still a load of BS. A special type of Tank Shock is still Tank Shock. No amount of double speak on your part is going to change that. Any kind of Tank Shock is a Tank Shock. Your argument that Tank Shock is not Tank Shock is absolutely ludicrous. Get over it. Once again, they could have NOTHING in common, but as long as the rules call Ramming a type of Tank Shock, then that is exactly what it is. Otherwise it would NOT be a Tank Shock.

Here's a diagram I whipped up, showing the identity relations between Tank Shock and Ramming, and the implication for using Deff Rollas.

So what? If you have to resort to a diagram to prove your point, you've already proven that your wrong. If it is called a Tank Shock of any type, then it is a Tank Shock, period. Once again, they could have NOTHING in common, yet they're BOTH Tank Shocks. Your claims that since they only have one thing in common means that they can't both be Tank Shocks is ludicrous and absolutely FALSE.

EVEN IF THEY HAVE NO RULES IN COMMON, THEY ARE BOTH TANK SHOCKS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE RULES CALL THEM.

Again, the number of rules they have in common or not does not change that fact and your diagram does not change that either.

This is hilarious.

For the record: QUACK.

Nurglitch, your diagram is faulty for two reasons. You can't always shoot after a tank shock. It depends entirely on how far you declared your tank shock. If it is over a speed that would disallow you to shoot, you can't shoot. In this way, tank shock is identical to ramming because, at maximum travelling speed, no non-Weapon Skill vehicle can shoot.

By your own diagram, when properly applied, ramming actually has three of the four mentioned properties in common with original tank shock.

As stated in the post before mine, though, just because you're a special kind of tank shock doesn't mean you're not a tank shock. I often find your opinions of the 'special' variety, but it does not take away from the fact that they are opinions.

Look, a duck!

The main problem I see here is that in order to explain why, in fact, you can't use a deffrolla on enemy vehicles you have to draw out so many things and explain so much and haggle so many rules that the following will be observed:

A game
1) Is entertaining
2) Involves competition
3) Is enjoyable to all parties involved
4) Concludes with a clear result

An Argument
1) Is entertaining
2) Involves competition
3) Is not enjoyable to all parties involved
4) Should conclude with a clear result

These two things differ on 2/4 accounts, and thus we can reason that an argument is not a game, and that a game should not be an argument.

Therefore roll a dice, or accept that the rules vaguely seem to allow it, even though that's broken as hell.

O-B-E-J-E-C-T-I-O-N!

A game should conclude with a clear result. It may not, due to a misruled rule. That's 3/4.

You have just said games are enjoyable to all parties involved. For some, games are not fun if you loose. That's 4/4.

Thus an argument is a game. Continue as you were folks, the D6 solution shall rest for another day.

In light of this discussion, I think it is clear that using a deffrolla on another vehicle should appropriately entitled, 'Duckrolla attack'.