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.

Honestly, if somebody death-rolled one of my vehicles, I'd laugh my ass off before taking advantage of the fact my vehicles are always behind my lines and meltagunning his exposed rear. A massive spinning chuck of metal, studded with spikes, chains and the odd crushed grot, leaping and rotating on a heavy drive chain like some ridiculous steel dog, crushing a carefully crafted steam-powered Russ tank to pieces and throwing the shattered plasteel and gold out the back end is too awesome to not play with, regardless of other factors. It's the sort of imagry I play Warhammer for.

On top of that, yes, it does say any sort of tank shock, and ramming is tank shock into a vehicle.

But it's a great orky thing, i am making a house rule for me and all my mates that orks can, they get compensated for it of course

Greebynog wrote: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.

You, Sir, are a genius. Consider yourself sigged.

yeah,
I agree with nurglitchs argument,

A RAM It is a special tank shock.
It tanks shocks every thing in it's path until it gets to a vehicle and then the special rules take over to decide what happens when one vehicle hits another and in those rules there is no mention of the strength of a weapon and/or how many hits are caused..

So with a dethroller you tank shock every non-veichle unit using your deth roller rules untill you reach a vehicle...


and visually i think a deth roller would cause less damage to a vehicle in a impact as it would probabily up end the battlewagon and roll over it.... i think a dozer blade or spike ram that rhinos have would do more damage in a ram...

Panic..>

A Ram is a special type of Tank Shock.
A deffRolla does D6 S10 hits when used for ANY type of Tank Shock.

Therefore, A Ram, being a type of Tank Shock, included in the wording "ANY Tank Shock", will include the DeffRolla damage.

I do agree that some rules are unclear, but
"Ram is a type of Tank Shock" and "Deffrolla works on ANY Tank Shock" seems pretty clear to me.

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

And exactly why is that? Codex Chaos Space Marines was written with a reference to the then unreleased 5th edition rulebook so why couldn't Codex Orks have a similar reference?

BlackSpike wrote:A Ram is a special type of Tank Shock.
I do agree that some rules are unclear, but
"Ram is a type of Tank Shock" and "Deffrolla works on ANY Tank Shock" seems pretty clear to me.

yeah,
it is clear, when you RAM you get to tank shock untill you hit a vehicle. the special part is that you then switch to ram rules...

PaniC...

Panic wrote:

BlackSpike wrote:A Ram is a special type of Tank Shock.
I do agree that some rules are unclear, but
"Ram is a type of Tank Shock" and "Deffrolla works on ANY Tank Shock" seems pretty clear to me.

yeah,
it is clear, when you RAM you get to tank shock untill you hit a vehicle. the special part is that you then switch to ram rules...

PaniC...

When you hit a vehicle (assuming you declared a Ram, and moved at Full Speed), you are still doing a Tank Shock.
It may be a special type of tank shock, but still a tank shock.
You still use all relevant tank shock rules unless otherwise stated.
The Main Rule Book says nothing about disregarding Wargear that adds extra damage to tank shocks. So it is not disregarded.

Is there any other Wargear that is used in either Tank Shocks, or Rams? (I don't have many Codex yet, so can't check myself. Just wanted to compare wordings/rules)

The only one I can think of is also in the Ork codex the reinforced ram. It allows trukks to tankshock and it treats the front armor as two points higher for death or glory attempts.

NaZ wrote:... I go back to the point that trying to hold this mess up as RAW is just silly....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 think the majority agree that the interpetation that the deff rolla works in this situation....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.......I'm not willing to stand in the RAW camp

NaZ

A. It seems absurd to me that you want to contend over the meaning of the rule, yet refuse to accept the validity of the rules as written. If you are playing in an insular environment with friends who agree then RAW are irrelevant. All that matters in your setting is having a good time with friends who all agree on how to play. If that is your situation, the entire discussion is irrelevant to you.

B. Yes I'd expect a big steam roller to have minimal effects on a tank. After all it can't penetrate a guardsamns flak jacket. However I really don't want to engage in fluff based arguements. The rules say what they say. It's nice when the rule makes intuitive sense based on the fluff, but if you play in a competitive environment you need to learn to distinguish what the rules actually say.

C. The fact that you play Orks doesn't strengthen your arguement. If anything it weakens it. You have a vested interest in your interpretation: both in terms of personal embarrasment if you need to explain to your friends that you were wrong and in terms of maintaining an on field advantage.

D. A majority of posters here have thus far been on your side. Note however, that the title of thread is likely to attract primarily Ork players and they share your bias. Is there anyone here arguing FOR the ability that does NOT play orks?

I'm building a list with 4 deffrolla wagons at the moment, I think I should declare a conflict of interests!

I only started after reading the rules though.

BlackSpike wrote:
You still use all relevant tank shock rules unless otherwise stated.

Well that is exactly what I'm saying. The Ramming rules tell you to follow some of the tank shock rules (with differences that have been noted above) until you collide with a vehicle. In which case you are told specifically how to handle it. So it is "otherwise stated."

yeah,
I don't play orks, and none of my play group plays orks. but it's clear to me that the RAI is for tank shocking troops, and Raw seems to support that. but a few missplaced references are being claimed by people that want D6 strength 10 hits purly because they contact a tank with another regardless of distance travelled?

"I've rammed from 1" away but I don't care about the RAM rules now cos I still get D6 strength 10 hits on your tank!!!" my wargear is the RoxXoR cos a RAM is a special type of Tank Shock!!!

It's labled as a special type of tank shock so that you know:
1)troops will be Tank Shocked!
2)that it needs Full speed to build up to...
3)RAM another vehicle.

Any thing else is just stupid.

Panic...

TROY CLIFTON wrote:

NaZ wrote:... I go back to the point that trying to hold this mess up as RAW is just silly....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 think the majority agree that the interpetation that the deff rolla works in this situation....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.......I'm not willing to stand in the RAW camp

NaZ

A. It seems absurd to me that you want to contend over the meaning of the rule, yet refuse to accept the validity of the rules as written. If you are playing in an insular environment with friends who agree then RAW are irrelevant. All that matters in your setting is having a good time with friends who all agree on how to play. If that is your situation, the entire discussion is irrelevant to you.

B. Yes I'd expect a big steam roller to have minimal effects on a tank. After all it can't penetrate a guardsamns flak jacket. However I really don't want to engage in fluff based arguements. The rules say what they say. It's nice when the rule makes intuitive sense based on the fluff, but if you play in a competitive environment you need to learn to distinguish what the rules actually say.

C. The fact that you play Orks doesn't strengthen your arguement. If anything it weakens it. You have a vested interest in your interpretation: both in terms of personal embarrasment if you need to explain to your friends that you were wrong and in terms of maintaining an on field advantage.

D. A majority of posters here have thus far been on your side. Note however, that the title of thread is likely to attract primarily Ork players and they share your bias. Is there anyone here arguing FOR the ability that does NOT play orks?

Those who argue that the rolla affects vehicles seem to have a better understanding of RaW than you. Unless, according to you a RaW reading of "any" actually means "some."

Panic wrote:
"I've rammed from 1" away but I don't care about the RAM rules now cos I still get D6 strength 10 hits on your tank!!!" my wargear is the RoxXoR cos a RAM is a special type of Tank Shock!!!

Are you simply not a fan of special rules, because Orks are by no means the only army that would have special wargear and rules which make them unique and alter the way it plays to the standard rules.

Just because a rule reference doesn't fit what you believe to be fact does not mean that they are "misplaced" or simply invalid, due to what one believes the intent is. Most, I believe, are more inclined to believe an argument based on RAW than RAI. Intent is always subjective and is based on personal standards that cannot be validated. While many may not agree that the potential in the RAW is fair, it cannot just be idly dismissed. The BGB has been quoted numerous times as to why a Deff Rolla may be used during a Ram, but little by way of actual rule statement has been made to the contrary. The opposition seems only based upon what such players believe the intent was, and by any standard, that is not a valid argument to nullify a distinct advantage.

Da Boss:

When you say "little by way of actual rule statement has been made to the contrary [that a Deff Rolla may be used during a Ram]", what exactly has, in your opinion, been offered as textual evidence that a Deff Rolla may not be used during a Ram?

Could you, if you would, quote the statements that have been made and restate the argument that the Deff Rolla may not be used during a Ram in your own words?

Nurglitch wrote:Da Boss:

When you say "little by way of actual rule statement has been made to the contrary [that a Deff Rolla may be used during a Ram]", what exactly has, in your opinion, been offered as textual evidence that a Deff Rolla may not be used during a Ram?

Can you, if you would, provide quotes and restate the argument that the Deff Rolla may not be used during a Ram in your own words?

I suppose thats my point, Nurglich. Many have quoted that Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock, and that the Deff Rolla may be used in ANY Tank Shock. The argument is made and appears valid. All who seem to beleive the Deff Rolla may not be used in Ramming have not offered much by way of RAW to dispute it. There have been comparisons made about Tank Shock and Ramming, but these are all nulled by the fact that the BGB states that Ramming is a special type of tank shock and is excecuted in the same way. While I agree this is needing an FAQ to clear up the details of this dispute, there is little evidence that a positive assumption is wrong and that it should be played as anything other than RAW.

Nurglitch wrote:... 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."...

Da Boss, Maybe you didn't read the posts that contradicted your opinion of how it should work?

As he quoted from the rules above when you get to a vehicle the special type of tank shock finnishs and what follows is the rules for a vehicle collision...

Panic...

Panic wrote:
Da Boss, Maybe you didn't read the posts that contradicted your opinion of how it should work?

As he quoted from the rules above when you get to a vehicle the special type of tank shock finnishs and what follows is the rules for a vehicle collision...
Panic...

Where are you getting that the Tank Shock finishes when it makes contact with a vehicle? Sure, there is a collision that is resolved in the Ramming section, but the act is still a Tank Shock, and the Deff Rolla rule states "Strenth 10 hits on the victim unit". You are still, in essence, Tank Shocking the vehicle, and it, being the victim unit, still suffers the D6 Str 10 hits. You are assuming that the Tank Shock ends upon collision, but this is not validated by anything in the rules.

DaBoss:

Sure, the argument has been advanced that, because the rules say that ramming is a special type of tank shock, any rules that apply to tank shocks apply to rams, such as the Deff Roller.

In order for this argument to be valid it needs to reflect what the rules actually state, rather than being quoted out of context. Quoted out of context, this argument is invalid because it turns on the semantics of "special kind" being the same as "sub-type" so that the mechanics of a more general rule, putatively tank shock, apply to a more specific rule, putatively ramming.

However, as I have argued using textual evidence, ramming is not a sub-type of tank shock, and that reading "special kind" to mean something like "sub-type" is reading the rules incorrectly - at least insofar as we're concerned with the layout of the rules, the relevant differences between ramming and tank shock, and the specific wording of the tank shock, ramming, and Deff Rolla rules.

So there is plenty of evidence to show, conclusively I think, that the Deff Rolla only applies to tank shock attacks, and not to collisions.

olympia wrote:Those who argue that the rolla affects vehicles seem to have a better understanding of RaW than you. Unless, according to you a RaW reading of "any" actually means "some."

I don't claim to have exclusive rights to truth or reason, nor am I dismissive of anyone's arguements as long as they are based on a reasonable interpretation of the rule. I DO however immediately dismiss the validity of any arguement based on fluff or intent.

In a game I almost alway ask my opponent his interpretation and go with it. My whole purpose in starting this thread was to help a friend who is starting an ork army to clarify the issue before he had issues during a game or tournament.

The same passages of the rules have been quoted extensively here to argue BOTH sides. This whole thing reminds me of the ATSKNF misinterpretation from years ago. The rule read that marines automatically rallied when broken even if below half. Throughout the US tournament circuit marine players uniformly ignored not only the restriction of being below half, but also the restriction of being within 6" of an enemy vehicle. We'd all beeen playing it that way for years when GW declared that "automatically" didn't mean the other restrictions could be ignored.

Clearly Tank Shock does not allow contact with a vehicle. The rule specifically states that you stop 1" away. YES ramming is stated to be a "special type" of tank shock. Is it REASONABLE to infer then, that Ramming Deff Rollas get tank shock attacks? Yes it is.

Please, wether you agree with me or not, at least have the courtesy to acknowledge that there are also REASONABLE arguements to the contrary.

well.. in light of comments made about my responses, I'll just say the following:

I don't argue for it because I play it.. I play other armies too.

I do think that my point still has validity, dispite my overall feelings about GW's rules and the whole RAW arguement.

the majority consensus continues to be that it works. the same people keep arguing over and over that it shouldnt, but I don't see anyone else really adding enough to outweigh the majority here.

I would agree with the majority regardless of the decision. especially if it was in my local group. better to play towards what the majority agrees then to try to sit on a pedestal and argue towards the minority.. weather it is to your personal advantage or not.

this leads to the comment I made about the people arguing against it probably don't play orks and don't want to have to deal with it.

all we can hope for, is that there is a difinitive FAQ released from GW to make it official policy.

until that happens, its really up to the tournament organizer or the vagarities of 4+ dice offs to determine who is right.

so if yakface can come up with something and publish it in his FAQ, since adepticon adopted it last time it would be the ruling I would stand with, weather it is for or against my opinion.

I take this stance because yakface has been regarded as a signifigant contributor of rules. I kept the adepticon faq with me until 5th edition. I'll keep the new one with me until it is replaced (hopefully it is done soon!)

and I always started games with "look I have this FAQ. if something comes up we can look in here and see if there is an answer" everyone is happy with that.

you may agree with me, or disagree with me. I'm ok with us disagreeing on this point.

I don't mean this as an attack, but I'm glad I don't play with you nurglitch. this isn't the first debate I've seen go this way. I couldn't stand trying to argue for so long about something like this

and frankly.. its only come up once in 10+ games since I started using my battlewagon. most of the time it is far better to just tankshock other stuff.

but yes it does come up, and none of my opponents have given me grief about it.

maybe you just play against orks and don't like it? I don't know. I don't know your playgroup.

but again, all that matters is what the tournament organizers decide yes? or we wait until GW gets theirselves together and FAQs this.

NaZ

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:DaBoss:

Sure, the argument has been advanced that, because the rules say that ramming is a special type of tank shock, any rules that apply to tank shocks apply to rams, such as the Deff Roller.

In order for this argument to be valid it needs to reflect what the rules actually state, rather than being quoted out of context. Quoted out of context, this argument is invalid because it turns on the semantics of "special kind" being the same as "sub-type" so that the mechanics of a more general rule, putatively tank shock, apply to a more specific rule, putatively ramming.

However, as I have argued using textual evidence, ramming is not a sub-type of tank shock, and that reading "special kind" to mean something like "sub-type" is reading the rules incorrectly - at least insofar as we're concerned with the layout of the rules, the relevant differences between ramming and tank shock, and the specific wording of the tank shock, ramming, and Deff Rolla rules.

So there is plenty of evidence to show, conclusively I think, that the Deff Rolla only applies to tank shock attacks, and not to collisions.

Your entire "conclusive" argument is based upon your claim that these two rule are not related. How can you claim that Tank Shock and Ramming are two distinct and unrelated things when it does textually state that ramming is a special kind of tank shock, and that even the very execution is the same? If this is truly the basis of what you perceive as a bulletproof reasoning, then it’s based upon nothing more than opinion since the many times quoted rule states otherwise.

NaZ wrote:I don't mean this as an attack, but I'm glad I don't play with you nurglitch. this isn't the first debate I've seen go this way. I couldn't stand trying to argue for so long about something like this

I find it strange that you would think that I would argue over rules in a game. Likewise I find it odd that you would prejudge whether I was fun to play with based on my actions in a rules forum, since haggling about the rules is simply something that civilized people do not do in the middle of games. I mean, I know you don't mean that as an attack, but what on Earth is the point of saying that if you don't mean it as an attack?

This is a forum in which to discuss rules, so it seems to me like the right place to work through disagreements so that they can be settled in a venue that is not a game. I'm used to working in forums such as these, although greatly expanded and considerably more formal, and they're great things to have because they, when properly conducted, greatly facilitate constructive discussion. This is a very useful tool that we can take advantage of, if people are willing to make the short term effort of addressing each other's positions carefully, considerately, and impersonally.

Part of the reason why this discussion has "gone on so long" (although, from my perspective in academia it's a rather small discussion), I think, is because people have not done what people should always do when they disagree: find something to agree on and work from there.

Presumably we can all agree that the text says what it says, and the disagreement is about how we are reading it. I have shown how I am reading the text, and how I think that reading supports my conclusions and undermines contrary conclusions. What, specifically, about it do you disagree with and why?

ok fair enough. lets try to move this in a positive direction.

I think the issue stems from how the book was organized. the crutch of both sides of the debate is weather or not a ram is considered a tank shock type event which would activate the deff rolla.

I don't know if there is any other tank shock related wargear that would apply. this seems like a very isolated interaction of rules

because of that, it is proving difficult to achieve any sort of consensus on this forum.

and like I said, RAW only works when the rules are clear to begin with.

I think since they are in the same heading there is no reason it shouldnt apply

I also think the deff rolla should have been written more specifically to discuss weather or not it works in a ram.. something that GW could have easily cleared up in the last batch of FAQ and chose not to address.

one point I think supports my arguement is that walkers can death or glory during a ram. which would activate the 2nd provision of the deffrolla. other vehicles cannot death or glory.. but that doesn't disclude them from the effects.

also, the deffrolla says "each unit" and nowhere does it say that vehicles are not units

those are the specific points I use to support my side of the debate.

NaZ

The vehicle is not Tank Shocked.

It is Rammed.

@Nurglitch

I think your long post above is compelling. However, I've had some training in formal logic myself and I, if I bothered my arse, could easily write up syllogism and venn diagrams for both positions. Although the "any" in the codex rules would make illustrating daboss's position easier. This is yet another example of how piss-poor GW is at writing rules. Why this incompetence continues from one edition to another is a topic for another thread.

DaBoss:

I don't think I'm making the argument that the Tank Shock and Ramming rules are not related.

They are related, as I have shown using rule summaries that I have reiterated. In particular they both allow non-vehicle units to be subject to tank shock attacks as described in the Tank Shock rule. Ramming is, as it says in the rules, a special type of tank shock.

Ordinarily "special kind" means something like:

1. A distinct or particular kind or character.

2. A particular kind; particular, individual, or certain.

3. Pertaining or peculiar to a particular thing; distinctive; unique.

4. A kind having a specific or particular function, purpose, etc.

5. A kind distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual: a special occasion.

6. An extraordinary kind; exceptional, as in amount or degree; especial.

7. Being such in an exceptional degree; particularly valued.

I think #5 is the sense in which "special kind" is being used in the rulebook. That is because the execution of the two rules is not the same, as I have also noted. A Ramming tank must move at top speed, for one, it may not shoot, for two, and it may collide with enemy vehicles, for three. Moreover the rules for Ramming are not a sub-header of Tank Shock, like the Death or Glory rules are. Given these four ways in which Ramming is distinguishable from Tank Shock, it seems inappropriate to treat the former as a sub-type of the latter.

My argument is that they are not related in the way that allows vehicles to be subject to tank shocks.

I'm not sure what you mean by "bulletproof" reasoning, as I'm offering an inductive argument based on textual evidence, and not really the sort of deductive argument that such epiphets apply to. But it is, I think, conclusive in that it accounts for the relevant textual material, and gives an accurate exegesis of its structure and wording.

olympia:

So how about you take the time, and we'll see if anything useful comes of it? If you have some training in logic I'm sure you'll be familiar with the gap between what one might expect eyeballing something, and the surprise that is often accompanied when one sets pen to paper for formal proof.

There is one relevant section of the rules that I don't think has been quoted: "If the tank accidentally moves into contact with a friendly model or comes witrhin 1" of an enemy vehicle, it immediately stops moving." Tank Shock rule pg 68.

So "Tank Shock" specifically dissallows contact with an enemy vehicle. My inference is that if contact occurs with an enemy vehicle you are no longer Tank Shocking. The arguement is bolstered by the paragraph in the Ramming rules that contiains the much quoted "special type of tank shock move. Let's look at the entire paragraph:
"Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way, except that the tank mustr always move at the highest speed it 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."

This paragraph clearly separates the tank shock of intervening units "other than vehicles" and the collison with a vehicle. Ramming is a tank shock until you pass within 1" of an enenmy vehicle. By rule if you are tank shocking you must stop there. Inside 1" you are now Ramming, and different rules apply. Your tank shock move must meet the additional restrictions listed above before you can Ram, but once you pass within that 1" buffer you can no longer be considered tank shocking.

Also note the Walker rules only make mention how to handle the walker being Rammed. No reference to tank shock there.

Nurglitch wrote:olympia:

So how about you take the time, and we'll see if anything useful comes of it? If you have some training in logic I'm sure you'll be familiar with the gap between what one might expect eyeballing something, and the surprise that is often accompanied when one sets pen to paper for formal proof.

A unit is affected by tank shock
A vehicle is a unit
A vehicle is affected by tank shock

---a barbara syllogism

Now you illustrate the other position? Consider it a joint. pub.

TROY CLIFTON wrote:Also note the Walker rules only make mention how to handle the walker being Rammed. No reference to tank shock there.

If this is the case, Troy, then why does it state "it can attempt as "Death or Glory!" attack in the same way as infantry." You're right in saying that Tank Shock, the rule or words, do not appear in this entry. But then why does it refer to a rule for Tank Shock when in reference to Ramming the Walker? Again, it does not say to refer to Tank Shock's Death or Glory!, but that you just refer to it as standard. This should also show a obvious link to the two actions as being a part of the same thing.

DaBoss wrote:

TROY CLIFTON wrote:Also note the Walker rules only make mention how to handle the walker being Rammed. No reference to tank shock there.

If this is the case, Troy, then why does it state "it can attempt as "Death or Glory!" attack in the same way as infantry." You're right in saying that Tank Shock, the rule or words, do not appear in this entry. But then why does it refer to a rule for Tank Shock when in reference to Ramming the Walker? Again, it does not say to refer to Tank Shock's Death or Glory!, but that you just refer to it as standard. This should also show a obvious link to the two actions as being a part of the same thing.

I refer you back to the post just prior to the one you quoted.

Troy, you however seem to be contradicting yourself. You are the one who brought up the walker scenario as not stating the Tank Shock rule in its use, but I have pointed out, in quotes, how it can be seen that the rules are linked as being nearly one in the same.

By your logic, the Ramming Walkers section is invalid and wrong. If the walker cannot be Tank Shocked, then the Death or Glory! reference is invalid and illegal. However, its clear that it is, and it is applied during a Ram. Again, it does not say to refer to Tank Shock at all, and in fact, does not mention it at all. How then can the Death or Glory reference exist in this situation if its fundamentally seperate. The simple answer is that its not. Ramming is a Tank Shock with a vehicle being the direct target of the movement. Even the Ramming section states that non-vehicle models in way are "tank shocked as normal", showing that the action as a whole validates a Tank Shock.

Walkers provide a curious mix of vehicle and non-vehicle rules. They are allowed to death or glory when RAMMED, not because they are being tank shocked, but because the rule specifically allows it. Indeed if it were a TANK SHOCK there wopuld be no need for a special rule allowing them to Death or Glory. I see no contradiction in that.

olympia:

I was thinking moreso about building an argument by which each of the premises in such a syllogism was adduced from textual evidence. After all, for such a syllogism to be sound you would have to show that the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises (for some given value of 'necessarily'), and that the premises are true.

Such as it is the first premise you have given without justification is false. The first premise is false because only non-vehicle units are affected by tank shock attacks, and a tank shocking vehicle must stop 1" short of any other vehicle in its path.

A true premise, or at least a premise I think is justified by the text, would be that only non-vehicle units can be tank shocked:

"If an enemy unit other than another vehicle is reached (including any model in an artillery unit), the unit must take a Morale check and will immediately fall back if it fails it."

"If the tank accidentally moves into contact with a friendly model or comes to within 1" of an enemy vehicle, it immediately stops moving."

So:

P1. Only non-vehicle units are affected by tank shock
P2. Deff Roller applies to tank shocks
C. Therefore, vehicles cannot be affected by Deff Rollers

Nurglitch wrote:olympia:

I was thinking moreso about building an argument by which each of the premises in such a syllogism was adduced from textual evidence. After all, for such a syllogism to be sound you would have to show that the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises (for some given value of 'necessarily'), and that the premises are true.

Such as it is the first premise you have given without justification is false. The first premise is false because only non-vehicle units are affected by tank shock attacks, and a tank shocking vehicle must stop 1" short of any other vehicle in its path.

A true premise, or at least a premise I think is justified by the text, would be that only non-vehicle units can be tank shocked:

"If an enemy unit other than another vehicle is reached (including any model in an artillery unit), the unit must take a Morale check and will immediately fall back if it fails it."

"If the tank accidentally moves into contact with a friendly model or comes to within 1" of an enemy vehicle, it immediately stops moving."

So:

P1. Only non-vehicle units are affected by tank shock
P2. Deff Roller applies to tank shocks
C. Therefore, vehicles cannot be affected by Deff Rollers

My first premise is taken from the ork codex, "any unit" (I should have written "all/any" instead of 'a' for clarity). The BGB states that all vehicles are units. Your P1 makes an inference, whereas mine is taken directly from the text, "any unit." I'd have to check the form of your syllogism--it may be conditionally valid. A barbara syllogism is, of coures, unconditionally valid.

edit: why were you unable to see the textual evidence--the codex--for my premise? Are we back to contesting the meaning of "any" again? Are you going to contest that in logic any/all are interchangeable?

Where in Codex: Orks does it say that "[A/all/any] unit is affected by tank shock"?

I'm looking for quotes and pages numbers; I'm certainly not trying to advance an argument that 'any' and 'all' quantify in the same way at all.

I'd recommend coding my syllogism in a predicate pseudo-code rather than applying Aristotelian syllogistic, syllogistic doesn't handle quantification well enough to deal adequately with the Warhammer 40k rules (as evidenced by the fact that they use numbers).

It does not. That is the conceit.
It says "Any Tank Shock".

best thing I can come up with to provide more information.

both walkers and artillery are able to death or glory a tank.

the fact that death or glory can normally only be done in response to a tank shock makes me believe that a ram is infact a tank shock move that has certain conditions:

1. move at max speed
2. cannot shoot

other than that they seem equal when looked at from the perspective of what units can respond and how they do so.

ramming a walker is no different than tank shocking an infantry unit.

ramming a unit of artillery is no different than tank shocking an infantry unit.

a walker is a unit
artillery is a unit
vehicles are units

there is no specific exclusion to either walkers or artillery being affected by the deffrolla. it simply says:

(paraphrased because it is copywritten material)
"any tank shock made by a battlewagon with a deff rolla... if the unit elects to make a death or glory attack ... in addition to the usual effects"
pg 55, ork codex

I left out the specific information, but we all know what it is.

the "in addition to the usual effects" is what we're talking about.

both a tank shock and its subtype a ram have "usual effects"

the deffrolla does its effect "in addition to the usual effects"


NaZ

yeah...
ok...
So reading the rules to each other a lot proves little. (Other than people that don't want to listen to people that tell them they can’t get a D6 strength 10 titanesqu tank busting weapon for cheap... sad isn't it.) So i wonder if putting some perspective on the power level of the deff rolla helps.

I don't have my ork codex at hand... how muh does a Deff rolla cost?
How many other weapons are there that at 12" range Auto Hit Strength 10? up to 6 times?

The nearest thing I can find is in apocalypse, If you spend 700pts on a barbed hierodule.
That’ll get you it's bio canon doing assault 6 str10.... and that’s at BS3 so you up get up to 6 hits...

So let me ask again... how many pts is a deff rolla?

Panic...

20 points. It's in an earlier post.

Troy, the FAQ allows the deff roller to affect multiple units. That could be argued to allow for multiple rams, thus hitting infantry, warwalker squadron, and vehicles. I guess what I'm arguing is that this FAQ COULD be used to get around the 1inch rule if it comes in contact with an enemy vehicle.

Either way, I see how the rules can be interpreted both ways. (Troy and I were having the debate, thought we'd put it on Dakka to get some other feedback). Civil feedback hopefully. I will argue that the deff roller gets to use it's attacks on a vehicle OR an infantry unit until otherwise informed by a FAQ, a Judge at a tournament, etc..

Panic, if your reasoning is only that its unfair is not even close to being a valid argument. There are many pieces of equipment which seems overpowered but are taken for what they are. You can't just pick and choose what you choose to accept things based upon what you believe their impact in the game might be. Its an upgrade for a potentially over priced and vulnerable vehicle. Its not like you can attach the thing to a Trukk.

I don't think any will convinced one way or the other and it's basically best to wait for an FAQ, either GW or yakface's. Suppose its always best to just talk to your gaming group and go with the majority consensus.

yeah,
It sucks because people will take it on the basis that it's vague. argue the toss till we roll for it, 4+ they get a titan weapon they know they shouldn't. yay RoxXor rolla.
if they don't win the roll, no loss, it still kills infantry like it should.. Win Win for the cheats.

And again I'll point out that I don't play orks and I've not played a single person that plays orks. But reading this thread I just can't belive what people are pulling on fellow gamers.

Panic..

So, I was wondering:

If a Battlewagon gets to tank shock other vehicles with its Deff Rolla, does that mean that vehicles tank shocked by a Battlewagon follow all the rules for tank shocks?

Can vehicles being rammed, since ramming is tank shock, automatically pass their Morale check and either Death or Glory, or "simply let the tank move through, as if [the enemy vehicle] was not there"?

Panic wrote:yeah,
It sucks because people will take it on the basis that it's vague. argue the toss till we roll for it, 4+ they get a titan weapon they know they shouldn't. yay RoxXor rolla.
if they don't win the roll, no loss, it still kills infantry like it should.. Win Win for the cheats.

And again I'll point out that I don't play orks and I've not played a single person that plays orks. But reading this thread I just can't belive what people are pulling on fellow gamers.

Panic..

You're kidding me aren't you? I mean, to say that someone is cheating because of a rule discussion when it can reasonable go their way?

No just the ones that seem to be fun. Using all the text could be worse than only using what is relevant.

Nurglitch wrote:So, I was wondering:

If a Battlewagon gets to tank shock other vehicles with its Deff Rolla, does that mean that vehicles tank shocked by a Battlewagon follow all the rules for tank shocks?

Can vehicles being rammed, since ramming is tank shock, automatically pass their Morale check and either Death or Glory, or "simply let the tank move through, as if [the enemy vehicle] was not there"?

Nope, of course not. Ramming is a "special tank shock" thus it follows special tank shock rules that do not allow for a leadership (except walkers). And no, we've been over this, this doesn't negate the deff roller's special attacks (per my interpretation, admittedly, people can reasonably read it differently and hey, can even say you are cheating apparently) as the codex controls (it used unit, not infantry, etc..).

I don't think we'll see a FAQ from this as the writers feel, felt, will forever feel, that it's clear. (now, which they wanted this to go, who knows).

calltoarms:

Except that if people arguing for the use of Deff Rollas against vehicles because ramming is a special kind of tank shock, and a unit that is tank shocked can normally either Death or Glory or move out of the way, and unless specified ramming follows all of the rules of tank shock, then a vehicle's option to Death or Glory or move out of the way is a consequence of ramming being a special kind of tank shock.

The fact is that if a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla can tank shock an enemy vehicle, rather than merely collide with it as described in the rules on ramming, then that vehicle has the option, automatically, to either Death or Glory, or to move out of the way and remain unharmed by the Battlewagon.

I raised this unpalatable consequence to show that if we [mis]read the rules as if they permitted vehicles to be tank shocked results in an absurdity. If the rules allow vehicles to be tank shocked, then vehicles can just move out of the way and remain unaffected, exactly as if they could not be tank shocked. Of course, this is a negative argument against allowed vehicles to be tank shocked, to complement my positive argument about how I think the rules should be read

calltoarms wrote:...that do not allow for a leadership (except walkers).... (now, which they wanted this to go, who knows).

Walkers don't get to make a leadership check either. Why? Because they are being rammed and while their rules allow them to take death or glory they don't allow them to make a leadership check and skip aside as if being tank shocked.

Who's going to send a letter to Phil Kelly then? I'll do it if no one else can be bothered, I want to get this sorted. I'm still not convinced it can't be used against vehicles, but I can fully see why others don't believe that. I'll be honest, if it can't it makes deffrollas all but useless for orks, they have no problem dealing with infantry as it is.

BTW,
I think at this point all arguements both ways have been aired. Can someone get Yakface to chime in with his opinion, and then lets all just go with it. We aren't likely to get anything more official.

TROY CLIFTON wrote:BTW,
I think at this point all arguements both ways have been aired. Can someone get Yakface to chime in with his opinion, and then lets all just go with it. We aren't likely to get anything more official.

Well, we know he's out there watching, lurking, stalking, waiting. He's making a list, checking it twice, gonna find out, wait, wrong guy.

One minor note, I don't think that not being able to shoot and having to move at full speed are two seperate differences, one predicates the other.

Greebynog:

Deff Rollas won't be useless. Remember that Battlewagons are AV14 on the front, for a possible S9 hit (more like S8) hit on whatever vehicle it rams. If it does explode its target, or has to cross terrain to get there, then the Deff Rolla lets it re-roll dangerous terrain tests.

Against a light vehicle squadron it's still likely that you're mow them all down, and it's better than nothing if the vehicle is shaken, or has lost its armament.

Besides, if the multiple Battlewagon lists we've read about are true, then those lists will need the Deff Rollas as anti-infantry because there won't be much room for other anti-infantry!

I agree with appealing to yakface to try to get his opinion.

and no, vehicles couldnt be hurt by a regular tank shock.

thats the difference. a tank shock is a slow deliberate movement, a ram is a full speed effort.

you cannot hit the vehicle unless you declare ahead of time that it is your intention to try a ram.

however there is no reason not to when you're not going to shoot anyway

to those that question its power level.

literally in like 10 games it has only occured once.. and that was against a rhino.

anyone with a high importance vehicle isn't going to let the battlewagon get there anyway.

most of the time, the deffrolla makes its points back and causes a rukus. it really isn't as overpowered as some are making it out to be.

but I'm done debating the point.

the point that all the arguements on both sides have been made is agreeable.

at this point, we're going to have to agree to disagree and appeal to yakface and GW to try to sort the mess out in some arbitrary way so the rest of us can get on to our games

this isn't an issue I have to worry about in my local group anyway. I only upheald my end of the debate to keep it moving.

NaZ

My opinion holds no weight on how (or if) GW will actually include this in a FAQ.

I think no matter what conclusion any particular person comes to on this matter the way the rule is written will constantly generate conflicting viewpoints unless it is FAQ'd.

IMHO, it is therefore pretty pointless to keep arguing as all that can be said to convince any one person has been said already.

well.. here is to hoping then that it gets included in your 5th ed faq or gets submitted to GW with the rest of your rules questions

NaZ

Just to debunk the "It would be TOO powerful argument, and therefore couldn't be the intent" argument: there was no question whatsoever in 4th edition, when this was written, it works as intended. Additionally, the fluff right next to the rule talks about wagons with grabbin klaws and deffrollas rolling over vehicles.

The dialog for the argument against is pretty dubious. Imagine that I ram your vehicle, then I pick up the dice to roll for the rolla and you say:
You: "Hold on, you rammed, that's not a tank shock"
Me: "Ok so what is a ram, lets look at the rules."
Rulebook: "A ram is a special kind of tank shock"
You: "So it's a tank shock until it hits a vehicle, and then it's a ram, not a tank shock, and then it goes back to being a tank shock later!"
Me: "Yeah it doesn't really say any of that in here, how about we just play by what's written in here?"

I agree that it's too powerful, but I think the RAW and the RAI on this one are on the side of the rolla being too powerful.

What other decent anti tank abilities do orks have anyway? Tankbustas are great, sure, except oh yeah, they gotta pursue vehicles only and they get no transport unless they jack one at the start of the game. Hidden powerklaws? As long as they can make it across the table, under fire the whole way, the orks are golden! Rokkits or zzap guns? Puhlease...! Orks have no melta weapons to speak of and in general are pretty poor in the antitank department.

Any player worth his salt can protect his vehicles from orks. Trukks can't ram, orks have no fast tanks. Vehicles can be screened with troops against orks on foot or bikes. If the ork player is running Grotsnik, either move further on to the board or castle along the edge. Skimmers can dodge.

GW can't get their rules and proofreading right in even one book, never mind from a codex to the new edition of the rules. Even so, rules of english aside, I would argue that their intent is that the rolla should work in fifth the same way it did in fourth. RAW may not support it for the english professors out there, but I'm guessing the judges would see it my way in a tournament. If not, I've learned to shrug and try to win the game by other tactics.

Fluff wise, if I was a vindicator and I had to choose between being rammed by a land raider or a battle wagon with a 12 foot diameter, 20 ton spiked roller, I'd take my chance with the land raider. It's not so much that the wagon would roll right over a battle tank, but the physics of mass times acceleration that kills you. Put another way, I personally would choose a sledghammer blow over a truckload of cinderblock as the slightly more survivable violence. A land raider is massive and powerful, but in as efficient a way as possible. A battle wagon however, is a mek's idea of as much iron plating and enormous engines as he can weld together, and adding more plating and engines whenever possible. I'll bet a battle wagon outmasses a land raider at least three to one, with an ork driver to boot.

In the end, if I ever build some deffrolla wagons, I'll still make growling tank noises when I drive them around the table. Orks are the best army I've played for having fun with, and I get to speak all lowbrow and gravelly, complaining about pointy eared gits and umie ard boyz...

Kirby, you post totally got me laughing up a storm when I read it, because I've been guilty of the occasional Trukk vrooming sounds or shouting a Waaagh! when I declare my fleet of foot move. Ork players are just about the only ones that can get away with stuff like that.

As far a rule debate on this much beaten subject, I doubt we'll be agreeing on anything for some time, and as many have said and previously posted, its best to wait for some kind of FAQ, and until then, just work out the details with your local gaming group. Consensus is typically the best method of dealing with problems like this. And ultimately, our opinions can only serve to better educate you on the subject, but you probably will never actually play against anyone here, so changing our minds won't do you a stitch of good.

Awwww, I stopped trying to change minds a while ago, I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

That was more of a general statement and was by no means directed at you Kirby.

My two cents:

Nurglitch has pretty much convinced me.

But Moz’ (and others’) point about how intuitive it is for the rollas to apply, and the difficulty of negotiating this point at the table with an ork opponent, is an unfortunate reality.

In practice I expect I’m going to have to let Ork players do it, even though I think the text (strictly read) does lean toward the opposite conclusion.

yeah,
This is the kind of thing that turns me off 40k. the lack of offical responses from GW and the type of people attracted by these loopholes.

I think that now, before a game If i saw a deff rolla I'd point it out and say what I think it does and does not do.
We would Probabily get into a debate that we probabily won't be able to resolve.

Greebynog posted this Ork BattleWagon List In the 40k army list forum. We would debate the issue prior to a game and I guess My final statement in the debate would be something like this:
"you've got 4 of them... looks like you built a list around it why? is it because your Anti-Tank interpretation of the rules is broken. it's clearly not RAI and it's barely supported by RAW. If your right it's 20pts bit of wargear that's anti tank capabilities are on par with a 700pts 'nid biotank! it could roll over the foot of a warhound with a 1" ram and it'd have a good chance of taking it down! Isn't it possible that your reading too much into the part of the Ramming rules that call it a special tankshock?"

In a Friendly Game I'd ask Greebynog to swap out the gear or i'll pass on the game. If he persuaded me to play the game with the rolla's as is, I'd discuss its game performance afterwards... "yeah it rolled over a squad of my Plague marines and killed 4 cool huh? fair enough, then it rolled over my land raider pentrated twice it twice and caused 2 glances..."... "pretty good going"... "well done you"... "20pts well spent!"... "yeah can't play you next week i'm umm washing my hair.... yeah can't play the week after that either sorry"

in a tourniment I'd get a ruling and if it goes against me... that would sux I'll play the game and on my card they will score 0 for sportsmanship.

This is why i Love Magic the Gathering.. they sort gak like this out.. this would have been rulled on and maybe even removed from the ORK Codex list long before we even got to 5th ed~~ if 40k was FAQ'd by wizards of the coast..~~

God i sound like a real jerk.... but this has got my goat...

PaniC...

I myself, think that they intended ramming to count as a tank shock, and just didn't realize how powerful that might make the Deff Rolla. It seems to be the simplest explanation.

It doesn't make the deffrolla any more powerfull than in 4th, it keeps it the same.

As for the incinuation that I (or anyone else using deffrollas for this, ie. everyone at thewaaagh.com) is a cheat or a poor sport for interprating the rules differently from you, well, that's just silly really isn't it. I'm not trying to cheat or gain an unfair advantage, I genuinley believe that the rules state it is allowable, and as for fluff/intent, read pg 55 of the ork codex.

I'm going to write to Phil Kelly to get this cleared up, I don't want to be accused of being a cheat for wanting to play a cool and characterful army.

I agree it's ambiguous, so I don't deffrolla vehicles in 5th.

If we're getting it clarified, it's also important to get the timing clarified - when do the hits take place? Before or after death or glory?

Nb, the claim that deffrollas allow 12 inch range d6 s10 attacks doesn't hold true, to get those attacks you have to move the wagon in a certain way, a way that not only risks destroying the wagon on impact, but leaves it very vunerable to rear armour shots/close combat attacks. It's nowhere near as good as an auto-hit ranged attack.

yeah.. all this debate makes it sound worse than it is..

panic.. thats pretty harsh dude.

lets not forget that the battlewagon is 90 points to begin with AND is open topped unless you pay even more to make it a closed top..

most of the time mine gets destroyed by the 2nd or 3rd turn.

if you're playing chaos.. you should have plenty of MEQ anti tank weaponry.. shoot the darn thing.

its only a 20pt upgrade because we are spending so damn much on the battlewagon to begin with.

but we'll see if it ever gets FAQ'd. there are plenty of people who have a disagreeing point of view. sad but thats how it goes with GW written rules.

NaZ

Seriously Panic, I would imagine many thinking twice before playing you, as well. If you're willing to break someone's sportsmanship score based upon their army build and a positive ruling in their favor, then that says quite a bit about your character in what you perceive as "fair play". What you ask is an official ruling and if given so, you would still dismiss it? And honestly, a Battlewagon themed army is really not that hard to imagine. Even Ork fluff talks about wagon mobs just like IG has tank regiments and Sm with their armor batteries. Yes, while the potencial for the Deff Rolla as interpreted by myself and other is quite extreme, you cannot dimiss it and call someone almost a cheater for taking advantage of potencially useful wargear. You might also want to keep in mind that many might believe the Deff Rolla may work as we have described, not because we want to exploit the rules or knock what the designers intended (according to you), but that that we believe this was the intent and feel strongly about our position based upon our interpretation of the rules. We all believe in fair play and don't welcome the idea of alienating my local gamers (all of whom accept Deff Rolla use during Ramming, btw), but I can think of very little reason to give up a potencial useful peice of equipment just to make someone feel better. I would be very offended for anyone to ask me to change my list or options just because they disagree with its intended use. For every advantage, there is usual a way to counter it.

Ok, after reading this whole thread (ok, ill admit I skipped a couple posts) It seems the major argument to allow a Deff Rolla against a vehicle is that they say” Ramming is a special type of tank shock"

I noticed that all the people that want to use that rule to ram conveniently left off the rest of that sentence.

The real RAMMING rule on page 69 reads "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way, except that the tank must move at the highest speed it is capable of"

Well "tank shock" and "tank shock move" are two very different things.
"by only quoting "tank shock" you are led to believe that RAMMING gains everything that TANK SHOCK does. Which is what people who want to use the Deff Rolla want everyone to believe.

and "tank shock move" just implies that the ramming move and tank shock move are similar.

mgrosh,

seems like your on that side of the debate.. I'd go over it again but honestly its been debated to death at this point.

most of us are going to have to agree to disagree. ask your local tournament organizer how they're going to do it.

last time I called GW they said it worked.. but that means nothing until they FAQ it.

gogo badly written GW rules!!

NaZ

"Ramming is a special type of TANK SHOCK move and is executed the SAME WAY"


Now since its executed the SAME WAY, why would wargear that works for 1 not work for the other? That's the basis of those of us who are in the pro deff rollas are super broken and as worded have no reason why they don't chew through vehicles.

I'm just glad that we can still argue about tankshock in 5th edition. I was beginning to worry that GW would fix up my favorite black hole of rules obscurity from 4th ed.

Feels like home again...

On topic though, Panic you've mentioned that the RAI is against defrolla working on vehicles. I'm curious where you're getting that impression from?

Red_Lives:

Ramming doesn't actually work in the exact same way as tank shock. There are three ways in which it is different from tank shock. Ramming requires that the vehicle not fire, move full speed, and allows collisions with enemy vehicles.

The text says (emphasis mine):

"Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way, except that..."

The tank shock rules disqualify vehicles from being addressed with tank shock attacks, and the ramming rules do not overturn that. The ramming rules only allow enemy vehicles to be addressed with ramming attacks (collisions).

This is consistent with the Skimmer and Walker rules only addressing rams, the Deff Rolla rules only addressing "Tank Shocks", and the rulebook distinguishing between tank shock attacks and ramming attacks.

mgrosh, its being a "tank shock move" does not help an argument against ramming being a tank shock at all. Tank Shock is a moving action. When Tank Shock'ing, the vehicle's intentions is not going in gunz blazing or run over some folk, but just to move in such and cause some panic. Ram is a move action as well, all of which takes place in the movement phase of the game. So, Tank Shock is a move, and calling Ramming a "special tank shock move" only illustrates that they both solely move actions.

Panic, and as far as the continued argument as to the RAI...

How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate wrote:While interesting, discussing the "Designers Intent" will never help you in a rules discussion. Why? First, intent of a single designer and what may actually end up in print are never guaranteed to be the same. GW has no policy against routinely changing the same rule back and forth repeatedly. Second, it's impossible to know intent. Unless you've got ESP, or the rules author is in the discussion, you're just guessing at intent. Intent can be very simply refuted with an, "I don't agree", and the conversation ends, as neither side can prove its case for intent.

Nurglich, we all understand what you are getting at, and I believe you misunderstand our argument. We are not saying that you may, in fact, Tank Shock at vehicle as normal, because as you have pointed out, you cannot due to the 1" restriction. However, my argument, and what I believe others are trying to illustrate is that we believe that Tank Shock is a maneuver that is directly targeting non-vehicle models or units. Ramming, a variant form of Tank Shock, is a Tank Shock that may be directed against Vehicles, but in doing so, is executed in the same way as a Tank Shock, except for some minor differences. Even non-vehicle units caught in the path of a ram are still treated as Tank Shocked, which I believe is because the entire maneuver IS a Tank Shock.

Further, I believe the book is very pointed in its connection between Tank Shock and Ramming. I will attempt to break down my reasoning.

1. "Ramming is a special form of tank shock move and is executed in the same way". Self explainitory, and cannot be dismissed solely as fluff because nothing about it sounds or looks like fluff and due to it explaining rule variations of the Tank Shock move in the same sentence. Just because "tank shock" is not capitalized does not dismiss the connection between the two as I will show in #2.

2. "Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming unit are tank shocked as normal". "tank shocked" is not capitalized either, yet everyone will understand that this is referencing to the Tank Shock! rule. By the rule stating "as normal", one can see what they attempting to make solid an understood fact that though its a Ram, the move is still considered a Tank Shock, and just because vehicles now respond to it different, non-vehicles do not.

3. Collision. There is nothing I have read showing that "collision" is any kind of special item other than it illustrating the point at which both vehicles make contact, nothing more. What other term for "both make contact" would have work? In either case, its just a term used to discribe contact made between the two models. Its not even a term recognized in the index, though Tank Shock and Ramming are still there.

4. Walkers being rammed. "it can attempt a 'Death or Glory!' attack in the same way as infantry". The words "Tank Shock" do no even appear in this entire entry. This does not state that one must count the model as though it was being Tank Shocked instead of being Rammed. This shows that merely stating a change in the intended type of the target model changes the way it response to the Ram, both of which fall under Tank Shock.

Thats basically what I got, all of which is based upon what is written, and not by just dogging the way the rule were written and chalking it down to inconsistancy. Again, this is my own opinion and way of looking at it, and I'm sure there are a dozen others.

"I agree with Johnson!" *cookie for the ref*

Daboss: that is the best pro-rolla arguement yet and is laid out in a succint and orderly manner.

Panic: Seriously? Zero on sportsmenship because a ruling didn't go your way? I'm glad us ignorant colonials have a different sports card then you do. Minus one if you want to take the score that way.

DaBoss:

Oh, no, I definitely agree that you're arguing for rams to allow tank shock attacks against vehicles as well as units other than vehicles. That would certain fulfill the criteria for a 'special kind' since tank shocks cannot normally address vehicles.

But I think I can still show how your reasoning fails, particularly because you make certain unjustified assumptions.

No one is dismissing the following phrase as irrelevant: "Ramming is a special form of tank shock move and is executed in the same way". It concerns the relation of the ramming rules to tank shock, and is therefore relevant to discussions about the relation of ramming to tank shock.

Many people, myself included, are arguing out that this phrase is being taken out of its context. Quoted in full, the sentence containing that phrase is: "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."

As someone helpfully noted earlier, if a vehicle is moving at the highest speed it is capable of, then it cannot shoot anyways. Therefore two relevant differences between ordinary tank shock and the special kind, ramming, can be unified and considered one relevant different. But that is not the only relevant difference. The rules tell us of another similarity, and another difference.

The similarity is addressed by the following sentence: "Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal." What is tank shocked as normal? Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank.

The difference is addressed by the following sentence:
"However, if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows." The following rules to this sentence are not the tank shock rules. This sentence can be contrasted with the similarity sentence by noting that a collision and not a tank shock is resolved when an enemy vehicle is in the way of the ramming tank.

In a collision, "each vehicle immediately suffers a hit against the armour facing where the other vehicle has impacted (so the rammer always uses its front armour)." This is not what happens in a tank shock. Since this is not what happens in a tank shock, special provision must be made for Walkers to make Death or Glory attacks, since that would otherwise be implicit in being tank shocked.

So there are two relevant differences between the Tank Shock rule and the Ramming rule, the speed at which the vehicle moves, and what happens when an enemy vehicle lies in the path of the moving tank.

To tank shock is to address a non-vehicle unit, to ram is to address a vehicle unit.

Hence ramming is a special kind of tank shock because it allows tanks to ram vehicles as well as tank shock non-vehicles.

Nurglich, you seem to be a little all over the place. You have pointed a link between the two rules, in which it talks about Tank Shock in the Ramming section. You yourself seem to also concede to the fact that Ramming is a Tank Shock that is directed at vehicles. Of course the entries for Tank Shock and Ramming would be different in their final execution, or they would be in the exact same entry. Your entire argument seems to be base upon the fact that since the two have differences, they cannot be two variations of the same thing. This leap is not based upon anything in the text.

"special type of tank shock move"

"Units other than vehicles...are tank shocked as normal".

None of these entries links directly to the Tank Shock! move on the previous page, and by your logic, it is a dead end in the rule with no instructions as to how to carry out the rest of the situation.

"tank shocked as normal"? "Whats that?", one might say if they followed what you said.

Simply put, if the action is not a Tank Shock, the entry would have no reason to read that its a "special type of tank shock move". This would be irrelevant and unnessesary. However, you cannot simply dimiss it solely on the basis of what you think was poor word choice or author's intent. Typically, the simplest explaination is usually the more likely. On the one hand, it may play out exactly as written and argued by myself, or we can begin to infer that the context of the entire passage is invalid and leads only to show a similarity in the two move, but that those similarities are moot do to the overall difference in the entries and final execution of the rule.

Please explain to me how being forced to move at top speed makes ramming not a tank shock - or what shooting has to do with ramming and tank shock. If I tank shock a unit that is 11 away from the BW, I have moved at top speed. If I ram a vehicle at any distance I have to move the BW 12". The only difference is that one allows the owning player to decide how far to move and the other mandates.

I enter a fruit eating contest. The rules say I can eat any fruit, but that if I want to eat a grape I have to eat the whole thing in one bite. A grape is still a fruit. Doesn't make any difference that I have to eat the whole thing in one bite.

If the whole discussion is to prove that ramming and tank shock don't follow all the same rules, well gosh, I knew that already by reading the book.

GW rules are permissive. The ork codex says quite clearly that the deff rolla takes affect in ANY tank shock. Nothing you have posted limits that ability. Good night.

DaBoss:

Nope, not all over the place, merely referencing the relevant text and noting how it strings together. I certainly don't concede that ramming is a tank shock against vehicles, particularly when I'm pointing out that ramming is not a tank shock against vehicles.

My argument, such as it is, is that there are two salient differences between the Tank Shock rules and the Ramming rules.

Given that I have quoted the rules, predicated it upon the differences in text, and noted the logical form of those rules, it would seem to me that my argument is based upon something in the rules.

Now, it seems obvious to me that where I note both differences and similarities in the rules, I am agreeing that they are related. If these rules are related, the question then is not whether they are related, but how they are related.

My argument is that they are related by conjunction, since, in the text of the Ramming rules, the rules describe non-vehicle units being tank shocked as normal and in addition vehicle units being rammed according to the calculation of Armour, Speed, and Mass.

To tank shock attack is to address a non-vehicle unit, to ram is to address a vehicle unit. Tank Shock allows a tank to make tank shock attacks. Ramming allows a tank to make tank shock attacks and to ram vehicles.

The phrase: "which it will tank shock or ram again!" would be curiously redundant if ramming is tank shocking a vehicle.

Hence there is good reason for the authors to note that ramming is a special type of tank shock move, because the tank shock rules are referenced in relation to an addition to them. Such an addition to the tank shock rules surely meets the requirement that this addition be a special kind, an exception to the usual.

Indeed, do not the rules say: "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed in the same way, except..." for the tank moving at its highest speed and being able to collide with other vehicles in the manner prescribed?

budro:

Being required to move at top speed means that ramming is not a tank shock, in conjunction, of course, with being able to address vehicles as well as non-vehicles, because that is not a part of the tank shock rules! The difference is, quite simply, the difference between a requirement and an option.

[Formally speaking, a requirement or the antecedent of a conditional statement is the negation of same type of disjunct in a disjoint statement. We can pseudo-code is as: (~A v B) <=> (A -> B). If you're going to make identity claims about rules, then those rules need to be formally equivalent, and if they're not equivalent (and not the same value), then they're not the same rule]

Let's discuss your fruit-eating contest analogy, keeping in mind, again, that analogies tend to import all sorts of superfluous information that can distract from the rules they state.

If you enter a fruit-eating contest, and the rules say you can eat any fruit, and that any grape so eaten must be eaten whole, then that does not change the fact that a grape is still a fruit. Yes, of course that's true. So what? That's doesn't resemble what we're talking about with Tank Shock and Ramming. Not completely irrelevant, mind you, just incomplete. So how would I make this analogy more complete?

I enter a fruit-eating contest. The only rule (the rule equivalent to Tank Shock) says that I can eat any fruit. However, this year there is an another rule as well. This rule (equivalent to Ramming) says that if you eat all the fruit on your plate, then you may win an additional prize. Now, given that you will need to meet that requirement in order to gain the additional benefit, it makes a relevant difference that you have to eat all of the fruit on your plate: because that is a necessary condition of winning the additional prize!

This discussion doesn't need to prove that ramming and tank shock don't follow all the same rules, since, as you so colourfully put it, we already know that. This discussion is, for my position at least, about showing that these differences are relevant such that they prevent the Deffa Rolla from affecting vehicles.

I have demonstrated, I believe, that the differences between the text of the two rules shows that the Deff Rolla cannot affect vehicles because vehicles cannot be tank shocked.

If you believe that nothing I have posted demonstrates the contrary, that tank shocks do affect vehicles and thus the Deff Rolla affects vehicles, is wrong, then could you please suggest what I would need to post in order to make that demonstration?

Nurglich, first you were basing your argument on the validity of the term "special", then it seemed based upon the fact that Tank Shock and Ramming are executed differently, now you seem focused on the word "except".

Indeed, the rules do say "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed in the same way, except..." for the tank moving at its highest speed and being able to collide with other vehicles in the manner prescribed. This is why its not the standard type of tank shock. If it were the SAME, there would be no reason for a special type, now would there? But it is. You cannot pick and choose what reference is similar and which is just a reference. Tank Shock is Tank Shock unless proven otherwise. If Ramming is stated as being a "special type of tank shock", but is executed different (of course it would executed different, its a SPECIAL form of the move), there is no reason to assume (YES, assume) that the maneuver is not under the umbrella, of sorts, of being a Tank Shock.

DaBoss wrote:Simply put, if the action is not a Tank Shock, the entry would have no reason to read that its a "special type of tank shock move". This would be irrelevant and unnessesary. However, you cannot simply dimiss it solely on the basis of what you think was poor word choice or author's intent. Typically, the simplest explaination is usually the more likely. On the one hand, it may play out exactly as written and argued by myself, or we can begin to infer that the context of the entire passage is invalid and leads only to show a similarity in the two move, but that those similarities are moot do to the overall difference in the entries and final execution of the rule.

If it were not a Tank Shock, it would not be included in the section entitled "TANK SHOCK!". Which it is not. It is not even a sub of that, "Death or Glory!" is the only subsection. If the action is a Tank Shock, the entry would not have specified that it is a special type of Tank Shock move and instead stated that it is a special type of Tank Shock. Tank Shock moves are NOT THE SAME as normal moves, and without those rules specifically added, Ramming is impossible.

As "any Tank Shock made" is the other side of the rules. Declare the moves. Declaring a Tank Shock against a vehicle mean the declared vehicle stops 1" away. Ramming, at best MOVES as Tank Shock (which is specifically deliniated in the rules as meaning "able to move through enemy units" ) but is only a Tank Shock move. The action and the DECLARED action are Ramming.

Kirasnth, both Tank Shock and Ramming are only moves made in the Movement Phase with no other action taken on the part of the vehicle. And as I have said previous, if Ramming is not Tank Shocking, then how do you suppose "Units other than vehicles...are tank shocked as normal"? Tank Shocked, in this reference, according some, has no reference to Tank Shock! from the previous page. If that is the case, what are they referring to in this instance? What then is "tank shocked as normal"?

Follow the rules under the Heading TANK SHOCK! for "as normal". Units get Tank Shocked and is allowed Death or Glory and ALL the rules under TANK SHOCK! of which Ramming is not one.

Did you really not understand that or was it a misguided attempt to make a point?

My point is, you, like Nurglich, seem to be picking and choosing what part of Ramming is Tank Shocking and what isn't. The entire section which begins the Ramming section begins with it being a "special type of tank shock move". You say that its only the move aspect that is similar, and I offer that its ONLY a move action. There is nothing that excludes the entire act as falling under being a variation of Tank Shock, be it special or what not. You yourself agreed that the reference to non-vehicle models in the path of a Ram refers to Tank Shock!, but then why wouldn't the reference "special type of tank shock move" not qualify just as much. It gives the exceptions to this, which would deem its execution from a standard Tank Shock and all reference to restriction therein as being different as a variant of the same thing.

Tank Shock moves are the only moves that allow a model to MOVE within an inch and in fact entirely THROUGH enemy models.

Without that stipulation Ramming would be impossible. So they delinate that it is a _special type_ of Tank Shock MOVE. To exactly clarify the similarity and difference.

I confuse nothing in this.


EDTING to add : ASSAULT also allows models to move within an inch, but is not during movement nor allows moving through anything making the destinction ACTUALLY written even more relevant to Nurglitch et al.

DaBoss:

I think you're confusing my negative argument against your position with my positive argument for my position. Some people on this thread seemed to think that "special kind" should be parsed as 'sub-type', which is wrong, as I've argued, because of the differences stated in the Ramming rules.

So, certainly, I agree, and indeed have argued, that Ramming cannot be the same thing as Tank Shock. Ramming only shares some things with Tank, not everything, and it has one thing that Tank Shock does not have at all: a way of addressing enemy vehicles!

Likewise I agree that I cannot pick and choose references and referents, but then I don't need to. As I've already mentioned, the text distinguishes between the Tank Shock rule, to which the text of Codex: Orks refers to by its use of capital letters and sentence structure (indicating a noun), and tank shock attacks/moves, to which the text of Ramming refers to by its use of lower-case letters and sentence structure (indicating a verb).

You say "Tank Shock is Tank Shock until proven otherwise" and I agree entirely, Tank Shock is Tank Shock. However, I am arguing that Tank Shock is only partly tank shock attacks. To say that tank shock attacks are the whole of Tank Shock would be to confuse the part with the whole, though I have noted that it is easily done given the amphiboly in play. Tank Shock, the set of rules under that heading, as I have shown, includes four parts:

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

Likewise Ramming includes four parts:

Ramming
1. Move at top speed
2. May not shoot
3. May ram enemy vehicles
4. May tank shock attack non-vehicles ("as normal", aka as described in Tank Shock)

Now, since I am concerned with proving that the collision with vehicles during a ram attack is not a tank shock attack, it would be rather silly to presume that a ram attack is not a tank shock attack.

Instead, I have assumed that the relevant rules include Tank Shock, Ramming, and Deff Rolla. Given that assumption I looked at the text of these rules, their similarities and differences, how references/referents in these pieces of text define the relation of the rules they express, and the rules that they state, and have derived from these premises the conclusion that a ram attack is not a tank shock attack.

Yes, but a Tank Shock move, nonetheless. Special or not, that is how it is executed and that is how it is. It "is a special type of tank shock", it "is executed the same way". Not, it "acts as", or it "functions simliar to".

And Nurglich, you premise seems to be based upon since the two are not exactly similar, they are then completely separate and different. Many have given an analogy as to why, just because something is special, does not mean its not at its core, similar to the standard example. You have not proven why this is not the case. Just because Ramming is executed with a few exceptions to that of Tank Shocking does not automatically make it an entirely separate animal.

can we give it a rest already? its obvious nurglitch that you're not able to convince those of us that are on the other side of the debate

and daboss and I dispite having clear points to justify our claim that it does work are not getting anywhere with the group that does not agree.

so.. talk to your own playgroup.. figure it out for those you play with. my group thinks it works so its a moot point for me.

if you think its an issue bring it up with your tournament organizer weather or not you are playing orks. just accept whatever ruling they give you.

if that isn't good enough, then call GW and ask them why this isn't in the FAQ. if enough people pester them maybe they'll get off their collective bums and get it fixed already.

I'm stick of debating it with you.. we're not making any progress on either side at convincing the other party

lets just be done with it already

NaZ

DaBoss wrote:Yes, but a Tank Shock move, nonetheless. Special or not, that is how it is executed and that is how it is. It "is a special type of tank shock", it "is executed the same way". Not, it "acts as", or it "functions simliar to".

Yes. Please finish the rest of the sentence, it is as bad as your quote.

Tank Shock move. It is a special type of Tank Shock move.

Tank Shock is not simply moving. There are also rolls, and reactions from the other units involved. However, only the Tank Shock Move rules are referenced.
This is abysmally similar to the Moves As Jump Troops sillyness.
Yes, they Move As jump troops (following ALL THE RULES for moving as Jump Troops) but they are NOT Jump Troops.

"Moves as" does NOT mean "Is"

now to eat my own words just a little bit

go call GW for yourselves. I called twice just to see if the answer was consistent:

"A ram is a TANK SHOCK against vehicles"

"if you cannot tank shock, you cannot ram"

"any wargear that applies to tank shock applies to a ram"

they both said to expect it to be ruled that way at ard boyz

I did ask them to pass it along to the roolzboyz to see if it makes it into the next faq

don't believe me? call them yourselves

dont like it? call them yourselves

don't play in tournaments? why are you arguing then

i'm sick of this debate -im done

NaZ

Where is "moves as" anywhere on pg 69? It says "Ramming IS a special type of tank shock"... not "Ramming moves as tank shock".

"Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock move" is what is written in my book. same page.

It does not say "Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock" and end there.

The word MOVE is there because it matters.

Yes, because, despite the dice rolling aspect you pointed out, fundamentally, Tank Shocking is only a Move action. Even under Tank Shock!, it states "the vehicle is going to attempt to make a tank shock attack instead of moving normally". The act, from start to finish, is a movement. Even Ramming is a movement. The only difference is the additions and exceptions listed under Ramming.

You're saying the reference to Tank Shock is only to allow the movement over models and even through them, but this is back up by nothing in that paragraph other than the word "move", which describes the action as a whole.

And the sections, and headings.

And the words written.
Ramming rules specify what happens to vehicles - and it is NOT what happens during Tank Shock - what happens to vehicles in a Tank Shock is spelled out clearly under the relevant rules, oddly enough labeled Tank Shock - not Ramming.

kirsanth wrote:"Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock move" is what is written in my book. same page.

It does not say "Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock" and end there.

The word MOVE is there because it matters.

agree 100%

also, there are many rules in the new 5th edition rule book that reference other rules "just to show that they are similar - not sub sets of each other" a few were already mentioned in this thread. another popular one is on pg 42...

"A thunder hammer uses the same rules as a power fist" Does this mean that a thunder hammer is a power fist??? of course not.
but when the same thing is said about tank shock and ramming ("Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock move" which is even less concrete) all the ork players want to think that ramming is a tank shock.

a thunder hammer is not a power fist
ramming is not a tank shock

If you declare a Ram, Tanks Shocks can happen en route - to NON-Vehicles.

If a Tank Shock is declared, no Ram can happen.

I can understand your confusion, just not your position.

im frustrated that this keeps sucking me in.

here again are quotes from gw... i just talked to two seperate people

"A ram is a TANK SHOCK against vehicles"

"if you cannot tank shock, you cannot ram"

"any wargear that applies to tank shock applies to a ram"

they both said to expect it to be ruled that way at ard boyz

don't believe me? call them yourselves

dont like it? call them yourselves

NaZ

mgrosh, actually, in game terms, a Thunderhammer IS a Powerfist, with the addition of rules that Powerfist does not have. We know them as being two weapons but what they are fundamentally in game terms is what we really care about. If this wasn't the case, I'd challenge you to tell any new player NOT to look at the Powerfist entry when trying to figure out how his Thunderhammer works.

Thunderhammer = Powerfist +/- Stuff

Ramming = Tankshock +/- Stuff

Well, I'm going to take my own advice and let everyone make their own assumptions. Mine has been given, and I know better than to try and change anyone's mind. If anyone wants to continue this, I'd be happy to take it into PM's, but my contribution to this thread is done. Another fine debate.

Just wanted to voice this:
I play Tyranids only. I get shafted by this regardless of any rulings.
It all IS Tank Shock! to me.


^_^

DaBoss wrote:mgrosh, actually, in game terms, a Thunderhammer IS a Powerfist, with the addition of rules that Powerfist does not have. We know them as being two weapons but what they are fundamentally in game terms is what we really care about. If this wasn't the case, I'd challenge you to tell any new player NOT to look at the Powerfist entry when trying to figure out how his Thunderhammer works.

Thunderhammer = Powerfist + Stuff

agree 100%

but if then you say.. "Space Marine Captain X can buy a stombolters to mount onto the back of his PowerFist for 20 points"

id love to see how many people here would say "obviously he can buy that for a thunder hammer"

the above is exactly what this thread is trying to do with the def rolla.


BTW naz... youtube it or it didn't happen. and ruleboyz give you the "wrong" answer 85% of the time. lol

mgrosh wrote:

DaBoss wrote:mgrosh, actually, in game terms, a Thunderhammer IS a Powerfist, with the addition of rules that Powerfist does not have. We know them as being two weapons but what they are fundamentally in game terms is what we really care about. If this wasn't the case, I'd challenge you to tell any new player NOT to look at the Powerfist entry when trying to figure out how his Thunderhammer works.

Thunderhammer = Powerfist + Stuff

agree 100%

but if then you say.. "Space Marine Captain X can buy a stombolters to mount onto the back of his PowerFist for 20 points"

id love to see how many people here would say "obviously he can buy that for a thunder hammer"

the above is exactly what this thread is trying to do with the def rolla.


BTW naz... youtube it or it didn't happen. and ruleboyz give you the "wrong" answer 85% of the time. lol

DaBoss just did posit that, exactly.

Nice call. Very much more succinct that my response would have been.

I'm just going to add my 2 cents in that I too feel that Deff rollas get the D6 vs tanks as well.

Ramming is a type of tankshock, Deffrollas do D6 S10 damage when tankshocking. Its pretty cut and dry to me.

Yes, I do play Orks, but I also play Chaos, Tau, Necrons, and possibly soon to be Space Wolves. If the other guy brings a Dethroller, I have no problem letting it smash my tanks because thats what the rules say it can do.

Jayden63 wrote:I'm just going to add my 2 cents in that I too feel that Deff rollas get the D6 vs tanks as well.

Quoted for Truthiness.

The thunder hammer/powerfist analogy is very apt and astute.

Just as the thunder hammer is something more than a powerfist, Ramming is something more than Tank shock. All the collisions with non-vehicle units that occur during a Ram ARE Tank Shock. The ability to move within an inch of a vehicle and all the rules of collision are something MORE than tank shock. Those abilities are exclusive to Ramming, and therefore all effects that occur during or modify the tank shock portion of a Ram have no bearing on those portions of a Ram that are MORE than what Tank Shock rules allow.

Just got in from being gone, am tired, little sleep.

I'm not posting on dakka anymore (on this thread). Rehash vs. rehash.

I give Troy credit. I thought rule was clear. BEFORE we posted on Dakka, he convinced me it could go either way. Posting on Dakka has confirmed that.

Anyone who thinks that "THEIR" version is correct, and all others are idots, is arrogant, conceited, obtuse, etc.. etc...

I'll see what local judges think, in advance, and make my list from there.

Thanks all for help on this. You really helped clear things up for Troy and I.

Dude, calling nearly 90% of everyone who took time to post on this thread to give what they believed were valid opinions on their interpretation on this subject from what they believed to be right an arrogant, conceited, obtuse idiot? Where do you get off?

DaBoss:

Maybe you should read calltoarms' post a little more closely.

this is starting to get nasty.. can we just get this closed already? obviously we don't have a consensus.

deal with it locally within your own group or at ard boyz. I've already repeated what GW told me and got flamed for it.

I'm not going to bother posting after this. hopefully people can just respect and disagree with each other and be done with it already

NaZ

YMDC totally offending people with RAW quotes to the point it is called upon to silence the voices!


Go NaZ, GO GO!


I am more offended that people quote rules without context or just randomly spam asertions that it should end with an ignorant position.

Quick question that pertains to the debate (I dont have access to a 5th ed. rulebook atm).

Can a tank keep moving after performing a ram if it successfully destroys the other vehicle?

If it cant, then that kinda puts a crimp on part of the "cant use the deffrolla on vehicles" side of the debate that cited having to stop 1" from a vehicle in a tank shock.

As an aside, our group had a rather spirited discussion on this very thing, and we came to the conclusion that with how the rules are written, the ork player is entitled to his d6 str10 hits against vehicles.

The main reasons for that conclusion was as follows:

1. General ambiguity on whether or not ramming and tank shock are actually different.

2. Vehicles are a type of unit, so a rule effecting units would also effect vehicles unless specifically stated otherwise (and the deffrolla rules are anything but specific).

3. Codex trumps rulebook.

As long as #3 stands up, we couldnt come up with a compelling enough argument against allowing the deffrolla to be used against vehicles, and believe me, we tried.

Anyway, just throwing in the synopsis of a good 2 hours spent by six relatively well educated adults arguing about a rule that should have specifically stated whether or not it could be used against another vehicle.

Well, that and whether or not a wrecking ball hits rear armor regardless of vehicle positioning, but thats another can of worms.

Cheers.

daolong:

Yes, a tank can continue to move, if it hasn't reached it maximum movement distance, and if the rammed vehicle is removed because of a 'destroyed - explodes!' damage result.

No, this does not put a "crimp" in the negative argument that Deff Rollas don't apply to Ramming. Why? Because if Ramming is Tank Shock, then the ramming vehicle must stop 1" away from any vehicle in its path, no tank shock attack can take place, and hence the Deff Rolla cannot be used.

Similarly, with regard to the positive argument, if Ramming is not Tank Shock, then the ramming vehicle does not tank shock attack the enemy vehicle, and hence the Deffa Rolla cannot be used.

Now, with regard to your reasons for supposing that ramming is a tank shock attack against vehicles:

1. Please cite textual evidence of this "general ambiguity". I believe that I have shown that the only ambiguity is the amphiboly of the title of the rule Tank Shock with the name of the "tank shock attack" that can be perform during both a Tank Shock and a Ramming situation.

I think that this attribution of ambiguity stems from people simply eyeballing the text rather than sitting down with a pen and paper to work it out via close reading and analysis. There's genuine ambiguity, and then there's the ambiguity that's a result of not carefully reading the material.

When this thread started, I agreed entirely with the position that ramming was a tank shock attack, and that the Deff Rolla could be involved. After my first post in this thread, the result of carelessly mis-reading another person's post, I pulled out my copy of the rules and my notepad and got to work. Having done that work, the rules no longer seem ambiguous to me, except for the instance of amphiboly I've cited.

2. Vehicles are a type of unit. The Deff Rolla rules specifically state Deff Rollas take effect during "Any Tank Shock". I have cited the text of the rulebook, in this thread, where Ramming specifies that tank shocks are resolved against non-vehicle units, and collisions against vehicle units.

3. Sure, but in this case I believe I have shown that the Codex fits quite nicely and consistently with the rules for tank shock attacks in Tank Shock and Ramming, and are irrelevant to the rules for collisions in Ramming.

I suggest that you not bother coming up with a compelling argument, but instead come up with an argument that is sound: both logically valid and derived from premises that are true. After all, whether people are convinced of the conclusion of an argument is a personal choice only they can make, whereas the soundness of an argument (and hence the truth of its conclusion) is something that is objective, and something that can be checked procedurally.

The reason I suggest this is because the time spent casually arguing about something is irrelevant to the value of the relative positions being argued over. It's well known that reasonable adults can disagree. What's less well known is that reasonable adults can also agree to things that are unreasonable, illogical, and sometimes downright wrong. Because reasonable adults can be wrong such discussions need to be conducted with explicit account of method and source material.

In this case, in order to demonstrate the truth of any conclusions about the rules, we need to cite the source, show how the cited material is both textually relevant and semantically fixed, and which conclusions can be drawn from such material.

Simply saying: "Yeah, me and my buddies figured that Deff Rollas work" isn't informative. It doesn't tell us how to reach that same conclusion independently. I mean, everyone is entitled to their opinion, obviously, but some opinions are better justified than others, and some opinions are the right opinions because they best reflect the truth of the matter. That's the problem with agreeing to disagree: we've already done that by disagreeing! The only thing left is to reckon our opinions by some objective/intersubjective standard and judge which is better.

I've just read through this whole thing, and both sides of the argument seem to make good points.

My side:

1. The Ork Codex says any unit; a vehicle is any unit. Regardless of what the rulebook states, the Ork Codex says what happens when the Rolla runs into any unit. That's what happens. D6 S10 hits.

2. The people against this idea have conveniently ignored each and every post by people who have called in to GW and questioned this poorly worded debacle. Call in yourselves, you will be sorely disappointed. 5/5 now, each with different reps on the other end of the phone line. All have stated that Def Rollas work that way, and that's how officials have been informed to rule at tournaments.

So, even if you disagree, and can make an exceedingly wordy, lengthy, and elegant set of reasons why it shouldn't happen, you are wrong, according to the people who wrote it. They say it works. They will rule it works.

brassangel wrote:I've just read through this whole thing, and both sides of the argument seem to make good points.

My side:

1. The Ork Codex says any unit; a vehicle is any unit. Regardless of what the rulebook states, the Ork Codex says what happens when the Rolla runs into any unit. That's what happens. D6 S10 hits.

2. The people against this idea have conveniently ignored each and every post by people who have called in to GW and questioned this poorly worded debacle. Call in yourselves, you will be sorely disappointed. 5/5 now, each with different reps on the other end of the phone line. All have stated that Def Rollas work that way, and that's how officials have been informed to rule at tournaments.

So, even if you disagree, and can make an exceedingly wordy, lengthy, and elegant set of reasons why it shouldn't happen, you are wrong, according to the people who wrote it. They say it works. They will rule it works.

Read the rest of Dakka, then call GW with something you know the answer to. You too will understand why everyone following the rules of 40k, or the rules of logic, ignore the quotes given by the people who answer the phones. Better yet, call them 3 times about the same question, and see if you get less than 4 answers.

As for why the people who call GW ignore what is printed, well, that would be a better question, but that might be a bit much.

There is an as yet unquoted portion of the rule that I think adds further validity to the arguement that Ramming is NOT the same as Tank Shock. If the rammed vehicle is removed you keep moving to your maximum distance "or another enemy unit (which will tank shock OR ram again!)". If they are the same the "or ram" is redundant. Also the choice of conjunction (or) implies that they do not both occur when a vehicle unit is contacted. Either you ram OR you tank shock depending on whether the unit is a vehicle.

TROY CLIFTON:

Not to toot my own horn too much, but I already quoted that part of the text first on p.2 of this thread, and again on p4.

Funny stuff. Lots of very detailed reading required to support some of these interpretations.

How about a simple one?

The usual book quote "is a special kind of tank shock move" so we know ramming is a tank shock move albeit a different kind. No need to argue about whether 'special' means 'subtype' or 'different type'. Even accepting 'special' as 'different', the book shows exactly how the ram is different from tank shock - and there are only two differences.

1) you can't select your move speed; and

2) you can contact vehicles, with the additional collision results.

In every other respect, ramming is a tank shock and is executed the same way.

When you tank shock with a BW & deffrolla, you inflict extra hits on the victim unit. This effect is not listed under the ram rules as an exception to the exectution of a tank shock, therefore the rolla effect is executed in a ram in the same way as it is in a tank shock.

---

Straw men about vehicles opting to move out of the way or conduct a death-or-glory are just silly.

You have to pass a Ld check to death-or-glory. Vehicles do not have Ld therefore they can never pass an Ld check therefore they can never d-o-g. Walkers are an exception as they are specifically so noted in the rulebook.

They cannot move out of the way because the ram rules specify this as one of the exceptions to the way a tank shock is normally executed.

---

Arguments from fluff all fail against the description of the rolla riding over vehicles.

---

The argument about "tank shock or ram" is the one that has actual merit. However it can also be dealt with; the meaning works out as 'which it will tank shock (if non-vehicle) or special tank shock (if vehicle)". Given the weight of evidence from text and background it's clear to me at least that the rolla works against vehicles, except for flyers that successfully dodge the ram.

---

Arguments about balance etc are irrelevant as the game simply doesn't work that way. Most also rely on a massive overstatement of the BW capability (e.g. the ridiculous comparison with a Titan, which is very hard to destroy with weapons found outside Apocalypse, and a BW, which is very easy to destroy at a distance with weapons available to a standard Marine or Guard squad).

Arguments that only Ork players suggest that the rolla works on vehicles are incorrect (as some non-ork players have posted here also agreeing that it works on vehicles). Suggestions that Ork players only take the approach that it works on vehicles out of self-interest are unbalanced; non-ork players have an equal interest in seeing the rolla's effects reduced.

Boss Ardnutz wrote:The argument about "tank shock or ram" is the one that has actual merit. However it can also be dealt with; the meaning works out as 'which it will tank shock (if non-vehicle) or special tank shock (if vehicle)". Given the weight of evidence from text and background it's clear to me at least that the rolla works against vehicles, except for flyers that successfully dodge the ram.

funny stuff.

I quote the rules, you say otherwise is "clear to me".

Why is that clear when the text quoted contradicts, and you acknowledge it?

A request: can someone going to the UK gamesday corner Phil Kelly and get him to sign a statement/record him giving a ruling on this?

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

"special ((which is still technically part of all)) type of tank shock and is executed the same way...".

To myself and many others, this is very cut and dry.

"special type of tank shock move"

if you type the . . . ummm . . . rules you quote?

Move is rather relevant. If RAW is what you aim it.

or maybe I quote a different book that you there?

I really don't see how the word move is relevant. This really seems like epic level rules lawyer stuff to me. And from the reading of the rules the word move is in relation that the model must move its max distance. which is why its a special type of tank shock move as opposed to a normal tank shock move. Since it must move a different distance after all.

Yeah,
'Move' is important, as shown by the number of Ork posts omitting it.
a Tank Shock Attack is required by the Rollas text, this doesn't quite add up to the a Tank Shock Move offered by a RAM.

Boss Ardnutz, I don't think a Tank Unit gets a Death or Glory attempt when it's being Rammed by a Deff rolla Because I don't think that tanks gets Tank Shocked; they get Rammed. and thus are not Tank Shock attacked!
But if I was to be told that my tank (unit) is being tank shock attacked (?) why would I be wrong to requesting my units defense option, a death or glory attempt? lacking a LD value? Auto Pass? (the roller is hitting without rolling to hit!) In fact it would be a perfectly normal response from my tanks commander to shoot the wagon rolling towards it.

Panic...

Panic wrote:Yeah,
'Move' is important, as shown by the number of Ork posts omitting it.
a Tank Shock Attack is required by the Rollas text, this doesn't quite add up to the a Tank Shock Move offered by a RAM.

I see no difference here. "Move" is a word with all sorts of meanings, but I don't see any that would make a 'tank shock move' a wholly different action from a tank shock attack:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/move wrote:1.
a. The act or an instance of moving.
b. A particular manner of moving: made some intricate moves on the dance floor.
2. A change of residence or location.
3. Games
a. An act of transferring a piece from one position to another in board games.
b. The prescribed manner in which a piece may be played.
c. A participant's turn to make a play.
4. An action taken to achieve an objective; a maneuver: a move to halt the arms race.

Boss Ardnutz, I don't think a Tank Unit gets a Death or Glory attempt when it's being Rammed by a Deff rolla Because I don't think that tanks gets Tank Shocked; they get Rammed. and thus are not Tank Shock attacked!

Whereas I observe that some vehicles (walkers) do get a Death or Glory attempt "in the same way as infantry" when rammed, thus are getting tank shocked as getting tank shocked is a prerequisite for performing a Death or Glory attempt.

But if I was to be told that my tank (unit) is being tank shock attacked (?) why would I be wrong to requesting my units defense option, a death or glory attempt? lacking a LD value? Auto Pass? (the roller is hitting without rolling to hit!) In fact it would be a perfectly normal response from my tanks commander to shoot the wagon rolling towards it.

You'd be wrong for two reasons. 1) vehicles never take a morale test for any reason, and you cannot Death or Glory without passing a morale test unless you are a walker; and 2) that your vehicle does not move out of the way on being tank shocked is spelled out as one of the ways ramming is special. Whether it suffers hits from wargear like any other unit is not one of the ways ramming is special.

Budro, GW's rules are EXPLICIT not PERMISSIVE.

Carry on with the thread please. It's quite entertaining.

I swear this is a game of pong...

indeed it is turning in that direction stelek.

both sides argue from valid points thanks to poor writing on GW's part.

majority has shifted to roughly even on both sides.

my phone calls to GW roolzboyz.. they said their consensus is that it works and that is how GW will rule at ard boyz finals

but until that is put in writing the conversation might as well not happened.

meanwhile, neither group is making any headway here, yet they continue back and forth as if their words are going to convince an entrenched person on the other side of the debate.

so its getting pointless. I'm glad I stopped arguing about this already.

NaZ

It's not pointless, it's just being pursued without proper argumentation. If you're going to have a constructive discussion that resolves a disagreement, you need to first suss out what it is that you all disagree on and what it is that you all agree on. After that, it's a simple process of applied logic to show that either one side, or the other, or both sides, are wrong.

Part of what is preventing this conversation from moving forward is an acceptance of the necessity of close reading - that the only objective way to interpret the text is to specify method of interpreting the text, and thus be able to say when a conclusion derived from that reading is true. I've done so, but it's been dismissed as "fancy rules-lawyering" by people.

the rule book describes this quite clearly, I dont know where the arguments come from.

1 the deff rolla is used to tank shock, under tank shock (which is different from ramming) if you come within 1" of a vehicle you stop.

so you declare a tank shock you hit a unit and get ready to hit a vehicle but you move within 1" so you stop short. Ok so I ram instead, great you dont use the deff rolla because its for tank shocking not ramming (the deff rolla says its used for tank shocking), "but is a special kind of tank shock" you say, ok one your an idiot for trying to rape the rules tank shocking is for non-vehicles you RAM vehicles but if you insist on calling it a tank shock go ahead Ill read the rules again "if you come within 1" of a vehicle (while tank shocking ) you stop" so you call it a tank shock and under tank shock you do not make contact with vehicles. SO what are you doing? tank shocking or ramming? if you say tank shock you stop short if you ram you go through but no d6 str 10 hits because this is for tank shocking and you cant tank shock a vehicle. Where exactly is the difficulty? -=Edited out=-

Apparently the difficulty is in being polite. Be aware of the posting rules here at Dakka and follow them. Thank you. - Iorek

Cheers for the helpful insight. I'm sure everyone you called 'retards' and implied were cheating will be swayed by your comment rather than the structured and coherent argument of Nurglitch failed.

Seriously, can someone just ask Phil Kelly about this?

I think it makes prefect since for the enemy tank to be hit by the deff rolla and if you want to bitch about get some lascannons or melta bombs and blow it up before it can reach you.

just play the rules in a way every1 can agree at your LGS.

last thing how many of you guys are lawyers?

and it continues to devolve into nastyness for no reason.

I continue to express the thought that there are people on both sides of the debate. both here, and probably in everyones gaming group.

I asked 10 people on sunday.. 5/5 for yes and no. in the end they agreed with the simple explanation in the book

"a ram is a special type of tank shock and is executed in the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of"

I am taking the risk of quoting the rulebook exactly here.

it doesnt say "and ignores any wargear related to tank shock"

it just gives an additional set of rules to resolve how the vehicles are affected by the collision in addition to whatever else is going on.

and when I called the roolzboyz.. they said this is how it would be ruled at the ard boyz finals:

"a ram is a tank shock against a vehicle"

so if you plan on going.. you might as well play that way if for no other reason than to learn how to deal with it in advance. because if it is allowed you know ork players will be using it.

but in the meantime.. there are people on both sides of the debate. I've read through nurglitch's arguements and he is a good debater. I'm still not sold but I respect a dissenting opinion.

but getting nasty at people is completely unnessessary da gob smaka. if anything it discredits whatever you're saying. people stop listening the moment you get hostile. *have fun dealing with the moderators*

I continue to support my position, and having read through nurglitch's I don't nessessarily disagree with it. the debate on both sides only has validity because once again GW has written a messy set of rules. there are only a couple of pieces of wargear in the entire game that fall into the sections related to tank shocks. so maybe it was an oversight.

I've called twice and asked them to FAQ it. maybe you all would like to help out and call them yourselves? find out what they say and ask them to faq it? if we can get everyone on this thread to do that it wouldn't surprise me to see the ork faq updated within a week or two. squeaky wheel gets the grease!!

weather or not it works I'd be satisfied just to know. when I play now I ask my opponents opinion, debate if we need to. but once the game is started we're both on the same page. this avoids any 4+ rolls or calls of shenanigans midgame.

NaZ

Just out of curiosity how many of the people that believe that the Deff rolla doesn't work on rams also believe that trucks with reinforced rams cannot ram. Since it follows the same train of thinking.

NaZ wrote:
my phone calls to GW roolzboyz.. they said their consensus is that it works and that is how GW will rule at ard boyz finals

but until that is put in writing the conversation might as well not happened.

NaZ

NaZ... I don't mean to second guess you but who did you talk to at GW? Obviously not the roolzboyz.

I just called Keith (you can call him at 1-800-394-4263) and asked about the deff Rolla rule.
He said that you CAN NOT use deff rolla on a ram.
Also, and this is what leads me to believe you were not talking to the roolzboyz, he said that they do not decide on rules for the ard boyz finals. He said that will be decided by a seperate group that is running the tournament, and if they ask the roolzboyz opinion it will be that deff rolla does not work on ramming.

NaZ wrote:so its getting pointless. I'm glad I stopped arguing about this already

I'm glad I didn't start. LOL

Nurglitch wrote:argumentation

Is that a word?

mgrosh,

wow no surprise that you got a conflicting answer. what else is new when it comes to GW

keep them calls coming though.. if enough people bother them it'll hopefully get FAQ'd one way or the other

NaZ

Naz, i agree.. I wasen't really suprised that they gave me a conflicting answer to the def rolla rulling.

I was just wondering if you called the roolzboyz, a rep or someone else at GW... since the roolzboyz don't make the call for the ard boyz tournment.

Stelek wrote:Budro, GW's rules are EXPLICIT not PERMISSIVE.

Carry on with the thread please. It's quite entertaining.

I swear this is a game of pong...

Explicit rule sets are usually also permissive. Sorry that I wasn't more clear...

In this case deth rollas are explicity permitted to be used in ANY tank shock

*now I'll just fade back into the background of obscurity whilst my post is either ignored or refuted by the same posters which have been arguing against this for however many pages it is...

I just called customer service. those guys also handle incoming rules questions and meet several times a week to discuss them with the roolzboyz in england.

my thought is.. if we can get a few dozen people to call this week, they'll make it a priority to fix.

so weather you're for it or against it, please call them and ask what their ruling is, and express that it needs to be in the ork FAQ before the ard boyz tournaments begin!

NaZ

Agree Naz,

here is the USA number 1-800-394-4263

maybe they will push the right people to add this to the FAQ.

Modquisition:
And on that note shuttin' er down. This one has been beaten to death and is spiralling near trolltown.