Hello,
Answers are below.

Thanks!

John Spencer
Customer Service Specialist

Please do not delete previous email threads as this will help us serve you better!

Games Workshop
Customer Service
6711 Baymeadow Drive Suite A
Glen Burnie MD 21060

Games Workshop Customer Service is open:
Monday through Friday 9:00 Am to 7:00 PM EST

Contact info:
1-888-248-2335
custservATgames-workshop.com

Or visit us online at:
www.games-workshop.com
________________________________________
From: me
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:21 PM
To: askyourquestion
Subject: rules questions

Hello!
I would be grateful for an answer to these three questions:
1. Does an Ork Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla inflict d6 STR10 hits if it rams a vehicle?
No.
2. Is a unit which loses an assault and chooses to pass the morale check via God of War subject to No Retreat?
Yes.
3. Will the responses to #1 and #2 above be consistent from one emailer to the next?
Yes.

I think most people will stick with the ramming ability for realism. Maybe Phil Kelly intended for it to affect vehicles though.

yeah,
cheese, well most people will need to adjust to the actual rules...

olympia thanx for posting this... these have been two of the biggest rules abuses that i've seen to date... they really made me sad..

Panic...

Except the e-mails are not 'official', just an unbiased answer that may or may not be correct. Just because the answers may be consistent between on e-mail to the next doesn't mean that they're not consistently wrong.

If only there were some way of divining the rules from the rulebooks, perhaps by way of some decoding device...

Until you call a rulesboy and get 4 different answers including maybe.

Good thing those guys are gone now (at least thats what I heard).

I feel that many people are quick to be dismissive on this issue.

I don't exactly know, but someone with actual Knowledge and not mere Conjecture please respond.

Just exactly what makes the FAQ's more official than this written email response?

Both are Written and so can be verified.

Both come from employed GW personnel.

Both, as far as I know, could just be a couple of people reading the rules, making judgments, and being consistent, or
both could be speaking directly to the DEV team on a semi regular basis.

Both are prone to inconsistencies and flip flopping (i.e. Power of the Machine Spirit differences, Land Speeder Deepstriking and firing, Synapse Instant Death protection > Str 8)

In fact, this email response is from a real person's name (John Spencer). The FAQ's only have a thanks to YAKFACE's and the FAQ ruling council. (Much respect to YAKFACE
though I must say)

I would love to hear comments

Ultramar Custodian wrote:I feel that many people are quick to be dismissive on this issue.

I don't exactly know, but someone with actual Knowledge and not mere Conjecture please respond.

You're... joking, right? Do you honestly have no idea as to GW being horrifically inconsistant on staff answers? Regardless of who they are?

As for any particular developer having greater knowledge of the rules than the player body at large, that's pure falsehood. Just read the White Dwarf battle reports; rare is the day where some kind of semi-glaring rules mistake is made within army composition and rules.

This is why no one listens to a source until it's in some form of official FAQ. Even Yakface'll tell you that his pontification and research means little to gamers at large until they see an FAQ stamp.

Quite frankly, his answer to the third question is something none of them can promise.

Cervidal,

I have never called GW for a rules inquiry, though I have long heard the tales of inconsistencies in their answers. I completely understand why this would garner no credibility among the community.

A customer service rep on the phone has to give an ad hoc answer immediately whether they are right or wrong, consistent or not. But a rep on email would not only be verifiable

because it is written, but would also give them time to check with others to make sure their answers are consistent.

Why can't this be as credible as the FAQ stamp?

Maybe it's not at that point right now, but couldn't it grow to be? My original point was that people were being too quick to dismiss it.

Strange i just emailed them to confirm and i get the opposite answer! Lookatit it's OFFICIAL now!!!!!!!11111ONEELEVEN

Hello,
Answers are below.

Thanks!

John Spencer
Customer Service Specialist

Please do not delete previous email threads as this will help us serve you better!

Games Workshop
Customer Service
6711 Baymeadow Drive Suite A
Glen Burnie MD 21060

Games Workshop Customer Service is open:
Monday through Friday 9:00 Am to 7:00 PM EST

Contact info:
1-888-248-2335
custservATgames-workshop.com

Or visit us online at:
www.games-workshop.com
________________________________________
From: me
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:21 PM
To: askyourquestion
Subject: rules questions

Hello!
I would be grateful for an answer to these three questions:
1. Does an Ork Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla inflict d6 STR10 hits if it rams a vehicle?
Yes, ramming is a special kind of tank shock

Sorry if it ain't printed in a rulebook or faqqed on the official GW site it's garbage, and should be treated as such.

Ultramar Custodian wrote:I feel that many people are quick to be dismissive on this issue.

I don't exactly know, but someone with actual Knowledge and not mere Conjecture please respond.

Just exactly what makes the FAQ's more official than this written email response?

Both are Written and so can be verified.

Both come from employed GW personnel.

Both, as far as I know, could just be a couple of people reading the rules, making judgments, and being consistent, or
both could be speaking directly to the DEV team on a semi regular basis.

Both are prone to inconsistencies and flip flopping (i.e. Power of the Machine Spirit differences, Land Speeder Deepstriking and firing, Synapse Instant Death protection > Str 8)

In fact, this email response is from a real person's name (John Spencer). The FAQ's only have a thanks to YAKFACE's and the FAQ ruling council. (Much respect to YAKFACE
though I must say)

I would love to hear comments

First off, I didn't write those FAQs. That is only a 'thanks' to myself and the rest of the Adepticon council.


But back to your question, there are a few reasons why GW customer service responses are fairly useless:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=600005&pIndex=1&aId=3400019&start=2


As you can see from GW's own rules resolution flowchart, calling (or emailing in this case) a customer service representative to get a rules question answered is something to be done after asking a buddy in your local gaming store. In other words, your friends in the store (or here online) give more 'official' answers then the GW customer service representatives.


But beyond that, the truth is that their customer service reps have no actual ability to contact the games designers to ask them questions. Their ability to provide answers stems only from their personal opinion on the matter.

This means that these customer service reps (formerly called 'rules boyz') are notorious for giving different answers because each one is answering from their own personal viewpoint.

Their rulings are not official because there isn't any way to actually verify what they say with your opponent. Sure you can bring a printout of your email to your games to show to your opponent but how do they know you haven't faked the email? I suppose your friends could all call/email the guy later to verify but that's certainly not going to help you in pick-up games or at a tournament.


But more importantly, feel free to email this customer service representative back and ask him if his rulings carry the full official weight of the games designers and if his ruling will stand at, for example, a Grand Tournament.

The response that will be given back is that his answers are not official.

Again. lol----just lol.

wow theres a shocker

getting opposite answers out of 2 different calls? yep sounds like GW to me.

the only reasonable solution from my perspective is to go with the precedent set at recent tournaments. that way atleast you are playing it in the way that is the MOST LIKELY way to be ruled at your next tournament

please continue to beat the dead horse

NaZ

Thanks to Yakface and others who responded.

I guess it was just wishful thinking on my part.

Oh well. That's why I come to Dakka first.

Thanks!

John Spencer
Customer Service Specialist

Please do not delete previous email threads as this will help us serve you better!

Games Workshop
Customer Service
6711 Baymeadow Drive Suite A
Glen Burnie MD 21060

Games Workshop Customer Service is open:
Monday through Friday 9:00 Am to 7:00 PM EST

Contact info:
1-888-248-2335
custservATgames-workshop.com

Or visit us online at:
www.games-workshop.com
________________________________________
From: me
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:21 PM
To: askyourquestion
Subject: rules questions

Hello!
I would be grateful for an answer to these three questions:
1. Does an Ork Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla inflict d6 STR10 hits if it rams a vehicle?
yes! infact when you do this, it opens a VORTEX OF DOOM up on the table that ONLY!!!!!! affects your enemy, and they ALL suffer str10 d6 wounds. hope you have enough dice!!!!



wow look at my response! who would of thought that john spencer guy could be so awesome! oh wait i just reposted the thread and changed the wording man im a basterd.
OK seriously people that deff rolla thing SHOULD NOT BE USED TO RAM VEHICLES! it would snap right off the first time the battle wagon used it in that manner. its just a roller slapped to the front of a tank via steel beams. it would crumble in an instant. i dont CARE what you think the rulebook says on it. and you people that defend the fact that its supposed to be a rules as written so ram everything are cheaters IMO.

KingCracker wrote:
OK seriously people that deff rolla thing SHOULD NOT BE USED TO RAM VEHICLES! it would snap right off the first time the battle wagon used it in that manner. its just a roller slapped to the front of a tank via steel beams. it would crumble in an instant. i dont CARE what you think the rulebook says on it. and you people that defend the fact that its supposed to be a rules as written so ram everything are cheaters IMO.

No, cheaters are people who try to get their way by using flimsy fluff arguments when the rules clearly say otherwise. The game is played according to the rules, not the fluff.

Yup, and the rules state that Deff Rollas are used during Tank Shock, not Ramming.

And yet again, you're ignoring the fact that Ramming IS a type of Tank Shock.

A Special kind of Tank Shock. On this one, I'm on the fence. I see both sides of RAI'ing the RAW. I see Tank Shock and Ramming being distinctly different. But I also see Ramming being a subset of Tank Shocking. Balance wise, I think for now I lean towards not giving the bonus attacks, as it so drastically reduces the inherent risk factor of going for broke with a ramming attack.

Technically speaking, no Ork technology would work. The full power of the Waaagh! is used to fire each and every pistol, stabilize their bikes, lift their deffkoptas, and provide their rams with the fortitude to squish anything they come into contact against. So from a strictly fluffy standpoint, there's no problem with either approach. Personally, if it can squish a hive tyrant, carnifex or a squad of terminators, then I think it is plenty tough enough to handle the toughest vehicles out there. Again, that is going completely from fluff and the elusive 40k 'logic'.

Nothing short of a FAQ will settle the rules debate.

As an ork player, I believe it works. There's nothing more fluffy than that reasoning.

Yeah, sure, if you're gullible enough to take Genetor Anzion to be relating the facts of the matter, why not?

Magic pixie-dust for everyone!

All I ask is that people who fake an email (nostromo) say that they did so like KinGCracker did.

The Heat 2 GT FAQ which has apparently been through the Dev team specifies Deathrollers do not apply to Ramming, only to Tank Shock.

This is about as official as you are likely to get unless the Ork FAQ is updated soon.

I would laugh my butt off if because of this argument on rules, that they faq it so that it wouldn't work on monsterous creatures or tanks.lol

By debating over samantics in my opinion you open far too many doors than you close.

Nothing wrong with discussing semantics, if you know how to reason about semantics, logic, and rules. The problem in the rules forum isn't arguing about semantics, it's that semantics is a closed book to so many people.

OK seriously people that deff rolla thing SHOULD NOT BE USED TO RAM VEHICLES! it would snap right off the first time the battle wagon used it in that manner. its just a roller slapped to the front of a tank via steel beams. it would crumble in an instant. i dont CARE what you think the rulebook says on it. and you people that defend the fact that its supposed to be a rules as written so ram everything are cheaters IMO.

So, by following this line of reasoning (it shouldn't work because it LOOKS flimsy), then you would have no problem with me using one on you if I modeled it to look as secure as... Oh... say... a RAM on the front of an Ork Trukk?
I wonder how THOSE are attached.

Oh. Wait... a couple of steel beams.
MUCH more secure than the Deff Rolla.


Eric

I always wondered what the problem was with Reinforced Rams on Ork Trukks allowing them to ram other vehicles: the text of the Reinforced Ram explicity says that it enables vehicles to ram things.

don_mondo wrote:All I ask is that people who fake an email (nostromo) say that they did so like KinGCracker did.

Doesn't that kind of defy the point...

So I sent off an email yesterday to US Customer Service to test, and here's what came back:

John Spencer wrote:Hello,

Answers are below.



Thanks!



John Spencer

Customer Service Specialist



Please do not delete previous email threads as this will help us serve you better!



Games Workshop

Customer Service

6711 Baymeadow Drive Suite A

Glen Burnie MD 21060



Games Workshop Customer Service is open:

Monday through Friday 9:00 Am to 7:00 PM EST



Contact info:

1-888-248-2335

custserv@games-workshop.com



Or visit us online at:

www.games-workshop.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Nurglitch
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:19 PM
To: US Customer Service
Subject: Rules Questions



Hey,

I was wondering if I could get an answer to the following three rules questions:

1. Can an Ork Battlewagon use its Deff Rolla when it rams a vehicle? The rules say ramming is a special type of tank shock.

No. It only works in Tank Shock.

2. If Marneus Calgar uses God of War to pass a morale check, is he affected by No Retreat?


Yes.


3. Does the Lash of Submission count as a ranged weapon? If so, does that mean it is a psychic shooting attack?

Codex: Chaos Space Marines is pretty clear that this is a psychic power that is used instead of shooting, thus is a psychic shooting attack.

wow.. lets just go round and round and round and round

didn't we JUST have this debate?
and before that have this debate?

yeesh

NaZ

NaZ wrote:wow.. lets just go round and round and round and round

didn't we JUST have this debate?
and before that have this debate?

yeesh

NaZ

Yes, if there is anything that I have learned then it would be that there just is no answer that everyone will agree on. Unless they release an official FAQ then these arguments will continue. One judge will contradict another, one email will contradict another. In the end it doesn't matter who answers your question because someone will disagree. If you come across problems like this in game I would just say D6 it and move on. The dice are impartial and have no opinion either way so let them decide for you.

"This just in from our Breaking News Reporter Ryan Eli Dundant. Take it away, R.E. Dundant"

"Well, Jim I'm here to report that Olympia, our favorite poster this week, evidentally plays neither version of Space Marines, nor Orks and is multi-posting the same alleged email concerning the rules gray areas he hates the most using a subject line for said rule s/he hates in an effort to influence the FAQ and gaming community to unite behind his/her vision of the grim dark future where there is only war. More on this in our third installment 'The Lash Of Submission is a psychic shooting attack!' at 11 o'clock tonight. Back to you Jim.".

So why do we need an answer that everyone agrees on? How is agreement any way to deal with facts? Agreement is irrelevant to the truth of the matter, and the people getting it wrong are either stupid or cheating.

If the new customer service is consistent in their answers to rules questions (and right now everyone should be testing whether they are rather than dismissing the new service out of prejudice against the previous one), then they speak with authority and dissent is so much hot air.

Nurglitch wrote:So why do we need an answer that everyone agrees on? How is agreement any way to deal with facts? Agreement is irrelevant to the truth of the matter, and the people getting it wrong are either stupid or cheating.

If the new customer service is consistent in their answers to rules questions (and right now everyone should be testing whether they are rather than dismissing the new service out of prejudice against the previous one), then they speak with authority and dissent is so much hot air.

Maybe agree wasn't exactly the best choice of words here, but basically it boils down to this:

Someone is right and someone is wrong. Assuming that the new customer service is %100 percent consistent there will still be people that do not agree with that ruling until an official FAQ is released as they will state that the customer service is not official ruling. Personally, if customer service said that calgar rode around on a land speeder with AV 14 all around firing 10 melta gun shots I would go with it cause in my opinion they do represent GW ruling to an extent.

Bottom line: Yes, we should agree with what customer service says..assuming they are consistent. Will everyone listen? Probably not.

Axyl:

But the intransigents will not agree on a conclusion until an FAQ is released because the previous rules query service was inconsistent, thereby requiring an official FAQ.

Whether people will listen to the customer service will be whether they prove themselves to be consistent, which is something we can test.

I think I'll start a thread about it in YMDC.

Well, I tried it, and I didn't get the answer I wanted.

from US Customer Service <Custserv@games-workshop.com>
to Boss Ardnutz
date Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:45 AM
subject RE: Rules question - 40K - Orks
mailed-by games-workshop.com

hide details 9:45 AM (0 minutes ago)


Reply



Hello,

The Deff Roller only works in Tank Shock. Not in Ramming.



Thanks!



John Spencer

Customer Service Specialist



Please do not delete previous email threads as this will help us serve you better!



Games Workshop

Customer Service

6711 Baymeadow Drive Suite A

Glen Burnie MD 21060



Games Workshop Customer Service is open:

Monday through Friday 9:00 Am to 7:00 PM EST



Contact info:

1-888-248-2335

custserv@games-workshop.com



Or visit us online at:

www.games-workshop.com

From: Boss Ardnutz [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 5:41 PM
To: US Customer Service
Subject: Rules question - 40K - Orks
- Show quoted text -

Is anybody BUT John Spencer busy answering these things? Its easy to get the same answer when you ask the same guy.

Breton wrote:A Special kind of Tank Shock.

It doesn't matter what kind of Tank Shock it is. As long as it affects a Tank Shock then it affects all kinds of Tank Shocks. Only if the rules specifically state that it affects Tank Shock and not Ramming would you have an argument. The rules make no distinction as to what type of Tank Shock it covers.

MagickalMemories wrote:

So, by following this line of reasoning (it shouldn't work because it LOOKS flimsy), then you would have no problem with me using one on you if I modeled it to look as secure as... Oh... say... a RAM on the front of an Ork Trukk?
I wonder how THOSE are attached.

Oh. Wait... a couple of steel beams.
MUCH more secure than the Deff Rolla.


Eric

well seeing as a RAM is welded, screwed, bolted, tied and any other way fastened to the trukk yea i can see the ram being used to ram things. but a rolla, is a massive barrel, with two arms bolted to the sides, and then bolted to the wagon. i really dont see how on earth you think a rolla would be every bit as hard and secured to the wagon as a friggin ram.

Ghaz wrote:

Breton wrote:A Special kind of Tank Shock.

It doesn't matter what kind of Tank Shock it is. As long as it affects a Tank Shock then it affects all kinds of Tank Shocks. Only if the rules specifically state that it affects Tank Shock and not Ramming would you have an argument. The rules make no distinction as to what type of Tank Shock it covers.

You are wrong ghaz, not in your interpretations of the rules, but the claim that an argument cannot be made to the contrary of your views, one can be made, and has been made time and time again.

Frankly this won't be solved without GW intervention.

And the only way you can validate your arguement is to ignore what's printed in black and white in the rulebook. Perhaps you should look in the mirror before claiming an argument can't be made to the contrary of your view to make sure you don't look like such a hypocrite.

yeah,
Ghaz you need to man up to that fact your cheat rolla is being taken away... don't cry...

Panic..

hey Ghaz I just looked in the mirror. Is there anything else I should do too?

G

I too must laugh at this thread. How many times do we need to debate the same thing to no avail.

I personally believe it does work for the same reasons as Ghaz has stated. However, it will need to be ruled on a tourney by tourney basis for tourney gamers. For casual gamers, I dont see the argument against it. All I see is an argument for arguments sake. The kind that tourney gamers get accused of.

torgoch wrote:The Heat 2 GT FAQ which has apparently been through the Dev team specifies Deathrollers do not apply to Ramming, only to Tank Shock.

This is about as official as you are likely to get unless the Ork FAQ is updated soon.

The Heat 2 FAQ is no better than the Adepticon FAQ. Recently, it said that ork shoota boyz could not have a powerklaw on their nob. The real FAQ said they could.

Nurglitch wrote:So why do we need an answer that everyone agrees on? How is agreement any way to deal with facts? Agreement is irrelevant to the truth of the matter, and the people getting it wrong are either stupid or cheating.

If the new customer service is consistent in their answers to rules questions (and right now everyone should be testing whether they are rather than dismissing the new service out of prejudice against the previous one), then they speak with authority and dissent is so much hot air.

The only agreement that is needed is that between the people fielding armies.
The facts are that if the opponents can agree on a set of rules, then that is fine. If they can't, then find new opponents.
Tournaments will publish their own rules/FAQs/interpretations.

As to people who interpret the rules different to oneself being "stupid or cheating", that is just sour grapes.

d6 S10 tank shock is simply too powerful

G

Blackspike wrote:As to people who interpret the rules different to oneself being "stupid or cheating", that is just sour grapes.

Given that my whole post was about the fact that agreement is irrelevant to truth, it might be the case that I'm not calling people that disagree with me "stupid or cheating", and in fact that I'm calling people that get the rules wrong are stupid or cheating.

Panic wrote:yeah,
Ghaz you need to man up to that fact your cheat rolla is being taken away... don't cry...

Panic..

And exactly how is 'my cheat rolla' being taken away since I don't play Orks? The only person trying to cheat their opponents here is you by trying to make up some lame excuse as to why a Tank Shock is not a Tank Shock. Perhaps you're the one who needs a handkercheif to wipe away your tears.

Green Blow Fly wrote:hey Ghaz I just looked in the mirror. Is there anything else I should do too?

G

I don't know. Are you claiming that people aren't allowed to make an argument counter to your viewpoint? It sure seems that Drunkspleen is saying that no one's allowed to make an argument counter to his views. For all I care, you can make all of the arguments you want, but that in no way means that I have to agree with them or find them to be valid and in no way means I'm not allowed to point out why his views are wrong.

Nurglitch wrote:... and in fact that I'm calling people that get the rules wrong are stupid or cheating.

Well, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself because in this case you have the rules wrong.

Ghaz wrote:Well, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself because in this case you have the rules wrong.

Train wreck. I divest myself from this conversation henceforth.

G

Nurglitch wrote:

Blackspike wrote:As to people who interpret the rules different to oneself being "stupid or cheating", that is just sour grapes.

Given that my whole post was about the fact that agreement is irrelevant to truth, it might be the case that I'm not calling people that disagree with me "stupid or cheating", and in fact that I'm calling people that get the rules wrong are stupid or cheating.

And you are now the Final Arbiter of Truth?

As I pointed out, the only thing that matters is agreement. Agreement between the two players stood either side of the table.

The whole point of this entire section of the forum is because the rules are either not clear, or not as people want to play them.

House-rules are encouraged are they not?
Do you call the people on this forum saying that they play with Drop Pods that can fire on the turn they land stupid, or cheats? The rules clearly state this is not the case.

If anyone would like to post a reply from GW explaining why John Spencer interprets the rules this way, I'd be very interested. Maybe even convinced.

No, of course I'm not the "Final Arbiter of Truth".

But I don't need to be in order to demonstrate that my opinion reflects the truth, or to check if the opinion of others reflects the truth. I'm just pointing out where the facts of the matter can be established, such as in any discussion about rules, agreement is irrelevant.

If we're talking about the rules, then we can know the truth about them, and dissenters from the facts of the matter are rightly labeled 'stupid', if it's because they don't understand how to check that some conclusion about the rules is true, and 'cheaters', if it's because they want the rules to give them an advantage.

You're certainly right about the relevance of agreement where playing a particular game is the matter at issue. After all, this forum isn't just about rules, it's about what people do with them. But that agreement requires that players know what rules they are playing by, and what rules they are deviating from. It requires that both players start from the same set of premises. Agreement is only relevant after the facts about the rules have been determined.

Personally I don't see a point to talking to people I don't play with about how they want to play, I'm only here to discuss what the rules actually say, because that's the only useful contribution I can make in a semi-public forum such as this one.

If people want to discuss how they plan to play, rather than what the rules say, I'm happy to leave them to it.

But since what the rules say is relevant to how people agree to play their games, particularly if that agreement is implicit, then the truth is the only thing that is relevant to us here in a semi-public forum about how we are to play our semi-private games. I'm not going to tell people how to play their games, or make decrees about truth, but I am going to say: "Hey, here's what the rules say, and how they say it so that you can check if I'm telling you the truth."

In fact, I think it's much more important to discuss the facts of the rules than to discuss what we plan to do in the advent of the rules being one way or another, since the latter is merely a subjective matter. The former is the only objective matter well suited for a discussion forum rather than a gaming table, and the latter is subjective matter relevant only to the people gathered around a particular gaming table.

Given the nature of rules, if the players are interested in what the rules actually say, and the rules are considered to be unclear, then that lack of clarity is in the eye of the beholder(s). Since clarity is subjective, and rules are objective, clarity is irrelevant.

I would call people on this forum saying that the play with Drop Pods that can fire on the turn they land, and do so without the prior knowledge and agreement of their opposition, both 'stupid' and 'cheaters'. I might say similarly unpleasant things about people that confuse the rules with game play. If the players involved in the game are aware that the rules don't sanction Drop Pods firing on the turn in which they land, and decide to play it that way anyways, they are neither 'stupid' nor 'cheating'.

Dissenting from the facts about the rules is stupid and possibly cheating, dissenting from the irrelevant opinions of non-players in order to play a game the way all players want is good sportsmanship. Notice the difference between disagreements about the rules, which are a factual matter, and disagreements about play, which is a subjective matter?

Given all that, I would hope it would be obvious that I'm disappointed by the lack of explanation that Mr. Spencer had given me with his answers. In the reply that I received, containing three answers to three questions, only two answers appear to be correct, and the only explanation he offered for one of the answers was incorrect according to my fact-checking procedure.

Ghaz wrote:I don't know. Are you claiming that people aren't allowed to make an argument counter to your viewpoint? It sure seems that Drunkspleen is saying that no one's allowed to make an argument counter to his views. For all I care, you can make all of the arguments you want, but that in no way means that I have to agree with them or find them to be valid and in no way means I'm not allowed to point out why his views are wrong.

No you imbecile, I'm saying that your claim that "Only if the rules specifically state that it affects Tank Shock and not Ramming would you have an argument. The rules make no distinction as to what type of Tank Shock it covers." Is a load of crap because people have consistently made arguments without the need for that, and they aren't any less valid than the arguments in support. I don't claim that you can't make an argument counter to my views, you just decided to shove words down my throat.

I'm saying both sides raise valid points, and suddenly you accuse me of being a hypocrite... If this is the state of your english comprehension, maybe we should just be dismissing any statements you make about RAW.

Ghaz wrote:For all I care, you can make all of the arguments you want, but that in no way means that I have to agree with them or find them to be valid and in no way means I'm not allowed to point out why his views are wrong.

I'd like to point out that if you agree that the premises of an argument are true, and that the argument is valid, that if you are going to act like a reasonable person then you must agree with the argument and its conclusions.

Redbeard wrote:

The Heat 2 FAQ is no better than the Adepticon FAQ. Recently, it said that ork shoota boyz could not have a powerklaw on their nob. The real FAQ said they could.

I agree, in that the GT FAQ has a history of producing 'interesting' answers which have not subsequently been supported by the official FAQs. In this case it seems fairly clear to me the Deathroller can ram and I would imagine that any subsequent official FAQ will agree (rules interpretations aside, they've got to shift that dreadful battlewagon model).

However, interpretation wasn't the issue, rather some kind of official confirmation of how it worked, so I'm not sure I agree in the 'no better' part. The Heat 2 FAQ is a not an official FAQ, but this year it at least has 'been through' the Dev team in some manner. How robust their process of review was, I don't know, and, before you ask, I am 99.9% certain the process the Adepticon FAQ goes through is significantly more robust. As far as an 'official' answer goes, however, this is as unfortunately as close as you are likely to get at the moment.

having looked at the Heat 2 FAQ I think the Adepticon FAQ is much better. There are some glaring errors in the Heat 2 FAQ that don't match recent FAQs from the company.

G

Ghaz wrote:

KingCracker wrote:
OK seriously people that deff rolla thing SHOULD NOT BE USED TO RAM VEHICLES! it would snap right off the first time the battle wagon used it in that manner. its just a roller slapped to the front of a tank via steel beams. it would crumble in an instant. i dont CARE what you think the rulebook says on it. and you people that defend the fact that its supposed to be a rules as written so ram everything are cheaters IMO.

No, cheaters are people who try to get their way by using flimsy fluff arguments when the rules clearly say otherwise. The game is played according to the rules, not the fluff.

QFT

Nurglitch wrote:

Ghaz wrote:For all I care, you can make all of the arguments you want, but that in no way means that I have to agree with them or find them to be valid and in no way means I'm not allowed to point out why his views are wrong.

I'd like to point out that if you agree that the premises of an argument are true, and that the argument is valid, that if you are going to act like a reasonable person then you must agree with the argument and its conclusions.

Right. But not too many people are agreeing that your premise is true or argument is valid. Therein lies your difficulty.

remember that fluff dictates the rules.

G

sourclams:

I think I've pointed out, maybe here or in another thread, that whether people agree or disagree with my analysis of the rules is irrelevant, and if my analysis is correct, then their disagreement is most definitely their problem.

It's the communities problem, if players can't agree at the table. And I blame GW for laziness and an overall unwillingness to patch their leaky ship of rules.

nurglitch if your analysis is wrong then you are the low end of the signal to noise ratio

* crackle sppptzzz bzzzttt *

G

Green Blow Fly:

If my analyses are wrong, then someone can easily spot the flaw and point it out such that I can agree that I got it wrong. That's the point of an analysis, that it presents a problem and its solution in a clear, orderly, and objective fashion. Fortunately I check my own work before posting it.

Nurglitch wrote:sourclams:

I think I've pointed out, maybe here or in another thread, that whether people agree or disagree with my analysis of the rules is irrelevant, and if my analysis is correct, then their disagreement is most definitely their problem.

If you're analyzing irrelevant information, it's definitely not me that has a problem.

sourclams:

Well, I'll admit you've lost me. Which piece of information are you suggesting is irrelevant?

let's all PM Nurglitch the same set of questions and see if he is consistent with his responses.

: )

G

Of course I would be consistent. I already post my FAQs.

Ghaz wrote:

Panic wrote:yeah,
Ghaz you need to man up to that fact your cheat rolla is being taken away... don't cry...

Panic..

And exactly how is 'my cheat rolla' being taken away since I don't play Orks? The only person trying to cheat their opponents here is you by trying to make up some lame excuse as to why a Tank Shock is not a Tank Shock. Perhaps you're the one who needs a handkercheif to wipe away your tears.

yeah,
I'm sorry, you just sound like a ork player!

But If I play in a tournament, I'll take this email with me and when the ork player brings over a judge, I'd show the judge the email...
After the judge has read the GW email, which way do you think the judge will rule?

Panic....

Nurglitch wrote:Of course I would be consistent. I already post my FAQs.

yeah,
that's too funny!

Panic

Has anyone asked Phil Kelly? Seems he'd be the guy to ask since he WROTE THE FREAKING CODEX.

Just sayin.

I asked him and he said it worked on vehicles.

The Green Git wrote:Has anyone asked Phil Kelly? Seems he'd be the guy to ask since he WROTE THE FREAKING CODEX.

Just sayin.

Oh of course, I'll just call him up on the phone and have a quick chat with him, but hang on, this is even LESS official than the rules service.

KingCracker wrote:
OK seriously people that deff rolla thing SHOULD NOT BE USED TO RAM VEHICLES! it would snap right off the first time the battle wagon used it in that manner. its just a roller slapped to the front of a tank via steel beams. it would crumble in an instant.

Where are you getting this from? The description of the Deffrolla in the Ork codex doesn't say anything about being "slapped" on to the front of the vehicle, or being easily broken off. The forgeworld Battlefortress is the only model I know of with a deffrolla, and even that looks like it's mounted fairly securely; capable of destroying a predator or chimera, definitely. Battlewagons are front armor 14, so they shouldn't be quite as fragile as you seem to think.

Yeah, it's a bullshiat fluff explanation. Whether pro or con, any explanation based on fluff is bullshiat in a forum about rules.

The Green Git wrote:Has anyone asked Phil Kelly? Seems he'd be the guy to ask since he WROTE THE FREAKING CODEX.

Nah. Some random customer service rep is (apparently) just as good.

BYE

Because ramming a wheel of spiks, bladez, and things that go whirr isint the Ork way of things.

But seriously this discussion is going nowhere and unlike talk radio, shouting louder does not mean your right.

As for emailing GW, it is as official as me scribbling in my codex giving my guardsmen +2 saves. I wouldnt accept either ruling unless its either a) a house rule, b) tournament ruling, or c) actually FAQed by a current game designer of 40k

Ramming is a Tank Shock, end of thread.

InquisitorFabius wrote:Ramming is a Tank Shock, end of thread.

So new, so naive.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

The Green Git wrote:Has anyone asked Phil Kelly? Seems he'd be the guy to ask since he WROTE THE FREAKING CODEX.

Nah. Some random customer service rep is (apparently) just as good.

BYE

Actually if the service is consistent it's better, because they can provide the same answer to everyone who asks so the information is more readily available, unless everyone can contact phil kelly his answer is useless.

I'll take Phil Kelly's answer published in an FAQ (be it online or in WD) over a scattered collections of E-mails from Mail Order Trolls thanks.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'll take Phil Kelly's answer published in an FAQ (be it online or in WD) over a scattered collections of E-mails from Mail Order Trolls thanks.

BYE

Sure, if it's published in a FAQ it's far better, but nobody is saying that this service is superior to FAQs, if the service is 100% consistent it's better than asking someone at games day though.

I think alot of people's expectations of GW are unreasonably high. With CCG's and many other strategy games issues of a similar scope to this come up and those companies will rarely resolve them, they just end up banning from tournaments what ever is in dispute, why should GW have to be different?

That said the issue with the Deff Rollas' rules is a lack of specificity. I would personally try playing it both ways and see if it even makes a substantive impact on the game one or the other. If either way ruins it and makes things quickly one sided I think it becomes obvious how it should be resolved.

I will say I'm in the camp opposed to it affecting vehicles, mostly because of the lack of specificity in its rules. Ramming is a tank shock but a tank shock is not ramming despite an attempt to use the phrases synonimously they are two different yet related things. Just because you can do one does not mean you can do both and in this case they only spelled out one. This becomes a symantec arguement only when a person attempts to use two separate pieces of terminology to mean the same thing. If a special rule in a codex is making acceptions to a rule it should be specific.

That, and the Orky book was out before 5th Edition.

I have a question for all those who argue that it can't Ram because it says Tank Shock and not Ram specifically: Can a Trukk with a Reinforced Ram use the Ramming rules? Per Codex: Orks, pg. 93: "A Vehicle with a Reinforced Ram can Tank Shock..."

Platuan4th:
Yes it can Tank Shock.

Question:
Can anything Tank Shock a Vehicle?

Kirsanth: No, but vehicles can be rammed. What is a ram?

Lets go round and round and round and round and wheeee!

Platuan4th wrote:I have a question for all those who argue that it can't Ram because it says Tank Shock and not Ram specifically: Can a Trukk with a Reinforced Ram use the Ramming rules? Per Codex: Orks, pg. 93: "A Vehicle with a Reinforced Ram can Tank Shock..."

So can Trukks with certain upgrades, right? Can they Ram?

No, Trukks with the Reinforced Ram cannot Ram other vehicles. We also drive on a parkway and park on a driveway. C'est la vie de mots.

Moz wrote:Kirsanth: No, but vehicles can be rammed. What is a ram?

Lets go round and round and round and round and wheeee!

Ram is a declared action.
If you declare a Ram, you can Tank Shock units en route.

Tank Shock is a declared action.
If you declare a Tank Shock, you stop 1" from enemy vehicles.

Read the book. Its in text for you. pg 68 iirc

Same argument: 5,000th time. You guys should stop posting if you have nothing new to add.

Nurglitch wrote:We also drive on a parkway and park on a driveway. C'est la vie de mots.

Used to love that old George Carlin routine on that...........................

Gentlemen, this thread has been reported to the Mods. Please maintain a sense of decorum. Direct insults to other posters contravenes Dakka posting policy #1: be polite.

I'm not sure I understand why Deffrollas wouldn't work. I'm sure it has been discussed before but I can't see any reason why the statement below would not apply.

A Ram is a special type of tank shock.

So, why wouldn't you get to use bonuses to Tank Shocking when ramming?

Trasvi wrote:I'm not sure I understand why Deffrollas wouldn't work.

Because GW just said it doesn't that's why...

Trasvi wrote:I'm not sure I understand why Deffrollas wouldn't work. I'm sure it has been discussed before but I can't see any reason why the statement below would not apply.

A Ram is a special type of tank shock.

So, why wouldn't you get to use bonuses to Tank Shocking when ramming?

because you are segregating one bit of information and not showing the rest, that's why it seems so straight forward. The same could be done in the opposite direction, you can't tank shock a tank, therefore it doesn't work.

Tank Shock and Ramming only share a single characteristic in common, that of inflicting tank shock attacks.

Tank Shock can be combined with shooting, since the vehicle's speed can be chosen, can be used to make tank shock attacks, and must stop 1" short of vehicles.

Ramming cannot be combined with shooting, must move at top speed, can make tank shock attacks, and can ram vehicles along its path of movement.

Clearly, Ramming is a special kind of Tank Shock since in a single special case out of four defining characteristics it is Tank Shock. Likewise, Ramming is clearly not Tank Shock, because it only shares one out of four defining characteristics with Tank Shock.

Well obviously a Ramming move must have different rules to a Tank shock, for it to be a special kind of tank shock.

So you are saying, there are 4 things that define a Tank Shock?
1) Causes 'tank shock' effects to infantry
2) Can shoot
3) May move at any speed
4) Cannot touch vehicles?

It seems to me that you've missed some fairly obvious other requirements/effects here in order to skew towards your point. I could easily add that it must be declared in the movement phase. it must be declared by a tank. it must be done before any movement. etc. Which would add more similarities between tank shocking and ramming.
I mean, there are multiple dissimilarities between any ordinary quadrilateral and a a Square, but the square is still a quadrilateral

Your points 2/3 are covered by the special restriction on Ramming - It must move at max speed which precludes it from being able to fire. That is what makes it a Ramming attack, but it doesn't stop it from being a tank shock.

Most of all... its a special type of tank shock. it is a special kind of tank shock doesn't let you fire, it lets you touch vehicles, but it is still a tank shock. that is what the rules say.

(btw, i dont play orks, nor do i play against them)

Also:

Shooting at infantry: Roll on the BS table to see if you hit; if you hit, roll on the To Wound table to see if you wound; if you wound, roll against the armor to see if they die

Shooting at vehicles: Roll on the BS table to see if you hit; if you hit, roll D6 + Strength to see if you glance/penetrate; if you glance/penetrate, roll on the vehicle damage result table to see what effect occurs

Clearly, shooting at vehicles is a special type of shooting, since in a single case out of 3 defining characteristics it is Shooting. Likewise, shooting at vehicles clearly is not shooting, because it only shares one out of three defining characteristics with Shooting.
???

Trasvi wrote:I'm not sure I understand why Deffrollas wouldn't work. I'm sure it has been discussed before but I can't see any reason why the statement below would not apply.

A Ram is a special type of tank shock.

So, why wouldn't you get to use bonuses to Tank Shocking when ramming?

Maybe because not everything that can Tank Shock can Ram.........??
Just because something can tank shock does not mean that any tank shock capabilities it has carry over to a Ram.
Anything that can Ram can Tank Shock but NOT vice versa.

And why are all of the above statements true? Simple, because Tank Shock and Ram are two different game mechanics. Yes, they have si,ilarities, but they also have differences. And because of those differences, it seems that the GW position is going to be that Deff Rollas cannot Ram. So be it. My Genestealer Cult Orks wll use something else to kill enemy vehicles.

Trasvi:

The reason I state that there are four characteristics that define Tank Shock, and four that define Ramming, and that they only share one is because that's what the text specifically about those rules states. We could also mention that all the text that they other implicitly share, but since all that other information is equal, we can ignore it by the rule of ceteris paribus ('all else being equal').

Now, let me note what differentiates #2 & #3 of Tank Shock from #2 & #3 of Ramming. With regard to #2, Tank Shock permits the vehicle to move at any speed, while Ramming requires the vehicle to move at top speed. Likewise, Tank Shock permits the vehicle to shoot if it is able to, and Ramming does not permit shooting at all.

Clearly then, in Tank Shock, whether a unit moves a particular distance is a variable up to the player, and whether it can shoot depends on what speed it moves at. This is easily distinguishable from Ramming, where clearly whether a unit moves is a constant that is not up to the player, and whether it can shoot is a constant that is not up to the player.

Where the constants that define Ramming can be part of the set of variables that define Tank Shock, one is clearly a special case of the other.

The fact of special kinds (cases, types, etc) seems to be a sticking point for some people. If we take the four characteristics stated by the text under both Tank Shock and Ramming and compare them, we see that there is one case of where they are the same and three where they are not.

That means there is a special case under which these two things are identical, that of making tank shock attacks as described in the Tank Shock rule. Special, as in not general, not in all cases, only some cases, kinds, or types defined for the occasion.

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

P.S. Whether you play with Orks or against them is irrelevant to what the rules say, much like whether you want $5 or $6 will not affect how much money you will find in your pocket when you have twenty quarters in your pocket.

If we are discounting attributes that they implicitly share, why then can we not also discount the fact that they can tank shock infantry? In which case they would be different on 3 points and similar on none, in which case they are not related at all? If you are assuming that 'all else is equal' from the rest of the implied text, wouldn't that therefore be assuming that ramming is governed by most of the same rules as Tank Shock and thus reinforcing that it is a tank shock?

Perhaps i'm interpreting this completely wrong, but from my reading of the rules 'special kind' implies 'subset of'.

In the same way that a Square(ram) is a parallelogram(tank shock):
A square and parallelogram both have 4 sides.
A square is required to have all internal angles at 90 degrees, whereas a parallelogram only requires that opposite angles be equal.
A square is also required to have all four sides the same length, whereas a parallelogram only requires that opposite sides be the same length.
These properties lead to other specialties of a square vs a parallelogram, for instance in the calculation of area, the length of its diagonals, etc.

One could argue with your logic that a square is not a parallelogram.

However, a square has all these special properties that set it apart from a parallelogram, but in the end, anyone with a basic knowledge of maths would say it is just a special type of parallelogram.

I agree with Trasvi that the interpretation of 'a special kind of tank shock move' has been grossly misinterpreted.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) kind /kaɪnd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kahynd] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category: Our dog is the same kind as theirs.

So it should be treated the same as a tank shock, except with the exceptions explicitly stated under the ramming rules. Just because it is not exactly the same as a tank shock, doesn't mean it still doesn't fall under the same general classification as tank shock. I feel like the rules explicitly state that a ram is a tank shock move, and yet I don't see where they explicitly state that vehicle are not subject to the effects of tank shock moves.

If you could show me where my logic is wrong, I would be very happy.

Trasvi:

We are counting the characteristics that are listed in the text under their respective headings, which are four-fold in each case or characteristic. As I said:

"The reason I state that there are four characteristics that define Tank Shock, and four that define Ramming, and that they only share one is because that's what the text specifically about those rules states."

You are not completely wrong to interpret the phrase "special kind" as meaning something very similar to what we mean when we talk about sub-sets. Indeed, you are correct.

In fact, you are correct that a square can be considered to be a special kind of parallelogram or quadrilateral. All squares are parallelograms, but not all parallelograms are squares. Likewise all squares are quadrilaterals, but not all quadrilaterals are squares.

Squares are special kinds of both quadrilaterals and parallelograms, which is to say there are special conditions (as opposed to, and less in number than, general conditions) under which a square is as good a parallelogram or quadrilateral as any. As you say, basic math.

Where you go wrong is in reading too much into a superficial resemblance between the sentences:

1. Ramming is not Tank Shock.

And

2. A square is not a parallelogram.

Ramming and Tank Shock are token-terms, 'a square' and 'a parallelogram' are type-terms. For sentence 2 to have the same logical form as sentence 1, it would have to read (substituting type-terms for token-terms via the substitution of indefinite articles with pronouns):

3. This square is not that parallelogram.

So let's tie this back into the question of conditions under which we can say what Ramming is to Tank Shock. Let's take sentence 3 and substitute the type terms 'square' and 'parallelogram' referencing geometic objects with equivalent type-terms referencing Warhammer 40,000 rules:

4. This rule is not that rule.

From here it is a simple matter of 'existential instantiation' to substitute the bounded varibles with the specific token-terms, or constants. What is 'this rule'? Ramming. What is 'that rule'? Tank Shock.

Therefore:

Ramming is not Tank Shock.

Because Ramming only shares one out of four defining characteristics with Tank Shock.

Ramming is a special kind of Tank Shock.

Because there is only one special case out of the four characteristics in which Ramming is the same as Tank Shock.

Now, notice that because Ramming is only the same as Tank Shock in the special case of tank shock attacks, a Deff Rolla equipped Battlewagon can used its Deff Rolla in a tank shock attack whether it Tank Shocked or Rammed, but cannot use its Deff Rolla in a ramming attack because Tank Shock makes no provision for ramming attacks and indeed prevents a Tank Shocking vehicle from coming within 1" of an enemy vehicle.

Traskel:

Actually, no. The fact that Ramming is not the exact same as a Tank Shock means exactly that it does not fall under the same general application as Tank Shock. The fact that they share only one characteristic, that of inflicting tank shock attacks, means that Ramming is a special kind of Tank Shock, not a general kind of Tank Shock.

About where the rules explicitly state that vehicles are not subject to the effects of Tank Shock: See Tank Shock, p.68.

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

Nurglitch wrote:
Traskel:

Actually, no. The fact that Ramming is not the exact same as a Tank Shock means exactly that it does not fall under the same general application as Tank Shock. The fact that they share only one characteristic, that of inflicting tank shock attacks, means that Ramming is a special kind of Tank Shock, not a general kind of Tank Shock.

About where the rules explicitly state that vehicles are not subject to the effects of Tank Shock: See Tank Shock, p.68.

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

The exceptions outlined by ramming take precedent for the rules outlined by tank shock, thus allowing you to move within an inch of an enemy vehicle.

I'm not saying Ramming is Tank Shock. I'm saying Ramming falls under the same general category of Tank Shock, and is thus executed differently, but things that apply to tank shock in general still apply to ramming, as they are still the same general type of move (a tank shock move).

Traskel:

Yes, I get what you're saying. I'm arguing that what you're saying is wrong, insofar as the rules go! Unless Ramming is Tank Shock (a general kind of Tank Shock, you might say) rather than a special kind of Tank Shock, rules that reference Tank Shock do not carry over to all aspects of Ramming.

You're saying that Ramming is the same general kind of thing as Tank Shock. But that's directly contradicted by the text of the Ramming rules that say Ramming is a special kind of Tank Shock!

Hence the rules for Tank Shock carry over only in the special situation where they are the same, where the vehicle moves over non-vehicle units, making a "tank shock attack".

Since the Deff Rolla references Tank Shock, and the only thing Ramming has in common with Tank Shock are "tank shock attacks", the Deff Rolla applies only to tank shock attacks, which are only made against non-vehicle units, and the Deff Rolla does not apply to ramming attacks, which are made against vehicle units.

It seems that you are arguing that there is no more than a superficial relationship between Tank Shock and Ramming. How many characteristics does it need to share for ramming to become a tank shock with your logic?
I mean, if it shared all of the same characteristics, then there would be no point to the Ramming rule.

I just still dont understand why the argument doesn't just end at 'ramming is a special type of tank shock'. You've just said that i'm correct in reading 'special kind' as 'sub-set'. If ramming is a special kind of tank shock, then ramming is a subset of tank shock, thus all ramming moves are also tank shock moves, with the exceptions detailed under ramming.

What I'm saying is that the phrase 'ramming is a special type of tank shock' overrides the fact that there may be absolutely no functional similarities between the two. A lack of functional similarities does not imply a lack of correlation between the two, in the same way that similarities do not imply correlation.

Ramming is a special type of tank shock, and simultaneously, Ramming is not tank shock.

This is very zen.

Trasvi:

No, I'm arguing that they have one thing in common out of four possible things. If that's the given value of 'superficial' for this conversation, then I suppose it would right, but I don't think we're talking about what looks like what, but what is what.

Similarly, why you would keep calling the reasoning I'm employing "your logic" I don't know. I'm trying to make an argument based on the logic of the rules.

For Ramming to be a general kind of Tank Shock, it would have to share 4/4 characteristics. That's moving any distance, the choice of shooting depending on distance, tank shock attacks against non-vehicles, and stopping 1" short of vehicles.

There would still be a point to the Ramming rule if it shared these characteristics with Tank Shock, so long as it had an additional characteristic rule that said "And if the vehicle moves at its top speed, it need not stop 1" from vehicles and instead will collide with them as if making a tank shock attack except that the collision is resolved as follows:..."

Now, so far as I'm concerned, I should be able to just point out that Ramming is not a type of Tank Shock, that it is a special kind of Tank Shock, and everyone would shrug their shoulders, wonder what they were thinking, and leave it there.

Part of the problem seems to be the concept of special kinds, since the distinction between special kinds and general kinds is apparently a closed book around these parts. Maybe it's just the terminology.

However, you seem to misinterpret me when I say you are correct in supposing that 'special kind' has a meaning something very similar to what we mean when we talk about sub-sets. Very similar is not same.

So let's talk about special kinds and general kinds (otherwise known as just 'kinds' or 'types' or 'rules'), and then talk about sets, to review the similarities and differences.

As mentioned, to say that an apple is a type of fruit is to say that all apples are fruit. Where all that is relevant about a piece of fruit is that it is of the general kind 'fruit', an apple is the same as an orange.

To say that oranges are concerned they are a special type of fruit is to say that there is at least one property according to which they can be substituted some tokens of the general kind 'fruit' and not others.

Set and subsets can be related to general kinds and special kinds, respectively. Let's take the set A and the set O.

Set A [a, b, c, d]
Set O [d, e, f, g]

Set D [d] is a member of both sets, and being a set itself is a subset of both A and O. Does that mean that Set D is a special kind of Set A? Not unless we have defined the condition(s) under which something may count as a special kind. If we say that any set with the member d is a special kind of A, then both D and O are special kinds of A. And, supposing the members of A and O to be atomic, O is not a subset of A.

So when you say that the phrase "Ramming is a special type of tank shock" overrides the fact that there may be absolutely no functional similarities between the two, which is bizarre, since saying that Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock means precisely that there is a special case or set of special cases under which Ramming is identical to Tank Shock, that there is at least one functional similarity between the two, and that they are not entire the same.

Clearly then a subset is very much like a special kind, except that while all subsets can be defined as special kind, only some special kinds are subsets.

Of course, as I have tried to explain, that is where you are going wrong. You are correct that a subset is quite similar to a special type, but you are taking that to mean a subset is a special type when it is not.

The phrase "Ramming is a special type of tank shock" simply say explicitly what we should know by looking at the rules; it corroborates the fact that Ramming is only the same as Tank Shock in one special case, different in all other cases and therefore not the same in the general case. As such this phrase also explicitly states that rules referencing Tank Shock only apply in that special case, the only case when they are the same.

Neil:

Not at all, more like analytic, but I suppose it's a lost philological battle there. Now if Ramming is a type of Tank Shock and not Tank Shock, then you might have something resembling popular conceptions of zen.

And as I pointed out to you last time you brought out your fancy diagram, the truth is they are more similar than not.

On movement: Just because Ramming has to be at top speed does not mean Tank Shock cannot. Ramming is a tank shock that requires maximum speed.

On shooting: The only reason you can shoot during some tank shocks is because you aren't moving at maximum speed. If you tank shock past a certain speed, you do not always get to shoot. Your diagram does not make this distinction.

Effect on vehicles: this may be your only valid point, except it's the act of ramming, a special kind of tank shock, that allows the vehicle to collide with another vehicle. In fact, in no place in all of WH40k can any opposing models be within an inch of each other except during special circumstances, either assault or ramming.

Effect on non-vehicles: the one point of your diagram that is correct.

Your own diagram is faulty, please, stop using it as some kind of evidence and simply agree to disagree.

This is getting silly, John said no, and thats the closest ruling we are gonna get.

Purely RAW here, both Tank shock and Ram *require* the player to call out his intention it can ONLY be either Ram or Tank shock not both. (however you can tank shock infantry units during a ram)

Deffrolla specifically state that it occurs during a 'Tank shock' So one must declare a 'Tank shock'

As this is a 4th ed codex, and Raming is a 5th ed rule. The player must follow his 4th ed codex to the letter and only apply the circumstance to what his codex points out: "tank shock". It is unfortunate that the codex was written for 4th ed rules.

A player can not simply say "well with this new rule set out I can claim this rule applies to this specific part of the new rule in which the codex rule has no mention of at all".

What the pro arguments are doing is trying to combine the added Raming affect to the Tank shock affect in which the 4th ed Ork codex only calls out is available to the Deffrolla.

It *doesn't* matter how similar they are, when these situations come up with a codex older than the rule set, the only viable option is to follow RAW to its extent. And with this certain situation, it only is used for Tank shocking per RAW. It can not be argued otherwise. Its just like all the special equipment in the older codexes that can not be used with this edition (nightmare doll as an example) no matter how 'similar' they are to the current rules set.

yeah,
RAW the deff rolla rule doesn't say that the deff rolla works with 'special types of tankshock' just tank shock which is under a different heading in the rule book.....
and the term special type of tank shock is just there so (as nurglich is at pains to show you!) that we know that units contacted on route to the vehicle you ram are tankshocked... Or people could meat sheild their vehicles to prevent ramming actions.

Deff rolla rules are not compatable with the Ramming rules... Deff rolla doesn't need speed to inflict it's damage... It doesn't make sense that you can move a battle wagon 2" into contact with a tank and get D6 str10 hits, when the actual ram does no damage at all... the ramming rules state that you need to build up speed and have considereable inches between you and your target to do any damage...

Also the only other way to get D6 str10 hits from a unit is to buy a 700pts bio Super Heavy the barbed something in apocalypse (that still has to roll to hit with those D6 shots)... Now concidering that it costs 700pts for = >D6 hits, I ask you does it seem to be too much bang for your bucks that a small bit of war gear does the same thing?

and It Looks like GW has ruled against you... so hows about you guys giving the cheat rolla stuff up...

Panic.

I was just looking over the Deff Rolla wording and noticed it says "Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit" (Bold mine)

So, given that, who would you say is the "victim unit" of the following tank shock move



The ork codex is quite clear that each tank shock has a single victim unit, which means either, you take the entire move as the "tank shock" that the codex references, and must decide on a single unit as the victim unit which recieves the hits, and other intermediary units do not recieve them.

Or the other option is, the tank shock which codex Orks references is not the entire move but rather the effect applied to a unit, meaning each of these squads is the victim unit to it's own unique tank shock, but a vehicle is never tank shocked, and while the core rule book says "ramming is a special type of tank shock move" it never draws any similarity between the ram effect applied to a tank and the tank shock effect applied to a unit.

So the way I see it, the way codex orks is written you either can only deff rolla a single unit per turn, or you can't deff rolla vehicles. but there's no way to have both multiple units deff rolla'd and vehicles able to be deff rolla'd.

Obviously not as drawn out as many of these others but I usually try to look at these rules in a playable sense.

If I have a battlewagon and I tank shock a unit the unit takes d6 hits because of the ROLLA, which is going over the target infantry unit, rolling multiple times... d6 times. At the end the battle wagon ends up where the unit use to be because it crushed or moved the infantry out of the way.

If I am driving this battle wagon into another tank it goes at top speed and hits the tank and stops at the tank. The ROLLA hits the tank but doesn't roll multiple times and doesn't go over the tank or end up where the tank use to be. So once making contact with target vehicle the ROLLA only had a chance to hit once, not stop and spin D6 times into the target vehicle. Under the assumption that the D6 Str 10 hits are representing the ROLLA rolling over things, which seems logical.

No matter the result on the vehicle damage chart the battle wagon will never end up anywhere but the exact point where it struck the target tank. It will never move through or over it.

I figure it is like a steamroller and it would work on things it can run over and tanks are not something it can "run over".

I know this isn't indisputable proof but it makes a lot of sense to me.

Thr33 - but a vehicle is a lot taller (usually) than an infantryman, so more of the Rolla will connect with it.
Also, the rolla will keep spinning, ripping armour-plates and structure off the vehicle, possibly rupturing fuel-tanks and ammo-boxes ...

Again, not proof, just makes sense to me

Black- I see where you are coming from but given the ambiguity of the description and the rule I took the design to be a huge steel spiked rolling pin strapped to the front.

If this is the case than it is not self propelled, so the only thing giving it movement is the friction it makes with the ground as the battlewagon pushes it.

So the after making contact with a stationary object (tank) it would have nothing else to make it spin.

Unless you are arguing that it is self propelled in which case I have nothing hah.

Hazzaa GW.

I see where you're coming from, and I don't think a Rolla would generally have a motor spinning it round.

It would have a fair amount of inertia, though.

#runs off and models a 'uge steam-powered engine into all his deffrollas

The effort is noted and appreciated hah.

Go get one of those little mini motors and get to work man!

If I played you and you had a model with the work put in to make a self propelled rolla I would applaud and let you make d6 str 10 attacks against my vehicle.

It only seems fair.

Fairly off-topic from the current discussion of the past 2 pages or so, so I apologize, but I wanted to address this point:

aka_mythos wrote:I think alot of people's expectations of GW are unreasonably high. With CCG's and many other strategy games issues of a similar scope to this come up and those companies will rarely resolve them, they just end up banning from tournaments what ever is in dispute, why should GW have to be different?

Magic, pretty much the defining line of CCGs, doesn't have rules ambiguities or disputes, because they focus a portion of their resources in providing top-level rules support. For the vast majority of their audience, they take a stance similar to the 40k designers, which is to learn the main thrust of the rules, work out with your opponents a logical solution if something is disputed, and have fun. However, the similarities end when the serious tournament-level players want a definitive rules answer. Instead of the bogus stuff they packed into the last DA FAQ about how tournament players are basically not playing the game right and GW doesn't care, Magic provides an extremely detailed, comprehensive rulebook that handles all interactions and any possible corner-cases that could come up, continuously updated and monitored by a Rules team to fix any issues. Magic judges do not "make judgments" or "rule on an issue" in the sense of 40k judges. Instead, a Magic judge is someone who understands the proper way to resolve complex or disputed situations and can explain it to the players, to make sure the game is played within the framework of the rules. There are no long-standing rules issues or disputes in Magic, and as problems or ambiguities come to light, they are addressed. Banning of cards has nothing to do with rules issues or disputes, it has to do with balance in the tournament scene. If a card or combination is too powerful and warps the metagame, it will be banned.

Being a long-time Magic player (and judge), GW's behavior and policies regarding rules, tournaments, and FAQs is just absolutely foreign to me. I honestly cannot even comprehend a game company taking that stance. It doesn't make sense to me. How hard would it be to crank out some basic tournament guideline packet for people to run tournaments? Nothing major, just with answers to basic questions that would only apply to tournaments, like "I'm in a kill points game, and my unit in reserve didn't come in because time was called at turn 3. Does it count as destroyed?" There's no answer in the rules for this, because GW doesn't care to take an afternoon one day and even consider the possibility of tossing a bone to tournament-goers. What is the purpose of the preachy paragraphs in the Dark Angels codex about how the most important thing is to agree with your opponent and have fun? Yes, your rule books and magazines and website make it very clear what your stance is on that subject, but is it necessary to put into a FAQ? The people who just house-rule things and resolve disputes with whatever seems right or by dicing off don't read the FAQs anyway, typically, and the ones who actually do read FAQs want an actual answer, not more reiteration of The Most Important Rule.

/rant off... you can come back out now and talk about Ramming some more

Hey all,

My references are from the mini rulebook, which I think has the same layout as the main. I'm not sure how much I can quote, so I'll stay safe and go for as little as possible, just point you to lines.

I believe that everyone agrees that any infantry unit hit by a Dethrolla during either a Tank Shock or Ram gets D6 S10 hits.

My reading of p69, paragraph 1 is that a Ram is declared differently to a Tank Shock, as a Tank Shock ends when coming within 1" of an enemy vehicle. The last sentence of the paragraph indicates that this is resolved "..as follows." I believe this strongly implies that a unit is either Rammed or Tank Shocked.

The last paragraph on p69, last sentence: "or another enemy (which it will tank shock or ram again)"

So I feel the RAW are no dethrollaring the Av14's. I'm an Ork player too...


Of course, by the RAW, if you and your opponent agree on it, it can inflict as many hits as you want it two. And purple paint makes you move an extra 9" a turn

PS The only way I can see a dethrolla hitting a vehicle (serious now lol) is if you ram a walker, and it elects to Death or Glory.

as a Tank Shock ends when coming within 1" of an enemy vehicle

Ah, I see your logic.

1) tank shock ends when coming within 1" of an enemy vehicle
2) ramming is a special type of tank shock
3) therefor ramming ends when coming within 1" of an enemy vehicle
4) therefor ramming can't work
5) therefor ramming with a deathroller can't work
6) So Deathrollers don't cause hits on vehicles.

Mine crushed an Immolator in our last game though. Kick your mechs if your rollers aren't doing that.

yeah.
Sounds Good, But, I think we are just waitting for a critten to chime in now with "but ramming is a special type o.........."

Panic...

Dare I ask what is a "critten?"

Perhaps you meant "cretin?"

Until it's FAQ'ed or ruled in a tournament that I happen to be playing in that it doesn't work while ramming, I will continue to use it. No one can show a RAW answer that ramming is not a subset of tankshock.

There - I'm you're cretin.

Definition of "cretin" from urban dictionary which I find particulary humourous: "A Person that is: brainless, stupid, child-like, and full of pointless information that makes no sense and appeals only to other cretins. They can be found in abundance in every single populated internet forum, where they race to post as many mind-numbing messages as possible in a single session. In addition, they seemingly interbreed with other cretins, ensuring that their cretinous genes continue long after they end up dead meaning the Internet will never be rid of their kind. More's the pity."

budro wrote:Dare I ask what is a "critten?"

Perhaps you meant "cretin?"
[/i]

yeah,
It's like a cretin but it pulls people up on their spelling...

Panic...

Budro- The only problem with saying that is as of now no one can come to an agreement and no one is more right than anyone else.

So if you say you will keep using it with ramming than someone may say that they refuse to let you use that rule. So either you don't play with rollas, you only play people who agree with you or you don't play which you may be fine with.
Also the closest thing we have to a a faq is a GW employee saying it doesn't work.

budro wrote:Dare I ask what is a "critten?"

Perhaps you meant "cretin?"

Until it's FAQ'ed or ruled in a tournament that I happen to be playing in that it doesn't work while ramming, I will continue to use it. No one can show a RAW answer that ramming is not a subset of tankshock.

There - I'm you're cretin.

Definition of "cretin" from urban dictionary which I find particulary humourous: "A Person that is: brainless, stupid, child-like, and full of pointless information that makes no sense and appeals only to other cretins. They can be found in abundance in every single populated internet forum, where they race to post as many mind-numbing messages as possible in a single session. In addition, they seemingly interbreed with other cretins, ensuring that their cretinous genes continue long after they end up dead meaning the Internet will never be rid of their kind. More's the pity."

How about grammar? Shouldn't that be I'm your cretin, not you're cretin.

Oh yeah, Don Mondo's IFL ruling, Deffrollas cannot ram.................. Now what?

Someone asked before the first Ard'boyz games started at Baltimore, and it was ruled that rollas would work on Ram attacks. This was consistent from all judges through the GT as far as I know.

yeah,
well if my army goes to a GT I'll take this bit of wargear...

GW employee email-
Deff rollas don't work when ramming vehicles.
-0pts

Panic...

Hi folks.
I am not going to argue with anyones ruling on this.(Not much point!)

However I belive that the Deff Rolla should cause D6 str 10 hit on vehicles .
Because .
Pg 55 Ork Codex.

Deff Rolla,
'A Deff Rolla is a great spiked roller that brings the collosal weight of the Battlewaggon to bear on ANYTHING in its way.'
'ANY Tank Shock made by the Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit.'

I conceed that ramming vehicles was not an option in 4th ed.
However as this Dex WAS written with knowledge of 5th ed.

If the D6 Str 10 attacks were not effective vs vehicles, I would have expected,
'A Deff Rolla is a great spiked roller that brings the collosal weight of the Battlewaggon to bear on ANYTHING SMALLER in its way.'
Implying a limitation to what the Deff Rolla can effect.

'A Tank Shock made by the Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim ( non vehicle) unit(s).'
Refering to the singular and precise act of 'Tank Shock.'

Rule Book Pg 69.

'Ramming is a special kind 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.

All emphasis is my own.

Nowt to add realy , just putting my reasoning forward.

TTFN
Lanrak.

I can't believe that you guys are still debating this. Has nobody thought to ask Phil Kelly about it? I did...

When I was at Adepticon just before 5th edition had come out, and the leaked PDF had come out, the question had already come up.

So, just before I left, I asked him about it. His response was something along the lines of "So you like crushing tanks with Deffrollas eh?" <insert crunching sounds> "Well, you won't be dissapointed."

Now, I know that this was not an unequivical statement, but it was completely obvious that he intended it to be played that way. If you choose not to believe me, well, I can't change that, and people will be pig-headed to gain an advantage at all costs.

So, get over it, or get someone to go to the source is my suggestion.

sirisaacnuton wrote:

Magic, pretty much the defining line of CCGs, doesn't have rules ambiguities or disputes...

I would dispute that. My original gaming group did the Magic thing, and we were all about making decks whose sole purpose fit at least one of three categories: A) Making what was generally thought to be a useless weak card into a monster, B) collecting every card that fit a theme- i.e. Annoyances and group love- Kudzu, Mana Flare, etc into one deck, and C) Acheiving that corner case moment where everyone stops and says some version of "Wait... what just happened?".

I will agree with the continuation of your point however, in that Magic was much better supported as those cases arose.

I wasn't really reading the section on tank shock last night, in fact I was researching somthing entirely different, but I noticed that...

What we call tank shock is really..
Tank Shock! (notice the exclamation point)

And when I was reading Ramming, i read this tidbit that seems like most everyone cuts out.

Ramming is a special tank shock move. So I wonder if you are allowed to combine the deff rolla with the special subset of tank shock: Ramming. Tank Shock + Deff Rolla sure, but Ramming + Deff Rolla... not so sure.

um sazzlefrats, that tidbit that "everyone cuts out" is the entire basis for the argument that deff rollas should work on vehicles...

Barontuman: I asked Phil Kelly at Adepticon and he said "no, letting deff rollas work on vehicles would be unfair and I would be a terrible person for doing that, also I never spoke to someone who goes by the online moniker of Barontuman today and if he claims I did he is a liar"

You do see the problem with using asking someone and recieving an unrecorded and limitedly confirmable answer right?

Hehe, that discussion is as wierd as I´m green and Im pretty green *roaaar*

I think there´s just one thing to clarify:

Does an "unit" counts as vehicle/tank or not?

The deff rolla rule words it that way:

Deff Rolla,
'A Deff Rolla is a great spiked roller that brings the collosal weight of the Battlewaggon to bear on anything in its way.'
'ANY Tank Shock made by the Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit.'

I would say vehicle/tanks dont count as units. So the question is answered. Deff Rollaz cant hit tanks.
Dont believe me? Have a look in the rulebook. There are all units listed and vehicles/tanks aint within. Too bad but I guess that is what should be taken.
Sure, we can continue this and base it on the first line of the Deff Rolla rule what says anything in its way.
But I dont believe it´s meant to be used on Tanks. Would be awesome to get 2D6 S10 on a Landraider Not to mention the Predator on his left flank what explodes just before.
Dear Mork, that would make the Deff Rolla a frickin scary tool for low costs.

DaDok wrote:I would say vehicle/tanks dont count as units.

You would be wrong.

DaDok, page 4 & 5 of the new rulebook give a listing of all the unit types in warhammer 40k and include vehicles.

I assume you were looking at pages 51 through 55, however the first page of that section which features the monstrous creature rules says "Note that vehicles are also a different unit type, but they are so vastly different that they have an entire section of the rules devoted to them"

Drunkspleen wrote:DaDok, page 4 & 5 of the new rulebook give a listing of all the unit types in warhammer 40k and include vehicles.

I assume you were looking at pages 51 through 55, however the first page of that section which features the monstrous creature rules says "Note that vehicles are also a different unit type, but they are so vastly different that they have an entire section of the rules devoted to them"

Ok, you´re right there I think. Hmm, well, than it´s more or less clear again eh? Even if Phil didnt want it that way
Hmm, that´s a heavy one. I mean, that makes a Battlewagon a "close combat Stompa".