OK,

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,
AZ

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

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

If a vehicle can Tank Shock, it can Ram.

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

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

ORK MAGIC!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funny how you keep leaving that key word out.

According to the rulebook:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking of disagreements between these rules, what are they?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cerdival:

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

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

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

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

A. No.

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

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

Saldiven:

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

MagickalMemories:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOGIC

Nurglitch wrote:cerdival:

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

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

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

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

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



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


Edit: adding links of prior refute:

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

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

Ghaz:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mekniakal:

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

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

cervidal:

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

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

When have you presented an invalid argument?

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

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

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

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

Wrong, and here's why:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mekniakal wrote:

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

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

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

LOGIC

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

Fail.

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

To which I reply:

"Ramming is a special kind of tank shock."

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

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

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


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

- to tank charge or ram, the vehical must be a tank
- some upgrades allow tank charging in non-tank vehicals
- tank charge does not = ramming ... or it would be one rule in the BGB

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

Obscured gives something a 4+ cover save, unless the codex specifies otherwise.

Rulebook wrote:If a special rule of a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex.

Look at the codex.

Ork Codex wrote:A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets.

A vehicle is a unit, so it's specified in the codex that it gets a 5+ cover save as a result of KFF making it obscured.

Nurglitch wrote:Ghaz:

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

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

And yet again, SO WHAT? You've yet to provide ONE IOTA OF EVIDENCE that a 'special' type of Tank Shock is still not a Tank Shock. You can make up all of the excuses and mumbo jumbo that you want, a 'special' type of Tank Shock is still a Tank Shock. That's why they use the words 'Tank Shock' in the first place. Stop trying to make up reasons why the word 'special' suddenly makes the words 'Tank Shock' into two totally different words. It's not and your attempts to make it so and beyond ludicrous and are bordering on pathetic.

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

And why was it FAQed? Because otherwise it WOULD have allowed it to Ram.

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

And you can't separate one rule into two when it suits you. Tank Shock is one rule with two subsets. The first is 'Tank Shock' against Infantry, etc while the second is 'Ramming' against vehicles. Being able to Tank Shock allows a vehicle to do bothsubset rules unless specifically FAQed otherwise.

Traskel wrote:

Ork Codex wrote:A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets.

A vehicle is a unit, so it's specified in the codex that it gets a 5+ cover save as a result of KFF making it obscured.

If we're sticking to pure Letter of the Law/ Rules as Written interpretation, wouldn't this read:

Ork Wagon:

5+ cover save, as it is a unit within 6" of the Big Mek KFF

AND

4+ cover save, as it is a vehicle and obscured

Therefore, an Ork player could opt to ignore his 5+ cover save in favor of the 4+ cover save from Obscurement.

Traskel wrote:

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

Obscured gives something a 4+ cover save, unless the codex specifies otherwise.

Rulebook wrote:If a special rule of a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex.

Look at the codex.

Ork Codex wrote:A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets.

A vehicle is a unit, so it's specified in the codex that it gets a 5+ cover save as a result of KFF making it obscured.

Wow, that's a tough position to hold, but ok, let's take a look at what you're saying...

"A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets."

For one, it's two sentences, so two independent thoughts. If you're intent on arguing that both sentence 1 and sentence 2 include vehicles, which isn't untenable because, as you said, vehicles are units, then the more appropriate reading would be that vehicles get a 5+ save but also count as being obscured. It might also be argued that because sentence 2 contains no modifier or transition, such as "Additionally, vehicles..." or "Vehicles also..." that vehicles are treated separately in sentence 2 from sentence 1. Neither approach though necessarily supports the conclusion that sentence 1 must be defining the outer limits of sentence 2.

Secondly, it's very unlikely that GW would redefine a "core" rule in this way. First, if ork vehicles as "obscured targets" were supposed to operate differently, that would probably appear in a special section for Ork rules, not under a wargear description. Moreover, if Ork vehicles as "obscured targets" were supposed to be different, it's more likely that GW would've created a special rule for them, not redefine a rule everyone else uses.

Given your position's general oddity, in terms of grammatical interpretation and the very unlikeliness that GW would approach a rule re-definition in this way, I cannot say your position is accurate.

Readin the rulebook is never about finding something telling you what is not there but rather what is there.

I kinda agree with Nurg on this one, ramming is a special type of tank shock(not a normal tank shock) namely ramming and have own rules and everything.

So the answer to OP would be that it isnt possible.

Ghaz:

On the contrary I have provided evidence. The rules for Tank Shock and Ramming give each rule four characteristics:

1. The vehicle's speed and whether the player has a choice in it.
2. Whether the vehicle has the option of firing weapons, speed permitting.
3. How the vehicle interacts with non-vehicles.
4. How the vehicle interacts with vehicles.

This is all right there in the rules, should you care to read them carefully, instead of mis-paraphrasing them.

I've also pointed out how the key word 'special' works in the Warhammer 40k rules to mean a specific or particular case, that it is in conjunction with the key word 'type' in the particular rules at issue, and how these terms work together to describe a singular condition under which Ramming is Tank Shock (condition #3, how the vehicle interacts with non-vehicles).

If you cannot accept this as conclusive evidence, then I would like to hear what you would accept as evidence. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but that's all there is to it. Given that your posts are increasingly hysterical, I might humbly suggest you take a breather and calm down a bit.

You should follow sourclam's example above, by giving a clear, logically valid, and correct argument.

The "four characteristics and how they effect the rules" is something you have made up,Nurglitch. Please stick to the rules given in the rulebook.

and....no, you don't. You make up some distinctions and make them fit you position.

I don't know Nurglitch... I agree with your conclusion, but your reasoning isn't so great.

Your emphasis on characteristics is completely irrelevant.

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

What? Shooting and assaulting share a characteristic, they both involve 'to wound' roles. Does that make assaulting a special type of shooting? Of course not. C'mon man.

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

Haha! If all the elements were the same, they'd be identical rules! Any two rules, even they are part of a hierarchy or subset, would have different characteristics. If they didn't, it would only be one rule.

A focused discussion of "special" is more to the point. I myself find guidance in context in this situation, but whatever. In any case, this "characteristics" stuff is irrelevant.

Steelmage99:

Tank Shock! wrote:To make this kind of attack, first turn the vehicle on the spot in the direction you intended to move it and declare how many inches the the vehicle is going to move. The vehicle must move at least at combat speed.

The first characteristic of Tank Shock: The vehicle's speed and whether the player has a choice in it.

To whit, the player has the options to move the vehicle at either combat speed, or cruising speed, or flat out if possible.

Tank Shock wrote:If the tank moved slowly enough during the tank shock attack, it may fire as normal in the Shooting phase.

The second characteristic of Tank Shock: Whether the vehicle has the option of firing weapons, speed permitting.

Tank Shock! wrote: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 test is passed the unit will simply let the tank move through, as if it was not there. 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.

The third and fourth characteristics of Tank Shock: How the vehicle interacts with non-vehicles and vehicles.

During a tank shock the vehicle makes tank shock attacks against non-vehicles and is blocked by vehicles.

Ramming wrote:Ramming is a rather desperate manoeuvre and means that the tank must concentrate on moving at top speed towards one enemy vehicle.

The first characteristic of Ramming: The vehicle's speed and whether the player has a choice in it.

The player has no choice; which is to say the speed of the vehicle is folded into the choice to ram, unlike Tank Shock where it is separate from the decision to make tank shock attacks.

Ramming wrote:This means that it may not shoot in that turn's Shooting phase, making it an attractive choice for vehicles that have no armament left or are shaken.

The second characteristic of Ramming: Whether the vehicle has the option of firing weapons, speed permitting.

Again, vehicle's option to shoot has been eliminated and folded into the decision to Ram. Even a special case (there's that word again!) like the Monolith that could shoot and make tank shock attacks, the vehicle may not shoot in that Shooting phase.

Ramming wrote:Ramming 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. Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal.

The third characteristic of Ramming: How the vehicle interacts with non-vehicles.

A vehicle that engages in Ramming is the same as a vehicle that engages in Tank Shocks, in the special case where non-vehicle units are concerned.

Ramming wrote:Each vehicle immediately suffers a hit against the armour facing where the other vehicle has impacted (so the rammer always uses its front armour).

The fourth characteristic of Ramming: How the vehicle interacts with other vehicles.

Unlike a vehicle engaging in Tank Shock, a vehicle engaging in Ramming can affect enemy vehicles.

deadlygopher:

No, my reasoning is valid and its premise on the characteristics making up these rules is relevant. It is relevant because the rules in Warhammer 40k depend on being about themselves to a degree, and hence require players to be aware of their structure as well as their content. All referents of 'normal' and 'special' are defined by the scope of rules in the book, for example, rather than a specific statements.

My reasoning is valid because the special/normal distinction in Warhammer matches exactly the universal/existential quantification of first order predicate logic. Contrary to your poorly considered conclusion, it is true that for the case of both shooting and assaulting sharing the characteristic of wounding, they are the same and we are licensed to say that in the special case of wounding, assaulting is a special type of shooting.

It is good to see that you can follow the reasoning that, because Ramming and Tank Shock only share 3/4 elements (really 4/5) they are not identical and therefore not the same rule though. What is not good is failing to see how this lack of shared identity in general prevents one from being a type of another. Let me give you an example:

Suppose we have the set P [a, b, c, d], the set Q [d, e, f, g], and the set A [a]. Both Q and A share a member with P, but one also has four members and three of those members are different rather than absent entirely. A is a subset of P, while only a subset of Q is a subset of P. You could say that Q is a special type of P where d, to use the lingo of GW's rules, while A is a type of P.

I like your suggestion of using 'elements' instead of 'characteristics' though.

Nurglitch wrote:
MagickalMemories:

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

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

(Emphasis mine.)

Well, he DID bring it up, I'll give you that. He didn't actually ask any questions about it, except for:

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

The only point he directly questioned was the KFF (though, without a question mark):

If the vehicles were only supposed to get a 5+ like all other units why bother specifying they count as obscured.

By the way his post is written, it looks as if he's (A) asking a KFF question (B) making a ram vs. shock statement and (C) asking about "official" rulings on these items.

If I'm incorrect, please point out where he asks about tank shock vs. ramming


Eric

MagickalMemories:

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

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

So yes, he is asking about the relation of tank shock to ramming, since he is wondering whether a vehicle equipped with wargear that allows it to tank shock can also ram.

You're very funny Nurglitch. The mathematical use of subsets does not necessarily have any bearing on the 40k ruleset. I'm sure you can imagine a ruleset where the writer defines two rules, where one is related to the other in the sense that the abililty to perform the first indicates ability to perform the second. Much like people are arguing ramming relates to tank shock. It's not at all necessary these rules share all or any elements. It could just be that one depends on the other.

Not such a cognitive stretch, even for you, my friend.

I, as always, smile when I read your posts. Never change, Nurg. I eagerly await your critique of my "poorly considered conclusion."

I not only didn't use a question mark, but I also mispelled 'and' in my post. There probably is a reason I am interested in orks. I can always pretend that I meant to mispell things, when in reality I just didn't read my post before hitting submit.

But for the record, I was indeed asking if a trukk with a reinforced ram can ram, and what cover save a vehicle that is obscured by a kff receives. Intresting points raised on all sides. Anyone been in any major GW events recently with orks using a kff with vehicles, or trukks with reinforced rams? I'd be curious how it was played at a GT.

AZ

Nurglitch wrote:MagickalMemories:

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

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

So yes, he is asking about the relation of tank shock to ramming, since he is wondering whether a vehicle equipped with wargear that allows it to tank shock can also ram.

Sorry, but this is simply another example of you making things look how you want them to and attempting to use convoluted reasoning to support your conclusion.

The bottom line:

he is asking about the relation of tank shock to ramming

He never does ACTUALLY ask about the relation of them. Never.

Also:

since he is wondering whether a vehicle equipped with wargear that allows it to tank shock can also ram.

There's no "wondering." He doesn't "wonder" in his post. In fact, he states his thoughts clearly as statements of opinion. He doesn't, directly or indirectly, as for your opinion, my opinion , Ghaz's opinion or anyone elses opinions on T.S. vs. Ram... or their statements of "facts," etc.

Did he WANT opinions (or, as some choose to see it, FACTS)? Perhaps. The fact remains, however, that he NEVER asked for it and DOESN'T "wonder" about its' viability. You (and others) simply chose to answer an unasked question.

It's okay to admit you made a mistake, Nurglitch... not that I expect you will.

I'd just like to NOT see this argument overcome every thread in which it's mentioned.


Eric

Edit: Triple post. Sorry.

Edit: Oops, double post.

Democratus wrote:

Mekniakal wrote:

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

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

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

LOGIC

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

Fail.

Exactly.

I was being sarcastic, by utilizing the logic Nurglich seems to find so enthralling (while sticking in a bit of a jab at my intelligence, since intro to logic classes are soooo hard). While their might be physical differences between a human and a cat, we are both, obviously mammals. By trying to say ramming isn't a tank shock because it has a few differences between a ram and a normal tank shock is like saying a human isn't a mammal because of slight physical differences between us and a monkey/cat/donkey etc.

What about a platypus? They are mammals, but they lay eggs, and the males have poison, traits that aren't found in any other mammal. Are we going to stop calling them mammals because they are "special" or different? No.

A "special" type of tank shock is a tank shock. Except it goes to school on the short bus because the people who write the rules were obviously drinking far to much when it was still in development.

Anyway, to answer the original question, the KFF is measured from the hull of the vehicle. Also, the rules for a reinforced ram really depends the interpretation of the rules in your LFGS. Ask around.

It's not a Nurglitch post unless he jabs at your intelligence.

Nurglitch wrote:Steelmage99:

Tank Shock! wrote:To make this kind of attack, first turn the vehicle on the spot in the direction you intended to move it and declare how many inches the the vehicle is going to move. The vehicle must move at least at combat speed.

The first characteristic of Tank Shock: The vehicle's speed and whether the player has a choice in it.

To whit, the player has the options to move the vehicle at either combat speed, or cruising speed, or flat out if possible.

Tank Shock wrote:If the tank moved slowly enough during the tank shock attack, it may fire as normal in the Shooting phase.

The second characteristic of Tank Shock: Whether the vehicle has the option of firing weapons, speed permitting.

Tank Shock! wrote: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 test is passed the unit will simply let the tank move through, as if it was not there. 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.

The third and fourth characteristics of Tank Shock: How the vehicle interacts with non-vehicles and vehicles.

During a tank shock the vehicle makes tank shock attacks against non-vehicles and is blocked by vehicles.

Ramming wrote:Ramming is a rather desperate manoeuvre and means that the tank must concentrate on moving at top speed towards one enemy vehicle.

The first characteristic of Ramming: The vehicle's speed and whether the player has a choice in it.

The player has no choice; which is to say the speed of the vehicle is folded into the choice to ram, unlike Tank Shock where it is separate from the decision to make tank shock attacks.

Ramming wrote:This means that it may not shoot in that turn's Shooting phase, making it an attractive choice for vehicles that have no armament left or are shaken.

The second characteristic of Ramming: Whether the vehicle has the option of firing weapons, speed permitting.

Again, vehicle's option to shoot has been eliminated and folded into the decision to Ram. Even a special case (there's that word again!) like the Monolith that could shoot and make tank shock attacks, the vehicle may not shoot in that Shooting phase.

Ramming wrote:Ramming 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. Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal.

The third characteristic of Ramming: How the vehicle interacts with non-vehicles.

A vehicle that engages in Ramming is the same as a vehicle that engages in Tank Shocks, in the special case where non-vehicle units are concerned.

Ramming wrote:Each vehicle immediately suffers a hit against the armour facing where the other vehicle has impacted (so the rammer always uses its front armour).

The fourth characteristic of Ramming: How the vehicle interacts with other vehicles.

Unlike a vehicle engaging in Tank Shock, a vehicle engaging in Ramming can affect enemy vehicles.

Yes, repetition is allways a good way to prove your point.

Let's see....

1. Both Tankshock and Ramming take place in the Movement Phase.

2. Both Tankshock and Ramming is the only way a vehicle may damage an enemy unit outside of Shooting nd Assault.

3. Both Tankshock and Ramming moves in a straight line.

4. Both Tankshock and Ramming appear in the same section in the rulebook.

As seen Ramming shares 4 out of 4 elements with Tankshock. Using your logic this show that Ramming "clearly" and "obviously" is a special kind of Tankshock. And guess what? This is totally in sync with the rulebook.

As shown I too can make up 4 distinctions and use those to prove my point. I haven't been quite as eloquent (longwinded) as Nurglitch, but the elements hold the same value. ie. none.

deadlygopher:

I never jab at anyone's intelligence. I start from the assumption that everyone here is an intelligent and capable adult. If you feel I've insulted your intelligence by pointing out your errors, perhaps you should consider that intelligent people are capable of making mistakes as well, and that pointing out an error is no slight against anyone; indeed, it is the basis for constructive criticism. Please be so good as to acknowlege I'm critiquing your argument rather than yourself.

Furthermore, set theory has bearing on any discussion of rules and their relation to each other. It's utility lies in the fact that it is simple, effective, and clear.

If you think it's a "cognitive stretch", maybe you should consider the point of using set theory and logic, to show step by step how a set of premises warrants a conclusion via sound argument. The whole point is avoiding any 'cognitive stretching' or leaps of logic, while leaving aside the ambiguity of natural language.

But let's not talk about effective ways to discuss rules, let's just discuss rules

There are plenty of sets of rules wherein one option in one rule depends on the selection of an option in another rule. Practically all of them, really. If it's a good set of rules, it will make an explicit reference tying the second rule to the results of the first. Warhammer 40k uses this sorting method frequently, a notable example being the hit-wound-save rolls.

Notice that we're talking about reference here. Ramming references Tank Shock. The Reinforced Ram references Tank Shock. It would be a simple hypothetical syllogism (such as the one sourclams used to point out that the Kustom Force Field gives vehicles a 4+ save) to justify the conclusion that the Reinforced Ram references Ramming.

Except that not all references are equal, and such a syllogism would abstract away the important details that makes its conclusion valid yet false. The reference to a "special type of Tank Shock" is referencing an element of Tank Shock, specifically tank shock attacks against non-vehicles. That is why it is important to see why the elements shared by the two sets makes a difference to references.

Since Reinforced Rams reference Tank Shock, they reference its elements. If Ramming shares only one element with Tank Shock, then it only shares the reference insofar as the scope of that element is concerned.

That's why it's so important to note that Ramming is only a special type of Tank shock, and which element makes it the special type, so you don't over-generalize the reference and misapply it.

MagickalMemories:

Please see the post right above yours.

Mekniakal:

Maybe you should leave sarcasm out of it next time, so you don't obfuscate your point. Speaking of which, let's talk about that logic that should be simple for you and which you misdescribe. Let's take some sets:

P [a, b, c, d, e]
Q [e, f, g, h, i]
R [a]
O [e]

We can say R is a type of P, since R is an element of P. Likewise we can say O is both a type of P and a type of Q. If we are asked for a P, we can hand over a P or an R.

Now, P is not Q; they do not share the same membership of elements. But, if we narrow our scope to a special case, we can say P is Q where e.

P is a special type of Q. P is a type of Q under the special condition e, not under the general or unqualified conditions.

Do you follow this?

Steelmage99:

You asked for evidence, so I cited the text and sketched out how it supported my claims. It probably would help if you edited your posted and deleted the quote of that entire long post, since if you find it long-winded, surely it is longer-winded to repeat it all again un-necessarily.

I've noticed that now that I've reiterated the evidence, you're claiming that really, what's stated by the rules is not real evidence because of elements you cite.

You are correct to say that both Tank Shock and Ramming occur in the movement phase. But that's irrelevant because we're concerned with whether reference to one implies reference to another, and that makes only the referee, the undisputed referent, and the disputed referent relevant.

So unfortunately the fact that both occur in the Movement phase is irrelevant.

Your second point is, again, irrelevant, for the same reasons. We're concerned with whether reference to one rule denotes reference to another rule, not with the number of over-arching similarities that they share.

It would be like saying, if one were asked for a red type of fruit when one had both apples and peaches, that both apples and peaches are fruit that one is as good as another.

As you can see, this failure of relevance is a failure of scope. We're not concerned with the relation of Ramming and Tank Shock to the Movement phase, we're concerned with the narrower problem of their relationship to each other!

Which brings me to your fourth point, which is both irrelevant, and which middle quite eloquently showed was erroneous on the first page of this thread.

Finally there is the third point you bring up, which is irrelevant in an interesting way. It is true that they both move in a straight line, and that Tank Shock makes this explicit. That's how tank shock attacks work, which I've already pointed out is an element shared by both rules, and the only element shared by both rules, and which the reference of one rule to another makes clear.

So really, not so much irrelevant to the subject as irrelevant to the point that you can make up four distinctions and use those to prove your point that Tank Shock and Ramming have more than one special element of identity.

You have indeed made up four distinctions, but unfortunately you have failed to use them to prove your point. Two distinctions fail the test of relevance, being external to the rules at hand, one distinction has already been shown to be false by middle, and one distinction isn't a distinction, it's the 1/4 element of tank shock attacks that makes Ramming a special type of Tank Shock.

I'm sorry, as such your argument fails to hold.

Edit: Typos

Nurglitch wrote:Furthermore, set theory has bearing on any discussion of rules and their relation to each other.

Wrong. If GW had written "the ability to tank shock confers the ability to Ram, don't try to use set theory to figure this out" then your analysis of the elements of tank shocking and ramming would be quite inappropriate, wouldn't it? My point is, set theory is relevant only if the writer meant it to be relevant. That's what I said way back in my first post, though I've had to repeat it for you a couple times, it's ok. I don't mind.

deadlygopher:

Nope, its correct. I like your 'pork pie' argument though. If GW had written "the ability to tank shock confers the ability to Ram, don't try to use set theory to figure this out", they could have also have written "Ramming is a type of Tank Shock, and don't try to use English to figure this out".

In which case, any analysis of those words in English would have been quite inappropriate. I'm calling this a 'pork pie' argument in reference to "How to Get Ahead in Advertising" where the protagonist shows how such hypotheticals prejudice and distort information about what is actually the case.

What sets relevance is subject matter, not the author's intentions with regard to that subject.

Hence your point that set theory is only relevant if the writer had meant it to be relevant is false.

Set theory is relevant, and useful, so long as the subject is rules. That's why it was invented.

Nurglitch wrote:MagickalMemories:

Please see the post right above yours.

Good enough.
He posted that while I was typing, so I didn't see it.

That still doesn't change the fact you made an assumption and tried to present it as fact, when the information at hand clearly did not support it being such.

It wouldn't be the first time you attempted to present opinions as facts, Nurglitch, and I'm not the first or only one to point that out.

This thread, now being OFFICIALLY another thread about ram vs. tank shock... I'm out. Those involved don't seem to understand that they'll never change each other's minds until a FAQ lists something as factual... and they're too stubborn to stop belaboring the point.

Eric

MagickalMemories:

Speaking of trying to present opinions as facts, you are expressing your opinion, that the information at hand did not clearly support my reading, as fact. How about that?

You're still missing it.

If they had written "don't use set theory" then it would be inappropriate to do so. If they had said, "Ramming is a type of tank shock," it would have been explicit, and a contrary analysis using set theory would have been inapprioriate. I doubt anyone would truly try to argue that. But why would set theory be inappropriate? Becuase there's something else to the analysis, an explicit plain english rule. Do you see where I'm going now? At best you're proposing a relevant interpretive consideration, but in no way have you shown why your "similar characteristics" analysis is definitive. A plain meaning, clearly in context rule would have been a higher-order interpretive tool. It doesn't exist, but just because you have your analysis is no reason why others should give up theirs, and is no proof why yours is superior. Now, I'm not claiming that I have some construct of interpretive tools and their relative order, but you haven't proposed on either.

There, it took me all afternoon to drag you kicking and screaming to my initial point. And that's just because you propose an analysis is not in itself de facto proof that you're countered other people's interpretations of the problem. I think you'd get a lot further in presenting your arguments if you realized that.

sourclams wrote:
If we're sticking to pure Letter of the Law/ Rules as Written interpretation, wouldn't this read:

Ork Wagon:

5+ cover save, as it is a unit within 6" of the Big Mek KFF

AND

4+ cover save, as it is a vehicle and obscured

Therefore, an Ork player could opt to ignore his 5+ cover save in favor of the 4+ cover save from Obscurement.

I disagree. It seems like everyone ignores part of the rule for obscured.

If a special rule or a piece of warger confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex.

It's not the case that a 4+ and a 5+ is conferred, only the 5+ is.

Does the Ork Codex specify the cover save given by a KFF? Yes, it does. It grants all units within 6 inches of the model carrying the KFF a 5+ cover save.

If you are going to argue that it gives a 4+ cover save to vehicles, how are you supporting that the rule in the Ork Codex for the 5+ cover save doesn't apply to vehicles?

deadlygopher

Nope, I get your point, it's just that your point is wrong. The analysis itself shows how it is definitive.

Set theory is just a convenient system for making the truth of the matter clear.

If GW has written "Ramming is a type of tank shock," then any analysis using set theory and reaching a contrary conclusion would have an agregious and easily recognized error highlighted by the formalism. That's the point of it.

I certainly agree that where the expression of the rules is in dispute (somehow...) the transparency that set theory provides will not avail us.

Fortunately I'd done the work, cited the text, provided a standard definition of a key word, the game-specific referents of the key term, and shown how the information presented set theoretically is the information expressed by the text. And Steelmage99 has given me the opportunity to clarify how that information is also relevant.

I also agree that just because I have presented an analysis is no reason that others should agree with it and find it "superior" to their own. It should stand by its own merits, and people should agree with it on its own merits, not my authority, popularity, or any other irrelevant consideration.

Why you think I'm trying to merely assert the correctness of this reading, I'm not sure. I'm simply putting it out there for people to check for themselves.

Which is why, of course, your point is wrong, and really beside the point.

Traskel:

Sorry, but could you explain where in the Ork Codex that it says the Kustom Force Field confers a 5+ cover save for obscurement instead of the standard 4+?

Traskel wrote:If a special rule or a piece of warger confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex.

It's not the case that a 4+ and a 5+ is conferred, only the 5+ is.

Does the Ork Codex specify the cover save given by a KFF? Yes, it does. It grants all units within 6 inches of the model carrying the KFF a 5+ cover save.

If you are going to argue that it gives a 4+ cover save to vehicles, how are you supporting that the rule in the Ork Codex for the 5+ cover save doesn't apply to vehicles?

You're saying exactly what I'm saying, without taking the final last step that "makes it".

The Trukk gets a 5+ cover save. We know this because the KFF says so. The Terminator gets a 5+ invulnerable save. We know this because Tactical Dreadnought Armor says so.

AND

(here's the step that "makes it")

The Trukk is obscured. We know this because the KFF says so. Obscured grants a 4+ cover save. We know this because the rule for vehicle obscurement says so. This is in ADDITION to the 5+ cover save that the Trukk could normally receive. The Terminator gets a 2+ armor save. We know this because Tactical Dreadnought Armor says so. This is in addition to the 5+ invulnerable save.

That's what makes it different. The Trukk gets 2 cover saves; one conferred from KFF, and one conferred from Obscurement.

This is the most literal reading of the rules. I don't much like it, because I hate fighting Mek Orks. But it's the simplest possible definition.

OMFG U CAN'T HAVE 2 OF THE SAME SAVE TYPE WTF R U slowed???

Normally, no, units don't have 2 different saves of the same type. However, codex overrides rulebook.

sourclams:

I don't think you quite understand what Traskel is arguing there. He's saying that because the Kustom Force Field mentions a 5+ cover save given to all units, that the obscurement that it lends to vehicles is 5+ because vehicles are units.

No, I understand what he's saying perfectly. And he's right. The KFF grants a 5+ cover save to the Trukk unit.

And then it grants Obscurement in addition to the 5+ cover save.

And as we all know, obscurement is a 4+ cover save.

The Ork Codex would have to say that KFF changes Obscurement to a 5+ cover save in order for it to be interpreted the way Traskel is concluding.

sourclams wrote:Obscured grants a 4+ cover save. We know this because the rule for vehicle obscurement says so.

This is only the case if the codex doesn't describe a cover save for the vehicle benefiting from the obscurement. It's clearly stated in the codex that the vehicle gets a 5+ cover save.

Nurglitch wrote:Sorry, but could you explain where in the Ork Codex that it says the Kustom Force Field confers a 5+ cover save for obscurement instead of the standard 4+?

Rules wrote:A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets.

I'm claiming that the wargear gives vehicles a 5+ cover save if they are within 6 inches, and I'm claiming the save described in the rulebook doesn't apply, because the wargear explicitly states what the cover save should be.

So essentially, the first sentence that I quoted would be the answer to your question. Bring on the argument that this isn't explicitly mentioning that it's a result of the obscurement, but I don't think it needs to be.

Traskel:

So why don't you think that the rule doesn't need to explicitly mention that the cover save is the result of the obscurement?

All that KFF discusssions are funny for sure. Most people act like politicians. Talking your earz off without any sense in their sentences.

The KFF is easy.

5+ for units and 4+ for vehicles, the codex says so and it clearly says so.
If it would´ve been meant to be 5+ the codex should say something along this lines: "Every unit around 6" of the Mek w/KFF recieves a 5+ including vehicles".
But codex is nice to uz orkiez and says 5+ for units and "beeing obscured" for vehicles. So I really, really dont get why people even bother to discuss this.
Same for the RAM. Codex says, anything with RAM is allowed to Tankshock - too bad MANz cant get a RAM. Tankshock includes ramming. Special rule or not doesnt matter in any way here.
All that about it´s beeing a special rule or not or whatever is well, special. I could jump in and argue you need to be a special kind individual aka a brain forked Ork to ram Tanks with a Trukk.

DaDok:

Don't suppose you could show us how it is that your reading of the rules should be clear everyone?

Traskel wrote:I'm claiming that the wargear gives vehicles a 5+ cover save if they are within 6 inches, and I'm claiming the save described in the rulebook doesn't apply, because the wargear explicitly states what the cover save should be.

And that's where your interpretation fails. The codex says nothing about modifying the Obscurement save. Therefore, it doesn't. The Trukk gets a 5+ cover save for being a unit, and a 4+ cover save for being an obscured vehicle.

It's impossible to read it otherwise without injecting additional meaning that doesn't actually exist in the rules.

The KFF grants the vehicle both a 5+ cover save and obscurement. They're both from the same effect (the wargear), so it shouldn't be a large leap to assume that the 5+ cover granted in the previous sentence qualifies as a cover save the vehicle is benefiting from as a result of the wargear.

If you look in the rulebook, depending on how a vehicle is obscured (if it's obscured by a hedge, building, or fortification, etc.) it can receive either a 5+, 4+, or 3+ cover save. Essentially, the qualifier for what save the vehicle gets is based off of what cover it is in.

That doesn't help too much from a RAW standpoint, but the wargear does explicitly state that it provides 5+ cover to all units. I feel like the 4+ cover save described in the rulebook only applies if the wargear doesn't explicitly state what type of cover save is being provided by the wargear.

By looking at the entire section on obscurement, I think that the KFF would still confer a 5+ cover save to vehicles.

Traskel wrote:

sourclams wrote:Obscured grants a 4+ cover save. We know this because the rule for vehicle obscurement says so.

This is only the case if the codex doesn't describe a cover save for the vehicle benefiting from the obscurement. It's clearly stated in the codex that the vehicle gets a 5+ cover save.

Nurglitch wrote:Sorry, but could you explain where in the Ork Codex that it says the Kustom Force Field confers a 5+ cover save for obscurement instead of the standard 4+?

Rules wrote:A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets.

I'm claiming that the wargear gives vehicles a 5+ cover save if they are within 6 inches, and I'm claiming the save described in the rulebook doesn't apply, because the wargear explicitly states what the cover save should be.

So essentially, the first sentence that I quoted would be the answer to your question. Bring on the argument that this isn't explicitly mentioning that it's a result of the obscurement, but I don't think it needs to be.

It is impossible to count the wrong here. The ork codex says that it renders vehicles obscure; the rules say that obscured vehicles get a 4+ save.

olympia:

Is it really necessary to quote an entire post along with a single sentence comment?

Nurglitch wrote:olympia:

Is it really necessary to quote an entire post along with a single sentence comment?

yes

Traskel wrote:The KFF grants the vehicle both a 5+ cover save and obscurement.

Right.

They're both from the same effect (the wargear)

Right.

so it shouldn't be a large leap to assume

And that's where the line of reasoning fails. We're writing things into the rules.

Except the rule book states that war gear that grants obscurement gives a +4 cover save. Since the Ork codex doesn't specifically say that it gives vehicles a +5 save, but grants obscurement, and the rulebook states that war gear/upgrades that grant obscurement give a +4 save, it is only reasonable to think that vehicles give a +4 save.

@ Nurglich: Honestly, it is probably better to agree to disagree and wait on a faq ( ) rather then just fire back our thoughts back and fourth. We're going to get nowhere, and it isn't as clear
cut as some of the questions that are raised (like that weird "landraider surfing" one that surfaced a while back).

[off-topic]

Mekanikal:

We already agree to disagree by disagreeing. I think it's more interesting and constructive to work on figuring out where the truth lies while we wait for an FAQ to arrive. Not only may we find the truth of matter, we may gain some insight into the next problem that crops up. This is a discussion forum after all. Let's discuss it (but somewhere else than this thread - seriously, there should be a one question per thread limit).

[/off-topic]

Start Sarcasm:

OMG guys! The rulebook has a major error! Clearly only one of the following can be true!

Shooting at vehicles or shooting at infantry and monstrous creatures.

Both Roll to Hit

Shooting at vehicles rolls vs armor. Shooting at infantry rolls vs toughness.

Vehicles roll on a damage chart. Infantry get to make armor saves, which if failed is applied to something called "wounds."

Clearly shooting at vehicles and shooting at infantry are different things as they share only 1 out of 3 characteristics in common. But both are called SHOOTING!!!!! One is wrong! I need a FAQ before i can play again!

end rant

Seriously. Why are ramming and tank shock being taken out of context so much. Both can fall under the same GENERAL category and yet still be different. Ramming is a Subset of tank shock. This is also known as it has the rules of tank shock except the following...which ramming then goes on to conveniently list for us. After all SHOOTING at vehicles and infantry is different but both are accepted as shooting.

Nurglitch, you make me smile everytime I read one of your posts. Never Change, you're one of a kind, buddy.

Nurglitch wrote:DaDok:

Don't suppose you could show us how it is that your reading of the rules should be clear everyone?

Without acting like John, you know the strange advocate from Ally Mc Beal, yes, I suppose it should be clear in this case.
The KFF maybe not so 100% like the Ram thing but still.
It seems you got caught in your own world of devils advocate game sometimes. No offense but really, I sometimes sit just back in my chair and sigh, dear kid, please re-read some rules.
Ramming is one example. You are so into your "logical", "special" and "default" rules that you dont realise you quote some rules just wrong.
Tanks do not need to drive fullspeed for ramming. They need to drive and the highest possible speed. That includes 2+ " movement as well as 18" (Trukk with RAM).
Besides that Ork Codex clearly says "a unit with this equipment can do tankshocks even if it´s no tank". I barely understand how people came to the conclusion "ramming" is excluded here.

The KFF is strange for sure but well, the KFF is Orky Tech and no one ever should claim he/she understands Orky Tech eh
So as long as their is no Errate entry about KFF grants 4+ simply because the damn dex just says "vehicles within 6" counts as obscured. Without that sentence or another wording like units within 6" of the KFF includings vehicles get a 5+ save there´s not much room to discuss imo.
Personally I think they meant it the way that vehicles as well as units get 5+ save but what I think and what´s written down are two different things.
Everyone who had to make those crazy latin translations and interpretations of them after knows that you can say pretty much everything about the authors intention but that´s usually not what he´d meant. But that doesnt matter because if you can document your arguements pretty well with quotations you are right even if you´re wrong from the authors point of view.
Therefor it´s mostly the best way to follow the rules word for word without your own logic and interpretation.

I agree there are some things which are completely unclear or confusing at best though. But some of this discussions just went overboard.

I know this is in no way an argument for a ruling one way or the other on the KFF issue...

But does anyone know of another instance of a vehicle being obscured and granted a cover save other than a 4+ within the same entry?

Why do you think that line is even in the core rule book?

I guess they meant 5+ but took a wrong way to say it. So unless they clear the FoW or we get a FAQ entry here I would play with 4+.
Future will tell us I guess.

After posting here I sent an email to the roolz guyz at GW. I got back a reply this morning. Here it is

My question:

What cover save does a vehicle get for being obscured by the kustom force field wargear? According to the 5th ed rulebook a vehicle obscured by a piece of wargear gets a 4+ save unless specified otherwise is the codex containing the wargear. Some people argue that the kustom force field does specify otherwise and that all vehicles within 6" of the mek only receive a 4+ save.

Their answer:

Vehicles would get a 4+ save as they count as obscured.


My question:

The reinforced ram upgrade for trukks allows a trukk to make a tank shock move. In the 5th ed rulebook ramming is refered to as a special tank shock. Does this mean that a trukk with a reinforced ram can ram vehicles?

Their answer:

No. A reinforced ram does not allow you to ram. This may change in a future FAQ as it would make sense for a ram to allow you to ram.

Hopefully they will release another FAQ some time soon that will officially rule on these items. I guess this is how I will play untill I hear otherwise. Although if my opponent is having a cow about the KFF I'll let them have it and hopefully still krump 'em. And if my opponent is playing orks also, and insists that reinforced rams allow ramming... well, a bunch of trucks ramming each other sounds like more fun than I have any buisness having so we'll have at it.

AZ

cervidal wrote:

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

To which I reply:

"Ramming is a special kind of tank shock."

I'm not combining anything together when it suits me. I'm looking at the sentence in the rulebook.

Looking at the sentence in the rulebook, cutting it short, and adding a full stop to it to make it look like a statement? I'm sure you can't do that either to make a point.

Ghaz wrote:

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

And you can't separate one rule into two when it suits you. Tank Shock is one rule with two subsets. The first is 'Tank Shock' against Infantry, etc while the second is 'Ramming' against vehicles. Being able to Tank Shock allows a vehicle to do bothsubset rules unless specifically FAQed otherwise.

I have already said how the layout of the book works. To prove my point i'll use another example: pg 42 of the rulebook, the page about close combat weapons.

CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS this tells us about how close combat weapons work, just as the TANKS section tells us about tanks on the tabletop.

NORMAL CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS is one rule, much as the TANK SHOCK! rule is one rule.

SPECIAL CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS is one rule, much as RAMMING is one rule.

If tank shock = ram ?

Then does a normal ccw = special ccw ?

No it doesn't. Look at the heirarchy of the type on the page and we can see the rules are divided into seperate sections. Some rules form a base rule that others use but with a difference to work out some of their effect, eg: ramming.


As for the KFF. Yes a vehicle is a unit and so it gains a 5+cover save under the kff rule. A vehicle is also a vehicle believe it or not, so under the kff rule is treated as an obscured target (4+ cover save). Can a model have more than one cover save?

Yes it can pg 24 of the rulebook says " If a unit can benefit from cover, for example being behind a hedge (5+ cover save) and a low wall (4+) , the unit uses the best cover save available (in this case 4+)."


And a thank you to Az for the e-mail to gw.

For the people referring to the DE type equipment that allows tankshocking but not ramming:

Warning: I'm not going into RAW or rules quoting stuff, just my understanding of the upgrades and a little logical thoughts.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the device enabling that DE vehicle to tankshock infantry was something that emits a scary-stuff-being-tortured-unsettling-noise that may cause nearby units to leg it, and for lack of any better sollution using that spooky soundblaster follows the same rules as a tank shock.

Now could someone please explain me how an overamped scary boombox would help, in any way, to plow yer floating sailing ship trough a tank, or any other vehicle for that matter?

Opposed to that I'm pretty sure rivetting a sollid steel monstrosity of a bar, or a 6 foot diameter sollid roll with enough spikey bits to envy yer local chaos space marine legion, could have some effect if you plunge it with enough brute force into something.

my 2 cents

Opposed to that I'm pretty sure rivetting a sollid steel monstrosity of a bar, or a 6 foot diameter sollid roll with enough spikey bits to envy yer local chaos space marine legion, could have some effect if you plunge it with enough brute force into something.

... and thats where it all falls down reinforced ram ownly boosts front armour against death or glory ... you're talking about trying to ram with an open top, non tank, av10 truck you're all going to die! ...

middle wrote:CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS this tells us about how close combat weapons work, just as the TANKS section tells us about tanks on the tabletop.

NORMAL CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS is one rule, much as the TANK SHOCK! rule is one rule.

SPECIAL CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS is one rule, much as RAMMING is one rule.

If tank shock = ram ?

Then does a normal ccw = special ccw ?

No it doesn't. Look at the heirarchy of the type on the page and we can see the rules are divided into seperate sections. Some rules form a base rule that others use but with a difference to work out some of their effect, eg: ramming.

This is not how logic works.

Special CCW's : CCW's :: Ram : Tank Shock

Special CCW's are a type of CCW. All Special CCW's are CCW's. Not all CCW's are Special CCW's.

Ram is a type of Tank Shock. All Ramming is Tank Shock. Not all Tank Shock is Ramming.

I think I need a venn diagram here.

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

Funny how you keep leaving that key word out.

According to the rulebook:

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

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

I'm going to expand the list of Arbitrary Things for you.

Ramming and Tank Shock:
5. Can only be performed by Tanks
6. Are used during the Movement phase
7. Involve moving the tank
8. Allows your vehicle to potentially move into spaces formerly occupied by enemy units
9. Are rules in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook
10. Can only be performed on days ending in Y

Oh sorry I left that word out.

Nurglitch, you're special.

Old John (our rule e-mail guy) has already seemed to state that the reinforced ram does not ram. So, end of this discussion on that front (it is a few posts up). This is as official as it is going to get without a FAQ.

In the purest RAQ, a ram is not a tank shock, because

1) the rule *does not say* "it is a tank shock", rather the say it is a "special" type of tank shock. This one word DOES move it to a different category altogether.

2) the vehicle performing either action *has* to declare one OR the other. IF they were the same, you could just tank shock and whilst tank shocking, hit all the vehicles in your way.

"or" whilst Raming you only go half speed because tank shock has that option. Hence they are not the same....

Well because the rule book says they are not by showing how different they are and how different they work and for the fact you HAVE to call out which one you can do.

3) in the ork codex it states in the Reinforced ram section that the vehicle with one can perform a "tank shock"------------------> Again by the purest RAW you can *only* ever call the words "Tank Shock" to your opponent because the rule in the BRB states you have to call one or the other (Ram or Tank shock) to your opponent, the ork player (I am one btw) can only ever say "tank shock" because his codex says that exactly in his codex. Again this is pure RAW and the only way we can read it.

IMHO, this one is real easy from a RAW point of view.

Old John (our rule e-mail guy) has already seemed to state that the reinforced ram does not ram. So, end of this discussion on that front (it is a few posts up). This is as official as it is going to get without a FAQ.

In the purest RAW, a ram is not a tank shock, because

1) the rule *does not say* "it is a tank shock", rather the say it is a "special" type of tank shock. This one word DOES move it to a different category altogether.

2) the vehicle performing either action *has* to declare one OR the other. IF they were the same, you could just tank shock and whilst tank shocking, hit all the vehicles in your way.

"or" whilst Raming you only go half speed because tank shock has that option. Hence they are not the same....

Well because the rule book says they are not by showing how different they are and how different they work and for the fact you HAVE to call out which one you can do.

3) in the ork codex it states in the Reinforced ram section that the vehicle with one can perform a "tank shock"------------------> Again by the purest RAW you can *only* ever call the words "Tank Shock" to your opponent because the rule in the BRB states you have to call one or the other (Ram or Tank shock), the ork player (I am one btw) can only ever say "tank shock" because his codex says that exactly in his codex. Again this is pure RAW and the only way we can read it.

IMHO, this one is real easy from a RAW point of view.

yeah, the problem with the reinforced ram, atleast what it seems to be to me, pretty much boils down to "it's called a ram but it can't ram? How silly"

Neil:

Aw, how sweet, you managed to repeat another poster's mistake, and make a flame while you're at it.

As I've pointed out, the list of elements that define Tank Shock and Ramming are relevant, and the bullshiat you're trying to cloud the issue with are not.

Drunkspleen:

That's only one argument. Another argument seems to be that Ramming is a type of Tank Shock because the phrase "Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock" is mentioned in the Ramming rules, and the equivalence of meaning would make the license to Tank Shock granted by the Reinforced Ram transitive to Ramming.

Nurglitch, if you apply the same rationale to any other set/subset relationship in 40k, you'll see why you're wrong

for example:
If you tank shock and go through terrain you take a dangerous terrain test: WHY?
Because you apply the general properties of 'moving' when doing a 'tank shock', even tough the tank shock rule doesn't specifically state you have to test for terrain.
Same goes for fallback move, if jump infantry falls back thru terrain they'll take a test.
If we were to apply your logic consistently throughout 40k the whole game would go to pieces so fast you'd be hit by shrapnell.

nostromo:

If it is true that the logic of special types causes contradictions in the rules when applied consistently, then it should be a simple task for you to find an example of a type/special-type relationship in Warhammer 40k.

As I see it, you won't be able to, and believe otherwise because you do not understand the principle of relevance that I have described earlier in the thread.

Your examples demonstrate this lack of understanding.

Both Tank Shock and Ramming are types of movement, hence they follow all of the elements of moving unless stated otherwise, explicitly or implicitly.

Hence the fact that Tank Shock and Ramming are both types of Movement, and thus share all of the elements of Movement, is irrelevant because we are concerned with the relationship between these specific rules, not their relationship with Movement in general.

We are concerned with special types, not types.

As I've pointed out earlier in the thread, the 'logic' here is not mine, but that of the rules themselves. The rules distinguish between types and special types.

Types, as described above, function transitively. If rule B is a type of rule A, then a rule referencing A will normally implicitly affect B without requiring explicit mention. A rule referencing Movement for vehicles will implicitly affect Tank Shock, for example.

Special types, as described previously in this thread, only function transitively in special cases. In other words, if rule B is a special type of rule A, then a rule referencing A will only affect B under the special conditions that B is a type of A.

Take Wings, for example, in Codex: Chaos Space Marines. Wings are a special type of Jump Pack. Wings allow a model to be Jump Infantry only in the special case of Movement, and as their actual unit type in the case of transport, and everything else that isn't Movement.

Fortunately the rules distinguish between the scope of these references by using key words like "normal" and "special".

But please, present an example wherein the consistent application of the logic of special types, as I've described it here, makes "the whole game would go to pieces so fast you'd be hit by shrapnell."

ok with out quoting the rules word for word (as every ones listed them) lets just work through everything

-Tanks may Tank charge & Ramming which is a type of movement (so all X, Y and Z still aply ... roads make you go faster, extra, extra...)

-Tank charge is a speical movement that lets a tank push its way through non-vehicals units. Moves at any speed.

-Ramming a Special type of Tank charge lets tanks push through all units but the tank must move at full speed ... when ever the tank hits another vehical damage is done to both ... if the ramming tank destroys the other tank then it keeps going

-ReInforced Ram lets a vehical Tank-charge.

-Non-Tank Vehicals which can Tank charge cannot use Raming as they are not tanks and so do not have a rule that lets them lets them ram

-Tank charge and Special Tank-Charge (Ramming) are not the same, the same way that a CC weapon and a Special CC weapon are not the same thing

-Why call a Reinforced Ram a Ram if it cannot ram? because reinforced bumper doesn't sound as good (though to be honist the Ram does very little for your boyz other then bunch the enemy up nicely and give AV+2 when going against DoG)

-If non-Tanks can't ram why put the +1 for being a tank ... well theres nothing to stop a codex coming along with ramming non-tanks vehicals but its mainly there for when a tank rams a non tank


don't think i've missed any of the arguements out but if i have feel free to explain them


er- Nurglitch ... don't wings just make you jump infantry now? wasn't that difference in the last codex? (other then that i agree)

Tri wrote:-If non-Tanks can't ram why put the +1 for being a tank ... well theres nothing to stop a codex coming along with ramming non-tanks vehicals but its mainly there for when a tank rams a non tank

Actually it's much simpler than the explanation you give, it's because tanks can ram other tanks as well as non-tank vehicles and these inflict a hit back on the vehicle performing the ram, thus the reason you can have a non-tank vehicle in a ram interaction.

er- Nurglitch ... don't wings just make you jump infantry now? wasn't that difference in the last codex? (other then that i agree)

Nope, the entry for them only says that the model moves like jump infantry, the main difference this makes is that a winged model can use a transport vehicle.

Nurglitch wrote:
The rules distinguish between types and special types.

which i can find on page number ... ?

nostromo wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
The rules distinguish between types and special types.

which i can find on page number ... ?

Succintly put.

Nurglitch grabbed some mathematical principle (set theory, which I've never before seen used to interpret a 40k rules problem) and declared it relevant. Why did he declare it relevant, you may ask?

Nurglitch wrote:set theory has bearing on any discussion of rules and their relation to each other. It's utility lies in the fact that it is simple, effective, and clear.

There you go. It's "simple, effective, and clear," so it's relevant, according to Nurglitch. That gets me thinking. What if we counted the number of vowels in the rules for tank shocking and ramming, and found that the number was different. Could that be a basis for concluding the rules are independent? Why not? It's simple, effective, and clear too. And counting is a mathematical principle. Hey, it's not my justification, I'm just quoting Nurglitch.

Not to mention the fact that Nurglitch based his conclusion on "elements" without citing anything that names the relevant elements of a 40k rule. When someone has tried to reference another element, it's been "bullshiat." (it's a technical term, you probably wouldn't get it unless you understood logic)

Well, I guess you can't argue with Nurglitch. He's got this analysis pretty well locked up.

nostromo:

Unit Types, p.4, 5, 51-55
Terrain Types, p.13
Complex Units, p.25
Weapons: Type, p.27-29
Additional Weapon Characteristics, p.29-32
Close Combat Weapons, p.42
Character Types, p.47
Vehicles: Type, p.56
Vehicle Types, p.65, 66-73
Universal Special Rules, p.74-76
Defining Buildings and Ruins, p.77
Buildings, p.78
Mission Special Rules, p.94-95

deadlygopher:

Except I didn't declare that set theory was relevant, I used it to show how the rules described by the Reinforced Ram, Tank Shock, and Ramming interact. It's a way of modeling the relevant abstracta. You might as well claim that I declared that using English is relevant, an equally stupid and disingenuous claim. The fact is that there are rules, and those rules are written in English. This automatically makes both English and set theory relevant.

What's also relevant? Well, since the question is whether the Reinforced Ram special rule permits a vehicle to used the Ram rule in addition to engaging in Tank Shock rule, the elements of those rules, and hence how they interact, is relevant.

Which is why your suggested of counting vowels is inane, and irrelevant to determining the relationship between these rules, as well as intellectually dishonest.

You're not only misquoting me, and selectively misquoting me, but doing so in a wholly transparent manner.

The elements I've cited are each distinct part of the relevant rules. They're right there under the headings of Ramming, and Tank Shock. That's what makes them relevant parts of the rules, and the elements of supervening rules like the general rules for Movement, or the number of vowels in the expression of any rule irrelevant, and hence bullshiat.

A wiser man than I has written that bullshiat is not like lying, because lying shows a concern for the truth given that to lie is to obscure or cheat the truth. Bullshiat, he says, is motivated not by a concerned for truth, but the lack of any concern or interest in the truth. Indeed, it's what you do when you want to distract from the truth, like you, deadlygopher, are attempting to do.

If you want to work up my argument, by all means go ahead, because either I have gotten a detail wrong, or you have and it pays to check. But if all you want to do is bullshiat, please go troll elsewhere.

Nurglitch wrote:You're not only misquoting me, and selectively misquoting me, but doing so in a wholly transparent manner.

Nope. That was the reason you gave for the relevancy of set theory. It wasn't out of context and wasn't misquoted, but I can help you read it if you like.

To say that set theory is relevant to 40k rules interpretation just like English is relevant because the language used is English is truly, laughably stupid. Maybe it's relevant to you because you chose to apply it, but that doesn't mean it's a method for discerning the meaning of rules. Either that or you're having some trouble with the idea of relevancy.

Please, be so good as to help me read what I wrote.

Also, please explain the idea of relevancy, that I might correct myself.

This is getting way off topic, isn't it? Should there be a thread dedicated to ways to evaluate 40k rules?

If the designers used formal logic, then formal logic should always yield the same results that the designers found. At least I think that's how it works- something about the same premises leading to a valid and true conclusion. It has been quite some time since I was in a logic course, so I may be wrong about the terminology.

If they did not, what system did they use? What bastardized conglomeration of logic, points calculation and internal balance can justify the CSM codex, the Dark Angel codex, the Ork codex, and the new SM codex?

Personally, I don't think any system is used, other than guess and check. Since the Ork codex was written when 5th was in the planning and playtesting stages, it is entirely possible that a 'Ram' did not exist separately from Tank Shock. Not being on the design team, I don't know.

I'll play the way common sense dictates. That a Honda, despite being a special type of car, is still a car, wherever that is legal. I won't count on that interpretation holding true for any tournament I go to without checking with the judges beforehand.

Sniping at each other, thinly veiled or otherwise, is not going to change anyone's opinions. It definitely is not going to solve GW's woefully imprecise wording.

Gitzbitah wrote:If they did not, what system did they use? What bastardized conglomeration of logic, points calculation and internal balance can justify the CSM codex, the Dark Angel codex, the Ork codex, and the new SM codex?

According to GW Design Team themselves, the write rules then attach the points value that "feels right" and work from there, attempting to keep coherency within books(hence the problems with the points costs re: Storm Troopers/Sisters/Scouts for Witch Hunters).

Gitzbitah:

Maybe there should be a thread dedicated to ways to evaluate 40k, but since disagreements in what the books state always comes down to that, I think it has a place in any discussion of what some particular rule is.

Whether the designers used formal logic or informal logic, we can use formal logic to model the rules stated in the texts, to identify genuine ambiguities, find errors, and judge the consistency and so on of the rules.

You're quite correct that, at least where classical bivalent logic is concerned an argument is valid when the premises fully support the conclusion, and hence that any true premises will entail a true conclusion if the argument is valid.

Another interesting thing about formal logic is that bivalent classical logics are only one of a variety of logics, each with different properties. But we can discover the logic used in the text by close reading and analysis, and thus apply the logic that the text uses, rather than relying on any so-called 'common sense'.

What system, if any, that they have used to calculate the points values assigned to units is irrelevant to whether the rules themselves have a particular form or endorse particular inferences. That's the handy thing about formal logic, is that it lets you find and identify errors in an objective way. If there's a rhyme or reason to the points values, considering them formally will let us spot those relations, or determine their absence.

This is important, because what is common sense is rarely common and usually nonsensical. In other words: subjective.

I mention that because a Honda is not a special type of car. A Honda brand car is a type of car. It is in all ways a car. By contrast, one could say that four wheels on a Honda chassis is a special type of car under the condition where all that counts for being a car is having four wheels on a chassis.

Notice the difference? A special type is only a type of something else under a special condition, whereas a type is a type under all conditions.

GW's use of "special type" in this case is quite precise, since both Tank Shock and Ramming are composed of the four elements that I've harped on about: Movement, Shooting, Effect on Non-Vehicles, Effect on Vehicles, and Ramming shares only 1 of these elements with Tank Shock. Since Ramming is only Tank Shock under the condition of affecting non-vehicles, it is only Tank shock under a special condition. Therefore the qualification of "special type" precisely describes the relation of these two rules.

An armoured car is a special type of car. Therefore an armoured car is not a car. Is that about the size of it?

deadlygopher wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:You're not only misquoting me, and selectively misquoting me, but doing so in a wholly transparent manner.

Nope. That was the reason you gave for the relevancy of set theory. It wasn't out of context and wasn't misquoted, but I can help you read it if you like.

To say that set theory is relevant to 40k rules interpretation just like English is relevant because the language used is English is truly, laughably stupid. Maybe it's relevant to you because you chose to apply it, but that doesn't mean it's a method for discerning the meaning of rules. Either that or you're having some trouble with the idea of relevancy.

Nurglitch is confusing set theory with a grammar.

Gitzbitah wrote:This is getting way off topic, isn't it? Should there be a thread dedicated to ways to evaluate 40k rules?


If they did not, what system did they use? What bastardized conglomeration of logic, points calculation and internal balance can justify the CSM codex, the Dark Angel codex, the Ork codex, and the new SM codex?

Captain Willard: They said your methods were unsound.
Kurtz: Are they?
Captain Willard: I see no method at all.

Boss Ardnutz:

If there is only one special way in which an armoured car is a car, then yes, an armoured car is a special type of car. If there is more than one way in which an armoured car is a car, then no, an armoured car is just another type of car.

olympia:

Wrong as usual. Set theory is a great way to model the content of rules. Hardly something to be confused with the grammar used to code it.

Nurglitch wrote:Please, be so good as to help me read what I wrote.

Also, please explain the idea of relevancy, that I might correct myself.

Yes Nurglitch the set/subset theory IS relevant, but unless the qualifier "special" is defined by the BRB ...
(By the way walkers are defined as 'very unusual' type of vehicle i'm curiuos where that's defined)

If you do a fallback move thru terrain with jump troops, you take a dangerous terrain test, not because fallback tells you to. But because it's defined as being a move in general with some special rules added, but it still inherits the rules of it's parent set. (not moving thru own models, gaps narrower than the models base, ...)
I already gave multiple examples of this kind of inheritance where we apply the rules of the general kind and then add the special rules on top.
Would you like to have a codex that repeats the most inane general rules every time there is a slight exception to the general case? I don't.

When you look at tank shock it tells you to declare 'tank shock attack' , aim the vehicle by turning on the spot, declaring the speed and then executing the move.
Now look at ramming, it doesn't tell you to declare 'ramming', why is that? How do i declare a ramming attack? the book doesn't specify! hmm, perhaps i just have to declare tank shock and announce maximum speed ...

Why would the DE upgrade need a FAq to prohibit it from doing ramming? The vehicle upgrade only refers to tank shock since the DE codex predates the BRB, yet they felt it necessary to FAQ that this particular upgrade (codex specific) does not allow ramming, the FAQ doesn't make sense unless the general ability to tank shock also allows ramming.

edit nr 37: damn i suck at proofreading

nostromo wrote:When you look at tank shock it tells you to declare 'tank shock attack' , aim the vehicle by turning on the spot, declaring the speed and then executing the move.
Now look at ramming, it doesn't tell you to declare 'ramming', why is that? How do i declare a ramming attack? the book doesn't specify! hmm, perhaps i just have to declare tank shock and announce maximum speed ...

Except that when you try and do this, more often than not your opponent will tell you you can't ram his vehicle because during a tank shock movement a ram effect cannot occur.

Why would the DE upgrade need a FAq to prohibit it from doing ramming? The vehicle upgrade only refers to tank shock since the DE codex predates the BRB, yet they felt it necessary to FAQ that this particular upgrade (codex specific) does not allow ramming, the FAQ doesn't make sense unless the general ability to tank shock also allows ramming.

edit nr 37: damn i suck at proofreading

No, the FAQ is a clarification of the way the rules already work, if it was a modification of rules it would be errata, that is why there are those two distinct segments to the published FAQ documents.

Drunkspleen wrote:
Except that when you try and do this, more often than not your opponent will tell you you can't ram his vehicle because during a tank shock movement a ram effect cannot occur.

Consistently aplying your rationale would mean that ramming can *never* happen.
have fun playing 4th edition

nostromo wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:
Except that when you try and do this, more often than not your opponent will tell you you can't ram his vehicle because during a tank shock movement a ram effect cannot occur.

Consistently aplying your rationale would mean that ramming can *never* happen.
have fun playing 4th edition

You mean my rationale of reading the rules and applying them as they are written in the book?

"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', Page 68, BRB)

If you don't declare a ram and instead declare a full speed tank shock, you are getting a very different effect.