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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, I am an Ork player myself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But ramming is tank shock.

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

Pg. 69 BRB: "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ghaz wrote:

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

But ramming is tank shock.

Still 2 different rules.

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

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

1hadhq wrote:

Ghaz wrote:

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

But ramming is tank shock.

Still 2 different rules.

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

Ghaz wrote:

1hadhq wrote:

Ghaz wrote:

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

But ramming is tank shock.

Still 2 different rules.

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

Pg. 69 BRB: "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of."


=> special type

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

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

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

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

And again:

Ramming is a special type of tankshock.

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

Find Ramming worded in codex orks vehicle upgrades if you can

And how many times must I repeat myself?

RAMMING IS A TANK SHOCK, PERIOD.

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

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

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

RAMMING IS A TANK SHOCK, PERIOD.

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

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

endless?

nonsense doesnt get RAW if you post it 100 times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"known as ramming"



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pretty straight forward.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**sigh**

Just wait for the Games workshop FAQ.

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

No, the onus is clearly on you. Unless the rules state otherwise when they say 'tank shock' they mean all types of tank shock. That includes Ramming, as it is clearly listed as a type of Tank Shock. Trying to claim that the use of the phrase 'tank shock' only means the one 'normal' type used against vehicles is just ludicrous and totally unsupportable. You have no proof whatsoever that the use of the phrase 'tank shock' only means the one type used against infantry. None whatsoever, and no rule supports your narrow and incorrect view that it does.

And neither do you Ghaz. You have '0' support on your side.

Just look at this in a tournament setting:

You: The codex says I can Tank shock so therefore i can Ram
Me: I call a judge over
Me: please open the ork codex and read what it says
You: "tank shock"
Judge: well then "tank shock"

You can try to argue that Ram is Tank shock but it is an endless argument. And without a FAQ this will go on forever.

But, again RAW (like my little play) says only "tank shock" so, for now, we can only "tank shock"

Again, a total load of BS. When they say 'tank shock', do they say one particular type? No. The only one making up imaginary restrictions is you. RAW does not support you in the least because RAW says 'tank shock' means all types of tank shocks and not your pitiful attempts to hoodwink others into believeing it means only one type. If I mention an automobile, am I only talking about Corvettes? No. It's the same here. The use of the phrase 'tank shock' covers all types. I'm done wasting my time with your ludicrous and unsupportable claims.

A tank shock is a tank shock, no matter what type it is.

And A Ram is A Ram, no matter if it is like a tank shock

Edit: sorry, couldn't help it, Had to poke a little fun in this

2nd edit here: Also, Ghaz or whoever, go ahead and have the last words here. This has been talked about since 5th ed came out and I see no end in sight.

To the OP, You see, many different people have a different view point on this, so take the one you feel is most fair and adequate between you and your opponent. As long as you both have fun, then no rules were broken.

Ghaz wrote:Again, a total load of BS

Ghaz wrote:When they say 'tank shock', do they say one particular type? No.

They did.

Ghaz wrote:The only one making up imaginary restrictions is you.

so you "imagine" to use a deathrolla when ramming?

Ghaz wrote:RAW does not support you in the least because RAW says 'tank shock' means all types of tank shocks and not your pitiful attempts to hoodwink others into believeing it means only one type.

Can YOU support your claims?

I think not. Show us where it says "all types".

Ghaz wrote: If I mention an automobile, am I only talking about Corvettes? No. It's the same here. The use of the phrase 'tank shock' covers all types. I'm done wasting my time with ludicrous and unsupportable claims.

So a psychological threat = tankshock vs LD is equal to a physiological threat = ramming armor because both are threats?
NICE

I would appreciate if we don't apply additional rules to wargear.

We need a Yakface signal for this kind of thing...

It will be ruled on shortly in an official GW faq. One side will not be happy, but it will be official.

I think not. Show us where it says "all types".

Simple. Where it says tank shock, full stop.

RAW, ramming is a tank shock. Deff Rollas function during tank shocks, therefore they function during Ramming, because a Ram is a tank shock. This is made pretty explicit when intervening infantry models suffer the effects of a tank shock when the vehicle rolls through them to ram another vehicle.

If your city has an ordinance that states that dogs have to be on a leash, then you have to put your poodle on a leash even if it's a special type of dog.

sourclams wrote:RAW, ramming is a tank shock. Deff Rollas function during tank shocks, therefore they function during Ramming, because a Ram is a tank shock. This is made pretty explicit when intervening infantry models suffer the effects of a tank shock when the vehicle rolls through them to ram another vehicle.

If your city has an ordinance that states that dogs have to be on a leash, then you have to put your poodle on a leash even if it's a special type of dog.

Your gonna love this: Going by that logic, you have to remember that "tank shock" is a maneuver on its own. I.E. A tank can either "tank shock" or "ram" because each has its own set of rules.

So going by your dog explanation. There would be a type of dog called 'dogs', and 'dogs' are pokadot muts with pink noses. And the ordinance says no 'dogs', then how can you assume that they mean the pkadot 'dogs' or the general term 'dogs'. You see?

If it says 'Tank shock' how do you know they mean both, because a Tank shock is a maneuver as listed in the BGB next to the other maneuver 'Ramming'.

If they were the same, then GW would of just had "Tank Shock" and listed your options, or would of had a section of the book called "TANK SHOCKS" and listed tank shock and ramming under it. But they didn't. In fact the section is called "TANKS" and lists "Tank shock" and "Ramming" as separate rules; even listing Death or Glory under the heading of "Tank Shock".

The fact you can tank shock units in the way of a Ram is because that is a special ability of the Ram. Just because you can tank shock while Ramming does not mean that a Ram is a tank shock. This is called 'jumping to conclusions'. This is like assuming a Regrouping test and Leaderships tests are the same.

On page 46 "This is a special type of leadership test..." Sound familiar? Going by the Ram = Tank shock, so all tank shocks includes ramming then all leadership tests are also regrouping tests as well? So if a rule tells a unit that it has to take a 'LD test" then we can easily assume (by your logic) that this means a "regrouping test" as well?

Simply you can't, they are 2 different tests taken at 2 different times. Ramming has its own rules, Tank shock has its own rules. Like Regroup is nearly exactly like a LD test, and uses the same words to describe it as Ramming does in relation to 'tank shocks'. This does not mean that every time you see the words "tank shock" you have to throw Ram in there as well. As I have just shown, just because 2 rules are near identical, they are applied differently at different times and hence are different in *important distinction here* "gaming terms".

RAW does *not* say whenever you see "tank shock" than it also means Ram. This is a fallacy and total opinion. In fact no one can prove it. So, we must follow what the Ork Codex limits us to and that is "tank shock" RAW does not have room for *assuming* that that means Ram as well.

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

RAMMING IS A TANK SHOCK, PERIOD.

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

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

If you type it in extra bold letters with a hard remark in the end it makes it true. Or at least it can overrun someone in an argument.

Ramming is a special type of tank shock, thats what the rules sais nothing else. Deathrollas dont work on special types of tankshocks, only on "tankshocks".

meh

You are all wrong.

It's obvious that both interpretations are correct both RAW and RAI (or rather RAI is impossible to know).
This is just another case where you have to make a house rule, you have no choice.

Or you just do what I do and have an army where all the tanks are skimmers and dodge out of the way. Problem solved.

Okay, I STILL don't get this, according to the ork codex I am reading (which I think is newest), it says

"...A (Battlewagon) with a Deff Rolla may re-roll Dangerous Terrain tests. Any Tank Shock made by a (Battlewagon) with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit. If the unit elects to make a Death or Glory attack, it takes a further D6 Strength 10 hits in addition to the usual effects."

Now, WHAT part of this makes it seem like that works against vehicles? It says the Victim UNIT takes D6 S10 hits, which obviously implies a unit of infantry. Also, it has rules for if that SAME UNIT wants to make a death or glory attempt, again which Vehicles (except walkers) CANNOT DO.

Secondly, if this worked against vehicles (which it doesn't mention, but let's say it did) you are saying it would get D6 S10 hits as a ram hit, or in addition to it? That seems pretty unfair.

Third, probably the main thing I don't understand, is that why doesn't the rule SAY that it can be used for ramming (like other rules/abilities DO say)?

OH, and one last thing, but this is not as good of an argument: Is it really fair for something like a Battlewagon to be able to hit a land raider with D6 S10 hits, PLUS the normal ram hit, knowing that that can EASILY kill a Land Raider, hell, even a MONOLITH?

((NOTE:It might sound like I am angry, but don't get me wrong, I don't care too much as I never go against orks, and doubt this would come up, so don't take anything personally...))

Eight Ball wrote:Okay, I STILL don't get this, according to the ork codex I am reading (which I think is newest), it says

"...A (Battlewagon) with a Deff Rolla may re-roll Dangerous Terrain tests. Any Tank Shock made by a (Battlewagon) with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit. If the unit elects to make a Death or Glory attack, it takes a further D6 Strength 10 hits in addition to the usual effects."

Now, WHAT part of this makes it seem like that works against vehicles? It says the Victim UNIT takes D6 S10 hits, which obviously implies a unit of infantry. Also, it has rules for if that SAME UNIT wants to make a death or glory attempt, again which Vehicles (except walkers) CANNOT DO.

Secondly, if this worked against vehicles (which it doesn't mention, but let's say it did) you are saying it would get D6 S10 hits as a ram hit, or in addition to it? That seems pretty unfair.

Third, probably the main thing I don't understand, is that why doesn't the rule SAY that it can be used for ramming (like other rules/abilities DO say)?

OH, and one last thing, but this is not as good of an argument: Is it really fair for something like a Battlewagon to be able to hit a land raider with D6 S10 hits, PLUS the normal ram hit, knowing that that can EASILY kill a Land Raider, hell, even a MONOLITH?

((NOTE:It might sound like I am angry, but don't get me wrong, I don't care too much as I never go against orks, and doubt this would come up, so don't take anything personally...))

well how many Str 9 and str 10 weapons do orks have in the arsenal? (allows poster to check)

That's a pretty low number isn't it? (they don't have any for those that don't have a codex) Doesn't that seem unfair? So the argument of deff rollas being unfair is a foolish statement.

As is stands a ram is a TANK SHOCK, it may be a special tank shock but its a tankshock nonetheless. And how would you treat the deffrollal when it tankshocks a walker? and it death or glories? since this is resolved as a ram if i am not mistaken? Is the walker now immune to the deafrolla? Of course not, a Ram is a tankshock and is executed the same way, however there is an amount of players who refuse to accept rams are still tankshocks.

All i know is that i don't play orks and if any ork player rams me with a battlewagon and a deffrolla i'll allow those str 10 hits to resolve, and i'll even allow rams with trucks with reinforced rams.

Eight Ball wrote:Third, probably the main thing I don't understand, is that why doesn't the rule SAY that it can be used for ramming (like other rules/abilities DO say)?

The codex is older than the 5th edition BGB, which means there weren't any special kinds of Tank Shock yet when they released the Ork codex. Back then you could just Tank Shock other Tanks (provided they had a lower AV).

padixon wrote:On page 46 "This is a special type of leadership test..." Sound familiar? Going by the Ram = Tank shock, so all tank shocks includes ramming then all leadership tests are also regrouping tests as well?

No, that is not what is logically concluded. The conclusion should be: When the words 'all leadership tests' are used, this includes regrouping tests.


Obviously, Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock. The Deffrolla rules tell us: 'Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit.'
Because Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock (as everyone seems to agree with), Battlewagons which are 'Ramming' should be able to use their Deff Rolla, as the rules for the Deff Rolla tell us: Any Tank Shock. It does not make an exception for Ramming, which means it should not be excluded.

'If the unit elects to make a Death or Glory attack, it takes a further D6 Strength 10 hits in addition to the usual effects.'
This doesn't tell us that it isn't possible to use the Deff Rolla against units that aren't able to make a Death or Glory attack, it merely tells us what to do when a unit, which can make a Death or Glory attack, does so. Arguing that this tells us that you cannot use the Deff Rolla against units which cannot make a Death or Glory (Vehicles, excluding Walkers) is simply reading words which aren't there.

padixon wrote:
On page 46 "This is a special type of leadership test..." Sound familiar? Going by the Ram = Tank shock, so all tank shocks includes ramming then all leadership tests are also regrouping tests as well? So if a rule tells a unit that it has to take a 'LD test" then we can easily assume (by your logic) that this means a "regrouping test" as well?

I really don't mind encountering a different opinion, but this is just backwards. Regrouping is a special type of leadership test. That means that regrouping is a leadership test, not vice versa. Ramming is a special type of tank shock. That means that all rams are tank shocks but all tank shocks are not rams unless they meet the conditions that would categorize it as a Ram.

I don't even know how you could read that in the way that you're suggesting.

"A poodle is a special type of dog. ALL DOGS ARE POODLES!" <--- makes no sense to me.

sourclams wrote:

padixon wrote:
On page 46 "This is a special type of leadership test..." Sound familiar? Going by the Ram = Tank shock, so all tank shocks includes ramming then all leadership tests are also regrouping tests as well? So if a rule tells a unit that it has to take a 'LD test" then we can easily assume (by your logic) that this means a "regrouping test" as well?

I really don't mind encountering a different opinion, but this is just backwards. Regrouping is a special type of leadership test. That means that regrouping is a leadership test, not vice versa. Ramming is a special type of tank shock. That means that all rams are tank shocks but all tank shocks are not rams unless they meet the conditions that would categorize it as a Ram.

I don't even know how you could read that in the way that you're suggesting.

"A poodle is a special type of dog. ALL DOGS ARE POODLES!" <--- makes no sense to me.

No, you have it backwards, the Codex says "tank shock" so in my analogy, that is like a "leadership test". Would you purpose that you are making a "regrouping test" when a rule says to make a "leadership test"? No, you make a LD test and do not apply any of the negative qualifiers that apply to a "special type of Leadership test" that is the "regrouping test".

That is what you are doing with Ramming. You are taking a rule "Tank shock" and applying a rule that is similar (like Regrouping analogy).

Okay, I can agree a bit with some of what you guys said, but that STILL raises a couple questions:

1.If it can Ram other vehicles, why does the rule keep mentioning victim units and death or glory, and not mention ANYTHING about vehicles

2.If it hits a vehicle, it would get D6 S10 hits in addition to a ram?

3.Why does it not simply say "Can tank shock and ram with blah blah blah"?

Also, what padixon said about LD tests and regrouping tests does make sense (If ramming is a special kind of tank shock, and a regrouping test is a special kind of ld test; If a tank shock includes ramming, why don't LD tests always include regrouping?)
EDIT: Damn beaten to it...BUT EXACTLY RIGHT Padixon!

1) codex ork is 4th ed. There was no ramming in 4th ed. Only tankshock. And it was done vs vehicles, but thats changed in 5th ed.

2) Tankshock in 4th ed AND 5th ed ends its movent 1" away from the target.

-you don't touch it = you don't hit it .

Please ram me with your car following 5th ed tankshock rules and i'm totally safe from any damage.

3) a tankshock implies a LD test. Vehicles cannot fail a LD test. No vehicle will be "moved" as non-vehicles would be by a tankshock.

4) Tankshock grants the target to use "death or glory". Vehicles ( except walkers) will not get the option to use "death or glory" from the BRB.
OTOH a deathrolla will grant "death or glory" to ALL units, therfore most vehicles will shoot the battlewagon before it can
dish out its deathrolla hits. And the victim needs only to immobilize to stop a tankshock.

5) death or glory is a non-vehicle reaction. The victim needs a LD test ( not available to vehicles ). Artillery and walkers have
explicit rules to partake on a death or glory.

6) tankshock and ramming are different rules. So you must declare which move you plan to do.

7) tankshock and ramming are resolved different.
- tankshock has no statline, where ramming uses the armor + vehicle type + movement.
- so it doesnt matter if your tank has armor 10 or 14 to tanshock someone, but it does matter if your ramming.
-you can't evade a tankshock if youre a skimmer,but you can evade a ramming move
-you can't use death or glory against ramming if youre not a walker.
-a tankshock allows to shoot if youre capable of shooting at the minimum speed for tankshock
-ramming denies shooting always
-tankshock has a minimum speed needed to tankshock, but ramming demands maximum speed.
-tankshock can't damage your tank, ramming can.
-ramming ends if the victim vehicle doesn't get destroyed or it reaches a second victim.
-ramming demands to move maximum distance. tankshock doesn't demand to move maximum distance.

8) common for both rules:

-straight move without turns
-reach the designated target unit
-don't hit friendly units

9) BRB uses never "tankshock" as RAW in any paragraph about ramming other vehicles.

BRB page 71: "ramming skimmers"
BRB page 73: "ramming walkers"

If tankshock would be THE main rule, this would be written as tankshock vs skimmers or tankshock vs walkers.
But it isn't .

10) If we do assume that ramming is a tankshock, I'll suggest we get a new abbrevation:

RAA = rules as assumed.

11) every little example like "automobiles" or "dogs" is epic fail.

If GW would write a "car" game and add rules for ferrari and ford, both would be vehicle type car but you may only use
ferrari rules with the ferrari.

So please enlighten us where codex ork deathrolla is entitled by RAW to ram or stick with tankshock and treat the ramming
following standard tank rules => armor 14 + tank + movement = 4+1+1-4 = S 6-9 hit.

Ghaz wrote:Again, a total load of BS. When they say 'tank shock', do they say one particular type? No. The only one making up imaginary restrictions is you. RAW does not support you in the least because RAW says 'tank shock' means all types of tank shocks and not your pitiful attempts to hoodwink others into believeing it means only one type. If I mention an automobile, am I only talking about Corvettes? No. It's the same here. The use of the phrase 'tank shock' covers all types. I'm done wasting my time with your ludicrous and unsupportable claims.

A tank shock is a tank shock, no matter what type it is.

Yes, they do mention a specific type. Tank Shock is used as a proper noun (note the capitalization), which means it refers to a specific person, place or thing.

The rulebook mentions two distinct types of special actions a Tank may make. Those two actions are Tank Shock and Ramming. Therefore, the Ork Codex explicitly references one, and only one, of those two distinct actions by name.

The Deff Rolla works just fine against non-vehicle units during a Ramming action as they are "tank shocked as normal," however against a Vehicle it becomes a Ramming action, and the Deff Rolla only explicitly mentions the Tank Shock move, so it doesn't apply to Ramming.

Padixon - all squares are rectangles. not all rectangles are squares. you're got it backwards in your example

dumbuket wrote:Padixon - all squares are rectangles. not all rectangles are squares. you're got it backwards in your example

wha?

padixon wrote:wha?

And that's the problem we're running into when attempting to discuss your analogy.

6) tankshock and ramming are different rules. So you must declare which move you plan to do.

Doesn't change that a ram is still a tank shock. You know, the bit written in the rule. The bit that everyone seems very happy to ignore when discussing how the rules are written.

sourclams wrote:RAW, ramming is a tank shock. Deff Rollas function during tank shocks, therefore they function during Ramming, because a Ram is a tank shock. This is made pretty explicit when intervening infantry models suffer the effects of a tank shock when the vehicle rolls through them to ram another vehicle.

If your city has an ordinance that states that dogs have to be on a leash, then you have to put your poodle on a leash even if it's a special type of dog.

You know, as far as examples go in this debate, your poodle one sucks the most. Everyone knows if you ram with a poodle it is just going to be a smear on the side. However if you tankshock with it that girly looking perm it calls hair might just frighten someone away. Tankshock yes, Ram no.

sourclams wrote:

padixon wrote:wha?

And that's the problem we're running into when attempting to discuss your analogy.

6) tankshock and ramming are different rules. So you must declare which move you plan to do.

Doesn't change that a ram is still a tank shock. You know, the bit written in the rule. The bit that everyone seems very happy to ignore when discussing how the rules are written.

RAM is a type of tank shock that can only be done by tanks. Everything in the rules for RAM says Tank - even the example in the BGB uses a rhino against a trukk. A rhino is classified as a tank in the SM codex. No where does it ever say vehicle - it only says tank. Anyone who says differently is RAI and not RAW. Just read the BGB for ramming and see if you can find it.

P.s for all you people who cannot remember their 10th grade math, Ramming is a subset of Tankshock. All vehicles can tankshock (main set) doesn't follow that all vehicles can ram (subset) - basic math people, not all items in the main set are in the subset.

Doesn't matter if you like my example or not.

A ram is a special kind of tank shock.

A ram is a ... tank shock.

You're all going 'a poodle isn't a dog! It's a poodle!'. I'm sorry that you don't think a poodle is a dog. It's kind of a girly dog. It's a very fruh fruh dog. But it's still a dog.

fullheadofhair wrote:
P.s for all you people who cannot remember their 10th grade math, Ramming is a subset of Tankshock. All vehicles can tankshock (main set) doesn't follow that all vehicles can ram (subset) - basic math people, not all items in the main set are in the subset.

You don't even know the subject of the thread. This isn't asking whether or not all vehicles can ram, it's whether or not a Deffrolla, which is an upgrade for a battlewagon (Vehicle: Open-topped, Tank), can be used during a Ram.

Furthermore, you're wrong. All vehicles cannot tank shock. Tanks can tank shock, and they can also Ram, but while all Rams are Tank Shock, not all Tank Shocks are Rams. Battlewagons, being Tanks, can do both.

Your references to grade level are asinine.

If I run my tank into another vehicle.. I can decide to make a ram attack. I cant tank-shock a vehicle.

If I run my tank into a unit of troops I can decide to make a tank-shock attack.

I can also decide in either can to stop within 1" (Ive gotta do one of the two in either case) Edit: Well I have to declare a tank shock or declare a ram attack)

With a deff-rolla (corret spelling ) you can decide to ram a vehicle, and you follow the rules described under the ramming section. You can also decide to run your deff-rolla equiped vehicle into a squad of troops (things with legs/non vehicle things. Choas spawn tenticles etc) and make a tank-shock attack.

You follow the rules for listed under the deff-rolla section.

Ahem:

BGB P69 Ramming 2nd para: and I quote ''..Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal."

-Hence apply the deff-rolla rules.

Continuing on in the same paragraph, new sentance "However, if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows." = *

So if a ramming tank hits a non-vehicle unit, a normal tank-shock happens (p68 BGB) but if a ramming tank comes into contact with a enemy vehicle then that happens.

So you declare you want to make a ram, you move. You hit a squad 'o' troops (Deff-rolla hits etc, they break, run away, you get to carry on) you then hit another target - this time its a tank So THAT = * happens. The ram. Each vehicles take a hit. Etc.

Razerous wrote:If I run my tank into another vehicle.. I can decide to make a ram attack. I cant tank-shock a vehicle.

Except a Ram is defined as a special type of Tank Shock. A Ram is a tank shock. Everybody enjoys creating elaborate examples to prove their point, but they completely forget what is explicitly written down.

6) tankshock and ramming are different rules. So you must declare which move you plan to do.

sourclams wrote:
Doesn't change that a ram is still a tank shock. You know, the bit written in the rule. The bit that everyone seems very happy to ignore when discussing how the rules are written.

Must not change it,because a RAM isn't a tankshock.

9) BRB uses never "tankshock" as RAW in any paragraph about ramming other vehicles.

BRB page 71: "ramming skimmers"
BRB page 73: "ramming walkers"


Try to tankshock a vehicle in RAW.

To apply ram when tankshock is RAW in the codex is RAA.

sourclams wrote:

fullheadofhair wrote:
P.s for all you people who cannot remember their 10th grade math, Ramming is a subset of Tankshock. All vehicles can tankshock (main set) doesn't follow that all vehicles can ram (subset) - basic math people, not all items in the main set are in the subset.

You don't even know the subject of the thread. This isn't asking whether or not all vehicles can ram, it's whether or not a Deffrolla, which is an upgrade for a battlewagon (Vehicle: Open-topped, Tank), can be used during a Ram.

Furthermore, you're wrong. All vehicles cannot tank shock. Tanks can tank shock, and they can also Ram, but while all Rams are Tank Shock, not all Tank Shocks are Rams. Battlewagons, being Tanks, can do both.

Your references to grade level are asinine.

Really, OP question might have been but thread decided in tank shock v ramming per Ghaz et al. I joined in on that part - grade level comment seemed appropriate for the level of discussion going on.

"All vehicles can tank shock" was a summary sentence and not the main point I was making so I was comfortable using it so my point didn't get bogged down in minutae.

fullheadofhair wrote:

sourclams wrote:

fullheadofhair wrote:
P.s for all you people who cannot remember their 10th grade math, Ramming is a subset of Tankshock. All vehicles can tankshock (main set) doesn't follow that all vehicles can ram (subset) - basic math people, not all items in the main set are in the subset.

You don't even know the subject of the thread. This isn't asking whether or not all vehicles can ram, it's whether or not a Deffrolla, which is an upgrade for a battlewagon (Vehicle: Open-topped, Tank), can be used during a Ram.

Furthermore, you're wrong. All vehicles cannot tank shock. Tanks can tank shock, and they can also Ram, but while all Rams are Tank Shock, not all Tank Shocks are Rams. Battlewagons, being Tanks, can do both.

Your references to grade level are asinine.

Really, OP question might have been but thread decided in tank shock v ramming per Ghaz et al. I joined in on that part - grade level comment seemed appropriate for the level of discussion going on.

"All vehicles can tank shock" was a summary sentence and not the main point I was making so I was comfortable using it so my point didn't get bogged down in minutae.

And also, if Deff-rolla's are for use on a Tank-Shock why would you include the subset called Ramming into the Deff-rolla rules- not all rules that apply to the main set apply to the subset - remember the comment about grade 10 math (you know, the inter-locking circle diagrams incase you are as senile as I am). You are adding to the rules by including the subset.

I've gotta side with sourclams when it comes to RAW with this one.

A Ram is a type of Tankshock. - Clear statement in the BRB

A Deff-rolla can be used in Tankshocks - With no exceptions given.

Thus A Deff-rolla can be used in a Ram.

As for RAI, who can say? The Ork codex was written as 4th/5th hybrid and so makes no mention of ramming

"All vehicles can tank shock" was a summary sentence and not the main point I was making so I was comfortable using it so my point didn't get bogged down in minutae.

Except your summary sentence is false. You avoid getting bogged down in the minutiae by creating blanket statements that are completely wrong?

And also, if Deff-rolla's are for use on a Tank-Shock why would you include the subset called Ramming into the Deff-rolla rules- not all rules that apply to the main set apply to the subset - remember the comment about grade 10 math (you know, the inter-locking circle diagrams incase you are as senile as I am). You are adding to the rules by including the subset.

Because a Ram is a tank shock. The special rules for Ram simply describe what happens when you tank shock a vehicle. The whole maneuver is still a tank shock with a special sidebar thrown in to differentiate between your big tank running over dudes, and running over another big tank. That does not change that a Ram is still a tank shock, even though it's "special" enough to have a different name.

A Ram is a type of Tankshock. - Clear statement in the BRB

A Deff-rolla can be used in Tankshocks - With no exceptions given.

Thus A Deff-rolla can be used in a Ram.

Thank god, someone who can actually pick up the book and read the words.

sourclams wrote:

Razerous wrote:If I run my tank into another vehicle.. I can decide to make a ram attack. I cant tank-shock a vehicle.

Except a Ram is defined as a special type of Tank Shock. A Ram is a tank shock. Everybody enjoys creating elaborate examples to prove their point, but they completely forget what is explicitly written down.

Explicitily written down. . . . Umm...

BGB P69 Ramming 2nd para: and I quote ''..Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal."

This is explicitily written down.

BGB P69 Ramming 2nd para: "However, if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows."

Also explicitly written down.

Surely the word "However" is pretty explicit.

A ram isnt a tank shock. If I say I want to peform a tank-shock I cant ram.

If I say I want to peform I ram, I can also tank-shock (albeit I have to pivot on the spot then move @ my max speed which is in addition to the tank-shock rules)

You werent elaborate there. You were quite clear and plain. Im afriad your wrong. About " A ram is a tank shock" & also about the interpriation of the rules.

But then Again, I could be wrong aswell.. wouldnt mean you were right but I could be wrong about thinking your wrong etc etc.

Frenzy wrote:I've gotta side with sourclams when it comes to RAW with this one.

A Ram is a type of Tankshock. - Clear statement in the BRB

A Deff-rolla can be used in Tankshocks - With no exceptions given.

Thus A Deff-rolla can be used in a Ram.

As for RAI, who can say? The Ork codex was written as 4th/5th hybrid and so makes no mention of ramming

so explain when is the Hit done from ramming and when is the hit done from the deff-rolla?

a) first ram then deff-roll?
b) first deff-roll then ram?
c) only ram because the deffrolla is used to tankshock and you rammed a vehicle?
d) whenever i want- its RAA = rules as assumed

Razerous wrote:
A ram isnt a tank shock. If I say I want to peform a tank-shock I cant ram.

Except they can be done simultaneously.

If I say I want to peform I ram, I can also tank-shock (albeit I have to pivot on the spot then move @ my max speed which is in addition to the tank-shock rules)

Which is what a Ram is, an addition to the tank shock rules.

You werent elaborate there. You were quite clear and plain. Im afriad your wrong. About " A ram is a tank shock" & also about the interpriation of the rules.

Which you can't back up at all based on the rules as they are written.

so explain when is the Hit done from ramming and when is the hit done from the deff-rolla?

It's either simultaneously, or after, as the Tank Shock is what triggers the Deff Rolla (pg. 55, Ork 'dex)

1hadhq wrote:

Frenzy wrote:I've gotta side with sourclams when it comes to RAW with this one.

A Ram is a type of Tankshock. - Clear statement in the BRB

A Deff-rolla can be used in Tankshocks - With no exceptions given.

Thus A Deff-rolla can be used in a Ram.

As for RAI, who can say? The Ork codex was written as 4th/5th hybrid and so makes no mention of ramming

so explain when is the Hit done from ramming and when is the hit done from the deff-rolla?

a) first ram then deff-roll?
b) first deff-roll then ram?
c) only ram because the deffrolla is used to tankshock and you rammed a vehicle?
d) whenever i want- its RAA = rules as assumed

If you perform a tank-shock (which may or may-not include a ram attack as people are trying to argue either way) with a deff-rolla, a tank-shock attack would be made and then because a tank-shock attack has been made the deff-rolla's special rules would come into play.

Its simple linear progression of the rules. I roll to hit. I hit. I roll to wound. I wound. You roll to save, you save. Etc etc.

sourclams wrote:Except they can be done simultaneously.

What?

If a vehicle moves into contact with a unit.. you find out what type of unit it is - then you apply the result.

Infantry = tank shock as normal.

Vehicle = Resolves as follows.

Do you suggest it should read:-

'' Vechicle = resolves as follows, in addition to the tank-shock rules" ??

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

So if I declare a Ram and run over three infantry units on my way to the Rhino, haven't I just executed three tank shocks during my Ram?

Yup. One after the other. Not simultaneously. Just thought id point that out.

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

So if I declare a Ram and run over three infantry units on my way to the Rhino, haven't I just executed three tank shocks during my Ram?

Sourclams, all you proven is that you can tank shock while ramming.

You can not Ram while Tank shocking. You have to stop 1" from any vehicle

And Tank shocking is what the Ork codex tells us to do.

So you can not Ram while tank shocking, simple.

You can try to prove that Ram = Tank shock all day long. But at the end of the day. The codex only says "Tank Shock". And by the BGB, you can not Ram while tank shocking.

sorry, but if the codex says only "tank shock" then that's all we can do, because that is the actual name of a very real maneuver a tank can preform. And the other very real maneuver is Ramming, which is not listed as an option in the Ork Codex.

Here is a FAQ

Q. Is a Regroup test a Morale check? For example,
I have a falling back unit within range of a
banner that allows units to reroll failed Morale
checks – can I use the banner for a failed
Regroup test?
A. No and No. A Regroup test is a special type of
Leadership test, not a Morale check (which are
taken in the three situations described on page
44).

As you can see, GW uses the phrase "special type of Leadership test" to show how it is like something, not that it *is* something. GW puts a clear distinction that a "regrouping test" =/= to other leadership checks.

So using "special type of Leadership test" phrase to prove a point is actually a point given to how dislike Ramming and Tank Shocking are.

Edit here for clarity, you only have 4 different types of LD tests: Psychic, Morale, LD test due to a power or rule, and a Regroup test. At what point is ever a regroup test = to any of these?

Break it down

Regroup test =/= Morale test as per the FAQ

The Ramming rules use the **exact** same line to describe how it is a special type of Tank shock just like Regrouping does on page 46.

Ramming =/= Tank shock

Razerous wrote:
A ram isnt a tank shock. If I say I want to peform a tank-shock I cant ram.

sourclams wrote:
Except they can be done simultaneously.

They can't. You either tankshock a non-vehicle unit and have to stop before any vehicle or friendly unit,
or you perform a ram and tankshock any non-vehicle unit and (if it doesn't kill you with DoG) move on to the vehicle and ram.

So you have to decide. Only if you try to ram a vehicle behind a non-vehicle unit you can do both, but only at the appropriate time.
because tankshock demands to stop by RAW and you can't divide a "straight move without turn" into 2 sentences, there is no way
to perform a tankshock and ram in any "wanted" order. You follow either tankshock (call out distance to move) or ram (move always maximum distance). Still seperate rules and actions.

sourclams wrote:
It's either simultaneously, or after, as the Tank Shock is what triggers the Deff Rolla (pg. 55, Ork 'dex)

So we use a piece of wargear dedicated to tankshock to ram ?

Maybe the d6 hits exist to wound multiple models and a vehicle is always a single model.
Maybe GW was aware of the deffrolla but thought if we say tankshock our players will follow the paragraph after tankshock and
not ramming because our fine customers are able to read context and accept layout.?
Maybe RAW allows tankshock because it was all the time only possible to harm vs non-vehicle units?

A "special type of ..." doesnt add a rule to wargear.
Don't snip out, use the full "rules for tanks".

Razerous wrote:Yup. One after the other. Not simultaneously. Just thought id point that out.

Which was more or less the point I was seeking to make. It's a Ram maneuver, in that you are forced to declare you are ramming and move full speed, but tank shocks can still happen and are resolved along the way. Bottom line, you have to declare the Ram. Tank shocks occur during the Ramming maneuver as a whole.

Padixon, here's the problem you run into with your example:

Q. Is a Regroup test a Morale check? ...
A. No A Regroup test is a special type of
Leadership test, not a Morale check...

Per the FAQ a regroup test is not a morale check, which is what the wargear would allow rerolls for. If the wargear allowed rerolls for leadership tests, it would function.

Q. Is a Ram a Tank Shock?
A. "Ramming is a special type of tank shock"

Per the BRB a ram is special type of tank shock. So the wargear functions because a Ram is a tank shock. Now, if the Wargear stated that it only functioned during Rams, it would not work for Tank Shocks because a Tank Shock does not meet the criteria to be a Ram.

So it's apples and oranges.

And then we get to this guy:

So we use a piece of wargear dedicated to tankshock to ram ?

Yes, because a Ram is a special type of tank shock. Ram does not exclude Tank Shock in the way that Regroup Tests exclude Morale Checks.

Don't snip out, use the full "rules for tanks".

As far as I can tell, I'm the only guy reading the whole page. Everybody else is ignoring the "is a special type of tank shock" bit.

Brillaint. So were resolved then. You can tank-shock if you declare a ram.

So in regards to the OP : No.

You can tank shock if you declare a Ram, a Ram is a tank shock, and Deff Rolla functions during a tank shock, which a Ram is. I'm going to keep saying it until somebody can prove that this doesn't apply:

"A Ram is a special type of tank shock"

So in regard to the OP: Yes.

What happens, when tank-shocking, you come to a vehicle?

You stop, because a Tank Shock does not meet the criteria to become a Ram.

However, a Ram meets all the criteria to be a Tank Shock because a Ram is a tank shock, and indeed, you can still tank shock while ramming.

You're going to have to come up with something other than a 'literal reading of the rules' because the BRB is clear that a Ram is a Tank Shock.

sourclams wrote:

And then we get to this guy:

nice to meet you mr that guy

sourclams wrote:

As far as I can tell, I'm the only guy reading the whole page. Everybody else is ignoring the "is a special type of tank shock" bit.

How many times did i quote "special type of tank shock" in this thread?

Don't know?

sourclams wrote:
You're going to have to come up with something other than a 'literal reading of the rules' because the BRB is clear that a Ram is a Tank Shock.

Again RAA?

If you declare a tank-shock, move your distance, come to a vehicle you stop within 1"

If you declare a ram attack, move your distance, come to a vehicle you ram it.

If you want to apply the tank-shock rules to the ram, then fine. You ram it and you tank-shock it. Thats cool. Your 1" away from the vehicle. (But you dont finish 1" away because the unit is a vehicle)

Or you follow the rules "..as follows..." and complete a ram manouver.

If you want to complete that ram manouver AND try a tank-shock manouver.. then fine.

Here's exactly what you said:

So you have to decide. Only if you try to ram a vehicle behind a non-vehicle unit you can do both, but only at the appropriate time.
because tankshock demands to stop by RAW and you can't divide a "straight move without turn" into 2 sentences, there is no way
to perform a tankshock and ram in any "wanted" order. You follow either tankshock (call out distance to move) or ram (move always maximum distance). Still seperate rules and actions

So if you and I are playing a game, and I declare that I am tank shocking a unit by moving my Battlewagon four inches, and your unit is 3 inches away, a tank shock occurs. Now, I cannot decide, that based on the success of this maneuver, that I feel like moving a further 7 inches and ramming the Rhino that was 11 inches away from my start location.

Why is this? Because I declared a tank shock, not a Ram. You can't ram while tank shocking because you don't meet the criteria for a Ram special maneuver.

So it's next turn, you move another unit between myself and the rhino 7 inches away, and I decide to Ram the rhino. I declare a Ram, I tank shock the unit between myself and the rhino, and pending that maneuver's success, I Ram the rhino.

So no, you really can't parse out the tank shock rules for ramming because the maneuver incorporates those rules. A Ram is a tank shock maneuver with some added criteria and some added benefits. You're acting like it's a completely different thing, when it's actually the exact same maneuver with a few more bells and whistles. I can do absolutely everything during a Ram that I could during a Tank Shock, including Tank Shock other units, with the added benefit of not having to stop 1" away from vehicles.

You've got a Lexus.

I've got a Lexus SE with all-leather interior and the 10 disc changer/Dolby surround option that I paid $5,000 more to get installed.

Still makes my car a Lexus, just a better Lexus.

sourclams wrote:
You're going to have to come up with something other than a 'literal reading of the rules' because the BRB is clear that a Ram is a Tank Shock.



1hadhq wrote:
Again RAA?

If the only assumption made on my part is to read exactly what the rulebook says, I'm totally good with that.

Why are you trying to argue symantics and bring in lexuses and stuff but completely avoiding the actual issue of the rule?

Why can't you tell me how a maneuver that is identical to a tank shock in every single way with the addition of a single criteria (movement) and the removal of a single other criteria (stopping within 1" of a vehicle), that the Book explicitly states is a tank shock and is in itself able to Tank Shock, is in your world of parsed semantics and selective reading not a tank shock?

Ramming:

You tank-shock non-vehicle units.

If its a vehicle, you ram it. Ramming is a special form of tank-shock (not called tank shock, but ramming) that allows you to do many things.

It may be a special form of tank-shock yet due to all the clever wording in the BGB it is, infact, a ramming manouver (which is seperate and different to a tank-shock manouver)

You can make a tank-shock manouver in the process of making a ramming manouver.

Now fill me in, where in the above, you think you can use a deff-rolla against a vehicle.

Doesn't the deffolla say "ANY tankshock? "

Isn't a ram a special kind of tankshock?

Are "special tankshocks" not a part of "any tankshocks? "

Because I believe that's the point that others are trying to make. That just because its a "special tankshock" doesn't mean that its not part of "any tankshock."

sourclams wrote:
So if you and I are playing a game, and I declare that I am tank shocking a unit by moving my Battlewagon four inches, and your unit is 3 inches away, a tank shock occurs. Now, I cannot decide, that based on the success of this maneuver, that I feel like moving a further 7 inches and ramming the Rhino that was 11 inches away from my start location.

Why is this? Because I declared a tank shock, not a Ram. You can't ram while tank shocking because you don't meet the criteria for a Ram special maneuver.

So it's next turn, you move another unit between myself and the rhino 7 inches away, and I decide to Ram the rhino. I declare a Ram, I tank shock the unit between myself and the rhino, and pending that maneuver's success, I Ram the rhino.

So no, you really can't parse out the tank shock rules for ramming because the maneuver incorporates those rules. A Ram is a tank shock maneuver with some added criteria and some added benefits. You're acting like it's a completely different thing, when it's actually the exact same maneuver with a few more bells and whistles.

So we accept ram as special maneuver? Good.

1) if you tankshock,you control your moved distance.

my unit would take the deffrolla hit then.

2) if you ram,you move the full distance until you met any criteria to stop.

so my unit would receive a deathrolla hit, but my rhino wouldn't.
because you would resolve as = AV 14 + tank + move 7 = S 7 hit vs rhino.If my rhino explodes, you got to move 5".


still deffrolla vs non-vehicle.
You declare "RAM" , not tankshock. And you know you can't aim a tankshock at a vehicle and hit it.

The deffrolla is a "drive by" attack vs tankshocked units and i do think its enough for orks to have the only tankshock with a
to wound feature in the game. Plus the battlewagon has the same chance to damage as any leman russ or land raider in a ram.

If we would accept a tankshock vs vehicles, it would be possible to tankshock skimmers and deny to evade because the move wasn't a ram. plus hit it with a d6 S10 attack from the deffrolla.

So i have to stick with NO to the OP.

Because you're overlooking basic English.

The Ork Codex (this is the second time I've mentioned this, since you conveniently overlooked it the first time), specifically mentions Tank Shock. Capital letters, proper noun, specific thing.

The BRB is structured as follows:

I Tanks.
..A. Special Moves Tanks Make.
......1. Tank Shock.
..........a. Death or Glory
......2. Ramming

Regardless of whether you believe Ramming=Tank Shock (which it does not, it is a special kind), the fact that the Ork Codex clearly mentions ONE of the TWO types of special moves a Tank may make restrict the Deff Rollas function to that specific type of move.

You claim to read the entire page, so please make sure you've read the last paragraph, last sentence:

until it reaches its maximum move distance or another enemy (which it will tank shock or ram again!).

Two distinct actions, both in structure of the rulebook, as well as within the text of the rules themselves. Deff Rollas work against non-vehicle units which are tank-shocked, not against vehicles which are rammed.

Red_Lives wrote:Doesn't the deffolla say "ANY tankshock? "

Isn't a ram a special kind of tankshock?

Are "special tankshocks" not a part of "any tankshocks? "

Because I believe that's the point that others are trying to make. That just because its a "special tankshock" doesn't mean that its not part of "any tankshock."

Right.

Two distinct actions, both in structure of the rulebook, as well as within the text of the rules themselves. Deff Rollas work against non-vehicle units which are tank-shocked, not against vehicles which are rammed.

Except Rams are Tank Shocks. (top of page 69, BRB)

So...

just because its a "special tankshock" doesn't mean that its not part of "any tankshock."

There's that basic English you refer to.

I suppose if you insist on overlooking the structure of the rulebook, as well as the proper noun usage in the Ork Codex where it states, "Any Tank Shock.." which by definition of being a proper noun can only refer to a specific thing, then you're right.

If on the other hand, you care to abide by the rules of the English language and the structure of the rulebook clearly differentiating Ramming actions from Tank Shock actions, then you'll probably side with other educated folks and come to the proper conclusion that a Deff Rolla does nothing against a Rammed vehicle.

Okay fine, lets assume your right on that last point of yours.

What happens when a vehicle rams another vehicle?

Does it perform a tank-shock manour on them?

P69 BGB 5 lines down. 5 words in. Start from there (as a bit of advice)

A Ram is a tank shock, plus a special qualifier versus vehicles.

It's all written right there.

Razerous wrote:Okay fine, lets assume your right on that last point of yours.

What happens when a vehicle rams another vehicle?

Does it perform a tank-shock manovur on them?

P69 BGB 5 lines down. 5 words in. Start from there (as a bit of advice)

Answer the question

Trekari wrote:I suppose if you insist on overlooking the structure of the rulebook, as well as the proper noun usage in the Ork Codex where it states, "Any Tank Shock.." which by definition of being a proper noun can only refer to a specific thing, then you're right.

If on the other hand, you care to abide by the rules of the English language and the structure of the rulebook clearly differentiating Ramming actions from Tank Shock actions, then you'll probably side with other educated folks and come to the proper conclusion that a Deff Rolla does nothing against a Rammed vehicle.

So if you were walking your poodle, and saw a sign that said "Any dog must be leashed", your poodle would not have to be put on a leash, because it is a specific dog, not a general 'dog', whatever that would happen to be.

Because that's what you're suggesting by getting all uppity Ye Olde Anglishe.

Razerous wrote:

Razerous wrote:Okay fine, lets assume your right on that last point of yours.

What happens when a vehicle rams another vehicle?

Does it perform a tank-shock manovur on them?

P69 BGB 5 lines down. 5 words in. Start from there (as a bit of advice)

Answer the question

You Ram, which is a special type of Tank Shock. You just proved my point, although you won't see it that way.

Ork codex re: Deffrolla: Any Tank Shock
BRB re: Ram: "a special kind of tank shock"

Did I just answer your question?

Here's your sticking point: Unless you can prove that a special tank shock, which is what Ram is, isn't a tank shock because it's "special", Modquisition may as well lock the thread because your points are old and I'm just repeating myself.

You tried,

The ork codex uses the term any Tank Shock. Note that this is in Captiolised format. We can look to p68 of the BGB to read up on Tank Shock!

This means its refering to the manouver used/described on P68.

When you ram (P69 of the BGB), you can either perfom a ram action or a tank shock action.

You cant do both. Mutually exclusive. Just because your ramming doesnt mean your also tank-shocking. There are two options,

So;

Ramming Against a vehicle, which do you choose?

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

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

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

I was sure I'd read this discussion before, but when I searched I couldn't find anything apart from this thread. Still, this thread has become the one I described.

We've seen how the rules can be interpreted different ways. Personally, I think a deathrolla would have to be ing huge to put a S10 hit on a landraider. All the deathrollaz I've seen would either break, or just roll up the front of it. But that's RAI so means nothing at YMDC. From a game balance point of view it might be worth allowing though, as orks have very little anti-armour ( at S10 anyway). and the pure orkiness of deathrollaz would mean orks are bound to try it, even if it wouldnt work.

Thinking back, I'm sure there was even a poll on this topic. Where did it go?

EDIT: OK, a bit of search fu later and I have it (not a poll though, that must have been a dream.)
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/222055.page

Oh come on, read my second to last post and answser it. Its really really simple.

Lets just see what the INAT FAQ ruled it? (since its the closest ting we will see to an official FAQ for a long...long.. time.)

ORK.55D.01 – Q: Does a Deff Rolla affect enemy
vehicles that are rammed? If so, what about
Skimmers that manage to dodge the ram?
A: Enemy vehicles that are rammed do take an additional D6
S10 hits from the Deff Rolla. A skimmer that successfully
dodges the ram does not [clarification].

I realize its not official, but its the closest thing we have to an in depth official FAQ, and let us not forget that GW did use a lot of the old 4th ed INAT FAQ in its official rulings at the end of 4th ed and the beginning of 5th.

Here's some more threads I dredged up on this topic, none of them can come to a consensus.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/220185.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/218525.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/216779.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/214382.page

(probably better go with John Spencer et. al who say Deathrollaz don't work against vehicles....

EDIT ( after reading above post)... or go with INAT ruling which says they do)

AAAAGH! we'll never know!

I guess we should just for it every game!

DISCUSSION OVER RAWR!!!!

Razerous wrote:Oh come on, read my second to last post and answser it. Its really really simple.

Dude. Your question fails. You'll survive.

Now prove that a special tank shock isn't a tank shock because it's "special".

This is just funny.

Anyone who actually takes a hit from a Deffrolla on one of their vehicles has played so poorly they thoroughly deserve to lose the game.

If 20pts of Ork wargear can beat several hundred points of your whole army.... you'd be better off working on improved tactics than expending the energy wasted on this thread in trying to prevent Ork players trying one of the most characterful and fun moves in the game.

Sourclams - I dont need to. Answer that question I posed or be content playing the wrong rules.

Just looking at what people have written about the ork codex. "Any tank shock". If there was only 1 type they wouldn't have put the "any" in there. That's kind of implying that it can ram.

Also by RAW Sourclams is right. It's special. Its a type of tank shock. Therefore it's included in the phrase "any tank shock".

Razerous. Your question can be answered, ram or tankshock, but seeing as they are interlinked through rules wording, it doesn't really matter.

Fluff argument: Deffrolla rolls over light vehicles.

By RAW and the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, the phrase "Any Tank Shock" which is exactly how it is spelled in the Codex, refers explicitly to the BRB section on Tank Shock, and only Tank Shock.

Learn to read. Learn about Proper Nouns and their uses.

Trekari wrote:By RAW and the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, the phrase "Any Tank Shock" which is exactly how it is spelled in the Codex, refers explicitly to the BRB section on Tank Shock, and only Tank Shock.

Learn to read. Learn about Proper Nouns and their uses.

So your argument is that "a special kind of tank shock" isn't "any tank shock".

Just to clarify

I love how people are fighting tooth and nail to prohibit deff rolla usage.

I hardly ever get a hit on a vehicle with a deff rolla- I usually use it as much needed area denial; no one wants to lose their land raider with a termy squad inside, and I sure as hell don't want those termies tearing apart half my army. Deff Rollas are one of the ways a mechanized ork army has to prevent themselves from simply getting swamped by a rhino rush and the like. Besides, its simply fun to use and is fluffy. Also, people don't seem to realize how short range it is- you can only potentially hit things up to 13" away, which isn't really that far, and then that puts said battlewagon into range of all sorts of nasty things such as meltas and side-shots and assaults. And face it, if you thought you could send a lone rhino or landraider without any support, that's more of a strategic failing on your part.

And to people who say that they couldn't imagine a deff rolla impacting a land raider, have you seen the other stuff that orks use as anti-tank? A warboss or a nob can down a landraider with his fist. Why aren't you complaining about that being "unrealistic"? Saying that you can't imagine a giant orky steamroller mounted on a monstrous vehicle going full speed being able to crush, say, a leman russ is a failing on your part.

Anyway, why don't we lock this thread? We will never reach a consensus.

okay now that I'm home could someone who believes that the deff rolla is able to inflict the D6 S10 hits on a vehicle please explain the following to me.

From the Deff Rolla rules "Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes d6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit." note that it requires a singular victim unit, rather than the multiple victim units, given that how then is a situation resolved where a battlewagon with deff rolla tank shocks through multiple infantry units.

Clearly both units are victims of the tank shock, but if you assume that the Tank Shock made by the battlewagon is in reference to the movement itself (which you must to allow the hits to be inflicted on a vehicle) then only one of the number of shocked units can suffer these D6 S10 hits.

The only other option is that you take the tank shock as the applied effect, rather than the move itself, which would mean, each unit is the victim of a seperate unique tank shock effect, but a vehicle never suffers a tank shock, it merely suffers a hit on it's armour when a ram move is executed.

I honestly have never seen this resolved properly or even seen anyone attempt to address it and it seems to resolve the situation for me, so if any of you could explain why you don't agree I would really appreciate it.

Additionally, when executing a ram, both vehicles follow the exact same rules regarding the hit inflicted on them, so both vehicles can be considered victims of the ram, which would mean that the battlewagon also suffers the D6 S10 hits from this maneuvre if for some reason you continued to insist it was valid.

Red_Lives wrote:

Trekari wrote:By RAW and the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, the phrase "Any Tank Shock" which is exactly how it is spelled in the Codex, refers explicitly to the BRB section on Tank Shock, and only Tank Shock.

Learn to read. Learn about Proper Nouns and their uses.

So your argument is that "a special kind of tank shock" isn't "any tank shock".

Just to clarify

Correct, if you bothered to use the proper quote from the Codex.

"Any Tank Shock" is a proper noun referencing a specific procedure in the BRB. There are two special moves that tanks can make, one of which is Tank Shock, and the other is Ramming. Given that it is used as a proper noun, it refers explicitly to the corresponding entry in the BRB titled, conveniently enough, Tank Shock.

There is nothing to infer that "Any Tank Shock" is really supposed to mean "Any kind of tank shock." The two sentences differ greatly in meaning.

Drunkspleen wrote:From the Deff Rolla rules "Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes d6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit." note that it requires a singular victim unit, rather than the multiple victim units, given that how then is a situation resolved where a battlewagon with deff rolla tank shocks through multiple infantry units.

Except the Deff Rolla specifies "AnyTank Shocks". Anything that's tank shocked takes the Deff Rolla hits.

Additionally, when executing a ram, both vehicles follow the exact same rules regarding the hit inflicted on them, so both vehicles can be considered victims of the ram, which would mean that the battlewagon also suffers the D6 S10 hits from this maneuvre if for some reason you continued to insist it was valid.

The Battlewagon is not the victim unit. It receives the hit back as normal but it is not the victim unit.

There is nothing to infer that "Any Tank Shock" is really supposed to mean "Any kind of tank shock." The two sentences differ greatly in meaning.

Because "Any Tank Shock" includes any and all maneuvers that could ever be categorized as a tank shock, and a Ram is, let's say it all together, a special kind of tank shock.

You can sit there and claim that "Any Tank Shock" does not include "Any kind of tank shock" but that is, at the very best, your incredibly tenuous interpretation.

"Any Dog must be on a leash" -- are you seriously going to tell me that your dog is exempt because it's "special"?

I'm still waiting for someone in the 'ramming is not a tank shock'-camp to tell me how they legally declare ramming move.
Tank shock has a specific declaration, but ramming does not, so the people who claim ramming is not a tankshock are not able to legally declare a ramming move at all/ever.

Simple as that, i take the statement and assume it's true, then work it out by the book and find a contradiction, which means the original assumption is false, meaning the statement is false. In this case the contradiction appeared as soon as when I tried to declare ANY ramming move.

sourclams wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:From the Deff Rolla rules "Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes d6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit." note that it requires a singular victim unit, rather than the multiple victim units, given that how then is a situation resolved where a battlewagon with deff rolla tank shocks through multiple infantry units.

Except the Deff Rolla specifies "AnyTank Shocks". Anything that's tank shocked takes the Deff Rolla hits.

Ahhh *sigh* Yes yes.. as Ive said before, we can assume that the any-tank shock thingy is how you say.

Now - Follow the rules for the ramming procedure and at the point at which your allowed to make a tank-shock manouver will sail by and wave at you as you pass it by

BECAUSE

you resolve that the target is a vehicle (and not an non-vehicle unit) so you DO NOT apply the Tank-Shock rules but INSTEAD you apply a ram hit.

Two key works here (Quoted from the BGB, theyve been used in context previously so dont whine)

However...

...as follows...

Now you can argue blue in the face that because your ramming, your also making a tank-shock but your not, its a ram.

IF You follow the rules (from the ram section, as youve rammed) in a linear fashion and resolve each issue that is brought up by said rules, there can never be a tank-shock made against a tank.

As for that ork codex - (Now please people one last time)

It is refering to the specific manouver on P68 of the BGB.

This thread is a wasteland, why not just read the last tank-shock vs. ramming thread that was equally useful and contains all of these arguments?

I love the haphazard bolding and underlines mixed in with rehashed material though. Maybe if you just keep posting you'll win the argument by being the last one to care.

sourclams wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:From the Deff Rolla rules "Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes d6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit." note that it requires a singular victim unit, rather than the multiple victim units, given that how then is a situation resolved where a battlewagon with deff rolla tank shocks through multiple infantry units.

Except the Deff Rolla specifies "AnyTank Shocks". Anything that's tank shocked takes the Deff Rolla hits.

That would be a good argument if not for the fact that I'm looking at my codex now and it definitely uses the singular form of "Any Tank Shock" so each "Tank Shock" made by the battlewagon still has a single "Victim Unit", which is the unit that recieves the D6 S10 hits.

The people who continue to claim ramming is not a special kind of tankshock still need to explain me how they are allowed to DECLARE a ram move at all.
You can't go about saying "i declare a ramming move", that's not described in the rules of ramming, so you're not allowed to declare a ram-move like that.
The only declaration described/allowed is the one for tank shock and the speed at which you intend to execute the move.

Razerous wrote:
IF You follow the rules (from the ram section, as youve rammed) in a linear fashion and resolve each issue that is brought up by said rules, there can never be a tank-shock made against a tank.

++

I've never said that a tank shock can occur against a vehicle, I've said that a Ram is a tank shock, and a Ram can occur against a vehicle. You're trying so hard but getting lost in the details.

That would be a good argument if not for the fact that I'm looking at my codex now and it definitely uses the singular form of "Any Tank Shock" so each "Tank Shock" made by the battlewagon still has a single "Victim Unit", which is the unit that recieves the D6 S10 hits.

That's your argument? Deff Rollas don't work for multiple tank shocks because the descriptor uses the singular? That's awesome. Seriously, nice.

The people who continue to claim ramming is not a special kind of tankshock still need to explain me how they are allowed to DECLARE a ram move at all.

I think this one got brought up two pages ago and was ignored then, too. Everyone's too busy examining which letter is capitalized and whether the plural applies or not.

Red_Lives wrote:Lets just see what the INAT FAQ ruled it? (since its the closest ting we will see to an official FAQ for a long...long.. time.)

ORK.55D.01 – Q: Does a Deff Rolla affect enemy
vehicles that are rammed? If so, what about
Skimmers that manage to dodge the ram?
A: Enemy vehicles that are rammed do take an additional D6
S10 hits from the Deff Rolla. A skimmer that successfully
dodges the ram does not [clarification].

I realize its not official, but its the closest thing we have to an in depth official FAQ, and let us not forget that GW did use a lot of the old 4th ed INAT FAQ in its official rulings at the end of 4th ed and the beginning of 5th.

It is no where near official - and it certainly isn't the closest thing to an indepth FAQ. It is just a set of house rules for tournies - nothing more and nothing less.

If a S10 attack from other weapons are the same S10 against infantry as well as tanks why would a S10 hit from a deffrolla against a vehicle be any different?

Infantry still get armor saves even 6+...

It is understandable that people would complain about a 110 pt Ork vehicle rolling over most others no matter the distance it goes. Our In House Rule is...

If it moves 1-3" roll a D6 dice on a 4+ the victim takes 1xS10 hit

If it moves 4-6" roll a D6 dice on a 1-3 the victim takes 1xS10 hit, on a 4-6 the vehicle takes 2xS10

If it moves 7-9" roll a D6 dice on a 1-2 the victim takes 1xS10 hit, on a 3-4 the vehicle takes 2xS10, on a 5-6 the vehicle takes 3xS10

If it moves 10"+ roll for D6 S10 hits

sourclams wrote:
I've never said that a tank shock can occur against a vehicle, I've said that a Ram is a tank shock, and a Ram can occur against a vehicle. You're trying so hard but getting lost in the details..

Sorry to add to this thread once more.

But Lol

sourclams wrote:
Now prove that a special tank shock isn't a tank shock because it's "special".

Easy


standard sourclams example:

rules for tanks = dog
poodle = tankshock
white poodle = ramming

so both creatures are dogs. but they are different.

If your wife/GF requests a dog, you can either bring a poodle or a white poodle.

If your wife requests a white poodle, you cant bring the "standard" poodle. It has to be the white.Doesnt matter if both are dogs.

So any little word like "special" isn't useless. Its not there to fill the layout.

The same goes for rules for tanks.

Another example:

1)If you ram a vehicle and meet a non-vehicle unit, the unit gets tankshocked.
The line in ramming wouldn't be there if ramming would be a tankshock.

2)if you ram a walker,it can react with "death or glory". Also useless if ramming would be a tankshock since tankshocked units can
always react with death or glory.





And to answer the fluff argument for ramming deathrollas:

A dethrolla has no range and no AP. So any non-vehicle unit may take available armour or invul saves.
As result, the deathrolla could perform badly and didn't manage to harm low armor targets like Guardsmen (5+).
Why should anything that cannot penetrate flak armor be able to penetrate armor plates?


Q: when does a deathrolla hit (d6 S 10)?
A: when the tank performs a tankshock.
C: if you tankshock multiple units,you score 1 hit per unit if the actual unit doesn't stop you by death or glory.


q: who gets hit from the deffrollas (d6 S10)?
A: every non-vehicle unit,because its done in its tankshock move
c: if you use vehicle upgrades you get the described boni (RAW), not any "similar" sounding or RAA boni

But a white poodle, is still a type of poodle.

If your wife asks for a poodle then it can include the sub-type white poodle.

I.e A ram is a type of tankshock, but a tankshock is not a ram as you seem to be saying.

And to answer the fluff argument for ramming deathrollas:

A dethrolla has no range and no AP. So any non-vehicle unit may take available armour or invul saves.
As result, the deathrolla could perform badly and didn't manage to harm low armor targets like Guardsmen (5+).
Why should anything that cannot penetrate flak armor be able to penetrate armor plates?

Because it is S10 and AP doesn't have anything to do with scoring penetrating hits. An Ork Warboss with a Big Choppa has S8 on the Charge and can get a penetrating hit, Big Choppas dont have range or AP either...Yes a S10 hit should not penetrate flak armor be able to penetrate armor plates sadly.

rules for tanks = dog
poodle = tankshock
white poodle = ramming

Ork Codex pg 55 Any "poodle" made by a battlewagon with a deffrolla causes D6 S10 Hits on the victim unit.

Okay...

A ramming wife comes along and encounters a troop of imperial guard - whom get poodled out of the way.

The ramming wife continues along her path and encounters a vehicle and proceedes to white poodle it.

There is abserloutely no (standard) poodling going on when this happens.

Why are dogs involved when this explains it very clearly: BGB P.69(Right side, top para) = 6 lines down. 5 words in.

So after how many threads on how many forums are the arguments for both sides always the same? All of them.

I think this issue pretty much been beaten dead until a "official" FAQ comes out and makes one or the other side conciede to how GW wants it played.

Even if it is a long while.

Ramming is a special type of tank shock according to the BGB

According to the Ork Codex "Any Tank Shock made by a blah blah blah."

Any [Adj] according to a dictionary means: whichever of a specific class might be chosen.

Ramming is a special type of tank shock, therefore because any (whichever Ramming or Standard Tank Shocking) tank shock made by a battlewagon with a deffrolla causes D6 S10 Hits on the victim unit.

Frenzy wrote:But a white poodle, is still a type of poodle.

If your wife asks for a poodle then it can include the sub-type white poodle.

I.e A ram is a type of tankshock, but a tankshock is not a ram as you seem to be saying.

Its an example of a sub-type of a sub-type.

And its the source of the confusion.

Ramming seem to be a tankshock,but it is a standalone rule and subtype of tanks.
So GW's "shortcut" to spare words has lead to problems.

To solve this we have only the chance to apply boni by RAW and RAW never says "tankshock a vehicle", so you can't use any
wargear that applies boni in a tankshock if you perform a ram.

=> ram the tank = no deffrolla
=> encounter infantry = use the deffrolla
=> tankshock infantry in your ram move = use deffrolla vs infantry. don't use deffrolla in your ram vs vehicle.

There is no way around it.

Should i expand it?

codex orks page 55:

TodeswalzÄ:

"wenn ein kampfpanza mit todeswalzÄ einen panzerschock durchführt, verusacht er w6 treffer mit der stärke10 bei der betroffenen
einheit. wenn die einheit sich für eine tod oder ehre attacke entscheidet,erleidet sie zusätzlich zu den normalen auswirkungen weitere
w6 treffer der stärke 10."

See no more any tankshock in there

Yeah, but the german Ork 'Dex is total mess anyway.

Actually the Dog premise is screwed up...
It should be:
Rules for Tank=Dog
Tank shock= Poodle
Ramming = White Poodle.

easier to understand now that it is written properly?

Waaaaagh wrote:

And to answer the fluff argument for ramming deathrollas:

A dethrolla has no range and no AP. So any non-vehicle unit may take available armour or invul saves.
As result, the deathrolla could perform badly and didn't manage to harm low armor targets like Guardsmen (5+).
Why should anything that cannot penetrate flak armor be able to penetrate armor plates?

Because it is S10 and. An Ork Warboss with a Big Choppa has S8 on the Charge and can get a penetrating hit, Big Choppas dont have range or AP either...Yes a S10 hit should not penetrate flak armor be able to penetrate armor plates sadly.

So the answer is: [u] "AP doesn't have anything to do with scoring penetrating hits"[i]

So armor penetration has nothing to do with penetration of armor?

I am sure any weapon or attack without a "range" as stat is a CC attack and must be done in CC.
But vehicles do not fight in CC if they have no WS. Has a battlewagon a WS?
Is vehicle part of a CC? NO. Your warboss might use his WS to attack, your battlewagon will never do so.
Do you need to close in to hit? yes. But your battlewagon will STOP if it encounters a vehicle in a tankshock move.
So its not in CC and it is also not able to hit.
And ram does not provide a deffrolla bonus. There is no ANY (whichever i like too) tankshock,because it exists only 1 tankshock.

Makari wrote:Actually the Dog premise is screwed up...
It should be:
Rules for Tank=Dog
Tank shock= Poodle
Ramming = White Poodle.

easier to understand now that it is written properly?

My fault. i shoudn't use poodles.

So i'll grant the poor creature the emperors mercy.

Rules for tanks = main set
Tankshock = sub-set A
Ramming = sub set B

If you are member of the main set, you will use both sub sets.
If you are member of subset A, this won't allow you to use subset B and vice versa.
So if you get promoted in subset B, this doesn't change your rank in subset A

No, you've got it wrong.

Rules for Tanks = main set

Tank Shock! = Sub-set A

Ramming = Sub-set A Condition 1

All of the rules for Tank Shock are necessary in order for Ram to function, because Tank Shock is inherently built into Ram.

Would you, as a player, allow me to drive my tank forward three inches, turn left to go around some terrain, go two inches, thread the needle between a Terminator base and a wall, then make a 6" curve to hit your Vindicator on its side armor and declare it a successful Ram?

Of course not, because Ram refers directly to the Tank Shock rules. If you gave a brand new player the rule book, ripped page 68 out, and told him to make a Ram maneuver, he could not do it by the rules because you just took away fully 50% or more of the relevant information to perform a Ram.

It's not selective reading; you need the Tank Shock rules in order to make the Ram rules work. They are not two stand-alone maneuvers.

sourclams wrote: If you gave a brand new player the rule book, ripped page 68 out, and told him to make a Ram maneuver, he could not do it by the rules because you just took away fully 50% or more of the relevant information to perform a Ram.

The rules for ramming are on P69 (Of my copy neways) which is what I assume you meant - otherwise he would have no-idea ramming existed.

If you did mean p69 then that new player would know exactly what to do if he rammed a vehicle.

Yes, okay he may need to be told how to start the ramming action and apply the ramming exception.

Thanks for proving yourself wrong. I am sorry you dont believe that (6 lines down, 5 words in top the top right of p69) the rules are clear.

@sourclams:

i'll change it then

rules for tanks = main set
tankshock = subset A condition 1 non-vehicle
ramming = subset A condition 2 vehicle

Doesnt change what you perform. Still either subset A condition 1 OR 2.

Boni to subset A condition 1 do apply in condition 1.
Boni to subset A condition 1 do not apply to condition 2.

Where are my rusty spoons...

There is no spoon...

Razerous wrote:

The rules for ramming are on P69 (Of my copy neways) which is what I assume you meant - otherwise he would have no-idea ramming existed.

No, I mean page 68, where all the Tank Shock rules are located.

If you did mean p69 then that new player would know exactly what to do if he rammed a vehicle.

The new player would be allowed to drive around terrain and intervening models to gain advantageous hits on side or rear armor, because he doesn't know it's disallowed, because he's not following the rules for Tank Shock!. It's like firing orbital bombardments from inside a moving land raider. In other words, it's not following the rules.

Yes, okay he may need to be told how to start the ramming action and apply the ramming exception.

Because a Ram is a Tank Shock? Again, this is the blatant and obvious sticking point that you can't overcome.

I am sorry you dont believe that (6 lines down, 5 words in top the top right of p69) the rules are clear.

Which part of this says that a Ram isn't a tank shock? That's right, no part. Thanks for keeping the blinders on.

@sourclams:

i'll change it then

How many times have you changed it? You've gone from Poodles and White Poodles to Subset A and Subset B to Condition 1 non vehicle and Condition 2 Vehicle. How many terrible editions of your poorly constructed syllogism am I going to have to attempt to read before you can make a coherent point?

Anung Un Rama wrote:There is no spoon...

It is not the rusty spoons that gouge out my eyes...its the ridiculous repetition of the same arguments over and over and over and over and over...

sourclams wrote:

How many times have you changed it? You've gone from Poodles and White Poodles to Subset A and Subset B to Condition 1 non vehicle and Condition 2 Vehicle. How many terrible editions of your poorly constructed syllogism am I going to have to attempt to read before you can make a coherent point?

I try to write it easy enough for you ,therefore i have to change it.

But if it is so bad why not ignore it ?

And I was not the "inventor" of the poodles

Its up to you to construct a RAA tank-ram-shock if you please.

It doesn't change the use of "tankshock" and "ramming" in the BRB.

Centurian99 wrote:

Anung Un Rama wrote:There is no spoon...

It is not the rusty spoons that gouge out my eyes...its the ridiculous repetition of the same arguments over and over and over and over and over...

I NO RITE??? JUST LOCK THREAD!!!

1hadhq: Disprove the original poodle premise.

It's hilarious watching you try, like a puppy with giant feet tripping over itself.

Razerous wrote:Okay...

A ramming wife comes along and encounters a troop of imperial guard - whom get poodled out of the way.

The ramming wife continues along her path and encounters a vehicle and proceedes to white poodle it.

There is abserloutely no (standard) poodling going on when this happens.

Why are dogs involved when this explains it very clearly: BGB P.69(Right side, top para) = 6 lines down. 5 words in.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make, what does "the collision is resolved as follows" have anything to do with removing the clause that "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way" the 1st part of the paragraph you keep quoting (which you keep ignoring) says that ramming is a tank shock, PERIOD.

Issue Closed thank-you!!!!

Well ok for those of us that follow the INAT FAQ ver 2.0!!!

Sweet...

Yes in fact the deff rolla does inflict the D6 S10 hits in addition to the ramming hit!
Listed below in the FAQ, yes not 100% official but nothing gets closer but what is on the GW website, correct?


http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/225424.page

All anyone had to read is Ramming is tank shock!!! AS was pointed out Several times. It doesn't matter if it was a "special" kind, a "slowed" kind, a "Poodle" kind it is still a kind of Tank shock.

sourclams wrote:

drunkspleen wrote:That would be a good argument if not for the fact that I'm looking at my codex now and it definitely uses the singular form of "Any Tank Shock" so each "Tank Shock" made by the battlewagon still has a single "Victim Unit", which is the unit that recieves the D6 S10 hits.

That's your argument? Deff Rollas don't work for multiple tank shocks because the descriptor uses the singular? That's awesome. Seriously, nice.

Oh I'm sorry, I was under the impression RAW meant Rules as Written, not Rules as Extrapolated and Had Their Meaning Altered To Fit Sourclams' Preferred Result. The way it's written each tank shock has a single victim unit, that is what is written down, because of that, I surmise that the tank shock they are referring to is the effect that a tank shocking vehicle has on a unit, rather than the movement the vehicle is making. But you seem to think that if something uses the singular it can mean the multiple, I'll have to remember that next time I use Mind War and have to choose "any unengaged model" that I can actually pick as many models as I want.

nostromo wrote:The people who continue to claim ramming is not a special kind of tankshock still need to explain me how they are allowed to DECLARE a ram move at all.
You can't go about saying "i declare a ramming move", that's not described in the rules of ramming, so you're not allowed to declare a ram-move like that.
The only declaration described/allowed is the one for tank shock and the speed at which you intend to execute the move.

If I understand correctly you are claiming that the only way to execute a ram is to declare a Tank Shock with the parameter of full speed, but that's flawed because when you declare a tank shock you follow the tank shock rules down to the fact that when you come within 1" of an enemy vehicle you stop. While there's no allowance made for declaring a ram you have to naturally assume it can be done because frankly, the alternative is far too confusing.

Look, it's in the INAT FAQ, so it's done. It makes no sense that a boarding plank can be used on walkers without return hits either, but it CAN.

So stop arguing. RAW + clarification = yes deffrolla works on vehicles, AND they take the additional hit from the original ram. Have a nice day.

1hadhq wrote:

Makari wrote:Actually the Dog premise is screwed up...
It should be:
Rules for Tank=Dog
Tank shock= Poodle
Ramming = White Poodle.

easier to understand now that it is written properly?

My fault. i shoudn't use poodles.

So i'll grant the poor creature the emperors mercy.

Rules for tanks = main set
Tankshock = sub-set A
Ramming = sub set B

If you are member of the main set, you will use both sub sets.
If you are member of subset A, this won't allow you to use subset B and vice versa.
So if you get promoted in subset B, this doesn't change your rank in subset A

Someone grab a Venn Diagram, stat!

Thre is too much bad logic going around this thread.

Orks are top dog so we're trying to put them on a leash, but let's not screw the pooch here. You're barking up the wrong tree.

I don't think there is much way of getting the point across to people (like Sourclams, no offense) about this issue...

About the INAT faq: That is so not right about lots of things that ended up getting argued about in that INAT faq page...

But seriously, Sourclams, you had said before to explain why the dogs and poodles example doesn't work, HERE'S WHY: If dogs are tank shock and poodles are ramming, what are dogs? You can't say "I have a dog" a dog is a huge species of many different kinds, so it's a BIT more correct to say "Collies are Tank Shock, and Border Collies are Ramming", because that is a (very similar) class to the main one. BETTER than the damn poodle thing!!
Using my (collies to border collies) example, if the rule says a (collie) tank shock, that doesn't mean you can use (border collie) ramming, because while they are similar, they are NOT the same..

ALSO, I have another thing to add, but I will add it later when I get my thoughts together properly..


Off-Topic:

Drunkspleen wrote:Oh I'm sorry, I was under the impression RAW meant Rules as Written, not Rules as Extrapolated and Had Their Meaning Altered To Fit Sourclams' Preferred Result.

LOL that is the funniest thing I have heard all week! You mind if I add that for my sig?

Spellbound wrote:Look, it's in the INAT FAQ, so it's done. It makes no sense that a boarding plank can be used on walkers without return hits either, but it CAN.

So stop arguing. RAW + clarification = yes deffrolla works on vehicles, AND they take the additional hit from the original ram. Have a nice day.

Then you're going to love it when version 2.1 comes out...by Wednesday...

Eight Ball wrote:I don't think there is much way of getting the point across to people (like Sourclams, no offense) about this issue...

Seems like there's a lot of that going around. Still yet to see anyone who thinks the Deffrolla doesn't work answer any of the questions that undermine their position.... like 'how do I declare a Ram?'.

But seriously, Sourclams, you had said before to explain why the dogs and poodles example doesn't work, HERE'S WHY: If dogs are tank shock and poodles are ramming, what are dogs? You can't say "I have a dog" a dog is a huge species of many different kinds, so it's a BIT more correct to say "Collies are Tank Shock, and Border Collies are Ramming", because that is a (very similar) class to the main one. BETTER than the damn poodle thing!!
Using my (collies to border collies) example, if the rule says a (collie) tank shock, that doesn't mean you can use (border collie) ramming, because while they are similar, they are NOT the same..

You are so confused by the flaws in your argument you can't take a trick, poor fella. Do you realise you are making Sourclams' argument for him in this paragraph? If you try and get your dog into a club, you'll be able to get your border collie into the collie-fanciers' association. AKA things that affect tank shocking (all collies) also affect ramming (border collies) unless specifically otherwise stated.

Centurian99 wrote:Then you're going to love it when version 2.1 comes out...by Wednesday...

I hope this entry doesn't change as it was a good call in the version 2.0 INAT FAQ.

Oh? It changes things?

Why bother to answer the bulls*** about poodles when you could just look at the rulebook?

The Ork Codex makes explicit mention of "Any Tank Shock." Notice the use of a proper noun.

Going to the rulebook, we find exactly one matching section for Tank Shock and a section after that called Ramming.

English language agrees with me. John Spencer agrees with me. BRB agrees with me.

Boss Ardnutz wrote:

Eight Ball wrote:I don't think there is much way of getting the point across to people (like Sourclams, no offense) about this issue...

Seems like there's a lot of that going around. Still yet to see anyone who thinks the Deffrolla doesn't work answer any of the questions that undermine their position.... like 'how do I declare a Ram?'.

Drunkspleen wrote:If I understand correctly you are claiming that the only way to execute a ram is to declare a Tank Shock with the parameter of full speed, but that's flawed because when you declare a tank shock you follow the tank shock rules down to the fact that when you come within 1" of an enemy vehicle you stop. While there's no allowance made for declaring a ram you have to naturally assume it can be done because frankly, the alternative is far too confusing.

Ok folks, I'm going to lock this thread, not because my opinion is the most right (it ain't) but rather because we have several threads arguing the same thing over and over again and there is absolutely no new information being brought up just never-ending circular arguments.

The fact is, GW needs to answer this question in an official FAQ for everyone to agree on how it should be played no matter how you look at it.


As for the INAT FAQ (for those who care), in the 2.1 version that will be coming out tomorrow we have reversed our previous ruling and gone with the stance that Deff Rollas cannot be used with Rams (and also therefore that Reinforced Rams do not allow Trukks to Ram either).

I personally believe that the rules support the position Sourclams has been arguing:

Ramming is a type of Tank Shocking, similar to how a Morale Check is a type of Leadership Test. The Deff Rolla says it works with any Tank Shock and therefore it should function with a Ram. This would be the same concept as if there was a special rule that did D6 S10 hits to a unit when it took a Ld test. If a unit then had to take a Morale check would this not still be a Ld test? Of course it would and as such the rule would apply.


However, having said that, there are other factors to consider some of which being the fact that both the UKGT house rules this year (which I've gotten the chance to read a preview version of) and John Spencer are both ruling that Deff Rollas do not work with Ramming. With an issue that so divided and one that can have a pretty big impact on games we felt it behooved us to have our FAQ ruling the same way as these other two sources, especially since the argument either way really comes down to semantics.


So for those of you looking to play strictly by the RAW you just have to know that this is an issue you'll have to discuss with your opponent before the game, and for those playing in the UKGT or a tournament using the INAT FAQ this year, you will not be able to use Deff Rollas when ramming.

Beyond that, we'll all just have to wait until GW decides this issue worthy enough to include in their official FAQs.