.....reading your thread dracos.

Interesting points brought up in there (I'm wondering if squares and rectangles are more sheep and basketballs now, I know my semi-truck example is a basketball too :< )

I just have one more dumb question before we get back on topic...

What the hell is the rusty spon joke? Where did it come from?!

Saladfingers. Search on youtube!

Warboss Gutrip wrote:Hmmm... After much deliberation, and listening to both sides of the argument, as well as some rules lawyering, I must conclude that it is permissable to inflict D6 S10 hits on a vehicle. A special kind of tank shock is still undoubtedly a tank shock, after all!

The only reason why you believe this, Mr Gutrip, is because you are an ork player. Personally, I think that this rule is not one which can be decided on by arguments. Maybe something diplomatic, like a die, should be used to radomly decide whether or not you can inflict these hits. Otherwise, go with the tournement organisers opinion or house rules.

I believe it is so, Mr Spazzatar of Spain (personal joke), because the rule book states that ramming is "a special type of tank shock move". Therefore, it is clearly a tank shock. No-one has clearly undermined this, and therefore I believe it stands.

Warboss Gutrip wrote:I believe it is so, Mr Spazzatar of Spain (personal joke), because the rule book states that ramming is "a special type of tank shock move". Therefore, it is clearly a tank shock. No-one has clearly undermined this, and therefore I believe it stands.

I would be eager for you to demonstrate why my assumption that the phrase of a special kind of tank shock refers only to the movement while the deff rolla refers to the effects of said movement is incorrect. I feel it adequately demonstrates why the phrase "A ram is a special kind of tank shock move" is insufficient for a Deff Rolla to be used when Ramming a vehicle.

Warboss Gutrip wrote:I believe it is so, Mr Spazzatar of Spain (personal joke), because the rule book states that ramming is "a special type of tank shock move". Therefore, it is clearly a tank shock. No-one has clearly undermined this, and therefore I believe it stands.

But you wouldn't if you werent an ork player.

And also, special means different. Look it up in a dictionary. Mine says "distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual: a special occasion; to fix something special"
I really think this is not a debate that can be resolved until GW resolves it themselves.

Khaine wrote:

Warboss Gutrip wrote:I believe it is so, Mr Spazzatar of Spain (personal joke), because the rule book states that ramming is "a special type of tank shock move". Therefore, it is clearly a tank shock. No-one has clearly undermined this, and therefore I believe it stands.

But you wouldn't if you werent an ork player.

And also, special means different. Look it up in a dictionary. Mine says "distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual: a special occasion; to fix something special"
I really think this is not a debate that can be resolved until GW resolves it themselves.

A square is a special type of rectangle, but it is still a rectangle. It is 'distinguished or different' because of added rules, but it is still part of the main group.
Just like a ram is a special type of tank shock with some distinguishing rules... it is still defined as a tank shock, therefore it is one.
The target of a ram is the victim of an action that is a type of tank shock, deff rollas work.

Why do people keep arguing the same points, over and over?

Its crazy-silly and makes all involved look a little craaazzzy

Razerous wrote:Why do people keep arguing the same points, over and over?

Its crazy-silly and makes all involved look a little craaazzzy

It's almost 8am and I can't sleep due to a bad case of the flu. That's my excuse.

It's not really even worth it if the best the anti-rolla crowd can come up with is trying to spin 'type of tank shock move' as meaning that it is not a type of tank shock at all and only a similar movement. But here I sit.

Gorkamorka wrote:The target of a ram is the victim of an action that is a type of tank shock, deff rollas work.

I will just single out this bit.

Since a Tank Shock (as far as the Deff Rolla is concerned) has a single victim, who is the victim if the tank shock goes through two units?

Given that you got D6 S10 hits in 4th ed, the fluff states it woirks to crush vehicles, AND Rams are a form of Tank Shock, RAI pretty much conclusively proves you get it. RAW is less clear but in cases where it can go either way use RAI as a guide unless GW FAQ it.

Tank Shock in 4th, when the Ork Codex was weritten and HAD to be compatible with (hence no mention, ever, or running or ramming) allowed you to tank shock vehicles, if they had a lower AV on the facing you were shocking. The Deff rolla then definitely gave you D6 S10.

Now in 5th for some reason the exact same move, when you are told it is a subset of tankshock, doesnt work? Come on, in this case its pretty clear....

Drunkspleen wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:The target of a ram is the victim of an action that is a type of tank shock, deff rollas work.

I will just single out this bit.

Since a Tank Shock (as far as the Deff Rolla is concerned) has a single victim, who is the victim if the tank shock goes through two units?

IIRC, on a ram each unit you move through is 'tank shocked as normal'. Unclear, and I'm unsure about a normal tank shock move, but it seems to me that you resolve tank shocks on each unit, making them both a 'victim' for that particular effect.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:Since a Tank Shock (as far as the Deff Rolla is concerned) has a single victim, who is the victim if the tank shock goes through two units?

IIRC, on a ram each unit you move through is 'tank shocked as normal'. Unclear, and I'm unsure about a normal tank shock move, but it seems to me that you resolve tank shocks on each unit, making them both a 'victim' for that particular effect.

Gorkamorka is correct. All units in the path of the Tank Shocking vehicle are victims of the Tank Shock, and all non-vehicle units in the path of a Ramming vehicle are Tank Shocked per the rulebook.

The Green Git wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:Since a Tank Shock (as far as the Deff Rolla is concerned) has a single victim, who is the victim if the tank shock goes through two units?

IIRC, on a ram each unit you move through is 'tank shocked as normal'. Unclear, and I'm unsure about a normal tank shock move, but it seems to me that you resolve tank shocks on each unit, making them both a 'victim' for that particular effect.

Gorkamorka is correct. All units in the path of the Tank Shocking vehicle are victims of the Tank Shock, and all non-vehicle units in the path of a Ramming vehicle are Tank Shocked per the rulebook.

But by that definition, a tank shock is the effect inflicted on the unit, not the movement, and the ram effect is not the tank shock effect, which is what I'm trying to get at, even if a ram is a tank shock move, you can never inflict a tank shock on a vehicle, only infantry.

Victory! Time ter get krumpin! Thanks to all for the arguments, and rules assistance.

Oh my GOD what is it with you people. I play Orks, they are my only army. Deffrollas DO NOT work on vehicles.

You guys that dont get it, are only saying that so you have an easy way to bust up LRs and the like. Seriously why else would it mention the death or glory rule, with extra attacks? That makes no sense what so ever for use on a vehicle.

You TANKSHOCK INFANTRY ONLY.
You RAM vehicles ONLY

The Deffrolla is used to TANKSHOCK INFANTRY ONLY. Its that cut and dry. And trying to use FLUFF to say "yea so in the codex in those neat little stories that make said army sound like the baddest mofos in the game, it says they deffroll light vehicles and such"
Well big deal, Calgar apparently killed like 5 Avatars of Khaine and choked a demon to death with a giant platinum filled smile.
Fluff is only wrote up to make things sound good.

Seriously STOP trying to cheat on this. IF GW ever says ok fine we will ALLOW the deffrolla attack on vehicles Ill use it. But until that happens I wont, and neither should you.

KingCracker - except they worked perfectl well in 4th ed

Given you CANNOT state definitively with any rules support that you cannot use them, precedent is you CAN use them and the fluff says you can, saying someone is cheating is incorrect.

nosferatu1001 wrote:KingCracker - except they worked perfectl well in 4th ed

Given you CANNOT state definitively with any rules support that you cannot use them, precedent is you CAN use them and the fluff says you can, saying someone is cheating is incorrect.

Actually 4th edition isn't precedent, it's obsolete, it's really no basis for a rules discussion.

KingCracker wrote:
You TANKSHOCK INFANTRY ONLY.
You RAM vehicles ONLY

Ork Codex. "Deffrolla... Any Tank Shock"
Rulebook. "Ramming... is a ... tank shock"

So yeah, when you Tank Shock a vehicle it's called a Ram because a Ram is a type of tank shock, which is why Deffrollas work.

Zounds! The Rules as Written!

Drunkspleen wrote:

The Green Git wrote:All units in the path of the Tank Shocking vehicle are victims of the Tank Shock, and all non-vehicle units in the path of a Ramming vehicle are Tank Shocked per the rulebook.

But by that definition, a tank shock is the effect inflicted on the unit, not the movement, and the ram effect is not the tank shock effect, which is what I'm trying to get at, even if a ram is a tank shock move, you can never inflict a tank shock on a vehicle, only infantry.

Without getting into the Deff Rolla on vehicles call (that will only be cleared up with an errate from GW, it appears) the rules quite clearly state that a non-vehicle unit in the path of a Ramming vehicle are subject to Tank Shock. You can't argue that performing a Ram excludes Tank Shock because the rulebook says you CAN Tank Shock in the process of a Ram. You can also inflict more than one effect in the course of the move... again straight out of the rulebook. That's all I'm saying and on that point, Gorkamorka is correct.

In my opinion the Deff Rolla *should* be able to affect vehicles. I think the risk of putting armor 10 in easy reach of assaulting virtually guarantees the Battlewagon will be destroyed in short order and compensates for the game effect of D6 S10 hits. But that's a "How You Would Play It" call.

Drunkspleen wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:KingCracker - except they worked perfectl well in 4th ed

Given you CANNOT state definitively with any rules support that you cannot use them, precedent is you CAN use them and the fluff says you can, saying someone is cheating is incorrect.

Actually 4th edition isn't precedent, it's obsolete, it's really no basis for a rules discussion.

But it's a perfectly valid base for a RAI argument, which all of the anti-rolla crowd seem to avoid like the plague. Combined with the battlewagon entry it's fairly clear that they were intended to hit vehicles when they were written, and only the most obtuse rule interpretations change that at all in 5th ed.

Drunkspleen wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:KingCracker - except they worked perfectl well in 4th ed

Given you CANNOT state definitively with any rules support that you cannot use them, precedent is you CAN use them and the fluff says you can, saying someone is cheating is incorrect.

Actually 4th edition isn't precedent, it's obsolete, it's really no basis for a rules discussion.

Precedent for RAI = fine

There is still more weight on the "it works" side than there is on the "it doesnt work" as the rules, strictly read, allow it AND it used to be alowed in the version of the rules the codex was written for.

KingCracker wrote:Oh my GOD what is it with you people. I play Orks, they are my only army. Deffrollas DO NOT work on vehicles.

You guys that dont get it, are only saying that so you have an easy way to bust up LRs and the like. Seriously why else would it mention the death or glory rule, with extra attacks? That makes no sense what so ever for use on a vehicle.

You TANKSHOCK INFANTRY ONLY.
You RAM vehicles ONLY

The Deffrolla is used to TANKSHOCK INFANTRY ONLY. Its that cut and dry. And trying to use FLUFF to say "yea so in the codex in those neat little stories that make said army sound like the baddest mofos in the game, it says they deffroll light vehicles and such"
Well big deal, Calgar apparently killed like 5 Avatars of Khaine and choked a demon to death with a giant platinum filled smile.
Fluff is only wrote up to make things sound good.

Seriously STOP trying to cheat on this. IF GW ever says ok fine we will ALLOW the deffrolla attack on vehicles Ill use it. But until that happens I wont, and neither should you.

Listen to him.




Its still 2 seperate things, tankshock and ramming. The rulebook refers to both, cause we look at 'rules for tanks' here.

Does a walker get DOG against ramming? Why not worded tankshock if its the same?
Does a skimmer evade a ramming move? Why not worded tankshock if its the same?
Why is a tankshock explicit stated to affect non-vehicle units? Should it not be 1 rule with sub-effects against different units types if it is
just tankshock?

But GW decided to have "a special type" not the usual common standard type.


So if special means nothing to you, why should i not ask for special ammo because every marine carries a boltgun too?

No one calls a rectangle that has four equal length sides at right angles to each other a rectangle. They call it a square. Because that's what it is.

Similarly, no one calls a Ram a Tank Shock. There are two separate rule sets that govern both applications. A Ram may be a special kind of Tank Shock, but the difference between the two is the target.

You cannot "Tank Shock" a vehicle. That is called a "Ram." You can never refer to it as a "Tank Shock" because "Tank Shock" rules do not allow for a vehicle target. "Ram" rules allow for vehicle targets, and the Deff-Rolla rules say "Tank Shock."

You do not call a rectangle with four equal length sides a "rectangle." You call it a "square." Do you see the logic?

synchronicity wrote:
You do not call a rectangle with four equal length sides a "rectangle." You call it a "square." Do you see the logic?

Are you saying that a square doesn't count as a rectangle because it has an additional 'special' restriction? Is that what you're saying?

"A ram is a special type of tank shock move and is executed in the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of. Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal. If the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows."

A ram is a special type of tank shock that has a movement speed restriction and has rules for targeting a vehicle. See how simple that was? It also happens to be how the rules are written.

DO ANY OF YOU GUYS REALLY THINK YOU CAN ADD SOMETHING NEW TO THIS DISCUSSION?

PLEASE GROW UP, PUT YOUR EPEENS BACK IN YOUR PANTS AND GO READ THE PREVIOUS GAZILLION THREADS!

Think it is wrong of me to "yell"? Too bad.

Gorkamorka wrote:

synchronicity wrote:
You do not call a rectangle with four equal length sides a "rectangle." You call it a "square." Do you see the logic?

Are you saying that a square doesn't count as a rectangle because it has an additional 'special' restriction? Is that what you're saying?

Yes.

People will, and have, argued the RAW in circles. So really, the only logical thing left to discuss is How You Would play It.

As an Ork player, and being a follower of the old adage 'in a situation where a rules discussion cannot be resolved, one should always defer to the result that offers them the least advantage'.

So, thusly shall I continue to not try to get d6 extra s10 hits when I ram vehicles.

Also, I think that the INAT FAQ makes a lot of sense, and that it influences how I will play, which is another strike against the Deffrolla, even though I think that the rules as written suggests that they should.

synchronicity wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:

synchronicity wrote:
You do not call a rectangle with four equal length sides a "rectangle." You call it a "square." Do you see the logic?

Are you saying that a square doesn't count as a rectangle because it has an additional 'special' restriction? Is that what you're saying?

Yes.

I rest my case.

synchronicity wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:

synchronicity wrote:
You do not call a rectangle with four equal length sides a "rectangle." You call it a "square." Do you see the logic?

Are you saying that a square doesn't count as a rectangle because it has an additional 'special' restriction? Is that what you're saying?

Yes.

Then you are incorrect: A square is, mathematically, a rectangle with 4 equal sides.

Same as a ram is a tank shock with some restrictions.

Except that in the rulebook a Ram is not a subsection of Tank Shock, making it its own action. While they are related, they are not the same. Read my previous post for my full analysis.

Except that if you rip out the page that details how to perform a Tank Shock you no longer have any idea how to Ram because, as a special type of Tank Shock, the rules are irrevocably enmeshed in the Ramming maneuver.

Ram is a subsection of Tank Shock, and it even tells you so - "any non vehicle is Tank Shocked as normal" (paraphrased badly there) which indicates that a ram is still considered part of a Tank Shock rule.

A ram is a special form of Tank Shock, and requires you to use both Tank Shock AND Ram rules to execute it. It is a subset of the Tank Shock rules, much like a transport vehicle is a special type of vehicle - if you remove the surrounding rules you simply cannot use it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

synchronicity wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:

synchronicity wrote:
You do not call a rectangle with four equal length sides a "rectangle." You call it a "square." Do you see the logic?

Are you saying that a square doesn't count as a rectangle because it has an additional 'special' restriction? Is that what you're saying?

Yes.

Then you are incorrect: A square is, mathematically, a rectangle with 4 equal sides.

Same as a ram is a tank shock with some restrictions.

I am not arguing mathematics, I am arguing rules and restrictions. But if you want math, I will also point out that squares have special rules. If given the knowledge that an object is a square and the length of one of it's sides, you can conclude through mathematics the lengths of the other three sides.

However, if a rectangle is required to cover the surface area of exactly twice it's height, it can, because rectangle rules allow it. The length can be double the height, and still be a rectangle. A square cannot fulfill this requirement. If the situational requirements of a rectangle are impossible for a square to fill, then how can you expect it to?

Therefore, it is illogical to assume that a Tank Shock can perform the same job that a Ram can simply because a Ram inherits some rules from Tank Shocks. The rules governing the implementation of both actions are different. A square has special rules. A Ram has special rules. The rules for Deff Rolling specify Tank Shock, not Tank Shock and Ramming.

What I'm trying to say is that you can't ask a square to do a rectangles job UNLESS that rectangle's job requires a shape with 4 equal sides. You can't ask a Tank Shock to do a Ram's job unless the Tank Shock's target is a vehicle.

I rest MY case.

You're confused it seems: the square is "ram", the rectangle is Tank shock. Tank Shock describes the general case of which Ram is a special case.

Ram inherits rules from Tank shock, without which it cannot function. Ram is written with differences to Tank shock, not the other way around.

You are specifically told Ram is a special Tank Shock. Deff rolla work with ALL Tank Shocks, therefore it works with ramming.

Ram == Special Tank Shock == subset (All Tank shock) => Deff rolla works.

You're right, I did mess those two sentences up in my third and fourth paragraphs. Edited

However, the concept still applies if --- ah screw it. If I'm ever in a situation where my opponent tries to Deff Roll my skimmers, I'll just roll my 3+ skimmer avoidance roll.

Oh wait, I suppose I can't do that since it's a Tank Shock and not a Ram. How is that fair?

Another one of these threads? Really?

No definative answer should mean one thing. Ask the group you play with what they think and then go with whatever outcome you and your group finds the most fun in playing.

Unless you like reading pages and pages of endless argument over a topic thats been going on since 5th came out.

synchronicity wrote:You're right, I did mess those two sentences up in my third and fourth paragraphs. Edited

However, the concept still applies if --- ah screw it. If I'm ever in a situation where my opponent tries to Deff Roll my skimmers, I'll just roll my 3+ skimmer avoidance roll.

Oh wait, I suppose I can't do that since it's a Tank Shock and not a Ram. How is that fair?

You're apparently even more confused than you initially appeared. Skimmers work on ramming, a specific action that happens to be a subset of tank shock. You can avoid a ram with a skimmer all you like, the fact that ramming is a subset of tank shocking has no bearing on this fact.
The only thing unclear here is the deff rolla rules, since the language on what constitutes a 'victim' (is the deff rolla performing the action enough, even if you avoid the ram hit?) and when the hits are applied is unclear (especially since the FAQ states that you take the full 2d6 hits even if you destroy or immobilize the tank with a death or glory).
I would bet on RAI being that the rolla attacks are also avoided, but the raw seems unclear to me.

Fairness has no place in a RAW argument.

Regardless of how closely related they are, a Ram is not a Tank Shock. Continually the phrase from the book is misquoted to prove that it is.

A Ram is a special type of tank shock move, not a Tank Shock. The grammatical difference has specific denotations, which is that they are in fact different actions.

And to those arguing that a Ram is a subsection of Tank Shock, why is it an equal subheading? In order for it to be considered a subsection, it would have to be a lesser order subheading. It is not, and thus basic reading skills tell us that it is not a subsection. Rather, Tank Shock and Ramming are subsections of Tanks, each their own separate, yet related moves.

Dracos wrote:Regardless of how closely related they are, a Ram is not a Tank Shock. Continually the phrase from the book is misquoted to prove that it is.

A Ram is a special type of tank shock move, not a Tank Shock. The grammatical difference has specific denotations, which is that they are in fact different actions.

And to those arguing that a Ram is a subsection of Tank Shock, why is it an equal subheading? In order for it to be considered a subsection, it would have to be a lesser order subheading. It is not, and thus basic reading skills tell us that it is not a subsection. Rather, Tank Shock and Ramming are subsections of Tanks, each their own separate, yet related moves.

Oh look, another one!

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ram is a subsection of Tank Shock, and it even tells you so - "any non vehicle is Tank Shocked as normal" (paraphrased badly there) which indicates that a ram is still considered part of a Tank Shock rule.

A ram is a special form of Tank Shock, and requires you to use both Tank Shock AND Ram rules to execute it. It is a subset of the Tank Shock rules, much like a transport vehicle is a special type of vehicle - if you remove the surrounding rules you simply cannot use it.

That phrase does in no way say that the Ram counts as a Tank Shock. Just because a Ram causes Tank Shock to intervening infantry does not mean that a Ram counts as a Tank Shock. Moreover, even your own comparaison negates your scenario since the Transport is a subsection in the Vehicle rules, whereas the both Tank Shock and Ramming are equal order subsections of Tanks. This means that while a transport is certainly a subsection of vehicles, Ramming is NOT a subsection of Tank shock.

So far I have not seen one shred of logical proof as to why a Ram counts as a Tank Shock.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorkamorka wrote:Oh look, another one!

Another what?

Well, it seems I am woefully inadequate when it comes to getting my argument across with regards to this matter, since it seems only one person I have discussed it with understood it.

So I will throw in the towel for now and wait till I finish my thesis on "Why a Ram is not a Tank Shock and what this means for cultural minorities in todays society"

I agree with Drunkspleen and nosferatu1001

Dracos wrote:
So far I have not seen one shred of logical proof as to why a Ram counts as a Tank Shock.

"A Ram is a special type of tank shock...."

dietrich wrote:There is no consensus opinion. This issue is about 50/50 on either side of the debate. Just to make it more confusing, in the second round of Ard Boyz, it worked, and in the finals (if I remember correctly), it didn't. So, not even the national tourney run by GW US Sales can make up their mind! The INAT FAQ, which is probably the most widely used fan-made FAQ says that you can't. So, I would default to that position.

Well just to be clear on that 'faq'. Yak stated they were changing the faq based on a hypothetical thought that gw was going to 'officially' rule that way.

Take the inat faq with a grain of salt.

sourclams wrote:

Dracos wrote:
So far I have not seen one shred of logical proof as to why a Ram counts as a Tank Shock.

"A Ram is a special type of tank shock...."

And as always when this passage is quoted by supporters of deffrollas hitting vehicles, your forget the word "move" at the end. I already posted a refutation to what you are claiming, I think it can be found on page 2.

The reason the word move is important on the end is because it means that it is a special type of move with the move verb modified by the tank shock description. A ram is a type of movement related to but not identical to tank shocking. I believe that sentence is to show how they are alike, you seem to be interpreting it to mean that a Ram is a subsection of Tank Shock. The structure of the rules do not support the latter interpretation imo.

This is bugging me, The line that is quoted over and over again is that very vauge line from the rule book

"A ram is a special kind of tank shock move"

SO this indicates that there are many different kind of tank shocks, like rectangles. So the question now is "Which tank shocks can we actually use our deffrollas in and which ones can't we?"

That is a good question, one which I will leave the rules lawyers to answer.

Edit: And you know we all played too many fighting games, we think of a move as a whole entire action...like hadoken.

After reading all the arguments, i think that you can deff rolla vehicles. Except I dont think that it was GW intention, and that it is just a bit of ork player rule bending so they can blow up landraiders etc.
Doesent make any difference to me, my grav tanks will just dodge!
Go get squashing leman russes. Enjoy!

Khaine wrote:After reading all the arguments, i think that you can deff rolla vehicles. Except I dont think that it was GW intention, and that it is just a bit of ork player rule bending so they can blow up landraiders etc.Enjoy!

So the fact that rollas 100% worked on vehicles in the edition the codex was written and that the codex fluff description specifically mentions them crushing vehicles leads you to the conclusion that RAI is against them working and players are rule bending for an advantage (aka cheating)?

Gorkamorka wrote:and that the codex fluff description specifically mentions them crushing vehicles

Almost, it says they crush 'light vehicles'

If people used this against buggies, rhinos, and other light vehicles I don't think there would be a problem with using this line to defend the deffrolla from RAI standpoint...(and actually, a regular ram as per ramming rules is actually more than enough to crush these vehicles.)

but explain to me how a land raider is a "light vehicle"

I can't believe I just read this entire thread.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, LEAVE THIS ALONE!

starbomber109 wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:and that the codex fluff description specifically mentions them crushing vehicles

Almost, it says they crush 'light vehicles'

If people used this against buggies, rhinos, and other light vehicles I don't think there would be a problem with using this line to defend the deffrolla from RAI standpoint...(and actually, a regular ram as per ramming rules is actually more than enough to crush these vehicles.)

but explain to me how a land raider is a "light vehicle"

Light vehicles are still vehicles. If it works against one it works against the other, however unfair you feel it is.

I'm willing to entertain any RAI discussion against it that isn't "It would break off cuz it's just welded to the front!"

AV 12- = Light Vehicle

AV 13+ = Heavy Vehicle

That's what I'd say.

Orkeosaurus wrote:AV 12- = Light Vehicle

AV 13+ = Heavy Vehicle

That's what I'd say.

What about the vehicles in between who eat right and get regular exercise?

sourclams wrote:

6 months ago the INAT FAQ actually allowed it. They later flipped their stance, so it's not even that clear to the people writing the FAQ.

Question then is why did they flip=flop? Wouldn't have anything to do with a conference call with the studio, would it? Or to match the UK GT FAQs.... ? In other words, they "flip-flopped" so as to match what GW said on the issue.

If it is truly "what GW said on the issue" why isnt it in the main FAQ?

UK GT FAQ /= Studio FAQ

nosferatu1001 wrote:If it is truly "what GW said on the issue" why isnt it in the main FAQ?

UK GT FAQ /= Studio FAQ

Because they only answer questions that they think are unclear. They must think this one is obvious (as do I)...................

Edit: Altho I will agree that many times their choice of what to answer and what not to answer leaves me baffled.

don_mondo wrote: Because they only answer questions that they think are unclear. They must think this one is obvious (as do I)...................

Good to see you believe that the DeffRolla being able to TS another vehicle is obvious as well. The obvious thing to me is that this is not clear and will only be so after an official ruling is made by GW. This could easily be cleared up by a 10 second edit of the FAQ.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

don_mondo wrote: Because they only answer questions that they think are unclear. They must think this one is obvious (as do I)...................

Good to see you believe that the DeffRolla being able to TS another vehicle is obvious as well. The obvious thing to me is that this is not clear and will only be so after an official ruling is made by GW. This could easily be cleared up by a 10 second edit of the FAQ.

No when you've gotten to the point where the issue boils down to certain people 'confuse' IS with IS NOT, faq's won't help, Forumposts won't help anymore either.
There is no unclear, it either IS or IS NOT. It's as black and white as it'll ever get.

A Ram Attack is a parallelogram.
A Tank Shock Attack is a rectangle.
Both are quadrilaterals.

The movement for attacking is a Quadilateral.

When you tank shock it is infantry. When you Ram it is a vehicle. These are mutually exclusive with minor overlapping areas. The movement is the overlapping area.

Removing the word move from "A Ram is a special tank shock move" makes your logical fallible because you are changing the topic from tank shock move to tank shock. Tank Shock Move != Tank Shock. Tank Shock move is a subordinate of Tank Shock. Tank Shock Attack is the other Subordinate.

This logic goes around and around but the fact that there is horrendous logic in this makes it into a shouting match about who is loudest. Just because you yell louder does not make your case correct. You have to refute the points - and yelling the same thing over and over again does not refute the points made by the opposition.

Under Tank Shock Rules it says that you must stop when you come within 1" of a vehicle. A Deff Rolla states that it gives D6 S10 hits in a tank shock. It does not say that it gives D6 S10 hits in a Ram. A Ram is used against a vehicle - not a tank shock. You can tank shock infantry units during a Ram. Both a Ram and a Tank Shock are Tank Shock moves. I said Moves because a Tank Shock Move is the rectangle in this case - Tank shock is a red square and Ram is a yellow square. A red square != a yellow square. Just like an infantry unit is not a vehicle.



And as for the Fluff: Bikes are light vehicles which can be tank shocked. Transports are light vehicles that can be rammed. Bikes satisfy the fluff aspect. Transports do not. I've solved your fluff argument about allowing light vehicles (in fluff terminology) to be hit by the Deff Rolla without allowing vehicles (in 40K terminology) to be hit by the deff rolla.

don_mondo wrote:Edit: Altho I will agree that many times their choice of what to answer and what not to answer leaves me baffled.

Remember the third edition Ork codex FAQ? (and I'm paraphrashing here, but it's pretty close)
Question, "Can a looted rhino carry orks? In the SM codex, it says that its transport capacity is 10 Space Marines."
Answer, "I shouldn't bother recognizing this question by answering it. (but the answer is yes)."

Personally, until GW says otherwise, I agree wth sourclams, but I'm pretty much willing to d6 before the game starts.

The broken oddity about some 5th Edition codexes is the concept of Tank Squadrons as a "unit". If you are one who adheres to the belief that a Deff Rolla can execute a Ramming attack, then you could inflict d6 S10 hits on a squadron. This would suggest that Deff Rolla could possibly take out an entire tank squadron by ramming a single vehicle.

Quite broken, and that it itself is enough to suggest that this is not how the Rolla is used.

Except squadrons existed in 4th, when a deff rolla could do exactly what you described to anything witha lower AV facing than the deff rollas AV14.

Fact: Deff rolla worked against 90% of vehicles in 4th ed
Fact: The fluff describes them destroying light vehicles
Fact: Ram is a special form of Tank Shock move - a move of type Tank Shock. Same as Transport is a unit of type: Vehicle.

Both fluff, precedent (of when the codex was actually written) AND the wording of ramming indicates it works.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except squadrons existed in 4th, when a deff rolla could do exactly what you described to anything witha lower AV facing than the deff rollas AV14.

Fact: Deff rolla worked against 90% of vehicles in 4th ed
Fact: The fluff describes them destroying light vehicles
Fact: Ram is a special form of Tank Shock move - a move of type Tank Shock. Same as Transport is a unit of type: Vehicle.

Both fluff, precedent (of when the codex was actually written) AND the wording of ramming indicates it works.

Fluff may permit a Deff Rolla destroying vehicles...but does it allow destroying an entire squadron of vehicles? No.
Unless you would suggest that a Deff Rolla in the fluff can roll over 3 vehicles with a single run...

Che-Vito wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except squadrons existed in 4th, when a deff rolla could do exactly what you described to anything witha lower AV facing than the deff rollas AV14.

Fact: Deff rolla worked against 90% of vehicles in 4th ed
Fact: The fluff describes them destroying light vehicles
Fact: Ram is a special form of Tank Shock move - a move of type Tank Shock. Same as Transport is a unit of type: Vehicle.

Both fluff, precedent (of when the codex was actually written) AND the wording of ramming indicates it works.

Fluff may permit a Deff Rolla destroying vehicles...but does it allow destroying an entire squadron of vehicles? No.
Unless you would suggest that a Deff Rolla in the fluff can roll over 3 vehicles with a single run...

The wording is actually that deff rolla battlewagons drive around 'steamrolling enemy infantry and light vehicles'. So yes.
Just like infantry who assault one side of a squadron and don't even have LOS to the rest can score multiple hits and cause the same situation.

And again, how fair you think a rule is has no bearing on how it is written or was intended to work.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except squadrons existed in 4th, when a deff rolla could do exactly what you described to anything witha lower AV facing than the deff rollas AV14.

Fact: Deff rolla worked against 90% of vehicles in 4th ed
Fact: The fluff describes them destroying light vehicles
Fact: Ram is a special form of Tank Shock move - a move of type Tank Shock. Same as Transport is a unit of type: Vehicle.

Both fluff, precedent (of when the codex was actually written) AND the wording of ramming indicates it works.

Fluff may permit a Deff Rolla destroying vehicles...but does it allow destroying an entire squadron of vehicles? No.
Unless you would suggest that a Deff Rolla in the fluff can roll over 3 vehicles with a single run...

The wording is actually that deff rolla battlewagons drive around 'steamrolling enemy infantry and light vehicles'. So yes.
Just like infantry who assault one side of a squadron and don't even have LOS to the rest can score multiple hits and cause the same situation.

And again, how fair you think a rule is has no bearing on how it is written or was intended to work.

Yes, my opinion to RAW is irrelevant...but the RAW has been consistently argued from both sides.
In fact, the beauty of the situation is that both our opinions are irrelevant

Che-Vito wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except squadrons existed in 4th, when a deff rolla could do exactly what you described to anything witha lower AV facing than the deff rollas AV14.

Fact: Deff rolla worked against 90% of vehicles in 4th ed
Fact: The fluff describes them destroying light vehicles
Fact: Ram is a special form of Tank Shock move - a move of type Tank Shock. Same as Transport is a unit of type: Vehicle.

Both fluff, precedent (of when the codex was actually written) AND the wording of ramming indicates it works.

Fluff may permit a Deff Rolla destroying vehicles...but does it allow destroying an entire squadron of vehicles? No.
Unless you would suggest that a Deff Rolla in the fluff can roll over 3 vehicles with a single run...

The wording is actually that deff rolla battlewagons drive around 'steamrolling enemy infantry and light vehicles'. So yes.
Just like infantry who assault one side of a squadron and don't even have LOS to the rest can score multiple hits and cause the same situation.

And again, how fair you think a rule is has no bearing on how it is written or was intended to work.

Yes, my opinion to RAW is irrelevant...but the RAW has been consistently argued from both sides.
In fact, the beauty of the situation is that both our opinions are irrelevant

Well, at least my opinion is how the rules work in this case. You're arguing that even if rollas work on vehicles it doesn't make sense for them to work on vehicle squadrons, which just isn't how the game works.
Despite how dumb you may think it is that I can only see one of your tanks for shooting or can only hit one of them in my assault but can still end up destroying the whole squad, that's just how it works.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except squadrons existed in 4th, when a deff rolla could do exactly what you described to anything witha lower AV facing than the deff rollas AV14.

Fact: Deff rolla worked against 90% of vehicles in 4th ed
Fact: The fluff describes them destroying light vehicles
Fact: Ram is a special form of Tank Shock move - a move of type Tank Shock. Same as Transport is a unit of type: Vehicle.

Both fluff, precedent (of when the codex was actually written) AND the wording of ramming indicates it works.

Fluff may permit a Deff Rolla destroying vehicles...but does it allow destroying an entire squadron of vehicles? No.
Unless you would suggest that a Deff Rolla in the fluff can roll over 3 vehicles with a single run...

The wording is actually that deff rolla battlewagons drive around 'steamrolling enemy infantry and light vehicles'. So yes.
Just like infantry who assault one side of a squadron and don't even have LOS to the rest can score multiple hits and cause the same situation.

And again, how fair you think a rule is has no bearing on how it is written or was intended to work.

Yes, my opinion to RAW is irrelevant...but the RAW has been consistently argued from both sides.
In fact, the beauty of the situation is that both our opinions are irrelevant

Well, at least my opinion is how the rules work in this case. You're arguing that even if rollas work on vehicles it doesn't make sense for them to work on vehicle squadrons, which just isn't how the game works.
Despite how dumb you may think it is that I can only see one of your tanks for shooting or can only hit one of them in my assault but can still end up destroying the whole squad, that's just how it works.

The dilemma is that it is not clear on how this works...so you cannot claim that you are correct in this matter.
Pages of countless threads prove this...and being on Ork player only takes away from credibility.

I'm done with this, as you've presented nothing that hasn't been presented, and refuted, and represented...a hundred times.
Three cheers for grey areas!

Che-Vito wrote:

The dilemma is that it is not clear on how this works...so you cannot claim that you are correct in this matter.
Pages of countless threads prove this...and being on Ork player only takes away from credibility.

I'm done with this, as you've presented nothing that hasn't been presented, and refuted, and represented...a hundred times.
Three cheers for grey areas!

The rules are entirely clear on what multiple hits on part of a squadron looks like, even from an attack that can't hit the rest, sorry. Feel free to refute though.
Also, the fact that you're a non-Ork player removes an equal amount of credibility if you're going to play that card. Everyone has something to gain.

Even if both sides back down and agree the RAW is at best unclear (which niether side thinks it is) the RAI is clearly in support of it working on vehicles, and that should probably be how it is played until a definitive answer is given.

Rogueeyes has it EXACTLY right. Which is what I said, and was ignored.

Tank shock = infantry attack
Ram = Vehicle attack


Its that simple. It doesnt matter if the rules say special or not. Thats the way of it. Honestly what is so HARD to understand about this?

KingCracker wrote:Gorkamorka has it EXACTLY right. Which is what I said, and was ignored.

tank shock = An action involving movement that has an effect on infantry
Ram = A special type of tank shock with additional rules for affecting vehicles and a movement restriction
At no point in the rules for tank shocking or ramming are effects 'Tank Shock' and 'Ram' differentiated or even specified.

Its that simple. That's the way of it. Honestly what is so HARD to understand about this?

Gorkamorka wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Gorkamorka has it EXACTLY right. Which is what I said, and was ignored.

tank shock = An action involving movement that has an effect on infantry
Ram = A special type of tank shock with additional rules for affecting vehicles and a movement restriction
At no point in the rules for tank shocking or ramming are effects 'Tank Shock' and 'Ram' differentiated or even specified.

Its that simple. That's the way of it. Honestly what is so HARD to understand about this?

Nice trick. Sadly youre take on 'rules for tanks' needs you to reread them.

Doesnt change that KingCracker and Rogueeyes have it right and youre not.

I have played against an Ork player that used Deff Rolla, with them being able to wipe out squadrons of vehicles and never thought much of it at the time. On reading these heated posts I thought I would actually see for myself what the fuss is about.

The rule clearly states that in tank shock, the deff rolla gives the player D6 S 10 hits. It then goes on to say that if the unit elects to make a death or glory attack, it then receives another D6 S10 hits. I did not know vehicles could make death or glory attacks. Since the term elects is used, it clearly expects that the target can make such an election.

That aside, for 20 points, the tank is armed with a weapon that can cause a large number of S10 hits but these hits appear to have no AP ability. Thus even a unit that saves only on a 6 has a chance of survival. Seems very odd for something that can take down a Landraider.

With the introduction of squadron rules, multiple hits on one target can effectively remove the entire squadron. If the Deff Rolla is allowed to do this, then that is 20 points well spent.

The alternative to the Deff Rolla is the Reinforced Ram. Here the rules are interesting as this Ram allows the vehicle to tank shock and increases its armor by two for Death or Glory. Now with the current 5th edition, the Battle Wagon can tank shock anyway as it is an open topped tank. The only other place it seems to be available is with the Looted Vehicle and that is also defined as a tank. Clearly there is a disconnect in the rules here.

It seems to me that these rules are not written with 5th edition in mind at all. I can now understand why the INAT FAQ now prevents Deff Rolla from being used against vehicles. Personally I plan to use the INAT FAQ rulings, although since I only use a few skimmers in my own army, I really do not much care which ruling my opponent uses for Deff Rolla. Which of course is no conclusion at all!!

horsa wrote:The rule clearly states that in tank shock, the deff rolla gives the player D6 S 10 hits. It then goes on to say that if the unit elects to make a death or glory attack, it then receives another D6 S10 hits. I did not know vehicles could make death or glory attacks.

Walkers.

Please learn the rules before posting.

horsa wrote:
It seems to me that these rules are not written with 5th edition in mind at all. I can now understand why the INAT FAQ now prevents Deff Rolla from being used against vehicles. Personally I plan to use the INAT FAQ rulings, although since I only use a few skimmers in my own army, I really do not much care which ruling my opponent uses for Deff Rolla. Which of course is no conclusion at all!!

QFT.

I dunno why the fluff of them being able to takeout "light" vehicles keeps being brought up when it is clearly not the main target of the Ork players. KingCracker said it best earlier when he said Ork players are so adamant about it working so they can pop AV14 vehicles..... period.

I am sorry but your thrown together spikey Wheel 'o' Death is gonna fold up when you ram a Raider or a Monolith, period. Whether the fluff supports light vehicles or not means nothing when you are talking d6 str10 hits which pops the toughest of vehicles out there 1/3 of the time.

RAW/RAI arguments are a waste of time in my opinion, but the common sense on this is so cut and dry it should'nt be an issue. It still is one however because Orks have a large player base for arguing their side, and have a hell of a time with AV14. This is a cheap and very effective way of dealing with that for them, and I do not see them giving the argument up. Until it is inevitably released by GW that their 20pt upgrade was not intended for ramming AV14 vehicles, or any other vehicle for that matter.

Oddly enough I dont play Orks, and still think it works. Mainly as it did in 4th and the language used in ramming / tank shocking still supports it (such as you hit non-vehicle units with a Tank shock as normal....which if it was something entirely different yiou wouldnt do)

So you have RAI from fluff and precedent, and the RAW is unclear - go for which side the RAI is on.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Oddly enough I dont play Orks, and still think it works. Mainly as it did in 4th and the language used in ramming / tank shocking still supports it (such as you hit non-vehicle units with a Tank shock as normal....which if it was something entirely different yiou wouldnt do)

So you have RAI from fluff and precedent, and the RAW is unclear - go for which side the RAI is on.

RAI - You aren't the creator, and fluff hasn't implied that a single Ork vehicle with a Deff Rolla has the ability to steamroll a whole squadron of Leman Russ tanks in a single turn. Precedent, doesn't mean much.

RAW - Unclear, and I won't be playing against players that play RAP as you have suggested.

Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock move, not a special type of Tank Shock.

And very much not a subset.

So far the two common themes of the past 2 pages seem to be:

"Deff Rolla-ing squadrons isn't balanced" -- This is entirely subjective. Ramming can be executed against multiple targets if the first is destroyed so RAW isn't much of a counterargument for being able to execute multiple results across a squadron, and the Ork army has glaring weaknesses to AV14 so 'Balance' isn't much of a counterargument either; the army is already imbalanced negatively.

"Tank shock moves and Tank Shock aren't the same thing" -- This one seems patently ridiculous. It's like saying a Psychic Shooting Attack isn't a Shooting Attack because it's PSYCHIC; therefore I can ignore cover and wound allocation to snipe unique models.

If a Tank Shock move isn't a Tank Shock then Winged Daemon Princes don't roll for dangerous terrain because they're not jump infantry -- they just move like them -- and Mind War ignores cover because it's shooting attack is psychic.

The underlying root of all the DeffRolla hate seems to be because people think it's unbalanced. I'm pretty sure that if it was D6 S5 hits nobody would give a gak because the effect isn't game-changing.

To that, all I say is: Deffrollas are not impossible to beat, even if you allow them against vehicle squadrons, even if they have KFF. If you're the type of player that gets ROFLstomped by the guy with Orks at your club, then you need to improve your game, not make up reasons why wargear doesn't work against your army.

Che-Vito wrote:RAI - You aren't the creator, and fluff hasn't implied that a single Ork vehicle with a Deff Rolla has the ability to steamroll a whole squadron of Leman Russ tanks in a single turn. Precedent, doesn't mean much.

Do you mean like the squadrons of pirahnas that they used to rolla through in 4th ed? You seem to believe that Squadrons are new, just because IG have suddenly got them. And oddly enough the fluff, from 4th ed, hasnt mentioned something that wasnt created until the 5th ed IG codex....

And in 4th a deff rolla COULD steamroller LR, just as long as it was not to the front - which again people are seemingly glossing over. Deffrollas hit vehicles in 4th ed just fine, the only vehicles they COULDN'T hit - monolith and LR, everything else had a facing which wasnt AV14.

As for Intent - well when the rules were written, the clearest possible sign of intent of the CODEX designer, "ramming" (damaging a vehicle in tank shock) worked. You have what now? Oh right, sorry - no argumetn based on RAI at all.

You have "I dont think they should steam roller Squadrons" - which isnt a rules argument.

Che-Vito wrote:RAW - Unclear, and I won't be playing against players that play RAP as you have suggested.

Despite it being on the side of RAI? Given you have no evidence the other side you cant actually dispute this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock move, not a special type of Tank Shock.

And very much not a subset.

Except that a Tank Shock is a special type of move:

BRB p68 wrote:the player can declare tha tthe vehicle is going to attempt to make a tank shock attack instead of moving normally

So instead of moving normally, you perform a tank shock move.

So a subset of Tank Shock moves is the Ram, a special Tank Shock move.

Still a subset.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ram is a subsection of Tank Shock, and it even tells you so - "any non vehicle is Tank Shocked as normal" (paraphrased badly there) which indicates that a ram is still considered part of a Tank Shock rule.

I disagree. The language "Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal" BGB p. 69 is evidence that a Ram is not a Tank Shock.

1. That language refers to the vehicle performing the action as a "ramming tank" not a "tank shocking tank"
2. If it were a tank shock, why would the rule need to tell you that nonvehicle units are tank shocked? You'd know that already because you're doing a tank shock, and we already know what happens to nonvehicle units when they get tank shocked. Your interpretation would make that entire sentence completely superfluous. It isn't fluff, so we know GW intended for that language to have an actual in-game effect.

sourclams wrote:The underlying root of all the DeffRolla hate seems to be because people think it's unbalanced. I'm pretty sure that if it was D6 S5 hits nobody would give a gak because the effect isn't game-changing.

The underlying root of all the "Deffrollas work on vehicles" sentiment seems to be people mistakenly thinking that taking a few words out of context and ignoring the rest of the sentence/section equals a RAW argument.

Balance is entirely irrelevant to a rules interpretation issue, and yet here you are arguing that people who disagree with you are just "deffrolla haters." Bias is easy to attack. The language of the rules distinguishing Rams from Tank Shocks is a bit tougher. So you've chosen to attack bias. Predictable.

Here are some non-balance arguments (not by me) which have yet to be refuted, and which will require a bit more thought than "you're just biased!":
1. "a special type of tank shock move" does not equal Tank Shock.
2. Ramming and Tank Shocks have equal headings, suggesting that Ramming is not a subset of Tank Shocking but that they are in fact separate actions.

Gwar wrote:Walkers.

Please learn the rules before posting.

Except death or glory isn't granted to Walkers by the tank shock rule, the tank shock rule grants a death or glory attack "if a unit that has been attacked by tank shock passes its Morale test" BGB p. 69. Passing a morale test is something that no vehicle can do. Being tank shocked is also a situation no vehicle can be in, because tank shocking vehicles must stop 1" from any enemy vehicle in their path. See BGB p. 68

Walkers are granted a death or glory attack by a special rule pertaining only to walkers, which only applies if they are rammed, not tank shocked. See BGB p. 73

Please learn the rules before posting.

-GK

Yay another thread like this!!! But yes you can ram and get the hitz

GiantKiller wrote:
Balance is entirely irrelevant to a rules interpretation issue, and yet here you are arguing that people who disagree with you are just "deffrolla haters." Bias is easy to attack. The language of the rules distinguishing Rams from Tank Shocks is a bit tougher. So you've chosen to attack bias. Predictable.

Here are some non-balance arguments (not by me) which have yet to be refuted, and which will require a bit more thought than "you're just biased!":
1. "a special type of tank shock move" does not equal Tank Shock.
2. Ramming and Tank Shocks have equal headings, suggesting that Ramming is not a subset of Tank Shocking but that they are in fact separate actions.

Game on!

1. So a "special type of tank shock move" does not equal Tank Shock.

In short, a special tank shock move is a Tank Shock that is special, thus it's no longer a Tank Shock.

Let's find other examples of this and see if the game will actually function:

Psychic Shooting Attack -- "Using a psychic shooting attack counts as using a ranged weapon". Okay! So in order to perform a psychic shooting attack I have to find the part of the rulebook that dictates how to use a ranged weapon. Maybe it's under 'Shooting'.

Ruh-roh! There is absolutely nothing about how to use a ranged weapon under Shooting. In fact, here's the only bit that seems to reference it: "At least one target model must be within range of the weaponry of your firing models". But that's the only part! Maybe if I look a little further I can find something on how to use ranged weapons... "Check Range - All weapons have a maximum effective range, which is the furthest distance they can shoot.' This really seems to suggest that all weapons are ranged weapons because all weapons have a range, but if that was true then the Psychic Shooting Attack wouldn't specify a ranged weapon, it would simply say 'weapon'. Ranged, therefore, must be some sort of special qualifier, making it different from weapons with ranges. Since I can't find anything that defines ranged as a game term, it must not exist (exclusive rules, etc.) Therefore, psychic shooting attacks don't exist. Maybe next edition!

Let's find another one and see if the game functions:

Chaos Codex Wings -- "Models equipped with wings move in the same way as Jump Infantry". Okay! On to Jump Infantry. "Jump infantry blah blah 12" blah blah However, if a moving jump infantry model begins or ends its move in difficult terrain, it must take a dangerous terrain test." Oh happy Easter Egg! My Chaos models with wings aren't Jump Infantry models, they simply move in the same way. Therefore, my Winged Daemon Prince never ever has to take Dangerous Terrain tests. Because he's not a Jump Infantry model, he just moves like one.

On a roll! Let's find another one:

Transport Vehicles / Dedicated Transports: "The only limitation of a dedicated transport is that when it is deployed it can only carry the unit it was selected with". So does that mean that normal transports don't have this limitation? Let's look through the rules.... wow, there's absolutely nothing about deploying with embarked units, unless you're a dedicated transport. The rules on how to embark into one are quite clear, however, so obviously the intent is for men to start on the table and then embark into their transports because NO RULE allows you to start inside a transport vehicle. And if it doesn't say I can... I can't! Quite reasonable to me, really.

So going by pure RAW and the assumption that the rules are explicitly and exactly written to convey their meaning, a Ram is a special tank shock therefore it is not a Tank Shock because it's special. Daemon Princes never roll for Dangerous Terrain because they're not Jump Infantry models, Transports have no rule allowing units to start embarked inside them unless they're Dedicated, and Psychic Shooting Attacks are impossible to carry out because there's no mechanic for shooting a ranged weapon, only a reference to all weapons having maximum effective ranges.

As to Your Point #2: Tear out the page that tells you how to Tank Shock. Now try to perform a Ram. It's impossible because the rules for how to perform a Ram are enmeshed into Tank Shock. That's why they're not 'separate actions' because a Ram is actually a special type of tank shock.

sourclams wrote:Daemon Princes never roll for Dangerous Terrain because they're not Jump Infantry models, Transports have no rule allowing units to start embarked inside them unless they're Dedicated, and Psychic Shooting Attacks are impossible to carry out because there's no mechanic for shooting a ranged weapon, only a reference to all weapons having maximum effective ranges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Hope this helps.

-GK

Those saying "Tank Shock move" means ram is not a Tank Shock are missing that Tank Shock itself is defined as a special move*, and therefore Ram is just a special Tank Shock move which in itself is a special Move.

So Ram is still a subset of (All Tank Shocks) which is a subset of (legal moves) and therefore Ram is a type of Tank Shock and Deff Rollas work as they work on (All Tank Shocks)

That entirely blows the "Tank Shock move" argument apart btw.

*if you are not moving normally, but instead using Tank Shock, tank shock itself must be a move. Which makes a whole lot of sense, what with it being executed int he movement phase and requiring you to move the tank in a specific fashion. Who'd a thunk it!

ALso GK - I think you're looking for "Reductio Ad Absurdum" rather than straw man here.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I think you're looking for "Reductio Ad Absurdum" rather than straw man here.

Thanks, but no.

To be reduction ad absurdum, the arguer would have to be showing how an argument which was actually made by an opponent leads to an absurd result.

Nobody in this thread so far has argued that:
1. Daemon Princes don't take dangerous terrain tests
2. Units cannot deploy embarked in non-dedicated transports
3. Psychic Shooting attacks can't be used.

Attempting to refute the points actually made by arguers in this thread by attacking those points which have not been made here and have little, if anything to do with the points being made here, is an example of the straw man fallacy.

Hope this helps.

-GK

I'm just wondering aside from a DeffRolla, what do Orks have that can effectively take out a LandRaider or Lith.

A Warboss who is STR 10. Of course not everyone uses a Warboss.

Nobs. STR 9 on the charge with a PK. Ok lets see he gets 4 attacks and splitting the difference would need a 4 to hit. That assumes 2 will hit. Now he needs a 5 just to glance. Great odds there.

Zzap guns. Variable STR means they will be able to hurt one what once per game. Even then only a 50-50 shot of hitting if it is Grot crewed and not on a vehicle.

SAG - again variable STR. Not to mention the dreaded double or scatter.

BoomGun. STR 8 so again can only glance plus the chance of scatter and only 36" range.

KMBs - STR 8 so glancing only plus the chance to fry the guy shooting.

Rokkits. STR 8 yet again. A 5+ to hit and 24" range. That'll show them,

Tankhammers. OK good chance of pasting it. Assuming everyone fields Tankbustas.

Tank Busta Bombs. These will work. Assuming again everyone fields TBs.

In essence that gives Orks 3 weapons in the DEX that have an even remote chance of reliably destroying anything with an AV. Aside from the Warboss 2 of them are rarely used. Then the Warboss will get torn apart by the passengers that just bailed out of the vehicle.

BossGreenNutz wrote:BoomGun. STR 8 so again can only glance plus the chance of scatter and only 36" range.

The chances of hitting a vehicle at full strength with a scatter die and template is actually better than the chances of hitting with an ordinary ranged weapon using Ork Ballistic Skill.

-GK

Boss GreenNutz wrote:I'm just wondering aside from a DeffRolla, what do Orks have that can effectively take out a LandRaider or Lith.

A Warboss who is STR 10. Of course not everyone uses a Warboss.

Nobs. STR 9 on the charge with a PK. Ok lets see he gets 4 attacks and splitting the difference would need a 4 to hit. That assumes 2 will hit. Now he needs a 5 just to glance. Great odds there.

Zzap guns. Variable STR means they will be able to hurt one what once per game. Even then only a 50-50 shot of hitting if it is Grot crewed and not on a vehicle.

SAG - again variable STR. Not to mention the dreaded double or scatter.

BoomGun. STR 8 so again can only glance plus the chance of scatter and only 36" range.

KMBs - STR 8 so glancing only plus the chance to fry the guy shooting.

Rokkits. STR 8 yet again. A 5+ to hit and 24" range. That'll show them,

Tankhammers. OK good chance of pasting it. Assuming everyone fields Tankbustas.

Tank Busta Bombs. These will work. Assuming again everyone fields TBs.

In essence that gives Orks 3 weapons in the DEX that have an even remote chance of reliably destroying anything with an AV. Aside from the Warboss 2 of them are rarely used. Then the Warboss will get torn apart by the passengers that just bailed out of the vehicle.

Dreads can tear up A14, not that they'll ever get close to anything but a monolith.

As to Your Point #2: Tear out the page that tells you how to Tank Shock. Now try to perform a Ram. It's impossible because the rules for how to perform a Ram are enmeshed into Tank Shock. That's why they're not 'separate actions' because a Ram is actually a special type of tank shock.

Die, horse, die.

That doesn't make any sense. Just because it is related to another action does not mean they are the same action. You could tear out any other page and have the lack of data affect any number of other rules. That does not make those other related rules the same rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:if you are not moving normally, but instead using Tank Shock, tank shock itself must be a move. Which makes a whole lot of sense, what with it being executed int he movement phase and requiring you to move the tank in a specific fashion. Who'd a thunk it!

Note that both "Tank Shock!" and "Ramming" are at the same level of subheading. Neither is a subheading of the other.

I agree that tank shock requires a specific kind of movement. So does ramming. The problem is, it's not the same kind of movement.

Tank shock requires you to move the tank in a specific fashion (straight line, stop 1" from enemy vehicles, etc.).

Ramming requires you to move the tank in a different specific fashion (straight line, must move maximum distance, may contact enemy vehicles, etc.).

Different = not the same. I'm embarrassed for all of us because I feel "different = not the same" actually needs to be stated in this thread.

One can quote "ramming is a special type of tank shock move" until blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that the rest of the rules for tank shocking and ramming clearly establish that they are different types of actions with different requirements, different restrictions, and different results.

sourclams wrote:Tear out the page that tells you how to Tank Shock. Now try to perform a Ram. It's impossible because the rules for how to perform a Ram are enmeshed into Tank Shock. That's why they're not 'separate actions' because a Ram is actually a special type of tank shock.

This statement in no way refutes Dracos' argument that Tank Shock and Ram are at equal levels of subheading, which suggests that neither one a "subset" of the other. If Ramming were a subset of Tank Shocking, it would be a subheading of Tank Shock, not a subheading of Tanks (which it is).

Nor does it disprove in any way my earlier assertion that they're separate actions. It is simply one example of a rule which references another rule. Ramming references the rules for tank shocking. Similarly, buildings reference the rules for vehicles. But these sets of rules also have different rules that let us know they are different. These other rules let us know that, just like ramming isn't tank shocking so it doesn't trigger the deff rolla, a building is not a vehicle so, even though you couldn't embark a big mek into a building without the rules for vehicles, your Big Mek still won't be able to repair the building on a 4+ because it's not a vehicle.

In short, A does not equal B because A requires some of B's rules to function.

-GK

The number of things they have in common (which is much more than the number of ways they differ, if we're counting) has nothing to do with whether the rules state they are the same type of action (which they do, clearly).

Strawman yourself much?

Fine, I'll finally answer this question, because asking you to stop posting about it does nothing.

I run CSM, Raider Rush. I do not play Orks. I have no friends who play Orks. I know 3 people in my club who play Orks, 2 of whom I hate.

I believe that RAW allows a Deff Rolla to inflict D6 S10 hits on any vehicle it rams, and that across a squadron these hits must be allocated as normal.

Also, throwing something else out there:
Note that they are separate rules even though they are similar (Such as how Leadership tests are different from Morale Tests, Pinning Test, ect. even though they all test 2D6 vs LD), due to how they are both written in CAPS, meaning listed as separate "Tank Special Rules" not both "Tank Shock Rules". IF Ramming was, it wouldn't be all caps (indicating a new rule, albeit similar), but would be lowercase like "Death or Glory" is in the Tank Shock rule.

EDIT:Spelling

A ram is not a tank shock.

If it were, it would be completely worthless. Here's why:

If a ram is a tank shock, it must obey all rules of tank shocking except for those it specifically overrides. While the rules for ramming differ from tank shocking in several key ways (the distance of the move, whether or not the tank can shoot in the following shooting phase, etc.) it does not mention anywhere that it overrides the following language from the tank shock rules:

"If the tank accidentally moves into contact with a friendly model or comes to within 1" of an enemy vehicle, it immediately stops moving." BGB p. 68

So we know that tank shocking tanks must stop 1" from any enemy vehicle in their path. This prohibits tank shocking tanks from contacting an enemy vehicle. That bears repeating: according to the rules for tank shocking, no tank shocking tank may contact an enemy vehicle. Ever.

A ram action only affects an enemy vehicle "if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle" BGB p. 69.

If a ram were a tank shock, that could never happen. If a ramming tank is actually tank shocking (as required to trigger deff rollas), then it must stop 1" away from any enemy vehicle and would never be able to contact it, so no ram attack could occur. Ever.

Nosferatu1001, this is reductio ad absurdum, btw. It's a perfectly valid argument type when the point you're refuting is actually a point made by an opponent. The difference between this example and the ones you referred to as reductio ad absurdum is I'm arguing that a point actually made by an opponent (a ram is a tank shock) leads to an absurd result (no ram can ever occur).

Hope this helps.

-GK

I am arguing it is a *special tank shock*, not that it IS a tank shock. Clearly it isn't - you are in fact told it isnt a tank shock move, but a special one. Special dictates it is different - so you follow TS where told to, Ram otherwise, and Ram gives you permission to contact another vehicle - overriding the prohibition.

It is still a Tank Shock in that you must refer to the Tank Shock rules in order to know how to perform the ram, except you explicitly follow what it tells you to follow.

So Ram is a Special Tank Shock Move which is a Special Move, Ram is a subset of the set (All Tank Shocks)

"Walker" is also CLEARLY a subset of the vehicle rules - despite having its own page; without the vehicle rules you cannot use them. Indentation is not consistently used to indicate subsections, any argument based on that to say ram is not a tank shock is incredibly flawed.

GiantKiller wrote:A ram is not a tank shock.

You can twist and manipulate and butcher whatever phrases in the rules you like, but they are extremely clear on this point:

Page 69:
Ramming is a special type of tank shock

A poodle is a special type of dog. Now ask yourself, "Is a poodle a dog?" The answer is obviously yes.

Danny Internets wrote:

GiantKiller wrote:A ram is not a tank shock.

You can twist and manipulate and butcher whatever phrases in the rules you like, but they are extremely clear on this point:

Page 69:
Ramming is a special type of tank shock

A poodle is a special type of dog. Now ask yourself, "Is a poodle a dog?" The answer is obviously yes.

And yet, it has it's own set of rules...................... Totally different from the other.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I am arguing it is a *special tank shock*, not that it IS a tank shock.

Then you're not triggering deff rollas, which only apply to tank shocks, not 'actions which are similar to tank shocks but are not tank shocks'.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Clearly it isn't - you are in fact told it isnt a tank shock move, but a special one. Special dictates it is different -

I agree.

nosferatu1001 wrote:so you follow TS where told to, Ram otherwise, and Ram gives you permission to contact another vehicle - overriding the prohibition.
It is still a Tank Shock in that you must refer to the Tank Shock rules in order to know how to perform the ram, except you explicitly follow what it tells you to follow.

Please quote for me the language giving a ramming vehicle permission to contact another vehicle. Note that the language "if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle" (BGB p. 69) isn't giving permission to contact another vehicle, it is only describing what would happen if it did.

I've already refuted the argument that a ram is a tank shock because you must refer to the tank shock rules in order to know how to perform the ram with an example where that does not hold true. One must know the rules for vehicles to know how to operate buildings, but that does not make buildings vehicles.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So Ram is a Special Tank Shock Move which is a Special Move, Ram is a subset of the set (All Tank Shocks)

I disagree. Ram is a subset of the set 'actions available to tanks'. It is similar to a Tank Shock, it uses some of the rules for a Tank Shock, but if it were a subset of Tank Shock, it could never, ever occur because a Tank Shocking tank may never come within 1" of an enemy vehicle.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"Walker" is also CLEARLY a subset of the vehicle rules - despite having its own page; without the vehicle rules you cannot use them. Indentation is not consistently used to indicate subsections, any argument based on that to say ram is not a tank shock is incredibly flawed.

Indentation is irrelevant. Headers are used to indicate subsections. I agree with you that "Walkers" is clearly a subset of "Vehicles." How can we tell? Look at the heading for vehicles (BGB p. 56). Compare that to the heading for Walkers (BGB p. 72). The Vehicles heading is much larger than the Walkers subheading. Now compare the heading for "Tank Shock!" (BGB p. 68) to the heading for "Ramming" (BGB p. 69). Note the following: same font size, same type face, same all-caps. These two actions are at the same level of subheading under "Tanks". This is evidence that neither one is a subset of the other.

-GK

Except the rules state, specifically, that a ram is a special type of tank shock move, in exac tly the same way as a Tank Shock is defined as a special type of Move, "and is executed the same way, except...."

You haven't refuted this. You've said it leads to an absurd result, in your opinion, but that doesnt alter that the rules specifically state Rams are special forms of Tank Shocks, and are executed in the same way with exceptions. Until you can refute this point, which you have yet to do, you have no argument.

A special Form of something is by definition a subset of (All Something) - and you are explicitly told that Deff rollas work on ALL tank shocks.

So you have RAI - Deff rollas work as they worked when the codex was actually written agaisnt all but 2 vehicles in the entire game of 40k
RAW - rams are a special form of the move called "Tank Shock"
C1: Deff rollas work, as they work on all tank shocks. A special form is part of the set (All Tank Shocks)

don_mondo wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

GiantKiller wrote:A ram is not a tank shock.

You can twist and manipulate and butcher whatever phrases in the rules you like, but they are extremely clear on this point:

Page 69:
Ramming is a special type of tank shock

A poodle is a special type of dog. Now ask yourself, "Is a poodle a dog?" The answer is obviously yes.

And yet, it has it's own set of rules...................... Totally different from the other.

They're only totally different from one another in the ways that a poodle is "totally different" from a dog. As Nosferatu correctly pointed out, ram rules override tank shock rules, and where ram rules don't apply (or exist) you follow tank shock rules.

It's not complicated. At all.

Danny Internets wrote:A poodle is a special type of dog. Now ask yourself, "Is a poodle a dog?" The answer is obviously yes.

Poodles as a subset of dogs is as clear an example of straw man as I've seen in this thread. So let's put it to sleep. (see what I did there?) Tank Shock and Ramming are two in-game actions performed by imaginary vehicles that we're pretending are acting like real tanks. They are governed not by the laws of physics or common sense (both of which are based on what holds true in real life), but by the rules of 40k, as set forth by the BGB. As I've pointed out previously, the rules of 40k clearly differentiate Tank Shocking from Ramming.

If Poodles and Dogs were imaginary things governed by similar rules to tank shocks and rams, the answer to "is a poodle a dog" would not be "obviously yes". According to our hypothetical "Big Book of Dogs", Poodles are designed to be house dogs, just like ramming actions are designed to target vehicles in 40k. So we know that a poodle that can't come in the house is as absurd as a ramming action that can't target a vehicle.

No offense meant to poodle lovers here:

A poodle is not a dog.

If it were, it would be completely worthless. Here's why:

If a poodle is a dog, it must obey all rules of dogs except for those it specifically overrides. While the rules for poodles differ from dogs in several key ways (the distance they can move, the length of their fur, etc.) it does not mention anywhere that it overrides the following language from the dog rules:

"If the dog accidentally moves into contact with a friendly mailman or comes to within 1" of the house, it immediately stops moving." Big Book of Dogs p. 68

So we know that dogs must stop 1" from the house. This prohibits dogs from contacting the house. That bears repeating: according to the rules for dogs, no dog may contact the house. Ever.

A poodle only affects the house "if the poodle comes into contact with the house" Big Book of Dogs p. 69.

If a poodle were a dog, that could never happen. If a poodle is actually a dog (as required to trigger Deff Paws), then it must stop 1" away from the house and would never be able to contact it, so no poodle could come in the house. Ever.


See what I did there?

-GK

nosferatu1001 wrote:Oddly enough I dont play Orks, and still think it works. Mainly as it did in 4th and the language used in ramming / tank shocking still supports it (such as you hit non-vehicle units with a Tank shock as normal....which if it was something entirely different yiou wouldnt do)

So you have RAI from fluff and precedent, and the RAW is unclear - go for which side the RAI is on.

WOW. Why do you guys keep saying the "IN 4TH EDITION!!!!!!!!!"
Who CARES if it worked in 4th edition. This is 5th. Rending SUCKS in 5th, it was the cats ass in 4th. BUT AGAIN this is 5th edition folks.


HERES SOMETHING WE CAN ALL AGREE ON
How about we start a petition where we ALL sign in on it, and send it to GW to MAKE them make a ruling and put in in the FAQ. One way or the other this needs to be resolved NOW. Not when they get to it


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OK for anyone who wants to be a part of it, I made a petition on the 40k discussions forum. Dont turn it into a flame fest.

It comes down to a very circular argument.

The "deff rollas work on vehicles" camp says deff rollas are triggered by any tank shock and ramming is a special type of tank shock move (argued in this thread and many others).

The "deff rollas do not work on vehicles" camp says yes, but the headings and the rules for tank shock and ramming make them two different actions (argued in this thread and many other threads and Szafraniec's article on Deff Rollas and Ramming).

The "deff rollas work on vehicles" camp says yeah, but deff rollas are triggered by any tank shock and ramming is a special type of tank shock move.

The "deff rollas do not work on vehicles" camp replies with yes, but the headings and rules for tank shock and ramming make them two different actions.

And so on, and so on, and so on. The arguments don't get better, just louder, and increasingly canine-centric.

-GK

GiantKiller, your argument for it being circular reasoning rests on the assumption that somewhere in the rules it is stated that separate headers mean sections underneath said headers cannot have any interaction with one another. However, the rules do not say this--it is an assumption of developer intent, an interpretation of the imposed text organization.

What the rules do say, and very clearly, is that ramming is a form of tank shock. Without some concrete statement to the contrary, there is little leg for your side to stand on.

Danny Internets wrote:your argument for it being circular reasoning rests on the assumption that somewhere in the rules it is stated that separate headers mean sections underneath said headers cannot have any interaction with one another.

That's an easy assumption to attack, but it's not an assumption I've made, nor is it an assumption on which my argument rests.

Of course sections underneath separate headers may have interaction. But said interaction does not mean the two things which are interacting are the same thing. See my earlier example re: Buildings and Vehicles.

Danny Internets wrote:Without some concrete statement to the contrary, there is little leg for your side to stand on.

Concrete statement: Tank Shock! and Ramming are at the same level of sub-heading under Tanks, therefore ramming and tank shocking are two separate actions.
Concrete statement: The rules for Tank Shock! and Ramming clearly differentiate the two, therefore ramming and tank shocking are two separate actions.
Concrete statement: If a Ram is a Tank Shock then Ramming does not work on vehicles (which is absurd) therefore ramming is not tank shocking.

That's plenty of concrete for me.

Your post is, in fact, a perfect example of the circular argument I'm referring to:

GiantKiller wrote:The "deff rollas work on vehicles" camp says yeah, but deff rollas are triggered by any tank shock and ramming is a special type of tank shock move.

Danny Internets wrote:What the rules do say, and very clearly, is that ramming is a form of tank shock.

Note the similarities.

-GK

GiantKiller wrote:Tank Shock and Ramming are two in-game actions performed by imaginary vehicles that we're pretending are acting like real tanks. They are governed not by the laws of physics or common sense (both of which are based on what holds true in real life), but by the rules of 40k, as set forth by the BGB. As I've pointed out previously, the rules of 40k clearly differentiate Tank Shocking from Ramming.

Wow, good thing I'm using the poodle/dog analogy to illustrate the concept of inclusive hierarchical organization. Could have been in trouble there if I was trying to show how 40k is like real life. Phew.

No offense meant to poodle lovers here:

A poodle is not a dog.

...you're serious? Really?

If it were, it would be completely worthless. Here's why:

If a poodle is a dog, it must obey all rules of dogs except for those it specifically overrides. While the rules for poodles differ from dogs in several key ways (the distance they can move, the length of their fur, etc.) it does not mention anywhere that it overrides the following language from the dog rules:

"If the dog accidentally moves into contact with a friendly mailman or comes to within 1" of the house, it immediately stops moving." Big Book of Dogs p. 68

So we know that dogs must stop 1" from the house. This prohibits dogs from contacting the house. That bears repeating: according to the rules for dogs, no dog may contact the house. Ever.

A poodle only affects the house "if the poodle comes into contact with the house" Big Book of Dogs p. 69.

If a poodle were a dog, that could never happen. If a poodle is actually a dog (as required to trigger Deff Paws), then it must stop 1" away from the house and would never be able to contact it, so no poodle could come in the house. Ever.

Uh, what exactly is the point of this analogy? You created a fictional set of absurd "rules" about what it is to be a dog, then defined poodle by its ability to "affect" a house (whatever the feth that is), then claimed that being a poodle is meaningless because of the silly rules you just invented about what it is to be a poodle. If you're trying to compare this to how tank shocking affects vehicles then you forgot the most important part of being a poodle: that poodles are permitted to get within 1" of houses.

See what I did there?

-GK

Yeah, you completely and utterly missed the point, then went off on a bizarre tangent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Concrete statement: Tank Shock! and Ramming are at the same level of sub-heading under Tanks, therefore ramming and tank shocking are two separate actions.
Concrete statement: The rules for Tank Shock! and Ramming clearly differentiate the two, therefore ramming and tank shocking are two separate actions.
Concrete statement: If a Ram is a Tank Shock then Ramming does not work on vehicles (which is absurd) therefore ramming is not tank shocking.

Actually, that is a correct conclusion. However, the rules for ramming specifically override it, so it's moot.

Danny Internets wrote:Wow, good thing I'm using the poodle/dog analogy to illustrate the concept of inclusive hierarchical organization. Could have been in trouble there if I was trying to show how 40k is like real life. Phew.

You're using an example of real life inclusive hierarchical organization and suggesting that Tank Shock! and Ramming share that same inclusive hierarchical organization. I disagree.

Danny Internets wrote:...you're serious? Really?

If poodles and dogs followed similar rules to Ramming and Tank Shock, then yes, I'm 100% serious. Obviously they don't, this is a hypothetical example. Did you think I meant real, live poodles aren't dogs? Really?

Danny Internets wrote:Uh, what exactly is the point of this analogy? You created a fictional set of absurd "rules" about what it is to be a dog, then defined poodle by its ability to "affect" a house (whatever the feth that is), then claimed that being a poodle is meaningless because of the silly rules you just invented about what it is to be a poodle.

So I create a fictional set of absurd rules for Poodles and Dogs that are similar to those for Ramming and Tank Shock! and you fail to see the point of this analogy? Really? The point is that if poodles were like Ramming and dogs were like Tank Shock! then no, poodles aren't dogs.

Danny Internets wrote:Yeah, you completely and utterly missed the point, then went off on a bizarre tangent.

I think you're missing the point here. You're assuming that Tank Shocking and Ramming follow the same inclusive hierarchical structure as Dogs and Poodles. They do not, according to their rules. If Dogs and Poodles followed similar rules to Tank Shocking and Ramming, Poodles would not be Dogs, just like Ramming is not Tank Shocking.

-GK

You're using an example of real life inclusive hierarchical organization and suggesting that Tank Shock! and Ramming share that same inclusive hierarchical organization. I disagree.

It's an abstract principle being applied to a game that is itself an abstraction. It's as "real" as Warhammer 40k is.

So I create a fictional set of absurd rules for Poodles and Dogs that are similar to those for Ramming and Tank Shock! and you fail to see the point of this analogy? Really? The point is that if poodles were like Ramming and dogs were like Tank Shock! then no, poodles aren't dogs.

Similar, except you conveniently left out the part about "poodles" being allowed to get within 1" of "houses". You know, the part where your reasoning blows apart at light speed.

Anyways, I can see that your wall of obstinateness is rapidly approaching Nuglitchian proportions, so I'll simply bow out here.

Danny Internets wrote:Similar, except you conveniently left out the part about "poodles" being allowed to get within 1" of "houses". You know, the part where your reasoning blows apart at light speed.

Please quote for me the language giving a ramming vehicle permission to contact another vehicle. Note that the language "if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows." (BGB p. 69) isn't giving the ramming tank permission to contact another vehicle, it is only describing what might happen if it did. That's the part where your reasoning grinds to a screeching halt. If ramming really were a type of tank shock (which it isn't), you'd need more than implicit permission to contact vehicles (which is all you have) to override the rule which applies to every tank shock: "If the tank accidentally moves into contact with a friendly model or comes to within 1" of an enemy vehicle it immediately stops moving" BGB p. 68.

-GK


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny Internets wrote:It's an abstract principle being applied to a game that is itself an abstraction. It's as "real" as Warhammer 40k is.

You mean like determining hierarchical structure based on levels of headings and subheadings? Where have I seen that before?

-GK

GiantKiller wrote:

Concrete statement: Tank Shock! and Ramming are at the same level of sub-heading under Tanks, therefore ramming and tank shocking are two separate actions.
Concrete statement: The rules for Tank Shock! and Ramming clearly differentiate the two, therefore ramming and tank shocking are two separate actions.
Concrete statement: If a Ram is a Tank Shock then Ramming does not work on vehicles (which is absurd) therefore ramming is not tank shocking.

Except none of this has anything to do with the argument.
Noone is arguing whether ramming and tank shocking are distinct, there would be no reason to have them both if they were not.
The last statement uses faulty reasoning and is not based on your previous conclusions. It is entirely possible for a subgroup to have a rule which overrides a rule from the main group (Open topped transports, for example, have rules that change the disembarkation rules from the transport group).

wow I can't believe this is still being debated. reality is we need errata that GW is never going to issue. why? they really dont care about the tournament scene.. they care about 12 yr old modelers.

that being said.. there is more precedence in the tournament scene that it does work than it not working, and knowing that you should plan accordingly. ard boyz 2008 qualifier and semis, (dont know about the finals) ard boyz 2009 qualifier (atleast the one I helped to judge) and other tournaments have ruled it as working. sadly the same tournaments in other locations have ruled it as not working due to the lack of consistent opinion from games workshop.

I would prepare for it to work as written, so you don't make some dumb move (putting a rhino too damn close for example) then end up arguing about it mid game when it gets run over by the battlewagon

For ard boys finals it was ruled that Deffrollas do NOT affect vehicles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorkamorka wrote:Except none of this has anything to do with the argument.
Noone is arguing whether ramming and tank shocking are distinct, there would be no reason to have them both if they were not.
The last statement uses faulty reasoning and is not based on your previous conclusions. It is entirely possible for a subgroup to have a rule which overrides a rule from the main group (Open topped transports, for example, have rules that change the disembarkation rules from the transport group).

Okay you admit they are distinct, yet still you believe they are to be counted as the same action?

Also people keep forgetting that in the ork Codex is says "all Tank Shocks". Capitol letters denote a proper noun. That proper noun is clearly defined in the BGB and does not include Ramming as a subset of Tank Shocks.

Sorry, but they really are two "distinct" actions, and you can't count a Ram as a Tank Shock.

Squares are distinct from rectangles. This does not mean that squares are not rectangles.

Dracos - Except I';ve already proven your argument as false.

Tank Shock is itself defined as a special move (by dint of it not being a normal move, which a Tank Shock is "instead of") and Ram is defined, in the rules, as a "special Tank Shock move executed in the same way as a Tank Shock with some exceptions" - so a ram is a Tank Shock move but with some exceptions.

So Rams are a subset of all possible Tank Shock moves, and Tank Shocks are a subset of possible moves that Tanks can make.

Ram is a subset of (All Tank Shocks) whichi is a subset of (All Moves) and it therefore triggers the D6 attacks.

Ramming is a special form of tank shock. It's in the rulebook under ramming. By the letter of the rules it works. It sucks that so many people are so bent on winning that they'll twist a rule any way they can to deny an ork player their only reliable means of taking out heavy armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dracos wrote:

Also people keep forgetting that in the ork Codex is says "all Tank Shocks". Capitol letters denote a proper noun. That proper noun is clearly defined in the BGB and does not include Ramming as a subset of Tank Shocks.

Sorry, but they really are two "distinct" actions, and you can't count a Ram as a Tank Shock.

What part of "all tank shocks" don't you understand? Ramming is a special form of tank shock. This should be a no brainer.

Alas both your posts are rife with misquotes, so its hard to debate the point. A Tank Shock is by definition a special move which can't affect vehicles. That part is not hard to understand. Ramming is a related action that uses much of the same rules as Tank Shock, but is its own action both by the structure of the rules and the effects of the action.

Anyways guys, I've reiterated myself too much already.

artyboy wrote:Ramming is a special type of tank shock. It's in the rulebook under ramming. By the letter of the rules it doesnt work. It sucks that so many people are so bent on winning that they'll twist a rule any way they can to give an ork player means of taking out heavy armor with a piece of wargear meant to deal with light armor....and lacking any AP value...

This should be a no brainer.

Fixed it for you.

Dracos wrote:Alas both your posts are rife with misquotes, so its hard to debate the point. A Tank Shock is by definition a special move which can't affect vehicles. That part is not hard to understand. Ramming is a related action that uses much of the same rules as Tank Shock, but is its own action both by the structure of the rules and the effects of the action.

Anyways guys, I've reiterated myself too much already.

So you claim that tank shock is a special move, and then say that the phrase "A ram is a special type of tank shock move" implies that ramming is not in fact a type of tank shock move, only that it uses some of the same rules? Am I reading that right?

The anti-rolla crowd appears to be getting desperate.
Yet again they return to the 'Ram can affect vehicles, therefore it can't be a tank shock' argument, despite it being demonstratively false. I'll use my above example again:
By your logic an open topped transport cannot be counted as a transport, since it contains rules that override the normal transport disembarkation rules.

I assumed that the players supporting the use of the Deff Rolla as an anti-tank weapon were quoting rules correctly. Just goes to show how misleading such an assumption is!

To start with, the rules in 4th edition allowed tank shock to occur against all units but with distinct differences. Vehicles with the same frontal armor stayed where they were and the Battlewagon stopped 1 inch short. Those with weaker armor were moved out of the way. The infantry checked morale and could make a death or glory attack. Vehicles remained unharmed in the 4th edition rules! At worst, they might be displaced. Thus the effect on a squadron was also minimal. There is no statement anywhere that a vehicle can be destroyed by tank shock. Neither in the 4th edition rules nor in the Deff Rolla rules.

Now the Deff Rolla sentence which is causing so much problem is the last but one in the rule. However this sentence is joined by an "if" statement to the last sentence. The players who support the use of the this item against tanks seem to ignore the part of the rule that comes after the "if"completely. Convenient but that makes any comment made irrelevent, unless the second part of the rule is explained as well. That second part clearly states that the attacked unit may elect to make a death or glory attack. Clearly this cannot apply to vehicles. Thus the Deff Rolla does not apply to vehicles. For those who claim it does, please focus on the last qualifying sentence of the rule and explain that first.

5th edition introduced the concept of the Ram, whereby tanks can take out other vehicles by ramming. This is a new concept within the main body of the rules and has zero to do with the main 4th edition rules. There is no statement in the 5th edition rules that the RAM is a subset of Tank Shock. The only statement I can find that really links the two is that the former is performed in a similar way.

Anyway, here is the challenge ........please explain how the last sentence, which in the English language does effect and qualify the previous sentence, can apply to tanks!

For those without the rules the last part reads: ...cause D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit. If the unit elects to make a Death or Glory attack ( this statement alone states that it is an option to the attacked unit ), it takes a further D6 Strength 10 hits in addition to the usual effects.

INAT FAQ latest interpretation is thus correct.

horsa wrote:I assumed that the players supporting the use of the Deff Rolla as an anti-tank weapon were quoting rules correctly. Just goes to show how misleading such an assumption is!

To start with, the rules in 4th edition allowed tank shock to occur against all units but with distinct differences. Vehicles with the same frontal armor stayed where they were and the Battlewagon stopped 1 inch short. Those with weaker armor were moved out of the way. The infantry checked morale and could make a death or glory attack. Vehicles remained unharmed in the 4th edition rules! At worst, they might be displaced. Thus the effect on a squadron was also minimal. There is no statement anywhere that a vehicle can be destroyed by tank shock. Neither in the 4th edition rules nor in the Deff Rolla rules.

Your argument makes no sense. In 4th ed the vehicle being displaced made it a victim of the tank shock and entirely eligible for rolla hits, which could destroy it.

horsa wrote:
Anyway, here is the challenge ........please explain how the last sentence, which in the English language does effect and qualify the previous sentence, can apply to tanks!

For those without the rules the last part reads: ...cause D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit. If the unit elects to make a Death or Glory attack ( this statement alone states that it is an option to the attacked unit ), it takes a further D6 Strength 10 hits in addition to the usual effects.

This also has no bearing on the argument, and is wrong. Nowhere is it stated that the option to elect to take the DoG attack must be available to the target, it only specifies what happens if it can and does.
Whether or not the unit is able to elect to take a death or glory attack has no effect on the previous sentence regarding when the rolla is applied, or the initial 1d6 hits.

horsa wrote:Those with weaker armor were moved out of the way.

Thus making them a VICTIM of the tank shock. Hence getting D6 S10 hits. All per the deff rolla rules.

It would help if you could read rules correctly before stating others are not.

horsa wrote:The infantry checked morale and could make a death or glory attack. Vehicles remained unharmed in the 4th edition rules!

Erm, wrong. You miss that Deff Rollas effect units affected by TS. Being moved out the way definitely means you have been affected byt hte tank shock. Nice try though. Oh - and 4th ed didnt need to say vehicles could be harmed, as the codex does.

horsa wrote:At worst, they might be displaced. Thus the effect on a squadron was also minimal. There is no statement anywhere that a vehicle can be destroyed by tank shock. Neither in the 4th edition rules nor in the Deff Rolla rules.

It doesn't need to: it talks about units and vehicles are units, therefore vehicles can be affected by the Deff Rolla [assuming the trigger conditions are met]. So you're still wrong.

If you have been moved by a tank shock then the deff rolla affects you as you were a victim of the tank shock. Infantry units were always affected by TS, Vehicles only sometimes (in 4th)

horsa wrote:Now the Deff Rolla sentence which is causing so much problem is the last but one in the rule. However this sentence is joined by an "if" statement to the last sentence.

A following "if" is not a conditional on the previous sentence that must be fulfilled in order to trigger the first statement. Major language failure there, I'm afraid. If the "if" triggers is irrelevant to the first statement being possible or "true"

horsa wrote:The players who support the use of the this item against tanks seem to ignore the part of the rule that comes after the "if"completely. Convenient but that makes any comment made irrelevent, unless the second part of the rule is explained as well.

Nope, the "if" is irrelevant: whether it triggers or not makes no difference to the preceding statement being triggered. THis is why we are ignoring it - it is completely 100% unimportant to the rules question.

horsa wrote:That second part clearly states that the attacked unit may elect to make a death or glory attack. Clearly this cannot apply to vehicles.

And as has been explained this is irrelevant. Oh and it only asks if they "elect" to make a DoG - as vehicles cannot elect to do so you have fulfilled this statement. Nowhere does it state the affected unit MUST be able to make a DoG, just what happens IF they choose to do so.

horsa wrote: Thus the Deff Rolla does not apply to vehicles. For those who claim it does, please focus on the last qualifying sentence of the rule and explain that first.

Done, and your conclusion based off it is therefore false. It was false in 4th, and it is false now. Demonstrably so.

horsa wrote:5th edition introduced the concept of the Ram, whereby tanks can take out other vehicles by ramming.

Actually it reintroduced it, but carry on.

horsa wrote: This is a new concept within the main body of the rules and has zero to do with the main 4th edition rules.

4th was referred to as the deff rolla affected vehicles then, when the codex was written. It shows, quite clearly, RAI. That is all it was being used for however.

horsa wrote:There is no statement in the 5th edition rules that the RAM is a subset of Tank Shock. The only statement I can find that really links the two is that the former is performed in a similar way.

So the part that says Ramming is a Special form of Tank Shock move doesn't link the two? Where it goes on to say it is performed as a Tank Shock but with some exceptions? I'd suggest you look harder when reading rules if you can't spot those, especially as they have been quoted inthis thread a couple dozen times.

It does not state it is a subset using that exact word, however it tells you it is a special Tank Shock (move), same as a Tank Shock is a special mvoe. Unless you are entirely blind if you are a special (something) that means you are part of the set of (all Somethings). This is elementary and is what the anti- crowd have yet to tackle.

horsa wrote:Anyway, here is the challenge ........please explain how the last sentence, which in the English language does effect and qualify the previous sentence, can apply to tanks!

Because, as has been explained to you, it doesn't qualify the first? It states "IF......" - well if the unit cannot do the "if", it still doesn't stop the first sentence. Oh, and btw: Walkers can make DoG against Ramming. So even if your premise was true, which it isn't, it STILL allows Deff Rollas to work against vehicles. So your entire argument has just failed, quite impresively.

Oh, and in case you're wondering: Walkers have already been mentioned in relation to DoG earlier on in this thread. At least twice. Reading the thread would help here.

horsa wrote: For those without the rules the last part reads: ...cause D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit. If the unit elects to make a Death or Glory attack ( this statement alone states that it is an option to the attacked unit ), it takes a further D6 Strength 10 hits in addition to the usual effects.

If the unit cannot make a DoG attack it cannot Elect to make one. The If is not negated.

horsa wrote:INAT FAQ latest interpretation is thus correct.

The INAT FaQ is therefore not correct.

Edit: Fixign stupid tags and editing mistakes.

Horsa: Your argument is invalid. Not being able to elect to make a death or glory attack does not negate the phrase as it only applies in the event the unit does elect to make the Death or Glory. The inability to elect to make the death or glory attack has no bearing on the rule.

I'm on your side of the debate, but the reasons I have stated. I just think your justification is false.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I am arguing it is a *special tank shock*,

You shouldn't need to argue something that's written black on white.
Using written words in an attempt convince people who misinterpret 'IS' into 'IS NOT' is bound to fail.
Communication with such people should be ceased to preserve your sanity.

You rule bending ork players digust me. Being neutral to this argument, one side is soooo much more convincing. Old rules, fluff, and lust to blow up land raiders dont let you change the rules.
Give Up. All of the threads i have read are leaning towards no. INAT faq says no. Ard Boyz final says no. People who dont play orks say no. NO!!!

I... Have a question. If you need to tank shock in order to get the d6 st10 hits. But you have to stop 1 inch away from a tank if your tank shocking. How is it that in the words of your own can you tank shock a veihicle. The rule states that it is a special type of tank shocking yes. But once it is done tank shocking a unit that is between both tanks does it not revert back to ramming or does it remain tank shocking?

If you choose to say that it remains as a tank shock would it not stop 1 inch infront of the tank not able to move?

And if you said it was ramming so that it could contact the other tank would it no longer be under the tank shock rules and then the deffrolla would not work anymore?

Also another question. Tank shocking forces a moral test. Vehicles cannot take one in any form. Therefore would they not be eligible to be tank shocked as normal. Also in a tnak shock the unit has a choice to death or glory. Since you do not get this choice how could the rule even work as you describe it as the conditions are not met.

Main reasons why I don't think it would work and I would argue against it.

Also no previous additions work. using it as the base of your argument is flawed.

Khaine wrote:You rule bending ork players digust me. Being neutral to this argument, one side is soooo much more convincing. Old rules, fluff, and lust to blow up land raiders dont let you change the rules.
Give Up. All of the threads i have read are leaning towards no. INAT faq says no. Ard Boyz final says no. People who dont play orks say no. NO!!!

Yay for personal attacks!
From my point of view, you rule bending deffrolla haterz are the problem.
I mean, if we're going to CHANGE THE RULES for deffrollas because they're overpowered, why don't we change the rules for Lash?
Or change the rules for Dark Angels so they don't suck?

GW need to FAQ this.

Get back on subject people. Id liek some one to attempt to answer my questions.

Golga - "Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock move" - and remember that Tank Shock is also defined as a special move.

So it is a special type. You then follow the rules for how this differs from a normal tank shock.

Reading comphrension FTW!

Now, if you want to change the rules so it doesnt work - fine. Just admit thast is what you are doing.

Golga wrote:I... Have a question. If you need to tank shock in order to get the d6 st10 hits. But you have to stop 1 inch away from a tank if your tank shocking. How is it that in the words of your own can you tank shock a veihicle. The rule states that it is a special type of tank shocking yes. But once it is done tank shocking a unit that is between both tanks does it not revert back to ramming or does it remain tank shocking?

If a ram is a special type of tank shock, then it is a tank shock that behaves unusually. A choppa is a type of close combat weapon. A 'uge Choppa is a special type of close combat weapon. It behaves differently than the standard version- hence the term 'special'.

Golga wrote:If you choose to say that it remains as a tank shock would it not stop 1 inch infront of the tank not able to move?

And if you said it was ramming so that it could contact the other tank would it no longer be under the tank shock rules and then the deffrolla would not work anymore?

The ability to contact vehicles is one of the things that makes ramming special. The argument is essentially whether or not a special type of tank shock is something else entirely, or a variant of tank shock.

I find dog breeds are a relatively good analogy. You've got a brown Labrador Retriever and a yellow Labrador Retriever. Are the yellow ones a special type of Labrador Retriever or Golden Labrador Retrievers? How much of the information and behvaiors we have documented about the Labrador Retrievers apply to these special types or new breeds? This is the sort of question that revolves around Tank Shock.

Golga wrote:Also another question. Tank shocking forces a moral test. Vehicles cannot take one in any form. Therefore would they not be eligible to be tank shocked as normal. Also in a tnak shock the unit has a choice to death or glory. Since you do not get this choice how could the rule even work as you describe it as the conditions are not met.

Main reasons why I don't think it would work and I would argue against it.

Also no previous additions work. using it as the base of your argument is flawed.

Losing over half of the models in your unit forces a morale check as well. Yet I've never seen a vehicle squadron take a morale check. Vehicles are always immune to morale. I don't think this is the best avenue to argue against Deffrolling vehicles.

If you meant 'editions' then there is some relevance in using 4th edition. The Ork Codex was released when 4th edition was out, and 5th was presumably being playtested. Much like the Chaos Codex, it is technically a 4.5 codex. This bastardized construction technique and the many unusual and Orky units in the codex are why debate continues to this day. I hope that answers your questions.

Khaine wrote:You rule bending ork players digust me. Being neutral to this argument, one side is soooo much more convincing. Old rules, fluff, and lust to blow up land raiders dont let you change the rules.
Give Up. All of the threads i have read are leaning towards no. INAT faq says no. Ard Boyz final says no. People who dont play orks say no. NO!!!

Go away.

For the Deff Rolla to work on a vehicle it's rules would need to say it can be used in a ram as ramming =/= tank shock. It is a different form of it, but RAW they are different things.

Seven pages, time for this to go away again......................

Hopefully for good this time.

Not until/unless GW actually issues an FAQ on it, and even then there will be the complaints and cries of "not official" from the 'losing' side.

Heh. The merry go round is cycling once again. The discussion seems to be back on topic and rehashing the arguments on page 2 and 3 of this particular thread.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Golga - "Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock move" - and remember that Tank Shock is also defined as a special move.

So it is a special type. You then follow the rules for how this differs from a normal tank shock.

Except nowhere in the ramming rules does it expressly permit the ramming vehicle to contact another vehicle. It has only implicit permission, which isn't enough to override the clearly expressed prohibition in the tank shock rules. Implicit permission works if and only if ramming is a separate action and isn't inheriting the "If the tank ... comes to within 1" of an enemy vehicle, it immediately stops moving" rule (BGB p. 68) from Tank Shock.

In short, ramming only works on vehicles if it is not a Tank Shock.

-GK

Except the rules state it IS a Tank Shock: a Special form of it.

So you either follow the implicit permission AND the rules telling you it works, or you change the rules so it doesnt to satisfy.....what now?

Ah thats right - people not liking it running over LR. Arguing realism. With walk plant-animal-fungi.

Exactly, if you tank shock and use the Deff Rolla you stop 1" away from the tank and don't ram it because you don't make contact.

Seriously the Deff Rolla costs 20 points, by itself does that look like the option to use it against vehicles has been taken into consideration?
Think about that with intelligance rather than bias for a second. Power Klaws being crapper than it cost 25 points, but can be used against vehicles. Now, I know this isn't the strongest arguement for it but it's still better than a fair few of the ones asking for it.

There should be no need for a FAQ on this matter. RAW states that it is used in a Tank shock, a Tank Shock states that the vehicle has to stop 1" away from an enemy vehicle. Ramming is a subset of Tank Shock and RAW means that they are not the same. Ram also states that you have to contact the enemy vehicle. Thus, tank shocking itself cancels any attempts against an enemy vehicle with it, as you would have to stop before making contact with an enemy vehicle and causing a ram.

Basically TFG is the cause of this problem as I see it.

Just use Lootas or Tankbustas and move on with your lives, wasting time on this is stupid. I can see the FAQ just changing it from units to infantry.

I think it would be cool to run over tanks like that and I would even leave it up to a roll of a die until an official ruling is made, but current RAW says you cannot do it. The best solution is just to roll off for it with your opponent until an official FAQ is released and drop the matter as it takes away from other more important rules questions that could be noticed if we didn't waste time worrying about something like this.

n0t_u wrote:Seriously the Deff Rolla costs 20 points, by itself does that look like the option to use it against vehicles has been taken into consideration?

Protip: It could be used against vehicles with Front AV 13 and less in 4th edition, ya know, the edition the codex was written for.

In other words, you have no clue what you are talking about.

I said that part wasn't very good

n0t_u wrote:
Basically TFG is the cause of this problem as I see it.

Just use Lootas or Tankbustas and move on with your lives, wasting time on this is stupid.

Just a little tip... the anti-rolla crowd are the TFGs. Arguing that their singular interpretation of a minor rule addition means they can deny ork players an ability they clearly have RAI, their codex was clearly written for, and many strongly believe they have RAW in the new rules anyway.

I mean really, arguing that it is impossible since you can't ram a vehicle? I'm sure 99% of players manage to figure out that the implicit allowance is enough... especially with the block of text describing the results of such a collision followed by a large text and picture example demonstrating a ram involving a vehicle to vehicle collision.

"
Seriously the Deff Rolla costs 20 points, by itself does that look like the option to use it against vehicles has been taken into consideration?
Think about that with intelligance rather than bias for a second. Power Klaws being crapper than it cost 25 points, but can be used against vehicles. Now, I know this isn't the strongest arguement for it but it's still better than a fair few of the ones asking for it."
You mean the cost that was set when the ability clearly worked against vehicles? Yeah, the RAI here was obviously that it wouldn't work in the future. How about you 'think about that with intelligence' yourself?

"Ramming is a subset of Tank Shock and RAW means that they are not the same."
What does that even mean? If ram is a type of tank shock, then it is a type of tank shock... it's not complicated.

I didn't say what side the TFGs are on, just that the problem wouldn't have occured if they hadn't taken action. Just like with the Valk's wings arguements.

Like I said, RAW say you can't. But, until there is an FAQ just roll for it with your opponent. Play more for fun, than trying to work out obscure rules. There will never be a 100% agreement, until there is an offical GW FAQ covering the matter.

Yes RAM is a type of Tank Shock, but RAW as the argument seems to want (boring and drains away from the fun of the game >_> ) would say Ram is a type of Tank Shock, but it isn't Tank Shock specifically. That is the reason I said that before.

Honestly, if you did win the roll off against me to use the Deff Rollas I would be fine with it. It fits the Fluff with the Orks ramming their vehicles into the enemy then jumping out to bash them. I'd rather see the FAQ ruling is that they can, but with slight variation to it. Mostly to avoid the whining it would create.

Gorkamorka wrote:I mean really, arguing that it is impossible since you can't ram a vehicle?

Wrong on so many levels. One cannot Tank Shock a vehicle. One can Ram a vehicle. Declare a Ram, and no one cares. The problem is claiming that a vehicle can be the victim of a Tank Shock.

Gorkamorka wrote:"Ramming is a subset of Tank Shock and RAW means that they are not the same."
What does that even mean? If ram is a type of tank shock, then it is a type of tank shock... it's not complicated.

Ram is a special type of Tank Shock move. Not debatable.
Claiming that since Tank Shock is a special option in the movement phase, and that Ram using some of the same rules (not even a sub heading mind you, just a reference) should allow Ram = Tank Shock is debatable.

Claiming Ram = subset of Tank Shock means that Ram follows ALL rules for Tank Shock with, potentially, additional stipulations.

"Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes d6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit" does not follow that vehicles can be affected. A vehicle cannot be the victim unit of Tank Shock. Even if you claim it's "special", it is NOT Tank Shocked, it is Rammed.

Walkers use some infantry rules. You cannot move them without looking at the infantry movement section. Yet no one claims that Walkers ARE infantry. They are a special type of vehicle, but can they Tank Shock or Ram?

Jet Packs are a special type of Jump Pack - Jet packs still move only 6" in the move phase.

Also, INAT says no. I use it even when I disagree, as do most tourneys and places where this will matter. (The only exception to this I have been privy to was a tourney that declared Deff Rollas could not ram up until the day of the competition. One guy showed with 3 and was allowed to use them in Tank Shocks - it was sad).

Amoung friends, local groups, and such, house rules = win. Random folks or tourneys - Ask, discuss, but do not assume.

Also, I play Tyranids only. Deffrolla hit _ALL_ my units for d6 s10 hits. I am relatively impartial in that it affects me not at all.

This whole thing is a moot point, muddied by the fact that the Ork codex was released on the cusp of 5e - so claiming it is definitively written for EITHER edition is another moot point.

/shrug

So do you disallow the use of special close combat weapons, psychic shooting attacks and the like too?

Do you allow vehicles to be the victim of Tank Shock?

Indeed I do, a special form of tank shock, called a Ram.

(Well, actually my local group don't think it works that way, so I go along with them. I think they are all wrong, however. I'm fine with changing rules, but people should admit that that is what they are doing.)

kirsanth wrote:Do you allow vehicles to be the victim of Tank Shock?

Sure, that's also called a Ram.

I sometimes think that GW leaves things like this open because they secretly like to read these rules threads and chuckle over all the nerd-rage and EMORAGE(TM) brought forth.

I further believe that every so often, when the debates lag, that plants by GW come back to start the debate all over.

They're sitting and the corporate head quarters, drinking a pint, while laughing at all of our attempts to debate the issue.

See that is the exact sticking point.
It is not then, the victim of a Tank Shock, which is specifically required for Deff Rollas to cause s10 hits.

Oh ffs.
Ramming IS a tank shock, same way being hit with a power fist is a Close Combat attack!
I mean, no one argues that Toxic Miasma doesn't work on power fist attacks because they are a special form of close combat attack, which is essentially what you are doing.

Kirsanth - it s subset but doesnt have to follow all the rules...because it excplicitly tells you it DOESNT have to follow all the rules: it even says follow Tank Shock witht he following exceptions.....

(All possible Tank Shocks) includes any special and normal tank shocks by *definition of a superset*. Deff Rollas work on ALL tank shocks: they work on the superset and therefore work on the subset.

One question. Can Ram attacks actually hit vehicles?
Reading through this, the wording seems a little funny.

Ram move: Must declare full movement forward, move as per normal tank shock until you contact an enemy vehicle.
Tank shock move: Move forward, hit enemy units yada yada, stop if you come within an inch of an enemy vehicle.

Piece the two together: Move forward, stop when you come within an inch of an enemy vehicle. O look, I haven't made contact with it!!

Am I going crazy?

(Btw.. special type implies subset of, meaning ram is a tank shock. imo)
(edit: I'm not an ork player)

You declare a ram before doing it, same way as with a tank shock. So you can either tank shock normally (and run over infantry, stopping at vehicles) or you can ram, which means you are intentionally targetting an enemy vehicle, and therefore can move into contact.

Trasvi wrote:One question. Can Ram attacks actually hit vehicles?
Reading through this, the wording seems a little funny.

Ram move: Must declare full movement forward, move as per normal tank shock until you contact an enemy vehicle.
Tank shock move: Move forward, hit enemy units yada yada, stop if you come within an inch of an enemy vehicle.

Piece the two together: Move forward, stop when you come within an inch of an enemy vehicle. O look, I haven't made contact with it!!

Am I going crazy?

(Btw.. special type implies subset of, meaning ram is a tank shock. imo)
(edit: I'm not an ork player)

You're not crazy, but as I said on the previous page I'm sure 99% of players manage to figure out that the implicit allowance is enough... especially with the block of text describing the results of such a collision followed by a large text and picture example demonstrating a ram involving a vehicle to vehicle collision.

subset N. - a set of which all the elements are contained in another set.

All elements are not contained.
Movement distance requirements, approach to vehicles, etc. are not contained.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:I mean, no one argues that Toxic Miasma doesn't work on power fist attacks because they are a special form of close combat attack, which is essentially what you are doing.

Not even.
Attacks made with special weapons are still attacks.
They are not special attacks - which can cause their own issues.

That may be a good place to start reading.

kirsanth wrote:subset N. - a set of which all the elements are contained in another set.

All elements are not contained.
Movement distance requirements, approach to vehicles, etc. are not contained.

Movement distance is not an 'element', it is a property.

Squares are a special type of (subset of) rectangle (or trapezium, parallelogram, kite, rhombus, quadrilateral, shape...)
Squares have a different side length requirement to rectangles.
Rams have a different movement distance requirement to tank shocks.
Squares are still rectangles.
Rams are still tank shocks.


I mean, it would be a pretty damn poor 'special type of' tank shock if it behaved identical to a tank shock....

Then every vehicle that can Tank Shock can Ram?

Pray explain why not, if they are the same.
That is another part I miss.

Is this a ram?



Or just a special type of sheep?


Or is it both? Much like a square is both a special type of rectangle and a rectangle? Could ram be both a special type of tank shock and a tank shock?

The ram and I think it can. What say ewe?

kirsanth wrote:Then every vehicle that can Tank Shock can Ram?

Pray explain why not, if they are the same.
That is another part I miss.

I'm obviously missing what you're alluding to... what vehicles out there can Tank Shock but not Ram?

DE vehicles with the Torture Amp, if memory serves.

BTW the set of (ALL Tank Shocks) is (Normal Tank Shocks, SPecial Tank shocks) == (Normal Tank Shocks, Rams)

Deff rollas work on (ALL Tank Shocks)

This is an issue I've long wanted to chime in on.

Deffrollas, per their rules, work when you do any tank shock. Therefore, if ramming is any form of tank shock, the deff rolla will work. The BGB clearly indicates that ramming is indeed some form of tank shock, so the deff rolla (which works on any tank shock) will also operate in this situation, causing D6 hits on the vehicle.

The ram and I think it can. What say ewe?

I lol-ed.

Trasvi wrote:
I'm obviously missing what you're alluding to... what vehicles out there can Tank Shock but not Ram?

One of the best examples is another vehicle within the Ork codex, the Ork Trukk with a Reinforced Ram. The Ram specifies that it allows the Trukk to Tank Shock (as it's not a Tank it couldn't normally). Allowing it to Tank Shock, however, is not enough to allow it to Ram because Rams are special subsets of Tank Shock.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Deff rollas work on (ALL Tank Shocks)

+

sourclams wrote:Allowing it to Tank Shock, however, is not enough to allow it to Ram because Rams are special subsets of Tank Shock.

+

nosferatu1001 wrote:BTW the set of (ALL Tank Shocks) is (Normal Tank Shocks, SPecial Tank shocks) == (Normal Tank Shocks, Rams)

= ?

Simple truth is its badly written. When something is badly written it can be misunderstood.

IF ramming was the exact same as tank shocking (bar the hitting vehicles) there would be no point in saying infantry is tank shocked as normal. This is because it would already happen that way.

When this sort of thing comes up simplest way to guess at the author intent is to see if the rule is mention. Since Ramming (though a type of tank-shock) is never mention it is safe to assume that it is not meant to work with the deff-roller.

Well, that's my view on it anyway

Is it just me or did anyone else notice that sourclames just horribly contradicted himself?

If ramming is a tank shock then so long as a vehicle can tank shock you are allowed to ram. As ork players are arguing tank shock = ram

SO if an ork truck cannot ram even though it would be allowed to tank shock how can you argue its the same thing?

Tri wrote:
When this sort of thing comes up simplest way to guess at the author intent is to see if the rule is mention. Since Ramming (though a type of tank-shock) is never mention it is safe to assume that it is not meant to work with the deff-roller.

Well, that's my view on it anyway

Ramming is never mentioned because it didn't exist when the codex was written, and the codex was written when the ability to tank shock vehicles was explicitly a part of the tank shock rules and not in a subset of them. I won't go over the fairly conclusive RAI backing up rollas working again.
Bad argument is bad.

Golga wrote:Is it just me or did anyone else notice that sourclames just horribly contradicted himself?

I'm not sure what he's on about. A reinforced ram grants the ability to tank shock and hence the ability to ram, unless I'm missing something.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Tri wrote:
When this sort of thing comes up simplest way to guess at the author intent is to see if the rule is mention. Since Ramming (though a type of tank-shock) is never mention it is safe to assume that it is not meant to work with the deff-roller.

Well, that's my view on it anyway

Ramming is never mentioned because it didn't exist when the codex was written, and the codex was written when the ability to tank shock vehicles was explicitly a part of the tank shock rules and not in a subset of them. I won't go over the fairly conclusive RAI backing up rollas working again.
Bad argument is bad.