P. ¿Puedo utilizar la Apizonadora de muerte
para Embestir a vehículos, o sólo funciona al
aplicar su Brutalidad Acorazada contra
unidades que no son vehículos?
R. La Apizonadora de muerte infligirá 1D6
impactos de F10 contra vehículos , dado que la
Embestida es un tipo de Brutalidad acorazada.
Roughly translated:
Q. Can I use the deffrolla to ram vehicles, or does it only work against units that aren't vehicles?
A. The deffrolla will inflict 1D6 STR10 hits against vehicles, given that ramming is a type of "armored Brutality"
Are we gonna see a new english FAQ for February 2010? Does a Spanish FAQ show any official ruling from GW or only people who own a Spanish rulebook? Crazy eh?
UPDATE: ENGLISH LANGUAGE VERSION OF THE FAQ NOW RELEASED:
Just a shame its not english... till its in the english FAQ you still can't use it. (note i'm personally in the for a D6 str10 hit ... its just the rules no longer work that wawy)
Yeah, people will refuse to accept it until the English FAQ is updated. Particularly since there's a bit of a history of the various European GW's putting out the own FAQ's that have nothing to do with the studio.
insaniak wrote:Yeah, people will refuse to accept it until the English FAQ is updated. Particularly since there's a bit of a history of the various European GW's putting out the own FAQ's that have nothing to do with the studio.
Except that this isn't coming from games-workshop.eu or games-workshop.AU or anything else - its from games-workshop.com.
insaniak wrote:Yeah, people will refuse to accept it until the English FAQ is updated. Particularly since there's a bit of a history of the various European GW's putting out the own FAQ's that have nothing to do with the studio.
Except that this isn't coming from games-workshop.eu or games-workshop.AU or anything else - its from games-workshop.com.
Na GW finally worked out to do multiple versions from one location would be cheaper ... must have saved them lots of money not having to keep those other sites and domains separate.
This FAQ has a wide sweeping change to tank shocking in general as it defines Ramming as a subset... Which basically means "anything that is capable of tank shocking is also capable of ramming" which is a whole 'nother ball of wax.
I am also curious if this us a US Spanish FAQ or a EU SPAIN FAQ. Does GW make US spanish versions of their publications?
nkelsch wrote:This FAQ has a wide sweeping change to tank shocking in general as it defines Ramming as a subset... Which basically means "anything that is capable of tank shocking is also capable of ramming" which is a whole 'nother ball of wax.
I am also curious if this us a US Spanish FAQ or a EU SPAIN FAQ. Does GW make US spanish versions of their publications?
That's a misnomer. The FAQ didn't need to define ramming as a subset of ramming - the rulebook already does so in its first sentence, "Ramming is a special kind of tank shock."
The only reason deffrollas aren't widely used is because of the tremendous whining that erupted from people everywhere about it. Hopefully that's all fixed now.
nkelsch wrote:This FAQ has a wide sweeping change to tank shocking in general as it defines Ramming as a subset... Which basically means "anything that is capable of tank shocking is also capable of ramming" which is a whole 'nother ball of wax.
I am also curious if this us a US Spanish FAQ or a EU SPAIN FAQ. Does GW make US spanish versions of their publications?
That's a misnomer. The FAQ didn't need to define ramming as a subset of ramming - the rulebook already does so in its first sentence, "Ramming is a special kind of tank shock."
The only reason deffrollas aren't widely used is because of the tremendous whining that erupted from people everywhere about it. Hopefully that's all fixed now.
Have you read any of the threads asking if Trukks can Ram because they have the ability to tank shock? It is not as cut and dry as you seem to paint the debate that has droned on for over 2 years with no resolution.
Actually have you read any thread in YMTC for years? This is the first FAQ that has actually flat out said the words everyone likes to imply, that ramming is actually under tank shocking in a hierarchical format instead of just a fluff line as it stands now.
GW Spain doesn't write rules or contribute in any way to this game. Unless this is a pre-translated version of the studio's FAQ, this PDF is gutter trash snuck onto the website by a random dude within thier organization. I am an ork player, but I am not going to browbeat opponents with some foreign language document to win games. This is not the first time bad articles or FAQs have been published to Euro versions of the site and have been found to later be removed or contradicted by the studio.
****ing right on! This is the happiest FAQ update I've seen in quite awhile! Now, just translate to English, GW, so I can smash the goddamn landraiders that have been giving me fits!
nkelsch wrote:Actually have you read any thread in YMTC for years? This is the first FAQ that has actually flat out said the words everyone likes to imply, that ramming is actually under tank shocking in a hierarchical format instead of just a fluff line as it stands now.
nkelsch wrote:Actually have you read any thread in YMTC for years? This is the first FAQ that has actually flat out said the words everyone likes to imply, that ramming is actually under tank shocking in a hierarchical format instead of just a fluff line as it stands now.
Make it english and I will have no problem deffrolling landraiders off the table... But the impact on tankshocking as a whole and how it works is my question. Do Trukks get to ram now because rams are a sub rule of tank shocking so says the FAQ?
nkelsch wrote:Actually have you read any thread in YMTC for years? This is the first FAQ that has actually flat out said the words everyone likes to imply, that ramming is actually under tank shocking in a hierarchical format instead of just a fluff line as it stands now.
Make it english and I will have no problem deffrolling landraiders off the table... But the impact on tankshocking as a whole and how it works is my question. Do Trukks get to ram now because rams are a sub rule of tank shocking so says the FAQ?
I was just responding to the supposition that this was the firstFAQ to have that question in it.
Of course, it's worth pointing out that for both the Italian and Spanish FAQ's, you can do this nice little side by side comparison with the English FAQ matching up questions until you get to the extra one at the end.
I'm just sad that no one's mentioned the lonely little French Chaos Daemon FAQ yet.
I suspect the reason for a Spanish and Italian FAQ on the subject is that the Ork Codex in those languages + the main rulebook arnt as clear as the English one saying "any kind of tank shock" and "spacial kind of tank shock"
P. I can utilize the Apizonadora of death to Charge to vehicles, or only functions upon applying its Ironclad
Brutality against units that are not vehicles?
R. The Apizonadora of death will inflict 1D6 impacts of F10
against vehicles, given that the Attack is a type of ironclad Brutality.
Like others have said I will be waiting for an english version before I change how I play.
It's frustrating though cause it's yet another instance of GW ruling in entirely different directions with the FAQs without fully clarifying the rulings. Because here, something involved in tank shocking can be used with ramming, but in the Dark Eldar FAQ, something which allows their vehicles to tank shock, does not allow them to ram.
Given they haven't shown any consistency, we are still left with no clear answer as to whether you can ram with an ork reinforced ram or not.
Odd I was under the impression Trukks could ram anyways... just with their armour even at top speed they'd probably disintergrate when impacting upon most battle tanks or above.
As to the Deff Rolla, excellent news, I'll be happy to take that as gospel for my friendly games at home, and will be planning a new BW with Deff Rolla sometime this year.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Odd I was under the impression Trukks could ram anyways... just with their armour even at top speed they'd probably disintergrate when impacting upon most battle tanks or above.
That's a common misconception. As Ramming is a type of Tank Shock, only Tanks can normally do it.
I, for one, will be happy when this gets released in the English version...I can't see why they would do it one FAQ and not the rest so I'm hopeful this is just some sort of release issue that will get taken care of soon.
Because this is one of those really large issues that GW has side-stepped for such a long time and left it up to the players to try to decide how to play, which is a fairly big deal when you're talking about a rule that can drastically affect how an army plays.
It also goes to show that you really can't count on any information given out by the games designers when it comes to rules calls, because unless they're the person actually writing the FAQ, you never know what you're going to get. . .oh well.
Drunkspleen wrote:Like others have said I will be waiting for an english version before I change how I play.
It's frustrating though cause it's yet another instance of GW ruling in entirely different directions with the FAQs without fully clarifying the rulings. Because here, something involved in tank shocking can be used with ramming, but in the Dark Eldar FAQ, something which allows their vehicles to tank shock, does not allow them to ram.
Given they haven't shown any consistency, we are still left with no clear answer as to whether you can ram with an ork reinforced ram or not.
I think their ruling regarding the Dark Eldar has to do more with the context of the vehicle upgrade rather than a general ruling on whether or not vehicles that can tank shock can also ram.
Because the DE upgrade is simply a sonic weapon that causes enemies to fall back, I'm guessing it made sense in GW's minds to rule that the addition of this item wouldn't suddenly allow the vehicle to ram other vehicles, whereas in the case of an Ork reinforced ram, that contextual barrier isn't there, as it makes perfect sense that a 'ram' would allow a vehicle to well, ram.
So IMHO, assuming that FAQ gets pushed across the board I think in general you assume that vehicles that are able to tank shock are also able to ram, except for the DE ruling which you consider an exception to the rule.
Assuming this is legit and this will get published in English, any idea on how long that might take? Does GW have a track record on this? If it is published in English does that impact INATFAQ rulings, or will you guys just change it based on the foreign language FAQ?
nkelsch wrote:Actually have you read any thread in YMTC for years? This is the first FAQ that has actually flat out said the words everyone likes to imply, that ramming is actually under tank shocking in a hierarchical format instead of just a fluff line as it stands now.
And if you count the UKGT House Rules, it's been answered for a couple of years. Course, that said no............
Anyways, a foreign language FAQ doesn't quite do it, needs to be in the English one. I seem to remember some German one going up years back and having to be pulled because the Studio one was going to have different answers. While I applaud the local branches (GW Spain/Italy) putting this out, it doesn't solve anything unless you're playing in events run by thsoe entities. But maybe, just maybe, this will spur the studio to put soething in writing. And just like the Mawloc issue, I'll be happy either way, as long as it's in writing.
Brother Ramses wrote:Why the attitude that because it is in Spanish, it is not legal? Why the obtuse push for English only?
Because some people (one or both players in all reality, and probably not the judge either) may not speak spanish during a tournament? Just throwing out that rather obvious answer :p
I know if I had no advance warning of such a HUGE change and some guy brought in a foreign language FAQ which was translated by.. the internet I wouldnt allow it. Thats absurd to think that you could walk into a place with a non-english FAQ, slap it down and expect not to get laughed out of the room
yakface wrote:
So IMHO, assuming that FAQ gets pushed across the board I think in general you assume that vehicles that are able to tank shock are also able to ram, except for the DE ruling which you consider an exception to the rule.
At least that's my first thoughts on the matter.
I think that this is perfectly fine, but I think they really need to get this out in english for this to happen. Adepticon is coming up, and an ork army that can Deffroll is practically a whole 'nother codex compared to the current Adepticon ruling. Also, Ramming trukks is potentially KP-free dedicated transports serving up str 5-6 hits on vehicles all over the board depending on the missions of a tourney. Being able to ram 15" to 18" inches can really mess up some rear armor on stuff and changes the way the army plays as well as how people react to stuff.
I think everyone expected the debate can lean either direction and will mostly accept the answer as long as it comes from GW. I am not sure this FAQ without an English counterpart accomplishes that.
Brother Ramses wrote:Why the attitude that because it is in Spanish, it is not legal? Why the obtuse push for English only?
Because English is the "official" language of the rules. GW has in the past said that if aEnglish version and a foreign language version (rulbook/codex) disagree, the English one is correct. Sooooo, until it's in English......
And not only that, but the fact that only some of the FAQs are updated is odd and unusual...certainly odd enough to make one wonder what the deal with this whole thing is.
And with the recent way GW took an eraser to the english language faq, this spanish only change is going to be looked at with an extremely skeptical eye. This faq may well be the long awaited answer to the deff rolla and ramming questions....or it may be some GW employee writing a faq after too many brews.
Well one way to look at it is the spaniards are just confirming RAW so there's really no reason to doubt it etc etc, it's not errata or a rules change it's just a
"Yes Ramming is Tankshocking"
...
"Yes that means deffrollas roll vehicles just like it says it does"
...
"No this won't stop people complaining about it."
Well if their answer is that ram is now a tank shock, I wont be surprised if they reverse their ruling in 3 days just like they did with furious charge and counter attack stacking.
Edit: No their answer is Ram has always been a tank-shock just like it says in the rule book, we are very sorry that it wasn't clear enough for you the first time.
ugh, Its harder to read that translation then it is to read the spanish FAQ... even if you don't speak spanish and are just guessing from the latin root words...
Well, English also isn't the only language people speak either.
Like I said, pretty obtuse to take a FAQ and dismiss it just because it isn't in English. Even moreso when it seems you just won't use it because you don't like the ruling.
I use lots of rulings I don't like, both GWFAQs and INAT. I won't use a foreign language one for the reasons already stated, not because I might disagree with the ruling.
It is about deciding which FAQ carries more weight if there is a difference.
Most of us will agree that the english FAQ trumps all others. If only for the fact that GW and the game is of english origin.
Brother Ramses wrote:Well, English also isn't the only language people speak either.
I speak English. Everybody I have ever played speaks English. My rulebook is in English, as is every other copy sold in this country.
It's not unreasonable to refuse to play by rules written in a different language when you have no way of confirming what those rules actually say.
Like I said, pretty obtuse to take a FAQ and dismiss it just because it isn't in English.
It's not being dismissed just because it's not in English. It's being dismissed because it's not in English and its origin is uncertain.
Even moreso when it seems you just won't use it because you don't like the ruling.
I play Orks. I happen to not only like the ruling but think it reflects the RAW. The only reason I haven't already been playing that way is that there is too much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the issue. Well, and because I don't actually have any rollas on vehicles in my army. I still wouldn't accept an FAQ ruling on it in a different language.
Not only that, but the Spanish site has newer versions of different FAQs too - Necrons May, 2009 and other equally updated FAQs. Also, they have the beginning of a Tyranid 2010 FAQ at the bottom. Come to think of it, some other sites have Chaos Daemon FAQs and GW USA doesn't.
Brother Ramses wrote:Well, English also isn't the only language people speak either.
Like I said, pretty obtuse to take a FAQ and dismiss it just because it isn't in English. Even moreso when it seems you just won't use it because you don't like the ruling.
You also seem to be making an assumption that people who are holding off on accepting this FAQ are doing so because they don't like the ruling, which certainly isn't the case across the board.
I don't personally care one way or another...the two rulings just make the army play very differently, but I'm actually all for it since Orks have very limited ways to attack AV14 vehicles.
However, as has been pointed out, similar situations have occurred in the past where there were discrepancies between languages and GW has always gone with the concept that the English version is the 'master' version. So it is very curious to have a FAQ question/answer only in certain language FAQs. That is fishy, and it makes people wonder whether this is something official that will be rolled out across all the FAQs or whether it is simply a mistake implemented by lower level employees superseding their authority, in which case the foreign language FAQs will be rescinded.
I don't see why you can't understand why people would be skeptical of this situation and be looking for the FAQ to be released in English, which is the core language of the publishing company.
yakface wrote:It also goes to show that you really can't count on any information given out by the games designers when it comes to rules calls, because unless they're the person actually writing the FAQ, you never know what you're going to get. . .oh well.
Or a fan based one written in the UK? Hopefully this means the inat crew will stop being so wishy washy about their rulings...
yakface wrote:So IMHO, assuming that FAQ gets pushed across the board I think in general you assume that vehicles that are able to tank shock are also able to ram, except for the DE ruling which you consider an exception to the rule.
I ran into a similar language issue just prior to the Nid release, everyone wanted to play the new nids using translated codex. Sorry but I dont speak german, I dont want to play something that hasnt been published in my language, which lucky for me happens to be the language GW runs off of.
I personally don't care one way or the other if orks get it, it has little to no bearing on me personally, just 1 more thing to be aware of.
Will i play it this way before it gets released in english? no, not if my opponent wants a serious game.
Would you let other people show up to games and show you translated rules from other languages that you had no way of knowing prior to said game? especially if it were serious in nature? umm i think we can all say the answer would be HELL NO because its borderline cheating.
What I find interesting is that we seem to have a split between people who are saying that this rule proves that you can Roll vehicles, and those who seem to be of the opinion that this invalidates the previous arguments for Rolling vehicles.
I mean, from what I've seen, this issue seems to come down to player choice - no one has yet managed to convince the other side that their view is the only correct one.
I guess I just worry that this will be an excuse for people to say 'no, that's in Spanish so you can't Deffrolla vehicles', and ignore the discussions that people used to have about it.
I know this won't be a huge effect, as in most cases Ork players tended to abide by the unofficial FAQs and the sportsmanlike 'path of least benefit', but it's still interesting to note.
TL;DR version: Would you respond differently to someone saying "my Deff Rollas work on vehicles because (X)" than to "My Deff Rollas work on vehicles because the Spanish and Italian FAQs say so." ?
Orkestra wrote:What I find interesting is that we seem to have a split between people who are saying that this rule proves that you can Roll vehicles, and those who seem to be of the opinion that this invalidates the previous arguments for Rolling vehicles.
I mean, from what I've seen, this issue seems to come down to player choice - no one has yet managed to convince the other side that their view is the only correct one.
I guess I just worry that this will be an excuse for people to say 'no, that's in Spanish so you can't Deffrolla vehicles', and ignore the discussions that people used to have about it.
I know this won't be a huge effect, as in most cases Ork players tended to abide by the unofficial FAQs and the sportsmanlike 'path of least benefit', but it's still interesting to note.
TL;DR version: Would you respond differently to someone saying "my Deff Rollas work on vehicles because (X)" than to "My Deff Rollas work on vehicles because the Spanish and Italian FAQs say so." ?
Orkestra wrote:TL;DR version: Would you respond differently to someone saying "my Deff Rollas work on vehicles because (X)" than to "My Deff Rollas work on vehicles because the Spanish and Italian FAQs say so." ?
Well, yes, of course. If you disagree with a given premise, your answer is going to be different depending on the reason given.
If you meant 'Would you be more likely to accept an argument based on the rules rather than on a Spanish FAQ' then the answer is a very definite 'Yes'... FAQ's in other languages are not a valid source of rules in a discussion in English of an English-written ruleset.
So, this is getting a bit far-fetched, but bear with me.
What if someone were to show up at your game with a Spanish rulebook and the Spanish FAQ, and proceed to show you that <Ramming is a special kind of Armoured Brutality> and that the FAQ says that <Ramming is a special kind of Armoured Brutality> so it works?
Where does the argument fail because it's the wrong language, given that from the sounds of it, they use consistent wordings too?
It fails because while the rulebook has the same phrasing, there is no matching English verion FAQ saying what the Spanish FAQ says. And until there is, we don't know whether or not the Spanish one is correct. Get it? The non-English portions of GW have done this before, released an FAQ, only to have to pull it or correct it when the English one came out. Bottom line, until the FAQ is in English, it doesn't count.
Orkestra wrote:So, this is getting a bit far-fetched, but bear with me.
What if someone were to show up at your game with a Spanish rulebook and the Spanish FAQ, and proceed to show you that <Ramming is a special kind of Armoured Brutality> and that the FAQ says that <Ramming is a special kind of Armoured Brutality> so it works?
Where does the argument fail because it's the wrong language, given that from the sounds of it, they use consistent wordings too?
I would say that english is the native language spoken here, that is the default language to be played in. I do not speak/read spanish and since we are in a native english country not to be a dick, but the spanish book/faq would be just as good a use as toilet paper after a night of whiskey.
Orkestra wrote:Where does the argument fail because it's the wrong language, given that from the sounds of it, they use consistent wordings too?
It fails because it relies on a foreign-language FAQ that is different to the English one. It's already been explained several times through this thread why that's a problem.
Well, you all think that I'm an idiot clearly, but I'm just poking at the fact that there seems to be a general consensus that this FAQ is an argument against the Deffrolla working on vehicles, unless you're in Spain or Italy.
Especially given the colourful turns of phrases, it seems likely to me that many people would reply to a friendly "hey, I know there's some confusion about the Deffrolla, can we discuss it?" with "Oh yeah, there's a Spanish FAQ about it, so it doesn't work."
The arguments and logic are the same, it just seems like people are taking this as a mark against the pro-deffrolla arguments.
Orkestra wrote:Well, you all think that I'm an idiot clearly, but I'm just poking at the fact that there seems to be a general consensus that this FAQ is an argument against the Deffrolla working on vehicles, unless you're in Spain or Italy.
Especially given the colourful turns of phrases, it seems likely to me that many people would reply to a friendly "hey, I know there's some confusion about the Deffrolla, can we discuss it?" with "Oh yeah, there's a Spanish FAQ about it, so it doesn't work."
The arguments and logic are the same, it just seems like people are taking this as a mark against the pro-deffrolla arguments.
i dont think your an idiot i was just poking fun at the situation you presented in a friendly gmae 4+ because i really dont care... in a tourny id say your SOL
It sounds like the Spanish rules were unclear about the deffrolla being able to ram where unlike the English rules it’s quite clear they can. All the Spanish FAQ is doing is making clarity of their rules but I don’t expect there to be an English version because no need for one.
So what your getting at Orkestra is that now we have a FAQ saying (paraphrase) 'Yes it works on vehicles for x reasons' You don't like how people are saying this just proves Rollas never worked on vehicles???
Fair-a-bloody-nuff especially as the FAQ is just clarifying that - yes - Ramming is a (special) type of tankshock. For the Spanish speaking people - you know - who might not have the gramma constructions to make clear what ramming is a special type of tankshock means in their rulebook, i mean geez english speaking people seems to already been having trouble
Orkestra wrote:Well, you all think that I'm an idiot clearly, but I'm just poking at the fact that there seems to be a general consensus that this FAQ is an argument against the Deffrolla working on vehicles, unless you're in Spain or Italy.
No, it's neither an argument for or against the Deffrolla working, it's a non-entity until/unless it comes out in an English version. Get it yet? Without an English version saying the same thing (or the opposite), the Spanish one is completely irrelevant either way.
Orkestra wrote:... but I'm just poking at the fact that there seems to be a general consensus that this FAQ is an argument against the Deffrolla working on vehicles, unless you're in Spain or Italy.
Sorry, but I have no idea where you got that idea from.
It's not an argument against anything. It's an FAQ in Spanish that may be a preview of the official English FAQ... or may be just the opinion of someone from GW Spain.
By itself, it proves nothing one way or the other.
I'd love to have a definitive answer, in English, from GWUK.
I still have to wonder if they didn't address it in the Ork FAQ because they thought it was clear in the RAW... but that's been addressed ad nauseum, so... still waiting for orks to be competitive in the meched-up world.
I do believe that they didn't address it since they feel it's clear. GW is known to not answer questions they feel are "dumb."
Also, not that anyone cares, but at GD last year, my group asked Phil Kelly the question, and he said it did work. Not that that has any official bearing, but it was nice to hear it from him.
Intereting about Phil Kelly. Cause I think it was it the 2008 Baltimore Games Day that I asked him the same question and he told me no............... I was wondering how to call it during the tourney since I was the head judge.
Hoorah. We'll know more tomorrow when/if they decide to release this in English but for now: a big cheer for everyone else who was arguing that squares were in fact just special kinds of rectangles.
Another thing: I get how they make the English codex the "'(official)'" one but can yall make it sound any more ethnocentric? There are a few colonialists out here who didn't quite pick up on it yet.
Until it is in English, this does not fly. I would have loved, LOVED to use cheap Rhinos/Razorbacks for my old Wolves, because the German FAQ let me. Did I? No, because it was not in the English FAQ.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
imweasel wrote:
yakface wrote:It also goes to show that you really can't count on any information given out by the games designers when it comes to rules calls, because unless they're the person actually writing the FAQ, you never know what you're going to get. . .oh well.
Or a fan based one written in the UK? Hopefully this means the inat crew will stop being so wishy washy about their rulings...
don_mondo wrote:Intereting about Phil Kelly. Cause I think it was it the 2008 Baltimore Games Day that I asked him the same question and he told me no............... I was wondering how to call it during the tourney since I was the head judge.
We have the same experience here...which is exactly why I made the comment about not trusting even the codex of the author when it comes to these kinds of 'off-the-cuff' rulings.
There is absolutely no guarantee that even the codex author is going to be the one writing the FAQ and we have no idea what kind of process the FAQ goes through. They could easily just hand it off to one designer and say, 'answer these' and he does so without any discussion with anyone else. We really have no idea...
Like I said before GW doesn’t thinks it’s unclear in the English rules (it fits into RAW, RAI, fluff, and RAP) so they wont update the English FAQ. Updating the Spanish FAQ tell us a few things one being that the Spanish rules were unclear about tank shocks being rams. A more likely reason is that they got so much flack over the deff rolla question they wanted to settle it while at the same time saving face by putting out the Spanish FAQ.
It doesn’t matter what the reason was, the argument is settled now and forever. It’s time to let go and move on. Let the healing begin.
Users are reminded not to make personal attacks, spam the threads and generally PO the MODs early in the morning.
Ta.
I can also echo the experiences of Messrs. Yakface and don_mondo : I helped write the UKGTFAQ they did a year or two back and we managed to snag soem face to face and emails with some of the design team. We got quiet different answers... I guess theories would perhaps be more apt, with regards to certain rules and queries.
As a side note, at least in the spanish version of the rulebook and codex it is perfectly clear that ramming (embestida) is a special kind of tank shock (brutalidad acorazada). I think that the main problem is, as funny as it may be, that the ramming header is the same font size as the tank shock header. It should be smaller and there would be no problem.
This thread has been purged of the off-topic conversation.
Whether or not one chooses to use the GWFAQs in their games is not pertinent to this conversation so please let it drop.
All the players who *do* use the GWFAQs, including all tournaments I know of, will find this information at least interesting. If you personally choose not to utilize the GWFAQs, that is of course, your right and backed up by GW's policy on their FAQ (or any of their rules, for that matter), but please let the discussion continue for the vast majority of players who do choose to utilize these FAQs.
orkcommander wrote:The bottom line answer has always been there it is clearly RAW: any tank shock = a special tank shock no English FAQ needed. It has just been confirmed by the Spanish & Itallian FAQ.
An FAQ should answer questions the players feel are unanswered, period. Regardless of what the design team thinks is clear RAW. The Deffrolla issue is in my experience, both here and at games, a clearly contested issue no matter what GW thinks.
A metaphor: Often when I prowl for vintage car parts on eBay I won't find what I'm looking for if I use the proper factory code. I have to revert to more imprecise "common" names, because they are common. I can insist on only searching for names I think are "correct", but it won't make me happier. Communication doesn't work that way.
We have 2 FAQs that provide this answer, the Spanish one and the Italian one. The English one does not contradict this question, it simply doesn't cover it.
So, 2 FAQs from 2 languages answer this question. The other does not cover it. It is the last question and has therefore been 'tacked on' at the end following the ongoing disputes about it.
The question is answered.
Deffrollas affect vehicles. If your expecting ork players to wait to use this, simply based on GW 'getting around' to updating the English FAQ, they you're employing their tardiness to your own advantage and not being a good sport.
Deffrollas affect vehicles. If your expecting ork players to wait to use this, simply based on GW 'getting around' to updating the English FAQ, they you're employing their tardiness to your own advantage and not being a good sport.
Hold on there. I think you're going a bit overboard when you imply that someone who didn't want to use a foreign language FAQ is being a bad sport.
Don't get me wrong, I also agree with you that an opponent who is a good sport should indeed consider the foreign language FAQ in lieu of any answer in the english one, but by the same token it wouldn't be very good sportsmanship IMHO for the Ork player to expect that his opponent will abide by the foreign language FAQ.
Instead it should be brought up within the strange context it currently exists...the Ork player should present what information he has and mention that, while it is strange that no english version is currently out, that the likelihood is that this represents the eventual update that the english language version will get, and as such, would the opponent mind utilizing the clarification as-is now.
In other words, it should be discussed as with anything else that is a bit murky.
And why do I say it is murky? Well again, it is simply 'odd' to have a foreign language version get the update and not the english language version. 90% of the time this is simply a release snafu and we will have an updated English version within a week or two...
But let's say in a week or two instead these updates disappear from the foreign language version...what 'message' would that send? That Deff Rollas don't affect vehicles when ramming? I think that's what your opponent might want to claim were this to happen.
So anyway, I just want to point out that these are strange circumstances and I don't think it is crazy for anyone to want to wait a few days for validation anymore then you go up to the counter at a store when you find two of the same item marked with different prices.
Unfortunately in this case, the only way we can get validation is to wait and hope that GW either updates the English FAQ or removes the references from the foreign language ones.
And what happens if neither of those happens? Lets say two months from now the Spanish and Italian FAQs still cheerfully say the same thing, but there is no English FAQ change.
Question ... Why would you think that you can use a FAQ from another language?
Hypothetically ... If i found a FAQ for a weapon in japan that states some thing like "As always double the range" would you assume that you could also double the range on the English version? No, the reason for the text would simply be a clarification since all measurements are double over there as they measure in CM not Inches.
You've got to use the FAQ version in language you are playing in.
This isn't a contradiction of any official FAQ or position (like double range weapons), just a clarification of a grey area that happens to be in another language. As the only sort of answer GW has given to this question, it is likely to at least influence TO's stances in the future.
Tri wrote:
You've got to use the FAQ version in language you are playing in.
Says who?
If it came from the GW company, why couldn't you use it?
Of course, no one in my LGS adheres to the idiocy that Deffrollas don't work on vehicles, but if they did I would throw this right in their face! In their face!
There have been discrepancies between the English and other language versions of GW codexes for as long as I can remember. With all due respect to Spanish gamers, the English version of the rules is the definitive one, and I'd be wary of adopting an FAQ ruling in another language. I don't think it's the correct interpretation of the rules either (although that's a debate that's been flogged to death), and I'm an Ork player. So let's wait and see whether it appears in the UK version of the FAQ, or disappears.
When the Tau Empire codex was released, the Spanish site was the first site where an FAQ was released.
The FAQ looked unfinished, and a lot of players decided to ignore it, however it was translated verbatim into English and released as the English FAQ a few weeks later.
I kind of concure with the people who say you can use the spanish FAQ. Yes, it's in spanish (and Italian), but it is an official GWFAQ, it's not from telemundo or anything.
It's a rules clarification, nothing so drastic as as a points change. If it goes away in two weeks, it would have been no more drasic than the counter charge and furious charge rule that was gleefully used while it lasted.
yakface wrote:
Hold on there. I think you're going a bit overboard when you imply that someone who didn't want to use a foreign language FAQ is being a bad sport.
Don't get me wrong, I also agree with you that an opponent who is a good sport should indeed consider the foreign language FAQ in lieu of any answer in the english one, but by the same token it wouldn't be very good sportsmanship IMHO for the Ork player to expect that his opponent will abide by the foreign language FAQ.
So a good sport would consider it and then remain a good sport on consideration if they said 'despite the question being resolved with the same answer in two other languages, the fact it's not written in English means I am not prepared to allow it'...?
yakface wrote:
Instead it should be brought up within the strange context it currently exists...the Ork player should present what information he has and mention that, while it is strange that no english version is currently out, that the likelihood is that this represents the eventual update that the english language version will get, and as such, would the opponent mind utilizing the clarification as-is now.
In other words, it should be discussed as with anything else that is a bit murky.
And why do I say it is murky? Well again, it is simply 'odd' to have a foreign language version get the update and not the english language version. 90% of the time this is simply a release snafu and we will have an updated English version within a week or two...
And what if this doesn't happen? I'm quite optimistic it will, but, what if GW don't do another revision to the FAQ for 'Da Englush Speakin orks' until the next ork codex? Do ork players have to wait in some countries and not wait in others? What I learn Spanish and thereby become bilingual? What if a natural speaker of Spanish attends a tourny which allows international players?
yakface wrote:
But let's say in a week or two instead these updates disappear from the foreign language version...what 'message' would that send? That Deff Rollas don't affect vehicles when ramming? I think that's what your opponent might want to claim were this to happen.
So anyway, I just want to point out that these are strange circumstances and I don't think it is crazy for anyone to want to wait a few days for validation anymore then you go up to the counter at a store when you find two of the same item marked with different prices.
Unfortunately in this case, the only way we can get validation is to wait and hope that GW either updates the English FAQ or removes the references from the foreign language ones.
If they disappear I would be surprised, they are an answer to a fairly widely asked question, there is no prior precedence for resolution and now we have one, provided by the owning company, albeit in a language other than English.
My usual opponents have already emailed me that they are happy to accept the ruling (well, unhappy certainly, but understand and concur with it).
I'm hopeful GW will act to bring the English FAQ inline with this asap, I'm just not sure we should all wait around for that to happen if it's going to take a long time.
Will you and the council be changing your FAQs to reflect this Yakface?
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Will you and the council be changing your FAQs to reflect this Yakface?
I can't speak for anyone besides myself.
We are obviously looking at it and deciding what to do right now.
I was always of the opinion that it should work when ramming...again that's originally how we ruled it, its just that we got information from extraneous sources that strongly indicated that GW would rule against it being used with ramming if they ever ruled on it.
Obviously opinions within the studio have changed since then or the person writing this FAQ didn't speak with the person who previously gave that information.
So yeah, IMHO we should change our ruling...and if they clear this up by putting out a new English language version then absolutely positively it would apply at Adepticon.
Hmmm
This spanish/italian ruling makes sense, in game & fluff considerations. But it is really strange that it has not appeared in english FAQ. Usually, foreign languages suffer from some delay since the english .PDF hits the download section.
Remember the Space Wolves FAQ with the mismach about counterattack / furious charge interaction ? It needed more than two weeks to obtain a french version, by this time the mismatch was already history because of the reversal in a second english FAQ. And two weeks to wait is not even long compared to usual.
My theory is that this weird situation could originate from a simple forgotten paragraph when english PDF was typed/edited. This additional ruling in Italian/Spanish could originate from a complete draft paper of the FAQ, given to translators. Other languages FAQ may lack this ruling because they used the final english PDF as a basis to start the translation (due to time constraints, delay, whatever...). In the french version we don't have this deffrolla ramming rule for instance.
In this case the discrepancy would have been unnoticed until now.
May someone here, having a contact within the studio tell them about the story ? And ask them for a definitive statement ?
These FAQs have been updated to include the answer. The Italian one at the latter part of 09 and now the Spanish one Feb 2010.
The Deffrolla answer has been added at these later dates to the previous FAQ which reads as the English one does (and presumably the French version as well). It's why the Deffrolla question and answer are tacked on at the end.
Tri wrote:
You've got to use the FAQ version in language you are playing in.
Says who?
If it came from the GW company, why couldn't you use it?
Of course, no one in my LGS adheres to the idiocy that Deffrollas don't work on vehicles, but if they did I would throw this right in their face! In their face!
I will refuse to use anything that i cannot read. With out running this page through a translation website i would be completely lost, since i only understand English. Again not that i disagree with this being the way it should work but all GWFAQ are house rules and while i fully agree with using them as the definitive answer; to use them at all both players must agree to (and it helps for both players to be able to read it)
MeanGreenStompa wrote:These FAQs have been updated to include the answer. The Italian one at the latter part of 09 and now the Spanish one Feb 2010.
The Deffrolla answer has been added at these later dates to the previous FAQ which reads as the English one does (and presumably the French version as well). It's why the Deffrolla question and answer are tacked on at the end.
Man you're right ! According to document's properties :
old ones without deffrolla tank shock :
english original , june 2008
french old, january 2009
(LOL , 6 months to get a translated version, granted that I don't play orks)
Updated with deffrolla tankshock :
spanish pdf created 22 february 2010.
italian pdf created 23 february 2010.
In fact this is burning news, get ready to download once available !
Just a shame its not english... till its in the english FAQ you still can't use it.
Oh here we go again. Are you shure if it's in English you can use it? I find it pathetic that GW finally makes an FAQ and it still can't be used because it's not in English. That is pretty rasicit of people to say that.
Also I have seen GWFAQs that were in English, and it was still not accepted so don't give me this if it's not in English Bunk crap, it's not accepted.
Davor and MeanGreanStompa have nailed it.
1. It's in two languages (one of which is the native tongue of the BRB's author).
2. It does NOT contradict any existing GW document in any language.
3. Hola! My name is Olympia--soy de Madrid! Deff Rolla es caliente! What you only play English-speakers?
This is hardly game-breaking. If it offers a much needed tweak to the meta-game. If you can't kill an open-topped vehicle with rear armor 10 you've got other problems than S10 hits on your land raider.
Don't worry, gentle dakkites, the Blood Angel codex will be out soon and then you can complain about things that are truly broken.
It's got nothing to do with racism, it's just the fact that precedence shows that when there have been conflicting FAQs on an issue, the English one wins out since GW is a UK-based company and they're the ones who write the rules in the first place.
If the Spanish FAQ is what was sent to them from HQ to translate for the benefit of Spanish-speaking 40k players, then we're likely to get the same FAQ in English soon enough. If it's some guy at GW Spain posting this without any authority, then there's no credibility for using it.
Not yet, at least.
EDIT: For the record, I am in the "Works against vehicles" camp
Don't worry, gentle dakkites, the Blood Angel codex will be out soon and then you can complain about things that are truly broken.
bhsman wrote:It's got nothing to do with racism, it's just the fact that precedence shows that when there have been conflicting FAQs on an issue,
The point is that the Italian and Spanish FAQ do NOT conflict with anything. There is no FAQ on this other than the Spanish and Italian FAQ. Hola! Me llamo Olympia! Tengo quatro deff rollas!
bhsman wrote:It's got nothing to do with racism, it's just the fact that precedence shows that when there have been conflicting FAQs on an issue, the English one wins out since GW is a UK-based company and they're the ones who write the rules in the first place.
There is no conflict with any GWFAQ. This is the only time GW has addressed this in an official document.
Can someone PLEASE translate the nid faq for me. I know there is not much in it, but please I am so close to selling my new nids because I can't play a single game without a rules argument. I guess I could use more battle wagons and deff rollas with the money from selling them.
Please let GW put out the English FAQ Update with all haste. But knowing GW they will use bad grammer and throw the interwebs into another hissy fit on what the rules mean.
Despite GW taking wayyyyyyyy too long to answer this Frequently Asked Question, I'd be happy to treat Alessio to either Taco Bell or Fazoli's. His choice. Guess I need to go pick up another BW or three.
And since we love giving nicknames to lists, I say that any list with 3+ BWs with rollas be called, "Armored Brutality"!
Someone mentioned that it's not about racism. But yest it is.
When someone clearly says, if it's Purple, it's not accepted unless is Blue. If people are lazy in the writing and can only put out one line sentences, and not explain themselves, they just make themselves look like they are racist. Again, sorry, if you say it's Purple it's no good without futher explanation you are racsit. If you say you are not, don't be lazy in writing then.
I am in Canada. I understand I play with an English codex. My oppononet who is also from Canada plays with an english codex it would be understandable to play with an english FAQ. For an opponent to throw apon in a middle of a game and say, but oh, the spanish FAQ says this, and we both don't know any spanish, I would consider my opponent of trying to pull a fast one over. But if said opponent said, look it was stated that on the spanish FAQ says this, or the German one said that, I think this is the way the rule should go, do you agree or disagree. Can we come up with a comprimise? Then he is not pulling one over and is going by what GW has put out.
See I had to spend a bit of time to write out something. So if someone cant take the time to write out something on the internet that is their problem then and don't cry if someone might think you are a racist person for being lazy.
I know I am not racist, I just can't speak or read Spanish or Italian plus web site translation programs often mess up the grammer horribly to the point of not being able to be used. I just don't have time to learn every language that GW has things published in so that is why I simply want an English FAQ to come out.
olympia wrote:The point is that the Italian and Spanish FAQ do NOT conflict with anything. There is no FAQ on this other than the Spanish and Italian FAQ.
Gitzbitah wrote:There is no conflict with any GWFAQ. This is the only time GW has addressed this in an official document.
Whether there'll be a conflicting English FAQ or not, that doesn't change the precedent that for non-English speakers a foreign FAQ ruling without an English counterpart written by (or endorsed by if the Space Wolf FAQ taught us anything) the guys that write the actual rules doesn't have a lot of credibility.
Hola! Me llamo Olympia! Tengo quatro deff rollas!
Then I would happily play against them without complaint of it being unfair, but don't be surprised if your local tournament decides to go with "path of least benefit" and play it safe until there's an official English FAQ from GW Headquarters.
EDIT: Davor I think you're being overly simplistic here with the racism accusation, and I suggest you keep an open mind yourself.
This was done using an online translator. Not shure how well it's translated but some don't make sence to me, so I guess it's an unfinished FAQ. Also it dosn't address what we have been asking anyways.
Page 81. Arms and biomorphs. Eater. Replaces
paragraph in italics preceded by an asterisk
by:
"If an enemy unit has one or more casualties
because of a consuming and required the
moral check at the end of the phase, the unit
suffer a -1 to leadership. "
Page 83. Melee weapons. Whip
organic.
Replace the first word of the second
paragraph by "Any", so that the text
reads: "Any enemy model in contact
[...]"
Page 86. Tyrant of Swarm. Options. Replaces
the wording of the third point:
"Substitute any two sharp claws by:"
Gwar! wrote:Well, there ya go! Glad to see GW growing some balls and actually clearing up unclear rules for once!
Hey, they did fix the Space Wolf FAQ after all the nerdrage that caused (on both sides). It's too bad, because when they did, your fervent argument of the FAQs not being official convinced me to dismiss the fixed FAQ in favor of house rules that combine CA and FC. :(
New questions:
*Can all things able to tank shock now perform Rams?
*Can a Deffroller be removed as a 'weapon destroyed' result now that people are going to be actually using them again?
No, but this does give some armour killing weight to orks, who need it.
Huh? Because all those Nobs with power claws getting in your face from Battlewagons and fast moving open topped trucks just couldn't get the job done? Deffrollas taking out vehicles is abusive.
nkelsch wrote:New questions:
*Can all things able to tank shock now perform Rams?
*Can a Deffroller be removed as a 'weapon destroyed' result now that people are going to be actually using them again?
If you're using the new FAQ as precedent, I'd say:
-Yes
-Not sure, are it's rules located in the weapons or vehicle upgrade section of the Ork codex?
Vehicle upgrades.
Awww yeah, thank you GW. Mostly, I'm happy that I was right, and the other people were talking out their arses.
Being able to squish land raiders (for the first time in my memory) is a bonus! Think I'll mostly still play Horde though.
Seriously, people whinge about this, but not Lash? 3++ Storm Shields?
Looks like the Whaaaambulance call centre is overwhelmed today.
Lol! I find it telling that it's already been put out a few months ago in an italian FAQ. It's hard to say this Spanish one is going to end the debate (it obviously hasn't) if that one didn't... hopefully they will clear it up in English one way or the other as well!
BrassScorpion wrote: Because all those Nobs with power claws getting in your face from Battlewagons and fast moving open topped trucks just couldn't get the job done? Deffrollas taking out vehicles is abusive.
Yes... and those Nobs with Power Klaws have an awesome save at 6+ and dies like flies when the bolter rounds come flying. And what are the chances of that happening when I zoom into your deployment zone and get out to assault your vehicle?
Sounds like sour grapes to me. Let's talk about abusive:
1. Jaws of the World Wolf. Character sniping. 'nuff said.
2. Doom of Malantai.
3. Storm shields and a FREE 3+ invulnerable save.
Etc. etc.
Get over it. Orks NEED a S10 weapon to deal with AV14.
RiTides wrote:
Lol! I find it telling that it's already been put out a few months ago in an italian FAQ. It's hard to say this Spanish one is going to end the debate (it obviously hasn't) if that one didn't... hopefully they will clear it up in English one way or the other as well!
Did you miss the part where even though the Italian FAQ said 2009, someone checked the document history of the PDF and it had been updated in the past 2 days. The Italian FAQ does not appear to have been 'put out for months'.
It actually appears like they are updating all the FAQs in a reasonable amount of time in relation to each other this time.
I tried using the Spanish Tyranid FAQ, for the English one, and I don't think we should be able to use a different language FAQ because somethings don't ad up.
I tried to go to page 83 (I think it was, and couldn't find anything on page 83 that would have 2 claws). So I believe page numbers can be different as well. So since page numbers don't match how can we say what is suppose to be changed is the correct one.
Also because of the the way words can be translated, there is a bit of confusion, since when I thought I was looking for Swarm Tyrant (since Swarm was in the name) nothing made sence, but when I looked at Hive Tyrant section it sort of made sence but not completely. So that is why we should never use another non native language to codex FAQ. So if you have english codex, use english FAQ, if you have Spanish codex use Spanish FAQ.
BrassScorpion wrote: Because all those Nobs with power claws getting in your face from Battlewagons and fast moving open topped trucks just couldn't get the job done? Deffrollas taking out vehicles is abusive.
Yes... and those Nobs with Power Klaws have an awesome save at 6+ and dies like flies when the bolter rounds come flying. And what are the chances of that happening when I zoom into your deployment zone and get out to assault your vehicle?
I've never played against Nobs that have a 6+ save. Maybe you're looking at the wrong codex. In all games I've played against or with Nobz, they always have a 4+ armor save or 5+ INV and Feel No Pain. Sometimes they ride bikes too, or have Mega Armor.
whitedragon wrote:I've never played against Nobs that have a 6+ save. Maybe you're looking at the wrong codex. In all games I've played against or with Nobz, they always have a 4+ armor save or 5+ INV and Feel No Pain. Sometimes they ride bikes too, or have Mega Armor.
No, it says it right there in the Codex... wait a minute...
Nice to see this updated in english at last. Two days after spanish, one after italian.
This ends the growing rage about "it's in a foreign language only, thus nooooo."
Anyway this ruling will greatly help a race that had horrendous problems at dealing with AV14, which is nice.
Reminds me of the good old days of Epic, 2nd edition. All these orky vehicles with deffrollas rules were absolute fun.
Might even consider building a Waaagh on 30mm scale now.
Pipboy101 wrote:So now how many Deff Rolla equipped Battlewagons can I fit in a 1850 list now? Hmmmmmmmmmm..........
The minimum cost to take 8 of them is 1300 points exactly. That's for 2 Naked Warbosses, 5 Naked 3 strong Nobs Squads and 8 Battlewagons with a Deffrolla and no Weapons. So I reckon 6 would be the optimum number.
Well one thing is for sure now, Orks dont have to cower when SM bring LR spam everywhere. Of course those that read my petition, know I was against using it until they FAQ the bloody thing. Win one for the hobbyists!
That is alot of S10 hurt on the board and it is still legal. I am still wondering how this is going to change this year's Adepticon with this new FAQ especially in the team tournament where HS and Elites are restricted.
Monster Rain wrote:Si ellos no comprenden Espanol, no es mi problema.
Apizonadora de muerte PEG*.
*(FTW)
PEG? Para el ganar? Don't use internet translators. Closest option would be "Para la victoria", but it's not very good either.
@OP Brutalidad acorazada is the name given here for the Tank Shock rules.
kowbasher wrote:Freetranslation.com
P. I can utilize the Apizonadora of death to Charge to vehicles, or only functions upon applying its Ironclad
Brutality against units that are not vehicles?
R. The Apizonadora of death will inflict 1D6 impacts of F10
against vehicles, given that the Attack is a type of ironclad Brutality.
Mmmm ironclad Brutality.
LOL seriously, don't use internet translators
Anyway guys: there is a lot of people here who doesn't have english as first language. There are many posters from Sweden, Germany, Japan... and we all use English, just as it is, a language. And for one time, you read a few words in another language that is not english and the first thing you do is make fun of that language? Who do you think you are?
About the rules: Spanish rulebook, page 69, second paragraph of ramming: "Ramming is a special kind of Tank Shock, wich is done in the same way, being the only difference that the tank must move at highest possible speed. However, if the ramming tank gets contact to an enem vehicle, the crash will be resolved as we are about to tell.
(then third paragraph and roll bonuses for armour and such, and example]
I don't PARTICULARLY mind it, but I think there should have been some sort of ....I don't know. d6 S10 is just ridiculous. AUTOMATIC hits. If you touch them, you throttle them. I mean a landraider ramming 12" does what, a S9 hit? Falcon moving 24" does a S10 but that's kind of a long shot getting that much distance. I think auto-S10 when ramming would have been fine. That would allow you to ram from any distance and still hit with crushing force.
All in all it's alright though. My issue is still with the boarding plank. Most broken 5 point upgrade ever. "I do 6 S10 attacks on your defiler cuz I'm next to it!" With no limitation on how fast you can move before using it, trukks moving 18" and then dropping a ton of hard hits on my walkers gets pretty damn annoying after a while.
Which btw, THERE is the ork anti-tank. Killakanz, lootas and powerclaws from boarding planks. What more do you need?
And one more thing - those complaining about the Monolith really need not worry. It's a skimmer, it gets a 3+ save to ignore a ram completely. Pass the save once, avoid d6 hits.
On the note of rules errata and translations, I prefer the Japanese way of handling things. Very few errata, very few FAQs. "I think Deffrollas work against vehicles" "I think they don't" "let's roll off" "ok"
END RULES DEBATE. Seriously the Japanese have such a wonderful way of settling rules disputes. Never had a problem over there, ever. No lengthy debates, no technicalities, no RAW down to the very nitty gritty of verb tenses and pronoun usage.... just roll a friggin' dice and get on with it!
Alpharius wrote:Nice to see GW answer a question and then create more chaos, in that very same answer!
I don't understand why you say that. Rulebook at bottom of page 69, states that ramming is a sub-type of tank shocking, adding the obligation to drive full speed towards the vehicle you aim, and no shoot. So this ruling is coherent.
KingCracker wrote:Also, anyone think its sad it takes GW so long to FAQ the codices? I mean really, how old is the Ork dex now?
Especially since this question has been floating around since the book was first released. That is a long time, even more so when you consider that this ruling is contrary to what most of the people I've seen have agreed upon. This should have been out two years ago. And as far as my "this is abusive" comment, I stand by it given the comments following it about army lists entirely built around multiples of this single piece of wargear. If any one thing in an army list is so near a guaranteed win that every army is built around it then there's little fun to be had for anyone else willing to play against it. Stuff like this which exists for nearly every 40K army constantly reminds me why I don't play pick-up games and only play games with friends who are also interested in the models and the hobby instead of just building "broken" army lists.
Never get near a battlewagon. I picture this scenario:
Ram rhino. d6 S10. Boom. Squad gets out. Squad's in the way. Squad gets shocked. d6 S10. Ouch! Rhino behind squad. Ram. d6 S10. Squad gets out. Tank shock. d6 S10. End movement. Boarding plank nearby rhino, 4 S9 attacks on rear armour. Boom, or not either way Wrecking Ball, S9 hit.
A single battlewagon can now crush its way through multiple vehicles and the units they carry now, even just barely clipping. And at the end of it all, drop the boarding plank on whatever else is around.
BrassScorpion wrote: If any one thing in an army list is so near a guaranteed win that every army is built around it then there's little fun to be had for anyone else willing to play against it. Stuff like this which exists for nearly every 40K army constantly reminds me why I don't play pick-up games and only play games with friends who are also interested in the models and the hobby instead of just building "broken" army lists.
It won't be nearly so useful against armies that aren't LR spam or all mechanised. So, in tourney it may well come to limit those builds and force those currently relying on maximum land raiders to re-evaluate. So, back to the drawing board for those armies once this gets put out and about.
Spellbound wrote:A single battlewagon can now crush its way through multiple vehicles and the units they carry now, even just barely clipping. And at the end of it all, drop the boarding plank on whatever else is around.
Meh. If you let the Battlewagon get that close you've done something wrong anyway.
The only lists really threatened by this is the "gimmick" armies i.e. Rhino Rush, LR Spam, IG Chimera Wall, etc. A balanced list is not going to suffer excessively at the hands of the occasional Deff Rolla.
Monster Rain wrote:Si ellos no comprenden Espanol, no es mi problema.
Apizonadora de muerte PEG*.
*(FTW)
PEG? Para el ganar? Don't use internet translators. Closest option would be "Para la victoria", but it's not very good either.
I don't know if this makes it better or worse, but I didn't use an internet translator. That was based on my High School spanish classes and having a lot of Mexican friends when I was in the Marines.
"For the win" isn't really proper English either though. I think Para la Victoria suits my purposes just fine.
Erasoketa wrote:
Anyway guys: there is a lot of people here who doesn't have english as first language. There are many posters from Sweden, Germany, Japan... and we all use English, just as it is, a language. And for one time, you read a few words in another language that is not english and the first thing you do is make fun of that language? Who do you think you are?
Make fun of? No, no, no. I'm jealous. All we get a lame "ram". I say "Ramming your Rhino" and the opponent breaks into a rendition of "Baa-baa-black-sheep". I say "IRONCLAD BRUTALITY THROUGH THE SIDE OF YOUR PATHETIC LAND RAIDER YOU FETHING PIECE OF GAK!" and they cower in fear, rolling the dice meekly.
BrassScorpion wrote: If any one thing in an army list is so near a guaranteed win that every army is built around it then there's little fun to be had for anyone else willing to play against it. Stuff like this which exists for nearly every 40K army constantly reminds me why I don't play pick-up games and only play games with friends who are also interested in the models and the hobby instead of just building "broken" army lists.
It won't be nearly so useful against armies that aren't LR spam or all mechanised. So, in tourney it may well come to limit those builds and force those currently relying on maximum land raiders to re-evaluate. So, back to the drawing board for those armies once this gets put out and about.
So it will be limiting spam of another kind.
Good isn't it.
Good, interesting point here about metagame.
On a clusterd vehicle formation, deffrollas could lead to big boom and double-crushes. Deadly, and great fun too.
Spellbound wrote:I don't PARTICULARLY mind it, but I think there should have been some sort of ....I don't know. d6 S10 is just ridiculous. AUTOMATIC hits. If you touch them, you throttle them. I mean a landraider ramming 12" does what, a S9 hit? Falcon moving 24" does a S10 but that's kind of a long shot getting that much distance. I think auto-S10 when ramming would have been fine. That would allow you to ram from any distance and still hit with crushing force.
All in all it's alright though. My issue is still with the boarding plank. Most broken 5 point upgrade ever. "I do 6 S10 attacks on your defiler cuz I'm next to it!" With no limitation on how fast you can move before using it, trukks moving 18" and then dropping a ton of hard hits on my walkers gets pretty damn annoying after a while.
Which btw, THERE is the ork anti-tank. Killakanz, lootas and powerclaws from boarding planks. What more do you need?
And one more thing - those complaining about the Monolith really need not worry. It's a skimmer, it gets a 3+ save to ignore a ram completely. Pass the save once, avoid d6 hits.
On the note of rules errata and translations, I prefer the Japanese way of handling things. Very few errata, very few FAQs. "I think Deffrollas work against vehicles" "I think they don't" "let's roll off" "ok"
END RULES DEBATE. Seriously the Japanese have such a wonderful way of settling rules disputes. Never had a problem over there, ever. No lengthy debates, no technicalities, no RAW down to the very nitty gritty of verb tenses and pronoun usage.... just roll a friggin' dice and get on with it!
Actually, you are wrong here. If the Ork vehicle, or the target moved over 12 inches (13 if Red paint of the Orks), then you can't use the Boarding plank.
Primarch wrote:Actually, you are wrong here. If the Ork vehicle, or the target moved over 12 inches (13 if Red paint of the Orks), then you can't use the Boarding plank.
Keep in mind that it is 12" throughout the whole game, not just the previous turn
Spellbound wrote:Never get near a battlewagon. I picture this scenario:
Ram rhino. d6 S10. Boom. Squad gets out. Squad's in the way. Squad gets shocked. d6 S10. Ouch! Rhino behind squad. Ram. d6 S10. Squad gets out. Tank shock. d6 S10. End movement. Boarding plank nearby rhino, 4 S9 attacks on rear armour. Boom, or not either way Wrecking Ball, S9 hit.
A single battlewagon can now crush its way through multiple vehicles and the units they carry now, even just barely clipping. And at the end of it all, drop the boarding plank on whatever else is around.
This brings up a new issue. If I ram a rhino or LR, if I successfully destroy the transport and the models are forced to disembark, they potentially can disembark out of the way of the path of the ramming battlewagon to avoid being crushed as the ram must continue to move forward. If the BW is wide enough by being a custom BW, it is possible to have a path that makes it impossible to disembark without being within the path of the wider BW.
Will the 'response' to Deffrollas being legal to crush LRs being a total backlash on the width of custom BWs and people getting up in arms and requesting the disqualification of any BW that is slightly larger than the stock model? Will people figure "if you are going to deffroll me, I am going to cause you pain by refusing to allow anything but the stock BW and stock deffroller 100% unmodified." While we all know they could claim RAW as the rulebooks ays official citadel minis, we all now RAP that most people don't mind custom ork vehicles and have never had a reason to really complain... until now.
I am curious to see how Adepticon handles this and how they rule on converted and custom Ork transports.
I would imagine that some bright spark measures the actual deff rolla as made by GW and rules that a converted one only actually gets this 'footprint' width, measured from the centre of the rolla...
[quote=nkelsch
This brings up a new issue. If I ram a rhino or LR, if I successfully destroy the transport and the models are forced to disembark, they potentially can disembark out of the way of the path of the ramming battlewagon to avoid being crushed as the ram must continue to move forward. If the BW is wide enough by being a custom BW, it is possible to have a path that makes it impossible to disembark without being within the path of the wider BW.
Don't forget that if the vehicle is destroyed (explodes) the unit inside is placed within the area the vehicle was in, so they will get hit by the Battlewagon w Deffrolla. So it seems that with some good rolls the Battlewagon could go through multiple vehicles, and take a few members out of the passengers too!
Monster Rain wrote:I don't know if this makes it better or worse, but I didn't use an internet translator. That was based on my High School spanish classes and having a lot of Mexican friends when I was in the Marines.
"For the win" isn't really proper English either though. I think Para la Victoria suits my purposes just fine.
Studying Spanish grammar must be a load of gak for english-speaking people. A single word changes a lot depending on the sentence. Mexicans speak in a way different than Spain, and it's ok. But the Spanish in USA neighbourhoods... when I hear Jennifer Lopez speaking on TV I suddenly feel I need to stab my ears. I almost understand better Nelly Furtado speaking portugese.
Pika_power wrote:Make fun of? No, no, no. I'm jealous. All we get a lame "ram". I say "Ramming your Rhino" and the opponent breaks into a rendition of "Baa-baa-black-sheep". I say "IRONCLAD BRUTALITY THROUGH THE SIDE OF YOUR PATHETIC LAND RAIDER YOU FETHING PIECE OF GAK!" and they cower in fear, rolling the dice meekly.
Well, english has words like "fear", "evil", "crush"... that sound quite better than "miedo", "malvado" or "aplastar". English sounds better for me.
But on topic... the FAQ has already been published in english. Solved argue.
Brother Ramses wrote:Why the attitude that because it is in Spanish, it is not legal? Why the obtuse push for English only?
Because English is the "official" language of the rules. GW has in the past said that if aEnglish version and a foreign language version (rulbook/codex) disagree, the English one is correct. Sooooo, until it's in English......
Does this mean that the English IG Summary overrides (all) the other versions of the IG summaries?
Primarch wrote:Actually, you are wrong here. If the Ork vehicle, or the target moved over 12 inches (13 if Red paint of the Orks), then you can't use the Boarding plank.
Keep in mind that it is 12" throughout the whole game, not just the previous turn
Ummm, no? Heh, do we need an INAT clarification on this for Adepticon?
Q. Can you use the Deffrolla when Ramming
vehicles or does it only work when Tank
Shocking non-vehicle units?
A. The death rolla does indeed inflict D6 S10 hits
against vehicles, as Ramming is just a type of
Tank Shock.
24th February 2010
We've been playing it like this at my FLGS since day 1, it's pretty simple. Ramming is a type of tank shock, deff rolla gives d6str 10 hits on a tank shock. People that were "Debating" this were just playing ignorant.
Actually, a question that arises is this "Are the 1d6 hits from the Rolla resolved AFTER the Ramming hit or BEFORE?" This could matter significantly as it may either Save the battle-wagon's life or doom it BEFORE the rolla even gets it's hits in. (Or it could strike Simul granting an almost assaurance the enemy vehicle will asplode.
Erasoketa wrote:Anyway guys: there is a lot of people here who doesn't have english as first language. There are many posters from Sweden, Germany, Japan... and we all use English, just as it is, a language. And for one time, you read a few words in another language that is not english and the first thing you do is make fun of that language? Who do you think you are?
The joke is really that the online translators are humorously bad, not that Spanish itself is being made fun of. Try translating blocks of text (especially 40k related, for extra fun) from Spanish to English and back and tell me the computer didn't come up with something unintentionally funny...
I don't want to sound like a moderator but please, don't turn this thread into "I was right and you weren't" like a lot of people have been saying. GW says that it is so, then it is. You won't get any respect points just by saying you and your mates thought like GW.
Not any personal to anyone.
CaptKaruthors wrote:So I am assuming the D6 S10 hits replace the actual ram rule then? No mention is made that they stack.
Yes they do stack and as far as i can tell they happen at the same time ...
For example ...
if you tried to run over a skimmer i would say on a 3+ the skimmer gets out the way and you don't deffrolla it. if you ram a land raider it will take the impact hit + D6 str10 ... and at the same time the battle waggon take an impact hit back
... however these case are not cover by the rules and you'll have to work it out before the game
This is terrible news for me, I have to worst luck in trying to destroy Battlewagons, 20+ melta shots in double pen range, 15+ assault cannon shots, and a few lascannon shots, many of which were on side/rear armor, and I'll still fail to kill a single battlewagon.
I'm TERRIBLY SAD AND TRYING TO EVADE THE SWEAR FILTER.
Please do not attempt to get around the language filter.
Hmm, so a typo leads to an insult from a mod? I see how this goes.
Yep your Please do not attempt to get around the language filter.. Might as well pack up your armies and stop playing.
Well I have a reason now to assemble the 4 battlewagons still in the pile of new crap. This new ruling combo'd out with the DragonWagon will be pretty fun.
airmang wrote:Don't forget that if the vehicle is destroyed (explodes) the unit inside is placed within the area the vehicle was in, so they will get hit by the Battlewagon w Deffrolla. So it seems that with some good rolls the Battlewagon could go through multiple vehicles, and take a few members out of the passengers too!
Now that will be hilarious. "I just Deff Rollad your Rhino... Oh and it explodes. Roll for wounds... now take D6 S10 hits more from the Rolla as it runs over the top of your squad."
Pika_power wrote:You say "My big metal behemoth of spiky death is moving thirteen inches forward. If anything of yours happens to be in the way, tough luck."
Are you certain. I thought you had to declare a target for a ram, not a direction.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Which also makes ramming two tanks at the same time impossible.
This is awesome and all, but I don't really understand what the argument against it was in the first place. I've been wrecking my friends Lehman Russ's for weeks since I got my BW
@ grapple squiggoth: Nope you just pivot and declare your tank shock. If anything gets in the way, it suffers the the tank shock. Note that only by declaring your max speed can your tank shock also ram.
Ramming has its own rules on page 69 (small book anyways - I have it in the office) that states its is stopped unless target Vehicle explodes on a ram.
CaptKaruthors wrote:So I am assuming the D6 S10 hits replace the actual ram rule then? No mention is made that they stack.
From the FAQ:
Q. Does a unit that successfully stops a Deff
Rolla-equipped Battlewagon’s Tank Shock suffer
any hits?
A. Yes, it does. In fact, it suffers 2D6 S10 hits!
This lends credence to the "they do stack" argument. As it seems you resolve the Tank Shock, then if your vehicle is still alive, you take the Rolla' hits.
Panic wrote:I await the next big tourney and more than half the armies are deffrolla spam lists...
And the other half being 60 melta Drop Pod Wolf Guard lists?
What about nids?
Nids are not that hot tbh. Doom is not that good, Tervigon Spam will die in KP missions, and 60 melta Drop Pod Guard will just shoot the big ones and watch the rest collapse
Yeah... I doubt this one gets retracted. It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out, as now Deff Rollas just take a huge dump on any non-skimmer mech list.
Well that's just it. Quite aside from the fact that I believe the rules clearly indicate the contrary to what the new FAQ declares (wouldn't be the first time GW contradicted itself via an FAQ, witness the CSMFAQ granting the ability to cast Gift of Chaos twice to Marks of Tzeentch), the Deff Rolla is stupidly good against vehicles.
I mean, when the Deff Rolla affects vehicles they're a no-brainer choice. My rule of thumb for disputed rules is that when one opinion makes a unit either a no-brainer or not even an option, and another makes that unit reasonable, then the opinion that makes the unit reasonable is the better one to play, quite aside from what the rules actually say.
I know the rest of you don't hold the game designers in high regard, but from my perspective they don't make units that are either no-brainers or not worth taking. So if some cock-eyed 'interpretation' of the rules is turned up some one of the retards in the YMDC forum, that person is almost always wrong: veridical mistakes are few and far between (the extension of "Chaos Space Marine" is an actual instance of GW rules being sloppy). If one of those mistakes is supported by an FAQ then that FAQ is redacted, like the Counter-Attack/Furious Charge combination.
Gornall wrote:Yeah... I doubt this one gets retracted. It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out, as now Deff Rollas just take a huge dump on any non-skimmer mech list.
And that's why you bring ranged anti-tank to keep those battlewagons from getting close.
Since this is in the YMDC area now too, I suppose I could pose this here.
The ramming vehicle stops when it contacts another vehicle unless the rammed vehicle explodes. So for a Deff Rolla Ram, does that mean the one regular ram hit (the one calculated from armor, speed, and being a tank) must explode the vehicle for the Battle Wagon to keep moving, or will the Battle Wagon keep going if any of the 1d6 S10 hits explode the rammed vehicle?
Basically, is the one hit the "Ram" with the 1d6 being an additional benefit from ramming, or does the Deff Rolla simply make the Ram into 1d6+1 hits, (with the 1 possibly a different S from the 1d6)?
I can see it falling out either way. From a logic standpoint, I can see the argument that if the initial ram fails to explode the vehicle, the Battle Wagon stops while the Rolla it just slammed into something grinds the other vehicle apart, but it's already lost its momentum. But which way seems more appropriate given the RAW? (Don't own an Ork codex unfortunately.)
Woot! I guess I havn't been hoarding all dem toilet paper tubes fer nothin'!
Actually this will be very helpful - I have broken my teeth (well my Orks' teeth) on a couple of LR spam lists this year. Ooof. Tight formation = beautiful. I think this is the Ork's Melta Gun - and it's only proppa that our 'meltagun' is covered in spikes and bolted onto a 10-ton armored vehicle.
orkcommander wrote:Now the deff rolla is finely worth the points.
By that you mean extremely under priced right?
I know the Ork players are pretty happy about this, and they should be. It takes the one thing (av14) that Orks have problems with and removes the issue. It does not make the least bit of sense when you consider LR's and Monoliths, but then again common sense is pretty much non-existent in alot of 40k so this is no surprise.
Is there another codex that will get you even 1 str10 auto hit for the same amount of points, let alone the 1-6 str10+1 variable str ram hit you get from these? Is there another weapon no matter what the cost that can kill both the transport AND the some of the troops inside(aside from explosion kills which you will get as well)? Can any one piece of wargear do anything like this multiple times with a single hit (hit a vehicle at 6", kill it, continue moving 7" impacting another on the way)? I know people will say "Just avoid them, its only 13" ram radius." However when those BW's contain 15 Lootas with a 4+ cover save "just avoiding" them becomes just as dangerous if not more.
Say that this is how it always should have been all you want, but Orks got a MAJOR (unneeded) boost up the power ladder with minimal points investment with them confirming these as working on vehicles.
Nids would have a better time against it than mech guard or marines. MCs with 3+ saves don't really care if they get hit with a deff rolla. Its the burna's and lootas that support those battlewagons that I would worry about.
What it does to the ork list is switch target priorities. A mech marine could afford to let a BW get close in the past in exchange for taking out further away support units. Now you HAVE to get rid of the battlewagons a lot sooner to ensure you lines don't get wtfpwned.
Clay Williams wrote:Nids would have a better time against it than mech guard or marines. MCs with 3+ saves don't really care if they get hit with a deff rolla. Its the burna's and lootas that support those battlewagons that I would worry about.
What it does to the ork list is switch target priorities. A mech marine could afford to let a BW get close in the past in exchange for taking out further away support units. Now you HAVE to get rid of the battlewagons a lot sooner to ensure you lines don't get wtfpwned.
Good thing they don't have anything giving them a constant cover save on them.....oh wait.
Yep, Deffrollas are completely unfair. The front d6 s10 hits is very likely to cause an explosion result on most transports. On a LR it is better than a melta, as meltas only give 1 roll on the damage chart max. This is the very definition of OP: the deffrolla deals with all targets with efficiency, for a fraction of the cost of those targets.
Kaotik wrote:Say that this is how it always should have been all you want, but Orks got a MAJOR (unneeded) boost up the power ladder with minimal points investment with them confirming these as working on vehicles.
What I love is that *everyone* who is anti-deff rollas entirely forgets (or "misremembers") that deffrollas worked entirely perfectly in 4th ed against vehicles. In fact *every* every behicle apart from LR and Monoliths.
So in other words this ruling not only fits the actual rules, but precedent *and* fluff!
But of course, there will still be some people whining, same as they whined about nob bikers, lash princes, hell even raider spam (for 11 years....) - and the answer is ALWAYS the same: learn how to deal with it, adapt, or die. It's as simple as that.
Now can people leave the "bwaaaah this is too over powered! its the end of armies!" out and into general?
Gwar! wrote:Nids are not that hot tbh. Doom is not that good, Tervigon Spam will die in KP missions, and 60 melta Drop Pod Guard will just shoot the big ones and watch the rest collapse
Kaotik wrote:Say that this is how it always should have been all you want, but Orks got a MAJOR (unneeded) boost up the power ladder with minimal points investment with them confirming these as working on vehicles.
What I love is that *everyone* who is anti-deff rollas entirely forgets (or "misremembers") that deffrollas worked entirely perfectly in 4th ed against vehicles. In fact *every* every behicle apart from LR and Monoliths.
Never plated 4th. I'm forgetting nothing
nosferatu1001 wrote:
So in other words this ruling not only fits the actual rules, but precedent *and* fluff!
Fluff wise I dont see how adding some metal spikes on the frost of a vehicle all of a sudden makes it more powerfull than the most powerful shooting weapons the imperium can dish out (1D6 S10 hits vs 1 S10 hit) and how is a deffrolla supposed to "crush" a land raider, or a monolith, 2 vehicles that are bigger and heavier than a Battlewagon? sorry, no fluff arguement here.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
But of course, there will still be some people whining, same as they whined about nob bikers, lash princes, hell even raider spam (for 11 years....) - and the answer is ALWAYS the same: learn how to deal with it, adapt, or die. It's as simple as that.
Now can people leave the "bwaaaah this is too over powered! its the end of armies!" out and into general?
Hey, I just said I had terrible luck with b'wagons already, and this just means I'll need to change my list to include more cheese to compensate.
CaptKaruthors wrote:So I am assuming the D6 S10 hits replace the actual ram rule then? No mention is made that they stack.
From the FAQ:
Q. Does a unit that successfully stops a Deff
Rolla-equipped Battlewagon’s Tank Shock suffer
any hits?
A. Yes, it does. In fact, it suffers 2D6 S10 hits!
This lends credence to the "they do stack" argument. As it seems you resolve the Tank Shock, then if your vehicle is still alive, you take the Rolla' hits.
Does this mean that if a skimmer succesfully stops a ram on a 3+ does it not take the ram but still take deffrolla hits?
Kaotik wrote:Say that this is how it always should have been all you want, but Orks got a MAJOR (unneeded) boost up the power ladder with minimal points investment with them confirming these as working on vehicles.
What I love is that *everyone* who is anti-deff rollas entirely forgets (or "misremembers") that deffrollas worked entirely perfectly in 4th ed against vehicles. In fact *every* every behicle apart from LR and Monoliths.
So in other words this ruling not only fits the actual rules, but precedent *and* fluff!
But of course, there will still be some people whining, same as they whined about nob bikers, lash princes, hell even raider spam (for 11 years....) - and the answer is ALWAYS the same: learn how to deal with it, adapt, or die. It's as simple as that.
Now can people leave the "bwaaaah this is too over powered! its the end of armies!" out and into general?
If it STILL only effected things less than av14 I can pretty much assure you it would not be anywhere near the issue it is. With access to a constant 4+ cover and an av14 front they were already right under monoliths as the toughest gak to try to shoot before it dumped orcs on you. I am not saying this is a game breaking change, but the points cost should have close to doubled with the change that was made.
Nob Bikers, Seer Councils, etc. have no bearing on this argument because you pay out the ass for them. BW's are cheap, have easy access to a constant 4+ cover save, can carry more guys than any transport, are open topped for Loota fun, and now have the best AT weapon you can throw on a tank regardless of range.
Ya, I guess you are right there is nothing wrong there.
Ah, so you're just ignorant of history then. And thats a positive because....?
Demogerg wrote:Fluff wise I dont see how adding some metal spikes on the frost of a vehicle all of a sudden makes it more powerfull than the most powerful shooting weapons the imperium can dish out (1D6 S10 hits vs 1 S10 hit) and how is a deffrolla supposed to "crush" a land raider, or a monolith, 2 vehicles that are bigger and heavier than a Battlewagon? sorry, no fluff arguement here.
You've got a funny idea of "the most powerful weapon the imperium can dish out", I can personally think of about 10 that are more powerful, and thats 10 that I *own*, not total.
In addition it does fit the fluff - they can crush vehicles in their fluff, this is what they are doing, crushing vehicles. It just doesnt fit *your* idea on fluff.
(LR ~ 60tons, BW can easily be that much - lower AV doesnt mean it necessarily *weighs* less)
Demogerg wrote:Hey, I just said I had terrible luck with b'wagons already, and this just means I'll need to change my list to include more cheese to compensate.
So? What part of "leave the whining out of YMDC" was unclear? "brinigng more cheese" jsut means adapting - and only for tournaments, unless you have a *really* unfriendlygaming group where you cant talk to your opponents.
This isnt a rules question, and should really be in News.
Do people really put Lootas in Battle Wagons? Really? I've never seen or heard of that before. Why?
And if Lootas in Battle Wagons are such a big problem, then this new FAQ is actually a good thing...if they want to cruise up the field to use their awesome Deff Rolla, they're not shooting with the Lootas inside.
3x BW all sitting next to one another. In the middle a Big Mek with KFF, on the outsides are 15 Lootas each. You now have a battery firing 30-90 str7 shots per round sitting in AV14 with a constant 4+ cover.
The Defrollas thing is not such a big deal with Lootas as it is with the 20 Boyz, but it effects it. Before you would either pray your av11 rhinos made it through the str7 spam or drive your LR up there and handle it with the guys inside+that tank. Now if you fail to kill all three you most likely lose both your guys AND the Landraider for trying.
3x BW all sitting next to one another. In the middle a Big Mek with KFF, on the outsides are 15 Lootas each. You now have a battery firing 30-90 str7 shots per round sitting in AV14 with a constant 4+ cover.
For over a thousand points, taking up all your heavy and elite slots and an HQ slot, with BS2, and basically completely immobile? Oh noes, call the fair police, the orks must be cheating.
The rolla worked perfectly well against vehicles when the cost was set. You aren't going to convince anyone that it's suddenly unfair unless they already think so.
Fluff-wise, it seems to me you can assume that the deffrolla produces some energy field similar to the one created by the power klaw, and its source is faith that it will roll over the land raider and puree the marines inside. Faith is the most powerful weapon for the ork.
Kaotik wrote:Say that this is how it always should have been all you want, but Orks got a MAJOR (unneeded) boost up the power ladder with minimal points investment with them confirming these as working on vehicles.
What I love is that *everyone* who is anti-deff rollas entirely forgets (or "misremembers") that deffrollas worked entirely perfectly in 4th ed against vehicles. In fact *every* every behicle apart from LR and Monoliths.
So in other words this ruling not only fits the actual rules, but precedent *and* fluff!
But of course, there will still be some people whining, same as they whined about nob bikers, lash princes, hell even raider spam (for 11 years....) - and the answer is ALWAYS the same: learn how to deal with it, adapt, or die. It's as simple as that.
Now can people leave the "bwaaaah this is too over powered! its the end of armies!" out and into general?
The big difference there being fifth editions troops scoring rules turned the ork codex instantly into the single most powerful book released, and it stayed that way for years. The power scale in fourth was and is irrelevant, what matters is the current metagame, and in that format the orks (a top tier army) have gained a cheap and incredibly effective tool for destroying other vehicles that is relatively immune to traditional methods of protection. This has significantly increased their capabilities against virtually all other opposing top tier armies (mech/shooty guard, all mech eldar, mech chaos, mech everything else all top tier lists are mech lists). Precedent is utterly meaningless, this isn't a court system and precedents are invalidated every time a new edition of the game is introduced.
The upgrade is unreasonably cheap for it's capabilities and doesn't make a particular amount of fluff sense. That said, It's at least better than having the question be up in the air.
Gwar! wrote:Why are you putting a Deff Rolla on a Wagon that will be stationary 99% of the time?
Edit on the original post. Yes it is not as much an issue with the Lootas, but it does crap on one of the very few ways to deal with it aside from Drop Pods.
Well I for one am excited to finally be able to say, "I am going to death or glory with my land raider since you are tank shocking me" and proceed to fire my multi-melta. Guess its fair since its a tank shock, a special kind of tank shock.
Demogerg wrote:This is terrible news for me, I have to worst luck in trying to destroy Battlewagons, 20+ melta shots in double pen range, 15+ assault cannon shots, and a few lascannon shots, many of which were on side/rear armor, and I'll still fail to kill a single battlewagon.
I'm TERRIBLY SAD AND TRYING TO EVADE THE SWEAR FILTER.
Please do not attempt to get around the language filter.
Hmm, so a typo leads to an insult from a mod? I see how this goes.
I guess Rule #1 doesnt apply to some people.
$25 by PayPal and you can Roll wit da Lench Mob too.
That's my question too Gwar. You could do that just as easily without the Rollas.
Kaotik: That's what I pictured, I just wondered why. The things have a long side arc, AV12 on the side, open topped, and everyone and their brother has anti-tank. A 4+ cover save is nice, but then if a vehicle explodes the Lootas may take casualties from that, may even get pinned or fall back if they lose too many. If the vehicle gets wrecked they have to bail out and possibly not have cover (or only a 5+). Why not just deploy the Lootas in cover, put something aggressive in Battle Wagons, put Deff Rollas on them, and blitz forward with fire support?
Norbu the Destroyer wrote:Well I for one am excited to finally be able to say, "I am going to death or glory with my land raider since you are tank shocking me" and proceed to fire my multi-melta. Guess its fair since its a tank shock, a special kind of tank shock.
ShumaGorath wrote:The upgrade is unreasonably cheap for it's capabilities and doesn't make a particular amount of fluff sense. That said, It's at least better than having the question be up in the air.
Seriously. A Deff Rolla actually has to hit you to do it's work. I've never seen a LR without a MM on it. If you play a little more defensively than you may be used too, you should have at least three rounds of 2d6 armor pen on the BW. BW's, which by the way are open topped, meaning every hit against it gets treated as AP 1, and AP 1 weapons get a +2 on the chart, so don't hand me this bit about BW's being the hardest thing to kill, anything that gets through the cover save and armor is going to to do some damage.
But this is far better really than the majority of games I've played with LR marines, where you end up with just the LR left driving 12" a turn and shooting at Nobs, who chase it, assault it... oh look, 2 6's.. Crap, no 5+... repeat
Even if someone slaps some 'ard tops on their wagons to make them dedicated deff rolla anti-tank, I really doubt rolla spam is going to make a dent in the current top tourney lists, which is str 8+ spam shooting attacks.
Edit on the original post. Yes it is not as much an issue with the Lootas, but it does crap on one of the very few ways to deal with it aside from Drop Pods.
Fill it with burnas. Multiple str 10 hits to kill the transport then 15 flamer templates to kill what was inside. Or just roll over one squad and flame another.
nosferatu1001 wrote:So it wasnt unreasonably cheap in 4th ed, but is now?
Sorry, the rules dont work that way.
Anyway, that *entire* post was "bwaaaah, this is too powerful!!!!" - what part of "that isnt a rules post" went over your head?
Adapt or die. Adapt or die. Whining isnt an option on that list.
Bad attitude much?
Fact is you said it yourself that the thing did not work on av14 last edition. Well it does now and therefore pricing comparison to what it does now changes. So if you would care to join me in 5th edition you will see that it is underpriced.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirisaacnuton wrote:That's my question too Gwar. You could do that just as easily without the Rollas.
Kaotik: That's what I pictured, I just wondered why. The things have a long side arc, AV12 on the side, open topped, and everyone and their brother has anti-tank. A 4+ cover save is nice, but then if a vehicle explodes the Lootas may take casualties from that, may even get pinned or fall back if they lose too many. If the vehicle gets wrecked they have to bail out and possibly not have cover (or only a 5+). Why not just deploy the Lootas in cover, put something aggressive in Battle Wagons, put Deff Rollas on them, and blitz forward with fire support?
With defrollas working as they do now, it will be exactly like you said.
So it wasnt unreasonably cheap in 4th ed, but is now?
Sorry, the rules dont work that way.
Yes they do. The much increased prevalence of mechanized transports makes the deffrolla better. The much increased survivability of the battlewagon makes the deffrolla better. The much increased utility of the transport function of the battlewagon makes the defrolla batter. The much increased reliance on close range melta weapons to destroy vehicles makes the deffrolla better.
You're pretty bad at temporal comparisons between rulesets and metagames if you think that nothing changed between two rulesets in one of the most drastically altered-by-ruleset codexes when we are talking about a set of rules (vehicle) that are perhaps more heavily than any other modified by the alteration.
ShumaGorath wrote:The upgrade is unreasonably cheap for it's capabilities and doesn't make a particular amount of fluff sense. That said, It's at least better than having the question be up in the air.
Just to illustrate this:
Are you including ballistic skill? Which one? Eh, apparently I'm blind and can't read a key.
@masterslowpoke,
Thank you for this informative graph. Can you do another one with ranges over 13"? I think you'll find the efficacy of the deff rolla diminishes considerably.
Kaotik wrote:I was kinda wondering about that graph myself. I cannot fathom how one melta shot @ BS4 has more probability to wreck av14 than 6 str 10 auto hits.
I see single melta shot at ~.3 and 6 rolla hits way up off behind the key around ~.65
olympia wrote:@masterslowpoke,
Thank you for this informative graph. Can you do another one with ranges over 13"? I think you'll find the efficacy of the deff rolla diminishes considerably.
To argue with ShumaGorath (perhaps at my peril ) Deff Rollas are now good in an environment where there are lots of vehicles.
An environment with lots of vehicles is likely also to contain lots of AT weapons like Plasma, Tau Missile Pods and so on.
AT weapons will be useful against Deff Rollas because Battle Wagons are open topped, etc.
My prediction is that it will either be totally overpowered (as Eldar Holofield Falcon Spam was for a few months) or else it will enjoy a short period in the noonday sun until people adapt and learn how to beat it.
Kilkrazy wrote: An environment with lots of vehicles is likely also to contain lots of AT weapons like Plasma, Tau Missile Pods and so on.
My prediction is that it will either be totally overpowered (as Eldar Holofield Falcon Spam was for a few months) or else it will enjoy a short period in the noonday sun until people adapt and learn how to beat it.
With the side/back armor profile of a chimera, opentopped, and one of the smallest front armor arcs around, I'm quite surprised at how many people think they're dead 'ard. I routinely lose at least one to turn 1 shooting.
Inabiltiy to read much? How about YMDC isnt a place for whining posts about how X is the worst thing to hit the game ever?
Kaotik wrote:Fact is you said it yourself that the thing did not work on av14 last edition. Well it does now and therefore pricing comparison to what it does now changes. So if you would care to join me in 5th edition you will see that it is underpriced.
Wrong. Read it again. Note exactly what I said. Done that? Now maybe retract your misrepresentation (commonly called a "lie")
ShumaGorath - the increased survivabiilty of *all* vehicles has made *all* vehicles better. Reliance on close ranged melta? So the meta has to change (yet again) and that is a problem? Sorry, you missed out on "adapt or die", didnt you? Seriously, the last time there was this much whinhing was twin lash, whcih was MUCH improved in 5th ed (moving scoring units off objectives is a key tactic) yet people adapted - again.
You're pretty bad at not overreacting to yet another metagame change, arent you?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:So the rules for an item in the game being overpowered are to be blamed for the Metagame, which is set entirely by the gamers yes?
If you depend entirely on Meltaguns for your anti-tank, that would be your decision, mistake etc. Not the person who wrote the rules surely?
I gave four different reasons for it being overpowered in a single post, and two others in a previous one. The prevalence of melta in the current metagame is a side effect of the increased cost of lascanons and their significantly decreased capability of delivering a killing shot against an opposing vehicle. Telling people to "alter their lists" isn't a particularly good response when the only realistic alternatives in a significant majority of them if close combat. Lascanons aren't really cost effective in fifth.
ShumaGorath - the increased survivabiilty of *all* vehicles has made *all* vehicles better.
Not against the defrolla or ork close combat.
Reliance on close ranged melta? So the meta has to change (yet again) and that is a problem? Sorry, you missed out on "adapt or die", didnt you?
People adapted to melta because the alternatives were getting them killed. Switching to a less effective anti vehicle platform in response to the increased lethality of a vehicle isn't a logical or good choice. People will be utilizing more missile and plasma in the face of the new tyranid codex, neither weapon is effective against a battlewagon.
Seriously, the last time there was this much whinhing was twin lash, whcih was MUCH improved in 5th ed (moving scoring units off objectives is a key tactic) yet people adapted - again.
What I love is that *everyone* who is anti-deff rollas entirely forgets (or "misremembers") that deffrollas worked entirely perfectly in 4th ed against vehicles. In fact *every* every behicle apart from LR and Monoliths.
This does not say that they worked on all but av14 last edition?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:So the rules for an item in the game being overpowered are to be blamed for the Metagame, which is set entirely by the gamers yes?
If you depend entirely on Meltaguns for your anti-tank, that would be your decision, mistake etc. Not the person who wrote the rules surely?
I gave four different reasons for it being overpowered in a single post, and two others in a previous one. The prevalence of melta in the current metagame is a side effect of the increased cost of lascanons and their significantly decreased capability of delivering a killing shot against an opposing vehicle. Telling people to "alter their lists" isn't a particularly good response when the only realistic alternatives in a significant majority of them if close combat. Lascanons aren't really cost effective in fifth.
ShumaGorath - the increased survivabiilty of *all* vehicles has made *all* vehicles better.
Not against the defrolla.
But again, you are blaming the Deff Rolla being overpowered on the current, perceived state of the Metagame. You can't accuse something of being overpowered due to deficiencies in an enemy list. Well, not unless it's spammed of course.
Edit on the original post. Yes it is not as much an issue with the Lootas, but it does crap on one of the very few ways to deal with it aside from Drop Pods.
Fill it with burnas. Multiple str 10 hits to kill the transport then 15 flamer templates to kill what was inside. Or just roll over one squad and flame another.
Edit on the original post. Yes it is not as much an issue with the Lootas, but it does crap on one of the very few ways to deal with it aside from Drop Pods.
Fill it with burnas. Multiple str 10 hits to kill the transport then 15 flamer templates to kill what was inside. Or just roll over one squad and flame another.
You declare your travel distance before tank shocking. To Ram, it must be the max distance. Passengers can not fire from a vehicle if it has gone over combat speed.
All the AV14 owners (that's AV14 all sides for LRaiders n Monoliths) are complaining that the ork army can finally threaten that, if they can get their own AV14/12/10 vehicle across the table to physically connect with it?
That seems to be the long and short of it. Also there is the misapprehension that Ork players now somehow get 3 Deffrolla Wagons for free, just for putting pen to paper.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:So the rules for an item in the game being overpowered are to be blamed for the Metagame, which is set entirely by the gamers yes?
If you depend entirely on Meltaguns for your anti-tank, that would be your decision, mistake etc. Not the person who wrote the rules surely?
I gave four different reasons for it being overpowered in a single post, and two others in a previous one. The prevalence of melta in the current metagame is a side effect of the increased cost of lascanons and their significantly decreased capability of delivering a killing shot against an opposing vehicle. Telling people to "alter their lists" isn't a particularly good response when the only realistic alternatives in a significant majority of them if close combat. Lascanons aren't really cost effective in fifth.
ShumaGorath - the increased survivabiilty of *all* vehicles has made *all* vehicles better.
Not against the defrolla.
But again, you are blaming the Deff Rolla being overpowered on the current, perceived state of the Metagame. You can't accuse something of being overpowered due to deficiencies in an enemy list. Well, not unless it's spammed of course.
Actually, I'm talking about general rules of fifth edition. This is the mech and melta edition. Neither of those will change until sixth edition, whenever that comes. The game isn't so fluid and balanced as to have every upgrade and weapon be accurately costed and entirely dependent on metagame.
Kaotik wrote:I was kinda wondering about that graph myself. I cannot fathom how one melta shot @ BS4 has more probability to wreck av14 than 6str 10 auto hits.
Ok, that might be the issue here. It's not 6 auto-hits, it's 1D6 auto-hits. It might be 6. . . or it might be 1.
That graph contains 6 probability lines for the deffrolla; the meltagun line passes above one. This indicates that a single meltagun shot has a higher probability to destroy AV14 than a deffrolla which rolls only a single hit, but a lower probability than a deffrolla which rolls two hits.
Against AV14, deffrolla hit has to roll 5+ to pen AV14, and then 5+ to destroy the vehicle. That's a 1/9 CTK per hit.
Or, let me put it this way. Even if a deffrolla rolls a 6 for number of hits, it only has a 51% chance to kill an AV14 vehicle! With an average of 3.5 on a d6, the deffrolla's average chance to kill an AV14 vehicle is 33.4%. All these fantastic scenarios of a deffrolla exploding two Land Raiders in a row and such nonsense are ridiculous. The deffrolla is just like most other powerful Ork weapons; random.
This ruling has made it worth using, not wildly overpowered. Meltas are better! A BS4 melta has a 2/3 chance to hit, a 20/36 chance to pen, followed by a 1/3 chance to kill, equating to a 12% chance to kill an AV14 vehicle per melta shot, as opposed to an 11% chance per deffrolla hit. A deffrolla gets 3.5 hits on average, meaning it's a bit less effective (once again, on average) than 4 meltaguns.
So a deffrolla is cheap for what it does, yes. But it comes with a number of limitations. First off; you must tank shock at maximum speed to use it! So you HAVE to move 12", and you HAVE to be in base contact with the target. No wiggle room, no side-armour shots. Also, it's mounted on a chassis with side armor 12! Just kill the bugger before it reaches you! Melta-vets in Valks eat Battlewagons for breakfast, whether they've got Deffrollas or not.
Edit on the original post. Yes it is not as much an issue with the Lootas, but it does crap on one of the very few ways to deal with it aside from Drop Pods.
Fill it with burnas. Multiple str 10 hits to kill the transport then 15 flamer templates to kill what was inside. Or just roll over one squad and flame another.
You declare your travel distance before tank shocking. To Ram, it must be the max distance. Passengers can not fire from a vehicle if it has gone over combat speed.
It would be rare for an opposing vehicle to be 12+ inches away from the ramming platform. A majority of the time the battlewagon occupants would be capable of firing their weapons. They can also disembark.
It would be rare for an opposing vehicle to be 12+ inches away from the ramming platform. A majority of the time the battlewagon occupants would be capable of firing their weapons. They can also disembark.
Disembark, yes, fire, no. No matter how far you travel, you count as moving Cruising Speed when ramming. Passengers cannot shoot if you moved Cruising Speed.
Also most Ork players use Battlewagons anyway, so this can't change the metagame that much right? Also don't complain about this being overpowered, its not, and orks have no melta or anything.
It would be rare for an opposing vehicle to be 12+ inches away from the ramming platform. A majority of the time the battlewagon occupants would be capable of firing their weapons. They can also disembark.
Disembark, yes, fire, no. No matter how far you travel, you count as moving Cruising Speed when ramming. Passengers cannot shoot if you moved Cruising Speed.
They could disembark and shoot. However not only does this lower their effectiveness, it's also putting an expensive squad with 6+ saves on the board for a turn, and basically saying 'Yeah, I only wanted to use these guys once.'
And combat speed is 6", 7" with RPJ. Anything over is cruising speed.
in a friendly gmae 4+ because i really dont care... in a tourny 
A! Time for some armoured brutality!