From GW Deffrolla FAQ

Ramming is just a type of Tank Shock.

I think YF covered this in the 5 page thread in N&R, but how does this change affect the game overall?

Uriels_Flame wrote:From GW Deffrolla FAQ

Ramming is just a type of Tank Shock.

I think YF covered this in the 5 page thread in N&R, but how does this change affect the game overall?

This is the 11th thread on this today. We know. No-one cares.

All that will happen is people will try Ramming with Raiders and Trukks now. Woop De Flipping do!

In fairness, they're quite likely to blow themselves up, if they do that...

Da Boss wrote:In fairness, they're quite likely to blow themselves up, if they do that...

True, not to mention the max they can get is S6 for the Trukk and S8 for the Raider, and even then they need to be exactly 18"/24" away.

Wait - it was released in English!

(Blocked at work! No!!!)

Alpharius wrote:Wait - it was released in English!

(Blocked at work! No!!!)

Yup, they added it to the end of the English one. I'll upload it here for you Alphy

Gwar! wrote:

Uriels_Flame wrote:From GW Deffrolla FAQ

Ramming is just a type of Tank Shock.

I think YF covered this in the 5 page thread in N&R, but how does this change affect the game overall?

This is the 11th thread on this today. We know. No-one cares.

All that will happen is people will try Ramming with Raiders and Trukks now. Woop De Flipping do!

Unfortunately, unless they've changed the DE FAQ, Raiders still can't Ram. They one vehicle upgrade that allowed Raiders to Tank Shock, the Torture Amp, was FAQ'd as specifically not being able to Ram.

Hmm, dont feel like starting a new thread.
But according to the last paragraf in the FAQ, would a SM company champion be allowed to take equipment as well?

tedurur wrote:Hmm, dont feel like starting a new thread.
But according to the last paragraf in the FAQ, would a SM company champion be allowed to take equipment as well?

Er, what?

And thanks for the upload Gwar!

Nice to see GW answering a question and then throwing a bit of chaos in with the answer.

I KNEW they favored Chaos, and this just proves it!!!

Wow, so the deff rolla WORKS against vehicles? Im not going to complain, no matter how friggin ODD that decision is.

Thanks Gwar!

If the Ork mob can chose in which order one wants to upgrade it, wouldnt that be aplicable on other squads as well. Like the SM Command Squad, first you give a veteran a Storm Shield and then later you upgrade that veteran to a company champion.

tedurur wrote:If the Ork mob can chose in which order one wants to upgrade it, wouldnt that be aplicable on other squads as well. Like the SM Command Squad, first you give a veteran a Storm Shield and then later you upgrade that veteran to a company champion.

And as I have had to say a million times, the Ork FAQ does not apply to any other army.

True, but I guess it will still give those players some leverage...

It's horrifying, but I can't stop staring, watching Gwar!'s avatar.... it's....revolting......and......yet beautiful.....

Spellbound wrote:It's horrifying, but I can't stop staring, watching Gwar!'s avatar.... it's....revolting......and......yet beautiful.....

another furry is born; slaanesh is pleased

This reminds me of how GW changed how the Mark of Tzeentch worked back with the Chaos Space Marine FAQ: Suddenly they could cast Warptime and Gift of Chaos twice.

I guess they needed to sell those Deff Rolla sprues...

KingCracker wrote:Wow, so the deff rolla WORKS against vehicles? Im not going to complain, no matter how friggin ODD that decision is.

It shouldnt be that much of a shock: they worked in 4th ed againt everything but a monolith or LR (TS against vehicles was allowed as long as it had a lower AV) and you are told Ramming is a type of tank shock - something that works on ALL tank shocks really should work on rams

Most of the arguments against stemmed not from rules but from cries that it was overpowered.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Wow, so the deff rolla WORKS against vehicles? Im not going to complain, no matter how friggin ODD that decision is.

It shouldnt be that much of a shock: they worked in 4th ed againt everything but a monolith or LR (TS against vehicles was allowed as long as it had a lower AV) and you are told Ramming is a type of tank shock - something that works on ALL tank shocks really should work on rams

Most of the arguments against stemmed not from rules but from cries that it was overpowered.

well that and when asked if raiders could ram with torcher amps (which let them tank shock) GW said no, they're two different things.

Gwar! wrote:

tedurur wrote:If the Ork mob can chose in which order one wants to upgrade it, wouldnt that be aplicable on other squads as well. Like the SM Command Squad, first you give a veteran a Storm Shield and then later you upgrade that veteran to a company champion.

And as I have had to say a million times, the Ork FAQ does not apply to any other army.

It does apply if it gives a ruling about how the rules work in general. If you can buy items before an upgrade, then that applies to all codices. Your argumentum ad infinitum does not actually make your opinion correct.

Sure, you can play it that way. But everyone else will take FAQ rulings and apply them in congruous situations.

Dracos wrote:Your argumentum ad infinitum does not actually make your opinion correct.

I agree. Being correct is why I am correct.

Gwar! wrote:

Dracos wrote:Your argumentum ad infinitum does not actually make your opinion correct.

I agree. Being correct is why I am correct.

Gwar is right, even if he is indulging in tautology.

Circular Reasoning does not make you correct either.

I think it's interesting that the Torture Amps invoke the general rules about Tank Shock and Ramming, but distinguish between these two, as the rules suggest. So it seems that we can generalize this conclusion to other situations where an item of wargear is a problem case, because the FAQ refers to the general rules rather than the Codex specific rules; how the Codex specific rules fit into the general rules.

But then the new Ork FAQ also invoke the general rules about Tank Shock and Ramming, but conflate them, as the rules suggest. So it seems that we can generalize this conclusion to other situations as we can with the Torture Amp.

The problem is, if in both cases we can draw a general conclusion about the relation of Tank Shock to Ramming, why do they disagree?

I mean if the Dark Eldar FAQ says that Ramming is not Tank Shock and the Ork FAQ says that Ramming is Tank Shock, what are we to conclude?

Nurglitch wrote:I mean if the Dark Eldar FAQ says that Ramming is not Tank Shock and the Ork FAQ says that Ramming is Tank Shock, what are we to conclude?

That GW is run by a bunch of Pillocks.

That we will be cursed with fuzzy rules writing from GW...

...forever!

I feel vindicated.

All this time arguing with people who say that despite the rulebook clearly identifying ramming as a tank shock that it wasn't....

Just wanted to say to all of you: I TOLD YOU SO!!!!

Cool. When they back-pedal like they did with Counter-Attack and Furious Charge, I will enjoy being equally rude. With interest.

Nurglitch wrote:Cool. When they back-pedal like they did with Counter-Attack and Furious Charge, I will enjoy being equally rude. With interest.

It's funny watching people who, even when GW blatantly and clearly tells them that their rules interpretation is wrong, cling to their anti-ork propaganda positions and post about how wrong GW is and how unfair the faq answer is across multiple threads.

Just let it go man, you were wrong.

Nurglitch wrote:Cool. When they back-pedal like they did with Counter-Attack and Furious Charge, I will enjoy being equally rude. With interest.

Don't hold your breath. The rules were pretty clear from the beginning; shame that it took an FAQ answer to something already clear (in my eyes) to end the discussion....and people are still whining.

I'm not saying GW is wrong. Of course they're right. Whatever they said last is right. If they choose to release an FAQ that declares that And They Shall Know No Fear automatically gives Space Marines +2 kill points per game, then that is the new truth.

But if you're going to try and get me to admit that I was wrong when I wasn't, as if GW somehow doesn't use the FAQs to change the rules like they did with Counter-Attack/Furious Charge or Mark of Tzeentch/Gift of Chaos, then you're fresh out of luck.

I was right, but they needed to move Deff Rolla upgrade sprues. Economics trumps truth.

Besides, the FAQ is perfectly fair. It's not as if Melta Guns aren't attached to everyone and their dog. It's just going to make the game boring when all you see in Ork lists are battlewagons, battlewagons and more battlewagons. I know I'm going to be attaching Deff Rollas to mine!

Nurglitch wrote:I'm not saying GW is wrong. Of course they're right.

But if you're going to try and get me to admit that I was wrong when I wasn't...
I was right, but they needed to move Deff Rolla upgrade sprues. Economics trumps truth.

So... GW is right, when they say that ramming is a type of tank shock.
But... you're not wrong when you say the opposite is correct?
I think you've had a little too much cool-aid there.

No, you just need help with your reading comprehension.

He is saying (correctly IMO) that the text does not actually say that Ram is a subset of Tank Shock.

However, by virtue of the FAQ, GW is changing the rule.

I find it quite telling that you think the text said they were the same, and are unable to read Nurglitch's simple post.

Dracos wrote:No, you just need help with your reading comprehension.

He is saying (correctly IMO) that the text does not actually say that Ram is a subset of Tank Shock.

However, by virtue of the FAQ, GW is changing the rule.

I find it quite telling that you think the text said they were the same, and are unable to read Nurglitch's simple post.

Funny, cause I know dozens of people who think the rules do say that. Including the GW faq writers, who are a rules source here on YMDC.
They didn't say "Ramming is now a type of tank shock" they said that rollas work because that was already true. No rules were changed outside of the ones in your head.

Your interpretation is, and was, wrong. The end, do not pass go.

I find it quite telling that you yell about rules changes when GW doesn't side with your interpretation.

Your logical fallacy is called an Irrelevant Appeal, Appeal to Authority.

You are saying that the text says one thing because an authority on the subject says it does.

This is incorrect, the text only says what it says regardless of any authority's opinion on it. The authority in this case effectively changed the text IMO. I am not going to go into detail in the text, because that would rehash a now useless argument.

What Nurglitch was getting at is that the text is now irrelevant, and right or wrong the rule now is that rams are a subset of tank shocks.

With respect to stating what the rules are, GW can't be wrong - its their rules. What they say now might not match what the text says, but that is not relevant to discussing what the rules are now.

Exceptg it *does* match what the text says, therefore is not a change.

Dracos wrote:Your logical fallacy is called an Irrelevant Appeal, Appeal to Authority.

You are saying that the text says one thing because an authority on the subject says it does.

Wow, that would be a fantastic argument. If it applied, or was correct.

I'm not relying on a perceived authorities opinion on the facts, I'm relying on the facts. The tenets of YMDC state that FAQs are official rules sources. Another swing and a miss.

Well the point of the thread is that even though they "clarified" it in the Ork FAQ, it's a universal clarification.

They didn't say "rollas" count as TS/Ram, but they did say what I highlighted in my original post.

Uriels_Flame wrote:Well the point of the thread is that even though they "clarified" it in the Ork FAQ, it's a universal clarification.

If it was a "universal" clarification, it should have been in the Rulebook FAQ. As it is, it only applies to Orks, no-one else.

Now you're being asinine.

That doesn't make any sense.

Point taken about the Rulebook, but to say only orks have the distinction of having Tank Shock/Ramming clarified is stupid.

Gwar! wrote:If it was a "universal" clarification, it should have been in the Rulebook FAQ.

It should be, but that's not how GW do their FAQ's.

Gwar believes that answers in one FAQ only apply to that army. From my experience, most other players will happily use an FAQ answer that is applicable to the situation at hand, regardless of which FAQ it comes from, as it establishes a precedent. It's not a perfect system, as GW's FAQ's often contradict each other, but that's 40K for you.

insaniak wrote:Gwar believes that answers in one FAQ only apply to that army.

And I have yet to see any form of proof to suggest otherwise.

Dashofpepper wrote:I feel vindicated.

All this time arguing with people who say that despite the rulebook clearly identifying ramming as a tank shock that it wasn't....

Just wanted to say to all of you: I TOLD YOU SO!!!!

I've never quite gotten this mindset.

A FAQ ruling is a...ruling. It doesn't mean one side was necessarily 'right' all along and the other side was 'wrong' all along. All it means is that whomever was tasked with writing this FAQ determined this was the answer they were going with. I don't know if this job is an ad hoc affair or whether Phil Kelly simply changed his mind...but I know for a fact from several credible sources that Phil Kelly himself said several times that he believed that the Deff Rolla did *not* function during ramming.


I've always felt, by the RAW that it should (IMHO), but I certainly don't think this is the case of it being completely blatantly obvious and one 'side' being totally wrong.

If even the author of the codex got it 'wrong' multiple times, then it obviously wasn't at clear as you want to portray it.

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:Gwar believes that answers in one FAQ only apply to that army.

And I have yet to see any form of proof to suggest otherwise.

You won't get 'proof'... because that's not what it's about.

This has been explained to you on several occasions now. Regardless of your personal opinion, an answer in any FAQ is, so far as most players are concerned, applicable wherever it is appropriate. If GW haven't given a ruling on a specific issue for a certain army, but have ruled on a similar issue for a different army, then that's the closest you are going to get to a ruling until GW writes more FAQ's. Ignoring that ruling as only applying to that army is counter-productive.

insaniak wrote: Ignoring that ruling as only applying to that army is counter-productive.

In your opinion. I find it counter-productive to try and claim that a ruling for the Black Templars affects my IG army or my Space Puppies.

Gwar! wrote:In your opinion. I find it counter-productive to try and claim that a ruling for the Black Templars affects my IG army or my Space Puppies.

You seriously think it's more productive to not have some sort of ruling on a grey area in the rules?

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:In your opinion. I find it counter-productive to try and claim that a ruling for the Black Templars affects my IG army or my Space Puppies.

You seriously think it's more productive to not have some sort of ruling on a grey area in the rules?

Nice twisting of words there. I said it's counter productive to go "Oh, hey, this rule, it's for Black Templars, but I really want to use it in my IG army please, and while I'm at it, I want to make all my Leman Russes Monoliths, because that's how I roll", because if you allow the use of another armies FAQ, why do you disallow the mixing of codexes?

Gwar! wrote: I said it's counter productive to go "Oh, hey, this rule, it's for Black Templars, but I really want to use it in my IG army please, and while I'm at it, I want to make all my Leman Russes Monoliths, because that's how I roll",

...which has nothing whatsoever to do with what I actually said.

because if you allow the use of another armies FAQ, why do you disallow the mixing of codexes?

Because they're two completely different things?

A ruling in the Ork FAQ that clarifies that Ramming is a form of Tank Shock is going to be adopted wherever there are not specific rules that say otherwise (as in the case of Dark Eldar)... because it's a grey area, and people would rather have some sort of ruling than none at all, and because the FAQ answer is written in such a way as to make it a general clarification regardless of where it is located.

insaniak wrote: the FAQ answer is written in such a way as to make it a general clarification regardless of where it is located.

This.

Agreed.

And I'm not saying "every" FAQ for each Codex applies to others. I am referring to general rules - which clearly this FAQ happens to do.

Holy trolling here.


I have an idea.

Ramming is a special kind of tank shock. That statement defines ramming as a subset of tank shocking.

Oranges are a special kind of citrus fruit. That statement defines ramming as a subset of citrus fruit.

That is all.

Dashofpepper wrote:I feel vindicated.

All this time arguing with people who say that despite the rulebook clearly identifying ramming as a tank shock that it wasn't....

Just wanted to say to all of you: I TOLD YOU SO!!!!

I told them so before you told them so.

Dashofpepper wrote:Holy trolling here.


I have an idea.

Ramming is a special kind of tank shock. That statement defines ramming as a subset of tank shocking.

Oranges are a special kind of citrus fruit. That statement defines ramming as a subset of citrus fruit.

That is all.

I had a wonderful post of the same sort several months back. I believe it featured a ewe that was a subset of sheep, with a picture. The people who are still saying this concept is wrong will not be convinced by clever analogies, GW clarifications, or divine intervention.

When GW says the DEldar can TS with a Torture amp, but can't Ram with it.
That is a ruling about the DE codex, and has no direct application elsewhere.

When GW says the Deff rolla can TS and ram *Because* they clarify the general rule that Ram is a type of TS.
That is a ruling based on the general rules, those general rules apply to every codex.

Just because the general rule clarification was place in the Ork FAQ does not mean it only applies to Orks. That is an assumption.

Just because I park my car at the bus stop does not make it a bus.

Gitzbitah wrote:
I had a wonderful post of the same sort several months back. I believe it featured a ewe that was a subset of sheep, with a picture. The people who are still saying this concept is wrong will not be convinced by clever analogies, GW clarifications, or divine intervention.

Oh agreed. I came up with the original 'Dogs must be kept on a leash; therefore poodles must be kept on a leash because they're a subset of dog' analogy and by the end of the next 15 thread pages or so there were people simply telling me that poodles weren't dogs, they were poodles.

It amazes me that even now we're still arguing over which camp was "right", and whether the FAQ is a rule clarification or a rule change.

Just dropping in to say i'm having a huge giggle at all those who were wrong, knew they were wrong, been proven wrong but still can't admit defeat.

Nobody has been 'proven wrong'. GW solidified the ruling. Thinking that because GW released an FAQ saying the rules work one way suddenly makes everyone who felt otherwise wrong is an idiot.

Thats like saying anyone who played 4th edition rules during 4th edition was a cheater as we now have the 5th edition rulebook. Deffrollas not working on vehicles was a valid argument. As was the argument for them working on tanks. GW simply chose one and made it official. But heres the trick. It changes nothing as far as the original validity of the argument against it. In fact it doesnt even change the basing of that argument. All it does is produce a ruling one way or the other.

Can I just remind you all of GWs stupidest rule . . . Rule 1,do whatever you believe the rules to believe as long as both players agree and it still leaves a balanced game between the two players. Now generally this doesn't count in tournaments, but in every day play a club or set of players will already have come to their own conclusion about how the rule works.

And for the record I've always played it that all vehicles can ram, and that a deff rolla can hit vehicles. As that just makes sense . . . unless you reverse into the vehicle for some reason =p

Oshova

Oshova wrote:
And for the record I've always played it that all vehicles can ram, and that a deff rolla can hit vehicles. As that just makes sense . . . unless you reverse into the vehicle for some reason =p

Oshova

You are wrong, not all vehicles can ram. If all vehicles could ram, I could technically use dreds to hip-bump lightly armored vehicles in the movement phase. A Walker can get 2 str for 6" and 2 str for AV 12 and 3 for AV 13.

Str 4-5 rams can pop AV10.

This also gets into suicide rams from speeders and such whcih are also not supported by the rules as 18"-24" movement can result in str 6-8 hits.

Oshova wrote:Can I just remind you all of GWs stupidest rule . . . Rule 1,do whatever you believe the rules to believe as long as both players agree and it still leaves a balanced game between the two players. Now generally this doesn't count in tournaments, but in every day play a club or set of players will already have come to their own conclusion about how the rule works.

And for the record I've always played it that all vehicles can ram, and that a deff rolla can hit vehicles. As that just makes sense . . . unless you reverse into the vehicle for some reason =p

Oshova

Just curious, but you say that GW's stupidest rule is to play however you decide to play, and you play however you decide to play. Do that mean you're stupid for following a stupid rule, or that the rule actually isn't stupid? I'm curious.

No what I mean is that it's a stupid rule cos it raises unnecessary arguments in a lot of cases. Or maybe it's just that there are some very annoying people at my club. But it can end up that you have an argument over a simple rule and the other person won't just roll for it to make a quick decision, they will argue until they're blue in the face.

But this might be just my bad experiences of the rule. Seeing as I also have had games where using weaponry from a newer version of a codex (TH/SS from new SM codex with Deathwing) has made games better.

But just was trying to make the point that it can lead to unnecessary arguments that means your game takes twice the time it should.

Oshova

Tri wrote:

Spellbound wrote:It's horrifying, but I can't stop staring, watching Gwar!'s avatar.... it's....revolting......and......yet beautiful.....

another furry is born; slaanesh is pleased

Is it just me, but the longer you stare at it, the faster it goes...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote:Holy trolling here.


I have an idea.

Ramming is a special kind of tank shock. That statement defines ramming as a subset of tank shocking.

Oranges are a special kind of citrus fruit. That statement defines ramming as a subset of citrus fruit.

That is all.

Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?

Sigged! Don't question it. When life gives you lemons, BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!

Brilliant . . . that is sheer brilliance . . . Citrus fruit must now be involved in every game . . . Need to start an IG army with Lemon Russes =D

Oshova

It shouldn't be that hard to find plastic lemons that I can attach to the front of my Battlewagons. Armoured Brutality with Lemons!

Gwar! wrote:All that will happen is people will try Ramming with Raiders and Trukks now. Woop De Flipping do!

Gwar you ought to know better than this:
No, raiders can't ram and never will unless the DE faq is updated. The upgrade that lets them tankshock has been explicitely faqqed (in the DE faq) to not allow ramming.
Trukk can ram, because the wargear that allows them to tankshock has not been amended to prohinit ramming.

If you can use the BT FAQ for IG, then you can use the Ork one for the DE.

Just pointing out the absurdity of using one armies FAQ for another.

Except, of course, that the DE FAQ deals with a specific piece of vehicle wargear whereas the BT FAQ deals with an explanation of how a core rule works.

And he does know better, he just enjoys being .................

difficult

don_mondo wrote:Except, of course, that the DE FAQ deals with a specific piece of vehicle wargear whereas the BT FAQ deals with an explanation of how a core rule works.

Funny, I thought the BT FAQ dealt with the BT Codex and the Rulebook FAQ dealt with the Rulebook. How silly of me to think that!

don_mondo wrote:Except, of course, that the DE FAQ deals with a specific piece of vehicle wargear whereas the BT FAQ deals with an explanation of how a core rule works.

And he does know better, he just enjoys being .................

difficult

On principle, any errata or explanations of core rules should be put in the errata or FAQ of the core rules.

If a pair of players do not have the BT codex its rules and FAQ cannot be applicable to their games.

Gwar! wrote:How silly of me to think that!

Exactly. But we've gotten used to it............

Gwar! wrote:If you can use the BT FAQ for IG, then you can use the Ork one for the DE.

Just pointing out the absurdity of using one armies FAQ for another.

Oh, please. This kind of thing again?

Sure, Gwar. Go ahead and use the Ork FAQ for your DE army. That's perfectly legitimate.

So you try to ram me with your Raider, I tell you you can't, you hold up the Ork FAQ and say "But look, Ramming is a subset of Tank Shock! Says so right here!"

And I say, "Yep, that's true. But here's the DE FAQ, and right HERE is where it says that Raiders, specifically, cannot Ram, even though you can Tank Shock with them."

And you say, "But Ork Trukks can take a Reinforced Ram, which let's them Tank Shock, and therefore Ram!"

And I say, "Great. So if you happen to be running an Ork Trukk with a Reinforced Ram in your DE army, go ahead and ram with it. Your Raiders, however, still can't Ram."

Specific>General. In general, if you can Tank Shock, you can Ram. However, DE Raiders CANNOT Ram =, even though they can Tank Shock, because they have a specific ruling prohibiting them from doing so.

In short, you have once again brought forth a red herring argument which proves nothing, as you do every time anyone mentions the FAQs. You have not proven "the absurdity of using one armies FAQ for another", you have only further proven the absurdity of your own position.

So why can I not do that when you feel it is ok for me to go "LOOK I HAVE A BT FAQ LET ME USE IT WITH MY IG HURRRRRRRRRRR!"?

Gwar! wrote:So why can I not do that when you feel it is ok for me to go "LOOK I HAVE A BT FAQ LET ME USE IT WITH MY IG HURRRRRRRRRRR!"?

Because you cannot show a general rules clarification, only specific rules which apply to specific units.

The BT FAQ gives a general rules clarification. It SHOULD be in the Rulebook FAQ, yes. But it isn't. This still does not stop it from being a general rules clarification, and does not in any way invalidate it.

In short; You should apply ALL the FAQS to ALL of the armies. Since 99% of the things in army FAQs are, appropriately enough, specific to that army, this results in you applying ALL of the general rules clarifications GW has given out to ALL of the armies. They should do this for us, by collecting such clarifications into a Rulebook FAQ, but just because they haven't doesn't mean the rules clarifications don't apply.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Gwar! wrote:So why can I not do that when you feel it is ok for me to go "LOOK I HAVE A BT FAQ LET ME USE IT WITH MY IG HURRRRRRRRRRR!"?

Because you cannot show a general rules clarification, only specific rules which apply to specific units.

The BT FAQ gives a general rules clarification. It SHOULD be in the Rulebook FAQ, yes. But it isn't. This still does not stop it from being a general rules clarification, and does not in any way invalidate it.

No, it clarifies how the Emperors Champion Works.

The question it answers is:
Q. Can I field the Emperor’s Champion as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQs in the army?
Not
Q. Can I field a Techpriest Enginseer as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQs in the army?

Gwar! wrote:No, it clarifies how the Emperors Champion Works.

The question it answers is:
Q. Can I field the Emperor’s Champion as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQs in the army?
Not
Q. Can I field a Techpriest Enginseer as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQs in the army?

It is not the question which gives a general rules clarification; it is the answer. The answer says, "Yes you can". That part applies only to the BTs, because no other army can field an Emperor's Champion.

However, the REST of the answer is a general rules clarification, which CLARIFIES a GENERAL RULE, and thus applies to everyone using that general rule; that is, all armies with an HQ choice that does not use up an HQ slot.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, it clarifies how the Emperors Champion Works.

The question it answers is:
Q. Can I field the Emperor’s Champion as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQs in the army?
Not
Q. Can I field a Techpriest Enginseer as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQs in the army?

It is not the question which gives a general rules clarification; it is the answer. The answer says, "Yes you can". That part applies only to the BTs, because no other army can field an Emperor's Champion.

However, the REST of the answer is a general rules clarification, which CLARIFIES a GENERAL RULE, and thus applies to everyone using that general rule; that is, all armies with an HQ choice that does not use up an HQ slot.

No, it clarifies the rules as they apply to the Emperors Champion, not to anything else. By your logic, Raiders can Ram now because of the Ork FAQ.

Gwar! wrote:No, it clarifies the rules as they apply to the Emperors Champion, not to anything else. By your logic, Raiders can Ram now because of the Ork FAQ.

So then, it's not a general rule that you must take one HQ choice?

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, it clarifies the rules as they apply to the Emperors Champion, not to anything else. By your logic, Raiders can Ram now because of the Ork FAQ.

So then, it's not a general rule that you must take one HQ choice?

Is that what the rules say?

Gwar! wrote:Is that what the rules say?

No, so why are you saying it?

Allow me to be specific; the answer in the BT FAQ NOT ONLY addresses an issue specific to the BT Codex, it ALSO makes a GENERAL ruling which applies to all armies. The only way you can claim that this general ruling doesn't apply is to claim that only the BT are affected by the general rule under question; that is, that a player must take at least one HQ choice.

So you can take a Emperors champ as your one compulsory HQ choice. I'll let you field it in your IG when a unit called "The Emperors champ" is in the codex.

Dashofpepper wrote:Holy trolling here.

Jihallah wrote:So you can take a Emperors champ as your one compulsory HQ choice. I'll let you field it in your IG when a unit called "The Emperors champ" is in the codex.

Or (for the actual IG HQ units) at any event using the INAT..................................................

Jihallah wrote:So you can take a Emperors champ as your one compulsory HQ choice. I'll let you field it in your IG when a unit called "The Emperors champ" is in the codex.

The point is that the BT FAQ entry does two things:
- It answer the question as to whether you can take an EC as your compulsory HQ
and
- It explains why you can do this.

The first obviously only applies to BT's, since they're the only army with an Emperor's Champion at present.

The second is an explanation of the general rules for building armies. It is in no way specific to BT's. It simply explains the interaction between 'not taking up a slot' and 'counting as a compulsory FOC choice'... So there is no reason to not apply that same logic to any other similar situation.

The Tank Shock/Ramming clarification is the same. The Ork FAQ gives a specific answer (The Deff Rolla can be used against vehicles) which is specific to the Ork army, and gives a clarification of the way the rules work (Ramming is a type of Tank Shock) that addresses the general rules of the game. So the first applies only to Orks, while the second applies any time those rules are used.

This is what is meant when people refer to using an FAQ for other situations. Not that specific rulings count for different units in different codexes (although they can certainly be used to establish a precedent in order to create a house rule) but simply that where GW clarify how a general rule works as a part of that answer, that clarification should always apply because it's about a general rule, not an army specific one.

So by your logic Dark Eldar Raiders with a Torture Amp can Ram, because the Ork FAQ allows any model that can Tank Shock to Ram.

Gwar! wrote:So by your logic Dark Eldar Raiders with a Torture Amp can Ram, because the Ork FAQ allows any model that can Tank Shock to Ram.

Since we're applying multiple FAQ answers, we can apply the extremely specific DE answer about that specific situation:
Q. Does a torture amp allow a Raider to ram
other vehicles?
A. No.

The fact that this doesn't match the strict BRB raw implication from the ork faq doesn't matter, as the faq specifically says it doesn't work in this specific situation and the faq is an official rules source in this forum. Faqs break the strict raw all the time.

Without the specific faq answer denying it, torture amp raiders most certainly could ram if allowed to tank shock, as that is the BRB raw as confirmed in the ork faq.

See how easy that was?

Gwar! wrote:So by your logic Dark Eldar Raiders with a Torture Amp can Ram, because the Ork FAQ allows any model that can Tank Shock to Ram.

No, because the Dark Eldar FAQ is more specific.

Seriously, Gwar, I know you understand the way the whole General vs Specific works... The trolling is completely unnecessary.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:So by your logic Dark Eldar Raiders with a Torture Amp can Ram, because the Ork FAQ allows any model that can Tank Shock to Ram.

No, because the Dark Eldar FAQ is more specific.

Seriously, Gwar, I know you understand the way the whole General vs Specific works... The trolling is completely unnecessary.

I am not trolling. I am asking why you feel one armies FAQ can apply to another. I have yet to see a satisfactory response to that question.

And you've been answered multiple times in multiple threads. You simply choose to ignore the answer.

Let me ask you this: Does the statement 'Ramming is a type of Tank Shock' refer to any rule specific to the Ork Codex?

insaniak wrote:And you've been answered multiple times in multiple threads. You simply choose to ignore the answer.

Let me ask you this: Does the statement 'Ramming is a type of Tank Shock' refer to any rule specific to the Ork Codex?

No, but it is in the Ork FAQ, so it applies to the Ork army only.

So, are you saying because it doesn't refer to anything in the Ork codex it cannot be used?

It does seem to lead towards a more general ruling though, doesn't it?

Alpharius wrote:It does seem to lead towards a more general ruling though, doesn't it?

If it were a general ruling, it would be in the General Rulebook FAQ.

It isn't though, it is in the Ork FAQ. Just as how you would not try and use a Skaven or Dark Eldar FAQ for Necrons, you wouldn't use the Ork one for anything else.

I've got agree with gwar ... If GW want to make a genral answer they should have made it in the BGB FAQ.

Eldar FAQ ...
"Q. If an army has two Autarch, does it get +2 to its Reserve rolls?
A. The player may choose each turn whether to add +1, +2 or no bonus to his reserve rolls."

IG FAQ ...
"Q. If you take two Astropaths or two Officers of the Fleet, do their +1/-1 to reserve rolls stack?
A. No. The advantage of having multiples of these Regimental Advisors is that you can still gain the benefit of the Telepathic Relay/Intercept Reserves rules should one Astropath/Officer of the Fleet be killed. The confusion created by having so many advisors simultaneously vying for a Commander’s attention negates any potential benefit."

IF GW was able to answer the same question in the same way each time then we could use one FAQ to answer another, but they don't so we can't.

Gwar! wrote:

Alpharius wrote:It does seem to lead towards a more general ruling though, doesn't it?

If it were a general ruling, it would be in the General Rulebook FAQ.

It isn't though, it is in the Ork FAQ. Just as how you would not try and use a Skaven or Dark Eldar FAQ for Necrons, you wouldn't use the Ork one for anything else.

That line of reasoning goes a bit far.

And as far as I can tell and/or remember, no one's tried that!

Gwar has a point in that if it's a general rule clarification or change it should be in the general rulebook FAQ. Otherwise a player has to read every FAQ for every army out there to make sure he/she is up to date with all new developments of the core gameplay. That's more than annoying.
Now, if I would deny an opponent something based on it being in the FAQ of an army he's not playing depends a lot on what exact rule is refered to.

Gwar! wrote:If it were a general ruling, it should be in the General Rulebook FAQ.

Fixed it for you.

I agree; all general rulings ought to be in the Rulebook FAQ. But sadly, they aren't. The location has no bearing on what they say.

For purposes of ramming, are artillery (ie a thunderfire cannon) considered to be vehicles? I am fairly new to 40k and under the artillery section of the rulebook it states that the gun itself has a profile of a vehicle with 10 armour all around. However the tables in the back of the rulebook dont list them under the vehicle tables at all.

jensenm1 wrote:For purposes of ramming, are artillery (ie a thunderfire cannon) considered to be vehicles? I am fairly new to 40k and under the artillery section of the rulebook it states that the gun itself has a profile of a vehicle with 10 armour all around. However the tables in the back of the rulebook dont list them under the vehicle tables at all.

they're treated as infantry in this case .. you would tank shock them.

Gwar! wrote:

Alpharius wrote:It does seem to lead towards a more general ruling though, doesn't it?

If it were a general ruling, it would be in the General Rulebook FAQ.

I'm afraid this is a false premise. GW isn't that well organized, as we all know. If GW gives a ruling on the interaction of general rulebook rules within a given codex's FAQ (as they have repeatedly done; like in 4th ed the clarification in the Eldar FAQ that Skimmers Moving Fast worked against Close Combat attacks too), it's just willful blindness to ignore it. Nothing in the FAQs themselves or in the introduction to them on the site indicates that the rulings within them are exclusive to them.

Gwar! wrote:It isn't though, it is in the Ork FAQ. Just as how you would not try and use a Skaven or Dark Eldar FAQ for Necrons, you wouldn't use the Ork one for anything else.

Skaven is irrelevant. Different game. If there were a ruling in the DE FAQ which clarified how a given core rulebook rule worked, it would be entirely appropriate to use the clarification if Necrons had a similar situation come up.

Gwar! wrote:No, but it is in the Ork FAQ, so it applies to the Ork army only.

And that's where you keep going wrong.

Yes, it's in the Ork FAQ... but it's a clarification of a general rule. The Deff Rolla can be used to ram because Ramming is a type of Tank Shock.

While the original rule being questioned is an Ork rule, the reason for that rule to work as they're clarifying is down to an interaction of the standard rules of 40K.

What it boils down to is that GW have clarified that something that allows you to Tank Shock also allows you to Ram, and have given the reason that it works that way. There is absolutely no reason to not apply that same reasoning to anything else that functions in a similar fashion, unless that other item has a specific ruling that says otherwise... because it's not a ruling based on the Ork rules. It's a ruling based on the standard mechanics of the game.

I believe this was added to the BRB FAQ too, so is now a moot issue.

Uriels_Flame wrote:I believe this was added to the BRB FAQ too, so is now a moot issue.

I'm not seeing it in there...

The Spanish version

But seriously, I looked again and didn't either....

I was sure I read it there after GW(ar) started this line of questioning just this week.

Hmm... conspiracy...

Tri wrote:I've got agree with gwar ... If GW want to make a genral answer they should have made it in the BGB FAQ.

It's really hard to take Gwar seriously on the matter though when he always uses ridiculous examples in explaining his perspective.

Mostly he talks about using the Skaven FAQ with his warhammer 40k army, which is not only absurd, but doesn't even invalidate the argument, because if there was an answer in the Skaven FAQ that pertained to something like how GW use a certain term in their writing, it could in theory be applied to interpreting Warhammer 40k rules.

edit: To be clear, the reason it's absurd is because the Skaven are using an entirely different base ruleset which the answers pertain to, thus why about the only valid thing to pull is something explaining the use of the english language in the design studio, If someone can't see the difference between a question about how skaven interact with the WHFB rules, and how two USRs from 40k function together on a certain Space Wolves unit, they are being intentionally obtuse.

I'm not trying to say there isn't an issue with how GW do the FAQs, these things that can effect multiple armies should be in the rulebook FAQ, and far too many things that should be errata get thrown in as FAQs, for example instead of release this Deff Rolla thing in the ork FAQ on it's own, maybe put that FAQ in, then release an errata for the rulebook which modifies the Ram rules to read "Ramming is a special kind of Tank Shock move, and as such any special rules that effect Tank Shocks will also effect Rams. It is executed in the same way as a Tank Shock..." and then errata in the Dark Eldar FAQ "Torture Amps allow Dark Eldar vehicles to Tank Shock, but not to Ram". Sure it may require more additions to the FAQ files, but it means that you have a hard and fast ruling on how everything that says it works with a tank shock, works with ramming.

Basically, if GW didn't run their FAQ service so poorly, I probably would agree with Gwar, but as it stands, far too often they are making rulings in FAQs for a codex when they are based on rulebook rules issues, and so I tend to be a bit flexible with regard to it, I would never assume a FAQ to be cross-compatible, and would expect you to bring it up to a TO before an event, or an opponent before a game, but if someone did ask me and could justify why both rules are largely the same, I would allow it.

Drunkspleen wrote:[... but as it stands, far too often they are making rulings in FAQs for a codex when they are based on rulebook rules issues,...

More to the point, it's how GW have always done their FAQ's. Or at least for as long as they've had Codex-specific FAQ's, anyway.

Drunkspleen wrote:[... but as it stands, far too often they are making rulings in FAQs for a codex when they are based on rulebook rules issues,...

insaniak wrote:More to the point, it's how GW have always done their FAQ's. Or at least for as long as they've had Codex-specific FAQ's, anyway.

Tri wrote:I've got agree with gwar ... If GW want to make a genral answer they should have made it in the

It should be FAQ in BGB's FAQ since there is already a ruling going the other way ... that way we get a specific answer for DE and general answer in the BGB.
If nothing else it requires a player to carry round up to date copies of all the FAQs not just the ones dealing with his army and the core rules.

Oh and i agree that Skaven are not usable ... but if it was a FAQ for planet strike or apocalypse?

In my view PlanetStrike and Apocalyse (and Cities of Death) are blocks of variant rules not core rules, therefore an FAQ for them would not apply to the core game.

Kilkrazy wrote:In my view PlanetStrike and Apocalyse (and Cities of Death) are blocks of variant rules not core rules, therefore an FAQ for them would not apply to the core game.

So why should an FAQ for Codex A (which is inherently a Variation of the core rules) apply to Codex B?

I agree with Gwar. It is perfectly logical that a general rule would be in the BRB. As that is where the general rules are. Specific rules are in codices as that is where specific rules are.

So therefore, general FAQs are in the BRB FAQ/errata. And specific FAQs are in the codex FAQ/errata.

So no a Raider can't ram, as it says in the DE FAQ that it can't. And the BT FAQ doesn't relate to IG. And unless a 'General' FAQ is in the BRB FAQ then it can't be used for another army.

Why on Earth should I carry round 20 different FAQs . . . . or in fact READ 20 different FAQs that don't relate to the armies I play or the general rules.

Oshova

It's not perfectly logical that a general rule would be in the rulebook. The rulebook contains rules for both general situations, and rules for specific situations: the most prominent of which are the Universal Special Rules (the biggest midgets...), but also things like Instant Death, Smoke Launchers, etc.

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In my view PlanetStrike and Apocalyse (and Cities of Death) are blocks of variant rules not core rules, therefore an FAQ for them would not apply to the core game.

So why should an FAQ for Codex A (which is inherently a Variation of the core rules) apply to Codex B?

It shouldn't, however history shows that GW use this method for making changes to core rules.

See the Eldar 4e codex changes to the old Skimmers Moving Fast rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When I say "GW use" the term should be taken very loosely.

GW put out rules, errata, revisions and FAQ answers in all kinds of somewhat dodgy ways. I don't think there is any organisation behind it.

There isn't. Hell, I don't even believe more than one person works on an FAQ.

InquisitorFabius wrote:There isn't. Hell, I don't even believe more than one person works on an FAQ.

And even then, most of their work is just copying it from other sources

Tri wrote:If nothing else it requires a player to carry round up to date copies of all the FAQs not just the ones dealing with his army and the core rules.

That's a good idea anyway... And something that I've always done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oshova wrote:It is perfectly logical that a general rule would be in the BRB. As that is where the general rules are. Specific rules are in codices as that is where specific rules are.

So therefore, general FAQs are in the BRB FAQ/errata. And specific FAQs are in the codex FAQ/errata.

It's logical that the FAQ's should work like that. But (again) it's not, and never has been, how GW do it.

insaniak wrote:It's logical that the FAQ's should work like that. But (again) it's not, and never has been, how GW do it.

Can you prove this?

I could dig back through the old FAQ's for those rulings where GW actually specifically said that a ruling made in a codex FAQ applied to everybody, if I felt a need.

But quite frankly, I don't see the point in 'proving' it. You're going to see the rules how you see fit anyway, and apparently your way is to ignore a ruling that fits the situation because you don't agree with where it's written. Which is fine. Your choice. I'll stick with using appropriate rulings wherever they apply, as that way results in more of the rules issues actually being resolved, and because more than 15 years of experience with GW's rules writing says that's the way they do it.

The effect of the rule is that (for Orks at least) bonuses from wargear/upgrades/etc that would apply to Tank Shock are also applied to Ramming.

Aside from the Dark Eldar raider (which is already handled in it's own faq) are there any other units on other armies that would even be affected by this?

I look at it that if there is an Ork FAQ that includes a BRB rule, it only applies to Orks and how THEY interact with the BRB rule.

While the BRB allows us to basically play the game, individual codex entries and rules dictate how the individual army interacts with the BRB.

In this case, the Ork FAQ dictates how Orks interact with the BRB ramming/tank shock rule. No one else.

Brother Ramses wrote:In this case, the Ork FAQ dictates how Orks interact with the BRB ramming/tank shock rule. No one else.

So you're saying that Ramming is only a type of Tank Shock for Orks?

No, I am saying the FAQ only dictates how Orks deal with that rule.

Ramming is a type of Tank Shock is already in the BRB for every other race. The Orks have a FAQ that only addresses how they deal with it with deffrollas. To then step beyond just orks you then drift into RAI verus RAW.

Brother Ramses wrote:No, I am saying the FAQ only dictates how Orks deal with that rule.

Ramming is a type of Tank Shock is already in the BRB for every other race. The Orks have a FAQ that only addresses how they deal with it with deffrollas. To then step beyond just orks you then drift into RAI verus RAW.

How exactly? The ruling clearly clarifies a BRB rule where the RAW was hotly contested for months.
Are you saying that the BRB RAW is still arguably unclear on the ramming/tank shocking relationship and isn't what the faq says it is when playing with other races... just because the general clarification only exists in a racial faq?

Brother Ramses wrote:No, I am saying the FAQ only dictates how Orks deal with that rule.

Ramming is a type of Tank Shock is already in the BRB for every other race. The Orks have a FAQ that only addresses how they deal with it with deffrollas. To then step beyond just orks you then drift into RAI verus RAW.

That's the thing, though: The FAQ addresses Deffrollas, yes. But what it does is simply point out that Deffrollas work when Ramming because of the interaction between two general rules. The Deffrolla, which has a stated effect that applies when performing a Tank Shock, works when Ramming because of the interaction of the Ramming and Tank Shock rules. Not because of any Ork-specific rules.

So claiming that this clarification can only apply to Orks is, at the very least, a bit odd, because Ramming and Tank shock are not exclusive to Orks.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:No, I am saying the FAQ only dictates how Orks deal with that rule.

Ramming is a type of Tank Shock is already in the BRB for every other race. The Orks have a FAQ that only addresses how they deal with it with deffrollas. To then step beyond just orks you then drift into RAI verus RAW.

How exactly? The ruling clearly clarifies a BRB rule where the RAW was hotly contested for months.
Are you saying that the BRB RAW is still arguably unclear on the ramming/tank shocking relationship and isn't what the faq says it is when playing with other races... just because the general clarification only exists in a racial faq?

It clarifies a BRB rule for Orks.

I am saying that a racial FAQ is just that, racial.

If you want to apply racial to the general, then one could easily state that the Ork FAQ allows DE to ram with a Torture Amp since generally, ramming is a type of tank shock per the newer Ork FAQ. However you can't since the Ork FAQ is for Orks and how they interact with the BRB rule and the DE FAQ is for DE and how they interact with the BRB.

Brother Ramses wrote:If you want to apply racial to the general, then one could easily state that the Ork FAQ allows DE to ram with a Torture Amp since generally, ramming is a type of tank shock per the newer Ork FAQ.

You could, but you would be incorrect. The Ork FAQ addresses the general interaction of Tank Shock and Ramming. The DE FAQ applies a specific restriction to the Torture Amp.

The fact that the Ork FAQ is newer is irrelevant.

insaniak wrote:You could, but you would be incorrect. The Ork FAQ addresses the general interaction of Tank Shock and Ramming.

That is where we disagree. In my view, it addresses the Specific Interaction of what happens when an Ork Battlewagon with a Deffrolla rams, mainly because it's in the Ork FAQ and it's talking about Battlewagons Ramming.

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:You could, but you would be incorrect. The Ork FAQ addresses the general interaction of Tank Shock and Ramming.

That is where we disagree. In my view, it addresses the Specific Interaction of what happens when an Ork Battlewagon with a Deffrolla rams, mainly because it's in the Ork FAQ and it's talking about Battlewagons Ramming.

Exactly. Even if there was another race that had a Battlestagecoach with a Rolldeffa, you could not use the Ork FAQ to justify it ramming.

Brother Ramses wrote: Battlestagecoach

Damnit, Now I want to make one, but I suck at modelling!

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:You could, but you would be incorrect. The Ork FAQ addresses the general interaction of Tank Shock and Ramming.

That is where we disagree. In my view, it addresses the Specific Interaction of what happens when an Ork Battlewagon with a Deffrolla rams, mainly because it's in the Ork FAQ and it's talking about Battlewagons Ramming.

The ruling addresses what happens when an Ork vehicle with a Deffrolla rams. The reason for that ruling addresses general rules.

That reason is what applies to everybody, because those general rules are the same for everybody.

insaniak wrote:The ruling addresses what happens when an Ork vehicle with a Deffrolla rams. The reason for that ruling addresses general rules.

That reason is what applies to everybody, because those general rules are the same for everybody.

So why is it in the Ork FAQ?
You claim that "this is how GW does it" but I have yet to see any form of proof.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Exactly. Even if there was another race that had a Battlestagecoach with a Rolldeffa, you could not use the Ork FAQ to justify it ramming.

Yes you could, assuming that the Battlestagecoach can Tank Shock. If it can Tank Shock, it can Ram, in the absence of specific rules saying otherwise. If someone asks why, you point to the Ork FAQ, specifically ". . .as Ramming is just a type of Tank Shock." That sentence is the justification for ANYTHING that can Tank Shock and has no specific rules prohibiting it from doing so, to ram, in ANY Codex.

As for your DE Raider example; as has been repeatedly pointed out, the Torture Amp has a SPECIFIC rules which prohibits it from Ramming even though it can Tank Shock. This overrides the GENERAL ruling that all vehicles that can Tank Shock can Ram. The example is therefore irrelevant, as the Raider can't Ram no matter what.

Again, if it is a General Ruling, why is it in the Ork FAQ? If you allow the Ork FAQ to be used with other Armies, then I want to use it to allow my Raiders to Ram, regardless of what the Dark Eldar FAQ says, because the Ork one says I can.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Exactly. Even if there was another race that had a Battlestagecoach with a Rolldeffa, you could not use the Ork FAQ to justify it ramming.

Yes you could, assuming that the Battlestagecoach can Tank Shock. If it can Tank Shock, it can Ram, in the absence of specific rules saying otherwise. If someone asks why, you point to the Ork FAQ, specifically ". . .as Ramming is just a type of Tank Shock." That sentence is the justification for ANYTHING that can Tank Shock and has no specific rules prohibiting it from doing so, to ram, in ANY Codex.

As for your DE Raider example; as has been repeatedly pointed out, the Torture Amp has a SPECIFIC rules which prohibits it from Ramming even though it can Tank Shock. This overrides the GENERAL ruling that all vehicles that can Tank Shock can Ram. The example is therefore irrelevant, as the Raider can't Ram no matter what.

No. You could point to the Ork FAQ and say, "That is how it MIGHT work". However, until your Battlestagecoach equipped army's FAQ comes out saying you could, you can't.

I agree again with you Gwar . . . it can't be proved.

But on the ramming/tank shock thing . . . it says that's how the rule works, as if it's obvious and would work for everyone like that . . . but unless it's in the BRB then it doesn't work like that, even if it's perfectly obvious that's how it should work.

So if that's how you understood the rule to work any way, and that's how your club or whatever play it then great. But if not, then there's no change, and so that's great too. Until there is a general ruling of it, then it in no way changes how ramming and tank shock link up.

Quite simple. As one codex in no way changes the rules of another. =D

Oshova

Gwar! wrote:Again, if it is a General Ruling, why is it in the Ork FAQ? If you allow the Ork FAQ to be used with other Armies, then I want to use it to allow my Raiders to Ram, regardless of what the Dark Eldar FAQ says, because the Ork one says I can.

It's in the Ork FAQ because the Deff Rolla is the item that made it an issue. Therefore, GQ clarified the general ruling in the same location as they confirmed that, yes, this general ruling does in fact apply to this specific upgrade. Makes perfect sense to me.

So, let be make sure; your argument is that you are allowed to pick which FAQs you want to apply, and disregard the others? No, sorry, wrong. If any FAQ is valid, all are valid. Equally, if you wish to disregard them, feel free to do so. . . but you have to disregard them ALL. No picking and choosing. Either all FAQs are valid, or none are.

And all FAQs being valid doesn't ever bring up the issues you keep screaming about. Specific > general, remember? Which is more specific;

1. Vehicles which can Tank Shock can Ram
2. DE Raiders equipped with a Torture Amp may not Ram, even though they can Tank Shock.

Gwar! wrote:So why is it in the Ork FAQ?

Because it's a ruling on the Deffrolla, made because the Deffrolla is the specific piece of wargear that people have been arguing about.

You claim that "this is how GW does it" but I have yet to see any form of proof.

You have access to the same FAQs as the rest of us.



Seriously, this has gone way beyond silly. Tank Shock and Ramming are general rules. A ruling that says that something works a given way because of the interaction of those two rules is going to apply to everybody because everybody uses those rules the same way unless they have specific rules that say otherwise.

If you really find the idea that a general clarification is made in a race-specific FAQ so offensive, feel free to ignore it for your own games. But I think this silliness has gone on for long enough.