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.'

It's not that hard to shelter a squad next to a battlewagon, especially if it's front end is touching a wrecked vehicle.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Can we not YMDC the first rule of Dakka

No, no, no, no. That is a stupid idea. You're stupid. And you come from Stupidville. Rule #1 is very clear so why the feth do you need to debate it. Read more, post less. Sheesh, some posters - their parents seem to be to closely related.





{tongue firmly in cheek MDC, honest!)

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.'

It's not that hard to shelter a squad next to a battlewagon, especially if it's front end is touching a wrecked vehicle.

Yes, I suppose you've never heard of a whirlwind, thunderfire cannon, Hellhound, marker lights, etc either.

Have you ever tried to deploy 15 Orks within 2" of the hull of the BW, maintaining coherency while staying at least 1" from enemy models? I have, you end up making a line down the side and around the back. So not only do you make your burna's vulnerable to fire, less than half of them are going to get templates off, usually significantly less.

At this point you seem to be arguing just to argue about something you find scary or don't like. How about play a couple games against it before putting your end of the world sign back on.

As an ork player and proud owner of 5 battlewagons and 5 deathrolla upgrade sprues, I think I'm gonna be verklempth. This is beautifull.....soooo beautifull.

Seriously though, is anyone really that surprised here? They released an upgrade sprue last year, and they are releasing a bunch of ork stuff next month. You all should have seen this coming. They are probably going to sell out, of upgrade sprues now. LOL


GG

Kroot Loops wrote:
Yes, I suppose you've never heard of a whirlwind, thunderfire cannon, Hellhound, marker lights, etc either.

This is where the meta-game is affected we hope. You see all the marine players and what not can only ever imagine using Land Raiders. In the same way that CSM cling to dual lash like a security blanket. Thunderfire cannon? What's that? Marker lights? That would require someone to actually play Tau.

fullheadofhair wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Can we not YMDC the first rule of Dakka

No, no, no, no. That is a stupid idea. You're stupid. And you come from Stupidville. Rule #1 is very clear so why the feth do you need to debate it. Read more, post less. Sheesh, some posters - their parents seem to be to closely related.





{tongue firmly in cheek MDC, honest!)

But does my Auntie being my Dad's sister-in-law also imply my Mum is also his sister-in-law? If it does then we're all hicks....

Yes, I suppose you've never heard of a whirlwind, thunderfire cannon, Hellhound, marker lights, etc either.

If you're looking down the barrel of a thunderfire battery then I guess you just wouldn't get out of the tank. Likewise for hellhounds, or the random whirlwind. It's not like you don't have the choice. You'll not I didn't mention markerlights. Likely because if you're in the middle of a tau formation with a battlewagon and 15 burnas then you've probably already won the game.

generalgrog wrote:

Seriously though, is anyone really that surprised here? They released an upgrade sprue last year, and they are releasing a bunch of ork stuff next month. You all should have seen this coming. They are probably going to sell out, of upgrade sprues now. LOL


GG

Exactly. GW cares a lot less about how rulings negatively effect gameplay than they do about how they effect sales.

Kinda like them making my Long Fangs cheaper and better than standard Dev Squads because they were probably not selling them to Vanilla SM players very often.

Nothing related to metagame and overpowerness of battlewagons, a rules question.
I'm getting back this post from page 8, but the thead is going fast, and it has not been answered.

sirisaacnuton wrote: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.)

So.
Do BW still ram with the one standard ram hit, or is it replaced by deffrolla attack, or both (thus the D6+1) ?
I think both.

Are these D6 deffrolla hits still considered as a part of ramming attack, or as special independant attacks ?
I think this is an important question. In the second case, the D6 hits would not confer the possibility to tank shock further the survivors of an exploded transport (if the single standard ramming has failed of course).


Dakkaites opinion ?

Both, and it continues one if it explodes the vehicle, otherwise it halts, as per the ramming rules.

Ravajaxe wrote:
So.
Do BW still ram with the one standard ram hit, or is it replaced by deffrolla attack, or both (thus the D6+1) ?
I think both.

Are these D6 deffrolla hits still considered as a part of ramming attack, or as special independant attacks ?
I think this is an important question. In the second case, the D6 hits would not confer the possibility to tank shock further the survivors of an exploded transport (if the single standard ramming has failed of course).


Dakkaites opinion ?

"However, if the rammed vehicle is removed
because it suffers a ‘destroyed – explodes!’ damage
result, the rammer continues its move..."
I don't believe the ram rule specifies that only the ram damage can cause this removal, just that if the vehicle is removed the rammer continues. As it's in the paragraph discussing ram results, I could easily see it read to refer only to those however.

I also don't believe the rolla or ram rules state that the rolla hits negate or replace the ram hit. You get both.

nkelsch wrote:
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.

As with all cases of modeling for in-game advantage, at Adepticon they will be handled on a case-by-base basis.

If you're playing with non-standard Battlwagons and/or Deff Rollas and a tournament judge feels you've done so to gain an advantage you could suffer a number of penalties, such as being forced to play the game 'as if' they were the stock size of the GW battlewagon all the way up to being ejected from the tourney.

Ultimately if you think it even might be an issue you should be contacting Adepticon ahead of time using their 'model policy' email address and especially bringing it up before each game with your opponent to make sure you smooth it over with them.


And yes, this ruling will obviously apply at Adepticon and we will be ruling on ancillary issues (like if the Deff Rolla hits can destroy the rammed vehicle and allow the Battlewagon to continue ramming), but we probably won't put out the update until GW releases their Tyranid FAQ, as we're trying to only do one more update.

Of course, if GW doesn't release a Tyranid FAQ soon...then we'll see.

My Orks never needed the Rolla for tank busting but always had them anyways. They've always been useful.

Now instead of speed bump guard units to stop horde orks, those speed bump guard units, armed with meltas, will now be used to stop BW's. BW's are still relatively weak compared to other tanks in the game.

For the last 2 years I've noticed that rational people were for or neutral to the rolla and the irrational and hate-filled people were against it. I'm just happy there is a ruling one way or another.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

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.

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.

One thing, isn't a Melta's chance to kill 1/2 because of the +1 for AP1?

BeRzErKeR wrote:

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.



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.

Berzerker, once again, so reasonable and measured, and not living up to your screen-name!

Grimgob wrote:

Budzerker wrote:

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?

"Any tank shock made by a battlewagon with a deffrolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit"
The deffrolla still inflicts those hits on units that pass their leadership test and elect to move out of the way. This suggest that the same would happen to a skimmer even if it passed the 3+ roll to avoid a ram.

but from page 71 of brb
"On a 3+ the skimmer avoids the tank, neither vehicle suffers any damage"

It's a direct contradiction (*gasp*)
The question then becomes whether or not a rule in a codex supercedes the brb..which has been stated to be the case in several faq's.


In short..it seems that the skimmer would still get hit (but I agree that it probably shouldn't)

Ozymandias wrote:
One thing, isn't a Melta's chance to kill 1/2 because of the +1 for AP1?

Holy pop culture reference, Batman, you're right!

So actually, a meltagun has an 18% CTK per shot against AV14, as compared to the Deffrolla's 11% chance per hit. That means that, on average, a Deffrolla is as effective as 2 meltagun shots against AV 14; not hits, shots. In addition, it suffers from the additional limitations explained earlier.

So the question before the jury is; why is everyone so worked up about the fact that Orks are allowed to take the equivalent of two meltaguns for 20 points? Ok, that's fairly cheap for the effect. I don't think it's in any way unbalancing.

2 Meltaguns for 20 Points? Unpossible! I mean, SW get 2 Meltaguns for 5 points...

Because it's the internets. We're bored at work and like to poke things.

Y'know, meltaguns that auto hit, ignore cover, ignore intervening models, can kill multiple vehicles per shot, can kill entire squads per shot, and that contain other models.

The deffrolla isn't a meltagun, and it's in a codex that doesn't even have the meltagun (instead having the single most cost effective troops choice in the entire game).

If I promise to buy lots of vypers can they FAQ them to be able to ram?

Why would you want Vypers to ram? Surely they'd just do more damage to themselves?

ShumaGorath wrote:Y'know, meltaguns that auto hit,

False analogy. I included chance to hit in my calculations. Please actually read the math before denigrating it.

ignore cover

Irrelevant. How often is something obscured from a model within 6" of it?

ignore intervening models

Ignore WHAT intervening models? There can't possibly BE any, you're in base contact.

can kill multiple vehicles per shot

And can also kill zero vehicles per game, with only a little bad luck. Your point?

can kill entire squads per shot

Flatly wrong. Maximum of 6 hits, remember? Which don't ignore armor.


You seriously need to actually READ what I posted before slamming it.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:
One thing, isn't a Melta's chance to kill 1/2 because of the +1 for AP1?

Holy pop culture reference, Batman, you're right!

So actually, a meltagun has an 18% CTK per shot against AV14, as compared to the Deffrolla's 11% chance per hit. That means that, on average, a Deffrolla is as effective as 2 meltagun shots against AV 14; not hits, shots. In addition, it suffers from the additional limitations explained earlier.

So the question before the jury is; why is everyone so worked up about the fact that Orks are allowed to take the equivalent of two meltaguns for 20 points? Ok, that's fairly cheap for the effect. I don't think it's in any way unbalancing.

The unbalancing effect two-fold: first that the Battlewagon is an AV14 vehicle that is almost always taken with a permanent 4+ cover save, and now has by far the most destructive anti-tank weapon in the game. Secondly, while it's about as powerful as two half-range meltagun shots, the real power of the Deffrolla is that the damage is dealt in the Movement phase, allowing the Ork player to choose whether or not to disembark, and can be done before anything else moves. Nothing else in the game gives this much of a tactical advantage - the only two movement phase damage dealers I can thing of are Swooping Hawk grenade packs and Bigbomms, neither of which come close to packing the power of a Deffrolla.

Regardless, the Deffrolla can now legally attack vehicles, and we'll all have to adapt or die.

False analogy. I included chance to hit in my calculations. Please actually read the math before denigrating it.

BS 3, 4 or 5?

Irrelevant. How often is something obscured from a model within 6" of it?

Smoke launchers, custom force fields, fast moving skimmers, intervening models, vehicle squadrons. In my experience? Often.

Ignore WHAT intervening models? There can't possibly BE any, you're in base contact.

I didn't know I used a meltagun in close combat.

And can also kill zero vehicles per game, with only a little bad luck. Your point?

A maximum value isn't irrelevant in a statistical calculation.

Flatly wrong. Maximum of 6 hits, remember? Which don't ignore armor.

That will kill a space marine captain better than a meltagun shot, and will tear a vehicle squadron to pieces far faster. It's a good response to tyranid warriors and the doom of malantai as well.

You seriously need to actually READ what I posted before slamming it.

Slamming it? When did I do that?

BS 3, 4 or 5?

I used BS4, since MEQs are the most common army.

Smoke launchers, custom force fields, fast moving skimmers, intervening models, vehicle squadrons. In my experience? Often.

Fair enough. In my experience, not very often, but then since I usually play Orks my experience with meltas is limited. My CSM don't often have a problem with it once they're within 6". Also, squadrons shouldn't do anything, you just shoot at the one closest to you and the hits are spread out among the squadron.

I didn't know I used a meltagun in close combat.

You use the Deffrolla in base contact, so it's not ignoring any intervening models because there aren't any. As for meltas; If you're within half melta range, it is very unlikely, to say the least, that there are models in between you and your target. And if there is, isn't that dealt with by your point above about cover?

A maximum value isn't irrelevant in a statistical calculation.

This is true, but if you'd read my math you'd see that I have talked about that. A single meltagun also has a maximum value, in that it could blow up any vehicle in the game. In that, the meltagun and the Deffrolla are no different at all.

That will kill a space marine captain better than a meltagun shot, and will tear a vehicle squadron to pieces far faster. It's a good response to tyranid warriors and the doom of malantai as well.

Assuming the Space Marine Captain has a 2+ save; average of 4 hits (we'll round up), 3.33 wounds rounded down to 3, all saved. No dice. You have to be lucky to kill a SM Captain with a Deffrolla, whereas with a melta you pretty much just have to hit him and he's gibbed.

Vehicle Squadrons; I might dispute that a Deffrolla will get more kills than a pair of meltas against a vehicle squadron; they ought to be about the same. None of the math ceases to apply to squadrons.

Warriors; no. Rear AV10; the Warriors will suck up the hits and then shred it. If you're arguing a Battlewagon full of Nobz or something like that, I would point out that adding what is arguably the best CC unit in the game to the debate changes the parameters, just slightly.

Doom of Malantai; Yep, that's true. A Deffrolla is better than a pair of meltas against the Doom, because he has a higher chance of failing at least one save.

Slamming it? When did I do that?

"Y'know, meltaguns that auto hit, ignore cover, ignore intervening models, can kill multiple vehicles per shot, can kill entire squads per shot, and that contain other models."

That statement struck me as somewhat snarky and dismissive. Yes yes, I know, call the Whaambulance, I bruised my angst.

I used BS4, since MEQs are the most common army.

My most common enemies are tau, IG, and tyranids. Though I will agree that MEQs should be the most common.

Also, squadrons shouldn't do anything, you just shoot at the one closest to you and the hits are spread out among the squadron.

It's extremely easy to grant large vehicle squadrons like leman russes cover by virtue of ancillary vehicle placement. I've seen it done many a time.

You use the Deffrolla in base contact, so it's not ignoring any intervening models because there aren't any. As for meltas; If you're within half melta range, it is very unlikely, to say the least, that there are models in between you and your target. And if there is, isn't that dealt with by your point above about cover?

Its quite easy to prevent that 6" range with a thin spaced wall of models. The thin man-line is the greatest counter to drop sternguard that my play environment can't seem to grasp. As a tank the defrolla would just move through the squad, quite possibly damaging it as well.

Assuming the Space Marine Captain has a 2+ save; average of 4 hits (we'll round up), 3.33 wounds rounded down to 3, all saved. No dice. You have to be lucky to kill a SM Captain with a Deffrolla, whereas with a melta you pretty much just have to hit him and he's gibbed.

Several noteworthy and commonly used MEQ special characters possess only a 3+ save (shrike for instance). The 2+ save is a dealbreaker though.

That statement struck me as somewhat snarky and dismissive. Yes yes, I know, call the Whaambulance, I bruised my angst.

I do press the snark sometimes.

Actually, assuming a 2+ save, you have a 57% chance of making all three saves (5/6 ^3) for about 42% chance of dying. A MG at BS4 has about a 28% chance of gibbing the same commander.

If someone keeps their commander out in the open infront of melta guns and deff rollas youve already won anyway..

LOL... very true. I just wanted to point out that saying "3.33 wounds isn't enough to kill a 2+ model" isn't the correct way to think about it.

Gwar! wrote:Errm... The INAT is written in the US?

Yak stated one of the reasons they changed the inat was the uk gt faq didn't allow deff rollas to work, which is now apparently mute, amongst other not based in fact reasons...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yakface wrote:

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.

Surely this wouldn't take place prior to the uk gt faq changing, if it does? Cause it would be bad if US and UK players had to play with different faq's?

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.

Your local ork player has been cheating, neither vehicle may have moved more than 12" for a boarding plank to work (the trukk can move 13" with rpj).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

To avoid the squad getting hurt you just have to deploy them so that they aren't in the way of the deffrolla. Tricky but not impossible.

To avoid getting multiple rhinos crushed in one shock don't keep them all in a straight line within 13" of each other. If you deploy in a triangle of 14" length he can only ever hit 1 a turn. To be honest though you don't have to do that. Most rhinos will be lined up along the long table edge. To get multiples the wagon has to move up the side of the board to line itself up with the straight line of rhinos. That's 2 turns and then it can tank shock. So 2 turns to kill it and in one of those turns it exposes its more vulnerable side av12.

And with nothing but a deffrolla, boarding plank, wrecking ball, armour plates, and rpj to make this work you're looking at 135pts minimum without counting the squad on a vehicle with no actual weapons. More likely its going to be about 150pts with a few weapons before it can do your trick.

Don't fret it. You'll see a lot more b-wagons with rollas but they aren't the be all and end all of the game.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:
And with nothing but a deffrolla, boarding plank, wrecking ball, armour plates, and rpj to make this work you're looking at 135pts minimum without counting the squad on a vehicle with no actual weapons. More likely its going to be about 150pts with a few weapons before it can do your trick.

Most of that gear isn't necessary. Wagon [90] + Rolla [20] + Big Shoota [5] + Plank [10] + Red Paint [5] = 130, and you can shave it to 125 if you don't care about weapon destroyed results. I'm not claiming Wagons are LOLcheap, but it's pretty darn easy to get 5+ into a list and still field Big Meks and loads of Boyz, Koptas, etc.

All I can say is: thank you GW for FINALLY making a ruling on this. Playing in various venues can be a headache as this has been a very controversial issue. As an Ork player who thought it should be ruled this way, of course I'm happy for it. If they ruled otherwise, I'd still be happy (maybe slightly less) that I have a clear ruling. Hell, many of us were blanketly called cheaters b/c certain Ard Boyz events last year allowed it.

The reality is probably this: GW wasn't selling enough upgrade kits and had to fix that. I know I'll be ordering a couple more.

Sincerely,

Grateful Ork Player

Just so I can clarify:

This whole Deffrolla situation came about because the rules say 'Tank Shock' and make no mention of 'Ramming', correct?

H.B.M.C. wrote:Just so I can clarify:

This whole Deffrolla situation came about because the rules say 'Tank Shock' and make no mention of 'Ramming', correct?

The Deffrolla rules only mention tank shocking. The question was if Ramming was a separate event from Tank Shocking, and if being able to Tank Shock also allowed Ramming.

Ok.

Then, as a followup, how many uses of specific 5th Ed terminology are contained within the Ork Codex.

To put it another way, what rules in the Ork Codex show up that did not exist in 4th Ed and have only existed since 5th Ed came about?

sourclams wrote:

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:
And with nothing but a deffrolla, boarding plank, wrecking ball, armour plates, and rpj to make this work you're looking at 135pts minimum without counting the squad on a vehicle with no actual weapons. More likely its going to be about 150pts with a few weapons before it can do your trick.

Most of that gear isn't necessary. Wagon [90] + Rolla [20] + Big Shoota [5] + Plank [10] + Red Paint [5] = 130, and you can shave it to 125 if you don't care about weapon destroyed results. I'm not claiming Wagons are LOLcheap, but it's pretty darn easy to get 5+ into a list and still field Big Meks and loads of Boyz, Koptas, etc.

Well bare minimum to pull off the trick of going 13", then planking , then swining a wrecking ball requires 125 if you have no armour plates or big shoota and that's in response to the poster who was arguing that you could do this.

Personally I run my wagon with plates, rolla, rpj, 3 x bs and that's it. Comes out at 140pts and can crush tanks/t4 nid beasties, asborb some weapon destroyed (and shoot if immobilised), re-roll difficult terrain and always move unless immobilised (and the mek on board fixes it then).

I only run one but if I wanted to do wagon spam I would probably run 4.

4 of them costs me 560pts but would probably be the nice core of a very nasty list. Put scoring nobz in one, 2 squads of shoota boyz in another 2 and burnaz in the last then fill out the list with KFF/Boss some grots or trukks (i.e. some cheap troops) and some mobile rokkits in the form of either buggies or koptaz.

Apparently Ork players gained a way to kill Monoliths. I can dig it.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Ok.

Then, as a followup, how many uses of specific 5th Ed terminology are contained within the Ork Codex.

To put it another way, what rules in the Ork Codex show up that did not exist in 4th Ed and have only existed since 5th Ed came about?

None. It was a fourth edition codex and has stuff in it that doesn't quite mesh with 5th edition (such as the wording in the 'Waaagh' rule).

Thanks Yak. I already suspected that, but wanted to be 100% certain before finishing my thought, which I shall do so now:

So this whole argument, including a lot of heated words between various parties, accusations of cheating, bad blood at tournaments and official events - and even the fact that we still have a 12 page thread after it has been resolved - was because when the rule was written Ramming didn't yet exist.

And no one - no one - made the relatively small leap to say that had it been written for 5th they probably would have specified that the Deffrolla can Ram other vehicles given that, y'know, it's a giant rolly ball of death, and then just left it at that?

So as my final question to all those who no doubt spent countless pages and effort writing about this topic since 5th Ed came about:

Was it worth it?

I mean... why do we argue over GW's rules to this degree? They're badly written, they're ambiguous, they don't use defined terms, they're inconsistent (and negligent) in their use and misuse of terminology. They write their rules in a vacuum with little to no forethought of what's to come or what's come before (the Daemons Codex being a rare example of when they have avoided this pitfall). Even their FAQ's serve to raise more questions, answer questions that don't need answering (sometimes incorrectly as well) and leave off questions where actual ambiguity is present (this was not one of those cases). So why do we do it?

I mean, I had someone here call me a childish immature cheater for even suggesting - suggesting - that the Doom of Malantai probably got a Warp Field save because GW gave him the rule (and why would they give it the rule if they didn't want him to use it?).

So really, why do we bother?

Because what else would I do at work?

Work? No way man.


But seriously, in the 'top 100 hobby games of all time' the game designer who lists 40K as his favorite game actually attributes the loosely written rules as part of the game's enduring charm.

And while I'd love for some super-tight set of rules that we didn't even have to discuss, you have to admit, arguing over rules at least has a way of giving players interested in the game something to do.

Some people like to discuss tactics ad nauseam, some people like to look at rumors, some people like to make up their own rules, some people like to argue what the rules mean, etc, etc, etc.

Why do we debate rules for 40K? Personally, I enjoy the game and have been able to play this game for 20 years and all across the United States. I like the fact that I can go anywhere in the U.S. and can pretty much play a total stranger and we are, for the most part, on the same page. This particular rule (which I've not debated much online) was a real issue where I go to play with my Orks. In the end, I just built the list I liked and simply would ask how the local area rules on Deff Rollas. If it worked, fine; if not, that's fine to. It was not something I hinged my battle plan on.

What really struck me was the accusations that were being thrown around that some folks had somehow convinced tourney organizers (Ard Boyz specifically) to allow Deff Rollas to affect vehicles and we were labelled as cheaters. Rather than admit there was ambiguity in a ruling, it seemed easier to throw out the 'cheating' label. It was just assumed that there was no other way to interpret the ruling. I believe this is the only time I took issue with this whole debate.

Was it worth it?

I think this is the first time I've ever discussed the deffrolla, most of my posts have been fairly even about it I think. The english only gamer mafia earlier caught me by surprise though. Didn't think such a thing existed.

I mean, I had someone here call me a childish immature cheater for even suggesting - suggesting - that the Doom of Malantai probably got a Warp Field save because GW gave him the rule (and why would they give it the rule if they didn't want him to use it?).

Well the warpfield rule does say that the warpfield gives the zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save. A doom of malantai is a doom of malantai, not a zoanthrope. That said, it's utterly absurd to think that the special character zoanthrope wouldn't have a rule that is listed both in it's unit entry and price entry.

GW do have an English version FAQ up, so I am not sure what the fuss is about.

For myself, although I enjoy playing 40k, the list of cheap but game changing items just gets longer. I am just hoping that if GW ever decide to release a new Tau codex, they will have the decency to give Tau some disgustingly cheap, game changing items as well. Having said that, after so many reams of spilled ink, the subject of DR and tank shock is finally closed, until the next FAQ at least. Why could they have not done this a year ago?

You're all cheaters and the people who wrote this FAQ are the biggest cheaters of them all!!

Seriously though, I'm glad this is finally resolved. Not super happy that the one biggest weakness Orks had is now mitigated by a 20 point upgrade, but it won't really ruin my fun.

Who is the member who had a sig saying DEFF ROLLAS -- MAKE A RULING ALREADY!!

I would like him to change it to TAU -- MAKE THE NEW CODEX GOOD!!

God be praised!



This may have been the single most contested rule I have ever known of.

Kilkrazy wrote:Who is the member who had a sig saying DEFF ROLLAS -- MAKE A RULING ALREADY!!

I would like him to change it to TAU -- MAKE THE NEW CODEX!!

Fixed.

ShumaGorath wrote:The english only gamer mafia earlier caught me by surprise though. Didn't think such a thing existed.

There's a mafia for everything here... except Tournament Gamers. They're evil enough already.

ShumaGorath wrote:Well the warpfield rule does say that the warpfield gives the zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save. A doom of malantai is a doom of malantai, not a zoanthrope.

Oh don't get me wrong, I know the argument (it's the same one used for why the Swarm Lord cannot use 'Hive Tyrant' psychic powers, despite having them), but my point was I was the one being called childish and immature when I didn't submit to this line of thinking. Think about that for a sec.

ShumaGorath wrote:That said, it's utterly absurd to think that the special character zoanthrope wouldn't have a rule that is listed both in it's unit entry and price entry.

Exactly my point.

Oh don't get me wrong, I know the argument (it's the same one used for why the Swarm Lord cannot use 'Hive Tyrant' psychic powers, despite having them), but my point was I was the one being called childish and immature when I didn't submit to this line of thinking. Think about that for a sec.

Wait, thats actually a rules argument in your area..? Damn son, you need to lay down the law a little more often. That wouldn't fly in our circles. Thats one of the most ridiculous stances I've heard of someone actually taking in a while.

ShumaGorath wrote:Wait, thats actually a rules argument in your area..? Damn son, you need to lay down the law a little more often. That wouldn't fly in our circles. Thats one of the most ridiculous stances I've heard of someone actually taking in a while.

Ah, so playing by the rules is now a "ridiculous stance". I'll remember to tell the Judge that he is also ridiculous next time I'm in the dock for doing something wot I should no 'ave done.

And good, Gwar!'s here, telling us how we're not playing by the rules when we use the rules given to units. Good to see common sense, logic and deductive reasoning still alive here at Dakka.

Tell me Gwar! - If someone insists on using Hive Tyranid Psychic Powers with their Swarmlord - powers the entry clear gives it - do you call them immature, or a cheater perhaps? One of your acolytes here did that to me.

ShumaGorath wrote:Wait, thats actually a rules argument in your area..? Damn son, you need to lay down the law a little more often. That wouldn't fly in our circles.

I heard it here.

And if you want to argue with Gwar! over this, you're on your own Shummy. I've done this dance with him and his 'followers'. Good luck.

A Swarmlord/DoM is a special type of Hive Tyrant/Zoanthrope >>> See Deff Rolla clarification lol

H.B.M.C. wrote:Tell me Gwar! - If someone insists on using Hive Tyranid Psychic Powers with their Swarmlord - powers the entry clear gives it - do you call them immature, or a cheater perhaps? One of your acolytes here did that to me.

No, I tell them that they are not following the rules, plain and simple.

Gwar! wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Tell me Gwar! - If someone insists on using Hive Tyranid Psychic Powers with their Swarmlord - powers the entry clear gives it - do you call them immature, or a cheater perhaps? One of your acolytes here did that to me.

No, I tell them that they are not following the rules, plain and simple.

Wow, you're one of those people who think that in C:CSM 3.5, a whole Raptor squad could be upgraded to one Aspiring Champion for +13 pts, right?

The Swarmlord is a kind of armoured brutality, so he can use whatever Psychic Powers he likes. If I were standing face-to-face with a Swarmlord and he told me he was casting Doom on me, I would respond ``Why yes, you have, Sir.''

Gwar! wrote:No, I tell them that they are not following the rules, plain and simple.

But you follow that up with "although that's just an artefact of the rules being poorly written -- clearly the rules were intended to allow Swarmlord to use his psychic powers, even though they don't, so I'll happily let you use his powers in this game" -- right?

Gwar! wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Tell me Gwar! - If someone insists on using Hive Tyranid Psychic Powers with their Swarmlord - powers the entry clear gives it - do you call them immature, or a cheater perhaps? One of your acolytes here did that to me.

No, I tell them that they are not following the rules, plain and simple.

Gwar! believes that if someone refuses to misinterpret the rules blatantly like he does, that the person is immature. In fact, he believes that it is more mature to adamantly hold to, and argue over, some incorrect interpretation such as "doom has no 3++" than to walk away and say "this isn't worth playing you." It's my favorite Gwar! quote. I think it sums him up pretty well.

Gwar! wrote:Ya know, to all the people who say "I would just pack up and leave", that says a LOT more about your maturity than the person legitimately asking to play by the rules.

Whenever Gwar! starts trying to make a bad argument, while ignoring bad arguments that he does not like, I just look at this quote and remember not to take him seriously.

He is also a hypocrite who doesn't accept that there is no rule in the Tyranid codex saying that any unit is a Tyranid: fluff is not rules citizen!

Ian Sturrock wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, I tell them that they are not following the rules, plain and simple.

But you follow that up with "although that's just an artefact of the rules being poorly written -- clearly the rules were intended to allow Swarmlord to use his psychic powers, even though they don't, so I'll happily let you use his powers in this game" -- right?

I don't think Gwar! actually plays 40k in real life.

Gwar! wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Wait, thats actually a rules argument in your area..? Damn son, you need to lay down the law a little more often. That wouldn't fly in our circles. Thats one of the most ridiculous stances I've heard of someone actually taking in a while.

Ah, so playing by the rules is now a "ridiculous stance". I'll remember to tell the Judge that he is also ridiculous next time I'm in the dock for doing something wot I should no 'ave done.

I would rather enjoy you trying to whine you way into getting your interpretation accepted with a 40k tournament judge

ph34r wrote:Gwar! believes that if someone refuses to misinterpret the rules blatantly like he does, that the person is immature. In fact, he believes that it is more mature to adamantly hold to, and argue over, some incorrect interpretation such as "doom has no 3++" than to walk away and say "this isn't worth playing you." It's my favorite Gwar! quote. I think it sums him up pretty well.

Whenever Gwar! starts trying to make a bad argument, while ignoring bad arguments that he does not like, I just look at this quote and remember not to take him seriously.

He is also a hypocrite who doesn't accept that there is no rule in the Tyranid codex saying that any unit is a Tyranid: fluff is not rules citizen!

I don't think Gwar! actually plays 40k in real life.

I would rather enjoy you trying to whine you way into getting your interpretation accepted with a 40k tournament judge

I love people who stoop to hypocritical personal insults. Especially people who can't accept a legitimate RAW argument at face value or be bothered to click on the giant FAQ link in gwars signature to see how he actually plays the game and how wrong they are on all fronts.

But feel free to break the forum rules and take personal potshots.

Yakface - the only slight thing you could say was "made for 5th" was Ghazzy, who was noted as geting +2A on the charge - which iwas impossible in 4th.

Gorkamorka wrote:I love people who stoop to hypocritical personal insults. Especially people who can't accept a legitimate RAW argument at face value or be bothered to click on the giant FAQ link in gwars signature to see how he actually plays the game and how wrong they are on all fronts.

But feel free to break the forum rules and take personal potshots.

I admit, I was joking when I said that Gwar! does not play 40k in real life. However, I do doubt that he would try to hold his arguments in a tournament that he did not control.

Everything else I said was true, I don't know what faults you find in it. Please elaborate!

Well, we've made 13 pages.

Further discussions perhaps best suited to the appropriate board/s.

Hopefully without, you know, name calling, personal attacks and so on. Ta.