Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Does a battlewagon tank shocking with a deffrolla deal D6 S10 hits to vehicles? Anyone who can shed light on this would be appreciated.

Theres 100s of threads about this already. Some people say you can, some say you can't.

You can't tank shock a vehicle...only ram it.

FFS. There are a thousand threads on this. SEARCH BEFORE POSTING!

Sorry... But in all of the threads I read, there is no clear overall consensus. I was simply going to base my opinion on whatever responses I get on this thread.

Might as well flip a coin then...

Warboss Gutrip wrote:Sorry... But in all of the threads I read, there is no clear overall consensus. I was simply going to base my opinion on whatever responses I get on this thread.

lol... that's rather pointless. If anything, you should have made it a poll and posted the relevant rules.

Just go by the INAT FAQs if you want a huge list of commonly used rulings. I believe they say you can't, but i haven't checked in a while.

whitestagg wrote:You can't tank shock a vehicle...only ram it.

That has been my logic on it the whole time. BUT people still like spinning the rules and such so they can get D6 str10 hits on a vehicle. (goodbye LRs and anything smaller)

But ramming is a subset of tankshocking . . .

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

This a discussion that always ends in a dead lock so I would suggest discussing it with your opponent or TO before playing. The reason the millions of other threads about this topic end in a non-concensus is because both sides have some portion of the rule on their side. I am unsure myself as to if it actually does or not, but I think if my opponent put flails (like the WW2 anti-mine tanks) on them I would definitely allow it. I think it would be cool to make 2 versions of the Rolla, one that hurts only vehicles and one that hurts only infantry (with clearer rules of course, lol)

s2ua7 wrote:This a discussion that always ends in a dead lock so I would suggest discussing it with your opponent or TO before playing. The reason the millions of other threads about this topic end in a non-concensus is because both sides have some portion of the rule on their side. I am unsure myself as to if it actually does or not, but I think if my opponent put flails (like the WW2 anti-mine tanks) on them I would definitely allow it. I think it would be cool to make 2 versions of the Rolla, one that hurts only vehicles and one that hurts only infantry (with clearer rules of course, lol)

Yeah but who can honostly believe what could destroy tanks couldn't liquify an infantry. Anything we have used in war against tanks would be beyond overkill against a poor S.O.B.

Ask your opponent/tourney organizer. We've seen it used both ways, but I think the overall majority says no.

Frenzied Potato wrote:

s2ua7 wrote:This a discussion that always ends in a dead lock so I would suggest discussing it with your opponent or TO before playing. The reason the millions of other threads about this topic end in a non-concensus is because both sides have some portion of the rule on their side. I am unsure myself as to if it actually does or not, but I think if my opponent put flails (like the WW2 anti-mine tanks) on them I would definitely allow it. I think it would be cool to make 2 versions of the Rolla, one that hurts only vehicles and one that hurts only infantry (with clearer rules of course, lol)

Yeah but who can honostly believe what could destroy tanks couldn't liquify an infantry. Anything we have used in war against tanks would be beyond overkill against a poor S.O.B.

I agree, but then again, playing devils advocate (and thus putting real world stuff into the rules of 40k), since when have something intended to kill infantry only (small arms fire for example) actually hurt heavy armor? I was thinking that the flail was moving relatively slow in such a way that infantry would easily able to move out of the way but hitting hard enough to damage armor.

My stance on the issue can be found here.

Hope this helps.

-GK

Your stance is largely worthless besides the fancy formatting because you still haven't overcome this glaringly obvious obstacle:

Ork Codex, "Any Tank Shock caused by a Battlewagon with a Deffrolla inflicts D6 S10 hits on a victim unit"

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

So here I've got two rules. One explicitly states that it works during any Tank Shock. The other explicitly states that it's a special type of Tank Shock.

I just burned your entire page of text in 2 minutes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ridcully wrote:
Just go by the INAT FAQs if you want a huge list of commonly used rulings. I believe they say you can't, but i haven't checked in a while.

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




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Uriels_Flame wrote:Ask your opponent/tourney organizer. We've seen it used both ways, but I think the overall majority says no.

Tank Shock is actually pretty evenly split in all of the polls I've seen. There's not much of a majority at all, only vocal individuals.

And yes, ask your organizer. Get it in writing if possible, because even GW doesn't rule it consistently.

Souclams wins 2 cookies and a marshmallow.

Edit: And a Pony

Sourclams wrote:So here I've got two rules. One explicitly states that it works during any Tank Shock. The other explicitly states that it's a special type of Tank Shock.

Then you read the rest of the rules for tank shocking and ramming, which clearly differentiate a Tank Shock from a Ram. Taking two lines out of context does not equal "a glaringly obvious obstacle".

Sourclams wrote:I just burned your entire page of text in 2 minutes.

Tank Shock != Ram.

I just burned your entire post in 3 words and an operation sign.

Maybe you should try reading text instead of burning it. See what I did there?

-GK

Here, let me duplicate your argument style:

SPACE MARINE CAPTAINS ARE NOT SPACE MARINES!!!

Marine codex: Space Marine: WS4, BS4, S4, T4

Marine codex: Captain: WS6, BS5, S4, T4

Because these two things are different, they cannot possibly be the same! SPACE MARINE CAPTAINS ARE NOT SPACE MARINES!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GiantKiller wrote:

Tank Shock != Ram.

This is actually correct. Tank Shocks aren't Rams.

But Rams are Tank Shocks.

Because the rules say so.

Right after the word 'RAMMING' in big bold letters.

sourclams wrote:Here, let me duplicate your argument style:

Marine codex: Space Marine: WS4, BS4, S4, T4

Marine codex: Marneus Calgar: WS6, BS5, S4, T4

Because these two things are different, they cannot possibly be the same! Marneus Calgar is NOT A SPACE MARINE!

This is a poor attempt at a straw man argument. Keep trying though. These threads have to get to 5+ pages somehow.

-GK

No really, I want you to be right, so please just find the part of the rules that refutes the two sentences I quoted from the Ork 'dex and the BRB.

In a similar vein:

A poodle is a special type of dog.

THAT THAR POODLE IS NOT A DOG!

sourclams wrote:In a similar vein:

A poodle is a special type of dog.

THAT THAR POODLE IS NOT A DOG!

Really? You have to use that example again? As we went over last time, that example doesn't work because there is no "normal" dogs, they are ALL special....a better example would be if "dogs" were Tank Special Rules, a "collie" was ramming, and a "border collie" a tank shock.....still a bad example though...

sourclams wrote:Keep making up rules.

Note, this was before you edited it to:

sourclams wrote:No really, I want you to be right, so please just find the part of the rules that refutes the two sentences I quoted from the Ork 'dex and the BRB.

In a similar vein:

A poodle is a special type of dog.

THAT THAR POODLE IS NOT A DOG!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/10/01 00:32:03

Let me duplicate your argument style:

You disagree with my interpretation, so you're making up rules. I shall now edit my post to include another feeble attempt at straw man. Then I'll throw in some capslock because we all know that makes arguments better.

lol.

-GK

What's crazy about the deff rolla question is that, from what I've heard, during the first two rounds of ard boys you could use it to ram, and in the finals you could not.

GiantKiller wrote:

Let me duplicate your argument style:

You disagree with my interpretation, so you're making up rules.
-GK

I'll play this game. You show me one single rule that I posted in this thread that I've made up, and I'll mail you $20. Just one.

Really? You have to use that example again? As we went over last time, that example doesn't work because there is no "normal" dogs, they are ALL special....a better example would be if "dogs" were Tank Special Rules, a "collie" was ramming, and a "border collie" a tank shock.....still a bad example though...

I follow you. Tank shocks are collies. Rams are border collies.

"These dogs were traditionally known simply as "collies," but terms like working collie, old-fashioned collie, and farm collie have also been applied to them. It was in 1915 that James Reid, Secretary of the International Sheep Dog Society in the United Kingdom, first used the term "Border Collie" to distinguish those dogs registered by the ISDS from the Kennel Club's "Collie," which originally came from the same working stock but had developed a different, standardized appearance following its introduction to the show ring in 1860."

So in spite of notable differences, border collies are, actually, collies. Where have I seen this perplexing similarity before...?

What's crazy about the deff rolla question is that, from what I've heard, during the first two rounds of ard boys you could use it to ram, and in the finals you could not.

Yeah that's correct. Even GW doesn't know what to do with it.

sourclams wrote:Making up rules? Where did I make up rules?

Which you've now edited to read:

sourclams wrote:I'll play this game. You show me one single rule that I posted in this thread that I've made up, and I'll mail you $20. Just one.

Apparently you missed the "let me duplicate your argument style" part. Which is surprising, since you posted it originally, and then you quoted it when I posted it. I'm mocking you, because I find your attempts at straw man and your "snappy comebacks" ridiculous. Reading comprehension FTW.

sourclams wrote:I posted two sentences verbatim from the rulebooks.

As did Szafraniec, in the article you apparently failed to read. Your two lines notwithstanding, the rules for tank shocking and ramming clearly differentiate the two. As I stated before, taking two lines out of context does not make "a glaringly obvious obstacle".

-GK

Just because nobody ever seems to take my approach to this issue I will throw in my 2 cents.

The Deff Rolla states that it inflicts the D6 S10 hits on "the victim unit" of the tank shock, which I will note is singular, the tank shock has a single victim unit.

Tank Shock in the rules is two things, it is both the movement made by a vehicle, and the effect inflicted on enemy units the vehicle passes during this movement. The movement itself can pass through multiple enemy units.

Ramming is called a special kind of "tank shock move", and is said to be "executed the same way" so this phrase likening it to a tank shock refers only to the movement the vehicle executes, the ram effect applied to enemy vehicles during a ram movement is in no way related to the tank shock effect applied to non-vehicle models.

Thus, given the Deff Rolla's tank shock has a singular victim, I would say it refers not to the movement made by the tank, but to the effect it applies to infantry during that movement (each one having it's own seperate victim) and would thus mean it cannot possibly work on tanks, because tanks can never have the tank shock effect inflicted on them.

If you were to continue to claim the codex refers to the movement, and not the effect inflicted on a unit, then the fact that there is a singular victim unit would mean, regardless of how many units you tank shock through, only one of them ever suffers the D6 S10 hits. Although how you would determine which units suffers the hits remains unknown.

My favorite part is that the strict RAW supports it, and the RAI supports it (the entry on battlewagons specifically mentions deff rollas crushing light vehicles), yet the people on the other side continue to claim that their interpretation of how different a ram is from a tank shock means they're right.

Gorkamorka wrote:My favorite part is that the strict RAW supports it, and the RAI supports it (the entry on battlewagons specifically mentions deff rollas crushing light vehicles), yet the people on the other side continue to claim that their interpretation of how different a ram is from a tank shock means they're right.

This post lacks the required amount of EMORAGE™ for a Deffrolla Ram/Tankshock Thread. The Attack Pandas have been sent and will arrive shortly. Please do not resist. Resisting just makes the Attack Pandas angry, and no-one likes angry Pandas.

I'll just echo what I said elsewhere, in that it just feels like shaky ground.

Imagine, for a second, that a 2.5 ton or so (about like a semi truck) vehicle has a huge spiked steam roller on the front (that weighs maybe like a half ton, taking the entire weight of the vehicle up to 3 tons) decides to ram a 6 ton land raider (or an even heavier Monolith, which I can only imagine weights an amount that can only be written as 'lots')

As much as orks may believe that their DEFFROLLA can crush a vehicle, the laws of physics just say no. Even if the battlewagon manages to punch a hole in the land raider with the rolla, the rolla will be stuck in there, and that's if it's 'well made.' If it's just thrown together (keep in mind, this is an ork vehicle) it will just go crunch, and you lost your deffrolla AND the tank lived :<

Edit: Although I will say, that the above is strawmanning to the highest degree, sorry...my brain just needs logic, like most brains need caffeine nowadays, I need logic. And "DEFFROLLA" threads are the worst place to find logic :S

And that's with an RAI standing, with RAW, "Ok, I did d6 S10 hits to your vehicle, what's it's toughness" "It...dosn't have a toughness, it's a vehicle" "Well....what do I need to wound you?" "You can't wound a vehicle!" "You didn't test for leadership either" "Dude it's a tank, why does it need to test for leadership?!" "Death or Glory?" "*throws up hands and dice*"

@Gwar: I always wondered why people are supprised about attacking pandas...dosn't anyone remember that the Panda is in fact a BEAR still?

Edit 2: Or maybe a bear is not a panda, but a panda is a special kind of bear, and an attack panda kills you