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.

The effort is noted and appreciated hah.

Go get one of those little mini motors and get to work man!

If I played you and you had a model with the work put in to make a self propelled rolla I would applaud and let you make d6 str 10 attacks against my vehicle.

It only seems fair.

Fairly off-topic from the current discussion of the past 2 pages or so, so I apologize, but I wanted to address this point:

aka_mythos wrote:I think alot of people's expectations of GW are unreasonably high. With CCG's and many other strategy games issues of a similar scope to this come up and those companies will rarely resolve them, they just end up banning from tournaments what ever is in dispute, why should GW have to be different?

Magic, pretty much the defining line of CCGs, doesn't have rules ambiguities or disputes, because they focus a portion of their resources in providing top-level rules support. For the vast majority of their audience, they take a stance similar to the 40k designers, which is to learn the main thrust of the rules, work out with your opponents a logical solution if something is disputed, and have fun. However, the similarities end when the serious tournament-level players want a definitive rules answer. Instead of the bogus stuff they packed into the last DA FAQ about how tournament players are basically not playing the game right and GW doesn't care, Magic provides an extremely detailed, comprehensive rulebook that handles all interactions and any possible corner-cases that could come up, continuously updated and monitored by a Rules team to fix any issues. Magic judges do not "make judgments" or "rule on an issue" in the sense of 40k judges. Instead, a Magic judge is someone who understands the proper way to resolve complex or disputed situations and can explain it to the players, to make sure the game is played within the framework of the rules. There are no long-standing rules issues or disputes in Magic, and as problems or ambiguities come to light, they are addressed. Banning of cards has nothing to do with rules issues or disputes, it has to do with balance in the tournament scene. If a card or combination is too powerful and warps the metagame, it will be banned.

Being a long-time Magic player (and judge), GW's behavior and policies regarding rules, tournaments, and FAQs is just absolutely foreign to me. I honestly cannot even comprehend a game company taking that stance. It doesn't make sense to me. How hard would it be to crank out some basic tournament guideline packet for people to run tournaments? Nothing major, just with answers to basic questions that would only apply to tournaments, like "I'm in a kill points game, and my unit in reserve didn't come in because time was called at turn 3. Does it count as destroyed?" There's no answer in the rules for this, because GW doesn't care to take an afternoon one day and even consider the possibility of tossing a bone to tournament-goers. What is the purpose of the preachy paragraphs in the Dark Angels codex about how the most important thing is to agree with your opponent and have fun? Yes, your rule books and magazines and website make it very clear what your stance is on that subject, but is it necessary to put into a FAQ? The people who just house-rule things and resolve disputes with whatever seems right or by dicing off don't read the FAQs anyway, typically, and the ones who actually do read FAQs want an actual answer, not more reiteration of The Most Important Rule.

/rant off... you can come back out now and talk about Ramming some more

Hey all,

My references are from the mini rulebook, which I think has the same layout as the main. I'm not sure how much I can quote, so I'll stay safe and go for as little as possible, just point you to lines.

I believe that everyone agrees that any infantry unit hit by a Dethrolla during either a Tank Shock or Ram gets D6 S10 hits.

My reading of p69, paragraph 1 is that a Ram is declared differently to a Tank Shock, as a Tank Shock ends when coming within 1" of an enemy vehicle. The last sentence of the paragraph indicates that this is resolved "..as follows." I believe this strongly implies that a unit is either Rammed or Tank Shocked.

The last paragraph on p69, last sentence: "or another enemy (which it will tank shock or ram again)"

So I feel the RAW are no dethrollaring the Av14's. I'm an Ork player too...


Of course, by the RAW, if you and your opponent agree on it, it can inflict as many hits as you want it two. And purple paint makes you move an extra 9" a turn

PS The only way I can see a dethrolla hitting a vehicle (serious now lol) is if you ram a walker, and it elects to Death or Glory.

as a Tank Shock ends when coming within 1" of an enemy vehicle

Ah, I see your logic.

1) tank shock ends when coming within 1" of an enemy vehicle
2) ramming is a special type of tank shock
3) therefor ramming ends when coming within 1" of an enemy vehicle
4) therefor ramming can't work
5) therefor ramming with a deathroller can't work
6) So Deathrollers don't cause hits on vehicles.

Mine crushed an Immolator in our last game though. Kick your mechs if your rollers aren't doing that.

yeah.
Sounds Good, But, I think we are just waitting for a critten to chime in now with "but ramming is a special type o.........."

Panic...

Dare I ask what is a "critten?"

Perhaps you meant "cretin?"

Until it's FAQ'ed or ruled in a tournament that I happen to be playing in that it doesn't work while ramming, I will continue to use it. No one can show a RAW answer that ramming is not a subset of tankshock.

There - I'm you're cretin.

Definition of "cretin" from urban dictionary which I find particulary humourous: "A Person that is: brainless, stupid, child-like, and full of pointless information that makes no sense and appeals only to other cretins. They can be found in abundance in every single populated internet forum, where they race to post as many mind-numbing messages as possible in a single session. In addition, they seemingly interbreed with other cretins, ensuring that their cretinous genes continue long after they end up dead meaning the Internet will never be rid of their kind. More's the pity."

budro wrote:Dare I ask what is a "critten?"

Perhaps you meant "cretin?"
[/i]

yeah,
It's like a cretin but it pulls people up on their spelling...

Panic...

Budro- The only problem with saying that is as of now no one can come to an agreement and no one is more right than anyone else.

So if you say you will keep using it with ramming than someone may say that they refuse to let you use that rule. So either you don't play with rollas, you only play people who agree with you or you don't play which you may be fine with.
Also the closest thing we have to a a faq is a GW employee saying it doesn't work.

budro wrote:Dare I ask what is a "critten?"

Perhaps you meant "cretin?"

Until it's FAQ'ed or ruled in a tournament that I happen to be playing in that it doesn't work while ramming, I will continue to use it. No one can show a RAW answer that ramming is not a subset of tankshock.

There - I'm you're cretin.

Definition of "cretin" from urban dictionary which I find particulary humourous: "A Person that is: brainless, stupid, child-like, and full of pointless information that makes no sense and appeals only to other cretins. They can be found in abundance in every single populated internet forum, where they race to post as many mind-numbing messages as possible in a single session. In addition, they seemingly interbreed with other cretins, ensuring that their cretinous genes continue long after they end up dead meaning the Internet will never be rid of their kind. More's the pity."

How about grammar? Shouldn't that be I'm your cretin, not you're cretin.

Oh yeah, Don Mondo's IFL ruling, Deffrollas cannot ram.................. Now what?

Someone asked before the first Ard'boyz games started at Baltimore, and it was ruled that rollas would work on Ram attacks. This was consistent from all judges through the GT as far as I know.

yeah,
well if my army goes to a GT I'll take this bit of wargear...

GW employee email-
Deff rollas don't work when ramming vehicles.
-0pts

Panic...

Hi folks.
I am not going to argue with anyones ruling on this.(Not much point!)

However I belive that the Deff Rolla should cause D6 str 10 hit on vehicles .
Because .
Pg 55 Ork Codex.

Deff Rolla,
'A Deff Rolla is a great spiked roller that brings the collosal weight of the Battlewaggon to bear on ANYTHING in its way.'
'ANY Tank Shock made by the Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit.'

I conceed that ramming vehicles was not an option in 4th ed.
However as this Dex WAS written with knowledge of 5th ed.

If the D6 Str 10 attacks were not effective vs vehicles, I would have expected,
'A Deff Rolla is a great spiked roller that brings the collosal weight of the Battlewaggon to bear on ANYTHING SMALLER in its way.'
Implying a limitation to what the Deff Rolla can effect.

'A Tank Shock made by the Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim ( non vehicle) unit(s).'
Refering to the singular and precise act of 'Tank Shock.'

Rule Book Pg 69.

'Ramming is a special kind of Tank Shock and is executed in the SAME WAY, EXCEPT that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of.

All emphasis is my own.

Nowt to add realy , just putting my reasoning forward.

TTFN
Lanrak.

I can't believe that you guys are still debating this. Has nobody thought to ask Phil Kelly about it? I did...

When I was at Adepticon just before 5th edition had come out, and the leaked PDF had come out, the question had already come up.

So, just before I left, I asked him about it. His response was something along the lines of "So you like crushing tanks with Deffrollas eh?" <insert crunching sounds> "Well, you won't be dissapointed."

Now, I know that this was not an unequivical statement, but it was completely obvious that he intended it to be played that way. If you choose not to believe me, well, I can't change that, and people will be pig-headed to gain an advantage at all costs.

So, get over it, or get someone to go to the source is my suggestion.

sirisaacnuton wrote:

Magic, pretty much the defining line of CCGs, doesn't have rules ambiguities or disputes...

I would dispute that. My original gaming group did the Magic thing, and we were all about making decks whose sole purpose fit at least one of three categories: A) Making what was generally thought to be a useless weak card into a monster, B) collecting every card that fit a theme- i.e. Annoyances and group love- Kudzu, Mana Flare, etc into one deck, and C) Acheiving that corner case moment where everyone stops and says some version of "Wait... what just happened?".

I will agree with the continuation of your point however, in that Magic was much better supported as those cases arose.

I wasn't really reading the section on tank shock last night, in fact I was researching somthing entirely different, but I noticed that...

What we call tank shock is really..
Tank Shock! (notice the exclamation point)

And when I was reading Ramming, i read this tidbit that seems like most everyone cuts out.

Ramming is a special tank shock move. So I wonder if you are allowed to combine the deff rolla with the special subset of tank shock: Ramming. Tank Shock + Deff Rolla sure, but Ramming + Deff Rolla... not so sure.

um sazzlefrats, that tidbit that "everyone cuts out" is the entire basis for the argument that deff rollas should work on vehicles...

Barontuman: I asked Phil Kelly at Adepticon and he said "no, letting deff rollas work on vehicles would be unfair and I would be a terrible person for doing that, also I never spoke to someone who goes by the online moniker of Barontuman today and if he claims I did he is a liar"

You do see the problem with using asking someone and recieving an unrecorded and limitedly confirmable answer right?

Hehe, that discussion is as wierd as I´m green and Im pretty green *roaaar*

I think there´s just one thing to clarify:

Does an "unit" counts as vehicle/tank or not?

The deff rolla rule words it that way:

Deff Rolla,
'A Deff Rolla is a great spiked roller that brings the collosal weight of the Battlewaggon to bear on anything in its way.'
'ANY Tank Shock made by the Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit.'

I would say vehicle/tanks dont count as units. So the question is answered. Deff Rollaz cant hit tanks.
Dont believe me? Have a look in the rulebook. There are all units listed and vehicles/tanks aint within. Too bad but I guess that is what should be taken.
Sure, we can continue this and base it on the first line of the Deff Rolla rule what says anything in its way.
But I dont believe it´s meant to be used on Tanks. Would be awesome to get 2D6 S10 on a Landraider Not to mention the Predator on his left flank what explodes just before.
Dear Mork, that would make the Deff Rolla a frickin scary tool for low costs.

DaDok wrote:I would say vehicle/tanks dont count as units.

You would be wrong.

DaDok, page 4 & 5 of the new rulebook give a listing of all the unit types in warhammer 40k and include vehicles.

I assume you were looking at pages 51 through 55, however the first page of that section which features the monstrous creature rules says "Note that vehicles are also a different unit type, but they are so vastly different that they have an entire section of the rules devoted to them"

Drunkspleen wrote:DaDok, page 4 & 5 of the new rulebook give a listing of all the unit types in warhammer 40k and include vehicles.

I assume you were looking at pages 51 through 55, however the first page of that section which features the monstrous creature rules says "Note that vehicles are also a different unit type, but they are so vastly different that they have an entire section of the rules devoted to them"

Ok, you´re right there I think. Hmm, well, than it´s more or less clear again eh? Even if Phil didnt want it that way
Hmm, that´s a heavy one. I mean, that makes a Battlewagon a "close combat Stompa".