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.

sourclams wrote:
I've never said that a tank shock can occur against a vehicle, I've said that a Ram is a tank shock, and a Ram can occur against a vehicle. You're trying so hard but getting lost in the details..

Sorry to add to this thread once more.

But Lol

sourclams wrote:
Now prove that a special tank shock isn't a tank shock because it's "special".

Easy


standard sourclams example:

rules for tanks = dog
poodle = tankshock
white poodle = ramming

so both creatures are dogs. but they are different.

If your wife/GF requests a dog, you can either bring a poodle or a white poodle.

If your wife requests a white poodle, you cant bring the "standard" poodle. It has to be the white.Doesnt matter if both are dogs.

So any little word like "special" isn't useless. Its not there to fill the layout.

The same goes for rules for tanks.

Another example:

1)If you ram a vehicle and meet a non-vehicle unit, the unit gets tankshocked.
The line in ramming wouldn't be there if ramming would be a tankshock.

2)if you ram a walker,it can react with "death or glory". Also useless if ramming would be a tankshock since tankshocked units can
always react with death or glory.





And to answer the fluff argument for ramming deathrollas:

A dethrolla has no range and no AP. So any non-vehicle unit may take available armour or invul saves.
As result, the deathrolla could perform badly and didn't manage to harm low armor targets like Guardsmen (5+).
Why should anything that cannot penetrate flak armor be able to penetrate armor plates?


Q: when does a deathrolla hit (d6 S 10)?
A: when the tank performs a tankshock.
C: if you tankshock multiple units,you score 1 hit per unit if the actual unit doesn't stop you by death or glory.


q: who gets hit from the deffrollas (d6 S10)?
A: every non-vehicle unit,because its done in its tankshock move
c: if you use vehicle upgrades you get the described boni (RAW), not any "similar" sounding or RAA boni

But a white poodle, is still a type of poodle.

If your wife asks for a poodle then it can include the sub-type white poodle.

I.e A ram is a type of tankshock, but a tankshock is not a ram as you seem to be saying.

And to answer the fluff argument for ramming deathrollas:

A dethrolla has no range and no AP. So any non-vehicle unit may take available armour or invul saves.
As result, the deathrolla could perform badly and didn't manage to harm low armor targets like Guardsmen (5+).
Why should anything that cannot penetrate flak armor be able to penetrate armor plates?

Because it is S10 and AP doesn't have anything to do with scoring penetrating hits. An Ork Warboss with a Big Choppa has S8 on the Charge and can get a penetrating hit, Big Choppas dont have range or AP either...Yes a S10 hit should not penetrate flak armor be able to penetrate armor plates sadly.

rules for tanks = dog
poodle = tankshock
white poodle = ramming

Ork Codex pg 55 Any "poodle" made by a battlewagon with a deffrolla causes D6 S10 Hits on the victim unit.

Okay...

A ramming wife comes along and encounters a troop of imperial guard - whom get poodled out of the way.

The ramming wife continues along her path and encounters a vehicle and proceedes to white poodle it.

There is abserloutely no (standard) poodling going on when this happens.

Why are dogs involved when this explains it very clearly: BGB P.69(Right side, top para) = 6 lines down. 5 words in.

So after how many threads on how many forums are the arguments for both sides always the same? All of them.

I think this issue pretty much been beaten dead until a "official" FAQ comes out and makes one or the other side conciede to how GW wants it played.

Even if it is a long while.

Ramming is a special type of tank shock according to the BGB

According to the Ork Codex "Any Tank Shock made by a blah blah blah."

Any [Adj] according to a dictionary means: whichever of a specific class might be chosen.

Ramming is a special type of tank shock, therefore because any (whichever Ramming or Standard Tank Shocking) tank shock made by a battlewagon with a deffrolla causes D6 S10 Hits on the victim unit.

Frenzy wrote:But a white poodle, is still a type of poodle.

If your wife asks for a poodle then it can include the sub-type white poodle.

I.e A ram is a type of tankshock, but a tankshock is not a ram as you seem to be saying.

Its an example of a sub-type of a sub-type.

And its the source of the confusion.

Ramming seem to be a tankshock,but it is a standalone rule and subtype of tanks.
So GW's "shortcut" to spare words has lead to problems.

To solve this we have only the chance to apply boni by RAW and RAW never says "tankshock a vehicle", so you can't use any
wargear that applies boni in a tankshock if you perform a ram.

=> ram the tank = no deffrolla
=> encounter infantry = use the deffrolla
=> tankshock infantry in your ram move = use deffrolla vs infantry. don't use deffrolla in your ram vs vehicle.

There is no way around it.

Should i expand it?

codex orks page 55:

TodeswalzÄ:

"wenn ein kampfpanza mit todeswalzÄ einen panzerschock durchführt, verusacht er w6 treffer mit der stärke10 bei der betroffenen
einheit. wenn die einheit sich für eine tod oder ehre attacke entscheidet,erleidet sie zusätzlich zu den normalen auswirkungen weitere
w6 treffer der stärke 10."

See no more any tankshock in there

Yeah, but the german Ork 'Dex is total mess anyway.

Actually the Dog premise is screwed up...
It should be:
Rules for Tank=Dog
Tank shock= Poodle
Ramming = White Poodle.

easier to understand now that it is written properly?

Waaaaagh wrote:

And to answer the fluff argument for ramming deathrollas:

A dethrolla has no range and no AP. So any non-vehicle unit may take available armour or invul saves.
As result, the deathrolla could perform badly and didn't manage to harm low armor targets like Guardsmen (5+).
Why should anything that cannot penetrate flak armor be able to penetrate armor plates?

Because it is S10 and. An Ork Warboss with a Big Choppa has S8 on the Charge and can get a penetrating hit, Big Choppas dont have range or AP either...Yes a S10 hit should not penetrate flak armor be able to penetrate armor plates sadly.

So the answer is: [u] "AP doesn't have anything to do with scoring penetrating hits"[i]

So armor penetration has nothing to do with penetration of armor?

I am sure any weapon or attack without a "range" as stat is a CC attack and must be done in CC.
But vehicles do not fight in CC if they have no WS. Has a battlewagon a WS?
Is vehicle part of a CC? NO. Your warboss might use his WS to attack, your battlewagon will never do so.
Do you need to close in to hit? yes. But your battlewagon will STOP if it encounters a vehicle in a tankshock move.
So its not in CC and it is also not able to hit.
And ram does not provide a deffrolla bonus. There is no ANY (whichever i like too) tankshock,because it exists only 1 tankshock.

Makari wrote:Actually the Dog premise is screwed up...
It should be:
Rules for Tank=Dog
Tank shock= Poodle
Ramming = White Poodle.

easier to understand now that it is written properly?

My fault. i shoudn't use poodles.

So i'll grant the poor creature the emperors mercy.

Rules for tanks = main set
Tankshock = sub-set A
Ramming = sub set B

If you are member of the main set, you will use both sub sets.
If you are member of subset A, this won't allow you to use subset B and vice versa.
So if you get promoted in subset B, this doesn't change your rank in subset A

No, you've got it wrong.

Rules for Tanks = main set

Tank Shock! = Sub-set A

Ramming = Sub-set A Condition 1

All of the rules for Tank Shock are necessary in order for Ram to function, because Tank Shock is inherently built into Ram.

Would you, as a player, allow me to drive my tank forward three inches, turn left to go around some terrain, go two inches, thread the needle between a Terminator base and a wall, then make a 6" curve to hit your Vindicator on its side armor and declare it a successful Ram?

Of course not, because Ram refers directly to the Tank Shock rules. If you gave a brand new player the rule book, ripped page 68 out, and told him to make a Ram maneuver, he could not do it by the rules because you just took away fully 50% or more of the relevant information to perform a Ram.

It's not selective reading; you need the Tank Shock rules in order to make the Ram rules work. They are not two stand-alone maneuvers.

sourclams wrote: If you gave a brand new player the rule book, ripped page 68 out, and told him to make a Ram maneuver, he could not do it by the rules because you just took away fully 50% or more of the relevant information to perform a Ram.

The rules for ramming are on P69 (Of my copy neways) which is what I assume you meant - otherwise he would have no-idea ramming existed.

If you did mean p69 then that new player would know exactly what to do if he rammed a vehicle.

Yes, okay he may need to be told how to start the ramming action and apply the ramming exception.

Thanks for proving yourself wrong. I am sorry you dont believe that (6 lines down, 5 words in top the top right of p69) the rules are clear.

@sourclams:

i'll change it then

rules for tanks = main set
tankshock = subset A condition 1 non-vehicle
ramming = subset A condition 2 vehicle

Doesnt change what you perform. Still either subset A condition 1 OR 2.

Boni to subset A condition 1 do apply in condition 1.
Boni to subset A condition 1 do not apply to condition 2.

Where are my rusty spoons...

There is no spoon...

Razerous wrote:

The rules for ramming are on P69 (Of my copy neways) which is what I assume you meant - otherwise he would have no-idea ramming existed.

No, I mean page 68, where all the Tank Shock rules are located.

If you did mean p69 then that new player would know exactly what to do if he rammed a vehicle.

The new player would be allowed to drive around terrain and intervening models to gain advantageous hits on side or rear armor, because he doesn't know it's disallowed, because he's not following the rules for Tank Shock!. It's like firing orbital bombardments from inside a moving land raider. In other words, it's not following the rules.

Yes, okay he may need to be told how to start the ramming action and apply the ramming exception.

Because a Ram is a Tank Shock? Again, this is the blatant and obvious sticking point that you can't overcome.

I am sorry you dont believe that (6 lines down, 5 words in top the top right of p69) the rules are clear.

Which part of this says that a Ram isn't a tank shock? That's right, no part. Thanks for keeping the blinders on.

@sourclams:

i'll change it then

How many times have you changed it? You've gone from Poodles and White Poodles to Subset A and Subset B to Condition 1 non vehicle and Condition 2 Vehicle. How many terrible editions of your poorly constructed syllogism am I going to have to attempt to read before you can make a coherent point?

Anung Un Rama wrote:There is no spoon...

It is not the rusty spoons that gouge out my eyes...its the ridiculous repetition of the same arguments over and over and over and over and over...

sourclams wrote:

How many times have you changed it? You've gone from Poodles and White Poodles to Subset A and Subset B to Condition 1 non vehicle and Condition 2 Vehicle. How many terrible editions of your poorly constructed syllogism am I going to have to attempt to read before you can make a coherent point?

I try to write it easy enough for you ,therefore i have to change it.

But if it is so bad why not ignore it ?

And I was not the "inventor" of the poodles

Its up to you to construct a RAA tank-ram-shock if you please.

It doesn't change the use of "tankshock" and "ramming" in the BRB.

Centurian99 wrote:

Anung Un Rama wrote:There is no spoon...

It is not the rusty spoons that gouge out my eyes...its the ridiculous repetition of the same arguments over and over and over and over and over...

I NO RITE??? JUST LOCK THREAD!!!

1hadhq: Disprove the original poodle premise.

It's hilarious watching you try, like a puppy with giant feet tripping over itself.

Razerous wrote:Okay...

A ramming wife comes along and encounters a troop of imperial guard - whom get poodled out of the way.

The ramming wife continues along her path and encounters a vehicle and proceedes to white poodle it.

There is abserloutely no (standard) poodling going on when this happens.

Why are dogs involved when this explains it very clearly: BGB P.69(Right side, top para) = 6 lines down. 5 words in.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make, what does "the collision is resolved as follows" have anything to do with removing the clause that "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way" the 1st part of the paragraph you keep quoting (which you keep ignoring) says that ramming is a tank shock, PERIOD.

Issue Closed thank-you!!!!

Well ok for those of us that follow the INAT FAQ ver 2.0!!!

Sweet...

Yes in fact the deff rolla does inflict the D6 S10 hits in addition to the ramming hit!
Listed below in the FAQ, yes not 100% official but nothing gets closer but what is on the GW website, correct?


http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/225424.page

All anyone had to read is Ramming is tank shock!!! AS was pointed out Several times. It doesn't matter if it was a "special" kind, a "slowed" kind, a "Poodle" kind it is still a kind of Tank shock.

sourclams wrote:

drunkspleen wrote:That would be a good argument if not for the fact that I'm looking at my codex now and it definitely uses the singular form of "Any Tank Shock" so each "Tank Shock" made by the battlewagon still has a single "Victim Unit", which is the unit that recieves the D6 S10 hits.

That's your argument? Deff Rollas don't work for multiple tank shocks because the descriptor uses the singular? That's awesome. Seriously, nice.

Oh I'm sorry, I was under the impression RAW meant Rules as Written, not Rules as Extrapolated and Had Their Meaning Altered To Fit Sourclams' Preferred Result. The way it's written each tank shock has a single victim unit, that is what is written down, because of that, I surmise that the tank shock they are referring to is the effect that a tank shocking vehicle has on a unit, rather than the movement the vehicle is making. But you seem to think that if something uses the singular it can mean the multiple, I'll have to remember that next time I use Mind War and have to choose "any unengaged model" that I can actually pick as many models as I want.

nostromo wrote:The people who continue to claim ramming is not a special kind of tankshock still need to explain me how they are allowed to DECLARE a ram move at all.
You can't go about saying "i declare a ramming move", that's not described in the rules of ramming, so you're not allowed to declare a ram-move like that.
The only declaration described/allowed is the one for tank shock and the speed at which you intend to execute the move.

If I understand correctly you are claiming that the only way to execute a ram is to declare a Tank Shock with the parameter of full speed, but that's flawed because when you declare a tank shock you follow the tank shock rules down to the fact that when you come within 1" of an enemy vehicle you stop. While there's no allowance made for declaring a ram you have to naturally assume it can be done because frankly, the alternative is far too confusing.

Look, it's in the INAT FAQ, so it's done. It makes no sense that a boarding plank can be used on walkers without return hits either, but it CAN.

So stop arguing. RAW + clarification = yes deffrolla works on vehicles, AND they take the additional hit from the original ram. Have a nice day.

1hadhq wrote:

Makari wrote:Actually the Dog premise is screwed up...
It should be:
Rules for Tank=Dog
Tank shock= Poodle
Ramming = White Poodle.

easier to understand now that it is written properly?

My fault. i shoudn't use poodles.

So i'll grant the poor creature the emperors mercy.

Rules for tanks = main set
Tankshock = sub-set A
Ramming = sub set B

If you are member of the main set, you will use both sub sets.
If you are member of subset A, this won't allow you to use subset B and vice versa.
So if you get promoted in subset B, this doesn't change your rank in subset A

Someone grab a Venn Diagram, stat!

Thre is too much bad logic going around this thread.

Orks are top dog so we're trying to put them on a leash, but let's not screw the pooch here. You're barking up the wrong tree.

I don't think there is much way of getting the point across to people (like Sourclams, no offense) about this issue...

About the INAT faq: That is so not right about lots of things that ended up getting argued about in that INAT faq page...

But seriously, Sourclams, you had said before to explain why the dogs and poodles example doesn't work, HERE'S WHY: If dogs are tank shock and poodles are ramming, what are dogs? You can't say "I have a dog" a dog is a huge species of many different kinds, so it's a BIT more correct to say "Collies are Tank Shock, and Border Collies are Ramming", because that is a (very similar) class to the main one. BETTER than the damn poodle thing!!
Using my (collies to border collies) example, if the rule says a (collie) tank shock, that doesn't mean you can use (border collie) ramming, because while they are similar, they are NOT the same..

ALSO, I have another thing to add, but I will add it later when I get my thoughts together properly..


Off-Topic:

Drunkspleen wrote:Oh I'm sorry, I was under the impression RAW meant Rules as Written, not Rules as Extrapolated and Had Their Meaning Altered To Fit Sourclams' Preferred Result.

LOL that is the funniest thing I have heard all week! You mind if I add that for my sig?

Spellbound wrote:Look, it's in the INAT FAQ, so it's done. It makes no sense that a boarding plank can be used on walkers without return hits either, but it CAN.

So stop arguing. RAW + clarification = yes deffrolla works on vehicles, AND they take the additional hit from the original ram. Have a nice day.

Then you're going to love it when version 2.1 comes out...by Wednesday...