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.

Except squadrons existed in 4th, when a deff rolla could do exactly what you described to anything witha lower AV facing than the deff rollas AV14.

Fact: Deff rolla worked against 90% of vehicles in 4th ed
Fact: The fluff describes them destroying light vehicles
Fact: Ram is a special form of Tank Shock move - a move of type Tank Shock. Same as Transport is a unit of type: Vehicle.

Both fluff, precedent (of when the codex was actually written) AND the wording of ramming indicates it works.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except squadrons existed in 4th, when a deff rolla could do exactly what you described to anything witha lower AV facing than the deff rollas AV14.

Fact: Deff rolla worked against 90% of vehicles in 4th ed
Fact: The fluff describes them destroying light vehicles
Fact: Ram is a special form of Tank Shock move - a move of type Tank Shock. Same as Transport is a unit of type: Vehicle.

Both fluff, precedent (of when the codex was actually written) AND the wording of ramming indicates it works.

Fluff may permit a Deff Rolla destroying vehicles...but does it allow destroying an entire squadron of vehicles? No.
Unless you would suggest that a Deff Rolla in the fluff can roll over 3 vehicles with a single run...

Che-Vito wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except squadrons existed in 4th, when a deff rolla could do exactly what you described to anything witha lower AV facing than the deff rollas AV14.

Fact: Deff rolla worked against 90% of vehicles in 4th ed
Fact: The fluff describes them destroying light vehicles
Fact: Ram is a special form of Tank Shock move - a move of type Tank Shock. Same as Transport is a unit of type: Vehicle.

Both fluff, precedent (of when the codex was actually written) AND the wording of ramming indicates it works.

Fluff may permit a Deff Rolla destroying vehicles...but does it allow destroying an entire squadron of vehicles? No.
Unless you would suggest that a Deff Rolla in the fluff can roll over 3 vehicles with a single run...

The wording is actually that deff rolla battlewagons drive around 'steamrolling enemy infantry and light vehicles'. So yes.
Just like infantry who assault one side of a squadron and don't even have LOS to the rest can score multiple hits and cause the same situation.

And again, how fair you think a rule is has no bearing on how it is written or was intended to work.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except squadrons existed in 4th, when a deff rolla could do exactly what you described to anything witha lower AV facing than the deff rollas AV14.

Fact: Deff rolla worked against 90% of vehicles in 4th ed
Fact: The fluff describes them destroying light vehicles
Fact: Ram is a special form of Tank Shock move - a move of type Tank Shock. Same as Transport is a unit of type: Vehicle.

Both fluff, precedent (of when the codex was actually written) AND the wording of ramming indicates it works.

Fluff may permit a Deff Rolla destroying vehicles...but does it allow destroying an entire squadron of vehicles? No.
Unless you would suggest that a Deff Rolla in the fluff can roll over 3 vehicles with a single run...

The wording is actually that deff rolla battlewagons drive around 'steamrolling enemy infantry and light vehicles'. So yes.
Just like infantry who assault one side of a squadron and don't even have LOS to the rest can score multiple hits and cause the same situation.

And again, how fair you think a rule is has no bearing on how it is written or was intended to work.

Yes, my opinion to RAW is irrelevant...but the RAW has been consistently argued from both sides.
In fact, the beauty of the situation is that both our opinions are irrelevant

Che-Vito wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except squadrons existed in 4th, when a deff rolla could do exactly what you described to anything witha lower AV facing than the deff rollas AV14.

Fact: Deff rolla worked against 90% of vehicles in 4th ed
Fact: The fluff describes them destroying light vehicles
Fact: Ram is a special form of Tank Shock move - a move of type Tank Shock. Same as Transport is a unit of type: Vehicle.

Both fluff, precedent (of when the codex was actually written) AND the wording of ramming indicates it works.

Fluff may permit a Deff Rolla destroying vehicles...but does it allow destroying an entire squadron of vehicles? No.
Unless you would suggest that a Deff Rolla in the fluff can roll over 3 vehicles with a single run...

The wording is actually that deff rolla battlewagons drive around 'steamrolling enemy infantry and light vehicles'. So yes.
Just like infantry who assault one side of a squadron and don't even have LOS to the rest can score multiple hits and cause the same situation.

And again, how fair you think a rule is has no bearing on how it is written or was intended to work.

Yes, my opinion to RAW is irrelevant...but the RAW has been consistently argued from both sides.
In fact, the beauty of the situation is that both our opinions are irrelevant

Well, at least my opinion is how the rules work in this case. You're arguing that even if rollas work on vehicles it doesn't make sense for them to work on vehicle squadrons, which just isn't how the game works.
Despite how dumb you may think it is that I can only see one of your tanks for shooting or can only hit one of them in my assault but can still end up destroying the whole squad, that's just how it works.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except squadrons existed in 4th, when a deff rolla could do exactly what you described to anything witha lower AV facing than the deff rollas AV14.

Fact: Deff rolla worked against 90% of vehicles in 4th ed
Fact: The fluff describes them destroying light vehicles
Fact: Ram is a special form of Tank Shock move - a move of type Tank Shock. Same as Transport is a unit of type: Vehicle.

Both fluff, precedent (of when the codex was actually written) AND the wording of ramming indicates it works.

Fluff may permit a Deff Rolla destroying vehicles...but does it allow destroying an entire squadron of vehicles? No.
Unless you would suggest that a Deff Rolla in the fluff can roll over 3 vehicles with a single run...

The wording is actually that deff rolla battlewagons drive around 'steamrolling enemy infantry and light vehicles'. So yes.
Just like infantry who assault one side of a squadron and don't even have LOS to the rest can score multiple hits and cause the same situation.

And again, how fair you think a rule is has no bearing on how it is written or was intended to work.

Yes, my opinion to RAW is irrelevant...but the RAW has been consistently argued from both sides.
In fact, the beauty of the situation is that both our opinions are irrelevant

Well, at least my opinion is how the rules work in this case. You're arguing that even if rollas work on vehicles it doesn't make sense for them to work on vehicle squadrons, which just isn't how the game works.
Despite how dumb you may think it is that I can only see one of your tanks for shooting or can only hit one of them in my assault but can still end up destroying the whole squad, that's just how it works.

The dilemma is that it is not clear on how this works...so you cannot claim that you are correct in this matter.
Pages of countless threads prove this...and being on Ork player only takes away from credibility.

I'm done with this, as you've presented nothing that hasn't been presented, and refuted, and represented...a hundred times.
Three cheers for grey areas!

Che-Vito wrote:

The dilemma is that it is not clear on how this works...so you cannot claim that you are correct in this matter.
Pages of countless threads prove this...and being on Ork player only takes away from credibility.

I'm done with this, as you've presented nothing that hasn't been presented, and refuted, and represented...a hundred times.
Three cheers for grey areas!

The rules are entirely clear on what multiple hits on part of a squadron looks like, even from an attack that can't hit the rest, sorry. Feel free to refute though.
Also, the fact that you're a non-Ork player removes an equal amount of credibility if you're going to play that card. Everyone has something to gain.

Even if both sides back down and agree the RAW is at best unclear (which niether side thinks it is) the RAI is clearly in support of it working on vehicles, and that should probably be how it is played until a definitive answer is given.

Rogueeyes has it EXACTLY right. Which is what I said, and was ignored.

Tank shock = infantry attack
Ram = Vehicle attack


Its that simple. It doesnt matter if the rules say special or not. Thats the way of it. Honestly what is so HARD to understand about this?

KingCracker wrote:Gorkamorka has it EXACTLY right. Which is what I said, and was ignored.

tank shock = An action involving movement that has an effect on infantry
Ram = A special type of tank shock with additional rules for affecting vehicles and a movement restriction
At no point in the rules for tank shocking or ramming are effects 'Tank Shock' and 'Ram' differentiated or even specified.

Its that simple. That's the way of it. Honestly what is so HARD to understand about this?

Gorkamorka wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Gorkamorka has it EXACTLY right. Which is what I said, and was ignored.

tank shock = An action involving movement that has an effect on infantry
Ram = A special type of tank shock with additional rules for affecting vehicles and a movement restriction
At no point in the rules for tank shocking or ramming are effects 'Tank Shock' and 'Ram' differentiated or even specified.

Its that simple. That's the way of it. Honestly what is so HARD to understand about this?

Nice trick. Sadly youre take on 'rules for tanks' needs you to reread them.

Doesnt change that KingCracker and Rogueeyes have it right and youre not.

I have played against an Ork player that used Deff Rolla, with them being able to wipe out squadrons of vehicles and never thought much of it at the time. On reading these heated posts I thought I would actually see for myself what the fuss is about.

The rule clearly states that in tank shock, the deff rolla gives the player D6 S 10 hits. It then goes on to say that if the unit elects to make a death or glory attack, it then receives another D6 S10 hits. I did not know vehicles could make death or glory attacks. Since the term elects is used, it clearly expects that the target can make such an election.

That aside, for 20 points, the tank is armed with a weapon that can cause a large number of S10 hits but these hits appear to have no AP ability. Thus even a unit that saves only on a 6 has a chance of survival. Seems very odd for something that can take down a Landraider.

With the introduction of squadron rules, multiple hits on one target can effectively remove the entire squadron. If the Deff Rolla is allowed to do this, then that is 20 points well spent.

The alternative to the Deff Rolla is the Reinforced Ram. Here the rules are interesting as this Ram allows the vehicle to tank shock and increases its armor by two for Death or Glory. Now with the current 5th edition, the Battle Wagon can tank shock anyway as it is an open topped tank. The only other place it seems to be available is with the Looted Vehicle and that is also defined as a tank. Clearly there is a disconnect in the rules here.

It seems to me that these rules are not written with 5th edition in mind at all. I can now understand why the INAT FAQ now prevents Deff Rolla from being used against vehicles. Personally I plan to use the INAT FAQ rulings, although since I only use a few skimmers in my own army, I really do not much care which ruling my opponent uses for Deff Rolla. Which of course is no conclusion at all!!

horsa wrote:The rule clearly states that in tank shock, the deff rolla gives the player D6 S 10 hits. It then goes on to say that if the unit elects to make a death or glory attack, it then receives another D6 S10 hits. I did not know vehicles could make death or glory attacks.

Walkers.

Please learn the rules before posting.

horsa wrote:
It seems to me that these rules are not written with 5th edition in mind at all. I can now understand why the INAT FAQ now prevents Deff Rolla from being used against vehicles. Personally I plan to use the INAT FAQ rulings, although since I only use a few skimmers in my own army, I really do not much care which ruling my opponent uses for Deff Rolla. Which of course is no conclusion at all!!

QFT.

I dunno why the fluff of them being able to takeout "light" vehicles keeps being brought up when it is clearly not the main target of the Ork players. KingCracker said it best earlier when he said Ork players are so adamant about it working so they can pop AV14 vehicles..... period.

I am sorry but your thrown together spikey Wheel 'o' Death is gonna fold up when you ram a Raider or a Monolith, period. Whether the fluff supports light vehicles or not means nothing when you are talking d6 str10 hits which pops the toughest of vehicles out there 1/3 of the time.

RAW/RAI arguments are a waste of time in my opinion, but the common sense on this is so cut and dry it should'nt be an issue. It still is one however because Orks have a large player base for arguing their side, and have a hell of a time with AV14. This is a cheap and very effective way of dealing with that for them, and I do not see them giving the argument up. Until it is inevitably released by GW that their 20pt upgrade was not intended for ramming AV14 vehicles, or any other vehicle for that matter.

Oddly enough I dont play Orks, and still think it works. Mainly as it did in 4th and the language used in ramming / tank shocking still supports it (such as you hit non-vehicle units with a Tank shock as normal....which if it was something entirely different yiou wouldnt do)

So you have RAI from fluff and precedent, and the RAW is unclear - go for which side the RAI is on.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Oddly enough I dont play Orks, and still think it works. Mainly as it did in 4th and the language used in ramming / tank shocking still supports it (such as you hit non-vehicle units with a Tank shock as normal....which if it was something entirely different yiou wouldnt do)

So you have RAI from fluff and precedent, and the RAW is unclear - go for which side the RAI is on.

RAI - You aren't the creator, and fluff hasn't implied that a single Ork vehicle with a Deff Rolla has the ability to steamroll a whole squadron of Leman Russ tanks in a single turn. Precedent, doesn't mean much.

RAW - Unclear, and I won't be playing against players that play RAP as you have suggested.

Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock move, not a special type of Tank Shock.

And very much not a subset.

So far the two common themes of the past 2 pages seem to be:

"Deff Rolla-ing squadrons isn't balanced" -- This is entirely subjective. Ramming can be executed against multiple targets if the first is destroyed so RAW isn't much of a counterargument for being able to execute multiple results across a squadron, and the Ork army has glaring weaknesses to AV14 so 'Balance' isn't much of a counterargument either; the army is already imbalanced negatively.

"Tank shock moves and Tank Shock aren't the same thing" -- This one seems patently ridiculous. It's like saying a Psychic Shooting Attack isn't a Shooting Attack because it's PSYCHIC; therefore I can ignore cover and wound allocation to snipe unique models.

If a Tank Shock move isn't a Tank Shock then Winged Daemon Princes don't roll for dangerous terrain because they're not jump infantry -- they just move like them -- and Mind War ignores cover because it's shooting attack is psychic.

The underlying root of all the DeffRolla hate seems to be because people think it's unbalanced. I'm pretty sure that if it was D6 S5 hits nobody would give a gak because the effect isn't game-changing.

To that, all I say is: Deffrollas are not impossible to beat, even if you allow them against vehicle squadrons, even if they have KFF. If you're the type of player that gets ROFLstomped by the guy with Orks at your club, then you need to improve your game, not make up reasons why wargear doesn't work against your army.

Che-Vito wrote:RAI - You aren't the creator, and fluff hasn't implied that a single Ork vehicle with a Deff Rolla has the ability to steamroll a whole squadron of Leman Russ tanks in a single turn. Precedent, doesn't mean much.

Do you mean like the squadrons of pirahnas that they used to rolla through in 4th ed? You seem to believe that Squadrons are new, just because IG have suddenly got them. And oddly enough the fluff, from 4th ed, hasnt mentioned something that wasnt created until the 5th ed IG codex....

And in 4th a deff rolla COULD steamroller LR, just as long as it was not to the front - which again people are seemingly glossing over. Deffrollas hit vehicles in 4th ed just fine, the only vehicles they COULDN'T hit - monolith and LR, everything else had a facing which wasnt AV14.

As for Intent - well when the rules were written, the clearest possible sign of intent of the CODEX designer, "ramming" (damaging a vehicle in tank shock) worked. You have what now? Oh right, sorry - no argumetn based on RAI at all.

You have "I dont think they should steam roller Squadrons" - which isnt a rules argument.

Che-Vito wrote:RAW - Unclear, and I won't be playing against players that play RAP as you have suggested.

Despite it being on the side of RAI? Given you have no evidence the other side you cant actually dispute this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock move, not a special type of Tank Shock.

And very much not a subset.

Except that a Tank Shock is a special type of move:

BRB p68 wrote:the player can declare tha tthe vehicle is going to attempt to make a tank shock attack instead of moving normally

So instead of moving normally, you perform a tank shock move.

So a subset of Tank Shock moves is the Ram, a special Tank Shock move.

Still a subset.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ram is a subsection of Tank Shock, and it even tells you so - "any non vehicle is Tank Shocked as normal" (paraphrased badly there) which indicates that a ram is still considered part of a Tank Shock rule.

I disagree. The language "Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal" BGB p. 69 is evidence that a Ram is not a Tank Shock.

1. That language refers to the vehicle performing the action as a "ramming tank" not a "tank shocking tank"
2. If it were a tank shock, why would the rule need to tell you that nonvehicle units are tank shocked? You'd know that already because you're doing a tank shock, and we already know what happens to nonvehicle units when they get tank shocked. Your interpretation would make that entire sentence completely superfluous. It isn't fluff, so we know GW intended for that language to have an actual in-game effect.

sourclams wrote:The underlying root of all the DeffRolla hate seems to be because people think it's unbalanced. I'm pretty sure that if it was D6 S5 hits nobody would give a gak because the effect isn't game-changing.

The underlying root of all the "Deffrollas work on vehicles" sentiment seems to be people mistakenly thinking that taking a few words out of context and ignoring the rest of the sentence/section equals a RAW argument.

Balance is entirely irrelevant to a rules interpretation issue, and yet here you are arguing that people who disagree with you are just "deffrolla haters." Bias is easy to attack. The language of the rules distinguishing Rams from Tank Shocks is a bit tougher. So you've chosen to attack bias. Predictable.

Here are some non-balance arguments (not by me) which have yet to be refuted, and which will require a bit more thought than "you're just biased!":
1. "a special type of tank shock move" does not equal Tank Shock.
2. Ramming and Tank Shocks have equal headings, suggesting that Ramming is not a subset of Tank Shocking but that they are in fact separate actions.

Gwar wrote:Walkers.

Please learn the rules before posting.

Except death or glory isn't granted to Walkers by the tank shock rule, the tank shock rule grants a death or glory attack "if a unit that has been attacked by tank shock passes its Morale test" BGB p. 69. Passing a morale test is something that no vehicle can do. Being tank shocked is also a situation no vehicle can be in, because tank shocking vehicles must stop 1" from any enemy vehicle in their path. See BGB p. 68

Walkers are granted a death or glory attack by a special rule pertaining only to walkers, which only applies if they are rammed, not tank shocked. See BGB p. 73

Please learn the rules before posting.

-GK

Yay another thread like this!!! But yes you can ram and get the hitz

GiantKiller wrote:
Balance is entirely irrelevant to a rules interpretation issue, and yet here you are arguing that people who disagree with you are just "deffrolla haters." Bias is easy to attack. The language of the rules distinguishing Rams from Tank Shocks is a bit tougher. So you've chosen to attack bias. Predictable.

Here are some non-balance arguments (not by me) which have yet to be refuted, and which will require a bit more thought than "you're just biased!":
1. "a special type of tank shock move" does not equal Tank Shock.
2. Ramming and Tank Shocks have equal headings, suggesting that Ramming is not a subset of Tank Shocking but that they are in fact separate actions.

Game on!

1. So a "special type of tank shock move" does not equal Tank Shock.

In short, a special tank shock move is a Tank Shock that is special, thus it's no longer a Tank Shock.

Let's find other examples of this and see if the game will actually function:

Psychic Shooting Attack -- "Using a psychic shooting attack counts as using a ranged weapon". Okay! So in order to perform a psychic shooting attack I have to find the part of the rulebook that dictates how to use a ranged weapon. Maybe it's under 'Shooting'.

Ruh-roh! There is absolutely nothing about how to use a ranged weapon under Shooting. In fact, here's the only bit that seems to reference it: "At least one target model must be within range of the weaponry of your firing models". But that's the only part! Maybe if I look a little further I can find something on how to use ranged weapons... "Check Range - All weapons have a maximum effective range, which is the furthest distance they can shoot.' This really seems to suggest that all weapons are ranged weapons because all weapons have a range, but if that was true then the Psychic Shooting Attack wouldn't specify a ranged weapon, it would simply say 'weapon'. Ranged, therefore, must be some sort of special qualifier, making it different from weapons with ranges. Since I can't find anything that defines ranged as a game term, it must not exist (exclusive rules, etc.) Therefore, psychic shooting attacks don't exist. Maybe next edition!

Let's find another one and see if the game functions:

Chaos Codex Wings -- "Models equipped with wings move in the same way as Jump Infantry". Okay! On to Jump Infantry. "Jump infantry blah blah 12" blah blah However, if a moving jump infantry model begins or ends its move in difficult terrain, it must take a dangerous terrain test." Oh happy Easter Egg! My Chaos models with wings aren't Jump Infantry models, they simply move in the same way. Therefore, my Winged Daemon Prince never ever has to take Dangerous Terrain tests. Because he's not a Jump Infantry model, he just moves like one.

On a roll! Let's find another one:

Transport Vehicles / Dedicated Transports: "The only limitation of a dedicated transport is that when it is deployed it can only carry the unit it was selected with". So does that mean that normal transports don't have this limitation? Let's look through the rules.... wow, there's absolutely nothing about deploying with embarked units, unless you're a dedicated transport. The rules on how to embark into one are quite clear, however, so obviously the intent is for men to start on the table and then embark into their transports because NO RULE allows you to start inside a transport vehicle. And if it doesn't say I can... I can't! Quite reasonable to me, really.

So going by pure RAW and the assumption that the rules are explicitly and exactly written to convey their meaning, a Ram is a special tank shock therefore it is not a Tank Shock because it's special. Daemon Princes never roll for Dangerous Terrain because they're not Jump Infantry models, Transports have no rule allowing units to start embarked inside them unless they're Dedicated, and Psychic Shooting Attacks are impossible to carry out because there's no mechanic for shooting a ranged weapon, only a reference to all weapons having maximum effective ranges.

As to Your Point #2: Tear out the page that tells you how to Tank Shock. Now try to perform a Ram. It's impossible because the rules for how to perform a Ram are enmeshed into Tank Shock. That's why they're not 'separate actions' because a Ram is actually a special type of tank shock.

sourclams wrote:Daemon Princes never roll for Dangerous Terrain because they're not Jump Infantry models, Transports have no rule allowing units to start embarked inside them unless they're Dedicated, and Psychic Shooting Attacks are impossible to carry out because there's no mechanic for shooting a ranged weapon, only a reference to all weapons having maximum effective ranges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Hope this helps.

-GK

Those saying "Tank Shock move" means ram is not a Tank Shock are missing that Tank Shock itself is defined as a special move*, and therefore Ram is just a special Tank Shock move which in itself is a special Move.

So Ram is still a subset of (All Tank Shocks) which is a subset of (legal moves) and therefore Ram is a type of Tank Shock and Deff Rollas work as they work on (All Tank Shocks)

That entirely blows the "Tank Shock move" argument apart btw.

*if you are not moving normally, but instead using Tank Shock, tank shock itself must be a move. Which makes a whole lot of sense, what with it being executed int he movement phase and requiring you to move the tank in a specific fashion. Who'd a thunk it!

ALso GK - I think you're looking for "Reductio Ad Absurdum" rather than straw man here.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I think you're looking for "Reductio Ad Absurdum" rather than straw man here.

Thanks, but no.

To be reduction ad absurdum, the arguer would have to be showing how an argument which was actually made by an opponent leads to an absurd result.

Nobody in this thread so far has argued that:
1. Daemon Princes don't take dangerous terrain tests
2. Units cannot deploy embarked in non-dedicated transports
3. Psychic Shooting attacks can't be used.

Attempting to refute the points actually made by arguers in this thread by attacking those points which have not been made here and have little, if anything to do with the points being made here, is an example of the straw man fallacy.

Hope this helps.

-GK

I'm just wondering aside from a DeffRolla, what do Orks have that can effectively take out a LandRaider or Lith.

A Warboss who is STR 10. Of course not everyone uses a Warboss.

Nobs. STR 9 on the charge with a PK. Ok lets see he gets 4 attacks and splitting the difference would need a 4 to hit. That assumes 2 will hit. Now he needs a 5 just to glance. Great odds there.

Zzap guns. Variable STR means they will be able to hurt one what once per game. Even then only a 50-50 shot of hitting if it is Grot crewed and not on a vehicle.

SAG - again variable STR. Not to mention the dreaded double or scatter.

BoomGun. STR 8 so again can only glance plus the chance of scatter and only 36" range.

KMBs - STR 8 so glancing only plus the chance to fry the guy shooting.

Rokkits. STR 8 yet again. A 5+ to hit and 24" range. That'll show them,

Tankhammers. OK good chance of pasting it. Assuming everyone fields Tankbustas.

Tank Busta Bombs. These will work. Assuming again everyone fields TBs.

In essence that gives Orks 3 weapons in the DEX that have an even remote chance of reliably destroying anything with an AV. Aside from the Warboss 2 of them are rarely used. Then the Warboss will get torn apart by the passengers that just bailed out of the vehicle.

BossGreenNutz wrote:BoomGun. STR 8 so again can only glance plus the chance of scatter and only 36" range.

The chances of hitting a vehicle at full strength with a scatter die and template is actually better than the chances of hitting with an ordinary ranged weapon using Ork Ballistic Skill.

-GK

Boss GreenNutz wrote:I'm just wondering aside from a DeffRolla, what do Orks have that can effectively take out a LandRaider or Lith.

A Warboss who is STR 10. Of course not everyone uses a Warboss.

Nobs. STR 9 on the charge with a PK. Ok lets see he gets 4 attacks and splitting the difference would need a 4 to hit. That assumes 2 will hit. Now he needs a 5 just to glance. Great odds there.

Zzap guns. Variable STR means they will be able to hurt one what once per game. Even then only a 50-50 shot of hitting if it is Grot crewed and not on a vehicle.

SAG - again variable STR. Not to mention the dreaded double or scatter.

BoomGun. STR 8 so again can only glance plus the chance of scatter and only 36" range.

KMBs - STR 8 so glancing only plus the chance to fry the guy shooting.

Rokkits. STR 8 yet again. A 5+ to hit and 24" range. That'll show them,

Tankhammers. OK good chance of pasting it. Assuming everyone fields Tankbustas.

Tank Busta Bombs. These will work. Assuming again everyone fields TBs.

In essence that gives Orks 3 weapons in the DEX that have an even remote chance of reliably destroying anything with an AV. Aside from the Warboss 2 of them are rarely used. Then the Warboss will get torn apart by the passengers that just bailed out of the vehicle.

Dreads can tear up A14, not that they'll ever get close to anything but a monolith.

As to Your Point #2: Tear out the page that tells you how to Tank Shock. Now try to perform a Ram. It's impossible because the rules for how to perform a Ram are enmeshed into Tank Shock. That's why they're not 'separate actions' because a Ram is actually a special type of tank shock.

Die, horse, die.

That doesn't make any sense. Just because it is related to another action does not mean they are the same action. You could tear out any other page and have the lack of data affect any number of other rules. That does not make those other related rules the same rule.