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.

Funny stuff. Lots of very detailed reading required to support some of these interpretations.

How about a simple one?

The usual book quote "is a special kind of tank shock move" so we know ramming is a tank shock move albeit a different kind. No need to argue about whether 'special' means 'subtype' or 'different type'. Even accepting 'special' as 'different', the book shows exactly how the ram is different from tank shock - and there are only two differences.

1) you can't select your move speed; and

2) you can contact vehicles, with the additional collision results.

In every other respect, ramming is a tank shock and is executed the same way.

When you tank shock with a BW & deffrolla, you inflict extra hits on the victim unit. This effect is not listed under the ram rules as an exception to the exectution of a tank shock, therefore the rolla effect is executed in a ram in the same way as it is in a tank shock.

---

Straw men about vehicles opting to move out of the way or conduct a death-or-glory are just silly.

You have to pass a Ld check to death-or-glory. Vehicles do not have Ld therefore they can never pass an Ld check therefore they can never d-o-g. Walkers are an exception as they are specifically so noted in the rulebook.

They cannot move out of the way because the ram rules specify this as one of the exceptions to the way a tank shock is normally executed.

---

Arguments from fluff all fail against the description of the rolla riding over vehicles.

---

The argument about "tank shock or ram" is the one that has actual merit. However it can also be dealt with; the meaning works out as 'which it will tank shock (if non-vehicle) or special tank shock (if vehicle)". Given the weight of evidence from text and background it's clear to me at least that the rolla works against vehicles, except for flyers that successfully dodge the ram.

---

Arguments about balance etc are irrelevant as the game simply doesn't work that way. Most also rely on a massive overstatement of the BW capability (e.g. the ridiculous comparison with a Titan, which is very hard to destroy with weapons found outside Apocalypse, and a BW, which is very easy to destroy at a distance with weapons available to a standard Marine or Guard squad).

Arguments that only Ork players suggest that the rolla works on vehicles are incorrect (as some non-ork players have posted here also agreeing that it works on vehicles). Suggestions that Ork players only take the approach that it works on vehicles out of self-interest are unbalanced; non-ork players have an equal interest in seeing the rolla's effects reduced.

Boss Ardnutz wrote:The argument about "tank shock or ram" is the one that has actual merit. However it can also be dealt with; the meaning works out as 'which it will tank shock (if non-vehicle) or special tank shock (if vehicle)". Given the weight of evidence from text and background it's clear to me at least that the rolla works against vehicles, except for flyers that successfully dodge the ram.

funny stuff.

I quote the rules, you say otherwise is "clear to me".

Why is that clear when the text quoted contradicts, and you acknowledge it?

A request: can someone going to the UK gamesday corner Phil Kelly and get him to sign a statement/record him giving a ruling on this?

"Any tank shock .... on the victim unit" pg 55 ork codex

"special ((which is still technically part of all)) type of tank shock and is executed the same way...".

To myself and many others, this is very cut and dry.

"special type of tank shock move"

if you type the . . . ummm . . . rules you quote?

Move is rather relevant. If RAW is what you aim it.

or maybe I quote a different book that you there?

I really don't see how the word move is relevant. This really seems like epic level rules lawyer stuff to me. And from the reading of the rules the word move is in relation that the model must move its max distance. which is why its a special type of tank shock move as opposed to a normal tank shock move. Since it must move a different distance after all.

Yeah,
'Move' is important, as shown by the number of Ork posts omitting it.
a Tank Shock Attack is required by the Rollas text, this doesn't quite add up to the a Tank Shock Move offered by a RAM.

Boss Ardnutz, I don't think a Tank Unit gets a Death or Glory attempt when it's being Rammed by a Deff rolla Because I don't think that tanks gets Tank Shocked; they get Rammed. and thus are not Tank Shock attacked!
But if I was to be told that my tank (unit) is being tank shock attacked (?) why would I be wrong to requesting my units defense option, a death or glory attempt? lacking a LD value? Auto Pass? (the roller is hitting without rolling to hit!) In fact it would be a perfectly normal response from my tanks commander to shoot the wagon rolling towards it.

Panic...

Panic wrote:Yeah,
'Move' is important, as shown by the number of Ork posts omitting it.
a Tank Shock Attack is required by the Rollas text, this doesn't quite add up to the a Tank Shock Move offered by a RAM.

I see no difference here. "Move" is a word with all sorts of meanings, but I don't see any that would make a 'tank shock move' a wholly different action from a tank shock attack:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/move wrote:1.
a. The act or an instance of moving.
b. A particular manner of moving: made some intricate moves on the dance floor.
2. A change of residence or location.
3. Games
a. An act of transferring a piece from one position to another in board games.
b. The prescribed manner in which a piece may be played.
c. A participant's turn to make a play.
4. An action taken to achieve an objective; a maneuver: a move to halt the arms race.

Boss Ardnutz, I don't think a Tank Unit gets a Death or Glory attempt when it's being Rammed by a Deff rolla Because I don't think that tanks gets Tank Shocked; they get Rammed. and thus are not Tank Shock attacked!

Whereas I observe that some vehicles (walkers) do get a Death or Glory attempt "in the same way as infantry" when rammed, thus are getting tank shocked as getting tank shocked is a prerequisite for performing a Death or Glory attempt.

But if I was to be told that my tank (unit) is being tank shock attacked (?) why would I be wrong to requesting my units defense option, a death or glory attempt? lacking a LD value? Auto Pass? (the roller is hitting without rolling to hit!) In fact it would be a perfectly normal response from my tanks commander to shoot the wagon rolling towards it.

You'd be wrong for two reasons. 1) vehicles never take a morale test for any reason, and you cannot Death or Glory without passing a morale test unless you are a walker; and 2) that your vehicle does not move out of the way on being tank shocked is spelled out as one of the ways ramming is special. Whether it suffers hits from wargear like any other unit is not one of the ways ramming is special.

Budro, GW's rules are EXPLICIT not PERMISSIVE.

Carry on with the thread please. It's quite entertaining.

I swear this is a game of pong...

indeed it is turning in that direction stelek.

both sides argue from valid points thanks to poor writing on GW's part.

majority has shifted to roughly even on both sides.

my phone calls to GW roolzboyz.. they said their consensus is that it works and that is how GW will rule at ard boyz finals

but until that is put in writing the conversation might as well not happened.

meanwhile, neither group is making any headway here, yet they continue back and forth as if their words are going to convince an entrenched person on the other side of the debate.

so its getting pointless. I'm glad I stopped arguing about this already.

NaZ

It's not pointless, it's just being pursued without proper argumentation. If you're going to have a constructive discussion that resolves a disagreement, you need to first suss out what it is that you all disagree on and what it is that you all agree on. After that, it's a simple process of applied logic to show that either one side, or the other, or both sides, are wrong.

Part of what is preventing this conversation from moving forward is an acceptance of the necessity of close reading - that the only objective way to interpret the text is to specify method of interpreting the text, and thus be able to say when a conclusion derived from that reading is true. I've done so, but it's been dismissed as "fancy rules-lawyering" by people.

the rule book describes this quite clearly, I dont know where the arguments come from.

1 the deff rolla is used to tank shock, under tank shock (which is different from ramming) if you come within 1" of a vehicle you stop.

so you declare a tank shock you hit a unit and get ready to hit a vehicle but you move within 1" so you stop short. Ok so I ram instead, great you dont use the deff rolla because its for tank shocking not ramming (the deff rolla says its used for tank shocking), "but is a special kind of tank shock" you say, ok one your an idiot for trying to rape the rules tank shocking is for non-vehicles you RAM vehicles but if you insist on calling it a tank shock go ahead Ill read the rules again "if you come within 1" of a vehicle (while tank shocking ) you stop" so you call it a tank shock and under tank shock you do not make contact with vehicles. SO what are you doing? tank shocking or ramming? if you say tank shock you stop short if you ram you go through but no d6 str 10 hits because this is for tank shocking and you cant tank shock a vehicle. Where exactly is the difficulty? -=Edited out=-

Apparently the difficulty is in being polite. Be aware of the posting rules here at Dakka and follow them. Thank you. - Iorek

Cheers for the helpful insight. I'm sure everyone you called 'retards' and implied were cheating will be swayed by your comment rather than the structured and coherent argument of Nurglitch failed.

Seriously, can someone just ask Phil Kelly about this?

I think it makes prefect since for the enemy tank to be hit by the deff rolla and if you want to bitch about get some lascannons or melta bombs and blow it up before it can reach you.

just play the rules in a way every1 can agree at your LGS.

last thing how many of you guys are lawyers?

and it continues to devolve into nastyness for no reason.

I continue to express the thought that there are people on both sides of the debate. both here, and probably in everyones gaming group.

I asked 10 people on sunday.. 5/5 for yes and no. in the end they agreed with the simple explanation in the book

"a ram is a special type 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"

I am taking the risk of quoting the rulebook exactly here.

it doesnt say "and ignores any wargear related to tank shock"

it just gives an additional set of rules to resolve how the vehicles are affected by the collision in addition to whatever else is going on.

and when I called the roolzboyz.. they said this is how it would be ruled at the ard boyz finals:

"a ram is a tank shock against a vehicle"

so if you plan on going.. you might as well play that way if for no other reason than to learn how to deal with it in advance. because if it is allowed you know ork players will be using it.

but in the meantime.. there are people on both sides of the debate. I've read through nurglitch's arguements and he is a good debater. I'm still not sold but I respect a dissenting opinion.

but getting nasty at people is completely unnessessary da gob smaka. if anything it discredits whatever you're saying. people stop listening the moment you get hostile. *have fun dealing with the moderators*

I continue to support my position, and having read through nurglitch's I don't nessessarily disagree with it. the debate on both sides only has validity because once again GW has written a messy set of rules. there are only a couple of pieces of wargear in the entire game that fall into the sections related to tank shocks. so maybe it was an oversight.

I've called twice and asked them to FAQ it. maybe you all would like to help out and call them yourselves? find out what they say and ask them to faq it? if we can get everyone on this thread to do that it wouldn't surprise me to see the ork faq updated within a week or two. squeaky wheel gets the grease!!

weather or not it works I'd be satisfied just to know. when I play now I ask my opponents opinion, debate if we need to. but once the game is started we're both on the same page. this avoids any 4+ rolls or calls of shenanigans midgame.

NaZ

Just out of curiosity how many of the people that believe that the Deff rolla doesn't work on rams also believe that trucks with reinforced rams cannot ram. Since it follows the same train of thinking.

NaZ wrote:
my phone calls to GW roolzboyz.. they said their consensus is that it works and that is how GW will rule at ard boyz finals

but until that is put in writing the conversation might as well not happened.

NaZ

NaZ... I don't mean to second guess you but who did you talk to at GW? Obviously not the roolzboyz.

I just called Keith (you can call him at 1-800-394-4263) and asked about the deff Rolla rule.
He said that you CAN NOT use deff rolla on a ram.
Also, and this is what leads me to believe you were not talking to the roolzboyz, he said that they do not decide on rules for the ard boyz finals. He said that will be decided by a seperate group that is running the tournament, and if they ask the roolzboyz opinion it will be that deff rolla does not work on ramming.

NaZ wrote:so its getting pointless. I'm glad I stopped arguing about this already

I'm glad I didn't start. LOL

Nurglitch wrote:argumentation

Is that a word?

mgrosh,

wow no surprise that you got a conflicting answer. what else is new when it comes to GW

keep them calls coming though.. if enough people bother them it'll hopefully get FAQ'd one way or the other

NaZ

Naz, i agree.. I wasen't really suprised that they gave me a conflicting answer to the def rolla rulling.

I was just wondering if you called the roolzboyz, a rep or someone else at GW... since the roolzboyz don't make the call for the ard boyz tournment.

Stelek wrote:Budro, GW's rules are EXPLICIT not PERMISSIVE.

Carry on with the thread please. It's quite entertaining.

I swear this is a game of pong...

Explicit rule sets are usually also permissive. Sorry that I wasn't more clear...

In this case deth rollas are explicity permitted to be used in ANY tank shock

*now I'll just fade back into the background of obscurity whilst my post is either ignored or refuted by the same posters which have been arguing against this for however many pages it is...

I just called customer service. those guys also handle incoming rules questions and meet several times a week to discuss them with the roolzboyz in england.

my thought is.. if we can get a few dozen people to call this week, they'll make it a priority to fix.

so weather you're for it or against it, please call them and ask what their ruling is, and express that it needs to be in the ork FAQ before the ard boyz tournaments begin!

NaZ

Agree Naz,

here is the USA number 1-800-394-4263

maybe they will push the right people to add this to the FAQ.

Modquisition:
And on that note shuttin' er down. This one has been beaten to death and is spiralling near trolltown.