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.

nosferatu1001 wrote: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!

Note that both "Tank Shock!" and "Ramming" are at the same level of subheading. Neither is a subheading of the other.

I agree that tank shock requires a specific kind of movement. So does ramming. The problem is, it's not the same kind of movement.

Tank shock requires you to move the tank in a specific fashion (straight line, stop 1" from enemy vehicles, etc.).

Ramming requires you to move the tank in a different specific fashion (straight line, must move maximum distance, may contact enemy vehicles, etc.).

Different = not the same. I'm embarrassed for all of us because I feel "different = not the same" actually needs to be stated in this thread.

One can quote "ramming is a special type of tank shock move" until blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that the rest of the rules for tank shocking and ramming clearly establish that they are different types of actions with different requirements, different restrictions, and different results.

sourclams wrote: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.

This statement in no way refutes Dracos' argument that Tank Shock and Ram are at equal levels of subheading, which suggests that neither one a "subset" of the other. If Ramming were a subset of Tank Shocking, it would be a subheading of Tank Shock, not a subheading of Tanks (which it is).

Nor does it disprove in any way my earlier assertion that they're separate actions. It is simply one example of a rule which references another rule. Ramming references the rules for tank shocking. Similarly, buildings reference the rules for vehicles. But these sets of rules also have different rules that let us know they are different. These other rules let us know that, just like ramming isn't tank shocking so it doesn't trigger the deff rolla, a building is not a vehicle so, even though you couldn't embark a big mek into a building without the rules for vehicles, your Big Mek still won't be able to repair the building on a 4+ because it's not a vehicle.

In short, A does not equal B because A requires some of B's rules to function.

-GK

The number of things they have in common (which is much more than the number of ways they differ, if we're counting) has nothing to do with whether the rules state they are the same type of action (which they do, clearly).

Strawman yourself much?

Fine, I'll finally answer this question, because asking you to stop posting about it does nothing.

I run CSM, Raider Rush. I do not play Orks. I have no friends who play Orks. I know 3 people in my club who play Orks, 2 of whom I hate.

I believe that RAW allows a Deff Rolla to inflict D6 S10 hits on any vehicle it rams, and that across a squadron these hits must be allocated as normal.

Also, throwing something else out there:
Note that they are separate rules even though they are similar (Such as how Leadership tests are different from Morale Tests, Pinning Test, ect. even though they all test 2D6 vs LD), due to how they are both written in CAPS, meaning listed as separate "Tank Special Rules" not both "Tank Shock Rules". IF Ramming was, it wouldn't be all caps (indicating a new rule, albeit similar), but would be lowercase like "Death or Glory" is in the Tank Shock rule.

EDIT:Spelling

A ram is not a tank shock.

If it were, it would be completely worthless. Here's why:

If a ram is a tank shock, it must obey all rules of tank shocking except for those it specifically overrides. While the rules for ramming differ from tank shocking in several key ways (the distance of the move, whether or not the tank can shoot in the following shooting phase, etc.) it does not mention anywhere that it overrides the following language from the tank shock rules:

"If the tank accidentally moves into contact with a friendly model or comes to within 1" of an enemy vehicle, it immediately stops moving." BGB p. 68

So we know that tank shocking tanks must stop 1" from any enemy vehicle in their path. This prohibits tank shocking tanks from contacting an enemy vehicle. That bears repeating: according to the rules for tank shocking, no tank shocking tank may contact an enemy vehicle. Ever.

A ram action only affects an enemy vehicle "if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle" BGB p. 69.

If a ram were a tank shock, that could never happen. If a ramming tank is actually tank shocking (as required to trigger deff rollas), then it must stop 1" away from any enemy vehicle and would never be able to contact it, so no ram attack could occur. Ever.

Nosferatu1001, this is reductio ad absurdum, btw. It's a perfectly valid argument type when the point you're refuting is actually a point made by an opponent. The difference between this example and the ones you referred to as reductio ad absurdum is I'm arguing that a point actually made by an opponent (a ram is a tank shock) leads to an absurd result (no ram can ever occur).

Hope this helps.

-GK

I am arguing it is a *special tank shock*, not that it IS a tank shock. Clearly it isn't - you are in fact told it isnt a tank shock move, but a special one. Special dictates it is different - so you follow TS where told to, Ram otherwise, and Ram gives you permission to contact another vehicle - overriding the prohibition.

It is still a Tank Shock in that you must refer to the Tank Shock rules in order to know how to perform the ram, except you explicitly follow what it tells you to follow.

So Ram is a Special Tank Shock Move which is a Special Move, Ram is a subset of the set (All Tank Shocks)

"Walker" is also CLEARLY a subset of the vehicle rules - despite having its own page; without the vehicle rules you cannot use them. Indentation is not consistently used to indicate subsections, any argument based on that to say ram is not a tank shock is incredibly flawed.

GiantKiller wrote:A ram is not a tank shock.

You can twist and manipulate and butcher whatever phrases in the rules you like, but they are extremely clear on this point:

Page 69:
Ramming is a special type of tank shock

A poodle is a special type of dog. Now ask yourself, "Is a poodle a dog?" The answer is obviously yes.

Danny Internets wrote:

GiantKiller wrote:A ram is not a tank shock.

You can twist and manipulate and butcher whatever phrases in the rules you like, but they are extremely clear on this point:

Page 69:
Ramming is a special type of tank shock

A poodle is a special type of dog. Now ask yourself, "Is a poodle a dog?" The answer is obviously yes.

And yet, it has it's own set of rules...................... Totally different from the other.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I am arguing it is a *special tank shock*, not that it IS a tank shock.

Then you're not triggering deff rollas, which only apply to tank shocks, not 'actions which are similar to tank shocks but are not tank shocks'.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Clearly it isn't - you are in fact told it isnt a tank shock move, but a special one. Special dictates it is different -

I agree.

nosferatu1001 wrote:so you follow TS where told to, Ram otherwise, and Ram gives you permission to contact another vehicle - overriding the prohibition.
It is still a Tank Shock in that you must refer to the Tank Shock rules in order to know how to perform the ram, except you explicitly follow what it tells you to follow.

Please quote for me the language giving a ramming vehicle permission to contact another vehicle. Note that the language "if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle" (BGB p. 69) isn't giving permission to contact another vehicle, it is only describing what would happen if it did.

I've already refuted the argument that a ram is a tank shock because you must refer to the tank shock rules in order to know how to perform the ram with an example where that does not hold true. One must know the rules for vehicles to know how to operate buildings, but that does not make buildings vehicles.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So Ram is a Special Tank Shock Move which is a Special Move, Ram is a subset of the set (All Tank Shocks)

I disagree. Ram is a subset of the set 'actions available to tanks'. It is similar to a Tank Shock, it uses some of the rules for a Tank Shock, but if it were a subset of Tank Shock, it could never, ever occur because a Tank Shocking tank may never come within 1" of an enemy vehicle.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"Walker" is also CLEARLY a subset of the vehicle rules - despite having its own page; without the vehicle rules you cannot use them. Indentation is not consistently used to indicate subsections, any argument based on that to say ram is not a tank shock is incredibly flawed.

Indentation is irrelevant. Headers are used to indicate subsections. I agree with you that "Walkers" is clearly a subset of "Vehicles." How can we tell? Look at the heading for vehicles (BGB p. 56). Compare that to the heading for Walkers (BGB p. 72). The Vehicles heading is much larger than the Walkers subheading. Now compare the heading for "Tank Shock!" (BGB p. 68) to the heading for "Ramming" (BGB p. 69). Note the following: same font size, same type face, same all-caps. These two actions are at the same level of subheading under "Tanks". This is evidence that neither one is a subset of the other.

-GK

Except the rules state, specifically, that a ram is a special type of tank shock move, in exac tly the same way as a Tank Shock is defined as a special type of Move, "and is executed the same way, except...."

You haven't refuted this. You've said it leads to an absurd result, in your opinion, but that doesnt alter that the rules specifically state Rams are special forms of Tank Shocks, and are executed in the same way with exceptions. Until you can refute this point, which you have yet to do, you have no argument.

A special Form of something is by definition a subset of (All Something) - and you are explicitly told that Deff rollas work on ALL tank shocks.

So you have RAI - Deff rollas work as they worked when the codex was actually written agaisnt all but 2 vehicles in the entire game of 40k
RAW - rams are a special form of the move called "Tank Shock"
C1: Deff rollas work, as they work on all tank shocks. A special form is part of the set (All Tank Shocks)

don_mondo wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

GiantKiller wrote:A ram is not a tank shock.

You can twist and manipulate and butcher whatever phrases in the rules you like, but they are extremely clear on this point:

Page 69:
Ramming is a special type of tank shock

A poodle is a special type of dog. Now ask yourself, "Is a poodle a dog?" The answer is obviously yes.

And yet, it has it's own set of rules...................... Totally different from the other.

They're only totally different from one another in the ways that a poodle is "totally different" from a dog. As Nosferatu correctly pointed out, ram rules override tank shock rules, and where ram rules don't apply (or exist) you follow tank shock rules.

It's not complicated. At all.

Danny Internets wrote:A poodle is a special type of dog. Now ask yourself, "Is a poodle a dog?" The answer is obviously yes.

Poodles as a subset of dogs is as clear an example of straw man as I've seen in this thread. So let's put it to sleep. (see what I did there?) Tank Shock and Ramming are two in-game actions performed by imaginary vehicles that we're pretending are acting like real tanks. They are governed not by the laws of physics or common sense (both of which are based on what holds true in real life), but by the rules of 40k, as set forth by the BGB. As I've pointed out previously, the rules of 40k clearly differentiate Tank Shocking from Ramming.

If Poodles and Dogs were imaginary things governed by similar rules to tank shocks and rams, the answer to "is a poodle a dog" would not be "obviously yes". According to our hypothetical "Big Book of Dogs", Poodles are designed to be house dogs, just like ramming actions are designed to target vehicles in 40k. So we know that a poodle that can't come in the house is as absurd as a ramming action that can't target a vehicle.

No offense meant to poodle lovers here:

A poodle is not a dog.

If it were, it would be completely worthless. Here's why:

If a poodle is a dog, it must obey all rules of dogs except for those it specifically overrides. While the rules for poodles differ from dogs in several key ways (the distance they can move, the length of their fur, etc.) it does not mention anywhere that it overrides the following language from the dog rules:

"If the dog accidentally moves into contact with a friendly mailman or comes to within 1" of the house, it immediately stops moving." Big Book of Dogs p. 68

So we know that dogs must stop 1" from the house. This prohibits dogs from contacting the house. That bears repeating: according to the rules for dogs, no dog may contact the house. Ever.

A poodle only affects the house "if the poodle comes into contact with the house" Big Book of Dogs p. 69.

If a poodle were a dog, that could never happen. If a poodle is actually a dog (as required to trigger Deff Paws), then it must stop 1" away from the house and would never be able to contact it, so no poodle could come in the house. Ever.


See what I did there?

-GK

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.

WOW. Why do you guys keep saying the "IN 4TH EDITION!!!!!!!!!"
Who CARES if it worked in 4th edition. This is 5th. Rending SUCKS in 5th, it was the cats ass in 4th. BUT AGAIN this is 5th edition folks.


HERES SOMETHING WE CAN ALL AGREE ON
How about we start a petition where we ALL sign in on it, and send it to GW to MAKE them make a ruling and put in in the FAQ. One way or the other this needs to be resolved NOW. Not when they get to it


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OK for anyone who wants to be a part of it, I made a petition on the 40k discussions forum. Dont turn it into a flame fest.

It comes down to a very circular argument.

The "deff rollas work on vehicles" camp says deff rollas are triggered by any tank shock and ramming is a special type of tank shock move (argued in this thread and many others).

The "deff rollas do not work on vehicles" camp says yes, but the headings and the rules for tank shock and ramming make them two different actions (argued in this thread and many other threads and Szafraniec's article on Deff Rollas and Ramming).

The "deff rollas work on vehicles" camp says yeah, but deff rollas are triggered by any tank shock and ramming is a special type of tank shock move.

The "deff rollas do not work on vehicles" camp replies with yes, but the headings and rules for tank shock and ramming make them two different actions.

And so on, and so on, and so on. The arguments don't get better, just louder, and increasingly canine-centric.

-GK

GiantKiller, your argument for it being circular reasoning rests on the assumption that somewhere in the rules it is stated that separate headers mean sections underneath said headers cannot have any interaction with one another. However, the rules do not say this--it is an assumption of developer intent, an interpretation of the imposed text organization.

What the rules do say, and very clearly, is that ramming is a form of tank shock. Without some concrete statement to the contrary, there is little leg for your side to stand on.

Danny Internets wrote:your argument for it being circular reasoning rests on the assumption that somewhere in the rules it is stated that separate headers mean sections underneath said headers cannot have any interaction with one another.

That's an easy assumption to attack, but it's not an assumption I've made, nor is it an assumption on which my argument rests.

Of course sections underneath separate headers may have interaction. But said interaction does not mean the two things which are interacting are the same thing. See my earlier example re: Buildings and Vehicles.

Danny Internets wrote:Without some concrete statement to the contrary, there is little leg for your side to stand on.

Concrete statement: Tank Shock! and Ramming are at the same level of sub-heading under Tanks, therefore ramming and tank shocking are two separate actions.
Concrete statement: The rules for Tank Shock! and Ramming clearly differentiate the two, therefore ramming and tank shocking are two separate actions.
Concrete statement: If a Ram is a Tank Shock then Ramming does not work on vehicles (which is absurd) therefore ramming is not tank shocking.

That's plenty of concrete for me.

Your post is, in fact, a perfect example of the circular argument I'm referring to:

GiantKiller wrote:The "deff rollas work on vehicles" camp says yeah, but deff rollas are triggered by any tank shock and ramming is a special type of tank shock move.

Danny Internets wrote:What the rules do say, and very clearly, is that ramming is a form of tank shock.

Note the similarities.

-GK

GiantKiller wrote:Tank Shock and Ramming are two in-game actions performed by imaginary vehicles that we're pretending are acting like real tanks. They are governed not by the laws of physics or common sense (both of which are based on what holds true in real life), but by the rules of 40k, as set forth by the BGB. As I've pointed out previously, the rules of 40k clearly differentiate Tank Shocking from Ramming.

Wow, good thing I'm using the poodle/dog analogy to illustrate the concept of inclusive hierarchical organization. Could have been in trouble there if I was trying to show how 40k is like real life. Phew.

No offense meant to poodle lovers here:

A poodle is not a dog.

...you're serious? Really?

If it were, it would be completely worthless. Here's why:

If a poodle is a dog, it must obey all rules of dogs except for those it specifically overrides. While the rules for poodles differ from dogs in several key ways (the distance they can move, the length of their fur, etc.) it does not mention anywhere that it overrides the following language from the dog rules:

"If the dog accidentally moves into contact with a friendly mailman or comes to within 1" of the house, it immediately stops moving." Big Book of Dogs p. 68

So we know that dogs must stop 1" from the house. This prohibits dogs from contacting the house. That bears repeating: according to the rules for dogs, no dog may contact the house. Ever.

A poodle only affects the house "if the poodle comes into contact with the house" Big Book of Dogs p. 69.

If a poodle were a dog, that could never happen. If a poodle is actually a dog (as required to trigger Deff Paws), then it must stop 1" away from the house and would never be able to contact it, so no poodle could come in the house. Ever.

Uh, what exactly is the point of this analogy? You created a fictional set of absurd "rules" about what it is to be a dog, then defined poodle by its ability to "affect" a house (whatever the feth that is), then claimed that being a poodle is meaningless because of the silly rules you just invented about what it is to be a poodle. If you're trying to compare this to how tank shocking affects vehicles then you forgot the most important part of being a poodle: that poodles are permitted to get within 1" of houses.

See what I did there?

-GK

Yeah, you completely and utterly missed the point, then went off on a bizarre tangent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Concrete statement: Tank Shock! and Ramming are at the same level of sub-heading under Tanks, therefore ramming and tank shocking are two separate actions.
Concrete statement: The rules for Tank Shock! and Ramming clearly differentiate the two, therefore ramming and tank shocking are two separate actions.
Concrete statement: If a Ram is a Tank Shock then Ramming does not work on vehicles (which is absurd) therefore ramming is not tank shocking.

Actually, that is a correct conclusion. However, the rules for ramming specifically override it, so it's moot.

Danny Internets wrote:Wow, good thing I'm using the poodle/dog analogy to illustrate the concept of inclusive hierarchical organization. Could have been in trouble there if I was trying to show how 40k is like real life. Phew.

You're using an example of real life inclusive hierarchical organization and suggesting that Tank Shock! and Ramming share that same inclusive hierarchical organization. I disagree.

Danny Internets wrote:...you're serious? Really?

If poodles and dogs followed similar rules to Ramming and Tank Shock, then yes, I'm 100% serious. Obviously they don't, this is a hypothetical example. Did you think I meant real, live poodles aren't dogs? Really?

Danny Internets wrote:Uh, what exactly is the point of this analogy? You created a fictional set of absurd "rules" about what it is to be a dog, then defined poodle by its ability to "affect" a house (whatever the feth that is), then claimed that being a poodle is meaningless because of the silly rules you just invented about what it is to be a poodle.

So I create a fictional set of absurd rules for Poodles and Dogs that are similar to those for Ramming and Tank Shock! and you fail to see the point of this analogy? Really? The point is that if poodles were like Ramming and dogs were like Tank Shock! then no, poodles aren't dogs.

Danny Internets wrote:Yeah, you completely and utterly missed the point, then went off on a bizarre tangent.

I think you're missing the point here. You're assuming that Tank Shocking and Ramming follow the same inclusive hierarchical structure as Dogs and Poodles. They do not, according to their rules. If Dogs and Poodles followed similar rules to Tank Shocking and Ramming, Poodles would not be Dogs, just like Ramming is not Tank Shocking.

-GK

You're using an example of real life inclusive hierarchical organization and suggesting that Tank Shock! and Ramming share that same inclusive hierarchical organization. I disagree.

It's an abstract principle being applied to a game that is itself an abstraction. It's as "real" as Warhammer 40k is.

So I create a fictional set of absurd rules for Poodles and Dogs that are similar to those for Ramming and Tank Shock! and you fail to see the point of this analogy? Really? The point is that if poodles were like Ramming and dogs were like Tank Shock! then no, poodles aren't dogs.

Similar, except you conveniently left out the part about "poodles" being allowed to get within 1" of "houses". You know, the part where your reasoning blows apart at light speed.

Anyways, I can see that your wall of obstinateness is rapidly approaching Nuglitchian proportions, so I'll simply bow out here.

Danny Internets wrote:Similar, except you conveniently left out the part about "poodles" being allowed to get within 1" of "houses". You know, the part where your reasoning blows apart at light speed.

Please quote for me the language giving a ramming vehicle permission to contact another vehicle. Note that the language "if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows." (BGB p. 69) isn't giving the ramming tank permission to contact another vehicle, it is only describing what might happen if it did. That's the part where your reasoning grinds to a screeching halt. If ramming really were a type of tank shock (which it isn't), you'd need more than implicit permission to contact vehicles (which is all you have) to override the rule which applies to every tank shock: "If the tank accidentally moves into contact with a friendly model or comes to within 1" of an enemy vehicle it immediately stops moving" BGB p. 68.

-GK


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny Internets wrote:It's an abstract principle being applied to a game that is itself an abstraction. It's as "real" as Warhammer 40k is.

You mean like determining hierarchical structure based on levels of headings and subheadings? Where have I seen that before?

-GK

GiantKiller wrote:

Concrete statement: Tank Shock! and Ramming are at the same level of sub-heading under Tanks, therefore ramming and tank shocking are two separate actions.
Concrete statement: The rules for Tank Shock! and Ramming clearly differentiate the two, therefore ramming and tank shocking are two separate actions.
Concrete statement: If a Ram is a Tank Shock then Ramming does not work on vehicles (which is absurd) therefore ramming is not tank shocking.

Except none of this has anything to do with the argument.
Noone is arguing whether ramming and tank shocking are distinct, there would be no reason to have them both if they were not.
The last statement uses faulty reasoning and is not based on your previous conclusions. It is entirely possible for a subgroup to have a rule which overrides a rule from the main group (Open topped transports, for example, have rules that change the disembarkation rules from the transport group).

wow I can't believe this is still being debated. reality is we need errata that GW is never going to issue. why? they really dont care about the tournament scene.. they care about 12 yr old modelers.

that being said.. there is more precedence in the tournament scene that it does work than it not working, and knowing that you should plan accordingly. ard boyz 2008 qualifier and semis, (dont know about the finals) ard boyz 2009 qualifier (atleast the one I helped to judge) and other tournaments have ruled it as working. sadly the same tournaments in other locations have ruled it as not working due to the lack of consistent opinion from games workshop.

I would prepare for it to work as written, so you don't make some dumb move (putting a rhino too damn close for example) then end up arguing about it mid game when it gets run over by the battlewagon

For ard boys finals it was ruled that Deffrollas do NOT affect vehicles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorkamorka wrote:Except none of this has anything to do with the argument.
Noone is arguing whether ramming and tank shocking are distinct, there would be no reason to have them both if they were not.
The last statement uses faulty reasoning and is not based on your previous conclusions. It is entirely possible for a subgroup to have a rule which overrides a rule from the main group (Open topped transports, for example, have rules that change the disembarkation rules from the transport group).

Okay you admit they are distinct, yet still you believe they are to be counted as the same action?

Also people keep forgetting that in the ork Codex is says "all Tank Shocks". Capitol letters denote a proper noun. That proper noun is clearly defined in the BGB and does not include Ramming as a subset of Tank Shocks.

Sorry, but they really are two "distinct" actions, and you can't count a Ram as a Tank Shock.

Squares are distinct from rectangles. This does not mean that squares are not rectangles.

Dracos - Except I';ve already proven your argument as false.

Tank Shock is itself defined as a special move (by dint of it not being a normal move, which a Tank Shock is "instead of") and Ram is defined, in the rules, as a "special Tank Shock move executed in the same way as a Tank Shock with some exceptions" - so a ram is a Tank Shock move but with some exceptions.

So Rams are a subset of all possible Tank Shock moves, and Tank Shocks are a subset of possible moves that Tanks can make.

Ram is a subset of (All Tank Shocks) whichi is a subset of (All Moves) and it therefore triggers the D6 attacks.

Ramming is a special form of tank shock. It's in the rulebook under ramming. By the letter of the rules it works. It sucks that so many people are so bent on winning that they'll twist a rule any way they can to deny an ork player their only reliable means of taking out heavy armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dracos wrote:

Also people keep forgetting that in the ork Codex is says "all Tank Shocks". Capitol letters denote a proper noun. That proper noun is clearly defined in the BGB and does not include Ramming as a subset of Tank Shocks.

Sorry, but they really are two "distinct" actions, and you can't count a Ram as a Tank Shock.

What part of "all tank shocks" don't you understand? Ramming is a special form of tank shock. This should be a no brainer.

Alas both your posts are rife with misquotes, so its hard to debate the point. A Tank Shock is by definition a special move which can't affect vehicles. That part is not hard to understand. Ramming is a related action that uses much of the same rules as Tank Shock, but is its own action both by the structure of the rules and the effects of the action.

Anyways guys, I've reiterated myself too much already.

artyboy wrote:Ramming is a special type of tank shock. It's in the rulebook under ramming. By the letter of the rules it doesnt work. It sucks that so many people are so bent on winning that they'll twist a rule any way they can to give an ork player means of taking out heavy armor with a piece of wargear meant to deal with light armor....and lacking any AP value...

This should be a no brainer.

Fixed it for you.

Dracos wrote:Alas both your posts are rife with misquotes, so its hard to debate the point. A Tank Shock is by definition a special move which can't affect vehicles. That part is not hard to understand. Ramming is a related action that uses much of the same rules as Tank Shock, but is its own action both by the structure of the rules and the effects of the action.

Anyways guys, I've reiterated myself too much already.

So you claim that tank shock is a special move, and then say that the phrase "A ram is a special type of tank shock move" implies that ramming is not in fact a type of tank shock move, only that it uses some of the same rules? Am I reading that right?

The anti-rolla crowd appears to be getting desperate.
Yet again they return to the 'Ram can affect vehicles, therefore it can't be a tank shock' argument, despite it being demonstratively false. I'll use my above example again:
By your logic an open topped transport cannot be counted as a transport, since it contains rules that override the normal transport disembarkation rules.

I assumed that the players supporting the use of the Deff Rolla as an anti-tank weapon were quoting rules correctly. Just goes to show how misleading such an assumption is!

To start with, the rules in 4th edition allowed tank shock to occur against all units but with distinct differences. Vehicles with the same frontal armor stayed where they were and the Battlewagon stopped 1 inch short. Those with weaker armor were moved out of the way. The infantry checked morale and could make a death or glory attack. Vehicles remained unharmed in the 4th edition rules! At worst, they might be displaced. Thus the effect on a squadron was also minimal. There is no statement anywhere that a vehicle can be destroyed by tank shock. Neither in the 4th edition rules nor in the Deff Rolla rules.

Now the Deff Rolla sentence which is causing so much problem is the last but one in the rule. However this sentence is joined by an "if" statement to the last sentence. The players who support the use of the this item against tanks seem to ignore the part of the rule that comes after the "if"completely. Convenient but that makes any comment made irrelevent, unless the second part of the rule is explained as well. That second part clearly states that the attacked unit may elect to make a death or glory attack. Clearly this cannot apply to vehicles. Thus the Deff Rolla does not apply to vehicles. For those who claim it does, please focus on the last qualifying sentence of the rule and explain that first.

5th edition introduced the concept of the Ram, whereby tanks can take out other vehicles by ramming. This is a new concept within the main body of the rules and has zero to do with the main 4th edition rules. There is no statement in the 5th edition rules that the RAM is a subset of Tank Shock. The only statement I can find that really links the two is that the former is performed in a similar way.

Anyway, here is the challenge ........please explain how the last sentence, which in the English language does effect and qualify the previous sentence, can apply to tanks!

For those without the rules the last part reads: ...cause D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit. If the unit elects to make a Death or Glory attack ( this statement alone states that it is an option to the attacked unit ), it takes a further D6 Strength 10 hits in addition to the usual effects.

INAT FAQ latest interpretation is thus correct.