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.

horsa wrote: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.

Your argument makes no sense. In 4th ed the vehicle being displaced made it a victim of the tank shock and entirely eligible for rolla hits, which could destroy it.

horsa wrote:
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.

This also has no bearing on the argument, and is wrong. Nowhere is it stated that the option to elect to take the DoG attack must be available to the target, it only specifies what happens if it can and does.
Whether or not the unit is able to elect to take a death or glory attack has no effect on the previous sentence regarding when the rolla is applied, or the initial 1d6 hits.

horsa wrote:Those with weaker armor were moved out of the way.

Thus making them a VICTIM of the tank shock. Hence getting D6 S10 hits. All per the deff rolla rules.

It would help if you could read rules correctly before stating others are not.

horsa wrote:The infantry checked morale and could make a death or glory attack. Vehicles remained unharmed in the 4th edition rules!

Erm, wrong. You miss that Deff Rollas effect units affected by TS. Being moved out the way definitely means you have been affected byt hte tank shock. Nice try though. Oh - and 4th ed didnt need to say vehicles could be harmed, as the codex does.

horsa wrote: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.

It doesn't need to: it talks about units and vehicles are units, therefore vehicles can be affected by the Deff Rolla [assuming the trigger conditions are met]. So you're still wrong.

If you have been moved by a tank shock then the deff rolla affects you as you were a victim of the tank shock. Infantry units were always affected by TS, Vehicles only sometimes (in 4th)

horsa wrote: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.

A following "if" is not a conditional on the previous sentence that must be fulfilled in order to trigger the first statement. Major language failure there, I'm afraid. If the "if" triggers is irrelevant to the first statement being possible or "true"

horsa wrote: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.

Nope, the "if" is irrelevant: whether it triggers or not makes no difference to the preceding statement being triggered. THis is why we are ignoring it - it is completely 100% unimportant to the rules question.

horsa wrote:That second part clearly states that the attacked unit may elect to make a death or glory attack. Clearly this cannot apply to vehicles.

And as has been explained this is irrelevant. Oh and it only asks if they "elect" to make a DoG - as vehicles cannot elect to do so you have fulfilled this statement. Nowhere does it state the affected unit MUST be able to make a DoG, just what happens IF they choose to do so.

horsa wrote: 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.

Done, and your conclusion based off it is therefore false. It was false in 4th, and it is false now. Demonstrably so.

horsa wrote:5th edition introduced the concept of the Ram, whereby tanks can take out other vehicles by ramming.

Actually it reintroduced it, but carry on.

horsa wrote: This is a new concept within the main body of the rules and has zero to do with the main 4th edition rules.

4th was referred to as the deff rolla affected vehicles then, when the codex was written. It shows, quite clearly, RAI. That is all it was being used for however.

horsa wrote: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.

So the part that says Ramming is a Special form of Tank Shock move doesn't link the two? Where it goes on to say it is performed as a Tank Shock but with some exceptions? I'd suggest you look harder when reading rules if you can't spot those, especially as they have been quoted inthis thread a couple dozen times.

It does not state it is a subset using that exact word, however it tells you it is a special Tank Shock (move), same as a Tank Shock is a special mvoe. Unless you are entirely blind if you are a special (something) that means you are part of the set of (all Somethings). This is elementary and is what the anti- crowd have yet to tackle.

horsa wrote: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!

Because, as has been explained to you, it doesn't qualify the first? It states "IF......" - well if the unit cannot do the "if", it still doesn't stop the first sentence. Oh, and btw: Walkers can make DoG against Ramming. So even if your premise was true, which it isn't, it STILL allows Deff Rollas to work against vehicles. So your entire argument has just failed, quite impresively.

Oh, and in case you're wondering: Walkers have already been mentioned in relation to DoG earlier on in this thread. At least twice. Reading the thread would help here.

horsa wrote: 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.

If the unit cannot make a DoG attack it cannot Elect to make one. The If is not negated.

horsa wrote:INAT FAQ latest interpretation is thus correct.

The INAT FaQ is therefore not correct.

Edit: Fixign stupid tags and editing mistakes.

Horsa: Your argument is invalid. Not being able to elect to make a death or glory attack does not negate the phrase as it only applies in the event the unit does elect to make the Death or Glory. The inability to elect to make the death or glory attack has no bearing on the rule.

I'm on your side of the debate, but the reasons I have stated. I just think your justification is false.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I am arguing it is a *special tank shock*,

You shouldn't need to argue something that's written black on white.
Using written words in an attempt convince people who misinterpret 'IS' into 'IS NOT' is bound to fail.
Communication with such people should be ceased to preserve your sanity.

You rule bending ork players digust me. Being neutral to this argument, one side is soooo much more convincing. Old rules, fluff, and lust to blow up land raiders dont let you change the rules.
Give Up. All of the threads i have read are leaning towards no. INAT faq says no. Ard Boyz final says no. People who dont play orks say no. NO!!!

I... Have a question. If you need to tank shock in order to get the d6 st10 hits. But you have to stop 1 inch away from a tank if your tank shocking. How is it that in the words of your own can you tank shock a veihicle. The rule states that it is a special type of tank shocking yes. But once it is done tank shocking a unit that is between both tanks does it not revert back to ramming or does it remain tank shocking?

If you choose to say that it remains as a tank shock would it not stop 1 inch infront of the tank not able to move?

And if you said it was ramming so that it could contact the other tank would it no longer be under the tank shock rules and then the deffrolla would not work anymore?

Also another question. Tank shocking forces a moral test. Vehicles cannot take one in any form. Therefore would they not be eligible to be tank shocked as normal. Also in a tnak shock the unit has a choice to death or glory. Since you do not get this choice how could the rule even work as you describe it as the conditions are not met.

Main reasons why I don't think it would work and I would argue against it.

Also no previous additions work. using it as the base of your argument is flawed.

Khaine wrote:You rule bending ork players digust me. Being neutral to this argument, one side is soooo much more convincing. Old rules, fluff, and lust to blow up land raiders dont let you change the rules.
Give Up. All of the threads i have read are leaning towards no. INAT faq says no. Ard Boyz final says no. People who dont play orks say no. NO!!!

Yay for personal attacks!
From my point of view, you rule bending deffrolla haterz are the problem.
I mean, if we're going to CHANGE THE RULES for deffrollas because they're overpowered, why don't we change the rules for Lash?
Or change the rules for Dark Angels so they don't suck?

GW need to FAQ this.

Get back on subject people. Id liek some one to attempt to answer my questions.

Golga - "Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock move" - and remember that Tank Shock is also defined as a special move.

So it is a special type. You then follow the rules for how this differs from a normal tank shock.

Reading comphrension FTW!

Now, if you want to change the rules so it doesnt work - fine. Just admit thast is what you are doing.

Golga wrote:I... Have a question. If you need to tank shock in order to get the d6 st10 hits. But you have to stop 1 inch away from a tank if your tank shocking. How is it that in the words of your own can you tank shock a veihicle. The rule states that it is a special type of tank shocking yes. But once it is done tank shocking a unit that is between both tanks does it not revert back to ramming or does it remain tank shocking?

If a ram is a special type of tank shock, then it is a tank shock that behaves unusually. A choppa is a type of close combat weapon. A 'uge Choppa is a special type of close combat weapon. It behaves differently than the standard version- hence the term 'special'.

Golga wrote:If you choose to say that it remains as a tank shock would it not stop 1 inch infront of the tank not able to move?

And if you said it was ramming so that it could contact the other tank would it no longer be under the tank shock rules and then the deffrolla would not work anymore?

The ability to contact vehicles is one of the things that makes ramming special. The argument is essentially whether or not a special type of tank shock is something else entirely, or a variant of tank shock.

I find dog breeds are a relatively good analogy. You've got a brown Labrador Retriever and a yellow Labrador Retriever. Are the yellow ones a special type of Labrador Retriever or Golden Labrador Retrievers? How much of the information and behvaiors we have documented about the Labrador Retrievers apply to these special types or new breeds? This is the sort of question that revolves around Tank Shock.

Golga wrote:Also another question. Tank shocking forces a moral test. Vehicles cannot take one in any form. Therefore would they not be eligible to be tank shocked as normal. Also in a tnak shock the unit has a choice to death or glory. Since you do not get this choice how could the rule even work as you describe it as the conditions are not met.

Main reasons why I don't think it would work and I would argue against it.

Also no previous additions work. using it as the base of your argument is flawed.

Losing over half of the models in your unit forces a morale check as well. Yet I've never seen a vehicle squadron take a morale check. Vehicles are always immune to morale. I don't think this is the best avenue to argue against Deffrolling vehicles.

If you meant 'editions' then there is some relevance in using 4th edition. The Ork Codex was released when 4th edition was out, and 5th was presumably being playtested. Much like the Chaos Codex, it is technically a 4.5 codex. This bastardized construction technique and the many unusual and Orky units in the codex are why debate continues to this day. I hope that answers your questions.

Khaine wrote:You rule bending ork players digust me. Being neutral to this argument, one side is soooo much more convincing. Old rules, fluff, and lust to blow up land raiders dont let you change the rules.
Give Up. All of the threads i have read are leaning towards no. INAT faq says no. Ard Boyz final says no. People who dont play orks say no. NO!!!

Go away.

For the Deff Rolla to work on a vehicle it's rules would need to say it can be used in a ram as ramming =/= tank shock. It is a different form of it, but RAW they are different things.

Seven pages, time for this to go away again......................

Hopefully for good this time.

Not until/unless GW actually issues an FAQ on it, and even then there will be the complaints and cries of "not official" from the 'losing' side.

Heh. The merry go round is cycling once again. The discussion seems to be back on topic and rehashing the arguments on page 2 and 3 of this particular thread.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Golga - "Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock move" - and remember that Tank Shock is also defined as a special move.

So it is a special type. You then follow the rules for how this differs from a normal tank shock.

Except nowhere in the ramming rules does it expressly permit the ramming vehicle to contact another vehicle. It has only implicit permission, which isn't enough to override the clearly expressed prohibition in the tank shock rules. Implicit permission works if and only if ramming is a separate action and isn't inheriting the "If the tank ... comes to within 1" of an enemy vehicle, it immediately stops moving" rule (BGB p. 68) from Tank Shock.

In short, ramming only works on vehicles if it is not a Tank Shock.

-GK

Except the rules state it IS a Tank Shock: a Special form of it.

So you either follow the implicit permission AND the rules telling you it works, or you change the rules so it doesnt to satisfy.....what now?

Ah thats right - people not liking it running over LR. Arguing realism. With walk plant-animal-fungi.

Exactly, if you tank shock and use the Deff Rolla you stop 1" away from the tank and don't ram it because you don't make contact.

Seriously the Deff Rolla costs 20 points, by itself does that look like the option to use it against vehicles has been taken into consideration?
Think about that with intelligance rather than bias for a second. Power Klaws being crapper than it cost 25 points, but can be used against vehicles. Now, I know this isn't the strongest arguement for it but it's still better than a fair few of the ones asking for it.

There should be no need for a FAQ on this matter. RAW states that it is used in a Tank shock, a Tank Shock states that the vehicle has to stop 1" away from an enemy vehicle. Ramming is a subset of Tank Shock and RAW means that they are not the same. Ram also states that you have to contact the enemy vehicle. Thus, tank shocking itself cancels any attempts against an enemy vehicle with it, as you would have to stop before making contact with an enemy vehicle and causing a ram.

Basically TFG is the cause of this problem as I see it.

Just use Lootas or Tankbustas and move on with your lives, wasting time on this is stupid. I can see the FAQ just changing it from units to infantry.

I think it would be cool to run over tanks like that and I would even leave it up to a roll of a die until an official ruling is made, but current RAW says you cannot do it. The best solution is just to roll off for it with your opponent until an official FAQ is released and drop the matter as it takes away from other more important rules questions that could be noticed if we didn't waste time worrying about something like this.

n0t_u wrote:Seriously the Deff Rolla costs 20 points, by itself does that look like the option to use it against vehicles has been taken into consideration?

Protip: It could be used against vehicles with Front AV 13 and less in 4th edition, ya know, the edition the codex was written for.

In other words, you have no clue what you are talking about.

I said that part wasn't very good

n0t_u wrote:
Basically TFG is the cause of this problem as I see it.

Just use Lootas or Tankbustas and move on with your lives, wasting time on this is stupid.

Just a little tip... the anti-rolla crowd are the TFGs. Arguing that their singular interpretation of a minor rule addition means they can deny ork players an ability they clearly have RAI, their codex was clearly written for, and many strongly believe they have RAW in the new rules anyway.

I mean really, arguing that it is impossible since you can't ram a vehicle? I'm sure 99% of players manage to figure out that the implicit allowance is enough... especially with the block of text describing the results of such a collision followed by a large text and picture example demonstrating a ram involving a vehicle to vehicle collision.

"
Seriously the Deff Rolla costs 20 points, by itself does that look like the option to use it against vehicles has been taken into consideration?
Think about that with intelligance rather than bias for a second. Power Klaws being crapper than it cost 25 points, but can be used against vehicles. Now, I know this isn't the strongest arguement for it but it's still better than a fair few of the ones asking for it."
You mean the cost that was set when the ability clearly worked against vehicles? Yeah, the RAI here was obviously that it wouldn't work in the future. How about you 'think about that with intelligence' yourself?

"Ramming is a subset of Tank Shock and RAW means that they are not the same."
What does that even mean? If ram is a type of tank shock, then it is a type of tank shock... it's not complicated.

I didn't say what side the TFGs are on, just that the problem wouldn't have occured if they hadn't taken action. Just like with the Valk's wings arguements.

Like I said, RAW say you can't. But, until there is an FAQ just roll for it with your opponent. Play more for fun, than trying to work out obscure rules. There will never be a 100% agreement, until there is an offical GW FAQ covering the matter.

Yes RAM is a type of Tank Shock, but RAW as the argument seems to want (boring and drains away from the fun of the game >_> ) would say Ram is a type of Tank Shock, but it isn't Tank Shock specifically. That is the reason I said that before.

Honestly, if you did win the roll off against me to use the Deff Rollas I would be fine with it. It fits the Fluff with the Orks ramming their vehicles into the enemy then jumping out to bash them. I'd rather see the FAQ ruling is that they can, but with slight variation to it. Mostly to avoid the whining it would create.

Gorkamorka wrote:I mean really, arguing that it is impossible since you can't ram a vehicle?

Wrong on so many levels. One cannot Tank Shock a vehicle. One can Ram a vehicle. Declare a Ram, and no one cares. The problem is claiming that a vehicle can be the victim of a Tank Shock.

Gorkamorka wrote:"Ramming is a subset of Tank Shock and RAW means that they are not the same."
What does that even mean? If ram is a type of tank shock, then it is a type of tank shock... it's not complicated.

Ram is a special type of Tank Shock move. Not debatable.
Claiming that since Tank Shock is a special option in the movement phase, and that Ram using some of the same rules (not even a sub heading mind you, just a reference) should allow Ram = Tank Shock is debatable.

Claiming Ram = subset of Tank Shock means that Ram follows ALL rules for Tank Shock with, potentially, additional stipulations.

"Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes d6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit" does not follow that vehicles can be affected. A vehicle cannot be the victim unit of Tank Shock. Even if you claim it's "special", it is NOT Tank Shocked, it is Rammed.

Walkers use some infantry rules. You cannot move them without looking at the infantry movement section. Yet no one claims that Walkers ARE infantry. They are a special type of vehicle, but can they Tank Shock or Ram?

Jet Packs are a special type of Jump Pack - Jet packs still move only 6" in the move phase.

Also, INAT says no. I use it even when I disagree, as do most tourneys and places where this will matter. (The only exception to this I have been privy to was a tourney that declared Deff Rollas could not ram up until the day of the competition. One guy showed with 3 and was allowed to use them in Tank Shocks - it was sad).

Amoung friends, local groups, and such, house rules = win. Random folks or tourneys - Ask, discuss, but do not assume.

Also, I play Tyranids only. Deffrolla hit _ALL_ my units for d6 s10 hits. I am relatively impartial in that it affects me not at all.

This whole thing is a moot point, muddied by the fact that the Ork codex was released on the cusp of 5e - so claiming it is definitively written for EITHER edition is another moot point.

/shrug

So do you disallow the use of special close combat weapons, psychic shooting attacks and the like too?

Do you allow vehicles to be the victim of Tank Shock?

Indeed I do, a special form of tank shock, called a Ram.

(Well, actually my local group don't think it works that way, so I go along with them. I think they are all wrong, however. I'm fine with changing rules, but people should admit that that is what they are doing.)

kirsanth wrote:Do you allow vehicles to be the victim of Tank Shock?

Sure, that's also called a Ram.

I sometimes think that GW leaves things like this open because they secretly like to read these rules threads and chuckle over all the nerd-rage and EMORAGE(TM) brought forth.

I further believe that every so often, when the debates lag, that plants by GW come back to start the debate all over.

They're sitting and the corporate head quarters, drinking a pint, while laughing at all of our attempts to debate the issue.

See that is the exact sticking point.
It is not then, the victim of a Tank Shock, which is specifically required for Deff Rollas to cause s10 hits.