Is a ram attack a tank shock?

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.

**jimbobmacdoodle**

Ok, this may have been discussed here before, but I'm new to the forum was reading the INAT FAQ before posting anything. I came across a couple of things that confused me a little, namely the statements regarding the Ork Reinforced Ram and Deff Rollas not being usable in a ram. My argument against these statements are as follows:
1) "Ramming is a special type of tank shock" (see pg 69, little rule book, top right para).
2) (For Reinforced Rams): "A vehicle with a reinforced ram can Tank Shock" (see pg 93, Ork Codex, "Reinforced Ram")
3) (For Deff Rollas): "Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 S10 hits on the victim unit" (se pg 55, Ork Codex, "Deff Rolla")
Surely since ramming is a type of tank shock, anything that would normally apply to a tank shock would also apply to a ram?
I would be interesting to know what others thought, and what the reasoning behind the FAQ is. I personally think it's more fun to see a battlewagon completely crush a vehicle as it drives over it (and surely the name ram implies its use? :-D).

**nosferatu1001**

Do a search, been discussed to death

Going by probably RAI the deffrolla would work in a ram, as a) it did in 4th and b) rams are a special type of tank shock, therefore deffrollas whcih work for ANY tank shock must work for this type of tank shock.

**1hadhq**

jimbobmacdoodle wrote:Ok, this may have been discussed here before, but I'm new to the forum was reading the INAT FAQ before posting anything. I came across a couple of things that confused me a little, namely the statements regarding the Ork Reinforced Ram and Deff Rollas not being usable in a ram. My argument against these statements are as follows:
1) "Ramming is a special type of tank shock" (see pg 69, little rule book, top right para).
2) (For Reinforced Rams): "A vehicle with a reinforced ram can Tank Shock" (see pg 93, Ork Codex, "Reinforced Ram")
3) (For Deff Rollas): "Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 S10 hits on the victim unit" (se pg 55, Ork Codex, "Deff Rolla")
Surely since ramming is a type of tank shock, anything that would normally apply to a tank shock would also apply to a ram?
I would be interesting to know what others thought, and what the reasoning behind the FAQ is. I personally think it's more fun to see a battlewagon completely crush a vehicle as it drives over it (and surely the name ram implies its use? :-D).

DO search, as nosferatu1001 suggested.

There may be never any new arguments after those multiple threads.

Personal Opinion / On

1) tankshock is split up in 5th ed to 2 seperate rules. One rule vs non-vehicle units, one rule vs vehicles.
2) reinforced ram is an upgrade to entitle a vehicle to use Tankshock even its not a tank. It also strengthens the armor of a tank in a ramming move.
3) more fun depends on both players agree on the way to play this.
4) Usually youre entitled to use what IS mentioned, not what is considered beeing the same.

Personal opinion / off

**sourclams**

Personal Opinion, from strictest RAW reading:

A reinforced ram allows you to Tank Shock.

A Ram is a special type of Tank Shock.

Thus you have unlocked access to the Tank Shock ability, but not to the Ram special Tank Shock.

This is different from the Deffrolla, which specifically states 'Any Tank Shock...'. Since a Ram is a special type of Tank Shock, and the Deffrolla can Ram because it is on a tank, the qualifier applies retroactively.

To put it more simply: All Rams are Tank Shocks, but not all Tank Shocks are Rams.

**Gwar!**

sourclams wrote:To put it more simply: All Rams are Tank Shocks, but not all Tank Shocks are Rams.

What the nonsweetmollusc said

**Drunkspleen**

Just as a counterpoint to Sourclams' point, A ram move may be a special kind of tank shock move, but the ram effect applied to vehicles has absolutely nothing to do with the tank shock effect applied to infantry models, there is nothing linking them.

The Deff Rolla rules say "Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit." Note that a given tank shock has a singular victim unit in this instance.

This means either the tank shock referenced in the Deff Rolla rules is the effect rather than the move, and the hits cannot apply to vehicles, or alternatively, the tank shock referenced means the movement, rather than the effect, and if you tank shock twenty different units then only one of them recieves the hits, the victim unit (although we are never told how to identify 'the victim unit').

**sourclams**

I'd agree with you if it said 'A Tank Shock'. Instead it says 'Any Tank Shock'. 'Any' is as broad an inclusive term as exists. Rams are special types of Tank Shock, therefore they are included in 'any Tank Shock'.

This is an argument that has been done to death, however, and I would point out that the OP was asking only about Reinforced Rams, not Deathrollas. I used the Deathrolla to juxtapose being able to Tank Shock and being able to Ram, and to show that if you can perform the general ability, you still might not have access to the specific types.

**Dracos**

jimbobmacdoodle wrote:
1) "Ramming is a special type of tank shock" (see pg 69, little rule book, top right para).

You are missing part of the quote. its a "type of tank shock move". The word move there is important as it show that the statement serves to allow the tank to move within 1" of the enemy vehicle. If that statement was not there, the Ram would not function as it would be still bound to the 1" rule. Just because it is a type of tank shock move does not mean it is a Tank Shock as is outlined on p.68.

jimbobmacdoodle wrote:2) (For Reinforced Rams): "A vehicle with a reinforced ram can Tank Shock" (see pg 93, Ork Codex, "Reinforced Ram")
3) (For Deff Rollas): "Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 S10 hits on the victim unit" (se pg 55, Ork Codex, "Deff Rolla")
Surely since ramming is a type of tank shock, anything that would normally apply to a tank shock would also apply to a ram?
I would be interesting to know what others thought, and what the reasoning behind the FAQ is. I personally think it's more fun to see a battlewagon completely crush a vehicle as it drives over it (and surely the name ram implies its use? :-D).

Unfortunately a Tank Shock is not a Ram nor vica versa. They are different rules. The old language in the Ork Codex does not mention ramming, so it cannot be used for that purpose.

edit: Anyways thats the other side of the argument. There i still lots of disagreement over being a type of tank shock move is enough to make it count as a Tank Shock.

**Gwar!**

Dracos wrote:Unfortunately a Tank Shock is not a Ram nor vica versa.

All Rams are Tank Shocks, but not all Tank Shocks are Rams.

**Dracos**

Incorrect. A Ram is a special type of tank shock move, not a Tank Shock. Sorry, thats RAW. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

edit this has been covered before, ill try to get links.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/216779.page

**Gwar!**

A Tank shock = A Tank Shock Move.

"A Tank Shock" is just shorthand.

**Dracos**

Well now you are going beyond the scope of the text and into RAI territory. That is not implicit in the text. The phrase that is being taken out of context is simply telling you that you can move within the normal 1" limit, thats it. It does not in any ways state that a Ram counts as a Tank Shock.

edit: sorry I'm gonna stop beating this horse dry, i think its all been said before.

**Orkeosaurus**

yakface wrote:The issue is that what constitutes the 'RAW' in many situations varies greatly between two people as language is not a perfect science like mathematics.

So if you approach a game intending to play the 'RAW' be aware that you are really attempting to play the 'RAW as you interpret them'. If you don't take this fact into consideration and work to amicably resolve the differences of interpretation that you and your opponent have then be aware that it is you who is causing the issue, not your opponent who you believe is 'not playing by the RAW'.

Especially true in this instance.

**orkishlyorkish**

sourclams wrote:Personal Opinion, from strictest RAW reading:

A reinforced ram allows you to Tank Shock.

A Ram is a special type of Tank Shock.

Thus you have unlocked access to the Tank Shock ability, but not to the Ram special Tank Shock.

This is different from the Deffrolla, which specifically states 'Any Tank Shock...'. Since a Ram is a special type of Tank Shock, and the Deffrolla can Ram because it is on a tank, the qualifier applies retroactively.

To put it more simply: All Rams are Tank Shocks, but not all Tank Shocks are Rams.

QFT
I followed the opposing until I read your post here.

-Orkishly

**barontuman**

I see this debated quite a lot, and there are generally a large audience which believe that rollaz can be used against vehicles. I personally talked to Phil Kelly who said that "I wouldn't be dissapointed" when I brought up the concern just before 5th edition. So I KNOW the intent of the author!

I suggest that you send a PM to Yakface an ask him to reverse the ruling. It's wrong, and goes against the intent of the author.

Further, what else do Orks have to deal with AV14/14/14? Power Klaws that hit on 6's??? Seriously, we have nothing like monsterous creatures, meltas, etc. But every other codex does!!!! Why do people want to screw orks?

**Gwar!**

barontuman wrote:I see this debated quite a lot, and there are generally a large audience which believe that rollaz can be used against vehicles. I personally talked to Phil Kelly who said that "I wouldn't be dissapointed" when I brought up the concern just before 5th edition. So I KNOW the intent of the author!

I spoke to Jesus Once, he told me the Bible was a total crock. Who Knew! </Sarcasm>

Sorry, but saying, annonymously, on an Internet forum "I met XYZ" is not good enough. Photo evidence or a Lawyer aproved Affidavit, then we'll talk.

**SonofTerra**

"Why do people want to screw orks?"

Cause they are sexy?

(sorry couldnt resist)

**yakface**

barontuman wrote:I see this debated quite a lot, and there are generally a large audience which believe that rollaz can be used against vehicles. I personally talked to Phil Kelly who said that "I wouldn't be dissapointed" when I brought up the concern just before 5th edition. So I KNOW the intent of the author!

I suggest that you send a PM to Yakface an ask him to reverse the ruling. It's wrong, and goes against the intent of the author.

Further, what else do Orks have to deal with AV14/14/14? Power Klaws that hit on 6's??? Seriously, we have nothing like monsterous creatures, meltas, etc. But every other codex does!!!! Why do people want to screw orks?

For those not aware, our 'original' ruling on the Deff Rolla for the INAT FAQ before Adepticon (the 2.0 version) was to allow it to be used against vehicles. But in our updated (2.1 and beyond) version we reversed that ruling. I explained why here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/227443.page

But I'll repost it for those who don't want to click:

As for the INAT FAQ (for those who care), in the 2.1 version that will be coming out tomorrow we have reversed our previous ruling and gone with the stance that Deff Rollas cannot be used with Rams (and also therefore that Reinforced Rams do not allow Trukks to Ram either).

I personally believe that the rules support the position Sourclams has been arguing:

Ramming is a type of Tank Shocking, similar to how a Morale Check is a type of Leadership Test. The Deff Rolla says it works with any Tank Shock and therefore it should function with a Ram. This would be the same concept as if there was a special rule that did D6 S10 hits to a unit when it took a Ld test. If a unit then had to take a Morale check would this not still be a Ld test? Of course it would and as such the rule would apply.

However, having said that, there are other factors to consider some of which being the fact that both the UKGT house rules this year (which I've gotten the chance to read a preview version of) and John Spencer are both ruling that Deff Rollas do not work with Ramming. With an issue that so divided and one that can have a pretty big impact on games we felt it behooved us to have our FAQ ruling the same way as these other two sources, especially since the argument either way really comes down to semantics.

So for those of you looking to play strictly by the RAW you just have to know that this is an issue you'll have to discuss with your opponent before the game, and for those playing in the UKGT or a tournament using the INAT FAQ this year, you will not be able to use Deff Rollas when ramming.

As for something Phil Kelly told you, we always need to remember that something a codex author mentions to us isn't necessarily the way that GW ends up ruling on the matter when they finally get around to it. A good anecdote to illustrate this point is one that Muwhe (Hank from Adepticon) posted a while ago:

Phil Kelly was at AdeptiCon. I will start off saying that both Phil and Graham outstanding special guests. Both of them fantastic with our attendees and staff. We ask a number of things of our special guests depending on their role with in GW. Guest judging, playing some games, holding a seminar, etc… and both Phil and Graham handled it all with class.

Phil happened to be on the floor and got called into a Lash of Submission question. He made the call and then proceeded to come over to the main 40K judging table and told us how he called it. Explained his reasoning and was pretty firm about this position. But also was concerned that he was on the same page as the rest of the AdeptiCon rule judges. His call much to my amusement was exactly the way we had called it. So all was good. All the heat, debate, and long hours of discussion on the council to then to be vindicated by one of GW’s lead designers well frankly it felt pretty good.

Sometime after Adepticon, GW updated the Chaos FAQ/Errata and the ruling / position of Lash was completely different . So it was good while it lasted.

I have thought long about that experience. What if Phil Kelly had written the Chaos FAQ instead? Would the GW “Official” word on Lash be different? I think we as fans and players tend to think of the GW Studio as some oracle on high .. that hands down 40K rulings with the certainty of the ten commandments, everything in lock step agreement. When the reality is there is probably as much disagreement and play differences among the studio as there is within the GW community. With 5th edition we are still dealing with books written and influenced by people now long gone from the company ( Andy Chambers, Pete Haines, Gav Thorpe, ) … new faces are in the studio and working on books. All putting their mark on the games we play. But there has not been a consistent language/terminology/guidance across all the works. Jervis’s vision of 40K is greatly different that Andy’s. It has been made clear to me they are not interested in writing rules to support a tourney environment. It is the hand we have been dealt.

**Nurglitch**

THERE ARE FIVE LIGHTS!

**Jayden63**

Nurglitch wrote:THERE ARE FIVE LIGHTS!

LOL, thanks I needed that.

**nostromo**

Dracos wrote:Incorrect. A poodle is a special type of dog, not a dog. Sorry, thats RAW. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

yakface wrote:
With an issue that so divided and one that can have a pretty big impact on games we felt it behooved us to have our FAQ ruling the same way as these other two sources, especially since the argument either way really comes down to semantics.

If that's the argumentation the INAT faq provides, then I'll call that a house rule.