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.

Hey guys i was looking around the forums and i couldnt find this topic. Can Battlewagons with Deff Rollas Ram other vehicals, tanks ect? Or is it just infantry units? Thanks for clearing this up.

INAT FAQ answer is no. Run some searches, you should find several loooong threads on this one.

Thank you

What's going on that you can't find this topic on the forums? Did you try the Search function? I'm asking because if it didn't, we should tell Legoburner - not being able to find all the threads on the topic suggests a technical fault in the Search function.

Nurglitch wrote:What's going on that you can't find this topic on the forums? Did you try the Search function? I'm asking because if it didn't, we should tell Legoburner - not being able to find all the threads on the topic suggests a technical fault in the Search function.

Or a technical fault in the people. Each to his own. IIRC the search IS fuggared atm.

Maybe the search function needs improvement.

For example, would a search for "deff rolla" also pick up "deffrolla" and vice-versa?

If the in-site search function isn't working well you could also try running a google search, which should bring up related posts from this and other forums.

-GK

I know. Half the time the search function just seizes on me, usually on my first attempt.

I test ran this search - deff rolla and deffrolla count as two distinct searches.

Dakka's search function is passable, I just wish it could be limited to thread titles or the like - which would make it more useful then searching the site through google, which is my usual method.

Edit: I've never had it seize on me, though I haven't exactly been lighting up the server with my searches using it either.

Deff rolla used in ramming - ram is a tank shock - d6 st 10 when you tank shock.

Its pretty plain english if you ask me.

PanamaG wrote:Deff rolla used in ramming - ram is a tank shock - d6 st 10 when you tank shock.

Its pretty plain english if you ask me.

Actually, ramming is a "special type of tank shock" as detailed on page 69 of the rulebook. The rules state that "each vehicle will take a hit against the armor facing where the other vehicle. . . .The Stength of the hits (both vehicles) will often be different for different vehicles, and is calculated as follows for each vehicle:"


You see, the rules for the strength of the weapon are detailed and are considered a "special" tank shock. It states that you get "a hit" (indicating single hit - different from what the Deffrolla outlines) and it states that "the strength is calculated in the following manner:"

It doesn't say that it is a tank shock in all respects. It says "it is a tank shock with the following rules".

Don't start this again...it's been done to death.

Ok I wont post here again, but I will say a ram IS a tank shock in terms of how it is worded, just because it doesnt match word for word doesnt matter.

PanamaG wrote:Ok I wont post here again, but I will say a ram IS a tank shock in terms of how it is worded, just because it doesnt match word for word doesnt matter.

Actually, it kind of does. The Rules for Instant Death and Sniper rifles do not match word for word, but hell, lets have my sniper rifles inflict instant death!

A Ram is a Special Type of Tank Shock. Deff Rollas only work with Normal Tank Shocks. If it worked with rams, it would say "Tank Shocks or Rams" or "Tank Shocks (Including Rams)".

Except that it says that "ramming is a special type of tank shock attack" and in ordinary plain English that means it's not a regular type of tank shock attack and that it is distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual.

Ramming affects infantry, jump infantry, cavalry, monstrous creatures, and bikes like a regular tank shock attack. However, the tank is prohibited from firing, must move at its top speed, and can affect vehicles using the formula of mass/armour/speed to resolve hits on both the ramming tank and the rammed vehicle.

The book further mentions, again in plain English, that if the target vehicle is Destroyed (Explodes) then the ramming tank can continue to move until it runs out of movement or it encountes another enemy "which it will tank shock or ram again."

The fact is that tanks must stop 1" short of vehicles during a tank shock attack, and may hit them during ramming should give you some idea Deff Rollas only affect units that can be the victims of tank shock attacks, and not the victims of ramming.

Even if you disagree with what the rules state in plain English, you must recognize that good sportsmanship says that when rules are disputed you should play the interpretation that gives you the least advantage to the user of the disputed rules.

First off, I agree with Gwar. This is pretty clear cut. Deff Rollas do not work in ramming attacks.

Secondly, Nurglitch, you say that good sportsmanship says that when a rule is disputed you must play it in the way that gives you the least advantage? First off, that's impossible, otherwise someone is being a bad sport. According to that logic, no two people can have a rules dispute that ends with both of them in the bounds of good sportsmanship.

So, if I am in a game with some lunkhead who goes off on a disputed issue where he is clearly in the wrong, everyone knows he is in the wrong, every internet community says he's wrong, Dakka says he's wrong, hell, Gwar! comes to his house and issues him a signed affidavit of wrongness, and yet he continues to persist, and I concede out of the interest of game expediency, and and HE is the good sport? (Assuming I am the one who gained the benefit of the disputed rules call)

Sorry, but there is a right answer and a wrong answer when it comes to rules calls. The real test of good sportsmanship is to acknowledge when you are in the wrong and concede to superior logic.

jimsolo wrote:Gwar! comes to his house and issues him a signed affidavit of wrongness

This Idea, I like it. I likes it very much!

Regarding the whole search thing.

If a site has a dodgy search function you can always use google.

just put the following in the search bar(without the quotations):

"site:http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/ Deffrolla Deff rolla"

obviously you can substitute the site for something entirely different if you want, it's useful when a site has a bad search function.

jimsolo:

I suppose I was unclear: the idea is that if you have a rule in your army that your opponent disputes, then you should give him the benefit of the doubt and go with the interpretation that is of least advantage to you. Of course it'll be an advantage to him, but it's symmetrical: good sportsmanship prevents him from taking advantage by unreasonably disputing rules, and prevents you from taking advantage when there is a reasonable dispute.

So, hopefully more clearly, if you are playing with said lunkhead who's being unreasonable, then he's being unsportsmanlike.

I quite agree that there is a right answer and a wrong answer when it comes to the rules. How you play it, however, is a matter of consensus, and only good sportsmen can reach a consensus.

This has been done to literally death can we just have a moratorium on Deff Rolla questions.


Play the game hwoever you like with your friends but dont assume stuff in a pick up game and ask before hand. If you go to a tourney ask if they use the GW faq or INAT Faq encourage them to use the INAT faq its a really nicely done document.


There that solves all of your rules questions forever

Gwar! wrote:

PanamaG wrote:Ok I wont post here again, but I will say a ram IS a tank shock in terms of how it is worded, just because it doesnt match word for word doesnt matter.

Actually, it kind of does. The Rules for Instant Death and Sniper rifles do not match word for word, but hell, lets have my sniper rifles inflict instant death!

A Ram is a Special Type of Tank Shock. Deff Rollas only work with Normal Tank Shocks. If it worked with rams, it would say "Tank Shocks or Rams" or "Tank Shocks (Including Rams)".

Does it say somewhere that Sniper rifles are a special kind of Instant Death? Or is this just a completely disingenuous argument?

There's as much reason to think that wargear that affects Tank Shock also affects "special kinds" of Tank Shock as there is reason to believe the opposite. It's an ambiguous rule. Discuss it with your opponents, and don't be the kind of jackass who tries to ram a rules interpretation down other people's throats without clear backing from the rulebook.

What is it you people don't understand?
Are your epeens really that small?
Do you really think you can add anything new to this subject.

Read the other loooong threads on this subject, check if your viewpoint haven't been presented (I bet you it has) AND LET THIS ONE DIE!

If this issue is going to be debated again (and I certainly don't think it needs to be), my stance on the issue can be found here.

I'll leave it at that.

-GK

This has been discussed in several recent and firestormy threads. In addition to the above posts please look for those.

Starting counter fires to stop the looming forest fire.