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.

Trukks can be used to ram troops, not just tank shock, right? Isn't that the whole idea behind paying points for a Reinforced Ram?

I was playing someone the other day and he said I couldn't ram his troops, only tank shock. I was in a hurry so I didn't think much of it then, but I just wanted to clarify here.

Ram is for vehicles.
Tank Shock is vs non-vehicles.

Yup. The reinforced ram lets the trukk perform a Tank Shock.

Which, depending on your viewpoint, may or may not also allow it to Ram vehicles.

But either way you can't Ram non-vehicle units.

The reinforced ram allows the trukk to tank shock and also makes it a tank, therby getting +1 to its ramming strength.

Eldar Own wrote:... and also makes it a tank,

Nope, doesn't do that. Just allows it to Tank Shock.

There is a storm a brewing. I can feel it coming. We are on the verge of another endless debate so close to the recent Calgar flare up.

Correct nothing states that it's a tank. The Reinforced Ram specifically states it allows the trukk to preform a Tank Shock and give +2 armor vs death or glory. If it can preform a "Ram" as "Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock" is debatable till blue in the face so no need to drudge it back up. If you wish to try and Ram with a Reinforced Ram then settle on it before the match starts or roll a D6.

Oh god, it's like the deffrolla all over again.

Speaking of Deff Rollas... anyone think I can count it as a Weapon Destroyed result?

Let the flames burn!

DoW

There have been a couple threads on that Dogofwar, after participating in them I concluded that there is no solid raw answer on that one. But allowing deff rollas to be destroyed by weapon destroyed results opens the door to having the label every single upgrade vehicles can get as either "functioning as a weapon" or not.

In the end, I'm sticking to interpreting just storm bolters and hunter killers and the like may be targeted this way - the other interpretation runs into issue when considering what quality is required in order for an upgrade to function as a weapon. No clear raw answer imo.

Dracos wrote:There have been a couple threads on that Dogofwar, after participating in them I concluded that there is no solid raw answer on that one. But allowing deff rollas to be destroyed by weapon destroyed results opens the door to having the label every single upgrade vehicles can get as either "functioning as a weapon" or not.

In the end, I'm sticking to interpreting just storm bolters and hunter killers and the like may be targeted this way - the other interpretation runs into issue when considering what quality is required in order for an upgrade to function as a weapon. No clear raw answer imo.

Ah Dracos thank you, but I was actually trying to be obnoxious and re-hash yet another circular nonsense argument. Bandwagons for the win!

But since you were nice enough to actually answer my question earnestly, I'll mention that I think we're in agreement on the issue. The RAW on what actually defines a weapon (or, more importantly, what can count as a weapon) is nebulous at best and, like you said, makes for a severe lack of a clear answer. This being said, I think I'd allow my opponent to treat his Deff Rolla however he chooses, since I'm probably going to put enough fire into it to blow up the vehicle anyway

DoW

DogOfWar wrote:

Dracos wrote:There have been a couple threads on that Dogofwar, after participating in them I concluded that there is no solid raw answer on that one. But allowing deff rollas to be destroyed by weapon destroyed results opens the door to having the label every single upgrade vehicles can get as either "functioning as a weapon" or not.

In the end, I'm sticking to interpreting just storm bolters and hunter killers and the like may be targeted this way - the other interpretation runs into issue when considering what quality is required in order for an upgrade to function as a weapon. No clear raw answer imo.

Ah Dracos thank you, but I was actually trying to be obnoxious and re-hash yet another circular nonsense argument. Bandwagons for the win!

But since you were nice enough to actually answer my question earnestly, I'll mention that I think we're in agreement on the issue. The RAW on what actually defines a weapon (or, more importantly, what can count as a weapon) is nebulous at best and, like you said, makes for a severe lack of a clear answer. This being said, I think I'd allow my opponent to treat his Deff Rolla however he chooses, since I'm probably going to put enough fire into it to blow up the vehicle anyway

DoW

The good thing about the "Is a Deffrolla a weapon?" argument is it's two sided, to assume it is a weapon, the ork player gets the benefit of his battlewagon's being harder to immobilize/weapon destroyed to death, while the opposing player gets the chance to destroy the Deffrolla before the ork player even has a chance to use it. With the Ramming issues, they are much more one sided, so there's a greater room for bias.

Hmm... good point.

A wise man once said on this forum (was it Tri?) that in a rules situation that could go either way, they are always willing to play the less beneficial way for their own army. I tend to agree.

DoW

So Deffrollers can be destroyed, but don't count towards weapons for immobilized checks?

No deffrollas are not weapons.
They are obviously not ranged weapons =_= and to quote "deffrolla is a great spiked roller" no mention of it being a weapon upgrade.
S'alls happend is someone really needed it to be once and won the argument either due to their skills or the other person really having had enough to the bull and let it by, giving them a precident to say 'yes it is!!!'

Same as last weekend I'd been correcting people who been playing for years longer than me (damn rule benders) went to assault his jump inf out of my trukk only to hear 'nonono you can't do that it's impossible' I tried to reason but really couldn't be stuffed to find the page no (70 in the little book) and prove him wrong, I want the game over rather than argue every single ** point. So next time I'm going to say I'm taking Ghaz or a deacked warboss with sniktrot - let him prove I can't (not really but it's sooo tempting).

Sigh....

ChrisCP wrote:Same as last weekend I'd been correcting people who been playing for years longer than me (damn rule benders) went to assault his jump inf out of my trukk only to hear 'nonono you can't do that it's impossible'

If you mean you were trying to assault directly from the trukk, then he was right. Passengers of open-topped vehicles can assault after disembarking even if the vehicle has already moved... but they still have to disembark in the movement phase like everyone else.

ChrisCP wrote:No deffrollas are not weapons.
They are obviously not ranged weapons =_= and to quote "deffrolla is a great spiked roller" no mention of it being a weapon upgrade.
S'alls happend is someone really needed it to be once and won the argument either due to their skills or the other person really having had enough to the bull and let it by, giving them a precident to say 'yes it is!!!'

I used to be hardcore one way (and argued it vehemently!) before I went back to the rule book and read the description of Weapon Destroyed on pg.61 of the BRB. It specifically mentions vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, but no-where does it specify that they have to be ranged weapons. The argument comes into play when you attempt to determine whether an upgrade that can cause "D6 S10 hits against a unit" is functioning as a weapon or not.

I think that's why it's a little more of a difficult ruling, not because someone thought it 'looked' like a weapon or needed it to be.

DoW

phillosmaster wrote:There is a storm a brewing. I can feel it coming. We are on the verge of another endless debate so close to the recent Calgar flare up.

'ERE WE GO, 'ERE WE GO, 'ERE WE GO!!!

insaniak wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:Same as last weekend I'd been correcting people who been playing for years longer than me (damn rule benders) went to assault his jump inf out of my trukk only to hear 'nonono you can't do that it's impossible'

If you mean you were trying to assault directly from the trukk, then he was right. Passengers of open-topped vehicles can assault after disembarking even if the vehicle has already moved... but they still have to disembark in the movement phase like everyone else.

Not directly no - did that once almost got my haed beat in lol.

DogOfWar wrote:I used to be hardcore one way (and argued it vehemently!) before I went back to the rule book and read the description of Weapon Destroyed on pg.61 of the BRB. It specifically mentions vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, but no-where does it specify that they have to be ranged weapons. The argument comes into play when you attempt to determine whether an upgrade that can cause "D6 S10 hits against a unit" is functioning as a weapon or not.

I think that's why it's a little more of a difficult ruling, not because someone thought it 'looked' like a weapon or needed it to be.

DoW

I went back read that referance, I saw your point. And yes function as a weapon......
So I looked up weapon(s) pg. 73 "Every weapon has a profile that consits of several elements, for example...." Which doesn't fit the bill for a deffrolla imo, not being convinced went on to look at CC stuff on pgs. 43, 73 and 58 (vehicles & shooting) there is no mention of a weapon type that will fit for a deffrolla. And repeated mentions of profiles and other more weapon types etc.

I'm getting the feeling that it can be called a weapon in the same way that a bullbar for a car could be called a weapon. In itself it's not a weapon but could be used as one with the right intent ie. driving through a squad of things that go squish. I do feel "ripped off by the force of the attack" could lend some creadence to the matter, but at the same time if an attack ripped off a bullbar I think that'd need a vehical immobilised result (as anyone whos ever hit a bison etc would know). It part of the vehical that just happens to allow you to hurt stuff your driving into. The extension of this I feel would be if one can take a deffrolla off then one could take a ramm off as well...

Tricky thou~!

Tricky indeed.

I think the most conservative approach would be to not count anything that doesn't have a "weapon profile" and call it a day. If you wanted to read into it more and truly go for what the designers intended (or at least what we think they may have intended) then it's 50/50 in my book.

I just wish I could convince the people at my FLGS that you can't ram with a non-tank vehicle unless you have wargear that expressly lets you do so.

That means you, Mr Spehss Mahreen; You and your 24" Land Speeder ramming!

DoW

The thing that finally sold me on the "death rolla doesn't work for rams" is this:

Deathrollas specifically work for tank shocks.

Tank shocks specifically say that your vehicle stops if it comes within 1" of an enemy vehicle.

So how does your vehicle trigger the str 10 hits if it stops before it can come into contact, and thus ram the enemy vehicle.

I think the same logic applies to reinforced rams. Just because the piece of wargear lets you tank shock doesn't let you ram, because your model's not allowed to get close enough to ram.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DogOfWar wrote:Hmm... good point.

A wise man once said on this forum (was it Tri?) that in a rules situation that could go either way, they are always willing to play the less beneficial way for their own army. I tend to agree.

DoW

PS: While I think this is a sentiment that several forumgoers have shared, Gwar! has most stated it most often, I believe.

Didn't this thread start out with trukks? Oh god, what have I done!!!!

willydstyle wrote:The thing that finally sold me on the "death rolla doesn't work for rams" is this:

Deathrollas specifically work for tank shocks.

Tank shocks specifically say that your vehicle stops if it comes within 1" of an enemy vehicle.

So how does your vehicle trigger the str 10 hits if it stops before it can come into contact, and thus ram the enemy vehicle.

I think the same logic applies to reinforced rams. Just because the piece of wargear lets you tank shock doesn't let you ram, because your model's not allowed to get close enough to ram.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DogOfWar wrote:Hmm... good point.

A wise man once said on this forum (was it Tri?) that in a rules situation that could go either way, they are always willing to play the less beneficial way for their own army. I tend to agree.

DoW

PS: While I think this is a sentiment that several forumgoers have shared, Gwar! has most stated it most often, I believe.

le sigh.

Ramming is-say it with me, now- a "special form of Tank Shock move". If you cannot get closer to an enemy vehicle than one inch while performing a tank shock move, then you can't ram AT ALL. If you can ignore the one inch restriction when performing this special form of the move, then said one inch restriction doesn't affect which tank shock specific wargear you can use.

Thanks for proving my point Ordznick.

So, by logical extrapolation, we either have two scenarios:

A. Rules for ramming which are completely non-functioning because they are simply extra rules for tank shocking.

B. Or rules for ramming which function because they are separate from tank shocking.

Thus, wargear which affects tank shocking (such as reinforced rams) does not affect ramming because they must be separate actions.

willydstyle wrote:Thanks for proving my point Ordznick.

So, by logical extrapolation, we either have two scenarios:

A. Rules for ramming which are completely non-functioning because they are simply extra rules for tank shocking.

B. Or rules for ramming which function because they are separate from tank shocking.

Thus, wargear which affects tank shocking (such as reinforced rams) does not affect ramming because they must be separate actions.

Or... you could read the rule, and realize it doesn't magically work under your interpretation and make you magically right. It doesn't work for either case, as even if you think a ram is just a special movement similar to tank shock the rules tell you that the movement is executed the same way (aside from the speed requirement). The movement rules for tank shocking expressly forbid vehicular contact, and the rules for ram do not give an overriding permission.

Of course, you could also 'logically extrapolate' the half a page of examples of rams hitting vehicles and the results of that action (like the vast majority of people do), and it works for both instead of neither. But we're on the 'deff rolla' argument train now, aren't we?

The rules for ramming contain their own order of operations. They also don't specifically give you permission to ignore the rule for tank shocking which prevent you from coming within 1" of enemy vehicles.

They aren't the same, and they can't be in order for ramming to work at all.

It's obvious that ramming does work, therefore ramming is not tank shocking, despite that nifty little phrase at the beginning of the ramming section.

willydstyle wrote:The rules for ramming contain their own order of operations. They also don't specifically give you permission to ignore the rule for tank shocking which prevent you from coming within 1" of enemy vehicles.

They aren't the same, and they can't be in order for ramming to work at all.

Ramming is done using the tank shock movement rules, no matter what your interpretation is. You cannot ram a vehicle by strict RAW.

willydstyle wrote:
It's obvious that ramming does work, therefore ramming is not tank shocking

No, it isn't (as RAW it never does). But lets say it does, since we're all reasonable people discussing RAP.
Your extrapolation still makes absolutely no sense.

Ramming is not done by tank shock movement rules.

Tank shock: declare direction and distance of movement. All units in the path must make morale tests, stop if you move within 1" of enemy vehicles.

Ram: declare direction then move as far as you can. Infantry in the path are tank shocked, when you come into contact with a vehicle, resolve ramming hits.

willydstyle wrote:Ramming is not done by tank shock movement rules.

Tank shock: declare direction and distance of movement. All units in the path must make morale tests, stop if you move within 1" of enemy vehicles.

Ram: declare direction then move as far as you can. Infantry in the path are tank shocked, when you come into contact with a vehicle, resolve ramming hits.

"Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way..."

If you want to talk about the specific changes ram makes to those rules, sure. But I'd love to hear how you ram without using the tank shock movement rules.
Ramming:
mentions a change in the speed requirement, which you mentioned.
mentions results for vehicle hits, which you mentioned.
actually says that non-vehicle units 'are tank shocked as normal'... go figure.
does not mention an exemption from the inability to approach an enemy vehicle during the movement.
does not have its own fully formed rules for movement that would override large sections of the tank shocking movement rules outside of these specific instructions.

Ramming simply doesn't work by strict raw. No matter what your opinion is on ramming relating to tank shocking or reinforced rams and deff rollas.

So without a rienforced ram a trukk van ram but cannont tank shock?? With a reinforced ram you can do both. I thought that it couldnt tank shock because it doesnt have 'tank' in its unit type. Giving it a reinforced ram gives it 'tank' allowing it to tank shock and also gets +1 to its ramming strength because it has 'mass'.