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.

Ok so I got a hold of some GW people and one said one way and another said another, however I then stated cases where said scenarios could be used and out of the 2 times I talked with them they both agreed based on these circumstances.

Scenarios are Kommandos plus snikrot and adding Ghazkul Thraka as an IC in reserves and using the Ambush rule to bring them in on a successful reserve roll on any table edge.

Second, Does Deathrolla attacks work on vehicles during a ram.

Keep in mind both GW guys said this works.

Here is the rational

First off IC rules state that such things like infiltrate on a group are not conferred onto the IC that joins them, however rules such as Stubborn are conferred to the IC and Unit, because the rules states that All models in the unit receive the special ability. Snikrot's ambush states all units that are in snikrots unit may enter combat from any table edge when coming from reserve. Therefore, the IC that has joined the kommandos also has the Ambush rule as per RAW. Both GW personnel agreed, and one gave the justification that Not even the kommandos know how to hide this well, but have to be taught or lead to perform this. Possible digging holes and hiding in them or using some form of natural cover or caves to allow the army not to be able to see his unit.

Second, This one was easy and one of the GW personnel told me this right out other agreed to this. The deathrolla rules state that whenever the unit performs any tank shock the unit receive d6 str 10 hits, then if the unit decides to make a death and glory they receive another d6 str 10 hits. Vehicles cannot take a death and glory. Therefore, If a BW with a Deathrolla does a ram, which is a special tank shock and the rules state any tank shock, the vehicle receives a d6 str 10, but not the other d6 str 10. Justification was that the death and glory takes longer and the Deathrolla gets to spin 2 times on the unit, but since it just rammed right into a vehicle and did not try to slow the vehicle down by shooting or doing something to it to slow it down,there is only 1 set of str 10 hits.

As I said both GW personnel agreed with the wording and nature of this. Personally this makes sense to me, it is RAW, There is no reason to not agree with it that I can see. I have posted it here to get input and see reasons why people agree or disagree. It should be noted that a lot of this is just RAW and very little "interpretation". Honestly, I don't understand why people fight over this so much. So what neither are like a I win button. Lets settle this with the rules that we are given and stop arguing, because as I have read here in several post that the reason behind whether we accept it is or reject it is whether it was balanced enough or fair, but what is fair about war. The first thing the handbook tells us is, "In the grim dark future there is only war". If you want total balance and equal armys, then play vanilla marines against vanilla marines.

I just wanted to add this little update after reading my own post. I want to say I do support the FAQS and what they offer to a very flawed system. I know that what i have written here is not what the INAT FAQ supports and that is fine. I think the work that those guys have done has really helped out the community and the game as a hole in a huge way.

Fascinating.......


Now, may I go somewhere and find another set of GW employees to rule differently?

I do not believe this resolves anything.

So your deathrolla solution induces:

- a hit AV vs AV
- plus a morale check
- plus a d6 S10 hit

Really?

I think its a case of "agree with customer to sell deathrolla sprue"

The is no rationale to claim vehicle cannot DOG, because a walker IS a vehicle and can.

Plus it adds a d6 hit spreading around vehicle squadrons.
Very rationale. Too bad vehicle arent that tight packed as non-vehicles.

Sorry, your proposed solution does not help at all.

On the first point I can agree. The second point however I have to totally disagree. As you do not Tank Shock a vehicle, you ram it.

1hadhq wrote:Fascinating.......


Now, may I go somewhere and find another set of GW employees to rule differently?

I do not believe this resolves anything.

So your deathrolla solution induces:

- a hit AV vs AV
- plus a morale check
- plus a d6 S10 hit

Really?

I think its a case of "agree with customer to sell deathrolla sprue"

The is no rationale to claim vehicle cannot DOG, because a walker IS a vehicle and can.

Plus it adds a d6 hit spreading around vehicle squadrons.
Very rationale. Too bad vehicle arent that tight packed as non-vehicles.

Sorry, your proposed solution does not help at all.

The walker bit doesn't change anything at all. So you take the Death and Glory attack, but you take the second d6 str hit for doing it. Thats in the RAW too.

Also, if this doesn't settle it then you will never be settled. I half expect if GW came out with and official post or new codex saying it was so, you would have a problem with it.


To answer inquisitors response, Ram is a special tank shock, as RAW. Deathrollas rules state that any tank shock that the BW with a deathrolla the unit receives d6 str 10 hits. Any meaning all forms of tank shock as there are only 2.

As to the squadron question if rules as written say you can spread the hits out, which you can, then you can. It may not make sense, but RAW go in favor of that.

Gold tooth Jerry wrote:

1hadhq wrote:Fascinating.......


Now, may I go somewhere and find another set of GW employees to rule differently?

I do not believe this resolves anything.

So your deathrolla solution induces:

- a hit AV vs AV
- plus a morale check
- plus a d6 S10 hit

Really?

I think its a case of "agree with customer to sell deathrolla sprue"

The is no rationale to claim vehicle cannot DOG, because a walker IS a vehicle and can.

Plus it adds a d6 hit spreading around vehicle squadrons.
Very rationale. Too bad vehicle arent that tight packed as non-vehicles.

Sorry, your proposed solution does not help at all.

The walker bit doesn't change anything at all. So you take the Death and Glory attack, but you take the second d6 str hit for doing it. Thats in the RAW too.

Also, if this doesn't settle it then you will never be settled. I half expect if GW came out with and official post or new codex saying it was so, you would have a problem with it.


To answer inquisitors response, Ram is a special tank shock, as RAW. Deathrollas rules state that any tank shock that the BW with a deathrolla the unit receives d6 str 10 hits. Any meaning all forms of tank shock as there are only 2. I am sure they meant both of them. As to the squadron question if rules as written say you can spread the hits out, which you can, then you can. It may not make sense, but RAW go in favor of that.

I am sorry, but youre the creator of disagreement here.

The 4th ed ork codex worked fine with 4th ed rulebook tankshock.
But now, were using 5th ed rulebook and it has separeted things into rules for tanks / tankshock + DOG , ramming.
To make a special type of anything the same as the standard type is the issue that started the debate.

So no, any tankshock means youre getting the boni in every tankshock youre battlewagon does in a row.
Tankshock several non-vehicles and apply the deathrolla hits once to each victim unit.

Thats all.

Gold Tooth Jerry, while it's admirable that you would take the time to try and find a resolution for these issues, the opinions of GW staff are no more or less valid than anyone on the boards here. Unless you're talking to the actual Games Developers, they're just answering with their own understanding of the rules. It's no more an official answer than just asking some guy on the street.

If you're happy to adopt their interpretation for your own games, that's great. But unfortunately it's not going to influence a great many people online.

I'm going to go ahead and lock this before it turns into a rehash of these issues and/or a general bashing of GW staff, either of which is equally likely.