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.

Honestly, if somebody death-rolled one of my vehicles, I'd laugh my ass off before taking advantage of the fact my vehicles are always behind my lines and meltagunning his exposed rear. A massive spinning chuck of metal, studded with spikes, chains and the odd crushed grot, leaping and rotating on a heavy drive chain like some ridiculous steel dog, crushing a carefully crafted steam-powered Russ tank to pieces and throwing the shattered plasteel and gold out the back end is too awesome to not play with, regardless of other factors. It's the sort of imagry I play Warhammer for.

On top of that, yes, it does say any sort of tank shock, and ramming is tank shock into a vehicle.

But it's a great orky thing, i am making a house rule for me and all my mates that orks can, they get compensated for it of course

Greebynog wrote:I think it boils down to whether you believe ramming is tank shocking, it seems clear it is to me, but equally clear it isn't to others.

To stray down the murky path of analogy, if I stuck a mustache on a banana, it's a special kind of banana, but a banana none the less.


Yep, I think that made it loads clearer.


FAQ please GW.

You, Sir, are a genius. Consider yourself sigged.

yeah,
I agree with nurglitchs argument,

A RAM It is a special tank shock.
It tanks shocks every thing in it's path until it gets to a vehicle and then the special rules take over to decide what happens when one vehicle hits another and in those rules there is no mention of the strength of a weapon and/or how many hits are caused..

So with a dethroller you tank shock every non-veichle unit using your deth roller rules untill you reach a vehicle...


and visually i think a deth roller would cause less damage to a vehicle in a impact as it would probabily up end the battlewagon and roll over it.... i think a dozer blade or spike ram that rhinos have would do more damage in a ram...

Panic..>

A Ram is a special type of Tank Shock.
A deffRolla does D6 S10 hits when used for ANY type of Tank Shock.

Therefore, A Ram, being a type of Tank Shock, included in the wording "ANY Tank Shock", will include the DeffRolla damage.

I do agree that some rules are unclear, but
"Ram is a type of Tank Shock" and "Deffrolla works on ANY Tank Shock" seems pretty clear to me.

NaZ wrote:the assumption that the ork codex was written with the specific wording of the 5th book in mind is just rediculous.

And exactly why is that? Codex Chaos Space Marines was written with a reference to the then unreleased 5th edition rulebook so why couldn't Codex Orks have a similar reference?

BlackSpike wrote:A Ram is a special type of Tank Shock.
I do agree that some rules are unclear, but
"Ram is a type of Tank Shock" and "Deffrolla works on ANY Tank Shock" seems pretty clear to me.

yeah,
it is clear, when you RAM you get to tank shock untill you hit a vehicle. the special part is that you then switch to ram rules...

PaniC...

Panic wrote:

BlackSpike wrote:A Ram is a special type of Tank Shock.
I do agree that some rules are unclear, but
"Ram is a type of Tank Shock" and "Deffrolla works on ANY Tank Shock" seems pretty clear to me.

yeah,
it is clear, when you RAM you get to tank shock untill you hit a vehicle. the special part is that you then switch to ram rules...

PaniC...

When you hit a vehicle (assuming you declared a Ram, and moved at Full Speed), you are still doing a Tank Shock.
It may be a special type of tank shock, but still a tank shock.
You still use all relevant tank shock rules unless otherwise stated.
The Main Rule Book says nothing about disregarding Wargear that adds extra damage to tank shocks. So it is not disregarded.

Is there any other Wargear that is used in either Tank Shocks, or Rams? (I don't have many Codex yet, so can't check myself. Just wanted to compare wordings/rules)

The only one I can think of is also in the Ork codex the reinforced ram. It allows trukks to tankshock and it treats the front armor as two points higher for death or glory attempts.

NaZ wrote:... I go back to the point that trying to hold this mess up as RAW is just silly....but is a rhino really not going to suffer from any damage by a giant mechanical spiked roller on the front of a vehicle 2x its size?....I think the majority agree that the interpetation that the deff rolla works in this situation....I play orks.. and I use the deffrolla in this way. none of my opponents have ever given me grief about it. they all thought it was a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the rules.......I'm not willing to stand in the RAW camp

NaZ

A. It seems absurd to me that you want to contend over the meaning of the rule, yet refuse to accept the validity of the rules as written. If you are playing in an insular environment with friends who agree then RAW are irrelevant. All that matters in your setting is having a good time with friends who all agree on how to play. If that is your situation, the entire discussion is irrelevant to you.

B. Yes I'd expect a big steam roller to have minimal effects on a tank. After all it can't penetrate a guardsamns flak jacket. However I really don't want to engage in fluff based arguements. The rules say what they say. It's nice when the rule makes intuitive sense based on the fluff, but if you play in a competitive environment you need to learn to distinguish what the rules actually say.

C. The fact that you play Orks doesn't strengthen your arguement. If anything it weakens it. You have a vested interest in your interpretation: both in terms of personal embarrasment if you need to explain to your friends that you were wrong and in terms of maintaining an on field advantage.

D. A majority of posters here have thus far been on your side. Note however, that the title of thread is likely to attract primarily Ork players and they share your bias. Is there anyone here arguing FOR the ability that does NOT play orks?

I'm building a list with 4 deffrolla wagons at the moment, I think I should declare a conflict of interests!

I only started after reading the rules though.

BlackSpike wrote:
You still use all relevant tank shock rules unless otherwise stated.

Well that is exactly what I'm saying. The Ramming rules tell you to follow some of the tank shock rules (with differences that have been noted above) until you collide with a vehicle. In which case you are told specifically how to handle it. So it is "otherwise stated."

yeah,
I don't play orks, and none of my play group plays orks. but it's clear to me that the RAI is for tank shocking troops, and Raw seems to support that. but a few missplaced references are being claimed by people that want D6 strength 10 hits purly because they contact a tank with another regardless of distance travelled?

"I've rammed from 1" away but I don't care about the RAM rules now cos I still get D6 strength 10 hits on your tank!!!" my wargear is the RoxXoR cos a RAM is a special type of Tank Shock!!!

It's labled as a special type of tank shock so that you know:
1)troops will be Tank Shocked!
2)that it needs Full speed to build up to...
3)RAM another vehicle.

Any thing else is just stupid.

Panic...

TROY CLIFTON wrote:

NaZ wrote:... I go back to the point that trying to hold this mess up as RAW is just silly....but is a rhino really not going to suffer from any damage by a giant mechanical spiked roller on the front of a vehicle 2x its size?....I think the majority agree that the interpetation that the deff rolla works in this situation....I play orks.. and I use the deffrolla in this way. none of my opponents have ever given me grief about it. they all thought it was a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the rules.......I'm not willing to stand in the RAW camp

NaZ

A. It seems absurd to me that you want to contend over the meaning of the rule, yet refuse to accept the validity of the rules as written. If you are playing in an insular environment with friends who agree then RAW are irrelevant. All that matters in your setting is having a good time with friends who all agree on how to play. If that is your situation, the entire discussion is irrelevant to you.

B. Yes I'd expect a big steam roller to have minimal effects on a tank. After all it can't penetrate a guardsamns flak jacket. However I really don't want to engage in fluff based arguements. The rules say what they say. It's nice when the rule makes intuitive sense based on the fluff, but if you play in a competitive environment you need to learn to distinguish what the rules actually say.

C. The fact that you play Orks doesn't strengthen your arguement. If anything it weakens it. You have a vested interest in your interpretation: both in terms of personal embarrasment if you need to explain to your friends that you were wrong and in terms of maintaining an on field advantage.

D. A majority of posters here have thus far been on your side. Note however, that the title of thread is likely to attract primarily Ork players and they share your bias. Is there anyone here arguing FOR the ability that does NOT play orks?

Those who argue that the rolla affects vehicles seem to have a better understanding of RaW than you. Unless, according to you a RaW reading of "any" actually means "some."

Panic wrote:
"I've rammed from 1" away but I don't care about the RAM rules now cos I still get D6 strength 10 hits on your tank!!!" my wargear is the RoxXoR cos a RAM is a special type of Tank Shock!!!

Are you simply not a fan of special rules, because Orks are by no means the only army that would have special wargear and rules which make them unique and alter the way it plays to the standard rules.

Just because a rule reference doesn't fit what you believe to be fact does not mean that they are "misplaced" or simply invalid, due to what one believes the intent is. Most, I believe, are more inclined to believe an argument based on RAW than RAI. Intent is always subjective and is based on personal standards that cannot be validated. While many may not agree that the potential in the RAW is fair, it cannot just be idly dismissed. The BGB has been quoted numerous times as to why a Deff Rolla may be used during a Ram, but little by way of actual rule statement has been made to the contrary. The opposition seems only based upon what such players believe the intent was, and by any standard, that is not a valid argument to nullify a distinct advantage.

Da Boss:

When you say "little by way of actual rule statement has been made to the contrary [that a Deff Rolla may be used during a Ram]", what exactly has, in your opinion, been offered as textual evidence that a Deff Rolla may not be used during a Ram?

Could you, if you would, quote the statements that have been made and restate the argument that the Deff Rolla may not be used during a Ram in your own words?

Nurglitch wrote:Da Boss:

When you say "little by way of actual rule statement has been made to the contrary [that a Deff Rolla may be used during a Ram]", what exactly has, in your opinion, been offered as textual evidence that a Deff Rolla may not be used during a Ram?

Can you, if you would, provide quotes and restate the argument that the Deff Rolla may not be used during a Ram in your own words?

I suppose thats my point, Nurglich. Many have quoted that Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock, and that the Deff Rolla may be used in ANY Tank Shock. The argument is made and appears valid. All who seem to beleive the Deff Rolla may not be used in Ramming have not offered much by way of RAW to dispute it. There have been comparisons made about Tank Shock and Ramming, but these are all nulled by the fact that the BGB states that Ramming is a special type of tank shock and is excecuted in the same way. While I agree this is needing an FAQ to clear up the details of this dispute, there is little evidence that a positive assumption is wrong and that it should be played as anything other than RAW.

Nurglitch wrote:... on p.69 of the rulebook, it says:

"Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed is is capable of. Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal. However, if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows."...

Da Boss, Maybe you didn't read the posts that contradicted your opinion of how it should work?

As he quoted from the rules above when you get to a vehicle the special type of tank shock finnishs and what follows is the rules for a vehicle collision...

Panic...

Panic wrote:
Da Boss, Maybe you didn't read the posts that contradicted your opinion of how it should work?

As he quoted from the rules above when you get to a vehicle the special type of tank shock finnishs and what follows is the rules for a vehicle collision...
Panic...

Where are you getting that the Tank Shock finishes when it makes contact with a vehicle? Sure, there is a collision that is resolved in the Ramming section, but the act is still a Tank Shock, and the Deff Rolla rule states "Strenth 10 hits on the victim unit". You are still, in essence, Tank Shocking the vehicle, and it, being the victim unit, still suffers the D6 Str 10 hits. You are assuming that the Tank Shock ends upon collision, but this is not validated by anything in the rules.

DaBoss:

Sure, the argument has been advanced that, because the rules say that ramming is a special type of tank shock, any rules that apply to tank shocks apply to rams, such as the Deff Roller.

In order for this argument to be valid it needs to reflect what the rules actually state, rather than being quoted out of context. Quoted out of context, this argument is invalid because it turns on the semantics of "special kind" being the same as "sub-type" so that the mechanics of a more general rule, putatively tank shock, apply to a more specific rule, putatively ramming.

However, as I have argued using textual evidence, ramming is not a sub-type of tank shock, and that reading "special kind" to mean something like "sub-type" is reading the rules incorrectly - at least insofar as we're concerned with the layout of the rules, the relevant differences between ramming and tank shock, and the specific wording of the tank shock, ramming, and Deff Rolla rules.

So there is plenty of evidence to show, conclusively I think, that the Deff Rolla only applies to tank shock attacks, and not to collisions.

olympia wrote:Those who argue that the rolla affects vehicles seem to have a better understanding of RaW than you. Unless, according to you a RaW reading of "any" actually means "some."

I don't claim to have exclusive rights to truth or reason, nor am I dismissive of anyone's arguements as long as they are based on a reasonable interpretation of the rule. I DO however immediately dismiss the validity of any arguement based on fluff or intent.

In a game I almost alway ask my opponent his interpretation and go with it. My whole purpose in starting this thread was to help a friend who is starting an ork army to clarify the issue before he had issues during a game or tournament.

The same passages of the rules have been quoted extensively here to argue BOTH sides. This whole thing reminds me of the ATSKNF misinterpretation from years ago. The rule read that marines automatically rallied when broken even if below half. Throughout the US tournament circuit marine players uniformly ignored not only the restriction of being below half, but also the restriction of being within 6" of an enemy vehicle. We'd all beeen playing it that way for years when GW declared that "automatically" didn't mean the other restrictions could be ignored.

Clearly Tank Shock does not allow contact with a vehicle. The rule specifically states that you stop 1" away. YES ramming is stated to be a "special type" of tank shock. Is it REASONABLE to infer then, that Ramming Deff Rollas get tank shock attacks? Yes it is.

Please, wether you agree with me or not, at least have the courtesy to acknowledge that there are also REASONABLE arguements to the contrary.

well.. in light of comments made about my responses, I'll just say the following:

I don't argue for it because I play it.. I play other armies too.

I do think that my point still has validity, dispite my overall feelings about GW's rules and the whole RAW arguement.

the majority consensus continues to be that it works. the same people keep arguing over and over that it shouldnt, but I don't see anyone else really adding enough to outweigh the majority here.

I would agree with the majority regardless of the decision. especially if it was in my local group. better to play towards what the majority agrees then to try to sit on a pedestal and argue towards the minority.. weather it is to your personal advantage or not.

this leads to the comment I made about the people arguing against it probably don't play orks and don't want to have to deal with it.

all we can hope for, is that there is a difinitive FAQ released from GW to make it official policy.

until that happens, its really up to the tournament organizer or the vagarities of 4+ dice offs to determine who is right.

so if yakface can come up with something and publish it in his FAQ, since adepticon adopted it last time it would be the ruling I would stand with, weather it is for or against my opinion.

I take this stance because yakface has been regarded as a signifigant contributor of rules. I kept the adepticon faq with me until 5th edition. I'll keep the new one with me until it is replaced (hopefully it is done soon!)

and I always started games with "look I have this FAQ. if something comes up we can look in here and see if there is an answer" everyone is happy with that.

you may agree with me, or disagree with me. I'm ok with us disagreeing on this point.

I don't mean this as an attack, but I'm glad I don't play with you nurglitch. this isn't the first debate I've seen go this way. I couldn't stand trying to argue for so long about something like this

and frankly.. its only come up once in 10+ games since I started using my battlewagon. most of the time it is far better to just tankshock other stuff.

but yes it does come up, and none of my opponents have given me grief about it.

maybe you just play against orks and don't like it? I don't know. I don't know your playgroup.

but again, all that matters is what the tournament organizers decide yes? or we wait until GW gets theirselves together and FAQs this.

NaZ

Tank Shock!, p.68, Rulebook wrote:
When moving a tank, the player can declare that the vehicle is going to attempt to make a tank shock attack instead of moving normally.

...

Regardless of the result of the test, the vehicle keeps moving straight on, possibly tank shocking more enemy units until it reaches its final position. If the tank accidentally moves into contact with a friendly model or comes to within 1" of an enemy vehicle, it immediately stops moving.

Tank Shock
1. Move at any speed
2. May shoot
3. Must stop 1" short of any vehicle
4. May tank shock attack non-vehicles

Ramming, p.69, Rulebook wrote:
This means it may not shoot in that turn's Shooting phase...

...

Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of. Units other than vehicles are tank shocked as normal. However, if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows.

Ramming
1. Move at top speed
2. May not shoot
3. May ram enemy vehicles
4. May tank shock attack non-vehicles

Deff Rolla, p.55, Codex: Orks wrote:
Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit.

"Any Tank Shock made" refers to the "tank shock attack" described by the Tank Shock rule.

The Tank Shock rule describes how, normally, a tank that is tank shocking stops 1" away from any vehicle in its path.

The Ramming rule describes how, as a special type of tank shock move, a tank that is ramming tank shocks non-vehicles as normal (as in the Tank Shock rule), if it does not shoot and moves at top speed, and may also damage other vehicles in collisions.

Tank Shock simply doesn't involve any interaction between vehicle models. Vehicles can ram other vehicles, as the rules addressing the ramming of skimmers and walkers show, but tank shock is an action that applies only to "an enemy unit other than a vehicle".

As the Ramming rule says:

Ramming, p.69, Rulebook wrote:
Both players roll for armour penetration against their enemy vehicle and any result is immediately applied. If the vehicle that is rammed is not removed, the rammer halts. However, if the rammed vehicle is removed because it suffers a 'destroyed - explodes!' damage result, the rammer continues its move, until it reaches its maximum move distance or another enemy (which it will tank shock or ram again!).

Ramming is a special type of tank shock, it is a tank shock move that allows you to tank shock non-vehicles as normal, and/or ram vehicles as an extra bonus.

Nurglitch wrote:DaBoss:

Sure, the argument has been advanced that, because the rules say that ramming is a special type of tank shock, any rules that apply to tank shocks apply to rams, such as the Deff Roller.

In order for this argument to be valid it needs to reflect what the rules actually state, rather than being quoted out of context. Quoted out of context, this argument is invalid because it turns on the semantics of "special kind" being the same as "sub-type" so that the mechanics of a more general rule, putatively tank shock, apply to a more specific rule, putatively ramming.

However, as I have argued using textual evidence, ramming is not a sub-type of tank shock, and that reading "special kind" to mean something like "sub-type" is reading the rules incorrectly - at least insofar as we're concerned with the layout of the rules, the relevant differences between ramming and tank shock, and the specific wording of the tank shock, ramming, and Deff Rolla rules.

So there is plenty of evidence to show, conclusively I think, that the Deff Rolla only applies to tank shock attacks, and not to collisions.

Your entire "conclusive" argument is based upon your claim that these two rule are not related. How can you claim that Tank Shock and Ramming are two distinct and unrelated things when it does textually state that ramming is a special kind of tank shock, and that even the very execution is the same? If this is truly the basis of what you perceive as a bulletproof reasoning, then it’s based upon nothing more than opinion since the many times quoted rule states otherwise.

NaZ wrote:I don't mean this as an attack, but I'm glad I don't play with you nurglitch. this isn't the first debate I've seen go this way. I couldn't stand trying to argue for so long about something like this

I find it strange that you would think that I would argue over rules in a game. Likewise I find it odd that you would prejudge whether I was fun to play with based on my actions in a rules forum, since haggling about the rules is simply something that civilized people do not do in the middle of games. I mean, I know you don't mean that as an attack, but what on Earth is the point of saying that if you don't mean it as an attack?

This is a forum in which to discuss rules, so it seems to me like the right place to work through disagreements so that they can be settled in a venue that is not a game. I'm used to working in forums such as these, although greatly expanded and considerably more formal, and they're great things to have because they, when properly conducted, greatly facilitate constructive discussion. This is a very useful tool that we can take advantage of, if people are willing to make the short term effort of addressing each other's positions carefully, considerately, and impersonally.

Part of the reason why this discussion has "gone on so long" (although, from my perspective in academia it's a rather small discussion), I think, is because people have not done what people should always do when they disagree: find something to agree on and work from there.

Presumably we can all agree that the text says what it says, and the disagreement is about how we are reading it. I have shown how I am reading the text, and how I think that reading supports my conclusions and undermines contrary conclusions. What, specifically, about it do you disagree with and why?

ok fair enough. lets try to move this in a positive direction.

I think the issue stems from how the book was organized. the crutch of both sides of the debate is weather or not a ram is considered a tank shock type event which would activate the deff rolla.

I don't know if there is any other tank shock related wargear that would apply. this seems like a very isolated interaction of rules

because of that, it is proving difficult to achieve any sort of consensus on this forum.

and like I said, RAW only works when the rules are clear to begin with.

I think since they are in the same heading there is no reason it shouldnt apply

I also think the deff rolla should have been written more specifically to discuss weather or not it works in a ram.. something that GW could have easily cleared up in the last batch of FAQ and chose not to address.

one point I think supports my arguement is that walkers can death or glory during a ram. which would activate the 2nd provision of the deffrolla. other vehicles cannot death or glory.. but that doesn't disclude them from the effects.

also, the deffrolla says "each unit" and nowhere does it say that vehicles are not units

those are the specific points I use to support my side of the debate.

NaZ

The vehicle is not Tank Shocked.

It is Rammed.

@Nurglitch

I think your long post above is compelling. However, I've had some training in formal logic myself and I, if I bothered my arse, could easily write up syllogism and venn diagrams for both positions. Although the "any" in the codex rules would make illustrating daboss's position easier. This is yet another example of how piss-poor GW is at writing rules. Why this incompetence continues from one edition to another is a topic for another thread.

DaBoss:

I don't think I'm making the argument that the Tank Shock and Ramming rules are not related.

They are related, as I have shown using rule summaries that I have reiterated. In particular they both allow non-vehicle units to be subject to tank shock attacks as described in the Tank Shock rule. Ramming is, as it says in the rules, a special type of tank shock.

Ordinarily "special kind" means something like:

1. A distinct or particular kind or character.

2. A particular kind; particular, individual, or certain.

3. Pertaining or peculiar to a particular thing; distinctive; unique.

4. A kind having a specific or particular function, purpose, etc.

5. A kind distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual: a special occasion.

6. An extraordinary kind; exceptional, as in amount or degree; especial.

7. Being such in an exceptional degree; particularly valued.

I think #5 is the sense in which "special kind" is being used in the rulebook. That is because the execution of the two rules is not the same, as I have also noted. A Ramming tank must move at top speed, for one, it may not shoot, for two, and it may collide with enemy vehicles, for three. Moreover the rules for Ramming are not a sub-header of Tank Shock, like the Death or Glory rules are. Given these four ways in which Ramming is distinguishable from Tank Shock, it seems inappropriate to treat the former as a sub-type of the latter.

My argument is that they are not related in the way that allows vehicles to be subject to tank shocks.

I'm not sure what you mean by "bulletproof" reasoning, as I'm offering an inductive argument based on textual evidence, and not really the sort of deductive argument that such epiphets apply to. But it is, I think, conclusive in that it accounts for the relevant textual material, and gives an accurate exegesis of its structure and wording.

olympia:

So how about you take the time, and we'll see if anything useful comes of it? If you have some training in logic I'm sure you'll be familiar with the gap between what one might expect eyeballing something, and the surprise that is often accompanied when one sets pen to paper for formal proof.