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.

- to tank charge or ram, the vehical must be a tank
- some upgrades allow tank charging in non-tank vehicals
- tank charge does not = ramming ... or it would be one rule in the BGB

Nurglitch wrote:The Ork Codex specifies that vehicles are obscured by the Kustom Force Field, which gives them a 4+ cover save.

Obscured gives something a 4+ cover save, unless the codex specifies otherwise.

Rulebook wrote:If a special rule of a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex.

Look at the codex.

Ork Codex wrote:A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets.

A vehicle is a unit, so it's specified in the codex that it gets a 5+ cover save as a result of KFF making it obscured.

Nurglitch wrote:Ghaz:

No, saying that "special type" is the same as "type" is what's 'ludicrous' as you put it. I would simply call it 'mistaken'.

I would call it that because it mistakes identities under special conditions with identities under general or 'normal' conditions.

And yet again, SO WHAT? You've yet to provide ONE IOTA OF EVIDENCE that a 'special' type of Tank Shock is still not a Tank Shock. You can make up all of the excuses and mumbo jumbo that you want, a 'special' type of Tank Shock is still a Tank Shock. That's why they use the words 'Tank Shock' in the first place. Stop trying to make up reasons why the word 'special' suddenly makes the words 'Tank Shock' into two totally different words. It's not and your attempts to make it so and beyond ludicrous and are bordering on pathetic.

Drunkspleen wrote:Just a quick note which many people forget, there's a piece of wargear Identical to the reinforced ram in the Dark Eldar codex that was FAQd to allow only tank-shock moves but not ram moves.

And why was it FAQed? Because otherwise it WOULD have allowed it to Ram.

middle wrote:You cannot take two rules and combine them together when it suits you.

And you can't separate one rule into two when it suits you. Tank Shock is one rule with two subsets. The first is 'Tank Shock' against Infantry, etc while the second is 'Ramming' against vehicles. Being able to Tank Shock allows a vehicle to do bothsubset rules unless specifically FAQed otherwise.

Traskel wrote:

Ork Codex wrote:A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets.

A vehicle is a unit, so it's specified in the codex that it gets a 5+ cover save as a result of KFF making it obscured.

If we're sticking to pure Letter of the Law/ Rules as Written interpretation, wouldn't this read:

Ork Wagon:

5+ cover save, as it is a unit within 6" of the Big Mek KFF

AND

4+ cover save, as it is a vehicle and obscured

Therefore, an Ork player could opt to ignore his 5+ cover save in favor of the 4+ cover save from Obscurement.

Traskel wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:The Ork Codex specifies that vehicles are obscured by the Kustom Force Field, which gives them a 4+ cover save.

Obscured gives something a 4+ cover save, unless the codex specifies otherwise.

Rulebook wrote:If a special rule of a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex.

Look at the codex.

Ork Codex wrote:A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets.

A vehicle is a unit, so it's specified in the codex that it gets a 5+ cover save as a result of KFF making it obscured.

Wow, that's a tough position to hold, but ok, let's take a look at what you're saying...

"A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets."

For one, it's two sentences, so two independent thoughts. If you're intent on arguing that both sentence 1 and sentence 2 include vehicles, which isn't untenable because, as you said, vehicles are units, then the more appropriate reading would be that vehicles get a 5+ save but also count as being obscured. It might also be argued that because sentence 2 contains no modifier or transition, such as "Additionally, vehicles..." or "Vehicles also..." that vehicles are treated separately in sentence 2 from sentence 1. Neither approach though necessarily supports the conclusion that sentence 1 must be defining the outer limits of sentence 2.

Secondly, it's very unlikely that GW would redefine a "core" rule in this way. First, if ork vehicles as "obscured targets" were supposed to operate differently, that would probably appear in a special section for Ork rules, not under a wargear description. Moreover, if Ork vehicles as "obscured targets" were supposed to be different, it's more likely that GW would've created a special rule for them, not redefine a rule everyone else uses.

Given your position's general oddity, in terms of grammatical interpretation and the very unlikeliness that GW would approach a rule re-definition in this way, I cannot say your position is accurate.

Readin the rulebook is never about finding something telling you what is not there but rather what is there.

I kinda agree with Nurg on this one, ramming is a special type of tank shock(not a normal tank shock) namely ramming and have own rules and everything.

So the answer to OP would be that it isnt possible.

Ghaz:

On the contrary I have provided evidence. The rules for Tank Shock and Ramming give each rule four characteristics:

1. The vehicle's speed and whether the player has a choice in it.
2. Whether the vehicle has the option of firing weapons, speed permitting.
3. How the vehicle interacts with non-vehicles.
4. How the vehicle interacts with vehicles.

This is all right there in the rules, should you care to read them carefully, instead of mis-paraphrasing them.

I've also pointed out how the key word 'special' works in the Warhammer 40k rules to mean a specific or particular case, that it is in conjunction with the key word 'type' in the particular rules at issue, and how these terms work together to describe a singular condition under which Ramming is Tank Shock (condition #3, how the vehicle interacts with non-vehicles).

If you cannot accept this as conclusive evidence, then I would like to hear what you would accept as evidence. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but that's all there is to it. Given that your posts are increasingly hysterical, I might humbly suggest you take a breather and calm down a bit.

You should follow sourclam's example above, by giving a clear, logically valid, and correct argument.

The "four characteristics and how they effect the rules" is something you have made up,Nurglitch. Please stick to the rules given in the rulebook.

and....no, you don't. You make up some distinctions and make them fit you position.

I don't know Nurglitch... I agree with your conclusion, but your reasoning isn't so great.

Your emphasis on characteristics is completely irrelevant.

You said earlier: "Because Ramming has 1/4 elements in common with Tank Shock, it is clearly a special type of Tank Shock."

What? Shooting and assaulting share a characteristic, they both involve 'to wound' roles. Does that make assaulting a special type of shooting? Of course not. C'mon man.

You also said: "Because Ramming does not have 4/4 elements in common with Tank Shock, and indeed 3/4 elements disagree, Ramming is not Tank Shock and references to Tank Shock cannot implicitly also refer to Ramming."

Haha! If all the elements were the same, they'd be identical rules! Any two rules, even they are part of a hierarchy or subset, would have different characteristics. If they didn't, it would only be one rule.

A focused discussion of "special" is more to the point. I myself find guidance in context in this situation, but whatever. In any case, this "characteristics" stuff is irrelevant.

Steelmage99:

Tank Shock! wrote:To make this kind of attack, first turn the vehicle on the spot in the direction you intended to move it and declare how many inches the the vehicle is going to move. The vehicle must move at least at combat speed.

The first characteristic of Tank Shock: The vehicle's speed and whether the player has a choice in it.

To whit, the player has the options to move the vehicle at either combat speed, or cruising speed, or flat out if possible.

Tank Shock wrote:If the tank moved slowly enough during the tank shock attack, it may fire as normal in the Shooting phase.

The second characteristic of Tank Shock: Whether the vehicle has the option of firing weapons, speed permitting.

Tank Shock! wrote:If an enemy unit other than another vehicle is reached (including any model in an artillery unit), the unit must take a Morale check and will immediately fall back if it fails it. If the test is passed the unit will simply let the tank move through, as if it was not there. 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.

The third and fourth characteristics of Tank Shock: How the vehicle interacts with non-vehicles and vehicles.

During a tank shock the vehicle makes tank shock attacks against non-vehicles and is blocked by vehicles.

Ramming wrote:Ramming is a rather desperate manoeuvre and means that the tank must concentrate on moving at top speed towards one enemy vehicle.

The first characteristic of Ramming: The vehicle's speed and whether the player has a choice in it.

The player has no choice; which is to say the speed of the vehicle is folded into the choice to ram, unlike Tank Shock where it is separate from the decision to make tank shock attacks.

Ramming wrote:This means that it may not shoot in that turn's Shooting phase, making it an attractive choice for vehicles that have no armament left or are shaken.

The second characteristic of Ramming: Whether the vehicle has the option of firing weapons, speed permitting.

Again, vehicle's option to shoot has been eliminated and folded into the decision to Ram. Even a special case (there's that word again!) like the Monolith that could shoot and make tank shock attacks, the vehicle may not shoot in that Shooting phase.

Ramming wrote:Ramming is a special type of tank shock and is executed in the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of. Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal.

The third characteristic of Ramming: How the vehicle interacts with non-vehicles.

A vehicle that engages in Ramming is the same as a vehicle that engages in Tank Shocks, in the special case where non-vehicle units are concerned.

Ramming wrote:Each vehicle immediately suffers a hit against the armour facing where the other vehicle has impacted (so the rammer always uses its front armour).

The fourth characteristic of Ramming: How the vehicle interacts with other vehicles.

Unlike a vehicle engaging in Tank Shock, a vehicle engaging in Ramming can affect enemy vehicles.

deadlygopher:

No, my reasoning is valid and its premise on the characteristics making up these rules is relevant. It is relevant because the rules in Warhammer 40k depend on being about themselves to a degree, and hence require players to be aware of their structure as well as their content. All referents of 'normal' and 'special' are defined by the scope of rules in the book, for example, rather than a specific statements.

My reasoning is valid because the special/normal distinction in Warhammer matches exactly the universal/existential quantification of first order predicate logic. Contrary to your poorly considered conclusion, it is true that for the case of both shooting and assaulting sharing the characteristic of wounding, they are the same and we are licensed to say that in the special case of wounding, assaulting is a special type of shooting.

It is good to see that you can follow the reasoning that, because Ramming and Tank Shock only share 3/4 elements (really 4/5) they are not identical and therefore not the same rule though. What is not good is failing to see how this lack of shared identity in general prevents one from being a type of another. Let me give you an example:

Suppose we have the set P [a, b, c, d], the set Q [d, e, f, g], and the set A [a]. Both Q and A share a member with P, but one also has four members and three of those members are different rather than absent entirely. A is a subset of P, while only a subset of Q is a subset of P. You could say that Q is a special type of P where d, to use the lingo of GW's rules, while A is a type of P.

I like your suggestion of using 'elements' instead of 'characteristics' though.

Nurglitch wrote:
MagickalMemories:

The Ramming vs Tank Shock conversation is quite germaine to this thread. The original poster has asked whether the Reinforced Ram allows a Trukk to Ram other vehicles.

Given that the Reinforced Ram specifies enabling Tank Shock, and some people are erroneously trying to extend that to Ramming, then pointing out how that is in error is relevant, because this thread is, at least in part, about what the Reinforced Ram permits.

(Emphasis mine.)

Well, he DID bring it up, I'll give you that. He didn't actually ask any questions about it, except for:

Has GW made any comments on these rulings? Do they still have the roolz boyz to answer stuff like this? Have people had any rulings made at official GW events?

The only point he directly questioned was the KFF (though, without a question mark):

If the vehicles were only supposed to get a 5+ like all other units why bother specifying they count as obscured.

By the way his post is written, it looks as if he's (A) asking a KFF question (B) making a ram vs. shock statement and (C) asking about "official" rulings on these items.

If I'm incorrect, please point out where he asks about tank shock vs. ramming


Eric

MagickalMemories:

AZ wrote:A reinforced ram allows a trukk to tank shock. Ramming is a special type of tank shock. I have heard it argued that in the tank shock section of the ramming rules that it specifies the word tank, so a non-tank can't ram. I don't have my rulebook here, but I would be supprised if there weren't the word tank somewhere in the tank shock section of the rulebook.

By the argument given, the trukk couldn't tank shock since it isn't a tank and the word tank is the the tank shock entry of the rulebook.
This seems like following the letter of the rules dogmatically, while ignoring the spirit of the rules. It seems silly that you could put a reinforced RAM on a trukk adn then not be able to ram with it.

So yes, he is asking about the relation of tank shock to ramming, since he is wondering whether a vehicle equipped with wargear that allows it to tank shock can also ram.

You're very funny Nurglitch. The mathematical use of subsets does not necessarily have any bearing on the 40k ruleset. I'm sure you can imagine a ruleset where the writer defines two rules, where one is related to the other in the sense that the abililty to perform the first indicates ability to perform the second. Much like people are arguing ramming relates to tank shock. It's not at all necessary these rules share all or any elements. It could just be that one depends on the other.

Not such a cognitive stretch, even for you, my friend.

I, as always, smile when I read your posts. Never change, Nurg. I eagerly await your critique of my "poorly considered conclusion."

I not only didn't use a question mark, but I also mispelled 'and' in my post. There probably is a reason I am interested in orks. I can always pretend that I meant to mispell things, when in reality I just didn't read my post before hitting submit.

But for the record, I was indeed asking if a trukk with a reinforced ram can ram, and what cover save a vehicle that is obscured by a kff receives. Intresting points raised on all sides. Anyone been in any major GW events recently with orks using a kff with vehicles, or trukks with reinforced rams? I'd be curious how it was played at a GT.

AZ

Nurglitch wrote:MagickalMemories:

AZ wrote:A reinforced ram allows a trukk to tank shock. Ramming is a special type of tank shock. I have heard it argued that in the tank shock section of the ramming rules that it specifies the word tank, so a non-tank can't ram. I don't have my rulebook here, but I would be supprised if there weren't the word tank somewhere in the tank shock section of the rulebook.

By the argument given, the trukk couldn't tank shock since it isn't a tank and the word tank is the the tank shock entry of the rulebook.
This seems like following the letter of the rules dogmatically, while ignoring the spirit of the rules. It seems silly that you could put a reinforced RAM on a trukk adn then not be able to ram with it.

So yes, he is asking about the relation of tank shock to ramming, since he is wondering whether a vehicle equipped with wargear that allows it to tank shock can also ram.

Sorry, but this is simply another example of you making things look how you want them to and attempting to use convoluted reasoning to support your conclusion.

The bottom line:

he is asking about the relation of tank shock to ramming

He never does ACTUALLY ask about the relation of them. Never.

Also:

since he is wondering whether a vehicle equipped with wargear that allows it to tank shock can also ram.

There's no "wondering." He doesn't "wonder" in his post. In fact, he states his thoughts clearly as statements of opinion. He doesn't, directly or indirectly, as for your opinion, my opinion , Ghaz's opinion or anyone elses opinions on T.S. vs. Ram... or their statements of "facts," etc.

Did he WANT opinions (or, as some choose to see it, FACTS)? Perhaps. The fact remains, however, that he NEVER asked for it and DOESN'T "wonder" about its' viability. You (and others) simply chose to answer an unasked question.

It's okay to admit you made a mistake, Nurglitch... not that I expect you will.

I'd just like to NOT see this argument overcome every thread in which it's mentioned.


Eric

Edit: Triple post. Sorry.

Edit: Oops, double post.

Democratus wrote:

Mekniakal wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Except that Ramming isn't a type of Tank Shock, it is a special type of Tank Shock...

Don't let the facts get in the way of an incoherent argument though.

Humans aren't a type of mammal, we are a "special" type of mammal! Don't worry, I won't let the "facts" get in the way of an incoherent argument though.

LOGIC

Except that we aren't a special kind of mammal. We're just mammals.

Fail.

Exactly.

I was being sarcastic, by utilizing the logic Nurglich seems to find so enthralling (while sticking in a bit of a jab at my intelligence, since intro to logic classes are soooo hard). While their might be physical differences between a human and a cat, we are both, obviously mammals. By trying to say ramming isn't a tank shock because it has a few differences between a ram and a normal tank shock is like saying a human isn't a mammal because of slight physical differences between us and a monkey/cat/donkey etc.

What about a platypus? They are mammals, but they lay eggs, and the males have poison, traits that aren't found in any other mammal. Are we going to stop calling them mammals because they are "special" or different? No.

A "special" type of tank shock is a tank shock. Except it goes to school on the short bus because the people who write the rules were obviously drinking far to much when it was still in development.

Anyway, to answer the original question, the KFF is measured from the hull of the vehicle. Also, the rules for a reinforced ram really depends the interpretation of the rules in your LFGS. Ask around.

It's not a Nurglitch post unless he jabs at your intelligence.

Nurglitch wrote:Steelmage99:

Tank Shock! wrote:To make this kind of attack, first turn the vehicle on the spot in the direction you intended to move it and declare how many inches the the vehicle is going to move. The vehicle must move at least at combat speed.

The first characteristic of Tank Shock: The vehicle's speed and whether the player has a choice in it.

To whit, the player has the options to move the vehicle at either combat speed, or cruising speed, or flat out if possible.

Tank Shock wrote:If the tank moved slowly enough during the tank shock attack, it may fire as normal in the Shooting phase.

The second characteristic of Tank Shock: Whether the vehicle has the option of firing weapons, speed permitting.

Tank Shock! wrote:If an enemy unit other than another vehicle is reached (including any model in an artillery unit), the unit must take a Morale check and will immediately fall back if it fails it. If the test is passed the unit will simply let the tank move through, as if it was not there. 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.

The third and fourth characteristics of Tank Shock: How the vehicle interacts with non-vehicles and vehicles.

During a tank shock the vehicle makes tank shock attacks against non-vehicles and is blocked by vehicles.

Ramming wrote:Ramming is a rather desperate manoeuvre and means that the tank must concentrate on moving at top speed towards one enemy vehicle.

The first characteristic of Ramming: The vehicle's speed and whether the player has a choice in it.

The player has no choice; which is to say the speed of the vehicle is folded into the choice to ram, unlike Tank Shock where it is separate from the decision to make tank shock attacks.

Ramming wrote:This means that it may not shoot in that turn's Shooting phase, making it an attractive choice for vehicles that have no armament left or are shaken.

The second characteristic of Ramming: Whether the vehicle has the option of firing weapons, speed permitting.

Again, vehicle's option to shoot has been eliminated and folded into the decision to Ram. Even a special case (there's that word again!) like the Monolith that could shoot and make tank shock attacks, the vehicle may not shoot in that Shooting phase.

Ramming wrote:Ramming is a special type of tank shock and is executed in the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of. Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal.

The third characteristic of Ramming: How the vehicle interacts with non-vehicles.

A vehicle that engages in Ramming is the same as a vehicle that engages in Tank Shocks, in the special case where non-vehicle units are concerned.

Ramming wrote:Each vehicle immediately suffers a hit against the armour facing where the other vehicle has impacted (so the rammer always uses its front armour).

The fourth characteristic of Ramming: How the vehicle interacts with other vehicles.

Unlike a vehicle engaging in Tank Shock, a vehicle engaging in Ramming can affect enemy vehicles.

Yes, repetition is allways a good way to prove your point.

Let's see....

1. Both Tankshock and Ramming take place in the Movement Phase.

2. Both Tankshock and Ramming is the only way a vehicle may damage an enemy unit outside of Shooting nd Assault.

3. Both Tankshock and Ramming moves in a straight line.

4. Both Tankshock and Ramming appear in the same section in the rulebook.

As seen Ramming shares 4 out of 4 elements with Tankshock. Using your logic this show that Ramming "clearly" and "obviously" is a special kind of Tankshock. And guess what? This is totally in sync with the rulebook.

As shown I too can make up 4 distinctions and use those to prove my point. I haven't been quite as eloquent (longwinded) as Nurglitch, but the elements hold the same value. ie. none.

deadlygopher:

I never jab at anyone's intelligence. I start from the assumption that everyone here is an intelligent and capable adult. If you feel I've insulted your intelligence by pointing out your errors, perhaps you should consider that intelligent people are capable of making mistakes as well, and that pointing out an error is no slight against anyone; indeed, it is the basis for constructive criticism. Please be so good as to acknowlege I'm critiquing your argument rather than yourself.

Furthermore, set theory has bearing on any discussion of rules and their relation to each other. It's utility lies in the fact that it is simple, effective, and clear.

If you think it's a "cognitive stretch", maybe you should consider the point of using set theory and logic, to show step by step how a set of premises warrants a conclusion via sound argument. The whole point is avoiding any 'cognitive stretching' or leaps of logic, while leaving aside the ambiguity of natural language.

But let's not talk about effective ways to discuss rules, let's just discuss rules

There are plenty of sets of rules wherein one option in one rule depends on the selection of an option in another rule. Practically all of them, really. If it's a good set of rules, it will make an explicit reference tying the second rule to the results of the first. Warhammer 40k uses this sorting method frequently, a notable example being the hit-wound-save rolls.

Notice that we're talking about reference here. Ramming references Tank Shock. The Reinforced Ram references Tank Shock. It would be a simple hypothetical syllogism (such as the one sourclams used to point out that the Kustom Force Field gives vehicles a 4+ save) to justify the conclusion that the Reinforced Ram references Ramming.

Except that not all references are equal, and such a syllogism would abstract away the important details that makes its conclusion valid yet false. The reference to a "special type of Tank Shock" is referencing an element of Tank Shock, specifically tank shock attacks against non-vehicles. That is why it is important to see why the elements shared by the two sets makes a difference to references.

Since Reinforced Rams reference Tank Shock, they reference its elements. If Ramming shares only one element with Tank Shock, then it only shares the reference insofar as the scope of that element is concerned.

That's why it's so important to note that Ramming is only a special type of Tank shock, and which element makes it the special type, so you don't over-generalize the reference and misapply it.

MagickalMemories:

Please see the post right above yours.

Mekniakal:

Maybe you should leave sarcasm out of it next time, so you don't obfuscate your point. Speaking of which, let's talk about that logic that should be simple for you and which you misdescribe. Let's take some sets:

P [a, b, c, d, e]
Q [e, f, g, h, i]
R [a]
O [e]

We can say R is a type of P, since R is an element of P. Likewise we can say O is both a type of P and a type of Q. If we are asked for a P, we can hand over a P or an R.

Now, P is not Q; they do not share the same membership of elements. But, if we narrow our scope to a special case, we can say P is Q where e.

P is a special type of Q. P is a type of Q under the special condition e, not under the general or unqualified conditions.

Do you follow this?

Steelmage99:

You asked for evidence, so I cited the text and sketched out how it supported my claims. It probably would help if you edited your posted and deleted the quote of that entire long post, since if you find it long-winded, surely it is longer-winded to repeat it all again un-necessarily.

I've noticed that now that I've reiterated the evidence, you're claiming that really, what's stated by the rules is not real evidence because of elements you cite.

You are correct to say that both Tank Shock and Ramming occur in the movement phase. But that's irrelevant because we're concerned with whether reference to one implies reference to another, and that makes only the referee, the undisputed referent, and the disputed referent relevant.

So unfortunately the fact that both occur in the Movement phase is irrelevant.

Your second point is, again, irrelevant, for the same reasons. We're concerned with whether reference to one rule denotes reference to another rule, not with the number of over-arching similarities that they share.

It would be like saying, if one were asked for a red type of fruit when one had both apples and peaches, that both apples and peaches are fruit that one is as good as another.

As you can see, this failure of relevance is a failure of scope. We're not concerned with the relation of Ramming and Tank Shock to the Movement phase, we're concerned with the narrower problem of their relationship to each other!

Which brings me to your fourth point, which is both irrelevant, and which middle quite eloquently showed was erroneous on the first page of this thread.

Finally there is the third point you bring up, which is irrelevant in an interesting way. It is true that they both move in a straight line, and that Tank Shock makes this explicit. That's how tank shock attacks work, which I've already pointed out is an element shared by both rules, and the only element shared by both rules, and which the reference of one rule to another makes clear.

So really, not so much irrelevant to the subject as irrelevant to the point that you can make up four distinctions and use those to prove your point that Tank Shock and Ramming have more than one special element of identity.

You have indeed made up four distinctions, but unfortunately you have failed to use them to prove your point. Two distinctions fail the test of relevance, being external to the rules at hand, one distinction has already been shown to be false by middle, and one distinction isn't a distinction, it's the 1/4 element of tank shock attacks that makes Ramming a special type of Tank Shock.

I'm sorry, as such your argument fails to hold.

Edit: Typos

Nurglitch wrote:Furthermore, set theory has bearing on any discussion of rules and their relation to each other.

Wrong. If GW had written "the ability to tank shock confers the ability to Ram, don't try to use set theory to figure this out" then your analysis of the elements of tank shocking and ramming would be quite inappropriate, wouldn't it? My point is, set theory is relevant only if the writer meant it to be relevant. That's what I said way back in my first post, though I've had to repeat it for you a couple times, it's ok. I don't mind.

deadlygopher:

Nope, its correct. I like your 'pork pie' argument though. If GW had written "the ability to tank shock confers the ability to Ram, don't try to use set theory to figure this out", they could have also have written "Ramming is a type of Tank Shock, and don't try to use English to figure this out".

In which case, any analysis of those words in English would have been quite inappropriate. I'm calling this a 'pork pie' argument in reference to "How to Get Ahead in Advertising" where the protagonist shows how such hypotheticals prejudice and distort information about what is actually the case.

What sets relevance is subject matter, not the author's intentions with regard to that subject.

Hence your point that set theory is only relevant if the writer had meant it to be relevant is false.

Set theory is relevant, and useful, so long as the subject is rules. That's why it was invented.

Nurglitch wrote:MagickalMemories:

Please see the post right above yours.

Good enough.
He posted that while I was typing, so I didn't see it.

That still doesn't change the fact you made an assumption and tried to present it as fact, when the information at hand clearly did not support it being such.

It wouldn't be the first time you attempted to present opinions as facts, Nurglitch, and I'm not the first or only one to point that out.

This thread, now being OFFICIALLY another thread about ram vs. tank shock... I'm out. Those involved don't seem to understand that they'll never change each other's minds until a FAQ lists something as factual... and they're too stubborn to stop belaboring the point.

Eric

MagickalMemories:

Speaking of trying to present opinions as facts, you are expressing your opinion, that the information at hand did not clearly support my reading, as fact. How about that?

You're still missing it.

If they had written "don't use set theory" then it would be inappropriate to do so. If they had said, "Ramming is a type of tank shock," it would have been explicit, and a contrary analysis using set theory would have been inapprioriate. I doubt anyone would truly try to argue that. But why would set theory be inappropriate? Becuase there's something else to the analysis, an explicit plain english rule. Do you see where I'm going now? At best you're proposing a relevant interpretive consideration, but in no way have you shown why your "similar characteristics" analysis is definitive. A plain meaning, clearly in context rule would have been a higher-order interpretive tool. It doesn't exist, but just because you have your analysis is no reason why others should give up theirs, and is no proof why yours is superior. Now, I'm not claiming that I have some construct of interpretive tools and their relative order, but you haven't proposed on either.

There, it took me all afternoon to drag you kicking and screaming to my initial point. And that's just because you propose an analysis is not in itself de facto proof that you're countered other people's interpretations of the problem. I think you'd get a lot further in presenting your arguments if you realized that.

sourclams wrote:
If we're sticking to pure Letter of the Law/ Rules as Written interpretation, wouldn't this read:

Ork Wagon:

5+ cover save, as it is a unit within 6" of the Big Mek KFF

AND

4+ cover save, as it is a vehicle and obscured

Therefore, an Ork player could opt to ignore his 5+ cover save in favor of the 4+ cover save from Obscurement.

I disagree. It seems like everyone ignores part of the rule for obscured.

If a special rule or a piece of warger confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex.

It's not the case that a 4+ and a 5+ is conferred, only the 5+ is.

Does the Ork Codex specify the cover save given by a KFF? Yes, it does. It grants all units within 6 inches of the model carrying the KFF a 5+ cover save.

If you are going to argue that it gives a 4+ cover save to vehicles, how are you supporting that the rule in the Ork Codex for the 5+ cover save doesn't apply to vehicles?

deadlygopher

Nope, I get your point, it's just that your point is wrong. The analysis itself shows how it is definitive.

Set theory is just a convenient system for making the truth of the matter clear.

If GW has written "Ramming is a type of tank shock," then any analysis using set theory and reaching a contrary conclusion would have an agregious and easily recognized error highlighted by the formalism. That's the point of it.

I certainly agree that where the expression of the rules is in dispute (somehow...) the transparency that set theory provides will not avail us.

Fortunately I'd done the work, cited the text, provided a standard definition of a key word, the game-specific referents of the key term, and shown how the information presented set theoretically is the information expressed by the text. And Steelmage99 has given me the opportunity to clarify how that information is also relevant.

I also agree that just because I have presented an analysis is no reason that others should agree with it and find it "superior" to their own. It should stand by its own merits, and people should agree with it on its own merits, not my authority, popularity, or any other irrelevant consideration.

Why you think I'm trying to merely assert the correctness of this reading, I'm not sure. I'm simply putting it out there for people to check for themselves.

Which is why, of course, your point is wrong, and really beside the point.

Traskel:

Sorry, but could you explain where in the Ork Codex that it says the Kustom Force Field confers a 5+ cover save for obscurement instead of the standard 4+?

Traskel wrote:If a special rule or a piece of warger confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex.

It's not the case that a 4+ and a 5+ is conferred, only the 5+ is.

Does the Ork Codex specify the cover save given by a KFF? Yes, it does. It grants all units within 6 inches of the model carrying the KFF a 5+ cover save.

If you are going to argue that it gives a 4+ cover save to vehicles, how are you supporting that the rule in the Ork Codex for the 5+ cover save doesn't apply to vehicles?

You're saying exactly what I'm saying, without taking the final last step that "makes it".

The Trukk gets a 5+ cover save. We know this because the KFF says so. The Terminator gets a 5+ invulnerable save. We know this because Tactical Dreadnought Armor says so.

AND

(here's the step that "makes it")

The Trukk is obscured. We know this because the KFF says so. Obscured grants a 4+ cover save. We know this because the rule for vehicle obscurement says so. This is in ADDITION to the 5+ cover save that the Trukk could normally receive. The Terminator gets a 2+ armor save. We know this because Tactical Dreadnought Armor says so. This is in addition to the 5+ invulnerable save.

That's what makes it different. The Trukk gets 2 cover saves; one conferred from KFF, and one conferred from Obscurement.

This is the most literal reading of the rules. I don't much like it, because I hate fighting Mek Orks. But it's the simplest possible definition.

OMFG U CAN'T HAVE 2 OF THE SAME SAVE TYPE WTF R U slowed???

Normally, no, units don't have 2 different saves of the same type. However, codex overrides rulebook.