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.

InquisitorBob:

Let's put it this way, and suppose that the Battlewagon is 1" away from the Land Raider. The Ork player declares cruising speed for the Battlewagon, its top speed, and the direction as centered on the Land Raider.

Given the formula of (speed + armour + mass) to get (0+4+1) to give a S5 for the hit on the Land Raider, the Battlewagon halts, does not harm the Land Raider, and the units are separated by 1".

Given lighter vehicles, it might be a fun party game to make up some monster-truck style Battlewagons and have monster truck races over lines of trucks, but however you cut it, an Ork Battlewagon ain't going to be ramming a Land Raider without moving.

My take on the "must move at least combat speed" is that it applies to declared distance only, although the rules are vague. My reasoning is that if it had to apply to distance traveled, what happens if your vehicle is assaulted by a unit which fails to damage it, so you tank shock out of it. But then the unit succeeds in a DoG attack and your vehicle is wrecked? If we apply the minimum distance requirement to actual distance moved, then no tank shock actually took place and your vehicle would be fine, so you could tankshock and be wrecked, which means you didn't tankshock so.... {vomit}

As for the deffrolla thing. Saying that "special type of tank shock" doesn't mean that it's a type of tank shock is completely and utterly bananas. You can play by FAQ if you want, but the rules could say that ramming is a purple type of tank shock, and it would still be a type of tank shock. And since deffrollas apply to any tank shock, it would deal its hits,

Deffgob wrote:. . .As for the deffrolla thing. Saying that "special type of tank shock" doesn't mean that it's a type of tank shock is completely and utterly bananas. You can play by FAQ if you want, but the rules could say that ramming is a purple type of tank shock, and it would still be a type of tank shock. And since deffrollas apply to any tank shock, it would deal its hits,

Bananas.

Tank Shock, which deffrollas affect, must stop 1" from vehicles.

As relevant as the comment itself - and as repetative.

I'm quite fond of bananas, SIR, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't reference them in such a frivolous manner!

You have been warned.

DoW

What about avocados? Are they off limits?

Anyways, ramming doesn't have to stop 1" away from a vehicle, which doesn't change the fact that it's a special type of tank shock... that's what makes it special.

Tomato is a vegitable according to the US Supreme Court.

Does that change the fact that it fits the requirements for being a fruit?

No. But it means that even as a sub set they follow different rules.

... ok, now we've truly left the realm of sanity. To get back away from an argument based on fruits, a power weapon is a special type of CCW, and follows different rules from a normal CCW. Does that mean that a power weapon is not a CCW?

Yes, it does. It means that a Power Weapon is a Special Close Combat Weapon.

Of course the deff rolla can affect vehicles in addition to ramming damage by RAW. It’s the only way its worth the points and the only way I’ve ever seen it played.

We are left to argue what the word 'special' means in the rules for ramming... as in a 'special' type of tank shock. Is a 'special' type of tank shock really a tank shock? Is 'special' education really education? These questions need answers!

So we wait for a WD battle report featuring the deff rolla ramming a vehicle.

Remember the whole shootaboy nob with power klaw debate? Didn't the author of the codex use one in a battle report and it still took a FAQ to convince some?

Deffgob wrote:... ok, now we've truly left the realm of sanity. To get back away from an argument based on fruits, a power weapon is a special type of CCW, and follows different rules from a normal CCW. Does that mean that a power weapon is not a CCW?

A power weapon is a close combat weapon in the sense that it is a weapon that is used in close combat. It is not, however, a Close Combat Weapon from the perspective of the 40k ruleset that specifically determines what is and isn't a CCW in terms of actions and interactions during Close Combat. (Well... most of the time)

As much as it pains me to agree with Nurglitch

DoW

The term "special" is commonly used in Warhammer 40k to mean something different from "normal". And normal refers to the general rules for something.

E.G.: "Skimmers follow the normal rules for vehicles, with the additions and exceptions given below."

The Universal Special Rules, for example, constitutes a list of rules that are exceptions to other rules.

This use of the term "special" is consistent with the description of Ramming, its layout in the book, and its relation to Tank Shock. Ramming is not a sub-heading of Tank Shock!, it differs in movement, allowance of shooting, and effect on vehicles, and hence in transitivity of reference.

DogOfWar wrote:
A power weapon is a close combat weapon in the sense that it is a weapon that is used in close combat. It is not, however, a Close Combat Weapon from the perspective of the 40k ruleset that specifically determines what is and isn't a CCW

If I charged a unit of wyches with razorsnares(who remove the bonus from having 2 CCWs) with an IC holding 2 lightning claws, would you say he gets his full attacks because he doesn't have any CCWs, he only has special CCWs?

Nurglitch wrote:The term "special" is commonly used in Warhammer 40k to mean something different from "normal". And normal refers to the general rules for something.

E.G.: "Skimmers follow the normal rules for vehicles, with the additions and exceptions given below."

The Universal Special Rules, for example, constitutes a list of rules that are exceptions to other rules.

This use of the term "special" is consistent with the description of Ramming, its layout in the book, and its relation to Tank Shock. Ramming is not a sub-heading of Tank Shock!, it differs in movement, allowance of shooting, and effect on vehicles, and hence in transitivity of reference.

But, you know what, Nurgle, you've convinced me. Skimmers are not vehicles.

Nurglitch wrote:The term "special" is commonly used in Warhammer 40k to mean something different from "normal". And normal refers to the general rules for something.

E.G.: "Skimmers follow the normal rules for vehicles, with the additions and exceptions given below."

The Universal Special Rules, for example, constitutes a list of rules that are exceptions to other rules.

This use of the term "special" is consistent with the description of Ramming, its layout in the book, and its relation to Tank Shock. Ramming is not a sub-heading of Tank Shock!, it differs in movement, allowance of shooting, and effect on vehicles, and hence in transitivity of reference.

But, you know what, Nurgle, you've convinced me. Skimmers are not vehicles.

This is probably a bad idea but...

You know poodles are a special kind of dog right. They are a dog, which is distinct from all other kind of dogs in the sense that they have a funny haircut. That's the problem with all these arguements. It's easy to interpret the term special in vastly different ways, because what makes something special is subjective.

The way I would read the description of ramming "ramming is a special type of tank shock" is as follows. There exists a group defined as tank shock. This group has an unspecified number of subgroups. These subgroups have their own unique properties. Their unique properties are listed in the subgroups description. Unless otherwise stated I would assume that each subgroup of tank shock inherits all of tank shocks properties. That's usually how it works in computer programming or set theory. Why would it be different here.

If this wasn't true than they wouldn't bother saying ramming is a special kind of tank shock. Saying you are a special kind of tank shock implies that you are a kind of tank shock. Therefore we start by defining the rule as tank shock and then modify a tank shock with the rest of the description.

It was a bad idea.

Unfortunately it's also true, which is why I was compelled to respond. Especially about the term special, which is why this is being debated endlessly.

Nurglitch's surprising statement that a dog is a special type of cat clearly illustrates the problem here. A dog is not a special type of cat because a dog is not a type of cat. They are both mammals. A special type of mammal would be a kangaroo, which unlike most other mammals has a pouch to hold it's young. A kangaroo is still a mammal and asside from it's distinguishing features follows all the rules for inclusion in the category mammals.

Saying something is a special type of something else implies inclusion in a greater group.

All kangaroos are mammal, but not all mammals are kangaroos.

All power weapons are CCW but not all CCW are power weapons.

All rams are tank shocks but not all tank shocks are rams.

@ phillosmaster
The think I don't understand in your post is the word "implies." Saying that ram is a special type of tank shock doesn't imply that it's a type of tank shock, it says it outright.

Really, I'm having trouble even seeing the other side here, which is unusual. If the rules said "A ram is performed much like a tank shock except that..." Then I'd be on Nurgle's side, but it doesn't. It says that a ram is a type of tank shock. It blatantly says it, there's no fuzzy language on this one.

Deffgob:

I think the problem you're facing is you keep paraphrasing "special type of tank shock move" as "type of Tank Shock!". That's quite a lossy translation.

Deffgob wrote:

DogOfWar wrote:
A power weapon is a close combat weapon in the sense that it is a weapon that is used in close combat. It is not, however, a Close Combat Weapon from the perspective of the 40k ruleset that specifically determines what is and isn't a CCW

If I charged a unit of wyches with razorsnares(who remove the bonus from having 2 CCWs) with an IC holding 2 lightning claws, would you say he gets his full attacks because he doesn't have any CCWs, he only has special CCWs?

I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with the wording of Razorsnares. If it's quoted as "removes the bonus attack from having two Close Combat Weapons" then I would be inclined to say that no, they would not remove the bonus attack gained from having two Special Close Combat Weapons.

I'd argue this is the case like this:

1) Razorsnares remove the bonus from having 2 Close Combat Weapons.
2) It's clear this is referring to 'normal' Close Combat Weapons since having two different special CCW would not confer a bonus that would need to be removed by Razorsnares.
3) If the rule is referring to normal Close Combat Weapons then it is not referring to special Close Combat Weapons since they are a different type of weapon.
4) The rule does not apply to special Close Combat Weapons regardless of whether the model is using two of the same kind to confer a bonus or not.
5) The IC can use their full attacks plus the bonus for having two of the same special weapon.

Not as sexy as Nurglitch's or Flavus' logic, but I think it explains my position well enough.

I'm not sure how well it would hold up since it relies on the fact that special CCW are not CCW for rules purposes, which could be disputed. It could also be interpreted differently if it said "removes a bonus attack from having two CCW" since that wouldn't imply there needs to be one to remove in the first place.

DoW

I would say that by RAW ramming is a tank shock (albeit a special kind of tank shock) and would allow the Deff Rolla to make it's attacks, which are used in 'any tank shock'. I'm sure others would disagree. From the RAI perspective, i would very much doubt it was meant to be used in ramming situations. I think most people would be in this boat.

It has been discussed before, though not by me, and it wasn't the OP's question. You can either play by the FAQ, have a house rule that says otherwise, or make an agreement with your opponent. Either way, you're not going to reach a conclusion where others haven't by repeating and rephrasing.

DogOfWar wrote:
I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with the wording of Razorsnares. If it's quoted as "removes the bonus attack from having two Close Combat Weapons" then I would be inclined to say that no, they would not remove the bonus attack gained from having two Special Close Combat Weapons.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The sign says 'dogs must be on a leash'.

The poodle owner carefully explains 'no, sir, my poodle does not have to be on a leash, because it's a special type of dog. Being a special type of dog therefore excludes it from any rules that specify mere 'dogs', because as I have already pointed out, my dog is special.

Then the cop gives you an $80 ticket because you're the dumb feth that thinks his special dog doesn't need to be on a leash.

A Ram is a Tank Shock.

Everything Deffgob says +12.

There's some serious banana logic going on in this thread.

No matter whether deff rollas can be used on vehicles or not, I believe a Ram can occur even if you do not move.

Pg68
"... declare how many inches the vehicles is going to move. The vehicle must move at least at combat speed."

This simply means that you must declare a movement of more than 0 inches.

Furthermore: "Once the vehicle has been aimed and the speed declared, move the vehicle straight forward until it comes into contact with an enemy unit or it reaches the distance declared."
You are allowed to move less than your declared distance: the declared distance is the important thing here, not the actual distance moved. I declare a speed of 10 inches, and move the model forward until it comes into contact with an enemy.




O, and as for 'special kind of tank shock'.... Mammals give birth to live young. The young of platypus hatch from eggs. Is a platypus a mammal? (they're even better than Kangaroos IMO, most Aussie mammals have pouches).
Ramming cannot be a completely separate rule from tank shock when the first few sentences describe that you use all the tank shock rules!!
Ramming follows all the rules for tank shocks, with a few extra conditions. It is like saying a square is a special kind of quadrilateral. Quadrilaterals have the rule 'the sum of internal angles must be 360 degrees'. Squares have the rule 'all internal angles must be 90 degrees'. They are not mutually exclusive. The one special thing is that you are allowed to come into contact with an enemy vehicle... which is like saying, if your quadrilateral is a square you may find its area using length^2, rather than another method.

(please address the two halves of my post separately if you want to reply)

Nurglitch wrote:InquisitorBob:

Let's put it this way, and suppose that the Battlewagon is 1" away from the Land Raider. The Ork player declares cruising speed for the Battlewagon, its top speed, and the direction as centered on the Land Raider.

Given the formula of (speed + armour + mass) to get (0+4+1) to give a S5 for the hit on the Land Raider, the Battlewagon halts, does not harm the Land Raider, and the units are separated by 1".

Given lighter vehicles, it might be a fun party game to make up some monster-truck style Battlewagons and have monster truck races over lines of trucks, but however you cut it, an Ork Battlewagon ain't going to be ramming a Land Raider without moving.

That's what I said when I said the strenght of the hit wouldn't be too high...
It's pointless to do it, but technically, I think it's legal.

sourclams wrote:

DogOfWar wrote:
I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with the wording of Razorsnares. If it's quoted as "removes the bonus attack from having two Close Combat Weapons" then I would be inclined to say that no, they would not remove the bonus attack gained from having two Special Close Combat Weapons.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The sign says 'dogs must be on a leash'.

The poodle owner carefully explains 'no, sir, my poodle does not have to be on a leash, because it's a special type of dog. Being a special type of dog therefore excludes it from any rules that specify mere 'dogs', because as I have already pointed out, my dog is special.

Then the cop gives you an $80 ticket because you're the dumb feth that thinks his special dog doesn't need to be on a leash.

A Ram is a Tank Shock.

Everything Deffgob says +12.

A poodle is not a special type of dog. It's a normal type of dog. A special type of dog would be something like a police K9 unit or a seeing-eye dog.

We're not talking special as in "my mum thinks I'm special," we're talking special as in "this has a special characteristic that separates and distinguishes it from the others such that it has different rules that apply." (Like allowing re-rolls to wound, doubling strength, etc.) Uniquely special, could be a more descriptive term perhaps?

Besides, poodles always allow armour saves.

DoW

don_mondo wrote:No, you cannot tank shock a vehicle. You can ram one, but that is a totally separate game mechanic. Which is why Deff rollas, according to the GW UK GT FAQ, the GW askyourquestion guy, the INAT FAQ, and nearly any other reputable source, cannot hit a vehicle.

INAT faq only switched their ruling because they were afraid that gw would release a faq that would contradict theirs apparently.

I would not rate the gw askyourquestionguy a reputable source.

I don't know what other reputable sources actually exist out there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DogOfWar wrote:A poodle is not a special type of dog. It's a normal type of dog. It's a A special type of dog would be something like a police K9 unit or a seeing-eye dog.

So what you are saying is that because a seeing-eye dog and a k9 dog is a 'special' type of dog, it's not a 'dog'? WTF?!?

It's still a fething dog. It may have different skills, but it's still a fething dog. Being 'special' doesn't stop it from still being a dog.

DogOfWar wrote:We're not talking special as in "my mum thinks I'm special," we're talking special as in "this has a special characteristic that separates and distinguishes it from the others such that it has different rules that apply." (Like allowing re-rolls to wound, doubling strength, etc.) Uniquely special, could be a more descriptive term perhaps?

And? Like the dog example, it's still a fething dog. So it's a special tank shot. Yay! I get it! It still doesn't mean it's not a tank shock.

Doesn't the deff rolla entry in the ork codex states it works in any form of tank shock?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:Deffgob:

I think the problem you're facing is you keep paraphrasing "special type of tank shock move" as "type of Tank Shock!". That's quite a lossy translation.

That's also like saying (using the dog analogy) that a "special type of dog" isn't a "type of dog". Talk about lossy translation fail...

By the way, defgob +infinity squared with honorable mention to orkcommander.

Barring poodles because they are special, I think the main question here is if you only move 0 inches do you actually count as moving. The rules says you just have to declare your distance as combat speed, but if you don't physically move does that count as a move. It does specify that just pivoting on the spot is not enough for a tank shock. That sort of suggests that the model must move some physical distance other than 0 inches.

It's more like
Assaulting is a 'special kind' of movement.

coredump wrote:It's more like
Assaulting is a 'special kind' of movement.

And when you make an assault, do your models not move? When you draw a square, does it not have 4 sides? When you cut a poodle does it not bleed? .... Yes it does. On an unrelated note, I don't like poodles very much, and quite enjoy knives.

For the sake of the OP's question, let's assume that Defrollas work on vehicles. You declare your ramming speed (distance), and move 0" to perform the first Ram. You roll a 5, then a 6. Hurray! Kaboom! Your battlewagon continues moving up to the declared speed, wreaking havok as the drivers cackle with glee.

You declare your ramming speed (distance), and move 0" to perform the first Ram. You roll something that does not cause the LR to explode in metal chunks and gooey bits. The battlewagon drivers still cackle with glee as the defrolla spins and crunches against the armor of the land raider, making pretty sparks and scratches.