Deff Rollin' Vehicles

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.

**Drunkspleen**

Gorkamorka wrote:My favorite part is that the strict RAW supports it, and the RAI supports it (the entry on battlewagons specifically mentions deff rollas crushing light vehicles), yet the people on the other side continue to claim that their interpretation of how different a ram is from a tank shock means they're right.

My favorite part is making claims about how the RAW supports it without backing it up with an example

**Gorkamorka**

starbomber109 wrote:I'll just echo what I said elsewhere, in that it just feels like shaky ground.

Imagine, for a second, that a 2.5 ton or so (about like a semi truck) vehicle has a huge spiked steam roller on the front (that weighs maybe like a half ton, taking the entire weight of the vehicle up to 3 tons) decides to ram a 6 ton land raider (or an even heavier Monolith, which I can only imagine weights an amount that can only be written as 'lots')

As much as orks may believe that their DEFFROLLA can crush a vehicle, the laws of physics just say no. Even if the battlewagon manages to punch a hole in the land raider with the rolla, the rolla will be stuck in there, and that's if it's 'well made.' If it's just thrown together (keep in mind, this is an ork vehicle) it will just go crunch, and you lost your deffrolla AND the tank lived :<

3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.

starbomber109 wrote:
And that's with an RAI standing, with RAW, "Ok, I did d6 S10 hits to your vehicle, what's it's toughness" "It...dosn't have a toughness, it's a vehicle" "Well....what do I need to wound you?" "You can't wound a vehicle!" "You didn't test for leadership either" "Dude it's a tank, why does it need to test for leadership?!" "Death or Glory?" "*throws up hands and dice*"

I'm not really sure what you're even trying to say here. Why would "d6 S10 hits" have anything to do with a vehicle not having toughness, wounds, leadership, or the ability to death or glory?

Drunkspleen wrote:
Gorkamorka wrote:My favorite part is that the strict RAW supports it, and the RAI supports it (the entry on battlewagons specifically mentions deff rollas crushing light vehicles), yet the people on the other side continue to claim that their interpretation of how different a ram is from a tank shock means they're right.
My favorite part is making claims about how the RAW supports it without backing it up with an example

Feel free to point out the RAW that says it doesn't, I didn't feel like quoting 2 simple rules that had already been posted on the same page. If you can definitively and logically prove that ramming is not a type of tank shock when it is specifically described as such, I'll certainly stop buying rollas.

**starbomber109**

Gorkamorka wrote:

starbomber109 wrote:
And that's with an RAI standing, with RAW, "Ok, I did d6 S10 hits to your vehicle, what's it's toughness" "It...dosn't have a toughness, it's a vehicle" "Well....what do I need to wound you?" "You can't wound a vehicle!" "You didn't test for leadership either" "Dude it's a tank, why does it need to test for leadership?!" "Death or Glory?" "*throws up hands and dice*"

I'm not really sure what you're even trying to say here. Why would "d6 S10 hits" have anything to do with a vehicle not having toughness, wounds, leadership, or the ability to death or glory?

Because the battlewagon is tank shocking it.

Edit: I'm wondering how I'll be yelled at for this one.

**Drunkspleen**

Gorkamorka wrote:Feel free to point out the RAW that says it doesn't, I didn't feel like quoting 2 simple rules that had already been posted on the same page. If you can definitively and logically prove that ramming is not a type of tank shock when it is specifically described as such, I'll certainly stop buying rollas.

See my post on the previous page regarding the fact that the Deff Rolla only affects the singular target of a tank shock.

**Ridcully**

sourclams wrote:
Ridcully wrote:
Just go by the INAT FAQs if you want a huge list of commonly used rulings. I believe they say you can't, but i haven't checked in a while.

6 months ago the INAT FAQ actually allowed it. They later flipped their stance, so it's not even that clear to the people writing the FAQ.

I don't see how that matters. It doesn't change the fact that many people use the INAT FAQs, which in this case reflects a popular opinion. He may as well have it to refer to now and in the future.

**Gorkamorka**

Drunkspleen wrote:
Gorkamorka wrote:Feel free to point out the RAW that says it doesn't, I didn't feel like quoting 2 simple rules that had already been posted on the same page. If you can definitively and logically prove that ramming is not a type of tank shock when it is specifically described as such, I'll certainly stop buying rollas.
See my post on the previous page regarding the fact that the Deff Rolla only affects the singular target of a tank shock.

Which one?
"Ramming is called a special kind of "tank shock move", and is said to be "executed the same way" so this phrase likening it to a tank shock refers only to the movement the vehicle executes"?
The one that entirely hinges on the fact that your interpretation of the word 'move' is more right than say... the one that defines it as "a play or maneuver, as in a game or sport" and supports my point?
And then somehow extrapolating that to "the ram effect applied to enemy vehicles during a ram movement is in no way related to the tank shock effect applied to non-vehicle models"... yeah, completely definitive there.

Feel free to post something actually convincing though, I'm waiting.

Am I emoraging enough yet Gwar? I'm trying...

**Gwar!**

Gorkamorka wrote:Am I emoraging enough yet Gwar? I'm trying...

It is... acceptable. I'll call off the Pandas, but I'll be keeping an eye on you!

**orkcommander**

It's very clear that a deffrolla can affect vehicles. A special tank shock is still a tank shock.

**starbomber109**

orkcommander wrote:It's very clear that a deffrolla can affect vehicles. A special tank shock is still a tank shock.

This is why it's shaky ground. A tank shock is not a ram but a ram is a tank shock is...not...a ram?

This issue will never be resolved.

ever.

**orkcommander**

It all comes down to what the word "special" means.

**Gorkamorka**

starbomber109 wrote:
orkcommander wrote:It's very clear that a deffrolla can affect vehicles. A special tank shock is still a tank shock.

This is why it's shaky ground. A tank shock is not a ram but a ram is a tank shock is...not...a ram?

This issue will never be resolved.

ever.

Just because a rectangle isn't a square doesn't mean a square isn't a rectangle. It's perfectly clear.

**starbomber109**

Gorkamorka wrote:
starbomber109 wrote:
orkcommander wrote:It's very clear that a deffrolla can affect vehicles. A special tank shock is still a tank shock.

This is why it's shaky ground. A tank shock is not a ram but a ram is a tank shock is...not...a ram?

This issue will never be resolved.

ever.

Just because a rectangle isn't a square doesn't mean a square isn't a rectangle. It's perfectly clear.

The reason we can't resolve this is which one is the square, the ram or the tank shock? If the ram is a rectangle, then tank shocks are squares, which would mean they are still rectangles.

But if the ram is the square, then not all rectangles are squares, and not all tank shocks are rams.

And not any two people in this thread are able to come to a consensus on which is which. I'm not saying with this who is right or wrong, just that you can not come to an agreement, and you never will.

Edit: what isn't shaky ground is that D6 S10 hits/wounds on an infantry unit is awesome, and D6 more is yet more awesome, and legal. Sadly, this is not the topic, which isn't awesome at all it's downright sad.

**synchronicity**

Bleh, somebody make this problem go away...

I'm lookin' at you, GW!

**orkcommander**

starbomber109 wrote:
"Edit: what isn't shaky ground is that D6 S10 hits/wounds on an infantry unit is awesome, and D6 more is yet more awesome, and legal. Sadly, this is not the topic, which isn't awesome at all it's downright sad."

Yes but not for the points.

**Mattlov**

The OBVIOUS solution is simple:

Disallow Deff Rollas.

Problem solved!

**starbomber109**

orkcommander wrote:
Yes but not for the points.

It is if that unit of infantry is a group of nob bikers or a tricked out command squad on bikes.

Edit: Or hell, any sternguard who just walked out of a drop pod!

**Drunkspleen**

Gorkamorka wrote:Which one?
"Ramming is called a special kind of "tank shock move", and is said to be "executed the same way" so this phrase likening it to a tank shock refers only to the movement the vehicle executes"?
The one that entirely hinges on the fact that your interpretation of the word 'move' is more right than say... the one that defines it as "a play or maneuver, as in a game or sport" and supports my point?

Maybe I am wrong, but I figured interpreting move in terms of it's meaning in 40k, which is the movement of models, would be the safer choice rather than a dictionary meaning which the word move is never used to represent in the rulebook. Infact the tenets of YMDC support me in this too:

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

I would be happy to listen if you can provide an example of GW using the word move to mean something other than the movement of models within the rulebook or any supplementary rules such as codices or expansions, however I am quite confident that my interpretation of the word move will prove to be the more common, even if you can find an alternative example.

And then somehow extrapolating that to "the ram effect applied to enemy vehicles during a ram movement is in no way related to the tank shock effect applied to non-vehicle models"... yeah, completely definitive there.

Well based on the conclusion that the phrase "a ram is a special kind of tank shock" refers only to the movement, that IS a safe extrapolation to make, because there is nothing saying that a ram effect is a special kind of tank shock effect.

**Gwar!**

Would not the most sporting compromise be for it to retain the functionality from the edition of the game for which it was written?

**Drunkspleen**

Gwar! wrote:Would not the most sporting compromise be for it to retain the functionality from the edition of the game for which it was written?

I'm all for it... so battlewagons can't ram at all right? Thats what we are saying?

**kill dem stunties**

I've given up argueing against people and just dont ram vehicles lol, even though raw supports it 100% as much as everyone else thinks it doesnt.

A special type of tank shock is a variation on a normal tank shock, but it is still a tank shock, i just get tired of all the nerdrage from people terrified that orks would actually have reliable anti vehicle without disembarking the entire unit and getting shot to pieces.

But yea whatever, like i said i get so tired of the tears i just make it not an issue.

**Warboss Gutrip**

Hmmm... After much deliberation, and listening to both sides of the argument, as well as some rules lawyering, I must conclude that it is permissable to inflict D6 S10 hits on a vehicle. A special kind of tank shock is still undoubtedly a tank shock, after all!

**orkcommander**

Warboss Gutrip wrote:Hmmm... After much deliberation, and listening to both sides of the argument, as well as some rules lawyering, I must conclude that it is permissable to inflict D6 S10 hits on a vehicle. A special kind of tank shock is still undoubtedly a tank shock, after all!

Welcome to the light side of the force.

**Dracos**

I like these threads: plenty of people stating that this has absolutely been talked out TO DEATH, and yet then we proceed to beat this horse.

Did we really even need a second page on this? Search for one of the previous ones if you are curious about this topic.

**Gwar!**

Dracos wrote:I like these threads: plenty of people stating that this has absolutely been talked out TO DEATH, and yet then we proceed to beat this horse.

Did we really even need a second page on this? Search for one of the previous ones if you are curious about this topic.

Because the EMORAGE™ Level is not high enough yet!

**orkcommander**

Dracos wrote:Did we really even need a second page on this? Search for one of the previous ones if you are curious about this topic.

Yes, because the information provided in this particular thread helped someone form their own opinion.

**Drunkspleen**

Dracos wrote:I like these threads: plenty of people stating that this has absolutely been talked out TO DEATH, and yet then we proceed to beat this horse.

Did we really even need a second page on this? Search for one of the previous ones if you are curious about this topic.

I felt the need to post because I am yet to see someone mount any real argument against why I believe it does not work, Gorkamorka tried but I think the unpleasant back and forth between us (which admittedly I started) meant his reply wasn't as thorough as it could have been. Basically, I'm waiting to see someone prove me wrong, and obviously it's not going to happen in the old threads.

**starbomber109**

orkcommander wrote:
Dracos wrote:Did we really even need a second page on this? Search for one of the previous ones if you are curious about this topic.

Yes, because the information provided in this particular thread helped someone form their own opinion.

It also gave a neat analogy, I'm going to be using that 'square/rectangle' thing from now on for this issue

Thanks gorkamorka.

**Dracos**

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/232831.page#607056

Well I guess if we are dead-set on doing this, lets do it.

me! wrote:RAW for Deffrolla: Ork Codex p.55: "Any Tank Shock made by a battlewagon with a Deffrolla causes d6 S10 hits on the victim unit."

Worth noting is the capitalization of Tank Shock. Why is this important? Because it is then referring to a proper noun and not a verb.

The proper noun it is referring to can be found on page 68 of the pocket rulebook from AOBR I have on me atm. 2nd paragraph:
"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. This is an exception to the rule that enemy models cannot be moved through."

[The entirety of the paragraph is needed for purposes of defining if Ramming is indeed also Tank shocking the vehicle.]

Excluded from the Tank Shock rule explicitly are vehicles, by way of the end of the 6th paragraph:

"If the tank accidentally moves into contact with a friendly model or comes into within 1" of an enemy vehicle, it immediately stops moving."

So by definition, a Tank Shock cannot affect a vehicle. What can affect a vehicle in this way then?

We come to Ramming. Note that it is not listed as a subsection of Tank shock, denoting that it is separate from the Tank Shock rules.

Defining exactly what Ramming is, paragraph 2 under the Ramming section:
"Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed in the same way, except [snip]"

Ramming references the tank shock MOVE and not the tank shock ATTACK. When one considers that it is a different section [denoting that it is a separate rule], this reference to the tank shock MOVE is required to bypass the restriction on moving within 1" of an enemy. While the sentence is required to give it permission to pass through enemy units, it is easy to misinterpret if you skim over it as "tank shock" simply and not "tank shock move". The distinction is clear, tank shock cannot affect vehicles, only Ramming can. Ramming and Tank Shock are related because they both allow movement within 1" of enemy units and Ramming necessarily causes Tank Shock in any intervening infantry (else it could not move through them), but are otherwise separate rules.

Thusly:
Deffrollas are used in Tank Shock.
Tank Shock cannot be used against vehicles.
Therefore, Deffrollas cannot be used against vehicles.

**starbomber109**

.....reading your thread dracos.

Interesting points brought up in there (I'm wondering if squares and rectangles are more sheep and basketballs now, I know my semi-truck example is a basketball too :< )

I just have one more dumb question before we get back on topic...

What the hell is the rusty spon joke? Where did it come from?!

**Warboss Gutrip**

Saladfingers. Search on youtube!