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.

insaniak wrote:Well... the 5th ed Rulebook hadn't yet been published, but the Ork codex was supposedly written with 5th in mind.

I've read that almost word for word somewhere... Edit: Ahh wikipedia. Of course.

But yeah, it wouldn't matter when it was released anyway. It adds nothing to the codex. When 'ram' was released only (arguably by some) plays a part in the 'ram is a type of tank shock' argument. Nothing to do with this.

How is ram not a type of tank shock? It's stated in the BRB (don't have the page number on me) that ramming is a specific sub-type of tank shock. It's like saying that squares aren't rectangles.

Slackermagee wrote:How is ram not a type of tank shock? It's stated in the BRB (don't have the page number on me) that ramming is a specific sub-type of tank shock. It's like saying that squares aren't rectangles.

*Ork facepalm*

Slackermagee wrote:How is ram not a type of tank shock? It's stated in the BRB (don't have the page number on me) that ramming is a specific sub-type of tank shock. It's like saying that squares aren't rectangles.

Suffice to say the debate over rollas, ramming, tank shocking, pedantry, character assassination and a whole pile o' lulz is one that has been done to death many, many MANY times here, and indeed on most other forums. A quick perusal of the search function or a simple flicking through the YMDC pages will show you several such threads.

Without bringing anything new to the debating table-- which you might have but, and no offence intended here, I very much doubt it ( it has been gone over in exquisite detail I can assure you) please don't start or resurrect any threads on this subject for the moment.

Many thanks in advance.

Ridcully wrote:
But yeah, it wouldn't matter when it was released anyway. It adds nothing to the codex. When 'ram' was released only (arguably by some) plays a part in the 'ram is a type of tank shock' argument. Nothing to do with this.

The OP asked what happened to a walker if it is hit by a Ramming Battlewagon and engages in DoG. The FAQ gives us information about Tank Shocked units and what happens to them. Unfortunately there are no clear references to walkers, so this topic will turn into a Ram=TankShock=/=Ram argument. The reason I try to clear up the timeline is that I believe it lends support to the idea that a unit hit by a Ram is being hit by a type of Tank Shock. It also makes this unnecessarily messy DoG easily resolved. The walker takes 2d6 hits on the front if it stops the vehicle, and on the back if it fails in addition to the normal ram hit.

Anyways, I'll leave the soapbox here. Naturally, YMMV, but this seems like the simplest solution to me. There is no clear answer, and neither side will convince the other. Unfortunately, the 'ram is a type of tank shock' argument' has everything to do with this question.

Gitzbitah wrote:

Ridcully wrote:
But yeah, it wouldn't matter when it was released anyway. It adds nothing to the codex. When 'ram' was released only (arguably by some) plays a part in the 'ram is a type of tank shock' argument. Nothing to do with this.

The OP asked what happened to a walker if it is hit by a Ramming Battlewagon and engages in DoG. The FAQ gives us information about Tank Shocked units and what happens to them. Unfortunately there are no clear references to walkers, so this topic will turn into a Ram=TankShock=/=Ram argument. The reason I try to clear up the timeline is that I believe it lends support to the idea that a unit hit by a Ram is being hit by a type of Tank Shock. It also makes this unnecessarily messy DoG easily resolved. The walker takes 2d6 hits on the front if it stops the vehicle, and on the back if it fails in addition to the normal ram hit.

Anyways, I'll leave the soapbox here. Naturally, YMMV, but this seems like the simplest solution to me. There is no clear answer, and neither side will convince the other. Unfortunately, the 'ram is a type of tank shock' argument' has everything to do with this question.

This doesn't come into play, and isn't a 'is ramming tank shocking?' argument.

If you are playing that ram is a type of tank shock, then the rules are clear and the faq applies. You get 2d6 hits against a DoG walker, even if it stops you.

If you are playing that ram is not a type of tank shock, then the rolla doesn't come into play to begin with, the 'further d6 hits' don't come into play, and the DoG faq entry referring to these hits and tank shocks doesn't apply. You don't take either d6 hits, and it's a normal ram with a normal walker DoG.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote:

Ridcully wrote:
But yeah, it wouldn't matter when it was released anyway. It adds nothing to the codex. When 'ram' was released only (arguably by some) plays a part in the 'ram is a type of tank shock' argument. Nothing to do with this.

The OP asked what happened to a walker if it is hit by a Ramming Battlewagon and engages in DoG. The FAQ gives us information about Tank Shocked units and what happens to them. Unfortunately there are no clear references to walkers, so this topic will turn into a Ram=TankShock=/=Ram argument. The reason I try to clear up the timeline is that I believe it lends support to the idea that a unit hit by a Ram is being hit by a type of Tank Shock. It also makes this unnecessarily messy DoG easily resolved. The walker takes 2d6 hits on the front if it stops the vehicle, and on the back if it fails in addition to the normal ram hit.

Anyways, I'll leave the soapbox here. Naturally, YMMV, but this seems like the simplest solution to me. There is no clear answer, and neither side will convince the other. Unfortunately, the 'ram is a type of tank shock' argument' has everything to do with this question.

This doesn't come into play, and isn't a 'is ramming tank shocking?' argument.

If you are playing that ram is a type of tank shock, then the rules are clear and the faq applies. You get 2d6 hits against a DoG walker, even if it stops you.

If you are playing that ram is not a type of tank shock, then the rolla doesn't come into play to begin with, the 'further d6 hits' don't come into play, and the DoG faq entry referring to these hits and tank shocks doesn't apply. You don't take either d6 hits, and it's a normal ram with a normal walker DoG.

Correct. Bringing in the FAQ doesn't add to this argument unless it specifically mentions ramming, or specifically doesn't mention tank shock. As it does neither of those, the only way it can apply (whether it was released in 4th or 5th edition) is if you consider a ram a type of tank shock or are attempting to argue so.

But if you consider ramming a type of tank shock, and play as such, you don't even need the FAQ.

I enjoyed Slackermagee's post. I wasn't sure if we were going to get one.