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.

Eldar Own wrote:So without a rienforced ram a trukk van ram but cannont tank shock?? With a reinforced ram you can do both. I thought that it couldnt tank shock because it doesnt have 'tank' in its unit type. Giving it a reinforced ram gives it 'tank' allowing it to tank shock and also gets +1 to its ramming strength because it has 'mass'.

This is entirely not true. And since you've made this 'trukks are now tanks' mistake even after being corrected, here's the reinforced ram description:

"A vehicle with a reinforced ram can Tank Shock, and treats its front armor as two higher than normal when resolving Death or Glory attacks (to a maximum of 14). Furthermore the vehicle may re-roll dangerous terrain tests."

Trukks never become tanks. Trukks just get permission to perform a tank only action.
Trukks without a ram cannot ram or tank shock. Trukks with a ram can tank shock, and can ram (without the tank +1) if you interpret the ram rules that way.

No, a trukk with a reinforced ram may tank shock (as that's what the ram explicitly allows it to do) but may not ram (by my and others' interpretation of the rule) because ramming is not tank shocking.

Gorkamorka wrote:
here's the reinforced ram description:

"A vehicle with a reinforced ram can Tank Shock, and treats its front armor as two higher than normal when resolving Death or Glory attacks (to a maximum of 14). Furthermore the vehicle may re-roll dangerous terrain tests."

Trukks with a ram can tank shock, and cannot ram, as they are only allowed to tank shock -- even if making a tank shock move, they are explictely allowed only to Tank Shock!

Just to sidestep the obvious trolling that is trying to bring up the Tank Shock =(/=) Ram argument.

willydstyle wrote:No, a trukk with a reinforced ram may tank shock (as that's what the ram explicitly allows it to do) but may not ram (by my and others' interpretation of the rule) because ramming is not tank shocking.

kirsanth wrote:
Trukks with a ram can tank shock, and cannot ram, as they are only allowed to tank shock -- even if making a tank shock move, they are explictely allowed only to Tank Shock!

Just to sidestep the obvious trolling that is trying to bring up the Tank Shock =(/=) Ram argument.

Unless you interprete ramming to be a type of tank shock and included under it, which a sizable part of the playerbase does...
Which is why the people in the thread who can get past their personal bias have given both viewpoints as options.

I play Tyranids only. The ruling has no effect on me personally. Nice try, though.
A "sizable" portion think ram =/= Tank Shock! as well. in fact most tourneys do NOT allow it, as I have seen. This is even counting ones that do not use INAT -- and all that do use it think you are wrong.

Thank you though for bringing the obvious argument back into the forums.

kirsanth wrote:I play Tyranids only. The ruling has no effect on me personally. Nice try, though.
A "sizable" portion think ram =/= Tank Shock! as well. in fact most tourneys do NOT allow it, as I have seen. This is even counting ones that do not use INAT -- and all that do use it think you are wrong.

Thank you though for bringing the obvious argument back into the forums.

I don't care whether you think you aren't being biased. You said that only one interpretation was ever valid, period.

Noone has to have the argument you say you don't want to have. But you claiming the other side is wrong/trolling and should be quiet is much more likely to incite it than modifying your statement with a simple 'if you interpret it this way, or play at an INAT tournament'.

Just a point here, But death or glory attacks still happen to MC's.
So Kirsanth, it could be a problem when a fex gets mowed down by a stray trukk
FWIW, there is a pretty good chance that a MC will die aswell

JD21290 wrote:Just a point here, But death or glory attacks still happen to MC's.
So Kirsanth, it could be a problem when a fex gets mowed down by a stray trukk
FWIW, there is a pretty good chance that a MC will die aswell

Death or Glory is something that the tank-shocked unit chooses to do in reaction to being tank-shocked. Any MC can simply choose to step out of the way if they don't want to risk dying outright (as long as they are fearless or pass their morale check).

WDS: We all know there are some players who would tempt fate, even with a godfex

Allthough, its a good way of forcing nidzilla lists back.

Deff-rollas have an effect on MCs regardless of the ram issue.

FYI

kirsanth wrote:Deff-rollas have an effect on MCs regardless of the ram issue.

FYI

Yes, they are quite nasty.

willydstyle wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Deff-rollas have an effect on MCs regardless of the ram issue.

FYI

Yes, they are quite nasty.

Agreed, this is part of my point. If it were a matter of bias, I would think that it would be nicer if they had an effect on vehicles, since they affect the comparative units in my army.

That said, I do not see how the rules could back that. The headings are equivalent, there is not a subgroup even in text.

I agree, it's just GW wanting the rules to read more colloquially. I think people have a hard enough time reading and comprehending the rules. If they were written like a legal document or technical manual, they'd probably be less confusing in some areas, but less people would be able to understand them as a whole.

kirsanth wrote:
Agreed, this is part of my point. If it were a matter of bias, I would think that it would be nicer if they had an effect on vehicles, since they affect the comparative units in my army.

Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular result. It doesn't matter whether it affects your army.
Both viewpoints are entirely valid in the minds of large numbers of people. You saying that your viewpoint is right and others are entirely wrong and trolling is bias.
Someone looking for an answer to the question should be presented with the fact that there are two sides or arguments for a particular side, not just the side you think is right as absolute fact.

kirsanth wrote:
That said, I do not see how the rules could back that. The headings are equivalent, there is not a subgroup even in text.

Also... if you don't want to start the deff rolla argument, as you claim, then why are you starting the deff rolla argument?

Because it's inherently applicable to the reinforced ram rules, which are at discussion here.

Someone looking for an answer could search for threads on this.
Bias = a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
I have no prejudice other than following the rules.

Yes there are 2 answers, and 1 is right in a game.

Odds are INAT is used, in games/tourneys I have played - thus the responses.

Wow this has spiralled off topic ... thought it had be cleared up by kirsanth (first post)

DogOfWar wrote:Hmm... good point.

A wise man once said on this forum (was it Tri?) that in a rules situation that could go either way, they are always willing to play the less beneficial way for their own army. I tend to agree.

DoW

My exact words were more like "its functions like a weapon so should be destroyable. If you don't want to play that way, fine. At the end of the day you'll blow up quicker any way"
... so think your quoting some one else ... Really there's no end of vehicle upgrades that could be classed as weapon like. Clearly there are no rules to deffine a vehicle upgraded that functions like a weapons, since weapon isn't clearly defined.

ChrisCP wrote:No deffrollas are not weapons.
They are obviously not ranged weapons =_= and to quote "deffrolla is a great spiked roller" no mention of it being a weapon upgrade.
S'alls happend is someone really needed it to be once and won the argument either due to their skills or the other person really having had enough to the bull and let it by, giving them a precident to say 'yes it is!!!'

Same as last weekend I'd been correcting people who been playing for years longer than me (damn rule benders) went to assault his jump inf out of my trukk only to hear 'nonono you can't do that it's impossible' I tried to reason but really couldn't be stuffed to find the page no (70 in the little book) and prove him wrong, I want the game over rather than argue every single ** point. So next time I'm going to say I'm taking Ghaz or a deacked warboss with sniktrot - let him prove I can't (not really but it's sooo tempting).

Sigh....

How far did that trukk move? did it have red paint? I ask since you can not embark/ disembark from a fast vehicle going (or is going to) move flat out. (also as mentioned you do have have to disembark during the movement phase ether way)


Finally, can a vehicle that can tank shock!, also Ramming?
No, all though it is a special type of Tank shock it is not a Tank shock. If it were part of the tank shock rules then it would appear as a sub heading within tank shock (,in the same way that DoG does). In effect it is like Special close combat weapons and normal close combat weapons. SCCWs follow all the rules that NCCWs do but other wise unrelated and include rules that only effect them.

Thanks Tri.
Not for quoting me, but for reminding us (or me in any case) of the off topic nature of the discusion.

Tri wrote:
Finally, can a vehicle that can tank shock!, also Ramming?
No, all though it is a special type of Tank shock it is not a Tank shock. If it were part of the tank shock rules then it would appear as a sub heading within tank shock (,in the same way that DoG does). In effect it is like Special close combat weapons and normal close combat weapons. SCCWs follow all the rules that NCCWs do but other wise unrelated and include rules that only effect them.

The heading/subheading differentiation mentioned several times is irrelevant to the other interpretation, as for them ram is specifically typed as a tank shock.

We really don't need to start arguing the specifics of the relationship, it's been done dozens of times before. Noone on either side will convince the other here.
Just present the two sides, mention that you can't ram by raw, have a good laugh together, and back away.

I believe the line about stopping 1" from vehicles is there because you need not move max speed to tank shock, but MUST to ram. Its like the old "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares". All rams are a tanks shock (thus why intervening troops get tank shocked by a ram) but all tanks shocks are not rams. And this would be... Wait for it... Because ramming is a type of tankshock as stated by the book!

Gorkamorka wrote:The heading/subheading differentiation mentioned several times is irrelevant to the other interpretation, as for them ram is specifically typed as a tank shock.

at the risk of delving into the argument you accuse me of starting, it is a special type of tank shock move, this is not the same as a type of tank shock. Really.

kirsanth wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:The heading/subheading differentiation mentioned several times is irrelevant to the other interpretation, as for them ram is specifically typed as a tank shock.

at the risk of delving into the argument you accuse me of starting, it is a special type of tank shock move, this is not the same as a type of tank shock. Really.

No I think that sums it up.

kirsanth wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:The heading/subheading differentiation mentioned several times is irrelevant to the other interpretation, as for them ram is specifically typed as a tank shock.

at the risk of delving into the argument you accuse me of starting, it is a special type of tank shock move, this is not the same as a type of tank shock. Really.

So, specifically making an argument against deff rollas being usable on vehicles wasn't starting an argument on deff rollas being used on vehicles? Okay.

I won't respond with the counterpoint argument, valid as it is, as I really don't want to have this argument again.

Seems as if that's that then.

Would be nice to get 'official word' on this though, of course.

Until then, be convinced, or not, agree to disagree, etc.

This thread, though, is closed.