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.

I'm not saying GW is wrong. Of course they're right. Whatever they said last is right. If they choose to release an FAQ that declares that And They Shall Know No Fear automatically gives Space Marines +2 kill points per game, then that is the new truth.

But if you're going to try and get me to admit that I was wrong when I wasn't, as if GW somehow doesn't use the FAQs to change the rules like they did with Counter-Attack/Furious Charge or Mark of Tzeentch/Gift of Chaos, then you're fresh out of luck.

I was right, but they needed to move Deff Rolla upgrade sprues. Economics trumps truth.

Besides, the FAQ is perfectly fair. It's not as if Melta Guns aren't attached to everyone and their dog. It's just going to make the game boring when all you see in Ork lists are battlewagons, battlewagons and more battlewagons. I know I'm going to be attaching Deff Rollas to mine!

Nurglitch wrote:I'm not saying GW is wrong. Of course they're right.

But if you're going to try and get me to admit that I was wrong when I wasn't...
I was right, but they needed to move Deff Rolla upgrade sprues. Economics trumps truth.

So... GW is right, when they say that ramming is a type of tank shock.
But... you're not wrong when you say the opposite is correct?
I think you've had a little too much cool-aid there.

No, you just need help with your reading comprehension.

He is saying (correctly IMO) that the text does not actually say that Ram is a subset of Tank Shock.

However, by virtue of the FAQ, GW is changing the rule.

I find it quite telling that you think the text said they were the same, and are unable to read Nurglitch's simple post.

Dracos wrote:No, you just need help with your reading comprehension.

He is saying (correctly IMO) that the text does not actually say that Ram is a subset of Tank Shock.

However, by virtue of the FAQ, GW is changing the rule.

I find it quite telling that you think the text said they were the same, and are unable to read Nurglitch's simple post.

Funny, cause I know dozens of people who think the rules do say that. Including the GW faq writers, who are a rules source here on YMDC.
They didn't say "Ramming is now a type of tank shock" they said that rollas work because that was already true. No rules were changed outside of the ones in your head.

Your interpretation is, and was, wrong. The end, do not pass go.

I find it quite telling that you yell about rules changes when GW doesn't side with your interpretation.

Your logical fallacy is called an Irrelevant Appeal, Appeal to Authority.

You are saying that the text says one thing because an authority on the subject says it does.

This is incorrect, the text only says what it says regardless of any authority's opinion on it. The authority in this case effectively changed the text IMO. I am not going to go into detail in the text, because that would rehash a now useless argument.

What Nurglitch was getting at is that the text is now irrelevant, and right or wrong the rule now is that rams are a subset of tank shocks.

With respect to stating what the rules are, GW can't be wrong - its their rules. What they say now might not match what the text says, but that is not relevant to discussing what the rules are now.

Exceptg it *does* match what the text says, therefore is not a change.

Dracos wrote:Your logical fallacy is called an Irrelevant Appeal, Appeal to Authority.

You are saying that the text says one thing because an authority on the subject says it does.

Wow, that would be a fantastic argument. If it applied, or was correct.

I'm not relying on a perceived authorities opinion on the facts, I'm relying on the facts. The tenets of YMDC state that FAQs are official rules sources. Another swing and a miss.

Well the point of the thread is that even though they "clarified" it in the Ork FAQ, it's a universal clarification.

They didn't say "rollas" count as TS/Ram, but they did say what I highlighted in my original post.

Uriels_Flame wrote:Well the point of the thread is that even though they "clarified" it in the Ork FAQ, it's a universal clarification.

If it was a "universal" clarification, it should have been in the Rulebook FAQ. As it is, it only applies to Orks, no-one else.

Now you're being asinine.

That doesn't make any sense.

Point taken about the Rulebook, but to say only orks have the distinction of having Tank Shock/Ramming clarified is stupid.

Gwar! wrote:If it was a "universal" clarification, it should have been in the Rulebook FAQ.

It should be, but that's not how GW do their FAQ's.

Gwar believes that answers in one FAQ only apply to that army. From my experience, most other players will happily use an FAQ answer that is applicable to the situation at hand, regardless of which FAQ it comes from, as it establishes a precedent. It's not a perfect system, as GW's FAQ's often contradict each other, but that's 40K for you.

insaniak wrote:Gwar believes that answers in one FAQ only apply to that army.

And I have yet to see any form of proof to suggest otherwise.

Dashofpepper wrote:I feel vindicated.

All this time arguing with people who say that despite the rulebook clearly identifying ramming as a tank shock that it wasn't....

Just wanted to say to all of you: I TOLD YOU SO!!!!

I've never quite gotten this mindset.

A FAQ ruling is a...ruling. It doesn't mean one side was necessarily 'right' all along and the other side was 'wrong' all along. All it means is that whomever was tasked with writing this FAQ determined this was the answer they were going with. I don't know if this job is an ad hoc affair or whether Phil Kelly simply changed his mind...but I know for a fact from several credible sources that Phil Kelly himself said several times that he believed that the Deff Rolla did *not* function during ramming.


I've always felt, by the RAW that it should (IMHO), but I certainly don't think this is the case of it being completely blatantly obvious and one 'side' being totally wrong.

If even the author of the codex got it 'wrong' multiple times, then it obviously wasn't at clear as you want to portray it.

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:Gwar believes that answers in one FAQ only apply to that army.

And I have yet to see any form of proof to suggest otherwise.

You won't get 'proof'... because that's not what it's about.

This has been explained to you on several occasions now. Regardless of your personal opinion, an answer in any FAQ is, so far as most players are concerned, applicable wherever it is appropriate. If GW haven't given a ruling on a specific issue for a certain army, but have ruled on a similar issue for a different army, then that's the closest you are going to get to a ruling until GW writes more FAQ's. Ignoring that ruling as only applying to that army is counter-productive.

insaniak wrote: Ignoring that ruling as only applying to that army is counter-productive.

In your opinion. I find it counter-productive to try and claim that a ruling for the Black Templars affects my IG army or my Space Puppies.

Gwar! wrote:In your opinion. I find it counter-productive to try and claim that a ruling for the Black Templars affects my IG army or my Space Puppies.

You seriously think it's more productive to not have some sort of ruling on a grey area in the rules?

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:In your opinion. I find it counter-productive to try and claim that a ruling for the Black Templars affects my IG army or my Space Puppies.

You seriously think it's more productive to not have some sort of ruling on a grey area in the rules?

Nice twisting of words there. I said it's counter productive to go "Oh, hey, this rule, it's for Black Templars, but I really want to use it in my IG army please, and while I'm at it, I want to make all my Leman Russes Monoliths, because that's how I roll", because if you allow the use of another armies FAQ, why do you disallow the mixing of codexes?

Gwar! wrote: I said it's counter productive to go "Oh, hey, this rule, it's for Black Templars, but I really want to use it in my IG army please, and while I'm at it, I want to make all my Leman Russes Monoliths, because that's how I roll",

...which has nothing whatsoever to do with what I actually said.

because if you allow the use of another armies FAQ, why do you disallow the mixing of codexes?

Because they're two completely different things?

A ruling in the Ork FAQ that clarifies that Ramming is a form of Tank Shock is going to be adopted wherever there are not specific rules that say otherwise (as in the case of Dark Eldar)... because it's a grey area, and people would rather have some sort of ruling than none at all, and because the FAQ answer is written in such a way as to make it a general clarification regardless of where it is located.

insaniak wrote: the FAQ answer is written in such a way as to make it a general clarification regardless of where it is located.

This.

Agreed.

And I'm not saying "every" FAQ for each Codex applies to others. I am referring to general rules - which clearly this FAQ happens to do.

Holy trolling here.


I have an idea.

Ramming is a special kind of tank shock. That statement defines ramming as a subset of tank shocking.

Oranges are a special kind of citrus fruit. That statement defines ramming as a subset of citrus fruit.

That is all.

Dashofpepper wrote:I feel vindicated.

All this time arguing with people who say that despite the rulebook clearly identifying ramming as a tank shock that it wasn't....

Just wanted to say to all of you: I TOLD YOU SO!!!!

I told them so before you told them so.

Dashofpepper wrote:Holy trolling here.


I have an idea.

Ramming is a special kind of tank shock. That statement defines ramming as a subset of tank shocking.

Oranges are a special kind of citrus fruit. That statement defines ramming as a subset of citrus fruit.

That is all.

I had a wonderful post of the same sort several months back. I believe it featured a ewe that was a subset of sheep, with a picture. The people who are still saying this concept is wrong will not be convinced by clever analogies, GW clarifications, or divine intervention.

When GW says the DEldar can TS with a Torture amp, but can't Ram with it.
That is a ruling about the DE codex, and has no direct application elsewhere.

When GW says the Deff rolla can TS and ram *Because* they clarify the general rule that Ram is a type of TS.
That is a ruling based on the general rules, those general rules apply to every codex.

Just because the general rule clarification was place in the Ork FAQ does not mean it only applies to Orks. That is an assumption.

Just because I park my car at the bus stop does not make it a bus.

Gitzbitah wrote:
I had a wonderful post of the same sort several months back. I believe it featured a ewe that was a subset of sheep, with a picture. The people who are still saying this concept is wrong will not be convinced by clever analogies, GW clarifications, or divine intervention.

Oh agreed. I came up with the original 'Dogs must be kept on a leash; therefore poodles must be kept on a leash because they're a subset of dog' analogy and by the end of the next 15 thread pages or so there were people simply telling me that poodles weren't dogs, they were poodles.

It amazes me that even now we're still arguing over which camp was "right", and whether the FAQ is a rule clarification or a rule change.

Just dropping in to say i'm having a huge giggle at all those who were wrong, knew they were wrong, been proven wrong but still can't admit defeat.

Nobody has been 'proven wrong'. GW solidified the ruling. Thinking that because GW released an FAQ saying the rules work one way suddenly makes everyone who felt otherwise wrong is an idiot.

Thats like saying anyone who played 4th edition rules during 4th edition was a cheater as we now have the 5th edition rulebook. Deffrollas not working on vehicles was a valid argument. As was the argument for them working on tanks. GW simply chose one and made it official. But heres the trick. It changes nothing as far as the original validity of the argument against it. In fact it doesnt even change the basing of that argument. All it does is produce a ruling one way or the other.

Can I just remind you all of GWs stupidest rule . . . Rule 1,do whatever you believe the rules to believe as long as both players agree and it still leaves a balanced game between the two players. Now generally this doesn't count in tournaments, but in every day play a club or set of players will already have come to their own conclusion about how the rule works.

And for the record I've always played it that all vehicles can ram, and that a deff rolla can hit vehicles. As that just makes sense . . . unless you reverse into the vehicle for some reason =p

Oshova

Oshova wrote:
And for the record I've always played it that all vehicles can ram, and that a deff rolla can hit vehicles. As that just makes sense . . . unless you reverse into the vehicle for some reason =p

Oshova

You are wrong, not all vehicles can ram. If all vehicles could ram, I could technically use dreds to hip-bump lightly armored vehicles in the movement phase. A Walker can get 2 str for 6" and 2 str for AV 12 and 3 for AV 13.

Str 4-5 rams can pop AV10.

This also gets into suicide rams from speeders and such whcih are also not supported by the rules as 18"-24" movement can result in str 6-8 hits.

Oshova wrote:Can I just remind you all of GWs stupidest rule . . . Rule 1,do whatever you believe the rules to believe as long as both players agree and it still leaves a balanced game between the two players. Now generally this doesn't count in tournaments, but in every day play a club or set of players will already have come to their own conclusion about how the rule works.

And for the record I've always played it that all vehicles can ram, and that a deff rolla can hit vehicles. As that just makes sense . . . unless you reverse into the vehicle for some reason =p

Oshova

Just curious, but you say that GW's stupidest rule is to play however you decide to play, and you play however you decide to play. Do that mean you're stupid for following a stupid rule, or that the rule actually isn't stupid? I'm curious.

No what I mean is that it's a stupid rule cos it raises unnecessary arguments in a lot of cases. Or maybe it's just that there are some very annoying people at my club. But it can end up that you have an argument over a simple rule and the other person won't just roll for it to make a quick decision, they will argue until they're blue in the face.

But this might be just my bad experiences of the rule. Seeing as I also have had games where using weaponry from a newer version of a codex (TH/SS from new SM codex with Deathwing) has made games better.

But just was trying to make the point that it can lead to unnecessary arguments that means your game takes twice the time it should.

Oshova