Doc Rogers:
Back before GW laid down the law on the relation of Ramming to Tank Shock, I argued that Ramming, as per the text, was a special type of tank shock: i.e.: rules referring to Tank Shock did not refer transitively to Ramming.
Part of my motivation was that was what the rules said. But another part of my motivation was that the rules explode in the current mess when we take Ramming to be a type of Tank Shock rather than a special type. Of course my Ork army benefits from the rules-change, but I'm hardly going to argue in favour of some disputed rule benefitting me unless that's what the rules actually say.
So no, I am not "all for anything that could destroy the Battlewagon and the Deff Rolla", but I am all for figuring out this mess that GW has dumped in our laps by "clarifying" the rules in the new FAQ.
It seems to me that the most workable solution (I haven't checked whether it's supported by the rules as they currently stand) has been the one puma713
has proposed in that you resolve the ramming as indicated by the rules, and add the 1D6 S10 hits if the rammed vehicle did not engage in Death or Glory, and 2D6 S10 hits if the rammed vehicle did engage in Death or Glory (the latter only really applies to Walkers, and optimistic ones at that).
So apparently there is a downside to Ramming a Land Raider, besides not being able to shoot, having to move at top speed, and having to be able to reach the Land Raider: the Battlewagon may destroy itself!
|