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.

dude youre obviously trying to twist the rule for advantage because you have an eldar army, i feel ya too, i have almost 3k pts now myself, but deffrolla isnt a ranged attack and i would never try to tfg like that to an ork player (which i also have tons of lol)

b) is wrong, entirely so - you initiate assault by assaulting the vehicle, not the hull of the vehicle. There is NO requirement to assault the hull. Seriously, look at the last long deff rolla thread where this was stated repeatedly.

Base to base was short hand for "in contact with the ramming vehicle and a member of the unit", as you surely knew.

It still doesnt get over that you have neitehr a target, a range or a weapon proile, and therefore it fails the most fundamental parts of shooting - it *cannot* be a ranged attack. Therefore this thread has been answered.

If you want to thrash out exactly what type of attack it is, apart from ranged, then perhaps start a new thread?

I don't have an Eldar army just trying to get to the bottom of what the RaW is.

Ok, so the problem is if its a CC attack then we have problems:

A tank shock is an attack. A ram is a special type of tank shock. So...this means that a ram is a special attack.

A model has to fight with its special attacks in cc. So if a ram is a special cc attack then all vehicles have to ram any time that they are able to do so. Since a unit is always required to use its special cc attacks....

What does save us tho is that it does indeed meet the criteria you bring up for a ranged attack.


1) It is aimed at its target. It may well miss its target because of either bad aiming on the pivot or lack of movement or even a failed difficult terrain test. But it can well miss. But of course, most ranged attacks can miss, and this doesnt stop them from being a ranged attack.

2) We move the vehicle its full movement range. Cant get a much better check of the range than this, the vehicle (which we told in the raw is the weapon) is moved to check the range...

3) Profile is certainly the weakest aspect, as we are only clearly given the str of the attack. And it also happens that we also are told what amounts to a range of the weapon. The vehicle is the weapon, and it has a movement range, which has to bring the vehicle into contact with the target. Please note that the raw uses the word contact and not btb. So if the dozer blade (which is not part of the hull/ base) comes into contact with he target then the ram occurs. There certainly is no ap, which does give us an incomplete profile. But, since the ram specifically tells us how the attack is resolved an AP would only matter if it was 1 or -.


Now lets check CC. Btb required? No, only contact is required. Otherwise dozer or deff rolla equipped models could never ram or be rammed from the front. Weapon profile? Wel, there certainly is a partial profile, albeit that this is the greatest problem area.


The definitive fact that it does not require btb (which cc does require) is a heavy mark against it being a cc attack tho at least. So it saves us from being required to launch a ram special attack every turn for every vehicle.


A ram being a ranged attack isnt solidly supported, but then it being a cc isnt solidly supported either. Its a mess basically.




Sliggoth

It still doesnt get over that you have neitehr a target, a range or a weapon proile, and therefore it fails the most fundamental parts of shooting - it *cannot* be a ranged attack. Therefore this thread has been answered.

JoTWW and Vibrocannons are both ranged attacks without targets or ranges (or no more so that the ram) or ideed a weapon profile in the case of JoTWW.

BtB means contact with the hull if you launch an assault you need to get into contact with the hull of a vehicle. Just as when you assault a miniature getting into contact with a prtruding limb isn't BtB getting to the Base is and for Vehicles this is considered the hull.

This attack does not require BtB it does not occur in the assault phase and does not occur at any initiative step. There is no way it can possibly be a special CC attack as this starts raising all the issues Sliggoth mentioned along with the reasons I've just posted.

Fling:

I xpected slightly more from you - before agreeing with Sliggoth could you have at least analysed what was being said?

TO your examples:

JotWW is a Psychic Shooting Attack, and so IS a ranged attack by definition. It then exempts you from a lot of other requirements - but it starts of defined as a range shooting attack. So you're wrong there, that isnt a valid example. (ANd the FAQ gave you a requirement for a target, but lets not do that debate, stupid FAQ...)

Vibrocannons specifically exempt you from declaring a target, in the same way you are exempted from rolling to hit with a blast weapon. Unless you are claiming that blast weapons are not ranged? That is the equivalence route you are going....so again, vibrocannons start off as a ranged attack (as shooting) and are then exempted fmo some requirments. This doesnt stop it being shooting.

SO you have the issue that you are NOT starting with a shooting attack and exempting it, you are trying to claim it is a shooting attack because X. Unfortunately without a specific exemption your standard of proof is higher, and you are not meeting it (essentially, proving the existence of X is harder than proving it remains X when you remove requirements)

Sliggoth:

1) Your false equivalence (you must declare a ram always) is exctly that, false. You cannot make a hugely illogical leap from "must use special attacks" to "must ram", as the exact same illogical leap requires that all models must always assault. Both are false. Issue 1 with your argument.

2) No, it is aimed IN A DIRECTION. You *do not pick a target*, you pick a direction, declare a ram, and move along that line. IF you contact a vehicle, you ram it. At no point is the vehicle your target. Please find the word "target" in the ram rules. FOr a start given you can contact many objects on the path you would be picking many targets, whcih is not allowed - and you are not given permission to pick many targets, whci hwould be needed if it were shooting.

3) No, you declare you are moving at your full movement speed, speed /= range. You also may not move at your full speed, if something gets in the way - for example impassable terrain. So, you cannot, again, make the illogically and wholy unsupported leap that speed = range.

4) Since when do you move the WEAPON to check the RANGE? you don't; you measure between the firing model and the target. Guess what two things you dont have? A firing model and a target.

5) Your final point "3" is simply a sumation of the unsuported and illogical leaps you have made which I have already debunked.

As was stated: bTb was shorthand, to cover instances where it is vehicle-infantry and vehicle-vehicle. When you enter close combat with a vehicle, or you are a vehicle (a walker for example) entering combat, you are only required to make contact. What do you do to determine if you have Rammed something? you check to see if you have made contact....

Contact is not a range, but a physical check. This is the biggest factor that undermines "ranged" as an argument - you NEVER check a range, you move until you physicaly contact or not. Exactly like an assault move.

As I said: there is enough proof that it *cannot* be a ranged attack, and this answers the thread. PLEASE START A NEW THREAD if you want to discuss what type of attack it is.

Fair enough I think we certainly will never prove it is a ranged attack, just like we won't prove it is a CC attack. For me the RaW is not clear either way. I've given examples of ranged attacks that don't require ranges or a target and don't necessarily have a profile, but as you say these are clearly defined as ranged attacks.

The point is though that a RAM is not defined as either and as far as I'm aware all attacks/wounds that aren't CC are worked out using the mechanism for shooting attacks. Now ranged attacks are not defined at all well in the rules so I think we've all equate ranged=shooting and hence why I'd argue that this counts as a ranged attack.

So does "apricotting" refer to firing or ramming? That is all I'm wondering from this thread. Honestly I would prefer it refer to ramming, simply so I have something silly to say like an Ork player can and their "waaagh."

"My land raider is going to apricot the gak out of your trukk this turn."

Yes, its just too murky of an area. GW really needs to work a bit more on their rules there are far too many grey areas.

But I guess Im in a mood today, have to reply just a bit:

I agree that the "must" ram is a weak reed, but it is a rule thats been brought up in far less related arguements than this. Its not something that I worry about too much, but I know if its not considered it will be brought up to me for a ruling at one of our matches.

40k has certainly had other ranged weapons that are simply aimed in a direction, not picking a target. In the previous edition we had the entire guess weapon segment where we simply picked a direction and range. Picking a specific target is normal for most weapons, but no means all. Are spore mines resolved as a shooting attack or cc? How about the types of orbital bombardments/ laserburn from planetstrike? Moving the vehicle to check for range of the attack is certainly strange, but then ram is a very strange form of attack.



Im not sure where you are finding that its possible to get into cc with a vehicle or walker merely by being in contact with it. The rules state that a unit assaults a vehicle just the same as assaulting other units. To assault other units they move into btb, contact alone is not sufficient to make it into cc.

The rules on walkers are more of the same. Again its stated that walkers assault like infantry models...which means btb, contact with an arm isnt going to cut it. For walkers without a base we are told to use the hull, which once again is not the same thing as contact. Getting into contact with a gun barrel will not allow a cc attack.


So contact is a unique rule for ram, it is instead btb/ base to hull for vehicles in cc. Which is one of the whole problems with the rolla and being assaulted from the front of the bw. But thats yet another thread.

So for debunking, RAW shows us that ram most definitely uses a different criteria than cc.


There isnt a strong case for it being a ranged attack. But the case for it being a cc attack is equally weak unfortunately. And we really dont have a third category of attack in 40k from which to choose.


I would really like a solid arguement to be made that ramming isnt a range attack, because I know this will come up in some of our tournements or league play. But there are significant problems with it being a cc attack as well. So it comes down to both cases being all too weak.

Is there any other type of attack in 40k that is neither a ranged nor a cc attack? Can we stick this in some third category?


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:40k has certainly had other ranged weapons that are simply aimed in a direction, not picking a target. In the previous edition we had the entire guess weapon segment where we simply picked a direction and range.

Actually you didnt - you still picked a target (I am aiming at X unit, had to be in LOS if not indirect, etc), you then guessed your range to the target. And that was 3rd ed, guess ranges did not exist in 4th at all

And as was mentioned, the ONLY example that currently exists is a Vibrocannon, and that is specified as shooting and then *exempted* from a rule.

Stating something is X, giving a load of exemptions to the normal rules but still being able to say it is X is *easy*. Here, you are trying to say it is a ranged attack when the only ranged attacks we have, shooting, act nothing like a ram.

This is why I am saying you cannot prove it is a ranged attack - the only characteristic, at all, that it shares is a Strength value. And that can be discounted as defining it as "ranged" because close combat attacks *also* have a strength value.

So as you cannot prove it IS a ranged attack, Energy Fields cannot work. Thus the thread is answered, and the only time it matters (so far, who knows what Tau empire / Necron new dexs' et al will bring?) what type of attack a Ram is has been resolved.

Deffrolla, broken as it is, is by no means a ranged attack. Wave serpent energy fields do not affect it in any way.

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:
Deffrolla, broken as it is, is by no means a ranged attack. Wave serpent energy fields do not affect it in any way.

Agreed.. I play Eldar and I'm extremely biased but there is no way in hell my superior precious field will block stupid imba Deffrolla..


Btw. Where does it say that there are only 2 types of attack? And since when dealing damage = attack? Pointing RaW in rulebook or it didn't happen.

Sliggoth wrote:
The rules on walkers are more of the same. Again its stated that walkers assault like infantry models...which means btb, contact with an arm isnt going to cut it. For walkers without a base we are told to use the hull, which once again is not the same thing as contact. Getting into contact with a gun barrel will not allow a cc attack.

This is innaccurate page 16 for definition of body and page 77 for measuring ranges to walkers, contact with any part (it's not put quite explicitly as this) of a walker without a base is enough to initiate an assault.



Arguing that a ram is ranged means the turn you intiate an assault one should take coversaves as they fill the same conditions.

One can however argue for it being validated as a CC-style attack as it happens a) not at range and b) with a wounding saving process that is used in CC

@ I grappled If I wasnt going to have to be a judge in an area that has 3 ork players with BW, another 2 ork players building bw and at least 4 active eldar players I would be happy to never even think about this issue again. But ignoring it isnt an option, and haing a good solid basis for any ruling is important.

@ ChrisCP The walker rules state that one measures to the walkers base, just like they were infantry. Its only if a walker doesnt have a base (ie defiler) that one then measures to the hull. We cant measure to any part of the walker, it has to be the hull, which for a walker does include the arms and legs...but not things such as guns, flags etc. Did you mean pg 72 for measuring range?


Was going through this series of posts again to distill a good basis for why a tank shock isnt a ranged attack when I realized that things had gotten sidetracked a bit towards the end.

The question: is a tank shock a ranged attack? The energy field doesnt care if its a shooting attack at all, it only cares if the attack is ranged.

Most of the discussion as to weapon profiles is only useful for determining whether or not something is a shooting attack. Not whether or not something is a ranged attack.




It comes down to at what point is the attack launched?


If the tank shock begins with the pivot and declaration of speed (movement distance), then at that point can we say the attack has started? If the tank shock has begun, then there can be a strong case made that the attack HAS to be a ranged attack since the hit is going to be inflicted upon a vehicle that is at a considerable distance from where the tank shocking vehicle starts its attack.

The moving player has to "declare that the vehicle is going to make a tank shock attack instead of moving normally". This happens before any movement, before the pivot (aiming as the brb calls it) and before the speed has been decided. So if its an attack at this point...its definitely an attack from range in at least some regards.



If someone can tear this apart please help, we are likely to see eldar and orks mix it up this sunday. We are going to have enough problems with trying to decide if we are counting the deff rollas as part of the hull or not, having this cleared up would help.


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:@ ChrisCP The walker rules state that one measures to the walkers base, just like they were infantry. Its only if a walker doesnt have a base (ie defiler) that one then measures to the hull. We cant measure to any part of the walker, it has to be the hull, which for a walker does include the arms and legs...but not things such as guns, flags etc. Did you mean pg 72 for measuring range

A gun mounted on an arm is part of the arm vis a vis allows attacks to be made was what I was trying to say.



On the topic of deffrolla, again the only way one could make the range argument hold any water is if one could make and maintain an argument for assaults being a ranged attack. Both cover distance but the 'attack' isn't 'made' untill contact is achived. Another way of saying it is, the energy feilds don't normally effect movement made by infitry or vehicle through it, so why would declaring a ram move make it happen?

Sliggoth - as Chris stated, if you start saying the attack has "started" when you *declare* the tank shock, ten when you *declare* an assault the assault has startedf - which is complete nonsense.

The declaration is you are making a tank shock MOVE. Until you make contact with somethi9ng you have not actually Tank Shocked anything, and therefore the attack cannot happen until you make contact.

This certainly, 100% disallows it from being a ranged attack.

Except the problem is thats not what the brb is telling us in the raw. The player is indeed declaring that they will be tank shock attacking instead of moving normally that turn, and then goes on to describe the attack. The lovely part is that GW uses the term tank shock attack to describe two slightly different events in the next few paragraphs.

First the process of pivotting and declaring the movement speed of the vehicle is described as the attack. At this stage we are told that just pivotting is not enough to qualify as a tank shock attack, there has to be movement. And this is where the problem lies. The tank shock attack has been described as the act of pivotting and moving the vehicle.

Then if we go along another couple paragraphs GW refers to the actual act of forcing a moral check on the enmy unit as a tank shock as well. A slightly different usage of the term tank shock attack than what the earlier section stated. If there was no such thing as an eldar energy field then the different usages would merely be an unimportant bit of shoddy writing.

Declaring the vehicle will make a tank shock attack seems to be being used as a replacement effect for the vehicles normal movment, which would be fine if they didnt lump that bit about the whole thing being an attack in there.

So we have the key problem that GW refers to the whole thing as a tank shock attack. The pivot, the movement and the actual morale check. Thats what makes the case for the ranged arguement, the idea that a vehicle starting a good distance away from where it ends up is already attacking. If it was ony the point of contact that was referred to as the attack we would be fine, we wouldnt have to worry about what sort of attack it was because it was occuring at contact range.

But... the attack starts at a good dostance from where the hit is inflicted. And thats the problem. GW also adds the nice little touch of saying that the vehicle itself is the weapon in this case, so yes, the weapon is indeed travelling from its starting location to the point where it inflicts whatever hit its going to make. Is the tank really a weapon? No, we can safely say it dopesnt fit any of the definitions of weapon given by the brb. Unfortunately, that little tidbit adds to the problem that GW seems to be considering the tank shock as an attack occuring over a distance.

And because we are not given a list of definitions, there is the problem that an attack that occurs over a distance might well be considered a ranged attack.

If we had a third category of attack type in which to place the tank shock then that might be an out, but is there any other kind of attack other than ranged or cc? There are powers, but they arent called attacks (the tyranids spirit leach comes to mind). The energy field rules themselves seem to relegate all attacks to either ranged or cc, since it specifically rules out cc attacks as not being stoped by the field, while ranged attacks are affected.

If GW hadnt called the whole process an attack then we could safely call the tank shock a cc attack, but unfortunately they started applying the term tank shock attack too early and caught the whole process up in the mess.



And those are the problems. The whole process of the charge etc part of cc isnt an attack, but the whole process of the tank shock is referred to as a tank shock attack. The attack for the cc isnt made until the units actually are in contact and then we go into the cc rules. But for the tank shock attack we do have the pivot and move tied up in the attack part of the process.


Sliggoth

PS Maybe I should make a thread to ask about the other problem I expect to see: how do you play the deff roll, is it part of the hull or not? That one is going to be so much fun as well....*sigh*