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.
Really, the best and simplest solution/homerule is simply to treat Deffrolla Damage as part of the Ramming damage. This means that Deffrollas can roll vehicles over, and skimmers that dodge don't take damage. Which is the most common sense approach and how the GW would probably FAQ it, if they just bothered.
Kommissar Kel wrote:Leez, and Nkelsch: The order of operations is laid out in the text of ram.
Also if you begin applying the deffrolla hits before you finish resolving the ram you are interrupting the process of another rule; you must resolve each rule before moving on to the next rule(barring another rule that specifically allows an interrupt such as Death or Glory and the Skimmer Jink).
Therefore resolve the Ram; then the Deffrolla. If the vehicle is not destroyed -exploded by the ram attack you stop.
If you resolve the Deffrolla attacks before resolving the ram attack you get stuck in a time paradox: You rammed the tank(allowing for the Deffrolla hits to be applied), but you resolve the Deffrolla hits destroying the tank before you resolved the ram attack; Now you never did Ram the Tank, and therefore you could not have applied the Deffrolla.
My problem with this argument is this:
The ramming attack explodes the target or it didn't. The Deffrolla attack explodes the target or it didn't.
When determining whether you continue moving or not, the rules don't require that the rammed vehicle have been exploded from a ram, only that it is in the exploded state. Both the ramming attack and the deffrolla attacks need to be resolved before any movement could be done. It doesn't matter what exploded the vehicle....it matters if the vehicle is in an exploded state when you try moving through it.
Unless there's some strange explanation for why you would ram a vehicle, then continue moving, then perform deffrolla hits....then it shouldn't matter.
Even beyond that, the rules don't say when to apply the Deffrolla hit, only that they're performed in the tank shock. Its not our business to assign the hits AFTER or BEFORE the ram - if they're performed in the tank shock, then they should probably be performed at the same time to avoid trying to add rules to the rulebook yes?
Just because it is included as part of the ram does not mean that the timing is resolved as to how.
It is just as reasonable to do:
1: Declare Ram attempt
2: Move vehicle into contact with target
3: Deff Rolla triggers when contact is made - go to ork codex to resolve this
4: Roll to dodge
5: Apply ramming result if not dodged
As it is to do this:
1: Declare Ram attempt
2: Move vehicle into contact with target
3: Roll to dodge
4: Apply ramming result if not dodged
5: Trigger deff rolla if ramming successful.
The order of these events is not defined. This question does not have a RAW answer.
Dashofpepper wrote: My problem with this argument is this:
The ramming attack explodes the target or it didn't. The Deffrolla attack explodes the target or it didn't.
When determining whether you continue moving or not, the rules don't require that the rammed vehicle have been exploded from a ram, only that it is in the exploded state. Both the ramming attack and the deffrolla attacks need to be resolved before any movement could be done. It doesn't matter what exploded the vehicle....it matters if the vehicle is in an exploded state when you try moving through it.
Unless there's some strange explanation for why you would ram a vehicle, then continue moving, then perform deffrolla hits....then it shouldn't matter.
Even beyond that, the rules don't say when to apply the Deffrolla hit, only that they're performed in the tank shock. Its not our business to assign the hits AFTER or BEFORE the ram - if they're performed in the tank shock, then they should probably be performed at the same time to avoid trying to add rules to the rulebook yes?
The underlying argument here is that only Ramming damage, ie. result from the collision as specified in the BRB, allows you to continue if the enemy vehicle explodes. What some piece of wargear does is not relevant here. It seems that in the tournament you played, this was the ruling - Deff rollas stopped if the Ram damage didn't blow up the victim, and Skimmer dodge did not save them from Deffrolla damage since it was not Ram damage. This does not make much sense, but it's at least a consistent ruling.
add-on: I do not see any point to play it like that, but I understand why some would argue that way based on the rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/18 16:59:29
Regarding the original question, I don't think there's any question about it. The rules for continuing moving after ramming a target does not state in which manner the vehicle hit by ramming must be removed - only that it must be removed "because it suffers a 'destroyed - explodes!' damage result". At no point does it state that the damage result must originate from the armour penetration roll which is due to ramming, the rules only give permission to continue should the rammed vehicle explode.
The only way for the Deff Rolla to have permission to stop, according to the rules, would be if the rammed vehicle:
* Was removed for any other reason than the damage result "destroyed - explodes!"
* The damage from the Deff Rolla was specified to take place after the ramming results were calculated - and I believe it states that this damage is immediate which at worst would make it happen at the same time as the ramming results.
And remember, you're not allowed to stop your vehicle until AFTER you've calculated the penetration result.
Eidolon wrote:Can immobile skimmers still dodge. If so this would apply that deffrollas do not apply to immobile skimmers on a 3+
Mahtamori wrote:Regarding the original question, I don't think there's any question about it. The rules for continuing moving after ramming a target does not state in which manner the vehicle hit by ramming must be removed - only that it must be removed "because it suffers a 'destroyed - explodes!' damage result". At no point does it state that the damage result must originate from the armour penetration roll which is due to ramming, the rules only give permission to continue should the rammed vehicle explode.
Sooo not accurate; "...Both players roll for armour penetration against their enemy vehicle and any result is immediately applied. If the vehicle that is rammed is not removed, the rammer halts..." Pg. 69 - read it again, it's quite clear that if one contacts a vehicle there is a couse of action which must be immediately followed. This course of action contains the permission to continue with ones movement if the vehicle is removed. That permission isn't granted if it's not the specific collision hit.
"I already told you son, that milk isn't for developing bones. It's for developing character." - C&H
There is indeed a rule on the timing of events, at least partially.
The original ram hit is resolved "immediately". That means we do that bit next, before we even begin to think about anything else thats going on. And then we see that again "immediately" after the hit is suffered any result is applied.
So we do have at least some idea of the timing, the original ram hit is resolved and then applied before we can then proceed to the deff rolla hits.
Also, keep in mind that the rolla hits are distinct from the ram hit, and are not a part of the ram hit itself. We know this because of dog. If a unit performs a dog it will still receive the rolla hits even if the ram itself is stopped, so the rolla hits are indeed separate from the ram hit.
Sliggoth
Why does my eldar army run three fire prisms? Because the rules wont let me use four in (regular 40k).
100% in agreement with the above. It makes perfect sense to me that the defrolla-equipped ram only inflicts the d6 s10 hit.
By my logic (imagining that I would be watching a real life battlewagon ramming something) in order for a defrolla-equipped battlewagon to inflict both damage from a defrolla and a normal vehicle ram the defrolla would need to be destroyed after causing damage so that the rest of the vehicle would be able to ram and damage the opponent.
Sliggoth wrote:There is indeed a rule on the timing of events, at least partially.
The original ram hit is resolved "immediately". That means we do that bit next, before we even begin to think about anything else thats going on. And then we see that again "immediately" after the hit is suffered any result is applied.
So we do have at least some idea of the timing, the original ram hit is resolved and then applied before we can then proceed to the deff rolla hits.
Also, keep in mind that the rolla hits are distinct from the ram hit, and are not a part of the ram hit itself. We know this because of dog. If a unit performs a dog it will still receive the rolla hits even if the ram itself is stopped, so the rolla hits are indeed separate from the ram hit.
Sliggoth
You can't "ram" a non-vehicle unit. Therefore you can't use the rules for DoG to say that deffrolla hits are not part of the ram. Your logic is flawed in that regards.
In addition, the ork codex says "If the unit elects to make a Death or Glory attack, it takes a further D6 Strength 10 hits in addition to the usual effects" There is linguistically nothing in that sentence that suggests those extra hits are not part of the tank shock, it just specifies a consequence of DoG.
People are overlooking that distinction. For the tank shock (e.g. ram) effects of the deffrolla, codex: orks specifies that the ramming vehicle does D6Str 10 hits on the target whereas for a DoG it says it does D6in addition to the usual effects. Since the non DoG damage is not specified to be in addition, then the only consistent interpretation is the D6Str 10 hits replace the normal ram hit, as codex rules supercede the BRB.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/20 01:54:39
You can't "ram" a non-vehicle unit. Therefore you can't use the rules for DoG to say that deffrolla hits are not part of the ram. Your logic is flawed in that regards.
Walkers are indeed vehicles, which can perform a dog...so thats why we need to consider the dog rules as an example of how the rolla rules work. The logic of the dog rules MUST be considered when we look at the rolla rules since they apply completely to the rolla question.
So the fact that a dread (for example) can perform a dog againt a ram makes these rules entirely relevant to the discussion; and it does indeed show us that the rolla hits are separate from the single hit from the ram itself.
There is nothing in the ork codex that says anything about replacing the ram hit with the rolla effects. If we were to replace the effect of the ram with the rolla hits then the rolla equipped bw wouldnt take a hit itself in the ram, since the brb ram rules tell us each vehicle immeditaely suffers a hit and the rolla rules doesnt infilict a hit onto the bw. There is no reason to replace any rule with the rolla rule, the rolla has to be an additional rule.
And a dread that performs a successful dog is still hit with 2d6 hits from the rolla even tho it stops the ram hit itself. This does tell us that the rolla hits are infilcted separately from the ram hit, which does give us a timeline of events for the order of the hits.
Sliggoth
Why does my eldar army run three fire prisms? Because the rules wont let me use four in (regular 40k).
Actually, you are forgetting a part of the rules for ramming walkers..
pg 73
"If a walker is rammed by a tank, it can choose to either brace itself for the impact, in which case the collision is resolved as normal for a vehicle, or it can attempt a "Death or Glory!" attack in the same way as infantry"
In the case of a walker, the player has to choose whether to resolve the ram as if against a vehicle OR infantry, you do not get to treat it as both.
And as far as "replacing the normal attack" is concerned..the ork codex states that the deffrolla causes D6Str 10 hits. In the case of DoG, it specifies those hits are in addition to the normal effects. It does not specify that you still get "the normal effects" with a ram.
edit.
I should also point out that the codex states that any tank shock made by a battlewagon with a deffrolla causes the D6 hits. How much clearer does it need to be..any tank shock ...causes D6 Strength 10 hits. That alone answers the question of whether the deffrolla hits are tank shock/ram hits. Reading comprehension for the win. It clearly states that the tank shock, not the rolla, causes the hits.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/08/20 14:25:33
And all that you are showing is that the rolla causes hits. There is nothing there that even begins to suggest that the ram hit is replaced by the rolla hits. As far as I am aware, no one else has ever suggested that the bw does not inflict a ram hit as well as the rolla hits.
The rule on pg 73 does explain how a walker can perform a dog. It goes on to explain in the last line that if the walker fails to stop the ram it then takes a hit on its rear armor. So yes, dog against a walker is still a ram against a vehicle, the wallker is not removed from play automatically as is in the case of an infantry model that fails a dog. There is no choice involved as to whether the attack is being made against infantry or a vehicle, only what av would be used on a hit.
And as far as the hits being caused by the tank shock, we have selective editing ftw. The rule quote is:
"Any Tank shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6..."
So yes, the tank shock is inflicting d6 hits with the rolla. Or more precisely the bw is inflicting the hits. Or more precisely yet the bw with a deff rolla is inflicting the hits. The same way that a model armed with a las cannon inflicts a str9 ap2 hit when it fires, so yes we can argue semantics on whether or not its the gun or the person using the gun... The hits do not happen without the rolla involved one way or the other.
The GWfaq has pointed out that they consider a ram to be a tank shock.
Sliggoth
Why does my eldar army run three fire prisms? Because the rules wont let me use four in (regular 40k).
Sliggoth wrote:And all that you are showing is that the rolla causes hits. There is nothing there that even begins to suggest that the ram hit is replaced by the rolla hits. As far as I am aware, no one else has ever suggested that the bw does not inflict a ram hit as well as the rolla hits.
The rule on pg 73 does explain how a walker can perform a dog. It goes on to explain in the last line that if the walker fails to stop the ram it then takes a hit on its rear armor. So yes, dog against a walker is still a ram against a vehicle, the wallker is not removed from play automatically as is in the case of an infantry model that fails a dog. There is no choice involved as to whether the attack is being made against infantry or a vehicle, only what av would be used on a hit.
And as far as the hits being caused by the tank shock, we have selective editing ftw. The rule quote is:
"Any Tank shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6..."
So yes, the tank shock is inflicting d6 hits with the rolla. Or more precisely the bw is inflicting the hits. Or more precisely yet the bw with a deff rolla is inflicting the hits. The same way that a model armed with a las cannon inflicts a str9 ap2 hit when it fires, so yes we can argue semantics on whether or not its the gun or the person using the gun... The hits do not happen without the rolla involved one way or the other.
The GWfaq has pointed out that they consider a ram to be a tank shock.
Sliggoth
Well, all I can do is wonder if you ever had to diagram sentences in school. It's clear that the tank shock (or ram) is what causes the hits. the "made by a battle wagon with a deffrolla" is a prepositional phrase serving as an adjective (i.e. how the tank shock is made). the verb in that sentence is "causes" and the tank shock is the subject.
But hey, I'm just the person who majored in english/linquistics in college. You are entitled to your interpretations of the rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/20 15:22:30
While applying the results of the ram immediately, keep in mind that codexes ADD and MODIFY the BRB. In this case, we're adding an additional piece to the ram - a Deffrolla. While you immediately apply this hit, there is no reason that you would not also immediately apply the Deffrolla hit. Again, there is no reason for anyone to add rules about timing to a ram hit, or to make up rules on timing for a Deffrolla and where it fits into a ram.
Both fluff and rules-wise, it seems to make more sense to me that they would both apply immediately. The ram rule doesn't say, "Apply before you do ANYTHING ELSE involved in a ram" it just says, "Apply the results immediately." You execute the Deffrolla attacks during the tank-shock, which the ramming attack is a part of.
@ Dash Well, the reason that we wouldnt immediately (in other words, before anything else) apply the deff rolla hits is: thats not how the rule is worded.
The ram hit is applied immediately. The deff rolla hit(s) are not favored with this wording, so the rolla hits arent applied with the same degree of urgenecy. Its not a big difference, but there is indeed a difference in the wording so we do know that there is a difference in the timing. If the timing is in any way important, we can figure out the order in which the hits will occur. Now, its quite possible that the timing doesnt really matter but if it does we really do have a raw timeline established.
The rolla hits arent applied immediately simply because 40k is a permissive rules set, and the 40k rule doesnt say that the hits are applied immediately. Not that I can see any real difference on the timing issue here, but it does support the timeline that has been presented.
@Waaaagh Ahhhh, you are being distracted by real world english semantic differences. The hits are caused by the tank shock, yes. They are also hits made by the bw, yes? They are also hits made by the rolla, yes?
What I said was that the rolla hits are distinct from the ram hit. I am not saying that the hits arent caused by the tank shock. And yes, there is both a ram hit as well as the rolla hits for a dog that involves a walker-vehicle.
Sliggoth
Why does my eldar army run three fire prisms? Because the rules wont let me use four in (regular 40k).
Mahtamori wrote:Regarding the original question, I don't think there's any question about it. The rules for continuing moving after ramming a target does not state in which manner the vehicle hit by ramming must be removed - only that it must be removed "because it suffers a 'destroyed - explodes!' damage result". At no point does it state that the damage result must originate from the armour penetration roll which is due to ramming, the rules only give permission to continue should the rammed vehicle explode.
Sooo not accurate; "...Both players roll for armour penetration against their enemy vehicle and any result is immediately applied. If the vehicle that is rammed is not removed, the rammer halts..." Pg. 69 - read it again, it's quite clear that if one contacts a vehicle there is a couse of action which must be immediately followed. This course of action contains the permission to continue with ones movement if the vehicle is removed. That permission isn't granted if it's not the specific collision hit.
Read all the rules concerned again, then point out where I'm not accurate. Keep in mind that the quote you attack is a general case, where the assumption is that the non-ram damage may actually read out that you're supposed to add that damage immediately or as part of a ram.
In case of the Deff Rolla, you'll have to quote the rules where it says that the attacks are separate from the ram or that the extra attacks should happen anything but immediately in case it's part of ramming attack.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/21 01:23:56
@Waaaagh Ahhhh, you are being distracted by real world english semantic differences. The hits are caused by the tank shock, yes. They are also hits made by the bw, yes? They are also hits made by the rolla, yes?
What I said was that the rolla hits are distinct from the ram hit. I am not saying that the hits arent caused by the tank shock. And yes, there is both a ram hit as well as the rolla hits for a dog that involves a walker-vehicle.
No. the hits are caused by neither the battlewagon nor the rolla. The hits are caused by a tank shock "made by a battlewagon with a deffrolla". It's not a matter of "real world semantic differences", it's a matter of understanding the nuances of the English language. I realize that it may sound like I'm nit-picking, but in this case, the "made by a wagon with a deffrolla" is clarifying the nature of the tank shock action that causes the D6 hits.
And the rulebook specifically states that you choose how to resolve a ram against a walker. You can either brace for impact and resolve the ram against a vehicle as normal, or you can elect to attempt a DoG. You can't apply the effects of a failed DoG as evidence of what happens when you resolve the ram against a vehicle because DoG is not part of the "normal" vehicle resolution.
Anyways, this conversation is going in circles.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/21 02:29:28
OK, the idea that the defender gets to choose whether or not to perform a dog does mean that the defender (unless rammed from behind) can determine in which arc the walker takes the hit but...its still going to be a hit against one facing of the walker, its not the same removal effect that dog gives to an infantry model.
A successful dog does stop the ram hit.
Either way however, the walker is still going to take the rolla hits. Now if the rolla hits were part of the ram hit, a successful dog should also stop the rolla hits. It is this difference that tells us that the rolla hits are not part of the actual ram hit.
And again, yes the hits are caused by the tank shock. But...the hits are also being caused by the battlewagon. Please, the whole idea of the tank shock rules is: "Tanks may use their mass as a weapon,". Of course the battlewagon is performing the tankshock, so it has to be causing the hits in that regard. And the only way that the rolla hits exist is because the bw is equipped with a rolla, otherwise this wouldnt be being discussed in the first place. Hence why I am saying that this is an arguement over semantics...the hits are being caused by the tank shock, but also by the bw.
Sliggoth
Why does my eldar army run three fire prisms? Because the rules wont let me use four in (regular 40k).
If a DoG can stop the ram but not the Deffrolla hits ----
Then the timeline established by the only "time" reference we have is that the Deffrolla is resolved before the ram. The argument that the rules are permissive and don't grant the Deffrolla permission to apply the hits "immediately" doesn't seem to hold much water; by that language, the rules never say "when" to apply the Deffrolla hits, and therefore the Deffrolla doesn't work.
The Ork codex instructs the user to "add" D6 hits. The only actual timing ever given is in DoG - where the Deffrolla hits, but the Ram doesn't. I won't get into fluff, and the rolla being in front of the tank....
But both logic and the rules dictate that at least the Deffrolla hits happen simultaneously, but more likely happen first.
Then the timeline established by the only "time" reference we have is that the Deffrolla is resolved before the ram.
That is a valid point.
Actually there is just NO timing given either in the BRB or in the codex (i assume?), both triggers are contact with the vehicle. So I guess we take it simulateously.
And the BRB says nothing about an explosion result due to the ram hit. Important is if the vehicle is removed due to the ram action. That would include the deffrolla.
Otherwise a walker could not attempt death or glory against ramming and get the hit in the rear armour. Because the rolla is made simultaneously with the death or glory attack. But the death or glory attack is certainly before the ramming hit is resolved.
The Ork text reads: Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6Str 10 hits on the victim unit. Ork faq's already state "Ramming is just a type of Tank shock"
So we can substitute and it now states - Any Ram made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6Str 10 hits on the victim unit. I would take that to mean to ork codex overrides the RB and only the D6 hits apply.
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
Van wrote:The Ork text reads: Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6Str 10 hits on the victim unit. Ork faq's already state "Ramming is just a type of Tank shock"
So we can substitute and it now states - Any Ram made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6Str 10 hits on the victim unit. I would take that to mean to ork codex overrides the RB and only the D6 hits apply.
Thank god, someone else shares this interpretation
loki old fart wrote:check this out ~Giant you tube
Do you want the first error where they didn't declare a direction? Or how about the second where they didn't immediatly apply the ram hit?
How about the 3rd when they didn't mention they were Phil Kelly and therefore know the intent? or the 4th where they forgot to mention that a random youtube clip means sweet f - all?
-Sigh- The fact is, GW screwed up, again. They refuse to support their rules and their games for some unknowable reason. As such, you need to make stuff up about this situation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/02 01:35:44
Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail. Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!)
