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.

Edit: Deleted. I'm done here.

Nice bat-rep. I enjoyed reading it.

unlucky in this game but then again when it comes down to dice you can't always rely on them - fickle dice gods.

It's the sign of a good player when the dice go against you and you still pull of a draw (ok slight loss in the grand scheme of things).

Good going. I wouldn't fancy facing your list.

Dashofpepper's counter-argument:
1. The Ork codex *adds* D6 attacks to the ram. At worst, the Deffrolla hits should be happening simultaneously; I didn't see any reason to add timing to something that doesn't need it defined.
2. More importantly, the rules for a ramming vehicle continuing don't require that the ram explode the vehicle to continue - only that the vehicle is in an exploded state.
3. The only time timing is ever accounted for in the rulebook is in DoG - if a unit performs a DoG (say a dreadnought) against a ramming vehicle; they can stop the ram, but still suffer from the Deffrolla hits, but 2d6 in this case. If anything, that means the Deffrolla should be resolved before the ram. It even makes sense fluff-wise; giant spiked thing in front of the battlewagon crushing all before it.

The ork codex reads that the deffrolla adds d6 s10 attacks to tank shock attacks; it says nothing about vehicle rams.

hemingway wrote:

Dashofpepper's counter-argument:
1. The Ork codex *adds* D6 attacks to the ram. At worst, the Deffrolla hits should be happening simultaneously; I didn't see any reason to add timing to something that doesn't need it defined.
2. More importantly, the rules for a ramming vehicle continuing don't require that the ram explode the vehicle to continue - only that the vehicle is in an exploded state.
3. The only time timing is ever accounted for in the rulebook is in DoG - if a unit performs a DoG (say a dreadnought) against a ramming vehicle; they can stop the ram, but still suffer from the Deffrolla hits, but 2d6 in this case. If anything, that means the Deffrolla should be resolved before the ram. It even makes sense fluff-wise; giant spiked thing in front of the battlewagon crushing all before it.

The ork codex reads that the deffrolla adds d6 s10 attacks to tank shock attacks; it says nothing about vehicle rams.

And what does it say at the top of page 69 about Rams?

"Ramming is a special type of tank shock".

puma713 wrote:

hemingway wrote:

Dashofpepper's counter-argument:
1. The Ork codex *adds* D6 attacks to the ram. At worst, the Deffrolla hits should be happening simultaneously; I didn't see any reason to add timing to something that doesn't need it defined.
2. More importantly, the rules for a ramming vehicle continuing don't require that the ram explode the vehicle to continue - only that the vehicle is in an exploded state.
3. The only time timing is ever accounted for in the rulebook is in DoG - if a unit performs a DoG (say a dreadnought) against a ramming vehicle; they can stop the ram, but still suffer from the Deffrolla hits, but 2d6 in this case. If anything, that means the Deffrolla should be resolved before the ram. It even makes sense fluff-wise; giant spiked thing in front of the battlewagon crushing all before it.

The ork codex reads that the deffrolla adds d6 s10 attacks to tank shock attacks; it says nothing about vehicle rams.

And what does it say at the top of page 69 about Rams?

"Ramming is a special type of tank shock".

Much like Storm Bolters are a special sort of Boltgun.

Strangely enough...they have different rules. Rules for one do not apply to the other.

Just saying.

Deadshane1 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

And what does it say at the top of page 69 about Rams?

"Ramming is a special type of tank shock".

Much like Storm Bolters are a special sort of Boltgun.

Strangely enough...they have different rules. Rules for one do not apply to the other.

Just saying.

Doubtful that included in the storm bolters rules (and not simply fluff) are a link to regular bolters. A storm bolter is a completely different weapon in terms of rules. However, the Ramming rules outline the fact that it is a special form of tank shock. It's not just a fluffy piece saying that it is. Even the GW FAQ says that it being a tank shock is the reason that it works on vehicles.

So while you have a point, I don't believe it pertains to this situation.

puma713 wrote:
Doubtful that included in the storm bolters rules (and not simply fluff) are a link to regular bolters. A storm bolter is a completely different weapon in terms of rules. However, the Ramming rules outline the fact that it is a special form of tank shock. It's not just a fluffy piece saying that it is. Even the GW FAQ says that it being a tank shock is the reason that it works on vehicles.

So while you have a point, I don't believe it pertains to this situation.

While I think you post a pretty valid rebuttal, i think the storm bolter comparison is apt in the situation. Tank shocks imply infantry because vehicles don't suffer from 'shock', and when you ram a vehicle you don't declare a tank shock attack on it. You declare a ram. Coupled with the facts that a) the Ork Codex indicates that the deffrolla tank shock has a special rule applying to DoG (again, something pertaining only to infantry), b) tank shock on infantry and ram attacks on walkers/vehicles have entirely different damage resolution mechanics, and c) that there is no special mention of vehicle ramming attacks under the deffrolla rules tells me that trying to ram using deffrolla rules is playing pretty loose with the rules and is kind of disingenuous.

But hell, this has been argued to death. Ork players are going to try and deffrolla vehicles until the cows come home. And honest people won't allow it until they go to pasture again <3

hemingway wrote:

puma713 wrote:
Doubtful that included in the storm bolters rules (and not simply fluff) are a link to regular bolters. A storm bolter is a completely different weapon in terms of rules. However, the Ramming rules outline the fact that it is a special form of tank shock. It's not just a fluffy piece saying that it is. Even the GW FAQ says that it being a tank shock is the reason that it works on vehicles.

So while you have a point, I don't believe it pertains to this situation.

While I think you post a pretty valid rebuttal, i think the storm bolter comparison is apt in the situation. Tank shocks imply infantry because vehicles don't suffer from 'shock', and when you ram a vehicle you don't declare a tank shock attack on it. You declare a ram. Coupled with the facts that a) the Ork Codex indicates that the deffrolla tank shock has a special rule applying to DoG (again, something pertaining only to infantry), b) tank shock on infantry and ram attacks on walkers/vehicles have entirely different damage resolution mechanics, and c) that there is no special mention of vehicle ramming attacks under the deffrolla rules tells me that trying to ram using deffrolla rules is playing pretty loose with the rules and is kind of disingenuous.

But hell, this has been argued to death. Ork players are going to try and deffrolla vehicles until the cows come home. And honest people won't allow it until they go to pasture again <3

Um, have you read the recent Ork FAQ? Deff Rollas work on rams. Period. This debate has been over and done with for months now.

hemingway wrote:

But hell, this has been argued to death. Ork players are going to try and deffrolla vehicles until the cows come home. And honest people won't allow it until they go to pasture again <3

BeRzErKeR wrote:


Um, have you read the recent Ork FAQ? Deff Rollas work on rams. Period. This debate has been over and done with for months now.

Yeah, this. It's legal - thought you were just arguing why it was legal, not just the fact you can or can't do it.

hemingway wrote:

puma713 wrote:
Doubtful that included in the storm bolters rules (and not simply fluff) are a link to regular bolters. A storm bolter is a completely different weapon in terms of rules. However, the Ramming rules outline the fact that it is a special form of tank shock. It's not just a fluffy piece saying that it is. Even the GW FAQ says that it being a tank shock is the reason that it works on vehicles.

So while you have a point, I don't believe it pertains to this situation.

While I think you post a pretty valid rebuttal, i think the storm bolter comparison is apt in the situation. Tank shocks imply infantry because vehicles don't suffer from 'shock', and when you ram a vehicle you don't declare a tank shock attack on it. You declare a ram. Coupled with the facts that a) the Ork Codex indicates that the deffrolla tank shock has a special rule applying to DoG (again, something pertaining only to infantry), b) tank shock on infantry and ram attacks on walkers/vehicles have entirely different damage resolution mechanics, and c) that there is no special mention of vehicle ramming attacks under the deffrolla rules tells me that trying to ram using deffrolla rules is playing pretty loose with the rules and is kind of disingenuous.

But hell, this has been argued to death. Ork players are going to try and deffrolla vehicles until the cows come home. And honest people won't allow it until they go to pasture again <3

Hrm...

1. The Storm Bolter comparison is not an apt comparison. First, the Bolter and Storm Bolter are a codex entry while Ramming and Tank Shocking are part of the core rules. Second, there isn't a codex entry "bolter" with subsections dedicated to the different kinds of bolters, whose entries all say "The storm bolter is a regular bolter, but with the following additions...." You *could* say that a storm bolter is a special kind of weapon - in that all shooting weapons fall under the same category with variations to range, strength and AP depending on the special properties of each weapon in consideration. That's a good analogy.

2. Ramming *IS* tank shocking. Just like shooting at a vehicle *is* shooting. Shooting at a vehicle is resolved differently than shooting at infantry and has its own set of rules (involving armor values, a penetration table, result table), but it is *still* shooting. Tank-shocking a vehicle *IS* still tank-shocking. The rules are explicitly clear on this. Tank-shocking a vehicle is resolved differently than tank shocking infantry and has its own set of rules (the SUBSECTION of the tank shock rules titled "Ramming"). Since not everyone can look at the rule and see the same thing, GW even FAQed it. The FAQ pretty much says, "Uh...well, just like the rulebook says, Ramming is a type of tank shock so Deffrollas work against vehicles...."

Hemingway, "honest people" follow the rules. Don't confuse whatever house rules you use that ignore GW rules, codices and FAQs with acceptable behavior outside of your house.

Good Batrep - i think one important point was missed.

You deserved the win because THOSE AREN'T BLOOD ANGELS!

I bet he was running those Crimson Fists as Space Wolves six months ago... :(

FYI the recent Ork FAQ specifically states what Dash said in regards to Deff Rollas. It's official, and available freely online.

Magnalon wrote:FYI the recent Ork FAQ specifically states what Dash said in regards to Deff Rollas. It's official, and available freely online.

Uh.

You wanna provide a citation for that?

I'm looking at the Ork FAQ right now and it says absolutely nothing about whether or not the Deff Rolla hits are part of the ram, or separate.

I love the crimson fists army. Makes me think possibly i should play my crimsons under the blood angel book, or atleast look into it.

ahhh you can feel the love in this post XD

i checked what puma was saying and he isnt wrong..
it couldnt have been a shock about the ruling on the deffrolla cos its WAS the same in the previous reports.

that been said... nice report.
if that hadnt been the ruling it miight have gone another way but keeping mephiston out of the game until last minute...rather nice. have you had a chance to et marks veiws on the game yet?
as this would be nice to here.

regards.

SaintHazard wrote:

Magnalon wrote:FYI the recent Ork FAQ specifically states what Dash said in regards to Deff Rollas. It's official, and available freely online.

Uh.

You wanna provide a citation for that?

I'm looking at the Ork FAQ right now and it says absolutely nothing about whether or not the Deff Rolla hits are part of the ram, or separate.

"Does a unit that successfully stops a deff-rolla equipped battle wagon's tank shock suffer any hits? Yes, it suffers 2D6 S10 hits."

To me, this indicates that it is seperate, because the rolla still hits despite the fact that the [seperate] tank shock missed.

Tank shock /= ram. Tank shocks affect infantry, rams affect vehicles. And the tank shock doesn't miss in this instance, it is stopped by the infantry model performing the DoG attack. When a BW with a Deff Rolla rams a vehicle, there is a specific set of rules to govern the situation. These rules do not apply to tank shocking, and vice versa.

There is nothing in the FAQ that addresses ramming.

Are people arguing that you can't deff-rolla with a Ram still? I thought that was all solved long ago?

The real question is do you still keep going after destorying a vehicle with a Ram. I'm personally more inclined to agree with Dash since it's an action that happens during a Ram attack which, and theirfor is just appended to all the other rules related to Ramming. Having watched Dash play it that way against Stelek in the Death Match, and watching every other Ork player (including myself) use it that way it makes since to me and is a reasonable interpenetration of the rules..

However, it's a questionable call that can be supported by RAW either way. I don't think they were wrong for making the call they did...just that it's not the call I would make. At the very least I would keep it on your mind if your going to a tournament to have them address it in an FAQ, so at least everyone is on the same playing field.

YEAH! Crimson Fists using Blood Angel rules!

This is why competitive gaming scenes suck.

Walls wrote:YEAH! Crimson Fists using Blood Angel rules!

This is why competitive gaming scenes suck.

I love competitive gaming, but this comment delighted me to no end.

I completely understand what you mean, man.

If you are not interested in competitive gaming why waste your time reading the reports and criticising it?

Dashofpepper wrote:
Apparently not. As I start declaring my rams, the TO steps in and makes an extremely unfavorable ruling: Deffrolla hits are NOT part of the ramming attack, and take place after the ram occurs - meaning that when I ram a vehicle, only the ramming attack itself matters to see if I get to continue on. IE, if I declare a ram, run into a rhino and the ram does nothing, but the Deffrolla explodes it.....I still don't get to continue moving, since the Deffrolla hits happen afterwards.

Mike and I had a discussion about it because this was game-changing.
Mike's argument:
The rulebook tells you to apply the ramming effects immediately - therefore only the ramming attack matters in terms of getting to continue. Mike, sorry if I missed any elaboration beyond that.

Dashofpepper's counter-argument:
1. The Ork codex *adds* D6 attacks to the ram. At worst, the Deffrolla hits should be happening simultaneously; I didn't see any reason to add timing to something that doesn't need it defined.
2. More importantly, the rules for a ramming vehicle continuing don't require that the ram explode the vehicle to continue - only that the vehicle is in an exploded state.
3. The only time timing is ever accounted for in the rulebook is in DoG - if a unit performs a DoG (say a dreadnought) against a ramming vehicle; they can stop the ram, but still suffer from the Deffrolla hits, but 2d6 in this case. If anything, that means the Deffrolla should be resolved before the ram. It even makes sense fluff-wise; giant spiked thing in front of the battlewagon crushing all before it.

This was very unfortunate and I can't disagree with the ruling more.

Where did he come up with the idea that the deffrolla hits occur afterwards? Simultaneous is likely since there is no ruling to the contrary and the FAQ clearly allows the deff rolla to hit via the 'tank shock = type of ram = affects vehicles' logic.

For ease of resolution, the DR hits should be done first imo, then the ram, should they fail to kill the vehicle. And of course the battle wagon passes through as per ram, since the deff rolla hits are a type of RAM!

All this bloody whining from folks about how broken DRs are now they're ability to hit vehicles has been clearly stated... Just what else are orks to do against Land Raiders and Monoliths ffs? Every other army even has the luxury of sitting back and shooting at av14, we have to get across the damned table and hit a moving target!

I think you were robbed on that one, in all fairness.

All this bloody whining from folks about how broken DRs are now they're ability to hit vehicles has been clearly stated... Just what else are orks to do against Land Raiders and Monoliths ffs? Every other army even has the luxury of sitting back and shooting at av14, we have to get across the damned table and hit a moving target!

uhm... other folks need to get within 6" to the landraider to unleash the power of the meltagun-equivalent. long range vs av 14 is mostly wasted effort. (except for railgun and lances and even these have rather bad odds to do anything useful) then these folks need to get past a smoke launcher cover save and a roll to hit.
The deffrolla does not need to hit, it ignores the movement and it ignores the cover save. And even deffrolla vs landraider is not a sure thing (d6 is the problem). The problem is deffrolla vs rhino or chimera.

But well its just a matter of adapting your playstyle. You just cannot drive right in front of some battlewagons anymore, you have to wait for them to come to you and then encircle and crossfire them.

concerning ram vs tank shock:

there has been a long discussion about this. BEFORE the FAQ I was the opinion that ramming and tank shocking are two different moves and therefore two different things. (tank shocking a vehicle is impossible, because you have to stop 1" before it, infantry between a ramming tank and its target gets tank shocked, so there is a distinction).
The storm bolter comparison is very good if you say: The storm bolter is a special kind of boltgun, except it is assault 2 instead of rapid fire.

Now you get the possibility to add a melta to a boltgun to make a combiweapon. Why would you be able to add it to a stormbolter? Because it is like a boltgun? (jump infantry is not infantry anymore concerning JotWW)

But nevertheless, it has been FAQed and it is therefore clear. (Or at least should be....)

Good battle report, those close competitive games can be just draing. Shame about the tank shock ruling nullifiying a good chunk of your plan at that time, all I can say is next tourny grab a ref before you start and get how they are going to rule it at that tourny. As to your oppenent, Many things don't make sense to me and others occur. I will comment and question in the random order my damaged and overtired brain thinks of them.

1) Where did Mephiston come on the table, when you say 4+ to come on a side it makes me think he is outflanking, which he can't do. 2) Why did he take min assualt squads in rhinos, I think he would have made a much better list maxing out a unit or 2, COmbat squading them and using 1 or 2 rhinos as cover for them. 3) I look at Buggies and never think about taking them , do they do well for you more often then not? 4) Dash does an excellent job of dealing with a lot of armour 13 vehicles when Orks constantly get the comment does not deal well with armour.

On the whole a good report. I to have gambled on a game ending on turn 5 and it not happening. Dash didn't do anything game costingly wrong and just seemed to hit a good run of bad luck which you can do nothing about I'm afraid.