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.

ARRRGH STOP IT ALL OF YOU!

First of all, the DE FAQ is for the 3rd edition Codex, not the 5th editon.

Secondly, the 5th edition codex makes it clear (or heavily implies, I have not seen the wording) that you can ram with a Shock Prow as it has an ability that triggers when you ram.

Thirdly, Wibbly Wobbly Flooby Do.

Fourthly, See Point #1 and also the fact that the FAQs are Shmouse Mools.

Is it just me, or is Gwar! becoming increasingly incoherent with time?

Is having his soul locked within YMDC by Insaniak's foul sorcery-magic slowly burning his mind away?

SaintHazard wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

don_mondo wrote:Being able to Tank Shock does not mean it will be able to Ram. Refer to the current Dark Eldar FAQ and the current item that allows a Raider to Tank Shock, but not to Ram. Does the new one specifically say it can Ram? Or does it only say Tank Shock? Guess we'll have to wait 6 months for GW to FAQ it.................................

Ramming is a type of Tank Shock.

If it can Tank Shock, it can Ram.

Current Dark Eldar FAQ says otherwise.........................

BRB, page 69. Second column, first sentence:

"Ramming is a special type of tank shock"

Also, the FAQs are soft material, not hard rules, and often contradict one another. For example, the Ork FAQ says ramming IS a kind of tank shock, and therefore contradicts the Dark Eldar FAQ. One of the billion million reasons to not put any credence in the FAQs whatsoever.

For purposes of rules discussion here, the FAQs are hard rules. How you handle it in your gaming group is totally up to you.

Yes, I know it's the FAQ for the 3rd ed codex, but it is proof that not all vehicles able to tank shock can ram, as Hazard claimed.
Yes, it will go away soon.
Yes, the new codex seems to grant at least implied permission for the Raider to ram.
Not disgareeing with any of that, just with Hazard's broad and sweeping statement that ANY vehilce able to tank shock can also ram. That's not (IMO) supported by the rules or the current FAQs, even with the 'special type of tank shock' phrase.

Make hugs, not ram.

don_mondo wrote:
Not disgareeing with any of that, just with Hazard's broad and sweeping statement that ANY vehilce able to tank shock can also ram. That's not (IMO) supported by the rules or the current FAQs, even with the 'special type of tank shock' phrase.

Actually, I'd agree most with Hazard's statement. The rules for ramming are a subsection of the larger rules for tank shocking, and read the page Hazard pointed out. The main rulebook clearly states that ramming is just a type of tank shock.

If a vehicle is allowed to tank shock, it's also allowed to ram, unless it has a specific rule forbidding that subset of tank shocks.

And as long as a single vehicle has such a statement, then any statement saying all vehicles taht can tank shock can also ram is inherently false, yes?

The bottom line of the point I was making is that anything that can Tank Shock can also Ram, since a Ram is nothing more than a special kind of Tank Shock.

See the page I quoted... it couldn't be more clear on this point.

Nothing in the rules says that vehicles exist that can Tank Shock but cannot Ram. If I'm wrong on this one, please correct me (with a cited page from the rulebook).

Regardless of what the FAQs say, the rulebook is 100% clear on this point, and if you want to treat the FAQs like hard rules, then the FAQs contradict themselves, and you have to default to the rulebook anyway.

SaintHazard wrote:Regardless of what the FAQs say, the rulebook is 100% clear on this point, and if you want to treat the FAQs like hard rules, then the FAQs contradict themselves, and you have to default to the rulebook anyway.

Funny how the same group people who scream "THE FAQS ARE RULES YOU MUST FOLLOW THEM OR ELSE" are the same group people who get worked up when we point out you can't actually fire a Flamer from a Rhino fire point, by the rules.

That IS often quite amusing.

Be consistent, folks.

I'm noy sureyou could use the +2D6 upgrade to Ram.
The bonus movement is in the Shooting Phase (methinks)

And ramming is done in the Moving Phase.

I could be wrong.

Dark Eldar FAQ is noted as being from 2004, and has this text in the beginning:

Some of the information in this document has
already been incorporated in later editions of the
Dark Eldar Codex. We have however decided to
leave them here for people that might own an
older version of the Codex. If you are using a
more recent edition, please ignore any redundant
information.

Now, we all know that this is a blatant lie regarding that some of it is already included, but it does tell you to fully ignore this FAQ if you've got a later version of the codex.

em_en_oh_pee wrote:Oh, can't wait to see this applied in a game. Suicide Raiders, ftw?

How in character eh?

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:I'm noy sureyou could use the +2D6 upgrade to Ram.
The bonus movement is in the Shooting Phase (methinks)

And ramming is done in the Moving Phase.

I could be wrong.

Actually, you are mistaken; you're thinking of Eldar Star Engines.

The DE Enhanced Aethersails specifically state that the extra 2d6" occur in the movement phase.

The upgrade for the raider in the new rulebook lets it tank shock, and then goes on to mention that when ramming a vehicle it gets a bonus of d3 to it's front armor.

Since it specifically addresses the issue of ramming another vehicle, we don't have to argue the whole "ram is a special type of tank shock" thing again. Which I'm really thankful for.)

Raiders with the upgrade can both ram and tank shock.

I thought anybody in a transport moving at flat out speed just died in the ensuing explosion and therefore no one is left for assaulting?
Cheers,
Nihilus

Pre FAQ only on a "wreck", not on an "explodes"

Post FAQ if you tank your vehicle in the turn you move flat out all passengers die.

5E rules for Shock Prow, appended.
"The shock prow is an energized ram...a vehicle with a shock prow can Tank shock...It counts its front armor value as D3 higher...when ramming enemy vehicles..."

Now shut it about the 3rd edition FAQ.

When a vehicle explodes dont the passengers "emergency disembark" meaning they cant do anything that turn.

If it explodes the passengers are also in the crater, so they have to move through cover.

No, because if you move Flat Out you CANNOT disembark *that turn* - so you *cannot* emergency disembark either.

Reread the new FAQ, note that it explicitly covers this.