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.

Hey folks!

If you ram a vehicle and it explodes, you continue moving through the explosion the full distance. Traditionally, I've always played that if the Deffrolla causes the explosion, you still continue moving, because the Deffrolla hits are part of the ramming attack.

This past weekend, I ran into a different ruling: Only the ram hit itself counts. If the ramming attack does not explode the vehicle being rammed, the battlewagon stops, regardless of what the Deffrolla does.

I disagree, but I don't whip out rulebooks and argue stuff, I just go with the flow. Any input, rules citations, etc would be welcome.

I have seen this interpretation as well but have not seen a 'Gwar' quality explanation on how or why it works that way.

I am pretty good with digesting RAW but I don't really see that the "RAM must cause the result to still move" in the way the implied rules on the issue are written.

"If the vehicle that is rammed is not removed, the rammer halts, However, if the rammed vehicle is removed because it suffers a "destroyed-explodes!" damage result, the rammer continues it's move . . ."p69 BRB.

There is no conditional on the reason for removal beyond having been rammed and suffering a "destroyed-explodes!" result. Distinguishing results caused by deffrolla and non-deffrolla, i.e. "standard" ramming, is not in the rules.

I'd be okay either way, but would expect the same logic applied to skimmer dodges too.

If the deffrolla is considered separate for all purposes, as mentioned above, then it should deal its d6 hits to a skimmer, regardless of whether the skimmer dodges the ramming collision.

If the deffrolla is considered to be part of the ram, then a skimmer that dodges the ram should be immune to the deffrolla, but a vehicle that explodes to the rolla shouldn't impede the progress of the vehicle.

I think RAW supports the first approach, but most people I've played with want their skimmers to be immune to the deff rolla attacks if they dodge.

It seems pretty straightforward, actually.

"If the Vehicle that is rammed" is the key part of the sentence.

The ramming rules do not account for the Deffrolla Hits and the Deffrolla hits should be determined After the Ram Hit is resolved. This is because the ram/tank shock occurs the moment the vehicle contacts the enemy and need to be resolved immediately(so as to not be interrupted in process).

The Order of operations is as follows:
-Declare Ram
-pivot vehicle
-move vehicle to contact enemy vehicle(tank shocking any -unit that lies between) or up to the maximum distance the Ramming vehicle is allowed to move
-If rammed vehicle is a skimmer make the "Jink" roll; if rammed vehicle is a walker make Death or Glory attack, or choose to Brace for Impact
-Calculate str of hit on enemy vehicle based on movement distance, armor value, and whether the rammer is a tank
-Make armor penetration rolls
-If Armor is penetrated roll for damage
-apply damage
-Check if rammed vehicle is "Destroyed-exploded"
-Apply Deff Rolla Attacks(these will still occur if the Deff-rolla armed rammer is destroyed by the impact).

Kommissar Kel wrote:"If the Vehicle that is rammed" is the key part of the sentence.

The ramming rules do not account for the Deffrolla Hits and the Deffrolla hits should be determined After the Ram Hit is resolved. This is because the ram/tank shock occurs the moment the vehicle contacts the enemy and need to be resolved immediately(so as to not be interrupted in process).

The Order of operations is as follows:
-Declare Ram
-pivot vehicle
-move vehicle to contact enemy vehicle(tank shocking any -unit that lies between) or up to the maximum distance the Ramming vehicle is allowed to move
-If rammed vehicle is a skimmer make the "Jink" roll; if rammed vehicle is a walker make Death or Glory attack, or choose to Brace for Impact
-Calculate str of hit on enemy vehicle based on movement distance, armor value, and whether the rammer is a tank
-Make armor penetration rolls
-If Armor is penetrated roll for damage
-apply damage
-Check if rammed vehicle is "Destroyed-exploded"
-Apply Deff Rolla Attacks(these will still occur if the Deff-rolla armed rammer is destroyed by the impact).

Where was that order of operation described in the rulebook? Page number, please. The Tank Shock/Ramming rules make no mention regarding the sequence of events with respect to multiple sources of damage. There is no initiative value on Ramming and Deffrolla hits and neither does Codex: Orks have "ram then defferolla" or the like in it's description. The only statement we have that I am aware of is ". . . if the rammed vehicle is removed because it suffers a "destroyed-explodes!" damage result, the rammer continues it's move . . ."p69 BRB.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

The ramming rules do not account for the Deffrolla Hits and the Deffrolla hits should be determined After the Ram Hit is resolved. This is because the ram/tank shock occurs the moment the vehicle contacts the enemy and need to be resolved immediately(so as to not be interrupted in process).
.

The rules don't mention Deffrolla and ramming at all because the ability to work during a RAM is implied and only functions due to GWs FAQ. There is no explicit definition of order of operations of which things are applied and no explicit mention of the two rules interacting. The only time there is even IMPLIED order of operations is when a DoG response is made, which is not going to be the case for all NON-WALKER Rams.

There is simply nothing that even supports this, it is all implied as nothing ever anywhere is written on how RAMs and Deffrollas interact and if they are treated as one or one after the other.

I agree with Redbeard, if skimmers can dodge Deffrolla because they Dodge a Ram, then they are both done as the same action at the same time for driving through a 6-explodes.

I still cannot see the RAW that supposedly supports the other interpretation, in fact I see a total vacuum and absence of RAW in this situation.

Redbeard wrote:I'd be okay either way, but would expect the same logic applied to skimmer dodges too.

If the deffrolla is considered separate for all purposes, as mentioned above, then it should deal its d6 hits to a skimmer, regardless of whether the skimmer dodges the ramming collision.

If the deffrolla is considered to be part of the ram, then a skimmer that dodges the ram should be immune to the deffrolla, but a vehicle that explodes to the rolla shouldn't impede the progress of the vehicle.

I think RAW supports the first approach, but most people I've played with want their skimmers to be immune to the deff rolla attacks if they dodge.

Skimmer dodge seems pretty obvious from RAW point of view. Skimmer dodge rules states that vehicles attempt to Ram skimmers which then may dodge. This points to that Ram does not happen at all if the dodge works, and if there is no Ram(Tank shock), there is no Deff Rollin'.

Vehicle exploding is bit iffier, but I think the RAW points to that Ram damage is immediately resolved "...any result is immediately applied", and this also includes the exception that vehicle may continue if the rammed vehicle explodes. Whatever the Deff Rolla does is not part of the Ramming rules, and thus do not benefit from the possibility of continuing to ram another vehicle, since that is explicitly mentioned under Ram damage rules. Deff rolla damage is not Ram damage.

I think the RAI is pretty obvious here: skimmers which dodge do not suffer damage, and Deff rolla damage should count as Ram damage: after all,in most Battlewagons the Deff rolla would hit the enemy vehicle before the front armour...

Backfire wrote:
Skimmer dodge seems pretty obvious from RAW point of view. Skimmer dodge rules states that vehicles attempt to Ram skimmers which then may dodge. This points to that Ram does not happen at all if the dodge works, and if there is no Ram(Tank shock), there is no Deff Rollin'.

I don't think it is at all clear from a RAW standpoint...

BRB Page 71 wrote:
Skimmers may attempt to dodge out of the way of tanks attempting to ram them (as long as the ramming tank is not also a skimmer). The ramming tank stops in contact with the skimmer as normal, but then, if the player controlling the skimmer wants to dodge, he rolls a D6. On a 1 or 2 the collision proceeds as normal. On a 3+ the skimmer avoids the tank, neither vehicle suffers any damage, and the ramming tank stops in its tracks (literally!), its crew confused and disappointed.

Ork Codex, Page 55 wrote:
Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit. 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.

Reading that first paragraph, there is nothing to indicate that the Tank did not ram the skimmer, only that the skimmer takes no damage from the ramming attack. In fact, the ramming tank is still referred to as "the ramming tank" even after it has been established that the skimmer has dodged.

Furthermore, there's nothing in the deff rolla description that indicates that the S10 hits are not inflicted due to any result of the original tank shock. The closest defined equivalent is that you deal extra hits if the target unit goes for a Death or Glory, even if they're successful at it.


I agree with your assessment of RAI - a dodging skimmer shouldn't be hit, and a vehicle that explodes because it was run over by a rolla shouldn't stop the rolla from continuing along - but that's not the rules, that's the story, and story and rules don't always agree.

THe tournament *did* rule that skimmers would take the deffrolla hits even if they dodge the ram. I imagine that if I had played against a Mechdar player, there would have been loud screaming and possible drama. I didn't play against Mechdar, but I did play against mechanized MEQ armies that gained a sudden ability to wall off my battlewagons without me being able to ram through them.





I pinged Gwar for an answer too.

[3:08:20 PM] Gwar the Trolle: I have to agree with Redbeard here. From a strict Rules as Written standpoint, the rules for Ramming do not take into account the damage caused by a Deffrolla. As such, the damage from it is seperate and distinct from the damage caused by the Ram. Therefore, I feel that only if the Ram itself causes the vehicle to explode will the vehicle continue on it's course.

Redbeard wrote:
Reading that first paragraph, there is nothing to indicate that the Tank did not ram the skimmer, only that the skimmer takes no damage from the ramming attack. In fact, the ramming tank is still referred to as "the ramming tank" even after it has been established that the skimmer has dodged.

Furthermore, there's nothing in the deff rolla description that indicates that the S10 hits are not inflicted due to any result of the original tank shock. The closest defined equivalent is that you deal extra hits if the target unit goes for a Death or Glory, even if they're successful at it.

Ram does not happen if the skimmer dodges - by comparison, when you take a Death or Glory attack, Tank shock has already taken place (in fact you CANNOT do DoG if Tank Shock has not already happened).

And if you go by that route, I might also point out that Skimmer dodge rule states that in "...on 3+...neither vehicle suffers any damage" and really there is no reason to suppose that it doesn't also include Deff Rolla...

I am no RAW expert, but I think that requiring the ram to destroy the vehicle and not just the deff rolla in order for rams to continue is balanced. Keeps the deff rolla from running through 2-3 rhinos.

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.

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).

Page Number and quote of "you must resolve each rule before moving on to the next rule" please. A majority of the rules actually interrupt, apply to or modify other rules so this idea that somehow the ram must be resolved unmodified is not supported by any rule.

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.

It is possible to apply things at the same time but actually roll them one before the other.

We apparently do it every day when both sides of assault have powerfist attacks. You roll yours, after that, I roll mine and we resolve them as happening exactly at the same time... There is no paradox then, why would this situation any different.

Your explanation is based on nothing with zero justification based on no actual rules.

At least gwar's explanation is using the total lack of explicit rules to force us to take the most minimializtic application of the rules which is Ram must cause the result. Even with that interpretation, there is still no order of operations and you can still resolve the deffrolla at the same time of the ram.

Redbeard wrote:

Backfire wrote:
Skimmer dodge seems pretty obvious from RAW point of view. Skimmer dodge rules states that vehicles attempt to Ram skimmers which then may dodge. This points to that Ram does not happen at all if the dodge works, and if there is no Ram(Tank shock), there is no Deff Rollin'.

I don't think it is at all clear from a RAW standpoint...

BRB Page 71 wrote:
Skimmers may attempt to dodge out of the way of tanks attempting to ram them (as long as the ramming tank is not also a skimmer). The ramming tank stops in contact with the skimmer as normal, but then, if the player controlling the skimmer wants to dodge, he rolls a D6. On a 1 or 2 the collision proceeds as normal. On a 3+ the skimmer avoids the tank, neither vehicle suffers any damage, and the ramming tank stops in its tracks (literally!), its crew confused and disappointed.

Ork Codex, Page 55 wrote:
Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit. 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.

Reading that first paragraph, there is nothing to indicate that the Tank did not ram the skimmer, only that the skimmer takes no damage from the ramming attack. In fact, the ramming tank is still referred to as "the ramming tank" even after it has been established that the skimmer has dodged.

Furthermore, there's nothing in the deff rolla description that indicates that the S10 hits are not inflicted due to any result of the original tank shock. The closest defined equivalent is that you deal extra hits if the target unit goes for a Death or Glory, even if they're successful at it.


I agree with your assessment of RAI - a dodging skimmer shouldn't be hit, and a vehicle that explodes because it was run over by a rolla shouldn't stop the rolla from continuing along - but that's not the rules, that's the story, and story and rules don't always agree.

The key here is how you treat the words "the skimmer avoids the tank". Does that to you suggest it does not make contact? If so I would direct you to the rules on page 67, where it specifies that contact is required for a tank shock result to be applied. If it doesn't suggest they do not make contact, how do you define "avoids" in that case?

The reason the rules refer to "the ramming tank" after it's been established that the tank has been avoided is simple: you don't ram a target, you ram a direction. It, in fact, does not matter if you fail to make contact with anything, you can still ram with a tank and it will be "the ramming tank" even if all it rams is some dried grass. In short, it's ramming all the way until it ends it's movement, and you'll note that the rules do not call it "the ramming tank" after it's directed you to stop it's movement.
Q: "But why doesn't the tank keep going if the skimmer avoids it?" A: Because that could cause two models to legally occupy the same spot with no clear direction as to where the models would be moved if the ramming tank ends it's movement within 1" of the intended target.

Now, since I don't have an Ork codex handy, I will simply stay away from the finer points. I have just assumed that for the Deff Rolla result to apply, there has to be a reason to normally apply a ram result.

Backfire wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
Reading that first paragraph, there is nothing to indicate that the Tank did not ram the skimmer, only that the skimmer takes no damage from the ramming attack. In fact, the ramming tank is still referred to as "the ramming tank" even after it has been established that the skimmer has dodged.

Furthermore, there's nothing in the deff rolla description that indicates that the S10 hits are not inflicted due to any result of the original tank shock. The closest defined equivalent is that you deal extra hits if the target unit goes for a Death or Glory, even if they're successful at it.

Ram does not happen if the skimmer dodges - by comparison, when you take a Death or Glory attack, Tank shock has already taken place (in fact you CANNOT do DoG if Tank Shock has not already happened).

And if you go by that route, I might also point out that Skimmer dodge rule states that in "...on 3+...neither vehicle suffers any damage" and really there is no reason to suppose that it doesn't also include Deff Rolla...

That wins the debate right there.

Well played sir, and that page is getting bookmarked.

It actually says that on a 1 or 2 the collision proceeds as normal, on a 3+ it avoids the tank, neither suffers any damage, and the ramming tank stops.

Deff rolla just checks for a ram. The ram occurred, the collision did not.

Also since the deff rolla is not part of the ram rules the dodging the ram line, "neither suffers any damage" would have no effect on the rolla since it is in reference to the collision in the first part of the sentence. Otherwise you could claim that neither vehicle suffers any damage would last until the end of the game since it does not have any context. If you wanted to claim that the skimmer dodges the rolla too, then you would have to conclude that the rolla is part of the ram and if the vehicle explodes because of rolla hits the ram would continue.

Sorry. RAW says neither vehicle takes any damage.

And since tank shock and rams are the same thing according to the Ork FAQ, the dodge should definitely apply.

Can immobile skimmers still dodge. If so this would apply that deffrollas do not apply to immobile skimmers on a 3+

Monster Rain wrote:Sorry. RAW says neither vehicle takes any damage.

RAW says neither takes any damage from the ram, that is correct. The rules in the BRB do not apply to the Deff Rolla, which has its own set of rules in the ork codex.

This isn't clear either way. There is nothing definitive that either side of this argument can point to and say, without any opposition, this is what it says. It's ambiguous at best.

Point being, you'll need to establish with your opponent before it comes up in a game. And that it makes sense if you handle both these questions consistently.


It would be so nice if a clear order for things could be established...

That's exactly the point. If people want to claim that the rolla isn't part of the ram and doesn't continue through a rhino when it gets rammed then they cannot claim that the rolla is part of the ram and that when a skimmer dodges the collision that it some how stops a rolla. The rolla checks for a ram it isn't part of a ram. You could just claim that both vehicles are now invincible since it says that they take no damage. That line is in reference to the first part of the sentence that talks about the collision.

I think you could argue that the rolla is part of the ram, but only the ram itself counts for continuing

Notice the Ork codex doesnt say the Tank Shock has to be successful.

Personally I would play it as Skimmers dodge both the ram and the deff-rolla, and the BW would keep going even if it was the deff rolla that exploded the vehicle.

The next follow on from this is Ramming squadrons with Deffrollas......

Q8) Wait why can’t I allocate the Ram hit but I can allocate Deffrolla?

A) The Deffrolla hit the unit so we can allocate the glancing and Pen hits from the Rolla. Now if the squadron has a common armour value (the mode of the armour values) we use this for all damage rolls. If it doesn’t then we use the AV of the closest visible facing (the one we hit)

We may not allocate a hit from a Ram however because the Ram rules tell us to complete all actions specifically against the hit vehicle and to do this before continuing to any other actions.



IIRC puma and I danced around the Skimmer/dodge issue a week or so ago too


Automatically Appended Next Post:

del'Vhar wrote:
Personally I would play it as Skimmers dodge both the ram and the deff-rolla, and the BW would keep going even if it was the deff rolla that exploded the vehicle.

As long as you understand this is a house ruling there's nothing worng with that

BrockRitcey wrote:It actually says that on a 1 or 2 the collision proceeds as normal, on a 3+ it avoids the tank, neither suffers any damage, and the ramming tank stops.

Deff rolla just checks for a ram. The ram occurred, the collision did not.

del'Vhar wrote:Notice the Ork codex doesnt say the Tank Shock has to be successful.

You could argue that, but it is a perilous road. Because then I could point my Deff Rolla to a Land Raider 30 inches away and declare ram. "But my Land Raider is out of reach!" "Doesn't matter, the Ram still happened, it's still called a 'ramming tank' on pg. 69 BRB even if it does not make contact. Sorry, you take d6 S10 hits..."

Was reading this with interest.

I've never had this questioned in the games i've been playing recently with strangers in the new store near me. I've killed Lraiders, Hammerheads, razorbacks and rhinos with it and noone has made the slightest twitch.

This goes back to that 'orrible debate about deffrollas vs vehicles... Tank shocking is a type of ramming. GW cleared that this means it hits vehicles, that 'ram' includes deffrolla hits. If ramming allows you to pass through due to destroying the vehicles, then, as rolling is a type of ram, you pass through.

As for skimmers, if the skimmer is 'successful in dodging'... then it's dodged the ram and does not take the hits.

Its an interesting set of rulings that the TO here came up with...possibly wrong on both counts, possibly just one.

The skimmer dodging question was run through in a fairly long thread recently. The key being that if the skimmer avoids the tank this means that the skimmer is not part of the ram since it avoids the ramming vehicle. There is also a rule that neither vehicle then takes damage, and that the ramming vehicle stops in its tracks. The collision only proceeds as normal on a roll of 1 or 2.



The question as to whether or not only the ram hit itself is the only part of the attack that allows the bw to keep moving is more open to discussion. There is a good arguement that the rolla hits are part of the ram...which would allow those hits to count for removal/ movement purposes. While personally I like this idea, since its simple and makes sense, it may not be raw.

The one problem is that the RAW on pg 69 says "Each vehicle immediately suffers a hit..." This does give us a timeline, the one ram hit is applied immediately which happens before the rolla hits since the rolla hits have no such wording.

Farther down the page we see that both players roll and immediately (again that word) apply the result. It is at this point that the rules tell us "if the vehicle that is rammed is not removed, the rammer halts." This is the part of the RAW that we have to work around to allow the ramming vehicle to continue its movement. Because this rule tells us that if the hit immediately applied doesnt remove the target vehicle then the ramming vehicle has to stop. It doesnt consider if the vehicle is then later removed from other hits...it just stops the ramming vehicle at this one hit.


Yes, the rolla hits are part of the ram/ tank shock. But there is difference in timing since the one ram hit is resolved "immediately" while the rolla hits are resolved at a normal pace. This is what leads to the timing line as laid out by Kommisar Kel.

Now it can also be argued that the rolla hits are part of the ram so should be resolved at the same exact time.

The rules on dog tho make the timing issue seem more certain, since the rolla hits are inflicted no matter how the dog is resolved. Meaning that the rolla hits are indeed somehow slightly separate from the one ram hit.

So the halt/ not halt part is a bit murkier than one would wish.


Sliggoth

There is nothing in the BRB or the Ork codex that suggests a distinct order of resolution.
In fact, pg. 55 of codex: orks says "any tank shock made by a battlewagon with a deffrolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit."
It is in fact the very act of the tank shock (or ram) and not the deffrolla that causes the additional damage. Since codex-specific rules override the BRB,
an argument could be made that a deffrolla-equipped ram only inflicts the D6 Str10 hits instead of the single hit called for by the BRB because it does not say "in addition to any other damage" like it does for DoG.

So, from a true RAW perspective, the argument about whether ram hits allow the battlewagon to continue after the point of impact is a moot point because the rolla hits are ram hits.

As far as skimmers go, if it avoids the ram then it avoids the ram, deffrolla-assisted or not.

Waaaaghmaster wrote:There is nothing in the BRB or the Ork codex that suggests a distinct order of resolution.
In fact, pg. 55 of codex: orks says "any tank shock made by a battlewagon with a deffrolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit."
It is in fact the very act of the tank shock (or ram) and not the deffrolla that causes the additional damage. Since codex-specific rules override the BRB,
an argument could be made that a deffrolla-equipped ram only inflicts the D6 Str10 hits instead of the single hit called for by the BRB because it does not say "in addition to any other damage" like it does for DoG.

So, from a true RAW perspective, the argument about whether ram hits allow the battlewagon to continue after the point of impact is a moot point because the rolla hits are ram hits.

As far as skimmers go, if it avoids the ram then it avoids the ram, deffrolla-assisted or not.

Agreed. If the Deff Rolla inflicts hits when it tank shocks, ramming is a type of tank shock, and the Skimmer avoids the Ram... No Deff Rolla hits.