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.

Gwar! wrote:Errm... The INAT is written in the US?

Yak stated one of the reasons they changed the inat was the uk gt faq didn't allow deff rollas to work, which is now apparently mute, amongst other not based in fact reasons...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yakface wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Will you and the council be changing your FAQs to reflect this Yakface?

I can't speak for anyone besides myself.

We are obviously looking at it and deciding what to do right now.

I was always of the opinion that it should work when ramming...again that's originally how we ruled it, its just that we got information from extraneous sources that strongly indicated that GW would rule against it being used with ramming if they ever ruled on it.

Obviously opinions within the studio have changed since then or the person writing this FAQ didn't speak with the person who previously gave that information.


So yeah, IMHO we should change our ruling...and if they clear this up by putting out a new English language version then absolutely positively it would apply at Adepticon.

Surely this wouldn't take place prior to the uk gt faq changing, if it does? Cause it would be bad if US and UK players had to play with different faq's?

Spellbound wrote:I don't PARTICULARLY mind it, but I think there should have been some sort of ....I don't know. d6 S10 is just ridiculous. AUTOMATIC hits. If you touch them, you throttle them. I mean a landraider ramming 12" does what, a S9 hit? Falcon moving 24" does a S10 but that's kind of a long shot getting that much distance. I think auto-S10 when ramming would have been fine. That would allow you to ram from any distance and still hit with crushing force.

All in all it's alright though. My issue is still with the boarding plank. Most broken 5 point upgrade ever. "I do 6 S10 attacks on your defiler cuz I'm next to it!" With no limitation on how fast you can move before using it, trukks moving 18" and then dropping a ton of hard hits on my walkers gets pretty damn annoying after a while.

Which btw, THERE is the ork anti-tank. Killakanz, lootas and powerclaws from boarding planks. What more do you need?

And one more thing - those complaining about the Monolith really need not worry. It's a skimmer, it gets a 3+ save to ignore a ram completely. Pass the save once, avoid d6 hits.

Your local ork player has been cheating, neither vehicle may have moved more than 12" for a boarding plank to work (the trukk can move 13" with rpj).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spellbound wrote:Never get near a battlewagon. I picture this scenario:

Ram rhino. d6 S10. Boom. Squad gets out. Squad's in the way. Squad gets shocked. d6 S10. Ouch! Rhino behind squad. Ram. d6 S10. Squad gets out. Tank shock. d6 S10. End movement. Boarding plank nearby rhino, 4 S9 attacks on rear armour. Boom, or not either way Wrecking Ball, S9 hit.


A single battlewagon can now crush its way through multiple vehicles and the units they carry now, even just barely clipping. And at the end of it all, drop the boarding plank on whatever else is around.

To avoid the squad getting hurt you just have to deploy them so that they aren't in the way of the deffrolla. Tricky but not impossible.

To avoid getting multiple rhinos crushed in one shock don't keep them all in a straight line within 13" of each other. If you deploy in a triangle of 14" length he can only ever hit 1 a turn. To be honest though you don't have to do that. Most rhinos will be lined up along the long table edge. To get multiples the wagon has to move up the side of the board to line itself up with the straight line of rhinos. That's 2 turns and then it can tank shock. So 2 turns to kill it and in one of those turns it exposes its more vulnerable side av12.

And with nothing but a deffrolla, boarding plank, wrecking ball, armour plates, and rpj to make this work you're looking at 135pts minimum without counting the squad on a vehicle with no actual weapons. More likely its going to be about 150pts with a few weapons before it can do your trick.

Don't fret it. You'll see a lot more b-wagons with rollas but they aren't the be all and end all of the game.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:
And with nothing but a deffrolla, boarding plank, wrecking ball, armour plates, and rpj to make this work you're looking at 135pts minimum without counting the squad on a vehicle with no actual weapons. More likely its going to be about 150pts with a few weapons before it can do your trick.

Most of that gear isn't necessary. Wagon [90] + Rolla [20] + Big Shoota [5] + Plank [10] + Red Paint [5] = 130, and you can shave it to 125 if you don't care about weapon destroyed results. I'm not claiming Wagons are LOLcheap, but it's pretty darn easy to get 5+ into a list and still field Big Meks and loads of Boyz, Koptas, etc.

All I can say is: thank you GW for FINALLY making a ruling on this. Playing in various venues can be a headache as this has been a very controversial issue. As an Ork player who thought it should be ruled this way, of course I'm happy for it. If they ruled otherwise, I'd still be happy (maybe slightly less) that I have a clear ruling. Hell, many of us were blanketly called cheaters b/c certain Ard Boyz events last year allowed it.

The reality is probably this: GW wasn't selling enough upgrade kits and had to fix that. I know I'll be ordering a couple more.

Sincerely,

Grateful Ork Player

Just so I can clarify:

This whole Deffrolla situation came about because the rules say 'Tank Shock' and make no mention of 'Ramming', correct?

H.B.M.C. wrote:Just so I can clarify:

This whole Deffrolla situation came about because the rules say 'Tank Shock' and make no mention of 'Ramming', correct?

The Deffrolla rules only mention tank shocking. The question was if Ramming was a separate event from Tank Shocking, and if being able to Tank Shock also allowed Ramming.

Ok.

Then, as a followup, how many uses of specific 5th Ed terminology are contained within the Ork Codex.

To put it another way, what rules in the Ork Codex show up that did not exist in 4th Ed and have only existed since 5th Ed came about?

sourclams wrote:

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:
And with nothing but a deffrolla, boarding plank, wrecking ball, armour plates, and rpj to make this work you're looking at 135pts minimum without counting the squad on a vehicle with no actual weapons. More likely its going to be about 150pts with a few weapons before it can do your trick.

Most of that gear isn't necessary. Wagon [90] + Rolla [20] + Big Shoota [5] + Plank [10] + Red Paint [5] = 130, and you can shave it to 125 if you don't care about weapon destroyed results. I'm not claiming Wagons are LOLcheap, but it's pretty darn easy to get 5+ into a list and still field Big Meks and loads of Boyz, Koptas, etc.

Well bare minimum to pull off the trick of going 13", then planking , then swining a wrecking ball requires 125 if you have no armour plates or big shoota and that's in response to the poster who was arguing that you could do this.

Personally I run my wagon with plates, rolla, rpj, 3 x bs and that's it. Comes out at 140pts and can crush tanks/t4 nid beasties, asborb some weapon destroyed (and shoot if immobilised), re-roll difficult terrain and always move unless immobilised (and the mek on board fixes it then).

I only run one but if I wanted to do wagon spam I would probably run 4.

4 of them costs me 560pts but would probably be the nice core of a very nasty list. Put scoring nobz in one, 2 squads of shoota boyz in another 2 and burnaz in the last then fill out the list with KFF/Boss some grots or trukks (i.e. some cheap troops) and some mobile rokkits in the form of either buggies or koptaz.

Apparently Ork players gained a way to kill Monoliths. I can dig it.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Ok.

Then, as a followup, how many uses of specific 5th Ed terminology are contained within the Ork Codex.

To put it another way, what rules in the Ork Codex show up that did not exist in 4th Ed and have only existed since 5th Ed came about?

None. It was a fourth edition codex and has stuff in it that doesn't quite mesh with 5th edition (such as the wording in the 'Waaagh' rule).

Thanks Yak. I already suspected that, but wanted to be 100% certain before finishing my thought, which I shall do so now:

So this whole argument, including a lot of heated words between various parties, accusations of cheating, bad blood at tournaments and official events - and even the fact that we still have a 12 page thread after it has been resolved - was because when the rule was written Ramming didn't yet exist.

And no one - no one - made the relatively small leap to say that had it been written for 5th they probably would have specified that the Deffrolla can Ram other vehicles given that, y'know, it's a giant rolly ball of death, and then just left it at that?

So as my final question to all those who no doubt spent countless pages and effort writing about this topic since 5th Ed came about:

Was it worth it?

I mean... why do we argue over GW's rules to this degree? They're badly written, they're ambiguous, they don't use defined terms, they're inconsistent (and negligent) in their use and misuse of terminology. They write their rules in a vacuum with little to no forethought of what's to come or what's come before (the Daemons Codex being a rare example of when they have avoided this pitfall). Even their FAQ's serve to raise more questions, answer questions that don't need answering (sometimes incorrectly as well) and leave off questions where actual ambiguity is present (this was not one of those cases). So why do we do it?

I mean, I had someone here call me a childish immature cheater for even suggesting - suggesting - that the Doom of Malantai probably got a Warp Field save because GW gave him the rule (and why would they give it the rule if they didn't want him to use it?).

So really, why do we bother?

Because what else would I do at work?

Work? No way man.


But seriously, in the 'top 100 hobby games of all time' the game designer who lists 40K as his favorite game actually attributes the loosely written rules as part of the game's enduring charm.

And while I'd love for some super-tight set of rules that we didn't even have to discuss, you have to admit, arguing over rules at least has a way of giving players interested in the game something to do.

Some people like to discuss tactics ad nauseam, some people like to look at rumors, some people like to make up their own rules, some people like to argue what the rules mean, etc, etc, etc.

Why do we debate rules for 40K? Personally, I enjoy the game and have been able to play this game for 20 years and all across the United States. I like the fact that I can go anywhere in the U.S. and can pretty much play a total stranger and we are, for the most part, on the same page. This particular rule (which I've not debated much online) was a real issue where I go to play with my Orks. In the end, I just built the list I liked and simply would ask how the local area rules on Deff Rollas. If it worked, fine; if not, that's fine to. It was not something I hinged my battle plan on.

What really struck me was the accusations that were being thrown around that some folks had somehow convinced tourney organizers (Ard Boyz specifically) to allow Deff Rollas to affect vehicles and we were labelled as cheaters. Rather than admit there was ambiguity in a ruling, it seemed easier to throw out the 'cheating' label. It was just assumed that there was no other way to interpret the ruling. I believe this is the only time I took issue with this whole debate.

Was it worth it?

I think this is the first time I've ever discussed the deffrolla, most of my posts have been fairly even about it I think. The english only gamer mafia earlier caught me by surprise though. Didn't think such a thing existed.

I mean, I had someone here call me a childish immature cheater for even suggesting - suggesting - that the Doom of Malantai probably got a Warp Field save because GW gave him the rule (and why would they give it the rule if they didn't want him to use it?).

Well the warpfield rule does say that the warpfield gives the zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save. A doom of malantai is a doom of malantai, not a zoanthrope. That said, it's utterly absurd to think that the special character zoanthrope wouldn't have a rule that is listed both in it's unit entry and price entry.

GW do have an English version FAQ up, so I am not sure what the fuss is about.

For myself, although I enjoy playing 40k, the list of cheap but game changing items just gets longer. I am just hoping that if GW ever decide to release a new Tau codex, they will have the decency to give Tau some disgustingly cheap, game changing items as well. Having said that, after so many reams of spilled ink, the subject of DR and tank shock is finally closed, until the next FAQ at least. Why could they have not done this a year ago?

You're all cheaters and the people who wrote this FAQ are the biggest cheaters of them all!!

Seriously though, I'm glad this is finally resolved. Not super happy that the one biggest weakness Orks had is now mitigated by a 20 point upgrade, but it won't really ruin my fun.

Who is the member who had a sig saying DEFF ROLLAS -- MAKE A RULING ALREADY!!

I would like him to change it to TAU -- MAKE THE NEW CODEX GOOD!!

God be praised!



This may have been the single most contested rule I have ever known of.

Kilkrazy wrote:Who is the member who had a sig saying DEFF ROLLAS -- MAKE A RULING ALREADY!!

I would like him to change it to TAU -- MAKE THE NEW CODEX!!

Fixed.

ShumaGorath wrote:The english only gamer mafia earlier caught me by surprise though. Didn't think such a thing existed.

There's a mafia for everything here... except Tournament Gamers. They're evil enough already.

ShumaGorath wrote:Well the warpfield rule does say that the warpfield gives the zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save. A doom of malantai is a doom of malantai, not a zoanthrope.

Oh don't get me wrong, I know the argument (it's the same one used for why the Swarm Lord cannot use 'Hive Tyrant' psychic powers, despite having them), but my point was I was the one being called childish and immature when I didn't submit to this line of thinking. Think about that for a sec.

ShumaGorath wrote:That said, it's utterly absurd to think that the special character zoanthrope wouldn't have a rule that is listed both in it's unit entry and price entry.

Exactly my point.

Oh don't get me wrong, I know the argument (it's the same one used for why the Swarm Lord cannot use 'Hive Tyrant' psychic powers, despite having them), but my point was I was the one being called childish and immature when I didn't submit to this line of thinking. Think about that for a sec.

Wait, thats actually a rules argument in your area..? Damn son, you need to lay down the law a little more often. That wouldn't fly in our circles. Thats one of the most ridiculous stances I've heard of someone actually taking in a while.

ShumaGorath wrote:Wait, thats actually a rules argument in your area..? Damn son, you need to lay down the law a little more often. That wouldn't fly in our circles. Thats one of the most ridiculous stances I've heard of someone actually taking in a while.

Ah, so playing by the rules is now a "ridiculous stance". I'll remember to tell the Judge that he is also ridiculous next time I'm in the dock for doing something wot I should no 'ave done.

And good, Gwar!'s here, telling us how we're not playing by the rules when we use the rules given to units. Good to see common sense, logic and deductive reasoning still alive here at Dakka.

Tell me Gwar! - If someone insists on using Hive Tyranid Psychic Powers with their Swarmlord - powers the entry clear gives it - do you call them immature, or a cheater perhaps? One of your acolytes here did that to me.

ShumaGorath wrote:Wait, thats actually a rules argument in your area..? Damn son, you need to lay down the law a little more often. That wouldn't fly in our circles.

I heard it here.

And if you want to argue with Gwar! over this, you're on your own Shummy. I've done this dance with him and his 'followers'. Good luck.

A Swarmlord/DoM is a special type of Hive Tyrant/Zoanthrope >>> See Deff Rolla clarification lol

H.B.M.C. wrote:Tell me Gwar! - If someone insists on using Hive Tyranid Psychic Powers with their Swarmlord - powers the entry clear gives it - do you call them immature, or a cheater perhaps? One of your acolytes here did that to me.

No, I tell them that they are not following the rules, plain and simple.

Gwar! wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Tell me Gwar! - If someone insists on using Hive Tyranid Psychic Powers with their Swarmlord - powers the entry clear gives it - do you call them immature, or a cheater perhaps? One of your acolytes here did that to me.

No, I tell them that they are not following the rules, plain and simple.

Wow, you're one of those people who think that in C:CSM 3.5, a whole Raptor squad could be upgraded to one Aspiring Champion for +13 pts, right?

The Swarmlord is a kind of armoured brutality, so he can use whatever Psychic Powers he likes. If I were standing face-to-face with a Swarmlord and he told me he was casting Doom on me, I would respond ``Why yes, you have, Sir.''

Gwar! wrote:No, I tell them that they are not following the rules, plain and simple.

But you follow that up with "although that's just an artefact of the rules being poorly written -- clearly the rules were intended to allow Swarmlord to use his psychic powers, even though they don't, so I'll happily let you use his powers in this game" -- right?

Gwar! wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Tell me Gwar! - If someone insists on using Hive Tyranid Psychic Powers with their Swarmlord - powers the entry clear gives it - do you call them immature, or a cheater perhaps? One of your acolytes here did that to me.

No, I tell them that they are not following the rules, plain and simple.

Gwar! believes that if someone refuses to misinterpret the rules blatantly like he does, that the person is immature. In fact, he believes that it is more mature to adamantly hold to, and argue over, some incorrect interpretation such as "doom has no 3++" than to walk away and say "this isn't worth playing you." It's my favorite Gwar! quote. I think it sums him up pretty well.

Gwar! wrote:Ya know, to all the people who say "I would just pack up and leave", that says a LOT more about your maturity than the person legitimately asking to play by the rules.

Whenever Gwar! starts trying to make a bad argument, while ignoring bad arguments that he does not like, I just look at this quote and remember not to take him seriously.

He is also a hypocrite who doesn't accept that there is no rule in the Tyranid codex saying that any unit is a Tyranid: fluff is not rules citizen!

Ian Sturrock wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, I tell them that they are not following the rules, plain and simple.

But you follow that up with "although that's just an artefact of the rules being poorly written -- clearly the rules were intended to allow Swarmlord to use his psychic powers, even though they don't, so I'll happily let you use his powers in this game" -- right?

I don't think Gwar! actually plays 40k in real life.

Gwar! wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Wait, thats actually a rules argument in your area..? Damn son, you need to lay down the law a little more often. That wouldn't fly in our circles. Thats one of the most ridiculous stances I've heard of someone actually taking in a while.

Ah, so playing by the rules is now a "ridiculous stance". I'll remember to tell the Judge that he is also ridiculous next time I'm in the dock for doing something wot I should no 'ave done.

I would rather enjoy you trying to whine you way into getting your interpretation accepted with a 40k tournament judge

ph34r wrote:Gwar! believes that if someone refuses to misinterpret the rules blatantly like he does, that the person is immature. In fact, he believes that it is more mature to adamantly hold to, and argue over, some incorrect interpretation such as "doom has no 3++" than to walk away and say "this isn't worth playing you." It's my favorite Gwar! quote. I think it sums him up pretty well.

Whenever Gwar! starts trying to make a bad argument, while ignoring bad arguments that he does not like, I just look at this quote and remember not to take him seriously.

He is also a hypocrite who doesn't accept that there is no rule in the Tyranid codex saying that any unit is a Tyranid: fluff is not rules citizen!

I don't think Gwar! actually plays 40k in real life.

I would rather enjoy you trying to whine you way into getting your interpretation accepted with a 40k tournament judge

I love people who stoop to hypocritical personal insults. Especially people who can't accept a legitimate RAW argument at face value or be bothered to click on the giant FAQ link in gwars signature to see how he actually plays the game and how wrong they are on all fronts.

But feel free to break the forum rules and take personal potshots.