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.

Greetings! Occasional lurker, posting for the first time now that I've encountered a weird situation.

I've found that it was discussed here: discussed in this thread here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/283005.page#1391958
But it wasn't entirely definitive, plus there's an odd little spin to the situation I'm in myself (though it did allow me to see what the Official FAQ was potentially trying to talk about).

Quite simply, the situation is thus: Battlewagon with a Deffrolla WAAAAGHS into an Eldar skimmer tank. The Eldar skimmer successfully dodges. Then the two just sit there. It was my assumption (since this was the first time I was playing Eldar), that a dodged skimmer would move aside, thus allowing my Battlewagon to keep WAAAAAGHing into what was behind it. But, turns out both just stay in place.

So, this brought up an oddity. The Deffrolla still makes contact with the skimmer, since the skimmer doesn't move out of the way, so to my understanding the conditions for the Deffrolla to inflict hits is still met. But the skimmer technically "avoided" the ram.

The INAT FAQ states that a Skimmer that dodges a ram by a battlewagon with a deffrolla does not suffer any deffrolla hits, since it avoided the attack.

However... the official Ork FAQ states that a unit that successfully avoids a Deffrolla-equipped Battlewagopn suffers the full force of the Deffrolla hits. And since a successful dodge doesn't move either vehicle, but stops the Battlewagon in its place... RAW would mean that the skimmer suffers the hits regardless.

But, the odd thing about this situation... is that I'm the Ork player... but it's my FLGS (and thus the Eldar player I played against) that decided to enforce the latter interpretation. I stated that the INAT FAQ said that the skimmer avoided the attack, but the stance of the FLGS (and thus the Eldar player I played against), was that since they don't use the INAT FAQ... they don't adhere to it.

Now, I'm only human, so yes, it's kinda cool that these guys happily chose the (unfair) interpretation that favours me, but I'd still like to hear the general consensus, at least to have something to point to if this comes up again. (as cool as it may be, I prefer my opponent to have a good time)

...

Now, while I'm here, another quick question or two

Can vehicles move through wrecks? (I'll get to why I'm asking this in a moment)
As far as I can see, in the rulebook, a wrecked vehicle becomes difficult and dangerous terrain that units can take cover behind, as well as walk through. Does this carry over to vehicles as well? I've not noticed anything prohibiting them.

The reason why I ask, is the INAT FAQ that states that if hits from a deffrolla causes the target vehicle to explode, the deffrolla keeps on going along its ram path. Now... how, or why, does this not the case with a "wrecked" result, since it just turns the targeted vehicle into terrain? (Obviously, if the answer to the "can vehicles move through wrecks" question is "no", that resolves this whole query ).


Another thing, though this is more of a clarification request, in regards to the Bomb Squig.

INAT FAQ states that: Bomb Squigs are not a shooting attack per se, so in general [vehicles can not take cover saves against them]. However, vehicles that are "obscured‟ (such as a skimmer that moved "flat out‟) or that always get a cover save for some reason would still be able to use it against a Bomb Squig

Now, this confuses me... quite considerably! It first states that it can't take cover (generally), but then states that it can when the vehicle is obscured... but that's exactly when vehicles normally take cover anyway...

And, while on the topic of Bomb Squigs... do I read the offical Ork FAQ correctly, that they can, if so desired, be used to target vehicles on the opposite side of impassible, line-of-sight blocking terrain, as long as the vehicle is within 18" of the Tankbusta releasing it? If true... that's... kinda nifty!

Referring to this entry in the Ork FAQ:

Q. Do Bomb Squigs require line of sight and can
they move through impassable terrain?

A. No line of sight is required and they move
freely regardless of any impediments.

...

Anyway, thanks for any help any of you may give!

Ok, just to get it out of the way... it's worth pointing out that the INAT is an unofficial FAQ. It's only at all relevant to your games if the people you are playing with have agreed to use it. It's not something that you can just produce mid-game as an answer to a rules issue you're having.


For the 'rolla vs skimmer issue... the mechanics of a tank shock and a ram are very different. Non-vehicle units that evade a tank shock do so because the tank shock was successful... the Deffrolla damage is a side effect of that successful tank shock. It's what the Deffrolla is for.

Skimmers evading a ram, however, mean that the Ram was unsuccessful... and in that situation, the skimmer rules stipulate that no damage is taken by either vehicle. While the two vehicles are left in place, it is repesenting the skimmer having completely avoided the ramming vehicle.

So this isn't a conflict between INAT and GW FAQ... it's simply that they're addressing different issues.


For the rest... Wrecks are indeed just treated as difficult terrain, so other vehicles can move through them.

And yes, you read the Bomb Squig answer correctly.

Now it states that ramming is a special type of tank shock, basically it negates the rule that you have to stop if you move to within 1" of an enemy vehicle. However, if the skimmer dodges, it is an unsuccessful ram, you would leave them touching, but no damage is done.

For the continuing on from ramming a vehicle, you must explode it, there is no other option to continue on after that if it doesn't explode according to the ramming rules on pg. 69 of the BRB.

If you wreck it, it does turn into terrain after that, so you have to stop because you have to get the hunks of wraithbone off the deffrolla so that you can do it all over again!!!

The key to skimmers dodging is that the tank shock, not the deff rolla causes the 1d6 damage. If the skimmer dodges, he is not tank shocked, so the deff rolla won't trigger. Skimmers also have a badly worded rule in their dodge, stating they will take no damage, which could be applied to the rolla.

In the end, it is most likely that skimmer are supposed to dodge deff rollas, though I even had an eldar player disagree...
Well, happy battlewagons for me in that game

A ram will only ever continue to move when the vehicle explodes, it can be argued whether the deff rolla hit are included or not. I've never had an opponent not telling me to continue moving after deff rolla-exploding a vehicle.

Note that RAW bomb squigs are shooting attacks, unlike the INAT faq states, so usually you'd always get cover against them.

Ah, thanks for all the answers!

True, the INAT FAQ is something that should be agreed upon pre-game. I suppose I do forget that, since I tend to rely on it quite a bit as it covers many grey areas the Official FAQS do not. Still, yeah, it should be decided upon beforehand.

Arguments have made it clear. in summery: "If the skimmer dodges, nothing happens". Now if I can convince the FLGS of this (as tempted as I may be to keep quiet )

Also, ah, yes, the Ramming/Explodes rule is covered in the BRB, which I didn't notice. That's a pretty solid indication that it will ONLY continue to move with an explode result, even if a wrecked result doesn't actually prevent it from moving. Fair enough.

Note that RAW bomb squigs are shooting attacks, unlike the INAT faq states, so usually you'd always get cover against them.

Odd one, that. The RAW states that the Squig Bomb attack is done "instead of shooting", which does suggest in itself, technically, that it's not a shooting attack. It also automatically hits, which negates BS, which I seem to recall from somewhere meaning that it then negates cover saves (though I could just be going mad).

Anyway, the main issue for this thread has been answered. I'll make a new thread for Bomb Squigs when it's needed (or I'll do some forum searching to check if it's already been resolved in a satisfactory manner).

Thanks again!

Doesn't the INAT itself specifically state that GW FAQs are always prioritised over the INAT?

"The INAT FAQ is a completely 100% independent (unofficial) Q&A list for the game of Warhammer 40,000 5th edition. It isn’t meant to replace the Games Workshop official FAQs in any way, and in fact the issues addressed by the GW FAQs aren’t included in the document."

Thats just from the INAT section of dakka, my internets too slow to actually check it atm ^_^"

Yes, the INAT does say that GW FAQs take precedence.

Kharrak wrote:Can vehicles move through wrecks? (I'll get to why I'm asking this in a moment)
As far as I can see, in the rulebook, a wrecked vehicle becomes difficult and dangerous terrain that units can take cover behind, as well as walk through. Does this carry over to vehicles as well? I've not noticed anything prohibiting them.

The reason why I ask, is the INAT FAQ that states that if hits from a deffrolla causes the target vehicle to explode, the deffrolla keeps on going along its ram path. Now... how, or why, does this not the case with a "wrecked" result, since it just turns the targeted vehicle into terrain? (Obviously, if the answer to the "can vehicles move through wrecks" question is "no", that resolves this whole query ).

Anyway, thanks for any help any of you may give!

Chiming in for this specific answer: Because simply wrecking a vehicle stops the movement of a ramming Tank, in order for a tank ramming to continue it's movement it must get an "explodes" result on the vehicle damage chart. The specifics on this is in the BRB, page 69(last sentence).

About the bomb squigs, yes, you don't get cover saves in close combat. However, my understanding is that just because you use something instead of shooting doesn't necessarily mean it's not a shooting attack. Same way with grenades vs. vehicles; it's instead of attacking with your WS, but it's still a close-combat attack. Regardless, I guess it's only fair that vehicles would get a cover save, since the bomb squig already doesn't need LOS, automatically hits, and is not slowed even by impassable terrain! That's a pretty awesome ranged attack for an ork army. The cover save would represent the terrain's effect on the squig, instead of slowing them down as they move through difficult terrain. Perhaps the squig ran into a tree or boulder and blew up or something.

It does not auto-hit, it hits on a 2+ and attacks one of our tanks on a 1
Also, of course it is not slowed by terrain, as the model is not an actually doing anything, it's just a marker.

Ah, I seem to remember that about rolling a 1. Orks seem to have that quite a bit.

Yup. Ork unreliability is BOSS

The 'fun factor' of ork randomness is one of the reasons I love playing them.

That said- if it ignores all terrain etc between the firer and the target, how exactly to you get a cover save ? there is nothing to take cover behind as the bouncy little menace runs under your tank and detonates in direct contact

*fun fluff note*- Bomb squigs are based on russian 'Dog mines' designed in WW2- Unfortunately (and hence the rule) they trained them to associate the underside of tanks with food, but as they only had russian tanks to use for the training they once forced a russian armoured division into retreat Source- The Book of Heroic Faliures

Ascalam wrote:*fun fluff note*- Bomb squigs are based on russian 'Dog mines' designed in WW2- Unfortunately (and hence the rule) they trained them to associate the underside of tanks with food, but as they only had russian tanks to use for the training they once forced a russian armoured division into retreat Source- The Book of Heroic Faliures

A few things that need to be clarified here; the only reason that the dog-mines failed is that Russian tanks were diesel, German tanks were Gasoline, so the German tanks didn't "smell like tanks" to the dogs, who would return to their own lines(not necessarily blowing up Russian tanks).

In the battle they were deployed, they accounted for 12 Panzer kills; the Germans still had 156 left.

The Russians did not record how many of their own tanks were lost to the dogs, so it could have been anywhere from none, to 90% of the lost Russian tanks from that battle. the real point is that the dogs were about 100% ineffectual, the program was scrapped, and the Russian Armored Division was forced to retreat as they were not doing any real damage to the opposing Germans.

p.s.: I was actually thinking about adding this bit to the conversation anyways.

Thanks for the extra info. The story in the 'Book of Heroic Faliures' wasn't hugely detailed