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.

Ok i know if i tank shock with it you get D6 str 10 hits and an extra D6 if they death or glory .

But someones advice to me is that it also gets D6 str 110 hit v other vehicles , no the rule dose not read this way but thinking about it you would think whatever i hits the same rule would apply

Any way i would just like to know if this is right or wrong thanks

It is in the ork FAQ that the deff rolla does indeed affect vehicles. You should also note that the d6 str 10 hits take place after performing a normal ram as described in rule book.

Thanks

Keep in mind if the enemy vehicle is a skimmer and preforms it's dodge successfully, your deffroller does nothing.

Which saves apply for a unit/vehicle hit by a deff rolla?

Trondar wrote:Which saves apply for a unit/vehicle hit by a deff rolla?

The Defrolla does not disallow any type of save, so you would take the best save available to you. either an Armor, Invulnerable, or Cover save

Thanks

Deffrolla-ing a vehicle wouldn't give the vehicle a cover save. For example, Shield of Sanguinus cast on a bubble of BA vehicles provides all of them a 5+ cover save. Flipping open the rulebook shows you that cover saves are only taken against shooting attacks.

There is some ambiguity with infantry models *in* cover...that may or may not have been FAQed.

Yet that is wrong, as you can get cover from the DoM spirit leech, which is neither a shooting attack nor any form of psychic power.

Constraining cover to ONLY shooting attacks goes against precedent

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet that is wrong, as you can get cover from the DoM spirit leech, which is neither a shooting attack nor any form of psychic power.

Constraining cover to ONLY shooting attacks goes against precedent

Again, that's talking about infantry. We're talking about cover and vehicles - which operates quite differently.

Dashofpepper wrote:Deffrolla-ing a vehicle wouldn't give the vehicle a cover save. For example, Shield of Sanguinus cast on a bubble of BA vehicles provides all of them a 5+ cover save. Flipping open the rulebook shows you that cover saves are only taken against shooting attacks.

There is some ambiguity with infantry models *in* cover...that may or may not have been FAQed.

where does it say "cover saves are only taken against shooting attacks"?

I know it says "Cover does not provide protection in CC as it does against shooting." p.39

But I could not find the first bit, can I get a page reference please.

You would need explicit permission to take a cover save from the Deff Rolla as cover is only explicitly allowed against shooting attacks. Spirit Leech had to be FAQ'd to give that cover save.

Logically, cover isn't going to save your tank from several tons of spiked iron flattening you like a rolling pin. You could make a logic argument for infantry(they can dive under a rock or log), but for a vehicle most certaintly not.

Dashofpepper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet that is wrong, as you can get cover from the DoM spirit leech, which is neither a shooting attack nor any form of psychic power.

Constraining cover to ONLY shooting attacks goes against precedent

Again, that's talking about infantry. We're talking about cover and vehicles - which operates quite differently.

Not at all. they receive a cover save under different criteria, but the actual mechanic is exactly the same.

Your claim was a general one - that you only got cover saves from shooting. Not only does that not exist as a rule in the BRB, there are known "exceptions" (obviously not exceptions, as the rule doesnt exist) out there.

Cover saves can always be taken unless explicitly forbidden. No one in their right mind takes a cover save against a ram though.

If im stood in area terrain I would.

Vehicles and saves are a mess and need fixing.

It can be argued that a raider with a flickerfield can roll to save against damage the deff rolla.

Then it can be argued that as invunerable saves can only be used to save against wounds then the flickerfield doesn't work making it useless.

Then the arguing will continue for a few pages...

nosferatu1001 wrote:If im stood in area terrain I would.

Vehicles don't benefit from area terrain

Flickerfield, without doubt, can be used against any glancing or penetrating hit, as it's not a cover save, but an invulnerable save.

As above.

You just have to make the logical leap (not the illogical noe of another board...) that Cover saves and Bjorn provide the same method as eachother, thus giving you an idea of what the general rules for Invulnerable saves should be.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As above.

You just have to make the logical leap (not the illogical noe of another board...) that Cover saves and Bjorn provide the same method as eachother, thus giving you an idea of what the general rules for Invulnerable saves should be.

Indeed thats what most people do. However some people refuse and need it spelt out in a rulebook. GW should have errata'd this by now though