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.

Spellbound wrote:Look, a duck!

The main problem I see here is that in order to explain why, in fact, you can't use a deffrolla on enemy vehicles you have to draw out so many things and explain so much and haggle so many rules that the following will be observed

See I don't think you do though, I think there are two tank shocks really that are causing the confusion, there's the tank shock movement, and the tank shock effect applied to infantry models, similarly there are two rams, the ram movement (which is a special kind of tank shock) and the ram effect applied to vehicles during a ram movement.

Of course, just because I have an explanation for the situation that seems relatively simple doesn't mean ork players will argue with me for dear life.

You cannot replace the word/phrase Ram with Tank Shock... therefore they are not the same.

they have similarities... but they are not the same

No one said they're the same, but Ramming is a still a type of Tank Shock and thus if it affects a Tank Shock it affaects a Ram as well since it is a Tank Shock.

wow.. I can't believe this thread is still going

GIVE IT A REST ALREADY

tournament organizers ruled at the most recent GT and the ard boyz semifinals that tank shocks and rams are the same thing

that deffrollas DO work against vehicles
that reinforced rams let trukks ram

feel free to debate how you feel on the matter, its strengths or whatever. but precedent has already been set at the tournament community, so why are you still arguing about it?

I mean do you have an ork player in your group who's fielding like 5 battlewagons and you keep losing? or are you just whining and arguing about this to whine?

NaZ

I can't see how this is so broken. How anyone gets a battlewagon close enough to successfully ram an opposing vehicle is a mystery to me. I'd expect my BW to be a heap of molten slag by the time it was 18" away, let alone within 12".

The problem lies with people being able to take multiple battlewagons, say the 8 battlwagon list, if one has several battle wagons then the odds are good that not all of the battle wagons would have been reduced to slag from their opponents shooting which would allow for a few or several battlewagons to hit units, vehicles, etc.

Then grab faster units and hit them before they hit you. Gaunts can kill them ffs, they are av 10 in the back and open-topped (if they don't take 'ard case which costs another 15 points and severely limit them in the transporting department). Shooting them from the side or back is also dead easy.

weather or not it is strong is irrelevent to how it works. people need to learn (especially on here) that there is a big difference between:

arguing weather or not a rule works based on RAW or RAI
and
arguing over weather or not something SHOULD work because it is "overpowered" from there perspective

I find in this debate most of all that the two bleed into each other. we have people who think it is overpowered the way deffrollas work, so they time and again find ways to make it not work in the rules.

this kind of shenanigans is just rediculous imo. and the tournament organizers already ruled it does work so I play it that way and always have.

yes someone could take a 6 BW list.. but honestly how is that any different than going up against 6 land raiders? or 3 falcons and a bunch of wave serpents? its not like there aren't other heavy mech lists out there.

but instead of TL lascannons, or very hard to kill falcons, we get something that has weak side and rear armor, with a piece of wargear that ONLY works at point blank range

is it strong? hell yes! can it be countered? EASILY

can you get overwhelmed by ANY heavy mech list because you don't have sufficient anti tank? YES

and I have to question again.. if anyone is still whining about this are they doing so because some greenskin just kicked their teeth in? or just whining on principle?

NaZ

This has all been argued before and the thread locked...see below

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/216779.page#359919

Neither group has convinced the other. Neither arguement is conclusive. Therefore your opponent is likely going to make you roll off or refuse to play with you.

Also just because one red shirt calls it one way does not mean that the next red shirt at the next tourneyment will rule the same way. Unitil it is FAQ, and I doubt that it will be, it is subject to interpretation of each tourneyman.

I agree with you wyomingfox on just about everything

but we can say there is precedent. both the LA GT and ard boyz nationwide ruled that deffrollas work

this is as close to FAQ as you're going to get.

NaZ

I don't know about the fluff argument saying that it should work, I seem to recall that light vehicles are bikes, jetbikes, possibly my mom's stationwagon and things like deffcopters. Even a warttruk in my mind isn't a light vehicle, seriously its got armor values.

I won't argue RAW, deffrollas work. RAI, just reading the wording in the Ork codex I get the impression they are referring to what happens to infantry, and not vehicles, so RAI to me says the deffrolla does not work on vehicles.

And from a game mechanics point of view... its ludicris to have something that powerful against vehicles.

In the end... its all about RAW, what people are willing to play it as, and if a faq ever comes out. If its one battle wagon, in my games I don't care, if some git runs 5 battlewagons I suppose I'd prefer to play a real game.

NaZ wrote:I agree with you wyomingfox on just about everything

but we can say there is precedent. both the LA GT and ard boyz nationwide ruled that deffrollas work

this is as close to FAQ as you're going to get.

NaZ

The deffrolla rules were written for 4th edition. There were no ramming at all in 4th but you could tank shock vehicles that had a front AV under 14 so the deffrolla worked against them.
So the RAI is quite clear but basically tells us nothing as by RAI the deffrolla works against Predators but not against Land Raiders but the rules no longer support that at all so you have to go with RAW.

So RAW the deffrolla was improved in 5ed but we don't know what's intended as it wasn't included in the ork FAQ by the usual GW negligence.

BTW, That's what the fluff refer to too I guess. Vehicles with front AV 13 or less are light vehicles.

I would agree with the notion that you should not be able to use Deff Rollas on vehicles.

Ramming as described by the rule book is referred to as a type of movement or maneuvre ( p 69 Main Rule book):

"Ramming is a rather desperate manoeuvre and means that the tank must concentrate on moving at top speed towards one enemy vehicle."

"Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of."

I really think that basing an argument by truncating the second quoted passage in the middle of a phrase and change the true object of the preposition (move to tank shock) is a terrible, and utterly incorrect way to make any argument. That is flagrantly changing the meaning of the rules as written.

Nurglitch did a very thorough job of describing how tank shock attacks and ramming are two obviously different things.

A tank shock attack (which is what actually does anything to a target unit) is described clearly in its section of the rulebook (p 68):

"When moving a tank, the player can declare that the vehicle is going to attempt to make a tank shock attack instead of moving normally."

The book differentiates normal tank movement and tank shock movement. It also differentiates declaring a tank shock attack and performing tank shock movement. It also clearly designates ramming as a special type of movement, the results of which are spelled out as either tank shocking normal units or using the rules in the big rule book for vehicles (tank shocking does not appear to apply to vehicles anymore, from my point of view anyway.)

Spif,

its already been debated to death. it works so get over it. it doesn't matter how people feel about the strength level, the most recent GT and ard boyz ruled that it does work

NaZ

Moz wrote:In light of this discussion, I think it is clear that using a deffrolla on another vehicle should appropriately entitled, 'Duckrolla attack'.

This is awesome and demands a conversion competition to see who can build the best Duck Rolla.

Nurglitch wrote:

Moz wrote:In light of this discussion, I think it is clear that using a deffrolla on another vehicle should appropriately entitled, 'Duckrolla attack'.

This is awesome and demands a conversion competition to see who can build the best Duck Rolla.

that's a good one It's almost as funny as the deff rolla equipped BW I saw that put six S10 hits on a Land Raider at the Chicago GT.

NaZ wrote:Spif,

its already been debated to death. it works so get over it. it doesn't matter how people feel about the strength level, the most recent GT and ard boyz ruled that it does work

NaZ

You just won me over. Thanks for clearing things up.

Y'know, how it was played at a Grand Tournament or 'Ard Boyz tournament says all of nothing about what the rules actually say; after all it can be played any way the judges rule, even in contradiction of the stated rules.

It's usually best not to confuse what the rules say with how the game is played, since they so often differ.

Moreover, if the way it was played at the "most recent GT" is the way the rules were intended to be played, I'd say we should expect an Errata of the rulebook or Codex: Orks rather than an FAQ.

Given all the hullaballoo I'm reminded of back when people were arguing that an Ork Nob in a unit of Boyz armed with Shootas couldn't be equipped with a Power Klaw, and backed up their daft claims with evidence to the effect that it was ruled that way in official tournaments.

I couldn't agree with you more nurglitch

I only sight precedent because GW refuses to give a damn about the fact that they wrote the ork codex poorly. to the best of my knowledge there is no other wargear outside of the ram and the deffrolla that require these sort of arguements about tank shocks and rams.

would it have been too much trouble for them to clarify? of cource not. are they ever going to bother? probably not.

and given how they ruled the dark angels mess.. even if they do answer its likely to be a badly written answer so why even bother asking

best we can do is go with the ruling that judges of tournaments have made, because honestly, thats what we're all practicing for right? might as well play it they way they're going to rule it

NaZ

NaZ:

I think the putative refusal of GW to admit they wrote Codex: Orks poorly is somewhere we'll have to differ.

I think it's quite well written, considering that it was written colloquially to be compatible with both 4th edition and 5th edition (Ghazghkull's +2A on the charge while Slow & Purposeful being a case in point of the fact that it was written for 5th and made retro-compatible with 4th). There's no point in apologizing for something that they haven't done.

So far as I'm concerned the only arguments concerning the rules in it have been the result of typos that have been corrected (Kustom Force Fields come to mind), and the inability of some players to read the rules correctly, the best example being the matter of Shoota Boyz and Power Klaws. The latter problem is a common plague on this forum and not an actual problem related to GW's written materials when one realizes that if someone cannot read the rules properly that they are unlikely to be able to read why they failed to read the rules properly.

Something I've noticed, however, is that pretty much all of the problems that were found in rules forums in the 4th edition of the game have been corrected in the 5th edition of the game. I think it's evidence to the thesis that the GW design team genuinely does pay attention to the discussions on these forums and acts accordingly, though according to a schedule that doesn't really permit the instantaneous feedback the internet conditions people to expect. Considering the conditions that they work under, I think their efforts, particularly in 5th edition, go under-appreciated.

Another thing I'll disagree with is the idea that we're all somehow practicing for tournaments. I'm not; I just think that having the community clear on what the text of the rules actually states is a good thing, and if that benefits tournament players, then that's good too.

If I am correct in my thesis that GW waits for us to suss out any problems with the rules before acting to publish official FAQ/Errata documents, then I expect they will either release an FAQ explaining the matter to those who misread the rules, or an Errata explaining how the Deffa Rolla applies to Ramming, as well as Tank Shock, and that will coincide with the general second wave Ork release coming up.

NaZ wrote:I couldn't agree with you more nurglitch

I only sight precedent because GW refuses to give a damn about the fact that they wrote the ork codex poorly. to the best of my knowledge there is no other wargear outside of the ram and the deffrolla that require these sort of arguements about tank shocks and rams.

Just thought I would chime in to say that dark eldar have a vehicle wargear which, like the reinforced ram, was written as allowing the vehicle to tank shock, there was a bit of speculation about whether or not they would be able to ram with it but the FAQ clearly says they can't. I suppose this just makes you wonder even more why they failed to clarify it in the ork one.

Raider rams would be so awesome though! All with the intent of smashing your raider to pieces against that landraider, emergency disembarking your load of wyches and charging the lines. Not bad from 24" away!

Drunkspleen wrote:Just thought I would chime in to say that dark eldar have a vehicle wargear which, like the reinforced ram, was written as allowing the vehicle to tank shock, there was a bit of speculation about whether or not they would be able to ram with it but the FAQ clearly says they can't. I suppose this just makes you wonder even more why they failed to clarify it in the ork one.

Edit: Never mind .

ok.. so 3 pieces of wargear in the entire game where this debate is relevent.

I still think the arguement is lame but whatever.

I still go back to the point that the people who argue against this without thinking it through like nurglitch did are just whining to whine because they either got their teef kicked in by orks or they just like to complain

on the other hand, nurglitch and a few others have used logic arguements to make valid points. at the end of the last thread we had no consensus, and pretty much it was just up to the whim of the tournament organizers.

going to ard boyz qualifiers it was allowed, ard boyz semis I had to ask. the person who runs the store had his own opinion (it should add +2 str rather than d6 hits) but those of us (ork players and not) said where would you get that idea? it either works as it is written or it doesnt. and the most recent GT said it does so did the ard boyz qualifier.

so that organizer ultimately decided to allow it just based on precedent

and it never came up ONCE during the entire tournament!

I think even with a 5 BW list.. you could always play refused flank.. or just use lascannons those work too. honestly it wouldn't be much different if 5 land raiders were tank shocking you off the board.

yes it is very strong.. but it hasn't exactly resulted in crushing victories when I do it. I get lucky and occasionally blow up a predator or something. but unlike a land raider, my BW get blown up by regular guys assaulting it in the rear armor.

its easily counterable. podding meltaguns, assaulting it, shooting it (it is open topped mind you)

so the more I hear the arguement the more I think that the people who are whining are either:
1. losing to the orks and haven't figured out how to counter it
2. whining just to whine.. for whatever reason

mods.. please lock this mess already

NaZ

wyomingfox wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:Just thought I would chime in to say that dark eldar have a vehicle wargear which, like the reinforced ram, was written as allowing the vehicle to tank shock, there was a bit of speculation about whether or not they would be able to ram with it but the FAQ clearly says they can't. I suppose this just makes you wonder even more why they failed to clarify it in the ork one.

They must have changed the DE FAQ as it is no longer mentioned.

Q. Does a torture amp allow a Raider to ram
other vehicles?
A. No.

from http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1180149_Dark_Eldar_FAQ_2004-08_5th_Edition.pdf

this really is hilarius and i want a duckrolla
but i have to say that i agree that it works against vehicles because it dos say ramming is a type of tank shock
and the mental picture of a battlewagon rolling over a bunch of rhinos is hilarius

Steelmage99 wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:Just thought I would chime in to say that dark eldar have a vehicle wargear which, like the reinforced ram, was written as allowing the vehicle to tank shock, there was a bit of speculation about whether or not they would be able to ram with it but the FAQ clearly says they can't. I suppose this just makes you wonder even more why they failed to clarify it in the ork one.

They must have changed the DE FAQ as it is no longer mentioned.

Q. Does a torture amp allow a Raider to ram
other vehicles?
A. No.

from http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1180149_Dark_Eldar_FAQ_2004-08_5th_Edition.pdf

Huh, I swear I read the bloody thing like 3 times before and didn't see FAQ on torture amp . Maybe I needed to refresh my screen or something