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.

imweasel wrote:
So what you are saying is that because a seeing-eye dog and a k9 dog is a 'special' type of dog, it's not a 'dog'? WTF?!?
It's still a fething dog. It may have different skills, but it's still a fething dog. Being 'special' doesn't stop it from still being a dog.

I think you're oversimplifying (or maybe I'm over-complicating? Very possible...) but it depends on what traits you're using to define the objects in question.

For example, in the "all dogs must be on a leash" example, seeing-eye dogs and K9 units don't need to follow that rule. Yes they are indeed dogs, but that doesn't mean they don't have a special rule that allows them to bypass the blanket rule of "being on a leash." That's where the 'special' situation comes into play.

Back to something somewhat 40k, this is why Close Combat Weapons can - but do not necessarily have to - be Special Close Combat Weapons. Depending on the rule in question, they do or do not act in a similar manner.

For a rule that states "you must roll to hit based on the relative weapon skills of the attacker and the target" it's clear that this applies to ALL Close Combat Weapons, Special or otherwise, since all Close Combat Weapons fall under that category (unless they have a specific rule stating something different).

For a rule that states "models do not gain the bonus attack from having two close combat weapons" the specificity of the rule means it is affecting Normal Close Combat Weapons since not all Special Close Combat Weapons fall under the category of weapons that "grant the model a bonus attack."

I may or may not have mentioned it before, but I think it's the issue of 'the' vs. 'a' when it talks about bonus attacks. 'The' assumes there is without question a bonus attack to remove, and so the rule only applies to weapons that ALWAYS confer that bonus. 'A' would allow you to analyze the the situation, determine if the weapons in question confer a bonus attack, and then prevent the model from gaining it if that was the case.

To me, this means that if you had two Lightning Claws, you wouldn't lose your bonus attack because Lightning Claws themselves do not confer a bonus attack unless they are paired. Two normal close combat weapons, however, would lose their bonus attack because they always confer one, and that is what the rule is assuming.

Still way off topic, I'm sorry, but the reason for the CCW tangent was to show that Special X does not necessarily follow the rules for Normal X, even if Special X is deemed a subset of X.

DoW

See, I think you're just using faulty logic in that assessment, "The bonus attack from having 2 CCWS" refers to anytime you have 2 CCWs that grant an extra attack. Normal CCWs only grant an extra attack if they are paired with another one. I think you would have a VERY hard time finding any judge or TO that would side with you on the CCW thing, and really it's the same thing. You're saying that a special type of X is not an X.

DogOfWar wrote:
For example, in the "all dogs must be on a leash" example, seeing-eye dogs and K9 units don't need to follow that rule. Yes they are indeed dogs, but that doesn't mean they don't have a special rule that allows them to bypass the blanket rule of "being on a leash."

::checks rulebook for any special rule that says a Ram is no longer a Tank Shock::

::Finds rule that explicitly states a Ram is a special kind of tank shock::

I think it's pretty safe to say that although a special rule may exist exempting X from the normal limitations of X, no special rule exists in this case.

I love that you brought up Seeing Eye Dogs as being exempt, because they don't actually work if they're not on some sort of leash/lead, because the blind person has no fething idea where it went to. Much like if you ripped out the tank shock rules and gave someone just page 69 to work out how to perform a Ram maneuver, they couldn't do it because fully half of the rules for performing a Ram are found under Tank Shock.

sourclams wrote:
I love that you brought up Seeing Eye Dogs as being exempt, because they don't actually work if they're not on some sort of leash/lead, because the blind person has no fething idea where it went to. Much like if you ripped out the tank shock rules and gave someone just page 69 to work out how to perform a Ram maneuver, they couldn't do it because fully half of the rules for performing a Ram are found under Tank Shock.

I see what you're saying, and I think you've got an excellent point. You somehow managed to miss mine, but I don't have a problem clarifying. It was probably my fault anyway, I'm generally pretty confusing so I apologise.

I didn't say "all special versions of X are not X in all cases" I said "special versions of X do not necessarily follow any and all rules that refer to non-special versions of X." You keep saying things like "a dog is a dog!" and expect it to make a difference. I'm not arguing that a dog isn't a dog, I'm arguing that a special dog is a special dog, and so does not follow all of the rules for normal dogs. I don't see how that's in debate? If a special dog followed any and all rules for regular dogs, then there would (necessarily) be no reason to refer to it as special. In fact, it would be impossible to BE different if there wasn't something that distinguished it from the norm.

I guess maybe I don't really know what we're arguing about. I thought I did but you keep addressing issues I didn't even think were in question. Are you truly saying that because Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock it should follow every rule for Tank Shock? What about when it expressly mentions how it functions differently towards different targets? To me it seems like you're trying to argue that you should be able to Ram Guardsmen and Tank Shock Landraiders.

Maybe I'm just too pedantic but it seems wrong to extend a rule past my comfort level and where I think it's 'stretching' the rule to cover situations it wasn't intended to cover. Just as I think it seems wrong to limit a rule to not covering something it clearly should. In this situation you are obviously in the first group (from my POV) and I am obviously in the second (from your POV). If they wanted it to cover any and all Close Combat Weapons then why didn't they say so? Even adding an 'if an attack is gained' would've made it much more clear that it is to apply to even the most flash of weaponry and not just the regular stuff. And even from a RAI standpoint, wouldn't Power Fists, Lightning Claws, Thunder Hammers, etc have a slight edge over Guardsman Snuffy with his 'additional close combat weapon'?

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. There's something about it that truly doesn't seem right to me. Hopefully I'm just misunderstanding and not deeply disturbed on a deeper level.

DoW

Oh, I guess I should mention this at some point. I don't even believe that it was ever the intent of GW to have a deffrolla include ramming. But this board isn't about intent, it's about analyzing rules and determining what they actually say.

And I'm not saying that a ram follows all of the rules of a tank shock, it doesn't have to. The deffrolla doesn't say when you perform a tank shock... It says when you perform ANY tank shock. Which tells us that any type of tank shock is included, even special ones.

But thats kinda the great thing about this here forum, we may not agree, but that just means that you will continue to not allow it in your games, and my friends and I will continue to allow it. The world keeps spinning and GW keeps getting all our damned money. C'est la vie.

Trasvi wrote:No matter whether deff rollas can be used on vehicles or not, I believe a Ram can occur even if you do not move.

Pg68
"... declare how many inches the vehicles is going to move. The vehicle must move at least at combat speed."

This simply means that you must declare a movement of more than 0 inches.

Furthermore: "Once the vehicle has been aimed and the speed declared, move the vehicle straight forward until it comes into contact with an enemy unit or it reaches the distance declared."
You are allowed to move less than your declared distance: the declared distance is the important thing here, not the actual distance moved. I declare a speed of 10 inches, and move the model forward until it comes into contact with an enemy.

The question really isn't whether he can use deff rollers in a ram or not, because it was clear from the original post that they were allowed in his game. This response from Travsi is the real argument. Can a move of 0 inches be a valid tank shock move. I'd be incline to say yes. The rules support it and it even makes sense in reality. You should be able to continue to step on the gas into the opponent's vehicle. It would be a weak attack, but it seems valid.

My only concern is that it specifically states in the rules that pivoting in place is not enough for a tank shock move. Does this imply that actual movement needs to take place or is declaring combat speed good enough? After thinking about it for a while I think Travsi is right. If you declare the movement as combat speed and fail to destroy the vehicle you still count as moving for all intents and purposes and therefore it is a valid movement for tank shock. It's just a pretty weak attack.

Trasvi wrote:
O, and as for 'special kind of tank shock'.... Mammals give birth to live young. The young of platypus hatch from eggs. Is a platypus a mammal? (they're even better than Kangaroos IMO, most Aussie mammals have pouches).
Ramming cannot be a completely separate rule from tank shock when the first few sentences describe that you use all the tank shock rules!!
Ramming follows all the rules for tank shocks, with a few extra conditions. It is like saying a square is a special kind of quadrilateral. Quadrilaterals have the rule 'the sum of internal angles must be 360 degrees'. Squares have the rule 'all internal angles must be 90 degrees'. They are not mutually exclusive. The one special thing is that you are allowed to come into contact with an enemy vehicle... which is like saying, if your quadrilateral is a square you may find its area using length^2, rather than another method.

That's a much better example. That's actually the type of example I was looking for, but I was experiencing writer's block. Everyone needs to remember that special and different are not synonymous. That is really what all these metaphors are trying to explain.

If they use all the tank shock rules, then the tank must stop 1" from another vehicle.

You are right kirsanth. I forgot about that part.

trasvi wrote:O, and as for 'special kind of tank shock'.... Mammals give birth to live young. The young of platypus hatch from eggs. Is a platypus a mammal? (they're even better than Kangaroos IMO, most Aussie mammals have pouches).
Ramming cannot be a completely separate rule from tank shock when the first few sentences describe that you use all the tank shock rules!!

I think this helped me understand the problem I was having with the whole 'special' thing. Not sure if it helps at all but let me explain.

Platypuses (or Platypi?) are specifically egg-laying mammals called Monotremes. (Not terribly important but I remembered it from somewhere and I wanted to show off) If you ask a knowledgeable person if a Platypus is a mammal they will most likely say "yes" but if you ask a marine biologist they would probably say "yes, but they are a special subset of mammals... [etc]"

I think this identifies what is and isn't 'useful' when identifying something. Okay so Calgar is a Chapter Master. He's also an Ultramarine, a Space Marine, an Independent Character, a model, a metal figurine, a collection of atomic particles. While it's definitely true that each description answers the question "What is Marneus Calgar," some are useful, and some are much less important when you compare them to more specific descriptions.

Saying "platypi are mammals" doesn't really help you. If all you've ever known are normal mammals, then you will be confused when someone says "well actually they lay eggs." In essence they really aren't mammals, they are egg-laying mammals that share some traits with normal mammals. If someone came to the Zoo and said "Okay, all mammals come with me" I think the platypus would be right in saying "Well... does he mean me too? I think he needs to specify." (Assuming it spoke English, of course.)

Sorry if I'm thinking out loud, I'm still just trying to reconcile this massive feeling of 'wrongness' I'm getting during this entire discussion.

DoW

kirsanth wrote:If they use all the tank shock rules, then the tank must stop 1" from another vehicle.

please... please, just stop. No one is saying that it has to follow all of the rules of a tank shock. It doesn't. That's what makes it a special type of tank shock. That's the dumbest and least helpful thing you could possibly bring up, unless you started quoting from a rule that doesn't even pertain to vehicles in any way.

Saying that "A ram doesn't follow all of the rules of a tank shock, therefor it can't be a tank shock" is like saying "The vindicare doesn't follow all of the rules for shooting, therefore none of his attacks are shooting attacks."

Posting the same irrelevant, stupid thing over and over is not going to sway anyone, and it makes you look bad.

DogofWar wrote:Saying "platypi are mammals" doesn't really help you. If all you've ever known are normal mammals, then you will be confused when someone says "well actually they lay eggs." In essence they really aren't mammals, they are egg-laying mammals that share some traits with normal mammals. If someone came to the Zoo and said "Okay, all mammals come with me" I think the platypus would be right in saying "Well... does he mean me too? I think he needs to specify." (Assuming it spoke English, of course.)

See, this makes sense. However the resolution seems simple to me. The platypus would just run through this checklist
1: Am I a mammal
-yes, but I have special characteristics.
2: Did he refer specifically to the characteristics that are different (for example 'would all mammals come to the petting zoo for a seminar on bearing live young)
- well no, he just said 'mammals'

If I were a platypus I'd think 'okay, well, I'm going to go since I'm a mammal, and he didn't exclude me from the group specifically (either by saying 'no platypuses' or 'mammals that bear live young') Yay me!

I'd think that the tank shock/ram situation would be different if there was something that specifically adressed the differences between the two. If, for example, the deffrolla rules said 'd6 strength 10 hits on the infantry or monstrous creature being tank shocked' or the ramming rules said 'rams are very similar to tank shocks, and share some rules' things would be different. But since the discussion doesn't speak to the differences between the two, then the differences are ignored and both are treated simply as 'mammals'.

So, in conclusion, instead of getting together with the echidna and sulking, the platypus goes to the conference, and enjoys it, as it happens to be on something about being warm blooded, and has nothing to do with Deff Rollas or bearing live young.

Orkestra wrote:See, this makes sense. However the resolution seems simple to me. The platypus would just run through this checklist
1: Am I a mammal
-yes, but I have special characteristics.
2: Did he refer specifically to the characteristics that are different (for example 'would all mammals come to the petting zoo for a seminar on bearing live young)
- well no, he just said 'mammals'
If I were a platypus I'd think 'okay, well, I'm going to go since I'm a mammal, and he didn't exclude me from the group specifically (either by saying 'no platypuses' or 'mammals that bear live young') Yay me!

I like this.

I think the problem I was having was very succinctly answered in your parenthesis for '2'. It does not necessarily need to specifically mention that a rule for the main group does not apply, mentioning a characteristic that conflicts with the specific attributes for the smaller subset would be enough to exclude it.

Not sure if that helps the thread at all, but regardless I am much happier. Thanks!

DoW

Does that mean that we've convinced you to switch sides on the debate? (bearing in mind that the debate is what the rules actually say, not how you play it)

I feel more clarified, but no, I still don't think you get D6 S10 hits against a Landraider.

I understand that on the way to its target, if the Battlewagon meets up with a non-vehicle the Tank-Shock is resolved as normal (possibly including the D6 S10 hits) but once it comes into contact with the vehicle the rules are very specific. It tells you exactly how to resolve the meeting, how to calculate the hit and what to do if the target is destroyed or not destroyed.

1) If the vehicle rammed is not removed, the rammer halts. That's it. Once you've halted, you're done. Halt doesn't just mean stop, it means to cease all actions. (This might be a military-ish definition, so I apologise if I've been corrupted. If I tell someone to 'Halt' at a gate, I'm not inviting you to raise your rifle and take a shot at me. Nor am I expecting you to start talking. 'Halt' means "Don't do anything at all. Except breathe, if you must. But do it shallowly") So you don't get to use any fancy Ork tricks!

2) If the vehicle rammed is removed then you keep going to your maximum distance and you wouldn't need to worry about the Deffrolla.

I think maybe it's not so much whether all Rams are Tank Shocks but rather how the Ramming rules are worded. At least that's what it seems now that I've had time to read them properly, think about them, and get some good insight from smarty pants folk on Dakka.

DoW

Deffgob wrote:Does that mean that we've convinced you to switch sides on the debate? (bearing in mind that the debate is what the rules actually say, not how you play it)

I think that when the chips are down, I'm much happier posting about platypi than I am posting about Deff Rollas. When it comes to these internet discussions, I sometimes, in my moments of clarity, worry that being right over the internet is too important to too many people, myself included.

I wonder if we can move further away from posting to prove, and towards posting to clarify. Where there are no sides, you know? I mean, I think that I would enjoy these rule debates more if they were held entirely in the realm of metaphor and simile. Maybe because talking about platypi and mammals is safer than talking about RULES. I mean, I like to think that the platypi are perfectly okay being neither right nor wrong.

Though really, I'm waxing philosophical, which is as deadly in these hallowed YMDC halls as it is during an actual battle, so I'm going to scuttle off now. I'm glad that I clarified it a bit for you DoW, and I hope that the gakky feeling about the debate goes away.

Orkestra wrote:I'm glad that I clarified it a bit for you DoW, and I hope that the gakky feeling about the debate goes away.

It certainly has, so thank you very much!

You are a good soul, my green friend, and as such I will try and curb my Ork prejudice and not las you on sight.

No promises, of course.

DoW

DogOfWar wrote:
1) If the vehicle rammed is not removed, the rammer halts...'Halt' means "Don't do anything at all. Except breathe, if you must. But do it shallowly") So you don't get to use any fancy Ork tricks!

That... is a very good point. At the very least, you're the first person with a reasonable argument in this thread against my point of view. This is why we're friends. Which still won't save you from my SAG.

DogOfWar wrote:1) If the vehicle rammed is not removed, the rammer halts. That's it. Once you've halted, you're done. Halt doesn't just mean stop, it means to cease all actions. (This might be a military-ish definition, so I apologise if I've been corrupted. If I tell someone to 'Halt' at a gate, I'm not inviting you to raise your rifle and take a shot at me. Nor am I expecting you to start talking.

In that context, i'd have to say 'halt' quite obviously means to stop. It literally means stop and it's used in contrast with the next sentence, where movement continues. To say it means anything but stop, in the sense of movement, is to say that it was written with the intention of prohibiting non-movement actions that would otherwise occur. Even if we gave greater meaning to the word 'halt', which i doubt anyone has in reading that rule (without specifically having ork tech in mind), you would have no way of showing that the deff rolla attacks take place after the hit is resolved. They are, after all, what is colliding and therefore damaging the target vehicle. If anything, i would think the 'hit' and 'attack' were a simultaneous occurance, and would legitimately be resolved as such.

Also, tank shocks are just as specific in stating 'exactly how to resolve the meeting' and what happens if the death or glory 'target is destroyed or not destroyed'.

kirsanth wrote:If they use all the tank shock rules, then the tank must stop 1" from another vehicle.

After rereading the rules this is clearly redefined in the ramming section. It says the models are in contact when resolving the ram and the example clearly shows the models in hull contact and not at the 1" distance. I think Trasvi is still right.

Deffgob - You say the sweetest things...

Ridcully - I'm not sure I agree that the 'halt' in regards to ramming is only referring to stopping movement. The section referring to what happens if the ramming target is "dstroyed - explodes!" also mentions that another tank shock would take place after the additional movement and I would assume difficult/dangerous terrain tests would also come into play. To me, that signifies that it's using the 'halt' to indicate that your movement phase with that unit has now ended and no further action can take place. Debatable, of course, but that's how I would read it.

Your point about when particular actions occur chronologically is a good one though. I wish I had an Ork Codex to get a really good feel for how their vehicle weaponry is described and detailed when it comes to figuring out what happens when. Sadly I do not, but you're right, there's no way to tell when exactly you should resolve your Deffrolla attacks and that becomes the crux of the issue. If they are resolved after the Tank Shock or Ramming action takes place, then no I do not think they would work against another vehicle. If they occur at a point during the Tank Shock or Ramming action, then I think it's plausible.

If someone could find good evidence to indicate one way or another I think that would go a long way to resolving the issue in general.

DoW

Something just occurred to me: Can vehicles ram friendly vehicles in their path of ramming movement?

Also, the title of the thread reminded me of something a rather obscure German philosopher once mentioned: the knife without a handle, the blade of which has been lost...

I'm not so certain you will find clarity in the deff rolla description DoW.

Here is the actual rules text about tank shocking and deff rollas:

"Any Tank Sock made by a battlewagon with a deff rolla causes D6 str 10 hits on the victim unit. If the unit elects to make a death or glory attack, it takes a further D6 str 10 hits in addition to the usual effects."

I would like to point out that just above in the deff rolla description it reads "A deff rolla is a great spiked roller that brings the collossal weight of the battlewagon to bear on anything in its way."

I think the answer to the OPs original question is that this scenario is not entirely explicitly handled in the rules and is probably going to need a house ruling.

Nurglitch wrote:Something just occurred to me: Can vehicles ram friendly vehicles in their path of ramming movement?

I don't think the rules currently allow you to do so. I think they would just stop as if they came up against impassable terrain or something similar.

That does bring up a good point, however. The Tank is supposed to be barreling at full speed towards an enemy and will continue until it has moved its maximum distance. Shouldn't there be some kind of similar damage resolution if the Tank crashes into a wall, friendly unit, etc after causing a "destroyed - explodes!" result against an enemy?

If that's what you were asking, Nurglitch, then I apologise for just reiterating your post. It is indeed a good question.

DoW

I'm special...

Deffgob wrote:

kirsanth wrote:If they use all the tank shock rules, then the tank must stop 1" from another vehicle.

please... please, just stop. No one is saying that it has to follow all of the rules of a tank shock. It doesn't. That's what makes it a special type of tank shock. That's the dumbest and least helpful thing you could possibly bring up, unless you started quoting from a rule that doesn't even pertain to vehicles in any way.

Saying that "A ram doesn't follow all of the rules of a tank shock, therefor it can't be a tank shock" is like saying "The vindicare doesn't follow all of the rules for shooting, therefore none of his attacks are shooting attacks."

Posting the same irrelevant, stupid thing over and over is not going to sway anyone, and it makes you look bad.

Actually, he did say all rules for tank shock.
Notice the acknowledgment to me. IIRC the post was edited.

Sort of ironic last bit though.

lol. No, that's not ironic. Irony would be if I was doing the same thing. Saying that a Y is a type of X and Z affects all X's, therefore Z affects all Ys, is neither stupid nor irrelevant.

This would be like if we were debating health care reform and I said that the amount of money it would take would be better spent elsewhere and you responded with "pigs are pink, therefore we should reform health care." It doesn't matter how many times I try to convince you of my statement, it's still not quite the same as what you're saying.

Deffgob wrote:lol. No, that's not ironic. Irony would be if I was doing the same thing. Saying that a Y is a type of X and Z affects all X's, therefore Z affects all Ys, is neither stupid nor irrelevant.

This would be like if we were debating health care reform and I said that the amount of money it would take would be better spent elsewhere and you responded with "pigs are pink, therefore we should reform health care." It doesn't matter how many times I try to convince you of my statement, it's still not quite the same as what you're saying.

SWINE FLU!!!

DoW

Nurglitch wrote:Something just occurred to me: Can vehicles ram friendly vehicles in their path of ramming movement?

It would just stop, as per the tank shock rules.

The Tank Shock! rules state that a tank making a tank shock attack must stop 1" short of all vehicles, not just friendly one. Ramming, on the other hand, requires you to move a top speed for the entire duration of that top speed, and says nothing about friendly vehicles.

Err... i don't remember reading that anywhere. It says it moves until it comes into contact with a friendly model or within 1" of an enemy vehicle. Tank Shock!, paragraph 6.