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.

Warboss Gutrip wrote:Hmmm... After much deliberation, and listening to both sides of the argument, as well as some rules lawyering, I must conclude that it is permissable to inflict D6 S10 hits on a vehicle. A special kind of tank shock is still undoubtedly a tank shock, after all!

The only reason why you believe this, Mr Gutrip, is because you are an ork player. Personally, I think that this rule is not one which can be decided on by arguments. Maybe something diplomatic, like a die, should be used to radomly decide whether or not you can inflict these hits. Otherwise, go with the tournement organisers opinion or house rules.

I believe it is so, Mr Spazzatar of Spain (personal joke), because the rule book states that ramming is "a special type of tank shock move". Therefore, it is clearly a tank shock. No-one has clearly undermined this, and therefore I believe it stands.

Warboss Gutrip wrote:I believe it is so, Mr Spazzatar of Spain (personal joke), because the rule book states that ramming is "a special type of tank shock move". Therefore, it is clearly a tank shock. No-one has clearly undermined this, and therefore I believe it stands.

I would be eager for you to demonstrate why my assumption that the phrase of a special kind of tank shock refers only to the movement while the deff rolla refers to the effects of said movement is incorrect. I feel it adequately demonstrates why the phrase "A ram is a special kind of tank shock move" is insufficient for a Deff Rolla to be used when Ramming a vehicle.

Warboss Gutrip wrote:I believe it is so, Mr Spazzatar of Spain (personal joke), because the rule book states that ramming is "a special type of tank shock move". Therefore, it is clearly a tank shock. No-one has clearly undermined this, and therefore I believe it stands.

But you wouldn't if you werent an ork player.

And also, special means different. Look it up in a dictionary. Mine says "distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual: a special occasion; to fix something special"
I really think this is not a debate that can be resolved until GW resolves it themselves.

Khaine wrote:

Warboss Gutrip wrote:I believe it is so, Mr Spazzatar of Spain (personal joke), because the rule book states that ramming is "a special type of tank shock move". Therefore, it is clearly a tank shock. No-one has clearly undermined this, and therefore I believe it stands.

But you wouldn't if you werent an ork player.

And also, special means different. Look it up in a dictionary. Mine says "distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual: a special occasion; to fix something special"
I really think this is not a debate that can be resolved until GW resolves it themselves.

A square is a special type of rectangle, but it is still a rectangle. It is 'distinguished or different' because of added rules, but it is still part of the main group.
Just like a ram is a special type of tank shock with some distinguishing rules... it is still defined as a tank shock, therefore it is one.
The target of a ram is the victim of an action that is a type of tank shock, deff rollas work.

Why do people keep arguing the same points, over and over?

Its crazy-silly and makes all involved look a little craaazzzy

Razerous wrote:Why do people keep arguing the same points, over and over?

Its crazy-silly and makes all involved look a little craaazzzy

It's almost 8am and I can't sleep due to a bad case of the flu. That's my excuse.

It's not really even worth it if the best the anti-rolla crowd can come up with is trying to spin 'type of tank shock move' as meaning that it is not a type of tank shock at all and only a similar movement. But here I sit.

Gorkamorka wrote:The target of a ram is the victim of an action that is a type of tank shock, deff rollas work.

I will just single out this bit.

Since a Tank Shock (as far as the Deff Rolla is concerned) has a single victim, who is the victim if the tank shock goes through two units?

Given that you got D6 S10 hits in 4th ed, the fluff states it woirks to crush vehicles, AND Rams are a form of Tank Shock, RAI pretty much conclusively proves you get it. RAW is less clear but in cases where it can go either way use RAI as a guide unless GW FAQ it.

Tank Shock in 4th, when the Ork Codex was weritten and HAD to be compatible with (hence no mention, ever, or running or ramming) allowed you to tank shock vehicles, if they had a lower AV on the facing you were shocking. The Deff rolla then definitely gave you D6 S10.

Now in 5th for some reason the exact same move, when you are told it is a subset of tankshock, doesnt work? Come on, in this case its pretty clear....

Drunkspleen wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:The target of a ram is the victim of an action that is a type of tank shock, deff rollas work.

I will just single out this bit.

Since a Tank Shock (as far as the Deff Rolla is concerned) has a single victim, who is the victim if the tank shock goes through two units?

IIRC, on a ram each unit you move through is 'tank shocked as normal'. Unclear, and I'm unsure about a normal tank shock move, but it seems to me that you resolve tank shocks on each unit, making them both a 'victim' for that particular effect.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:Since a Tank Shock (as far as the Deff Rolla is concerned) has a single victim, who is the victim if the tank shock goes through two units?

IIRC, on a ram each unit you move through is 'tank shocked as normal'. Unclear, and I'm unsure about a normal tank shock move, but it seems to me that you resolve tank shocks on each unit, making them both a 'victim' for that particular effect.

Gorkamorka is correct. All units in the path of the Tank Shocking vehicle are victims of the Tank Shock, and all non-vehicle units in the path of a Ramming vehicle are Tank Shocked per the rulebook.

The Green Git wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:Since a Tank Shock (as far as the Deff Rolla is concerned) has a single victim, who is the victim if the tank shock goes through two units?

IIRC, on a ram each unit you move through is 'tank shocked as normal'. Unclear, and I'm unsure about a normal tank shock move, but it seems to me that you resolve tank shocks on each unit, making them both a 'victim' for that particular effect.

Gorkamorka is correct. All units in the path of the Tank Shocking vehicle are victims of the Tank Shock, and all non-vehicle units in the path of a Ramming vehicle are Tank Shocked per the rulebook.

But by that definition, a tank shock is the effect inflicted on the unit, not the movement, and the ram effect is not the tank shock effect, which is what I'm trying to get at, even if a ram is a tank shock move, you can never inflict a tank shock on a vehicle, only infantry.

Victory! Time ter get krumpin! Thanks to all for the arguments, and rules assistance.

Oh my GOD what is it with you people. I play Orks, they are my only army. Deffrollas DO NOT work on vehicles.

You guys that dont get it, are only saying that so you have an easy way to bust up LRs and the like. Seriously why else would it mention the death or glory rule, with extra attacks? That makes no sense what so ever for use on a vehicle.

You TANKSHOCK INFANTRY ONLY.
You RAM vehicles ONLY

The Deffrolla is used to TANKSHOCK INFANTRY ONLY. Its that cut and dry. And trying to use FLUFF to say "yea so in the codex in those neat little stories that make said army sound like the baddest mofos in the game, it says they deffroll light vehicles and such"
Well big deal, Calgar apparently killed like 5 Avatars of Khaine and choked a demon to death with a giant platinum filled smile.
Fluff is only wrote up to make things sound good.

Seriously STOP trying to cheat on this. IF GW ever says ok fine we will ALLOW the deffrolla attack on vehicles Ill use it. But until that happens I wont, and neither should you.

KingCracker - except they worked perfectl well in 4th ed

Given you CANNOT state definitively with any rules support that you cannot use them, precedent is you CAN use them and the fluff says you can, saying someone is cheating is incorrect.

nosferatu1001 wrote:KingCracker - except they worked perfectl well in 4th ed

Given you CANNOT state definitively with any rules support that you cannot use them, precedent is you CAN use them and the fluff says you can, saying someone is cheating is incorrect.

Actually 4th edition isn't precedent, it's obsolete, it's really no basis for a rules discussion.

KingCracker wrote:
You TANKSHOCK INFANTRY ONLY.
You RAM vehicles ONLY

Ork Codex. "Deffrolla... Any Tank Shock"
Rulebook. "Ramming... is a ... tank shock"

So yeah, when you Tank Shock a vehicle it's called a Ram because a Ram is a type of tank shock, which is why Deffrollas work.

Zounds! The Rules as Written!

Drunkspleen wrote:

The Green Git wrote:All units in the path of the Tank Shocking vehicle are victims of the Tank Shock, and all non-vehicle units in the path of a Ramming vehicle are Tank Shocked per the rulebook.

But by that definition, a tank shock is the effect inflicted on the unit, not the movement, and the ram effect is not the tank shock effect, which is what I'm trying to get at, even if a ram is a tank shock move, you can never inflict a tank shock on a vehicle, only infantry.

Without getting into the Deff Rolla on vehicles call (that will only be cleared up with an errate from GW, it appears) the rules quite clearly state that a non-vehicle unit in the path of a Ramming vehicle are subject to Tank Shock. You can't argue that performing a Ram excludes Tank Shock because the rulebook says you CAN Tank Shock in the process of a Ram. You can also inflict more than one effect in the course of the move... again straight out of the rulebook. That's all I'm saying and on that point, Gorkamorka is correct.

In my opinion the Deff Rolla *should* be able to affect vehicles. I think the risk of putting armor 10 in easy reach of assaulting virtually guarantees the Battlewagon will be destroyed in short order and compensates for the game effect of D6 S10 hits. But that's a "How You Would Play It" call.

Drunkspleen wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:KingCracker - except they worked perfectl well in 4th ed

Given you CANNOT state definitively with any rules support that you cannot use them, precedent is you CAN use them and the fluff says you can, saying someone is cheating is incorrect.

Actually 4th edition isn't precedent, it's obsolete, it's really no basis for a rules discussion.

But it's a perfectly valid base for a RAI argument, which all of the anti-rolla crowd seem to avoid like the plague. Combined with the battlewagon entry it's fairly clear that they were intended to hit vehicles when they were written, and only the most obtuse rule interpretations change that at all in 5th ed.

Drunkspleen wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:KingCracker - except they worked perfectl well in 4th ed

Given you CANNOT state definitively with any rules support that you cannot use them, precedent is you CAN use them and the fluff says you can, saying someone is cheating is incorrect.

Actually 4th edition isn't precedent, it's obsolete, it's really no basis for a rules discussion.

Precedent for RAI = fine

There is still more weight on the "it works" side than there is on the "it doesnt work" as the rules, strictly read, allow it AND it used to be alowed in the version of the rules the codex was written for.

KingCracker wrote:Oh my GOD what is it with you people. I play Orks, they are my only army. Deffrollas DO NOT work on vehicles.

You guys that dont get it, are only saying that so you have an easy way to bust up LRs and the like. Seriously why else would it mention the death or glory rule, with extra attacks? That makes no sense what so ever for use on a vehicle.

You TANKSHOCK INFANTRY ONLY.
You RAM vehicles ONLY

The Deffrolla is used to TANKSHOCK INFANTRY ONLY. Its that cut and dry. And trying to use FLUFF to say "yea so in the codex in those neat little stories that make said army sound like the baddest mofos in the game, it says they deffroll light vehicles and such"
Well big deal, Calgar apparently killed like 5 Avatars of Khaine and choked a demon to death with a giant platinum filled smile.
Fluff is only wrote up to make things sound good.

Seriously STOP trying to cheat on this. IF GW ever says ok fine we will ALLOW the deffrolla attack on vehicles Ill use it. But until that happens I wont, and neither should you.

Listen to him.




Its still 2 seperate things, tankshock and ramming. The rulebook refers to both, cause we look at 'rules for tanks' here.

Does a walker get DOG against ramming? Why not worded tankshock if its the same?
Does a skimmer evade a ramming move? Why not worded tankshock if its the same?
Why is a tankshock explicit stated to affect non-vehicle units? Should it not be 1 rule with sub-effects against different units types if it is
just tankshock?

But GW decided to have "a special type" not the usual common standard type.


So if special means nothing to you, why should i not ask for special ammo because every marine carries a boltgun too?

No one calls a rectangle that has four equal length sides at right angles to each other a rectangle. They call it a square. Because that's what it is.

Similarly, no one calls a Ram a Tank Shock. There are two separate rule sets that govern both applications. A Ram may be a special kind of Tank Shock, but the difference between the two is the target.

You cannot "Tank Shock" a vehicle. That is called a "Ram." You can never refer to it as a "Tank Shock" because "Tank Shock" rules do not allow for a vehicle target. "Ram" rules allow for vehicle targets, and the Deff-Rolla rules say "Tank Shock."

You do not call a rectangle with four equal length sides a "rectangle." You call it a "square." Do you see the logic?

synchronicity wrote:
You do not call a rectangle with four equal length sides a "rectangle." You call it a "square." Do you see the logic?

Are you saying that a square doesn't count as a rectangle because it has an additional 'special' restriction? Is that what you're saying?

"A ram is a special type of tank shock move and is executed in the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of. Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal. If the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows."

A ram is a special type of tank shock that has a movement speed restriction and has rules for targeting a vehicle. See how simple that was? It also happens to be how the rules are written.

DO ANY OF YOU GUYS REALLY THINK YOU CAN ADD SOMETHING NEW TO THIS DISCUSSION?

PLEASE GROW UP, PUT YOUR EPEENS BACK IN YOUR PANTS AND GO READ THE PREVIOUS GAZILLION THREADS!

Think it is wrong of me to "yell"? Too bad.

Gorkamorka wrote:

synchronicity wrote:
You do not call a rectangle with four equal length sides a "rectangle." You call it a "square." Do you see the logic?

Are you saying that a square doesn't count as a rectangle because it has an additional 'special' restriction? Is that what you're saying?

Yes.

People will, and have, argued the RAW in circles. So really, the only logical thing left to discuss is How You Would play It.

As an Ork player, and being a follower of the old adage 'in a situation where a rules discussion cannot be resolved, one should always defer to the result that offers them the least advantage'.

So, thusly shall I continue to not try to get d6 extra s10 hits when I ram vehicles.

Also, I think that the INAT FAQ makes a lot of sense, and that it influences how I will play, which is another strike against the Deffrolla, even though I think that the rules as written suggests that they should.

synchronicity wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:

synchronicity wrote:
You do not call a rectangle with four equal length sides a "rectangle." You call it a "square." Do you see the logic?

Are you saying that a square doesn't count as a rectangle because it has an additional 'special' restriction? Is that what you're saying?

Yes.

I rest my case.

synchronicity wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:

synchronicity wrote:
You do not call a rectangle with four equal length sides a "rectangle." You call it a "square." Do you see the logic?

Are you saying that a square doesn't count as a rectangle because it has an additional 'special' restriction? Is that what you're saying?

Yes.

Then you are incorrect: A square is, mathematically, a rectangle with 4 equal sides.

Same as a ram is a tank shock with some restrictions.

Except that in the rulebook a Ram is not a subsection of Tank Shock, making it its own action. While they are related, they are not the same. Read my previous post for my full analysis.

Except that if you rip out the page that details how to perform a Tank Shock you no longer have any idea how to Ram because, as a special type of Tank Shock, the rules are irrevocably enmeshed in the Ramming maneuver.