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.

Nurglitch wrote:Wait, vehicles could be tank shocked in 4th edition? I thought they had to stop 1" away from other vehicles...

When you tank shocked, every thing had to get out your way unless it had better or equal AV and you just stopped. So a deffrolla could never be used against any thing AV14

... However all that was tank shocking ... and all though Ramming is a type of tank shock move it is not a tank shock.

Its like me moaning that harliqins aren't as good now rending happens on the wound roll. This is 5th Edtion suck it up or play one of the new codices.

Gold tooth Jerry wrote:What you are missing is that the reason that the infiltrate rule is not conferred to the unit is because the wording in the special rule does not say it is conferred to the entire unit. Using the same wording, If the special rule stated that it was given to the entire unit then everyone in the unit and those who joined it would receive the special rule. This is not even a stretch. Is it really powerful? Yup. Do people say its not possible because it is too powerful? Yup.

I'm still really confused about your RAW argument here...
The Ambush special rule is never conferred to anyone, not even Snikrots Kommandos. The rules involving conferring a special rule to ICs never come up.

The IC isn't being conferred a special rule. The IC is just benefiting from the special rule of the upgrade character, which I don't see rules against in your argument.

kirsanth wrote:It is a type of tank shock move. Quote the whole line.

Or better yet. Drop it. Its been beaten more than the proverbial dead horse.

And tank shock is a type of move as well Quote the whole relevant section

nosferatu1001 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:It is a type of tank shock move. Quote the whole line.

Or better yet. Drop it. Its been beaten more than the proverbial dead horse.

And tank shock is a type of move as well Quote the whole relevant section

Done,
done,
done, and
DONE.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:It is a type of tank shock move. Quote the whole line.

Or better yet. Drop it. Its been beaten more than the proverbial dead horse.

And tank shock is a type of move as well Quote the whole relevant section

Doesn't matter what type of move it is; Its not a 'tank shock', its a 'ramming'.

If tank shock and ramming are the same things why bother to make them separate rules ... All you need do is add to the tank shock rules ....

"If a tank declares that it will move at its maximum speed it may ram into other vehicles each vehicle take a single hit determined by the distance moved and the AV over 10 (see chart)"

...Did we get that? No. We have got two different rules; one Tank shock that allows infantry to be moved through and Ramming that happens like tank shock but must happen at maximum speed and can damage vehicles

Tri wrote: Doesn't matter what type of move it is; Its not a 'tank shock', its a 'ramming'.

If tank shock and ramming are the same things why bother to make them separate rules ... All you need do is add to the tank shock rules ....

"If a tank declares that it will move at its maximum speed it may ram into other vehicles each vehicle take a single hit determined by the distance moved and the AV over 10 (see chart)"

...Did we get that? No. We have got two different rules; one Tank shock that allows infantry to be moved through and Ramming that happens like tank shock but must happen at maximum speed and can damage vehicles

Of course we didn't. If we'd gotten that, Rules Lawyers would be pointing out that "ram" was not defined anywhere in the rules, and so not a legal move, and so that sentence did nothing at all, because you're never allowed to move within 1" of another unit. Then we'd get 132857109312360 angry threads of people shouting at each other about it, all of which would eventually be locked, and every time anyone brought up the "Ramming" argument all the veterans posters would roll their eyes and say, "here we go again". . . sound familiar?

All i'm saying is different rules. GW had one rule that did both ... they changed it into 2 rules. Any sensible person would assume that if tank shock is the rule being quoted it has nothing to do with Ramming. If GW wanted ramming to be part of tank shock, well that where it started; why move it?

And all I'm saying is that it's easy to make arguments based on something as picky as, of all things, the format of the type when another interpretation gives someone else a powerful ability. Here's another question; if GW wanted Ramming to be entirely separate from Tank Shock, why do they call it a "type of tank shock move"? It's not like it would take a lot more time or effort to remove the connection. Any sensible person would assume that if the Ramming rule quotes Tank Shock when specifying the conditions under which a Ram can occur, that Ramming is a subtype of Tank Shock.

Thats easy the person that wrote the rule was an idiot. All he need to say was Ramming does x y & z and if you hit an infantry unit you tank charge them.
Not that it matter it is not a tank shock move ... Is it is a type of tank shock move? No. Why? because it is a special type of tank shock move. Its almost the same but doesn't share the name and comes with new rules

Tri wrote:All i'm saying is different rules. GW had one rule that did both ... they changed it into 2 rules. Any sensible person would assume that if tank shock is the rule being quoted it has nothing to do with Ramming. If GW wanted ramming to be part of tank shock, well that where it started; why move it?

Tri wrote:Thats easy the person that wrote the rule was an idiot. All he need to say was Ramming does x y & z and if you hit an infantry unit you tank charge them.

Well look at that, you answered your own question.

Tri wrote:Is it is a type of tank shock move? No. Why? because it is a special type of tank shock move. Its almost the same but doesn't share the name and comes with new rules

It's not a type of tank shock move because it's a type of tank shock move? Lolwut?

"Special" is merely an added adjective. It in no way invalidates the rest of the phrase "type of tank shock move".

BeRzErKeR wrote:"Special" is merely an added adjective.

against the rules but ...
1)Someone or something that is special is better or more important than other people or things.
2)Special means different from normal.
3)You use special to describe someone who is officially appointed or who has a particular position specially created for them.
4)Special institutions are for people who have serious physical or mental problems.
5)You use special to describe something that relates to one particular person, group, or place.
6)A special is a product, programme, or meal which is not normally available, or which is made for a particular purpose.

This is the language if you remove a word you change its meaning of a sentence. Special in this case most likely being definition 2.

Tri wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:"Special" is merely an added adjective.

against the rules but ...
1)Someone or something that is special is better or more important than other people or things.
2)Special means different from normal.
3)You use special to describe someone who is officially appointed or who has a particular position specially created for them.
4)Special institutions are for people who have serious physical or mental problems.
5)You use special to describe something that relates to one particular person, group, or place.
6)A special is a product, programme, or meal which is not normally available, or which is made for a particular purpose.

This is the language if you remove a word you change its meaning of a sentence. Special in this case most likely being definition 2.

It might also fit definition 6; Not normally available. You cannot normally tank shock vehicles. . . unless you are using the Ram rules. But regardless, none of these definitions mean that a Ram is not a "type of tank shock move".

The argument comes down to two words; "special" and "move". The anti-Deff Rolla argument hinges on one of those two words changing the meaning of "tank shock" to mean something other than, well, a tank shock. This seems, well, silly to me.

Tri wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:It is a type of tank shock move. Quote the whole line.

Or better yet. Drop it. Its been beaten more than the proverbial dead horse.

And tank shock is a type of move as well Quote the whole relevant section

Doesn't matter what type of move it is; Its not a 'tank shock', its a 'ramming'.

If tank shock and ramming are the same things why bother to make them separate rules ... All you need do is add to the tank shock rules ....

"If a tank declares that it will move at its maximum speed it may ram into other vehicles each vehicle take a single hit determined by the distance moved and the AV over 10 (see chart)"

...Did we get that? No. We have got two different rules; one Tank shock that allows infantry to be moved through and Ramming that happens like tank shock but must happen at maximum speed and can damage vehicles

Set of "All Tank Shocks", which is what the Deff rolla works against, can be enumerated as (normal tank shocks, special tank shocks)

The deffrolla makes allowances for the superset, not just normal tank shocks.

This is OT, but can we have a discussion that doesn't turn into Tank shock vs Ramming?

InquisitorFabius wrote:This is OT, but can we have a discussion that doesn't turn into Tank shock vs Ramming?

No, evidently we cannot.

Anyway! Yes, if Ghazghkull joins a Nobz unit (or a Flash Gitz unit, I suppose) with a Painboy, he gains Feel No Pain. Rules-wise, he's part of the unit. Logically, it's not like the Painboy is just gonna ignore him. Not, of course, that logic is necessarily applicable, but I like to throw it in there anyway.

Incorrect, because the term 'special' specifies that ramming is not a member of the set tank shock.

In other words: 'special type of tank shock move' means 'not a Tank Shock despite sharing its effect on infantry'.

Just as special rules are defined as being exceptions to the normal rules, a special type of tank shock move is an exception to the normal Tank Shock.

Even more interesting, Ramming is basically [Tank Shock] + [no shooting] + [full speed] + [affects vehicles].

Here's the theory of types we're working with in 40k, Venn-diagram style:

[Special Rule[Rule[Type of Rule]]]

An example is, curiously, Chaos Spawn movement.

[[Slow and Purposeful[Movement[Beast]]].

Beast is a movement type, while Slow and Purposeful is a Universal Special Rule.

Logic is never applicable in 40K.

Please consult INAT FAQ for an interpretation of the Deff Rolla rules.

Either use them or not.

The issue has been argued a million times. It is dreadfully tiresome to do so again.

Killkrazy's first comment is incorrect: logic is applicable to any system of rules regardless of how inconsistent, fragmentary, or fuzzy that system may be.

Nurglitch wrote:Incorrect, because the term 'special' specifies that ramming is not a member of the set tank shock.

It is however a member of the set "All Tank Shocks" whcih is what the Deff Rolla works against.

Please let it die the painful death it has demanded. See above.

No, it isn't and the Ramming rules specify that Ramming is not a type of Tank Shock, or a member of the set "All Tank Shocks", by using the terms 'special' and 'tank shock moves'.

It's like saying that because all dogs eat kibble, and cats are a special type of dog-like animal, that cats must eat kibble: classically invalid. Only from the standpoint of classical fully consistent logics though...

Nurglitch wrote:No, it isn't and the Ramming rules specify that Ramming is not a type of Tank Shock, or a member of the set "All Tank Shocks", by using the terms 'special' and 'tank shock moves'.

It's like saying that because all dogs eat kibble, and cats are a special type of dog-like animal, that cats must eat kibble: classically invalid. Only from the standpoint of classical fully consistent logics though...

Classic invalid example.

More like saying that all dogs eat kibble, and poodles are a special type of dog, therefore poodles eat kibble.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:No, it isn't and the Ramming rules specify that Ramming is not a type of Tank Shock, or a member of the set "All Tank Shocks", by using the terms 'special' and 'tank shock moves'.

It's like saying that because all dogs eat kibble, and cats are a special type of dog-like animal, that cats must eat kibble: classically invalid. Only from the standpoint of classical fully consistent logics though...

Classic invalid example.

More like saying that all dogs eat kibble, and poodles are a special type of dog, therefore poodles eat kibble.

QFT

It's a formally equivalent example.

Your example fails because poodles are a type of dog and therefore cannot be a special type of dog since something cannot be both a dog and not a dog at the same time.

Universal Special Rules are not normal rules, special types are not types.

Your example also fails because it ignores the distinction between Tank Shock and tank shock moves. Your example would have to read "All dogs eat kibble, and poodles are a special type of dog-like animal, and therefore poodles eat kibble", which would be logically valid but semantically false because poodles aren't a special type of dog-like animal, they aren't not-dogs, and thus such a syllogism would be unsound.

Hence if one is going to give a valid example, one must preserve the logic being applied. The logic of the Ramming rules is that (1) Ramming is not equivalent to Tank Shock, and (2) Ramming includes Tank Shock. Therefore any example involving the conclusion that references to Tank Shock magically generalize to Ramming are necessarily invalid because they deviate from a valid preservation of the information in question.

I think the idea was hit on in a much deeper thread/post by Moz.

The big Idea is the contentious wording often times used and intermingled by fluff.

By the wording there is No physical difference in the way it is worded. Painboy vs Snikrot thing is By the way it is written, Identical.

While I disagree with the INAT FAQ about the ICs benefitting from painboy, I still can't find any logic (on a rules basis) for their decision for snikrot....

I can see logic on a gaming basis... but RAW is the easiest way to play things when you get large tournies that spread across the US....

imho, the inconsistency in the way things are interpreted or played in different regions is the main reason the GT circuits in the US is not growing/thriving.

Nurglitch wrote:

Your example fails because poodles are a type of dog and therefore cannot be a special type of dog since something cannot be both a dog and not a dog at the same time.

Uh, what?!

Here, let me bold your error for you.

Nurglitch wrote:

Your example fails because poodles are a type of dog and therefore cannot be a special type of dog since something cannot be both a dog and not a dog at the same time.

If a thing is a "special type" of something, it is BY DEFINITION also a "type" of that thing. It's "type" is "special", yes, but that does not mean it somehow magically ceases to be a "type". Your statement is manifest nonsense.

BRB wrote: Ramming is a special type of tank shock move. . .

"Special" is an adjective applied to "type"; if "type" does not apply, then neither does "special", in which case we are left with merely "tank shock move".

This thread is certainly a special type of something.



Do we need to just impose a ban on deff rolla discussions for a while?