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.

In_Theory wrote:Why does a skimmer moving out of the way behave differently than infantry moving out of the way?

Because the moving out of the way is the result of two very different things.

In the case of a tank shock, moving out of the way is the effect of the vehicle's attack.
In the case of the skimmer, moving out of the way is the skimmer avoiding the effect of the vehicle's attack.


To put it another way, the effect of the tank shock is that the unit has to move out of the way. A unit so moving is doing so because it suffers the effects of the tank shock. The effect of a ram is to inflict damage on the enemy vehicle. A skimmer moving out of the way is not doing so because it is affected by the Ram... it is doing so to avoid the effects of the Ram.

So an infantry unit moving out of the way takes Deffrolla damage because it is being affected by the Tank Shock.
A Skimmer dodging out of the way does not take Deffrolla damage because it is avoiding being affected by the Ram.

The problem being: on a 3+ the skimmer avoids the tank.

Avoid...that means there is no contact as the skimmer avoids the tank...that means the ram never takes place so there cannot be a triggering of the deff rolla. If there is contact between the skimmer and the tank then we cannot say that the skimmer avoids the tank.

And also, take a closer look at the takes no damage portion of the rules. Why is there any damage from a deff rolla? Because of the ram/ tank shock. What do the rules for a skimmer say about rolling a 3+ and a ram/ tank shock? Neither vehcile takes any damage from the ram/ tank shock. Does the deff rolla ever do any damage outside of a ram/ tank shock...no. So the deff rolla damage is definitely part of the ram/ tank shock attack.

I suppose this is generating so much heat from a few orc players because they expect to face hordes of monoliths in a year or so, as the BW legions sweep all other armies from the competitive lists?


Sliggoth

How that giant bloody thing is a skimmer I'll never know.

You guys forget the the main point of RAW that beats this whole thing rams can' take place cuz that means you have to break the rule that opposing models can't be within an inch of each other when not in assault. And you don't assault in the movement phase so case closed

CajunMan550 wrote:You guys forget the the main point of RAW that beats this whole thing rams can' take place cuz that means you have to break the rule that opposing models can't be within an inch of each other when not in assault. And you don't assault in the movement phase so case closed

That might hold up in a discussion on pure RAW... but it's not how the game will actually be played on the table. It would take a thoroughly unreasonable player to insist that the Ram rules specifically addressing vehicles coming contact with each other doesn't over-ride the 1" rule even though it's not specifically spelt out.

well best we can hope is an INAT update, that will do until GW updates the faq on how the skimmer dodge works vs vehicles that have wargear. I would hope such a ruling is broad enough to cover future issues (other vehicles that possess wargear) but would settle for a specific answer.

NaZ

insaniak wrote:

That might hold up in a discussion on pure RAW... but it's not how the game will actually be played on the table. It would take a thoroughly unreasonable player to insist that the Ram rules specifically addressing vehicles coming contact with each other doesn't over-ride the 1" rule even though it's not specifically spelt out.

Exactly so it fits perfectly in this argument.

CajunMan550 wrote:You guys forget the the main point of RAW that beats this whole thing rams can' take place cuz that means you have to break the rule that opposing models can't be within an inch of each other when not in assault. And you don't assault in the movement phase so case closed

Quote the RAW:

Ramming a Skimmer
Skimmers may try to dodge out of the way of tanks attempting to ram them (as long as the ramming tank is not also a skimmer). The ramming tank stops in contact with the skimmer as normal, but then, if the player controlling the skimmer wants to dodge, he rolls a d6. On a 1 or 2 the collision proceeds as normal. On a 3+ the skimmer avoids the tank, neither vehicle suffers any damage, and the ramming tank stops in its tracks (literally!), its crew confused and disappointed.

I bolded the important parts for you. This rule shows (and the ramming rules themselves show) that ramming vehicles are a specific exception to the 1" rule. So your case is hardly closed.

edit: bold didn't stand out enough, so I underlined the truly crucial parts.

Dashofpepper wrote:Hey folks!

Ran into a situation tonight that I didn't know how to answer:

Battlewagon with a Deffrolla hits a skimmer, which gets to dodge the ram on a 3+. Flipping open the ork codex to the deffrolla, the only requirement for the defrolla to hit is that you tank shock a unit. The skimmer dodged the ram and common sense seems to dictate that it would dodge the deffrolla, but the rules seem to indicate that it doesn't.

And we all know that we abandon common sense when you come to play 40k.

Anyone with something more than an opinion to throw at this?

You may attempt a tank shock, but it is not ensure that a unit is tank shocked. A unit is not tank shocked unless they fail the morale test. If you did not tank shock the unit, then by your explanation of the deff rollas rules, the models are no eligible to be hit by the deff rolla.


EDIT:: nvm I thought you meant tank shocking a unit with a LD value.

streamdragon wrote:
Ramming a Skimmer
Skimmers may try to dodge out of the way of tanks attempting to ram them (as long as the ramming tank is not also a skimmer). The ramming tank stops in contact with the skimmer as normal, but then, if the player controlling the skimmer wants to dodge, he rolls a d6. On a 1 or 2 the collision proceeds as normal. On a 3+ the skimmer avoids the tank, neither vehicle suffers any damage, and the ramming tank stops in its tracks (literally!), its crew confused and disappointed.

I bolded the important parts for you. This rule shows (and the ramming rules themselves show) that ramming vehicles are a specific exception to the 1" rule. So your case is hardly closed.

edit: bold didn't stand out enough, so I underlined the truly crucial parts.

So do you ever wonder when the GW guys read threads like this do you think they are burying their face in the palms of their hands, or are they laughing themselves sick?

Maelstrom808 wrote:So do you ever wonder when the GW guys read threads like this do you think they are burying their face in the palms of their hands, or are they laughing themselves sick?

I would be surprised if the GW guys can read.

Gwar! wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:So do you ever wonder when the GW guys read threads like this do you think they are burying their face in the palms of their hands, or are they laughing themselves sick?

I would be surprised if the GW guys can read.

I am sure they are laughing on how much Rule Nazis have to lead completely by the hand on every single rule. It's a really simple idea no ram, no tank shock, no damage.

General_Chaos wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:So do you ever wonder when the GW guys read threads like this do you think they are burying their face in the palms of their hands, or are they laughing themselves sick?

I would be surprised if the GW guys can read.

I am sure they are laughing on how much Rule Nazis have to lead completely by the hand on every single rule. It's a really simple idea no ram, no tank shock, no damage.

So playing by the rules makes one a Rule Nazi now?

Ramming a skimmer:

On a 1 or 2 the collision proceeds as normal.
On a 3+ the skimmer avoids the tank, neither vehicle
suffers any damage, and the ramming tank stops in its
tracks (literally!),

If a 3+ is rolled then no collision occurs.


In order for a tank shock to occur against a vehicle (tank ram):

If the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, [then] the collision is resolved as follows...

If rammer comes into contact with enemy vehicle, then the collision happens.

Any tank shock made by a battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit (or vehicle for ram).

Any is the universal quantifier meaning "For all X..." meaning that for all tank shocks made with a deff rolla they have the stated result, this requires that the antecedent exists (the tank shock) for the consequent to exist... Similarly:

Relevant definition of Made:

pp. of Make

Definition of Make:
1. to bring into existence by shaping or changing material, combining parts, etc.: to make a dress; to make a channel; to make a work of art.
2. to produce; cause to exist or happen; bring about: to make trouble; to make war.

... Cause to exist.

Thus, if no tank shock is made (i.e. did not come into existence, did not happen) then the consequent does not happen, i.e., no D6 S10 hits.


Formally and abridged for simplicity, all the evidence is above and these are logical equivalents with the conditionals above:

If a 3+, then no collision.
If rammer comes into contact with enemy vehicle, then the collision happens.
Contrapositive: If no collision then no contact
If no contact, then no tank shock
If no tank shock, then no D6 S10 hits

Thus,
If 3+, then no D6 S10 hits

Just a couple modus ponens, not very advanced logic, please feel free to examine my logical progressions.


If you can find a logical error made above, then I made a mistake and my conclusion is wrong. If you cannot find a logical error above, then I did not make a mistake and my conclusion is the actual outcome of this situation.

Gwar! wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:So do you ever wonder when the GW guys read threads like this do you think they are burying their face in the palms of their hands, or are they laughing themselves sick?

I would be surprised if the GW guys can read.

I am sure they are laughing on how much Rule Nazis have to lead completely by the hand on every single rule. It's a really simple idea no ram, no tank shock, no damage.

So playing by the rules makes one a Rule Nazi now?

When the rules are easily exploitable, yes.

"No 3++ for you!"

If they read discussions like this at all, they should not be laughing, they should be ashamed of themselves and asking themselves "how can we write this better next time."

And sometimes they must read these discussions and realize what they have written....and run and change it. As a little tidbit in the SW faq that ended up changing a lot of cc for a few days until they changed things.



Sliggoth

General_Chaos wrote:

NaZ wrote:It is interesting that this point has not been made here:

the deffrolla does not say when you SUCCESSFULLY tank shock (or ram) a unit.

it says when you tank shock (or ram) a unit.

if a skimmer dodges the ram, that just means neither vehicle is subject to damage under the ram rules.

where does it say anywhere that a skimmer dodge negates the effects of any wargear being carried by the offending vehicle??

I'd love some clarification on this one, but it seems very straightforward from that angle.

NaZ

wow ok so I would declare to tank shock someone 48" away and damn I failed but you still take 1d6 hits... ork technology rocks...

Battlewagon == Ork Pathfinders. Point the finger, and all hell is unleashed across the board.

Gwar! wrote:So playing by the rules makes one a Rule Nazi now?

Now?

Gwar, you have been a rules Nazi since you first joined dakka....that is a compliment by the way; consistency is a good thing, even if I don't always agree with you

BTW, I miss your Troll avatar..so much more fitting!

And yes, this is muddy by RAW, as the wording is very poor, which opens up room for interpretation. As for me, I play both Eldar and Orks and I play it as "dodge = no ram = no deffrolla". Although, I find it truly annoying that GW would finally FAQ that indeed Deffrollas can ram, but then fail to deal with the issue of dodging said ram....more laziness on GW part.

Had a funny thing happen tonight playing what made me think of Gwar

I was playing Necrons and at first was gunna deffrolla ram a Monolith... but as odd as it sounds it's a skimmer.

I posed this to some folks tonight, and a few people who just started playing the game within the last couple weeks knew the correct answer; the def rolla will not get the d6 s10 attacks... I wonder why so many people still struggle with reading the RAW and think that the BW gets the hits.

Because they expect the deffrolla to be the kind of armored bestiality that kills everything in its tracks, and suddenly something can stop it.

INAT Ruling

+ORK.55D.02 – Q: If a skimmer manages to successfully dodge a ramming Battlewagon, does it still suffer hits from the Deff Rolla?
A: No, as a successful dodge by a skimmer means the vehicle wasn‟t actually rammed (tank shocked) [clarification].

Logic isn't it great

General_Chaos wrote:INAT Ruling

... is completely irrelevant unless you're playing in a game in which its use has been agreed upon. Please see the tenets of YMDC (stickied at the top of the forum) if you need clarification of what is considered an acceptable source of rules for YMDC discussions.

insaniak wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:INAT Ruling

... is completely irrelevant unless you're playing in a game in which its use has been agreed upon. Please see the tenets of YMDC (stickied at the top of the forum) if you need clarification of what is considered an acceptable source of rules for YMDC discussions.

The point was they come up with the same logic as a bunch of other people here, No Ram, No tank shock, No damage.

willydstyle wrote:If they read discussions like this at all, they should not be laughing, they should be ashamed of themselves and asking themselves "how can we write this better next time."

GW has every right to laugh uproariously about the angry typing that takes place over the child's game that they write rules for. I love this game, but seriously, let's not get carried away here.

The GW FAQ says that ramming is a type of tank shock, so it seems that the words can be used interchangeably. Therefore the skimmer can dodge a Deff Rolla. Seems pretty clear cut to me.

No to tank shock a unit you have to at least touch a model with the hull at some point in the movement of the tank. The deff rolla in this case would get 2d6 strength 10 hits but no ramming damage.

Presuming that the deffrolla does no damage, then we're left with something that makes less sense.

A skimmer plops down 2" away from a battlewagon; right in front of it in fact. The battlewagon wants to ram 12" through...except that according to the rules, it moves 1", the skimmer dodges on a 3+, and the battlewagon is stopped in its tracks.

If you dodge out of the way and avoid the hit...then you should dodge out of the way, not sit there and block movement.

I guess the problem is going to be convincing someone why their Skimmer takes damage from a Deff Rolla that it successfully dodged.

Bon chance.