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.

Way too complicated guys, just tone it down a bit!

ChrisCP wrote:But the fact remains

"You've resolved the ram hit okay, and the vehicle didn't suffer a 'explodes', so you've followed the instructions 'the rammer halts', right?"

ok then since Tank Shocking is a form of Ramming then resolve the d6 hits at str 10 and then calculated (distance,AR,etc) ram either way before or after, it doesn't matter since Tank Shocking is ramming...

Exactly it doesn't matter, the only way to obtain permission to continue to move is by successfully causing an 'explodes' result with the immediately applied ram hit.

Here's a silly question regarding the hits caused by deffrolla.
Which AV the hits are counted against by RAW?
I couldn't find the answer for this in rulebook or in ork codex. Logical answer would be that it's the same AV than you use for ram, but that doesn't seem to be the same as RAW?

Hi giant hole in rules~!

But yeah seems that 'we' tend to assume that it's the same facing.

The best advice that can be given in this thread is, "ask your TO."

I actually spoke with my FLGS TO last night, and discussed the rule with him (for about an hour) trying to make my case, but in the end, he decided that the Deff Rolla hits are PART of the ram, therefore 1) if the Deff Rolla explodes a vehicle, the ramming vehicle may continue, and 2) skimmers may dodge Deff Rolla hits along with the ram. And that's the way he's going to rule it if it comes up in a tournament (which means I'm bringing my Orks! ).

So we can argue about this rule all day, but in the end, ask your TO. He/she may have a very different take on the rule from yours.

I've really enjoyed the lawyering here. Regardless of who's right and who's wrong, the fact that you people can argue such a narrow point so well tells with so little errors of logic or grammar speaks well to the forum.

And thank god the deffrolla can chew through vehicles now, ah? Now continue arguing.

SaintHazard wrote:The order of operations (hereafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the OOO) can be simultaneous, I grant you that, but Gwar! is correct in that it doesn't matter anyway.

If the Deff Rolla hits are not part of the tank shock, even if they occur concurrent to it, they still do not determine whether or not the offending vehicle may continue moving if its victim goes boom. Only the ram hit itself may determine that.

First, there have been at least two other threads about this topic. Here's one of them: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/311732.page

Untrue. The rules require that the rammed vehicle be in an exploded state when you make the check to continue moving, not that the ramming attack itself have caused the explosion. You do not ram a vehicle, then continue moving, then apply a tank shock.

Ramming is a special kind of tank shock. It has its own rules for resolution of an attack against a vehicle - but it *is* still a tank shock. Shooting at a vehicle has its own rules for resolution as well, but it *is* still shooting. Should your tank shock come into contact with a vehicle, it gets rammed - the ram is the special section in the rules explaining how to resolve a tank shock attack against a vehicle.

In fact, by the very letter of the law, wouldn't everything go in this order?

1. Declare distance and direction for your tank shock.
2. Move that direction. If you're planning on ramming a vehicle during this tank shock, you must move at full speed.
3. Tank shock any non-vehicles between you and the vehicle.
4. Approach the vehicle.
5. When you are 1" away from the vehicle, resolve the tank shock portion of the attack. That would be the Deffrolla attacks, which are caused by tank shocking a unit.
6. Continue from the 1" mark to base contact and resolve the ramming attack - then immediately apply the results.
7. Make a check on the enemy vehicle: Is it in an exploded state? If so, continue moving. If not, stop.

Regardless of how you want to play it, there is no order of operations. RAW, the ramming attack is a subset of the tank-shocking action with rules for resolution under a special subsection of the tank-shock. RAW, tank shocking happens before ramming, and the Deffrolla hits occur before the ramming attack. If you choose to discard this reasoning, then at very worst the deffrolla attacks happen simultaneously to the ramming attacks. There is no instance in 40k in which you make partial attacks from a unit, then move on to something else before resolving your attacks. A battlewagon doesn't execute a ramming attack against a vehicle, execute part of the action, and continue moving before finishing the attack.

And at the end of it - it *doesn't* matter what order the ramming and tank-shocking attacks are made in for movement - because the only check being made is whether or not the vehicle is in an exploded state when you check to see if you may continue moving or not.

Dashofpepper wrote:[There is no instance in 40k in which you make partial attacks from a unit, then move on to something else before resolving your attacks.

Close combat attacks at various initiatives do that. . . .

Otherwise I pretty much agree.

Dash makes an interesting point - nowhere in the rules for ramming does it say that the ram itself has to cause the explosion, only that the vehicle being rammed must be exploded when you determine whether or not you continue moving.

Hmm.

kirsanth wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:[There is no instance in 40k in which you make partial attacks from a unit, then move on to something else before resolving your attacks.

Close combat attacks at various initiatives do that. . . .

Otherwise I pretty much agree.

Those are different models in the same unit, not moving from one unit to another. The analogy I was trying to give is that you don't partially move with one unit, then move to a completely separate unit, then back to the first one....nor do you shoot a few weapons from one unit, move on to another action elsewhere, then return to the unit - all shooting attacks are resolved at once. The entire unit moves together, at once. Close combat attacks are resolved by initiative order, but each close combat is resolved individually before moving to another unit.

The argument has been put forth in this thread that a tank-shocking battlewagon can make one attack, then make a test to move - before its attacks are completed. While neither ramming attacks nor tank-shocking attacks fit exactly into the definition of other kinds of attacks, there is no precedent in 40k to allow a unit to split its attacks or its actions as suggested. Whether the ram comes first or the deffrolla comes first is irrelevant - they both happen before movement continues.

We also see a precedent for resolving the Deff Rolla attacks before the ram in the "Death or Glory" section of the FAQ which states the unit takes 2d6 S10 hits if it chooses to DoG.

Dashofpepper wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:[There is no instance in 40k in which you make partial attacks from a unit, then move on to something else before resolving your attacks.

Close combat attacks at various initiatives do that. . . .

Those are different models in the same unit, not moving from one unit to another.

However you stated unit originally. Also, Logan can do that as one model, iirc, as well as a few others perhaps.

Regardless. . . . Tangential point is tangential.

Editing to add:
I half misread your post, Dash.
There are, however single models that can do that anyway, unless I am mistaken. Not that it ACTUALLY matters.

Dash? Given that the bit about the vehicle being able to continue is in the Ramming rules and how damage is applied from the Ram, what else could it be referring to? Yeah, I know, you're going to say Deffrolla. Well, the defrolla rules are in the Ork codex and don' say anything one way or the other on this. And the ramming rules cover ramming, not deffrollas.

The Green Git wrote:We also see a precedent for resolving the Deff Rolla attacks before the ram in the "Death or Glory" section of the FAQ which states the unit takes 2d6 S10 hits if it chooses to DoG.

Hey, I didn't know you could ram infantry. I thought that was Tank Shocking. Cool, so I can apply a S9 hit with my Battlewagon if it moves 12" and hits some infantry, right?

But actually that's entirely irrelevant, seeing as we're talking about ramming. And tanks can't DoG. So that section doesn't tell us anything at all.

Dashofpepper wrote:
Whether the ram comes first or the deffrolla comes first is irrelevant - they both happen before movement continues.

That's it folks! Pack your bags. There's nothing more to see here.

Oh, and don't line up your tanks in front of a deff rolla battlewagon...

SaintHazard wrote: And tanks can't DoG. So that section doesn't tell us anything at all.

Walkers can.

Does that make it relevant?

I need to go re-read these bits again for the 98235092384029384092834175th time.

It makes it relevant if you're ramming a Walker.

It's still entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand, though.

don_mondo wrote:Dash? Given that the bit about the vehicle being able to continue is in the Ramming rules and how damage is applied from the Ram, what else could it be referring to? Yeah, I know, you're going to say Deffrolla. Well, the defrolla rules are in the Ork codex and don' say anything one way or the other on this. And the ramming rules cover ramming, not deffrollas.

Thanks for bringing this up - I totally forgot about that portion of the argument.

Both infantry models and walkers (dreadnoughts and other walkers *are* vehicles) have the ability to Death or Glory. If you execute a tank shock and end up ramming a walker, who chooses to DoG you, and it immobilizes you or otherwise prevents you from moving or executing your ramming attack, you still take 2d6 Deffrolla hits from the tank-shock.

If you tie this into the rest of the rules, the only order of operation shown by the rules is that the Deffrolla attacks occur before the ramming attack does.

SaintHazard wrote:It's still entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand, though.

The example was a landraider, but the issue is regarding rams. . .unless I missed it again.
I was more asking if the precedence matters, since rams CAN occur against models that can opt to Death or Glory.

Editing to add:
It seems Dash pre-empted my post.