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.

Just to debunk the "It would be TOO powerful argument, and therefore couldn't be the intent" argument: there was no question whatsoever in 4th edition, when this was written, it works as intended. Additionally, the fluff right next to the rule talks about wagons with grabbin klaws and deffrollas rolling over vehicles.

The dialog for the argument against is pretty dubious. Imagine that I ram your vehicle, then I pick up the dice to roll for the rolla and you say:
You: "Hold on, you rammed, that's not a tank shock"
Me: "Ok so what is a ram, lets look at the rules."
Rulebook: "A ram is a special kind of tank shock"
You: "So it's a tank shock until it hits a vehicle, and then it's a ram, not a tank shock, and then it goes back to being a tank shock later!"
Me: "Yeah it doesn't really say any of that in here, how about we just play by what's written in here?"

I agree that it's too powerful, but I think the RAW and the RAI on this one are on the side of the rolla being too powerful.

What other decent anti tank abilities do orks have anyway? Tankbustas are great, sure, except oh yeah, they gotta pursue vehicles only and they get no transport unless they jack one at the start of the game. Hidden powerklaws? As long as they can make it across the table, under fire the whole way, the orks are golden! Rokkits or zzap guns? Puhlease...! Orks have no melta weapons to speak of and in general are pretty poor in the antitank department.

Any player worth his salt can protect his vehicles from orks. Trukks can't ram, orks have no fast tanks. Vehicles can be screened with troops against orks on foot or bikes. If the ork player is running Grotsnik, either move further on to the board or castle along the edge. Skimmers can dodge.

GW can't get their rules and proofreading right in even one book, never mind from a codex to the new edition of the rules. Even so, rules of english aside, I would argue that their intent is that the rolla should work in fifth the same way it did in fourth. RAW may not support it for the english professors out there, but I'm guessing the judges would see it my way in a tournament. If not, I've learned to shrug and try to win the game by other tactics.

Fluff wise, if I was a vindicator and I had to choose between being rammed by a land raider or a battle wagon with a 12 foot diameter, 20 ton spiked roller, I'd take my chance with the land raider. It's not so much that the wagon would roll right over a battle tank, but the physics of mass times acceleration that kills you. Put another way, I personally would choose a sledghammer blow over a truckload of cinderblock as the slightly more survivable violence. A land raider is massive and powerful, but in as efficient a way as possible. A battle wagon however, is a mek's idea of as much iron plating and enormous engines as he can weld together, and adding more plating and engines whenever possible. I'll bet a battle wagon outmasses a land raider at least three to one, with an ork driver to boot.

In the end, if I ever build some deffrolla wagons, I'll still make growling tank noises when I drive them around the table. Orks are the best army I've played for having fun with, and I get to speak all lowbrow and gravelly, complaining about pointy eared gits and umie ard boyz...

Kirby, you post totally got me laughing up a storm when I read it, because I've been guilty of the occasional Trukk vrooming sounds or shouting a Waaagh! when I declare my fleet of foot move. Ork players are just about the only ones that can get away with stuff like that.

As far a rule debate on this much beaten subject, I doubt we'll be agreeing on anything for some time, and as many have said and previously posted, its best to wait for some kind of FAQ, and until then, just work out the details with your local gaming group. Consensus is typically the best method of dealing with problems like this. And ultimately, our opinions can only serve to better educate you on the subject, but you probably will never actually play against anyone here, so changing our minds won't do you a stitch of good.

Awwww, I stopped trying to change minds a while ago, I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

That was more of a general statement and was by no means directed at you Kirby.

My two cents:

Nurglitch has pretty much convinced me.

But Moz’ (and others’) point about how intuitive it is for the rollas to apply, and the difficulty of negotiating this point at the table with an ork opponent, is an unfortunate reality.

In practice I expect I’m going to have to let Ork players do it, even though I think the text (strictly read) does lean toward the opposite conclusion.

yeah,
This is the kind of thing that turns me off 40k. the lack of offical responses from GW and the type of people attracted by these loopholes.

I think that now, before a game If i saw a deff rolla I'd point it out and say what I think it does and does not do.
We would Probabily get into a debate that we probabily won't be able to resolve.

Greebynog posted this Ork BattleWagon List In the 40k army list forum. We would debate the issue prior to a game and I guess My final statement in the debate would be something like this:
"you've got 4 of them... looks like you built a list around it why? is it because your Anti-Tank interpretation of the rules is broken. it's clearly not RAI and it's barely supported by RAW. If your right it's 20pts bit of wargear that's anti tank capabilities are on par with a 700pts 'nid biotank! it could roll over the foot of a warhound with a 1" ram and it'd have a good chance of taking it down! Isn't it possible that your reading too much into the part of the Ramming rules that call it a special tankshock?"

In a Friendly Game I'd ask Greebynog to swap out the gear or i'll pass on the game. If he persuaded me to play the game with the rolla's as is, I'd discuss its game performance afterwards... "yeah it rolled over a squad of my Plague marines and killed 4 cool huh? fair enough, then it rolled over my land raider pentrated twice it twice and caused 2 glances..."... "pretty good going"... "well done you"... "20pts well spent!"... "yeah can't play you next week i'm umm washing my hair.... yeah can't play the week after that either sorry"

in a tourniment I'd get a ruling and if it goes against me... that would sux I'll play the game and on my card they will score 0 for sportsmanship.

This is why i Love Magic the Gathering.. they sort gak like this out.. this would have been rulled on and maybe even removed from the ORK Codex list long before we even got to 5th ed~~ if 40k was FAQ'd by wizards of the coast..~~

God i sound like a real jerk.... but this has got my goat...

PaniC...

I myself, think that they intended ramming to count as a tank shock, and just didn't realize how powerful that might make the Deff Rolla. It seems to be the simplest explanation.

It doesn't make the deffrolla any more powerfull than in 4th, it keeps it the same.

As for the incinuation that I (or anyone else using deffrollas for this, ie. everyone at thewaaagh.com) is a cheat or a poor sport for interprating the rules differently from you, well, that's just silly really isn't it. I'm not trying to cheat or gain an unfair advantage, I genuinley believe that the rules state it is allowable, and as for fluff/intent, read pg 55 of the ork codex.

I'm going to write to Phil Kelly to get this cleared up, I don't want to be accused of being a cheat for wanting to play a cool and characterful army.

I agree it's ambiguous, so I don't deffrolla vehicles in 5th.

If we're getting it clarified, it's also important to get the timing clarified - when do the hits take place? Before or after death or glory?

Nb, the claim that deffrollas allow 12 inch range d6 s10 attacks doesn't hold true, to get those attacks you have to move the wagon in a certain way, a way that not only risks destroying the wagon on impact, but leaves it very vunerable to rear armour shots/close combat attacks. It's nowhere near as good as an auto-hit ranged attack.

yeah.. all this debate makes it sound worse than it is..

panic.. thats pretty harsh dude.

lets not forget that the battlewagon is 90 points to begin with AND is open topped unless you pay even more to make it a closed top..

most of the time mine gets destroyed by the 2nd or 3rd turn.

if you're playing chaos.. you should have plenty of MEQ anti tank weaponry.. shoot the darn thing.

its only a 20pt upgrade because we are spending so damn much on the battlewagon to begin with.

but we'll see if it ever gets FAQ'd. there are plenty of people who have a disagreeing point of view. sad but thats how it goes with GW written rules.

NaZ

Seriously Panic, I would imagine many thinking twice before playing you, as well. If you're willing to break someone's sportsmanship score based upon their army build and a positive ruling in their favor, then that says quite a bit about your character in what you perceive as "fair play". What you ask is an official ruling and if given so, you would still dismiss it? And honestly, a Battlewagon themed army is really not that hard to imagine. Even Ork fluff talks about wagon mobs just like IG has tank regiments and Sm with their armor batteries. Yes, while the potencial for the Deff Rolla as interpreted by myself and other is quite extreme, you cannot dimiss it and call someone almost a cheater for taking advantage of potencially useful wargear. You might also want to keep in mind that many might believe the Deff Rolla may work as we have described, not because we want to exploit the rules or knock what the designers intended (according to you), but that that we believe this was the intent and feel strongly about our position based upon our interpretation of the rules. We all believe in fair play and don't welcome the idea of alienating my local gamers (all of whom accept Deff Rolla use during Ramming, btw), but I can think of very little reason to give up a potencial useful peice of equipment just to make someone feel better. I would be very offended for anyone to ask me to change my list or options just because they disagree with its intended use. For every advantage, there is usual a way to counter it.

Ok, after reading this whole thread (ok, ill admit I skipped a couple posts) It seems the major argument to allow a Deff Rolla against a vehicle is that they say” Ramming is a special type of tank shock"

I noticed that all the people that want to use that rule to ram conveniently left off the rest of that sentence.

The real RAMMING rule on page 69 reads "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way, except that the tank must move at the highest speed it is capable of"

Well "tank shock" and "tank shock move" are two very different things.
"by only quoting "tank shock" you are led to believe that RAMMING gains everything that TANK SHOCK does. Which is what people who want to use the Deff Rolla want everyone to believe.

and "tank shock move" just implies that the ramming move and tank shock move are similar.

mgrosh,

seems like your on that side of the debate.. I'd go over it again but honestly its been debated to death at this point.

most of us are going to have to agree to disagree. ask your local tournament organizer how they're going to do it.

last time I called GW they said it worked.. but that means nothing until they FAQ it.

gogo badly written GW rules!!

NaZ

"Ramming is a special type of TANK SHOCK move and is executed the SAME WAY"


Now since its executed the SAME WAY, why would wargear that works for 1 not work for the other? That's the basis of those of us who are in the pro deff rollas are super broken and as worded have no reason why they don't chew through vehicles.

I'm just glad that we can still argue about tankshock in 5th edition. I was beginning to worry that GW would fix up my favorite black hole of rules obscurity from 4th ed.

Feels like home again...

On topic though, Panic you've mentioned that the RAI is against defrolla working on vehicles. I'm curious where you're getting that impression from?

Red_Lives:

Ramming doesn't actually work in the exact same way as tank shock. There are three ways in which it is different from tank shock. Ramming requires that the vehicle not fire, move full speed, and allows collisions with enemy vehicles.

The text says (emphasis mine):

"Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way, except that..."

The tank shock rules disqualify vehicles from being addressed with tank shock attacks, and the ramming rules do not overturn that. The ramming rules only allow enemy vehicles to be addressed with ramming attacks (collisions).

This is consistent with the Skimmer and Walker rules only addressing rams, the Deff Rolla rules only addressing "Tank Shocks", and the rulebook distinguishing between tank shock attacks and ramming attacks.

mgrosh, its being a "tank shock move" does not help an argument against ramming being a tank shock at all. Tank Shock is a moving action. When Tank Shock'ing, the vehicle's intentions is not going in gunz blazing or run over some folk, but just to move in such and cause some panic. Ram is a move action as well, all of which takes place in the movement phase of the game. So, Tank Shock is a move, and calling Ramming a "special tank shock move" only illustrates that they both solely move actions.

Panic, and as far as the continued argument as to the RAI...

How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate wrote:While interesting, discussing the "Designers Intent" will never help you in a rules discussion. Why? First, intent of a single designer and what may actually end up in print are never guaranteed to be the same. GW has no policy against routinely changing the same rule back and forth repeatedly. Second, it's impossible to know intent. Unless you've got ESP, or the rules author is in the discussion, you're just guessing at intent. Intent can be very simply refuted with an, "I don't agree", and the conversation ends, as neither side can prove its case for intent.

Nurglich, we all understand what you are getting at, and I believe you misunderstand our argument. We are not saying that you may, in fact, Tank Shock at vehicle as normal, because as you have pointed out, you cannot due to the 1" restriction. However, my argument, and what I believe others are trying to illustrate is that we believe that Tank Shock is a maneuver that is directly targeting non-vehicle models or units. Ramming, a variant form of Tank Shock, is a Tank Shock that may be directed against Vehicles, but in doing so, is executed in the same way as a Tank Shock, except for some minor differences. Even non-vehicle units caught in the path of a ram are still treated as Tank Shocked, which I believe is because the entire maneuver IS a Tank Shock.

Further, I believe the book is very pointed in its connection between Tank Shock and Ramming. I will attempt to break down my reasoning.

1. "Ramming is a special form of tank shock move and is executed in the same way". Self explainitory, and cannot be dismissed solely as fluff because nothing about it sounds or looks like fluff and due to it explaining rule variations of the Tank Shock move in the same sentence. Just because "tank shock" is not capitalized does not dismiss the connection between the two as I will show in #2.

2. "Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming unit are tank shocked as normal". "tank shocked" is not capitalized either, yet everyone will understand that this is referencing to the Tank Shock! rule. By the rule stating "as normal", one can see what they attempting to make solid an understood fact that though its a Ram, the move is still considered a Tank Shock, and just because vehicles now respond to it different, non-vehicles do not.

3. Collision. There is nothing I have read showing that "collision" is any kind of special item other than it illustrating the point at which both vehicles make contact, nothing more. What other term for "both make contact" would have work? In either case, its just a term used to discribe contact made between the two models. Its not even a term recognized in the index, though Tank Shock and Ramming are still there.

4. Walkers being rammed. "it can attempt a 'Death or Glory!' attack in the same way as infantry". The words "Tank Shock" do no even appear in this entire entry. This does not state that one must count the model as though it was being Tank Shocked instead of being Rammed. This shows that merely stating a change in the intended type of the target model changes the way it response to the Ram, both of which fall under Tank Shock.

Thats basically what I got, all of which is based upon what is written, and not by just dogging the way the rule were written and chalking it down to inconsistancy. Again, this is my own opinion and way of looking at it, and I'm sure there are a dozen others.

"I agree with Johnson!" *cookie for the ref*

Daboss: that is the best pro-rolla arguement yet and is laid out in a succint and orderly manner.

Panic: Seriously? Zero on sportsmenship because a ruling didn't go your way? I'm glad us ignorant colonials have a different sports card then you do. Minus one if you want to take the score that way.

DaBoss:

Oh, no, I definitely agree that you're arguing for rams to allow tank shock attacks against vehicles as well as units other than vehicles. That would certain fulfill the criteria for a 'special kind' since tank shocks cannot normally address vehicles.

But I think I can still show how your reasoning fails, particularly because you make certain unjustified assumptions.

No one is dismissing the following phrase as irrelevant: "Ramming is a special form of tank shock move and is executed in the same way". It concerns the relation of the ramming rules to tank shock, and is therefore relevant to discussions about the relation of ramming to tank shock.

Many people, myself included, are arguing out that this phrase is being taken out of its context. Quoted in full, the sentence containing that phrase is: "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of."

As someone helpfully noted earlier, if a vehicle is moving at the highest speed it is capable of, then it cannot shoot anyways. Therefore two relevant differences between ordinary tank shock and the special kind, ramming, can be unified and considered one relevant different. But that is not the only relevant difference. The rules tell us of another similarity, and another difference.

The similarity is addressed by the following sentence: "Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal." What is tank shocked as normal? Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank.

The difference is addressed by the following sentence:
"However, if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows." The following rules to this sentence are not the tank shock rules. This sentence can be contrasted with the similarity sentence by noting that a collision and not a tank shock is resolved when an enemy vehicle is in the way of the ramming tank.

In a collision, "each vehicle immediately suffers a hit against the armour facing where the other vehicle has impacted (so the rammer always uses its front armour)." This is not what happens in a tank shock. Since this is not what happens in a tank shock, special provision must be made for Walkers to make Death or Glory attacks, since that would otherwise be implicit in being tank shocked.

So there are two relevant differences between the Tank Shock rule and the Ramming rule, the speed at which the vehicle moves, and what happens when an enemy vehicle lies in the path of the moving tank.

To tank shock is to address a non-vehicle unit, to ram is to address a vehicle unit.

Hence ramming is a special kind of tank shock because it allows tanks to ram vehicles as well as tank shock non-vehicles.

Nurglich, you seem to be a little all over the place. You have pointed a link between the two rules, in which it talks about Tank Shock in the Ramming section. You yourself seem to also concede to the fact that Ramming is a Tank Shock that is directed at vehicles. Of course the entries for Tank Shock and Ramming would be different in their final execution, or they would be in the exact same entry. Your entire argument seems to be base upon the fact that since the two have differences, they cannot be two variations of the same thing. This leap is not based upon anything in the text.

"special type of tank shock move"

"Units other than vehicles...are tank shocked as normal".

None of these entries links directly to the Tank Shock! move on the previous page, and by your logic, it is a dead end in the rule with no instructions as to how to carry out the rest of the situation.

"tank shocked as normal"? "Whats that?", one might say if they followed what you said.

Simply put, if the action is not a Tank Shock, the entry would have no reason to read that its a "special type of tank shock move". This would be irrelevant and unnessesary. However, you cannot simply dimiss it solely on the basis of what you think was poor word choice or author's intent. Typically, the simplest explaination is usually the more likely. On the one hand, it may play out exactly as written and argued by myself, or we can begin to infer that the context of the entire passage is invalid and leads only to show a similarity in the two move, but that those similarities are moot do to the overall difference in the entries and final execution of the rule.

Please explain to me how being forced to move at top speed makes ramming not a tank shock - or what shooting has to do with ramming and tank shock. If I tank shock a unit that is 11 away from the BW, I have moved at top speed. If I ram a vehicle at any distance I have to move the BW 12". The only difference is that one allows the owning player to decide how far to move and the other mandates.

I enter a fruit eating contest. The rules say I can eat any fruit, but that if I want to eat a grape I have to eat the whole thing in one bite. A grape is still a fruit. Doesn't make any difference that I have to eat the whole thing in one bite.

If the whole discussion is to prove that ramming and tank shock don't follow all the same rules, well gosh, I knew that already by reading the book.

GW rules are permissive. The ork codex says quite clearly that the deff rolla takes affect in ANY tank shock. Nothing you have posted limits that ability. Good night.

DaBoss:

Nope, not all over the place, merely referencing the relevant text and noting how it strings together. I certainly don't concede that ramming is a tank shock against vehicles, particularly when I'm pointing out that ramming is not a tank shock against vehicles.

My argument, such as it is, is that there are two salient differences between the Tank Shock rules and the Ramming rules.

Given that I have quoted the rules, predicated it upon the differences in text, and noted the logical form of those rules, it would seem to me that my argument is based upon something in the rules.

Now, it seems obvious to me that where I note both differences and similarities in the rules, I am agreeing that they are related. If these rules are related, the question then is not whether they are related, but how they are related.

My argument is that they are related by conjunction, since, in the text of the Ramming rules, the rules describe non-vehicle units being tank shocked as normal and in addition vehicle units being rammed according to the calculation of Armour, Speed, and Mass.

To tank shock attack is to address a non-vehicle unit, to ram is to address a vehicle unit. Tank Shock allows a tank to make tank shock attacks. Ramming allows a tank to make tank shock attacks and to ram vehicles.

The phrase: "which it will tank shock or ram again!" would be curiously redundant if ramming is tank shocking a vehicle.

Hence there is good reason for the authors to note that ramming is a special type of tank shock move, because the tank shock rules are referenced in relation to an addition to them. Such an addition to the tank shock rules surely meets the requirement that this addition be a special kind, an exception to the usual.

Indeed, do not the rules say: "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed in the same way, except..." for the tank moving at its highest speed and being able to collide with other vehicles in the manner prescribed?

budro:

Being required to move at top speed means that ramming is not a tank shock, in conjunction, of course, with being able to address vehicles as well as non-vehicles, because that is not a part of the tank shock rules! The difference is, quite simply, the difference between a requirement and an option.

[Formally speaking, a requirement or the antecedent of a conditional statement is the negation of same type of disjunct in a disjoint statement. We can pseudo-code is as: (~A v B) <=> (A -> B). If you're going to make identity claims about rules, then those rules need to be formally equivalent, and if they're not equivalent (and not the same value), then they're not the same rule]

Let's discuss your fruit-eating contest analogy, keeping in mind, again, that analogies tend to import all sorts of superfluous information that can distract from the rules they state.

If you enter a fruit-eating contest, and the rules say you can eat any fruit, and that any grape so eaten must be eaten whole, then that does not change the fact that a grape is still a fruit. Yes, of course that's true. So what? That's doesn't resemble what we're talking about with Tank Shock and Ramming. Not completely irrelevant, mind you, just incomplete. So how would I make this analogy more complete?

I enter a fruit-eating contest. The only rule (the rule equivalent to Tank Shock) says that I can eat any fruit. However, this year there is an another rule as well. This rule (equivalent to Ramming) says that if you eat all the fruit on your plate, then you may win an additional prize. Now, given that you will need to meet that requirement in order to gain the additional benefit, it makes a relevant difference that you have to eat all of the fruit on your plate: because that is a necessary condition of winning the additional prize!

This discussion doesn't need to prove that ramming and tank shock don't follow all the same rules, since, as you so colourfully put it, we already know that. This discussion is, for my position at least, about showing that these differences are relevant such that they prevent the Deffa Rolla from affecting vehicles.

I have demonstrated, I believe, that the differences between the text of the two rules shows that the Deff Rolla cannot affect vehicles because vehicles cannot be tank shocked.

If you believe that nothing I have posted demonstrates the contrary, that tank shocks do affect vehicles and thus the Deff Rolla affects vehicles, is wrong, then could you please suggest what I would need to post in order to make that demonstration?

Nurglich, first you were basing your argument on the validity of the term "special", then it seemed based upon the fact that Tank Shock and Ramming are executed differently, now you seem focused on the word "except".

Indeed, the rules do say "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed in the same way, except..." for the tank moving at its highest speed and being able to collide with other vehicles in the manner prescribed. This is why its not the standard type of tank shock. If it were the SAME, there would be no reason for a special type, now would there? But it is. You cannot pick and choose what reference is similar and which is just a reference. Tank Shock is Tank Shock unless proven otherwise. If Ramming is stated as being a "special type of tank shock", but is executed different (of course it would executed different, its a SPECIAL form of the move), there is no reason to assume (YES, assume) that the maneuver is not under the umbrella, of sorts, of being a Tank Shock.

DaBoss wrote:Simply put, if the action is not a Tank Shock, the entry would have no reason to read that its a "special type of tank shock move". This would be irrelevant and unnessesary. However, you cannot simply dimiss it solely on the basis of what you think was poor word choice or author's intent. Typically, the simplest explaination is usually the more likely. On the one hand, it may play out exactly as written and argued by myself, or we can begin to infer that the context of the entire passage is invalid and leads only to show a similarity in the two move, but that those similarities are moot do to the overall difference in the entries and final execution of the rule.

If it were not a Tank Shock, it would not be included in the section entitled "TANK SHOCK!". Which it is not. It is not even a sub of that, "Death or Glory!" is the only subsection. If the action is a Tank Shock, the entry would not have specified that it is a special type of Tank Shock move and instead stated that it is a special type of Tank Shock. Tank Shock moves are NOT THE SAME as normal moves, and without those rules specifically added, Ramming is impossible.

As "any Tank Shock made" is the other side of the rules. Declare the moves. Declaring a Tank Shock against a vehicle mean the declared vehicle stops 1" away. Ramming, at best MOVES as Tank Shock (which is specifically deliniated in the rules as meaning "able to move through enemy units" ) but is only a Tank Shock move. The action and the DECLARED action are Ramming.

Kirasnth, both Tank Shock and Ramming are only moves made in the Movement Phase with no other action taken on the part of the vehicle. And as I have said previous, if Ramming is not Tank Shocking, then how do you suppose "Units other than vehicles...are tank shocked as normal"? Tank Shocked, in this reference, according some, has no reference to Tank Shock! from the previous page. If that is the case, what are they referring to in this instance? What then is "tank shocked as normal"?

Follow the rules under the Heading TANK SHOCK! for "as normal". Units get Tank Shocked and is allowed Death or Glory and ALL the rules under TANK SHOCK! of which Ramming is not one.

Did you really not understand that or was it a misguided attempt to make a point?

My point is, you, like Nurglich, seem to be picking and choosing what part of Ramming is Tank Shocking and what isn't. The entire section which begins the Ramming section begins with it being a "special type of tank shock move". You say that its only the move aspect that is similar, and I offer that its ONLY a move action. There is nothing that excludes the entire act as falling under being a variation of Tank Shock, be it special or what not. You yourself agreed that the reference to non-vehicle models in the path of a Ram refers to Tank Shock!, but then why wouldn't the reference "special type of tank shock move" not qualify just as much. It gives the exceptions to this, which would deem its execution from a standard Tank Shock and all reference to restriction therein as being different as a variant of the same thing.

Tank Shock moves are the only moves that allow a model to MOVE within an inch and in fact entirely THROUGH enemy models.

Without that stipulation Ramming would be impossible. So they delinate that it is a _special type_ of Tank Shock MOVE. To exactly clarify the similarity and difference.

I confuse nothing in this.


EDTING to add : ASSAULT also allows models to move within an inch, but is not during movement nor allows moving through anything making the destinction ACTUALLY written even more relevant to Nurglitch et al.