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.

Ram is a subsection of Tank Shock, and it even tells you so - "any non vehicle is Tank Shocked as normal" (paraphrased badly there) which indicates that a ram is still considered part of a Tank Shock rule.

A ram is a special form of Tank Shock, and requires you to use both Tank Shock AND Ram rules to execute it. It is a subset of the Tank Shock rules, much like a transport vehicle is a special type of vehicle - if you remove the surrounding rules you simply cannot use it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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.

I am not arguing mathematics, I am arguing rules and restrictions. But if you want math, I will also point out that squares have special rules. If given the knowledge that an object is a square and the length of one of it's sides, you can conclude through mathematics the lengths of the other three sides.

However, if a rectangle is required to cover the surface area of exactly twice it's height, it can, because rectangle rules allow it. The length can be double the height, and still be a rectangle. A square cannot fulfill this requirement. If the situational requirements of a rectangle are impossible for a square to fill, then how can you expect it to?

Therefore, it is illogical to assume that a Tank Shock can perform the same job that a Ram can simply because a Ram inherits some rules from Tank Shocks. The rules governing the implementation of both actions are different. A square has special rules. A Ram has special rules. The rules for Deff Rolling specify Tank Shock, not Tank Shock and Ramming.

What I'm trying to say is that you can't ask a square to do a rectangles job UNLESS that rectangle's job requires a shape with 4 equal sides. You can't ask a Tank Shock to do a Ram's job unless the Tank Shock's target is a vehicle.

I rest MY case.

You're confused it seems: the square is "ram", the rectangle is Tank shock. Tank Shock describes the general case of which Ram is a special case.

Ram inherits rules from Tank shock, without which it cannot function. Ram is written with differences to Tank shock, not the other way around.

You are specifically told Ram is a special Tank Shock. Deff rolla work with ALL Tank Shocks, therefore it works with ramming.

Ram == Special Tank Shock == subset (All Tank shock) => Deff rolla works.

You're right, I did mess those two sentences up in my third and fourth paragraphs. Edited

However, the concept still applies if --- ah screw it. If I'm ever in a situation where my opponent tries to Deff Roll my skimmers, I'll just roll my 3+ skimmer avoidance roll.

Oh wait, I suppose I can't do that since it's a Tank Shock and not a Ram. How is that fair?

Another one of these threads? Really?

No definative answer should mean one thing. Ask the group you play with what they think and then go with whatever outcome you and your group finds the most fun in playing.

Unless you like reading pages and pages of endless argument over a topic thats been going on since 5th came out.

synchronicity wrote:You're right, I did mess those two sentences up in my third and fourth paragraphs. Edited

However, the concept still applies if --- ah screw it. If I'm ever in a situation where my opponent tries to Deff Roll my skimmers, I'll just roll my 3+ skimmer avoidance roll.

Oh wait, I suppose I can't do that since it's a Tank Shock and not a Ram. How is that fair?

You're apparently even more confused than you initially appeared. Skimmers work on ramming, a specific action that happens to be a subset of tank shock. You can avoid a ram with a skimmer all you like, the fact that ramming is a subset of tank shocking has no bearing on this fact.
The only thing unclear here is the deff rolla rules, since the language on what constitutes a 'victim' (is the deff rolla performing the action enough, even if you avoid the ram hit?) and when the hits are applied is unclear (especially since the FAQ states that you take the full 2d6 hits even if you destroy or immobilize the tank with a death or glory).
I would bet on RAI being that the rolla attacks are also avoided, but the raw seems unclear to me.

Fairness has no place in a RAW argument.

Regardless of how closely related they are, a Ram is not a Tank Shock. Continually the phrase from the book is misquoted to prove that it is.

A Ram is a special type of tank shock move, not a Tank Shock. The grammatical difference has specific denotations, which is that they are in fact different actions.

And to those arguing that a Ram is a subsection of Tank Shock, why is it an equal subheading? In order for it to be considered a subsection, it would have to be a lesser order subheading. It is not, and thus basic reading skills tell us that it is not a subsection. Rather, Tank Shock and Ramming are subsections of Tanks, each their own separate, yet related moves.

Dracos wrote:Regardless of how closely related they are, a Ram is not a Tank Shock. Continually the phrase from the book is misquoted to prove that it is.

A Ram is a special type of tank shock move, not a Tank Shock. The grammatical difference has specific denotations, which is that they are in fact different actions.

And to those arguing that a Ram is a subsection of Tank Shock, why is it an equal subheading? In order for it to be considered a subsection, it would have to be a lesser order subheading. It is not, and thus basic reading skills tell us that it is not a subsection. Rather, Tank Shock and Ramming are subsections of Tanks, each their own separate, yet related moves.

Oh look, another one!

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ram is a subsection of Tank Shock, and it even tells you so - "any non vehicle is Tank Shocked as normal" (paraphrased badly there) which indicates that a ram is still considered part of a Tank Shock rule.

A ram is a special form of Tank Shock, and requires you to use both Tank Shock AND Ram rules to execute it. It is a subset of the Tank Shock rules, much like a transport vehicle is a special type of vehicle - if you remove the surrounding rules you simply cannot use it.

That phrase does in no way say that the Ram counts as a Tank Shock. Just because a Ram causes Tank Shock to intervening infantry does not mean that a Ram counts as a Tank Shock. Moreover, even your own comparaison negates your scenario since the Transport is a subsection in the Vehicle rules, whereas the both Tank Shock and Ramming are equal order subsections of Tanks. This means that while a transport is certainly a subsection of vehicles, Ramming is NOT a subsection of Tank shock.

So far I have not seen one shred of logical proof as to why a Ram counts as a Tank Shock.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorkamorka wrote:Oh look, another one!

Another what?

Well, it seems I am woefully inadequate when it comes to getting my argument across with regards to this matter, since it seems only one person I have discussed it with understood it.

So I will throw in the towel for now and wait till I finish my thesis on "Why a Ram is not a Tank Shock and what this means for cultural minorities in todays society"

I agree with Drunkspleen and nosferatu1001

Dracos wrote:
So far I have not seen one shred of logical proof as to why a Ram counts as a Tank Shock.

"A Ram is a special type of tank shock...."

dietrich wrote:There is no consensus opinion. This issue is about 50/50 on either side of the debate. Just to make it more confusing, in the second round of Ard Boyz, it worked, and in the finals (if I remember correctly), it didn't. So, not even the national tourney run by GW US Sales can make up their mind! The INAT FAQ, which is probably the most widely used fan-made FAQ says that you can't. So, I would default to that position.

Well just to be clear on that 'faq'. Yak stated they were changing the faq based on a hypothetical thought that gw was going to 'officially' rule that way.

Take the inat faq with a grain of salt.

sourclams wrote:

Dracos wrote:
So far I have not seen one shred of logical proof as to why a Ram counts as a Tank Shock.

"A Ram is a special type of tank shock...."

And as always when this passage is quoted by supporters of deffrollas hitting vehicles, your forget the word "move" at the end. I already posted a refutation to what you are claiming, I think it can be found on page 2.

The reason the word move is important on the end is because it means that it is a special type of move with the move verb modified by the tank shock description. A ram is a type of movement related to but not identical to tank shocking. I believe that sentence is to show how they are alike, you seem to be interpreting it to mean that a Ram is a subsection of Tank Shock. The structure of the rules do not support the latter interpretation imo.

This is bugging me, The line that is quoted over and over again is that very vauge line from the rule book

"A ram is a special kind of tank shock move"

SO this indicates that there are many different kind of tank shocks, like rectangles. So the question now is "Which tank shocks can we actually use our deffrollas in and which ones can't we?"

That is a good question, one which I will leave the rules lawyers to answer.

Edit: And you know we all played too many fighting games, we think of a move as a whole entire action...like hadoken.

After reading all the arguments, i think that you can deff rolla vehicles. Except I dont think that it was GW intention, and that it is just a bit of ork player rule bending so they can blow up landraiders etc.
Doesent make any difference to me, my grav tanks will just dodge!
Go get squashing leman russes. Enjoy!

Khaine wrote:After reading all the arguments, i think that you can deff rolla vehicles. Except I dont think that it was GW intention, and that it is just a bit of ork player rule bending so they can blow up landraiders etc.Enjoy!

So the fact that rollas 100% worked on vehicles in the edition the codex was written and that the codex fluff description specifically mentions them crushing vehicles leads you to the conclusion that RAI is against them working and players are rule bending for an advantage (aka cheating)?

Gorkamorka wrote:and that the codex fluff description specifically mentions them crushing vehicles

Almost, it says they crush 'light vehicles'

If people used this against buggies, rhinos, and other light vehicles I don't think there would be a problem with using this line to defend the deffrolla from RAI standpoint...(and actually, a regular ram as per ramming rules is actually more than enough to crush these vehicles.)

but explain to me how a land raider is a "light vehicle"

I can't believe I just read this entire thread.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, LEAVE THIS ALONE!

starbomber109 wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:and that the codex fluff description specifically mentions them crushing vehicles

Almost, it says they crush 'light vehicles'

If people used this against buggies, rhinos, and other light vehicles I don't think there would be a problem with using this line to defend the deffrolla from RAI standpoint...(and actually, a regular ram as per ramming rules is actually more than enough to crush these vehicles.)

but explain to me how a land raider is a "light vehicle"

Light vehicles are still vehicles. If it works against one it works against the other, however unfair you feel it is.

I'm willing to entertain any RAI discussion against it that isn't "It would break off cuz it's just welded to the front!"

AV 12- = Light Vehicle

AV 13+ = Heavy Vehicle

That's what I'd say.

Orkeosaurus wrote:AV 12- = Light Vehicle

AV 13+ = Heavy Vehicle

That's what I'd say.

What about the vehicles in between who eat right and get regular exercise?

sourclams wrote:

6 months ago the INAT FAQ actually allowed it. They later flipped their stance, so it's not even that clear to the people writing the FAQ.

Question then is why did they flip=flop? Wouldn't have anything to do with a conference call with the studio, would it? Or to match the UK GT FAQs.... ? In other words, they "flip-flopped" so as to match what GW said on the issue.

If it is truly "what GW said on the issue" why isnt it in the main FAQ?

UK GT FAQ /= Studio FAQ

nosferatu1001 wrote:If it is truly "what GW said on the issue" why isnt it in the main FAQ?

UK GT FAQ /= Studio FAQ

Because they only answer questions that they think are unclear. They must think this one is obvious (as do I)...................

Edit: Altho I will agree that many times their choice of what to answer and what not to answer leaves me baffled.

don_mondo wrote: Because they only answer questions that they think are unclear. They must think this one is obvious (as do I)...................

Good to see you believe that the DeffRolla being able to TS another vehicle is obvious as well. The obvious thing to me is that this is not clear and will only be so after an official ruling is made by GW. This could easily be cleared up by a 10 second edit of the FAQ.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

don_mondo wrote: Because they only answer questions that they think are unclear. They must think this one is obvious (as do I)...................

Good to see you believe that the DeffRolla being able to TS another vehicle is obvious as well. The obvious thing to me is that this is not clear and will only be so after an official ruling is made by GW. This could easily be cleared up by a 10 second edit of the FAQ.

No when you've gotten to the point where the issue boils down to certain people 'confuse' IS with IS NOT, faq's won't help, Forumposts won't help anymore either.
There is no unclear, it either IS or IS NOT. It's as black and white as it'll ever get.

A Ram Attack is a parallelogram.
A Tank Shock Attack is a rectangle.
Both are quadrilaterals.

The movement for attacking is a Quadilateral.

When you tank shock it is infantry. When you Ram it is a vehicle. These are mutually exclusive with minor overlapping areas. The movement is the overlapping area.

Removing the word move from "A Ram is a special tank shock move" makes your logical fallible because you are changing the topic from tank shock move to tank shock. Tank Shock Move != Tank Shock. Tank Shock move is a subordinate of Tank Shock. Tank Shock Attack is the other Subordinate.

This logic goes around and around but the fact that there is horrendous logic in this makes it into a shouting match about who is loudest. Just because you yell louder does not make your case correct. You have to refute the points - and yelling the same thing over and over again does not refute the points made by the opposition.

Under Tank Shock Rules it says that you must stop when you come within 1" of a vehicle. A Deff Rolla states that it gives D6 S10 hits in a tank shock. It does not say that it gives D6 S10 hits in a Ram. A Ram is used against a vehicle - not a tank shock. You can tank shock infantry units during a Ram. Both a Ram and a Tank Shock are Tank Shock moves. I said Moves because a Tank Shock Move is the rectangle in this case - Tank shock is a red square and Ram is a yellow square. A red square != a yellow square. Just like an infantry unit is not a vehicle.



And as for the Fluff: Bikes are light vehicles which can be tank shocked. Transports are light vehicles that can be rammed. Bikes satisfy the fluff aspect. Transports do not. I've solved your fluff argument about allowing light vehicles (in fluff terminology) to be hit by the Deff Rolla without allowing vehicles (in 40K terminology) to be hit by the deff rolla.

don_mondo wrote:Edit: Altho I will agree that many times their choice of what to answer and what not to answer leaves me baffled.

Remember the third edition Ork codex FAQ? (and I'm paraphrashing here, but it's pretty close)
Question, "Can a looted rhino carry orks? In the SM codex, it says that its transport capacity is 10 Space Marines."
Answer, "I shouldn't bother recognizing this question by answering it. (but the answer is yes)."

Personally, until GW says otherwise, I agree wth sourclams, but I'm pretty much willing to d6 before the game starts.

The broken oddity about some 5th Edition codexes is the concept of Tank Squadrons as a "unit". If you are one who adheres to the belief that a Deff Rolla can execute a Ramming attack, then you could inflict d6 S10 hits on a squadron. This would suggest that Deff Rolla could possibly take out an entire tank squadron by ramming a single vehicle.

Quite broken, and that it itself is enough to suggest that this is not how the Rolla is used.