Deffrollas vs. skimmers

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.

**nosferatu1001**

Dash - except those are the rules for Ramming; you stop if the skimmer vehicle gets out the way.

This is not inconsistent - this is perfectly consistent.

**Hulksmash**

Orks aren't the brightest. They get confused when the smashy smash doesn't happen

The rule makes sense because no ram would hurt a vehicle except orks if you start from 2" away. So that skimmer wouldn't move if anything else hit it. Only orks are trying to hurt a vehicle from 2" away and have to stop.

To recap: Orks dumb and easily confused. They stop when no bang/smash happens.

Irrifutable Logic!!!!!!!

**I grappled the shoggoth**

I think its silly that you shouldnt just sit there because the skimmer dodged. But thems the rules. Id rather not have deffrollas work on tanks at all.

**Homer S**

So, I'm going to declare a tank shock with my dethrolla equipped battlewagon on your unit 5 feet away. I can't get to it moving my maximum, but I did declare it. Does the target unit get damaged by the dethrolla?

Homer

**Gwar!**

Homer S wrote:So, I'm going to declare a tank shock with my dethrolla equipped battlewagon on your unit 5 feet away. I can't get to it moving my maximum, but I did declare it. Does the target unit get damaged by the dethrolla?

Homer

No, because you don't declare tank shocks at units, you declare a direction, then move. If you come into contact with an enemy unit, they are tank shocked.

**Monster Rain**

That wasn't the point, Gwar.

The point was that declaring a Ram doesn't automatically deal the Deff Rolla tank shock hits.

**Gorkamorka**

Monster Rain wrote:That wasn't the point, Gwar.

The point was that declaring a Ram doesn't automatically deal the Deff Rolla tank shock hits.

Which noone is arguing, so I'm not sure why people keep bringing up the ridiculous red herring about ramming things far out of range.

**The Acolyte**

The deathroller hits just like the ramming rules so the skimmer would get to dodge as normal!

**Monster Rain**

@Gorkamorka:

It was argued a few posts back by someone saying the skimmer could dodge the ram and still take the tank shock hits.

Read the thread, hoss.

**Gorkamorka**

Monster Rain wrote:@Gorkamorka:

It was argued a few posts back by someone saying the skimmer could dodge the ram and still take the tank shock hits.

Read the thread, hoss.

Funny, because I did. Please, quote the post where someone arguing for the rolla hitting despite the dodge advocated it hitting models out of range.
Because I can find ~2 posts suggesting it, and they're both sarcastic responses from people against it who were quickly shut down by actual rules knowledge pages ago.
The one on this page was also quickly shut down, and your post added nothing to the argument.

The point is a complete nonstarter, as it ignores the rules entirely AND has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
Hoss.

**Monster Rain**

So... You just said that you found the posts I was referring to, and accused me of adding nothing to the conversation in a completely off topic post?

Irony is amusing. Champ.

Gorkamorka wrote:Please, quote the post where someone arguing for the rolla hitting despite the dodge advocated it hitting models out of range.

That's not what I said, either. I was just pointing out that it's just as crazy to imply that a skimmer that dodged takes the hits as it is to try to hit models out of range. In my humble opinion, of course.

ncaa_40k wrote: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.

And this is the post I referred to at the beginning of all this crankiness.

Go in peace, fair brother.

Dashofpepper wrote:
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.

Sorry I didn't catch this earlier. I see what you're saying, but I just chalk it up to where game mechanics don't match up with common sense. Kind of when you roll for difficult terrain with your infantry and roll snake eyes, when the terrain is only 2 inches away.

**insaniak**

Dashofpepper wrote: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.

It works that way to avoid forcing you to move the skimmer if the tank would finish its movement underneath it.

**visavismeyou**

ncaa_40k wrote: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.

wrong

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote: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.

Not a strange result at all... The skimmer does not block movement:

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.

**insaniak**

visavismeyou wrote:Not a strange result at all... The skimmer does not block movement:

The passage you just quoted disagrees. Specifically:

...and the ramming tank stops in its
tracks (literally!), its crew confused and disappointed.

**Monster Rain**

insaniak wrote:
visavismeyou wrote:Not a strange result at all... The skimmer does not block movement:

The passage you just quoted disagrees. Specifically:

...and the ramming tank stops in its
tracks (literally!), its crew confused and disappointed.

Well, the crew stops but not because the skimmer blocked it.

**visavismeyou**

Gorkamorka wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:That wasn't the point, Gwar.

The point was that declaring a Ram doesn't automatically deal the Deff Rolla tank shock hits.

Which noone is arguing, so I'm not sure why people keep bringing up the ridiculous red herring about ramming things far out of range.

If you accept that the skimmer still receives d6 s10 hits even if it dodges, then you must also accept that you can defrolla something 5 feet away and still get the d6 s10 hits; why? Because in both cases you are completely abrogating reason, thus, if youre taking one step over a cliff, you might as well take the other.

Just in case someone still thinks that if you roll a 3+ that the skimmer still gets d6 s10 hits from the defrolla, please reread my earlier post:

visavismeyou wrote: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

Oh and the rulebook states that a Tank shock and Tank ram are the same thing with different victims.

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:
visavismeyou wrote:Not a strange result at all... The skimmer does not block movement:

The passage you just quoted disagrees. Specifically:

...and the ramming tank stops in its
tracks (literally!), its crew confused and disappointed.

Actually, no it doesnt, you just dont understand it.

**insaniak**

visavismeyou wrote:Actually, no it doesnt, you just dont understand it.

The forum doesn't charge by the word. If you have a point to make, please make it. Simply declaring that someone is wrong without backing it up with an actual argument is considered spam, and will be dealt with as such.

**visavismeyou**

insaniak wrote:
visavismeyou wrote:Actually, no it doesnt, you just dont understand it.

The forum doesn't charge by the word. If you have a point to make, please make it. Simply declaring that someone is wrong without backing it up with an actual argument is considered spam, and will be dealt with as such.

I already did, i didn't think that quoting my entire post would be the best thing to do, but, since you insist:

ncaa_40k wrote: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.

Actually, your conclusion is in error, for simplicities sake, and because insaniak insisted, I'll direct you to my previous post which exhaustively demonstrates why your conclusion is invalid and why the "If the skimmer's controller rolls a 3+, then no D6 S10 hits happen" argument is the only valid one.

visavismeyou wrote: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.

**insaniak**

visavismeyou, the point I was asking you to explain was the one I responded to. You stated that I 'don't understand' the reason that skimmers do not block the movement of the ramming tank, despite the rules quite clearly saying otherwise.

As for the rest, if you're just going to quote the same post you have already made, there's not really any point in responding. You already made the point. If someone contests it, simply repeating yourself serves no purpose. You can rephrase your argument in an attempt to make it more understandable for the other poster, or you can simply accept that sometimes people don't agree, and move on.

**Grimgob**

Ramming a Skimmer

the ramming tank stops in contact with skimmer as normal. on a 3+ the skimmer avoids the tank, niether vehicle suffers any damage, and the ramming tank stops in its tracks (literally!)....

GW Ork FAQ

Q: does a unit that successfully stop a Deff rolla equiped Battle wagon's Tank Shock suffer any hits?

A. Yes, it does. In fact, it suffers 2D6 S10 hits!

On a 3+ a skimmer stops the tank shock but it says nothing about stopping the Rolla. It really does not specify but the FAQ seams to support the Rolla damage (actually more damage to anything trying to avoid the hit) no matter what stops the tank shock.

**insaniak**

We appear to have started going around in circles here, so I think this one's about done.