PDA

View Full Version : Deffrolla/Tankshock/Ramming



StrikerFox
08-11-2009, 07:16 PM
Okay I thougth this came up at one point or another.. but i cant find it in the rules section.

SO.. my question is this.

Do you get your Deffrolla hits when you Ram a vehicle?
I want to know why, or why not and cite any referances as best as possible.

GrandReaper
08-11-2009, 07:43 PM
Aaaaah. Can-of-worms alert. There is good evidence supporting both sides of the argument (although I'm sure people will argue that statement from both sides). You will not get a concrete answer, although the competitive stance for tournaments etc seems to be that you do NOT get the d6 S10 hits when ramming. I can see this from a balance perspective, but it would be super cool if it worked (I'm not an Ork player btw).

Now, back to your regularly scheduled rant-fest....

StrikerFox
08-11-2009, 08:06 PM
Aaaaah. Can-of-worms alert. There is good evidence supporting both sides of the argument (although I'm sure people will argue that statement from both sides). You will not get a concrete answer, although the competitive stance for tournaments etc seems to be that you do NOT get the d6 S10 hits when ramming. I can see this from a balance perspective, but it would be super cool if it worked (I'm not an Ork player btw).

Now, back to your regularly scheduled rant-fest....

HAHAH i know what you mean! i spent a good hour and a half argueing this point.. XD

honestly, yes, it goes both ways.. and i think that ALOT of my opposition is coming from the recieving end of a deffrolla.. now.. if they tried and played MY army.. im really sure they would say... "ehh.. its not THAT overpowering in practical use.." XD

Nabterayl
08-11-2009, 08:12 PM
Reposted from here (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=201):

Deffrollas certainly affect vehicles. The analysis goes like this:

Page 55 of the ork codex states, "Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit."

Page 5 of the rulebook states that a "unit" may consist of vehicles, as BuFFo has pointed out.

Page 69 of the rulebook states that ramming is a type of tank shock, as StrikerFox has pointed out.

So the question boils down to this: can a battlewagon tank shock a vehicle? In order for the answer to be yes, two things must be true.

First, the vehicle in question must be a unit, or part of a unit. Page 5 of the rulebook states that this is the case.

Second, the unit in question must be the sort of unit that can be tank shocked. It seems like this is where the debate most often centers.

The "no deffrolling vehicles" position requires its proponents to argue that vehicles cannot be tank shocked, despite or because of the fact that they can be rammed. Page 69 presents the obstacle that "ramming is a special type of tank shock."

In other words, the "no deffrolling vehicles" position collapses to arguing that vehicles cannot be tank shocked because ramming is a special type of tank shock.

This position seems obviously spurious to me. It's like arguing that a krak missile is not a missile because it's a special type of missile, or a boa constrictor is not a snake because it is a special type of snake. If B is a "special type of" A, then the set of A includes all of B. "Special type of" simply does not mean "not the same thing as but very similar to."

From a rules perspective, killing vehicles is about all a deffrolla is good for (consider that a deffrolla expects to kill only 1.9 Imperial Guardsmen on average over time, and only 0.9 MEQs - heck, it only kills an average of 2.9 gretchin per attack). From a fluff perspective, it's a fair question as to why a big spiked roller potentially allows a battlewagon to roll straight through a monolith. But on the other hand, the deffrolla doesn't behave logically with regard to infantry either. I can think of no reason why a tank shocked infantry unit suffers d6 auto-hits even if they pass their Morale test (and thus get out of the way of the tank shocking vehicle), or why an infantry unit that successfully Death or Glories a battlewagon suffers 2d6 auto-hits, but both of those cases are true. Compared to those, grinding through an enemy vehicle seems comparatively plausible to me.

The Green Git
08-11-2009, 08:38 PM
I predict that GW will fix this shortly with an FAQ now that the new Direct-Only Deff Rolla sprue is available. ;)

StrikerFox
08-11-2009, 09:45 PM
This position seems obviously spurious to me. It's like arguing that a krak missile is not a missile because it's a special type of missile, or a boa constrictor is not a snake because it is a special type of snake. If B is a "special type of" A, then the set of A includes all of B. "Special type of" simply does not mean "not the same thing as but very similar to..

HAH! i knew i wrote something about this earlier!! lol

but thanks nabterayl. in anycase, this has been the counter to everything i stand for.

okay, so ramming is "a special type of tank shock" okay.. continues on to "exactly as.." etc etc.

now it goes down to where "if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows.." (goes on to armor, distance, etc etc)

so that is what my opposition to the rule ends up basing its arguement around, that you ONLY resolve ramming a vehicle like that, and not get any deffrolla hits because its not resolved the "same as" tank shocking..

although i did point out, under deff rolla, any tank shock.. and under ramming "special type"

and funnily enough, my friend (who plays orks) says, " we all agree a tiger is a feline. we all agree a tabby cat is a feline. but, would you treat a tiger the same way as a tabby cat..?" so.. bleh, i hope they FAQ this.. :|

Norbu the Destroyer
08-11-2009, 09:45 PM
I was on the recieving end this weekend at ard boyz. My opponent took 4 def rollas and proceeded to knock out a monolith and wound my other one. We called the judge he said it was legal. I had heard this rule but never thought I would run into it. But finally experienceing it I realized somethign was wrong with the argument. Granted I am a little biased, but I play orks sometimes as well and I dont know if they necesarrily need this rule to win, I never used it. Here is my argument against and it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

pg 68 little rule book "TANK SHOCK! paragraph 2. When moving a tank, the player can declare that the vehicle is going to attempt a tank shock attack instead of moving normally. paragraph 6 last sentence If the tank accidently moves into contact with a friendly model or comes to [B]WITHIN 1" [B] of an enemy vehicle, it imediately stops mivng."
Sounds pretty clear to me, cant "tank shock a tank" But lets read on in the ramming section to see if you could justify the D6 S10 hits from ramming,

pg 69 "Ramming 2nd colum top paragraph, Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way, except the tank must move at the highest speed it is capable of." Ok you got me but lets read a few sentences more-- Next sentence"Units other than VEHICLES in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal. HOWEVER, if the ramming tank comes into contact WITH AN ENEMY VEHICLE, THE COLLISION IS RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS."

It proceed to show the chart that states for every 3" of movement you gain +1 S and for every armour point you gain +1 S and also the +1 for being a tank.

SO here comes deff rolla, Crashes into vehicle "x". Was the vehicle Tank shocking? Yes I want my deff rolla to get Tank shocking D6 hits. Resolution deff rolla stops 1" short of enemy vehicle, as stated by rule book. "oohhh I mean no....er I was ramming with my deff rolla" Ok the if it was a ram, rulebokk says resolve using the following preset chart for resolving rams. Ok battlewagon moved 12" so gets a S9 hit on vehicle "x" No note saying see Deffrolla for resolving Ram attacks on chart. If its a tank shock than it stops 1" short end of story.

Nabterayl
08-11-2009, 11:25 PM
StrikerFox, Norbu, I think the flaw in both those arguments is that they conflate "deffrolling" with tank shocking. They aren't the same thing. I don't think the deffrolla rule says that a deffrolla replaces tank shocking. It says that when you tank shock something, this other thing happens (namely, the victim unit takes d6 S10 hits). As page 69 says, the collision is resolved as follows. The question we are interested in, though, is how the deffrolla is resolved.

Let's take the example of a deffrolla-equipped battlewagon tank shocking an infantry unit. What happens?

The victim unit declares whether or not it is attempting Death or Glory
The victim unit takes 1d6 S10 hits if it does not attempt Death or Glory, or 2d6 S10 hits if it does
Death or Glory, if attempted, is resolved
If Death or Glory did not occur or the attempt fails, the victim unit takes a Morale test

Assuming one agree with that sequence (and if one doesn't then I guess this is where the debate really is), then I think one must concede that the hits inflicted by the deffrolla are in addition to the regular result of the tank shock, not the tank shock itself.

If the above is true, then it follows that when a deffrolla-equipped battlewagon tank shocks a vehicle, the following occurs:

The victim unit, if a walker, declares whether or not it is attempting Death or Glory.
The victim unit takes 1d6 S10 hits if it does not attempt Death or Glory, or 2d6 S10 hits if it does
Death or Glory, if attempted, is resolved
If Death or Glory was attempted but failed, the victim unit resolves a collision against its rear Armor Value according to the normal ramming rules
If Death or Glory was not attempted, the victim unit resolves a collision against its facing Armor Value according to the normal ramming rules

Remember that you never declare you are intending to ram. All you have to do to ram is tank shock at "the highest speed [your vehicle] is capable of," per page 69. In fact, if a vehicle does "declare a ramming attack" (I put that in quotes because it's not a rulebook concept), and some non-vehicle units get in the way, they are tank shocked per page 68, which further indicates to me that the distinction between "declaring a tank shock" and "declaring a ram" is made up. So, Norbu, the analysis would go like this:

Here comes the deffrolla
Deffrolla declares a tank shock move at top speed (per page 68, if the battlewagon did not declare a top speed move, it stops 1d6" away from an enemy vehicle and no tank shock would occur, and thus no deffrolla hits would be inflicted)
In the course of its tank shock move, deffrolla comes into contact with an enemy vehicle (which it is allowed to do because it is moving at top speed
Was the deffrolla tank shocking? Yes - ramming is "a special type of tank shock move" and thus a tank shock, unless we maintain that because ramming is a special type of tank shock, it is not a tank shock (which I can't do with a straight face).
Is the victim vehicle a unit? Yes - see rulebook page 5.
As the deffrolla is tank shocking a unit, it inflicts d6 hits on the victim unit, or 2d6 if the victim unit declares Death or Glory
Was the deffrolla ramming? Yes - the battlewagon model "[came] into contact with an enemy vehicle," so the collision is resolved per page 69, inflicting, under ideal circumstances, an S9 hit (assuming that the battlewagon was able to move 12" before contacting the enemy vehicle

StrikerFox
08-11-2009, 11:56 PM
and basically nab, thats i how interpret it as.. although, i do grant the opposing player this..

i MUST declare which of the two i am doing.. if i am "tank shocking" a vehicle, i dont get my ramming nor deffrolla.. if i ramming, i get my ramming results (first), then go on to the d6 st 10 hits.. if i dont make the clear distinction of which i have chosen, i dont get my hits.. of course, ive always been clear on it, stating how far i am "attempting" to move (which normally is my maximum distance anyway) and how much i move before i make contact with the tank.. etc.

i was thinking that maybe to "lessen the blow" i go and make my "to hit" rolls first too.. maybe?... idk.. what you think?

Nabterayl
08-12-2009, 12:10 AM
StrikerFox,

I know how much contention this issue can generate at the table, so as a sportsman, I applaud you for doing that. I think it's a mature thing to do, and to me it indicates that you have your head screwed on straight about how to approach the game.

However, away from the table where we can discuss the rules at our leisure like gentlemen, I disagree that there is such a thing as declaring a ram. If declaring a ram were a separate thing, then you couldn't tank shock enemy non-vehicles, but clearly you can (or, in the alternative, since neither tank shocking nor ramming is a targeted attack, you would simply "declare a ram" all the time, just in case).

When you tank shock, the only thing you declare is how many inches you are going to [attempt to] move. If you name your maximum allowable speed, then you are allowed to come into contact with enemy vehicles, at which point the ramming rules come into play. The closest thing there is to "declaring a ram" is declaring that you will [attempt to] move your maximum allowable inches in your tank shock. Obviously if you declare any other number of inches, you stop 1" away from any enemy vehicles, and so do not tank shock them, ram them, and/or deffroll them. If you do declare your maximum number of inches, and in the course of your tank shock move you happen to contact a vehicle, then a ramming attack occurs.

As for the sequence in which things occur, I don't think "first" is quite the right way to think about. I''m inclined to say that the deffrolla hits occur even if the result of the ram is to stop or destroy the battlewagon, on the theory that they clearly occur even if a Death or Glory attack is successful, and Death or Glory is resolved before a non-vehicle tank shock. That seems most consistent to me, and most logical as well (after all the deffrolla is on the front of the battlewagon).

However, if my opponent was already having trouble accepting the mechanics of tank shock in the first place, in the spirit of sportsmanship I'd be fine allowing the result of the ram to cancel the deffrolla hits.

StrikerFox
08-12-2009, 12:28 AM
yeah, i honestly think that if you declare rams left and right you can tank shock any intervening infantry models for "free". only thing with that is that you again, have to go your max distance. so yeah, i see what you are saing about declaring.. but one thing i forgot to mention, the reason i say "first" (although everything happens at once) if i were to say, ram a land raider.. and moved 9" before coming into contact.. that player has the odd ended chance of doing damage back to me.. in a sense, IF he were to damage me during that time, he/she would feel a small "moral" victory.. only to be crushed by d6 st10 hits shortly thereafter... i may be a gentleman when i play.. but i CAN be ruthless.. *sly grin* XD

because yes, even in a death or glory attack, the hits still go off.. so in either case, i will still count my hits.. but give the opponent that small "chance" of doing something back to me.. XD

Nabterayl
08-12-2009, 12:41 AM
Oh, certainly. That's actually why I said I don't like thinking of it as "first." I think the best way to read the rules is to say that the deffrolla hits go off regardless, but so does the result of the ram - if your deffrolla destroys an enemy vehicle, you still have to ram it, and run the attendant risks.

BDub
08-12-2009, 09:22 AM
You know, I am repeatedly surprised that this is ever debated at all. And I say that as an Ork player.

I have read the rules over and over and I have read both side's citations and it still seems very plain to me that Tank Shock happens to Infantry Units (including bikes) and and Ramming happens to Vehicles (including Walkers except they get a DoG attack). I cannot (even though I would love it) justify to myself that the death rolla enhances ramming in any way.

The spirit of the death rolla is that it rolls over and squashes regular infantry and not vehicles.

It would be nice if GW gave the death roll an additional +1 for mass or something.

Nabterayl
08-12-2009, 09:27 AM
I feel the same way from the opposite standpoint, BDub, so fair enough :p Let me ask you:

Is ramming a type of tank shock?
If no, what do you do with "Ramming is a special type of tank shock?" (p. 69)
If yes, why would the deffrolla not apply?

Norbu the Destroyer
08-12-2009, 12:23 PM
Your argument doesnt make sense. It doesnt matter that ramming is a special type of tank shock. If you tank shock a vehicle you stop 1" short of enemy vehicle. Done. Ok so Ram the enemy tank, fine, rule book says ramming is resolved as follows and they provide the chart, I dont see how you can justify "tank shocking" an enemy vehicle. You RAM enemy vehicles and it is resolved with a pre set of damage modifiers. You can tank shock a unit, but if that unit is an enemy vehicle, you stop 1" short as per rule book. Anything other than that and you are stretching the rules in the orks advantage. Think about the logic of Orks putting a steamroller on the front of a battlewagon and now they crash into enemy armour 14 vehicles and put d6 S10 hits into the vehicle while recieving no damage, I think that sounds a little broken to me. Granted some armies have advantages that are frustrating, lash prince, demons deep strike, Vulcans ability, but that works within the rules, the deff rolla argument that a tank shock works as a ram but is resolved as tank shocking infantry is not right.

Nabterayl
08-12-2009, 12:51 PM
It does matter that ramming is a type of tank shock. If that is true, then it follows that when a vehicle rams another, it has performed a tank shock. If that is true, then the collision is resolved according to the rules on page 69, and because the vehicle has performed a tank shock, the Deff Rolla rule on page 55 of the ork codex will also be triggered (assuming the vehicle has a deff rolla in the first place).

If a unit that rams another hasn't performed a tank shock, then your argument is valid. But I don't see how you can say that a unit that rams another hasn't performed a tank shock given the following paragraph:


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. Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal. However, if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows.

That paragraph to me indicates that ramming is simply tank shocking at maximum speed, which allows the tank shocking vehicle to ram (collide with) enemy vehicles, unlike tank shocking at any other speed.

Plenty of things don't make sense about the deffrolla. It doesn't make sense that a great spiked roller can "bring[] the collossal weight of the Battlewagon to bear on anything in its way." It doesn't make sense that a tactical squad that destroys a deffrolla-equipped battlewagon with its squad multi-melta still suffers 2d6 S10 hits. If anything, though, the behavior of the deffrolla versus vehicles makes more sense to me than its behavior against infantry (where despite bringing to bear the "collossal weight of the Battlewagon", it allows armor saves from flak armour). In 4th edition you could tank shock all but three vehicles in the game with a deffrolla and receive no damage in return. At least in 5th edition you take a ramming hit back when you do.

Madjob
08-12-2009, 12:54 PM
The victim unit declares whether or not it is attempting Death or Glory
The victim unit takes 1d6 S10 hits if it does not attempt Death or Glory, or 2d6 S10 hits if it does
Death or Glory, if attempted, is resolved
If Death or Glory did not occur or the attempt fails, the victim unit takes a Morale test


Just a heads up, but you had your order of resolution wrong. The Deff Rolla hits are rolled and resolved before a leadership check is attempted (and thus before a declaration of DoG can be made). So the actual order goes like this:

The Battlewagon makes contact with a victim unit during a Tank Shock.
The victim unit takes 1d6 S10 hits, with wounds and saves resolved at this time.
The victim unit attempts a leadership check and either fails (and falls back), or passes.
The player controlling the victim unit decides to move the unit out of the path of the Battlewagon, or nominates a model to attempt a Death or Glory. If they choose the first option, stop here and start over from step 1 if any further units are in the path of the Battlewagon's Tank Shock.
The victim unit takes an additional 1d6 S10 hits, with wounds and saves resolved at this time.
If the model nominated to attempt a Death or Glory is still alive, the rest of the Tank Shock/DoG process is resolved as normal.

Nabterayl
08-12-2009, 12:56 PM
Ah, you're quite right. I had forgotten that you have to pass the Morale test in the first place to attempt Death or Glory. Thanks for the catch.

Norbu the Destroyer
08-12-2009, 01:49 PM
I agree a ram is a special type of tank shock, but you put the quote from the rules in one of your middle paragraphs, the last sentence reads if you come into contact with an enemy vehicle it is RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS. Then the rule book puts up the ramming chart, that is how it is resolved. Bottom line you "tank shock" you cant contact enemy vehicles. The type that allows you to "tank shock" vehicles is a special type called a ram. The ram has its own charts for resolving damage. Deff Rolla only applies to infantry as they are the only unit that is a pure tank shock, it is a special tank shock called a Ram against vehicles and it has preset damage modifiers; Speed, Armour value, if it is a tank. Thats it.

Nabterayl
08-12-2009, 02:03 PM
Wait, so because the rulebook offers a resolution for ramming, we can look no further? The rulebook offers a resolution for tank shocking infantry, too, but you don't seem to have a problem with the deffrolla being applied in addition. How is that any different?

I don't see where you're getting this "pure" tank shock vs. "special" tank shock distinction. Even if we granted it, though, the deffrolla applies to "any" tank shock.

The logic you're using is turning on the wrong point, I think. You're arguing that because the rulebook says what happens when you ram a vehicle, that and only that can happen. That can't be true.

If the ork codex said, "A Battlewagon equipped with a Deff Rolla inflicts D6 S10 hits on any vehicle it rams, in addition to the normal effects of ramming," then you'd concede that deffrollas applied to ramming vehicles, right? But the logic you're using - that page 69 says what happens when you ram, ramming is "resolved as follows" and "that's it," would disallow that.

So I assume the logic you mean to use is, "Page 69 says what happens when you ram, unless a codex says otherwise." Right?

Which brings us back to the question of whether the ork codex says otherwise. It says that any tank shock inflicts D6 S10 hits. You concede that ramming is a type of tank shock. I assume you concede that if A is a type of B, then a rule that applies to B necessarily applies to A (e.g., "Any time a unit is struck by a missile, it suffers Instant Death" would apply to krak missiles, even though krak missiles are a special type of missile). Which leaves us with the uncomfortable fact that the ork codex does say otherwise.

The Mystic
08-12-2009, 02:14 PM
I agree a ram is a special type of tank shock, but you put the quote from the rules in one of your middle paragraphs, the last sentence reads if you come into contact with an enemy vehicle it is RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS. Then the rule book puts up the ramming chart, that is how it is resolved. Bottom line you "tank shock" you cant contact enemy vehicles. The type that allows you to "tank shock" vehicles is a special type called a ram. The ram has its own charts for resolving damage. Deff Rolla only applies to infantry as they are the only unit that is a pure tank shock, it is a special tank shock called a Ram against vehicles and it has preset damage modifiers; Speed, Armour value, if it is a tank. Thats it.

He is not desputing how the ramming is resolved. He is simply saying that the Deffrolla's hits are in addition to it.

More importantly, Ramming is NOT a rule on it's own but an expansion of the Tank shock rule. Therefore, it is still a Tank shock move and subject to the Deffrolla's modifiers.:D

Norbu the Destroyer
08-12-2009, 02:29 PM
The ork codex states you can tank shock a unit, not a vehicle. It does not say if you Ram you gain d6S10. It also states the unit may choose to death or glory, since vehicles can not death or glory against other vehicles it leads me to believe the intention was that the deff rolla was to be used against inf. Now units take no damage from being tank shocked, unless they death or glory, so I dont have a problem with a special item in a codex saying that it causes damage to an infantry unit, because they are factoring in the unit can make armour saves. The wargear was set up to be balanced, and an anti-inf tactic, not an anti tank. If you are drawing the conclusion that ramming is a tank shock so you can use the deff rolla to ram the rules state how to resolve the damage against vehicles. Against inf. the deff rolla causes its wounds because there is no chart in the tank shock section that states here is damage to unit. There is death or glory or jump out of the way.
Lets use rectangles and squares. Tank shock and ram. Ramming is a special type of tank shock. A square is a special type of rectangle. Because you can use tank shock "rectangle" against a unit doesnt mean you use it as a ram "square". You use tank shock against inf. Ram vs vehicles. Ram is a special type of tank shock. But it is called a ram. If the deff rolla was intended to be used against vehicles, it would have been reffered to as a ram, not tank shock, and there would not be mention of death or glory.

Bulwark
08-12-2009, 02:44 PM
Against inf. the deff rolla causes its wounds because there is no chart in the tank shock section that states here is damage to unit.


First, let me say that locally, we play that the deffrolla cannot hurt vehicles. With that being said, I see the flow in your argument.
Your argument basically states that the Big Rule Book overrides the codex special rules. In this specific case, the big rulebook has a chart, and that chart does not mention deffrollas.
Can you do me a favor? Can you look in the big rule book at the chart where it describes what happens when a vehicle is destroyed? If we assume that charts in the main rule book override rules in a codex, than that would also mean the ork ramshackle rule cannot happen to vehicles, becuase the main rule book clearly has a chart and it specifically states that when your vehicle is destroyed, everyone inside takes a hit.
Rules in the big book never override rules in a codex. It is the other way around.

And secondly, anyone who plays multiple monoliths against an ork army should never be complaining :D

Nabterayl
08-12-2009, 02:49 PM
The ork codex states you can tank shock a unit, not a vehicle.
Page 5 of the rulebook makes it clear that the types of "units" are infantry, beasts and cavalry, monstrous creatures, jump infantry, artillery, bikes and jetbikes, and vehicles. There is no basis in the rulebook for stating that vehicles are not units.



leads me to believe the intention was that the deff rolla was to be used against inf.
If that was their intention, they did a damn poor job of enacting it. The ork codex was released just prior to 5th edition, so for the first few months of its release it was played in 4th edition. In 4th edition, a deffrolla-equipped battlewagon could tank shock any vehicle so long as the it could move and the vehicle's frontal Armor Value was 13 or lower, which is most (but admittedly not all) of the vehicles in the game. As page 70 of the 4th edition rulebook said:


Next, measure to see if any enemy units will be reached by the tank. ... If a unit is overrun by a tank, and individual models would end up underneath the vehicle, they must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance (maintaining unit coherency), but otherwise the unit is unharmed. Vehicles with an equal or higher frontal Armour Value, or that are immobilised, do not have to move, and their presence will effectively stop a Tank Shock at a 1" separation distance. ... If an infantry unit has to move models in response to a Tank Shock, it must take a Morale check. Vehicles only have to 'give way' and no check is taken.

Thus, at the time the ork codex was written, the rule was that a deffrolla-equipped battlewagon could tank shock any non-immobilized vehicle with a frontal AV of less than 14, which is every non-immobilized vehicle in the game except for Leman Russ variants, monoliths, Land Raiders, and other battlewagons. Since that was the rule at the time of writing, I strongly disagree that there is any evidence that the intent was for the deffrolla to be used against infantry only.


Lets use rectangles and squares. Tank shock and ram. Ramming is a special type of tank shock. A square is a special type of rectangle. Because you can use tank shock "rectangle" against a unit doesnt mean you use it as a ram "square". You use tank shock against inf. Ram vs vehicles. Ram is a special type of tank shock. But it is called a ram. If the deff rolla was intended to be used against vehicles, it would have been reffered to as a ram, not tank shock, and there would not be mention of death or glory.

Since the ork codex was published while 4th edition was still current, and 4th edition did not contain a "ram" concept, the deffrolla rule could not have referred to ramming. But your example is off.

Let's say that you have a rectangle and a square. Somebody asks you how many rectangles you have. The correct answer is two, since a square is a special type of rectangle. A square is a special type of rectangle even though it has a special name, and even though in everyday speech we never call a square a rectangle.

So it is with tank shock. You have what you call "regular" tank shock, and ramming, which is a special type of tank shock. You have a rule that applies to "any tank shock." Somebody asks how many of these two situations that rule applies to. The correct answer is two, since a ram is a special type of tank shock. A ram is a special type of tank shock even though it has a special name, and even though in everyday speech many people never call ramming tank shocking.

The Mystic
08-12-2009, 02:51 PM
The ork codex states you can tank shock a unit, not a vehicle. It does not say if you Ram you gain d6S10. It also states the unit may choose to death or glory, since vehicles can not death or glory against other vehicles it leads me to believe the intention was that the deff rolla was to be used against inf. Now units take no damage from being tank shocked, unless they death or glory, so I dont have a problem with a special item in a codex saying that it causes damage to an infantry unit, because they are factoring in the unit can make armour saves. The wargear was set up to be balanced, and an anti-inf tactic, not an anti tank. If you are drawing the conclusion that ramming is a tank shock so you can use the deff rolla to ram the rules state how to resolve the damage against vehicles. Against inf. the deff rolla causes its wounds because there is no chart in the tank shock section that states here is damage to unit. There is death or glory or jump out of the way.
Lets use rectangles and squares. Tank shock and ram. Ramming is a special type of tank shock. A square is a special type of rectangle. Because you can use tank shock "rectangle" against a unit doesnt mean you use it as a ram "square". You use tank shock against inf. Ram vs vehicles. Ram is a special type of tank shock. But it is called a ram. If the deff rolla was intended to be used against vehicles, it would have been reffered to as a ram, not tank shock, and there would not be mention of death or glory.

Firstly, a vehicle is still a unit regardless if it can or can't elect Death or Glory.

Secondly, the Ork codex was printed pre 5th edition so it could not reference a ram because the manouver did not exist.

And thirdly, you are jumping into RAI. That still does'nt change the fact that, RAW, ramming is an expansion of the Tank shock rules and not a rule of it's own. The Deffrolla's modifiers would still apply because it IS a Tank shock manouver.

Madjob
08-12-2009, 03:06 PM
The ork codex states you can tank shock a unit, not a vehicle.

A vehicle is a unit. Period. This can be proven with multiple citations from the rulebook, one of which Nabterayl has pointed out to you multiple times. Another would be the rules for Dawn of War deployment. Under normal conditions, a vehicle can't suffer a Tank Shock thanks to the 1" stop rule, and indeed there isn't much point as vehicles don't have a leadership value. But once a full-move Tank Shock has been declared, the end result of a Ram can be achieved, and a vehicle can 'invisibly' be Tank Shocked (meaning that it happens, but there is no effect because the vehicle does not and cannot test for leadership) because the condition of the vehicle being in contact with the unit has been fulfilled. This is what triggers the Deff Rolla, which needs only the condition that a Tank Shock begin - not that it resolve or have any other sort of effect.


It does not say if you Ram you gain d6S10. It also states the unit may choose to death or glory, since vehicles can not death or glory against other vehicles it leads me to believe the intention was that the deff rolla was to be used against inf. Now units take no damage from being tank shocked, unless they death or glory, so I dont have a problem with a special item in a codex saying that it causes damage to an infantry unit, because they are factoring in the unit can make armour saves. The wargear was set up to be balanced, and an anti-inf tactic, not an anti tank. If you are drawing the conclusion that ramming is a tank shock so you can use the deff rolla to ram the rules state how to resolve the damage against vehicles. Against inf. the deff rolla causes its wounds because there is no chart in the tank shock section that states here is damage to unit. There is death or glory or jump out of the way.

The Ork codex was written before the 5th edition Ram rules were released to the public. Therefore until GW gives a clear FAQ to this issue, we have to run off a combined interpretation of the Deff Rolla rules and the Tank Shock/Ram rules. Furthermore, the Deff Rolla damage is separate from the subsequent Ram damage, so I don't see how the presence of a table for determining Ram damage has any impact on the effect of a Deff Rolla.


Lets use rectangles and squares. Tank shock and ram. Ramming is a special type of tank shock. A square is a special type of rectangle. Because you can use tank shock "rectangle" against a unit doesnt mean you use it as a ram "square". You use tank shock against inf. Ram vs vehicles. Ram is a special type of tank shock. But it is called a ram. If the deff rolla was intended to be used against vehicles, it would have been reffered to as a ram, not tank shock, and there would not be mention of death or glory.

But what if the Rectangle and the Square have a pair of faces the same size? Then they both fit in a square hole. And see my point above about why there's no reference to a Ram rule in the Deff Rolla entry. Oh yea, and Walkers are vehicles that can Death or Glory - what are we supposed to do if a Walker attempts a Death or Glory during a Ram when we specifically have a clause in our rules that says a unit attempting a Death or Glory suffers 'an additional 1d6 hits'? It only makes sense when you realize that a Deff Rolla can inflict hits against the Walker from an invisible Tank Shock.

Norbu the Destroyer
08-12-2009, 03:38 PM
It seems most of you have your minds made up. To me this was never GW's intention for the use of the deff rolla, but with the sprue release they are not going to rule it out untill they get a return on their investment and then they will FAQ it. Every respectable gamer I have talked to about this rule does not think that the deff rollas should be used against vehicles. I put forth my arguments and everyone has put forth theirs, I say continue to run your 4 battlewagons with deff rollas with a Kus. Force Field Mek and barrel into the enemies ranks because 5-10 power claws, lootas, and rockets just isnt enough anti tank for you. If you want an anti tank army play Tau. If you want a balanced game leave the orks, they seem fine without the deff rolla smashing through L.Raiders. Thanks for the spirited debate. :)

Nabterayl
08-12-2009, 03:53 PM
Thank you, Norbu, for actually bothering to debate. It's nice to talk with people who are willing to engage with the actual language of a rule without bleating "rules lawyer!" So thank you very much.

Out of curiosity, how do the people you talk with (or you yourself) account for the 4th edition behavior of deffrollas? I think that the 4th edition treatment is crystal clear that deffrollas could be used against vehicles back then, even if you did sometimes run into weird situations (e.g., your deffrolla wagon tank shocks a Predator, Immobilizes it, and ... all of a sudden you can't tank shock it any more). Do they disagree that deffrollas could be used against vehicles even then? Or do they just think 5th edition took away that ability?

For the record, I do run orks, but I don't own any battlewagons, let alone battlewagons with deffrollas, and I have no plans to acquire any in the near future. For me this is a theoretical exercise.

StrikerFox
08-12-2009, 05:11 PM
It seems most of you have your minds made up. To me this was never GW's intention for the use of the deff rolla, but with the sprue release they are not going to rule it out untill they get a return on their investment and then they will FAQ it. Every respectable gamer I have talked to about this rule does not think that the deff rollas should be used against vehicles. I put forth my arguments and everyone has put forth theirs, I say continue to run your 4 battlewagons with deff rollas with a Kus. Force Field Mek and barrel into the enemies ranks because 5-10 power claws, lootas, and rockets just isnt enough anti tank for you. If you want an anti tank army play Tau. If you want a balanced game leave the orks, they seem fine without the deff rolla smashing through L.Raiders. Thanks for the spirited debate. :)

XD hehe yeah, and the way you describe it norbu, it HAS the potential to be broken.. however, i myself only run ONE deffrolla, only for the pure randomness it does. honestly, im the ONLY ork player in my group, that even RUNS A defrolla XD so again, this would only effect me.. but even then, in practice, ive only krumped those that did not take those extra precautions to STAY AWAY from me in the first place! i mean, okay, you see a battle wagon.. big whoop..but one with a deffrolla? oh.. hm.. MAYBE i should stay away from it??.. so.. honestly, the fact that i even sometimes get to USE it, is a 1/5 games it actually does ANYTHING.. XD oh wait, it really helps for those re-rolls in terrain.. XD

but yeah, thank you for that debate norbu, (and everyone else for that matter) because that honestly is the opposing factor ive been facing.. but again, i see both sides,but i still justify the fact that ork dex says "any tank shock", and ramming says "special type... executed the same way" etc.

so yeah, until theres a definate rulling, ill debate my half.. XD

Nabterayl
08-12-2009, 05:19 PM
If it's a question of, "Well, that's just broken," I ... uh, respectfully disagree. Deffrollas, on paper, are useless against infantry and great against vehicles. In practice, though, it's very difficult for a non-Fast tank to reach any enemy vehicles you actually need S10 to kill. Sure, they'll roll right over the transports in a Rhino rush, but you didn't need to pay 110 points to kill Rhinos.

15 points (it costs 20, but if you only want terrain re-rolls, pay 5 points for a ram) for a piece of anti-tank wargear that requires you to fight your way all the way to the enemy to use, when you are no faster than your enemy, have weak side armor, are open-topped, and are vulnerable to assault, doesn't strike me as broken. It also doesn't strike me as a good buy for anything other than monolith killing, though, which is why I don't use them.

GrandReaper
08-12-2009, 06:49 PM
Warned you! ;)

And trust me, whether or not the Deff Rolla works on vehicles is a significant change to how Orks are and can be played. Remember that many of the top Ork lists contain 4+ Battlewagons and that Orks traditionally have a very hard time against anything with AV14 and you'll see.

The simplest solution for what to use is to use the same ruling that 'Ard Boyz is using. It won't make everyone happy (and someone will whine about it in the next three posts I'm sure), but it's decisive and then you can get back to the table. It's not a rules issue, it's a matter of interpretation, and that will never have a unanimous ruling. Even cut and dry rules questions often prattle on for pages (see the thread on vehicle "free movement").

Cheers!

Nabterayl
08-12-2009, 07:00 PM
Oh, it totally changes the battlewagon and the general shape of the codex, absolutely. Not questioning that. I do dispute the notion that somehow deffrollas that affect vehicles is broken, or unfair, or unintended.

Stucorb
08-13-2009, 05:48 AM
Tank shock can not be done against vehicles.

Ramming is a special type of tank shock that can be used against vehicles

The Deff Rolla is a special type of tank shock that at no point in its rules does it mention it being able to be used against vehicles, Unlike the ramming rules which do.

The logical and IMO correct conclusion is that Deff Rollas cannot be used against vehicles

Sharp
08-13-2009, 06:02 AM
Tank shock can not be done against vehicles.

Ramming is a special type of tank shock that can be used against vehicles

The Deff Rolla is a special type of tank shock that at no point in its rules does it mention it being able to be used against vehicles, Unlike the ramming rules which do.

The logical and IMO correct conclusion is that Deff Rollas cannot be used against vehicles

You say "no point in its rules does it mention it being able to be used against vehicles"

But it does explicitly say the Deffrolla is used when tankshocking units. Vehicles are units.

Ramming is a type of Tank Shock. Non-Vehicle units in the way of a ram get tankshocked, since a ram is a tankshock.

Sine Ramming = Tankshock, Deffrollas can be used against vehicles.


Now, keeping in mind that this was written in 4th edition when there was no such thing and ramming and you could Tankshock Vehicles without issue, if they didn't want the deffrolla to be used on vehicles, wouldn't they have said "when tankshocking Non-Vehicle units" instead of just "when tankshocking units"

Blowupologist
08-13-2009, 07:42 AM
So what was the 'Ard Boyz ruling, and is there an official post about it somewhere?

Rapture
08-13-2009, 07:55 AM
Ramming is a type of Tank Shock. Non-Vehicle units in the way of a ram get tankshocked, since a ram is a tankshock.


And a space marine scout biker sergeant is a type of space marine scout biker, but he still can't take the astartes grenade launcher...

I have realized that the roller argument goes nowhere, I just don't think that the above logic is acceptable.

Bulwark
08-13-2009, 08:55 AM
Tank shock can not be done against vehicles.
ok, so any type of tank shock cannot be done against vehicles. ok, got it.


Ramming is a special type of tank shock that can be used against vehicles.
wait, you just said tank shock can not be done against vehicles.



The Deff Rolla is a special type of tank shock that at no point in its rules does it mention it being able to be used against vehicles, Unlike the ramming rules which do.
A lascannon is a special type of las weapon thant at no point in its rules does it mention it being able to be used against vehicles, unlike melta guns which do.

The logical and IMO correct conclusion is that lascannons cannot be used against vehicles.

darknite
08-13-2009, 08:56 AM
Pure cheese. Bright Lances, the most advanced anti-vehicle weapon in the Galaxy, pale in comparison to a cement-filled roller on the front of a truk. Monoliths laugh at Devastator squads bristling with lascannon but quake in their little living metal boots at the approach of a Deathrolla. Puh-lease, GW, FAQ this along with GK Dreadnoughts in Valkyries to the dustbin of history ASAP!

Nabterayl
08-13-2009, 10:03 AM
I don't know where you're getting that scout biker sergeants can't take Astartes grenade launchers, Rapture. I don't see that anywhere.

Darknite, Monoliths quake in their little living metal boots a lot more at the approach of a warboss with power klaw on a warbike.

It sounds like people are running out of textual arguments, but it might be helpful for those on the fence to review what the deffrolla WAS against vehicles when the codex was released, and what it has BECOME:

When the codex was released, a deffrolla-equipped battlewagon:
could inflict d6 S10 hits on any vehicle except a Land Raider, battlewagon, monolith, or Leman Russ
did not have to move at top speed to do so
could therefore potentially fire afterward, even at a different target
did not run the risk of damaging itself by using the deffrolla against a vehicle
had a 17% chance to destroy a vehicle outright with each glancing hit, and a 50% chance to destroy a cehicle outright with each penetrating hit

In fifth edition, a deffrolla-equipped battlewagon:

can inflict d6 S10 hits on any vehicle
does have to move at top speed to do so
may not fire any weapons afterward
runs the risk of damaging itself to use the deffrolla
has a 0% chance to destroy a vehicle outright with each glancing hit, and a 33% chance to destroy a vehicle outright with each penetrating hit

I realize that it's the fifth edition rules that count, and as I've said before I'll stand beside a pure textual reading of the main rulebook on this issue. But it might be helpful for people who feel like this is another "zomg so broken" moment (like nob bikers, *cough*) to realize that in most cases, the deffrolla was a lot scarier (in my opinion) when the codex was released than anybody claims it is now.

BuFFo
08-13-2009, 11:02 AM
So what was the 'Ard Boyz ruling, and is there an official post about it somewhere?

Sci Fi City in Orlando did not allow it.

Jwolf
08-14-2009, 03:14 AM
You cannot tank shock vehicles - the tank shock rules are explicit.

Now we have the line "ramming is a special type of tank shock" that explains further that when executing a Ramming maneuver the vehicle must move at maximum speed, that the vehicle tanks shocks any non-vehicle units in the path of the Ramming maneuver, and if the Ramming maneuver takes the vehicle into contact with another vehicle, there is a collision.

Notice that the rules DON'T SAY that "Ramming is a special type of tank shock that can be used on vehicles". Not at all - in fact, the Ramming rules specify that you tank shock non-vehicle units when you ram. Vehicle units take collision damage - there's a chart for that - but the rules consistently differentiate between tank shock and ramming/collisions.

The whole argument is specious, latching onto an incorrect reporting of the ramming rules. Ramming includes tank shocking non-vehicle units, but against vehicles ramming generates collisions, not tank shocks. This is entirely clear in the rules; if you doubt it, please read the rules in question, not the inaccurate quotes people give online.

I often wonder at the requests for FAQ answers when the answer "stop being obtuse and read the rulebook" should suffice.

Nabterayl
08-14-2009, 09:05 AM
Jwolf,

Am I reading you correctly as arguing, in essence, that "ramming is a special type of tank shock" means "ramming is only sometimes a tank shock?"

Dingareth
08-14-2009, 09:27 AM
No, Nabterayl, Jwolf is not saying that in the way you mean. Ramming cannot be a Tank Shock against other tanks, becuase you cannot Tank Shock them, only Ram them. Therefore, when hitting a tank, it is a Ram, when hitting infantry, it is a Tank Shock.

All Tanks Shocks are Rams, but all Rams are not Tank Shocks to put it another way. If hitting infantry, than it is a Tank Shock, and didn't become a Ram because you didn't hit a tank. If you hit infantry, and a tank, than it is still a Tank Shock, but the moment the two tanks hit, it is a Ram- a special type of Tank Shock that follows completely different rules.

oni
08-14-2009, 10:08 AM
This subject has been beaten to death. I'm annoyed that it keeps coming up. I don't know what was said and I don't care to read it. The below is the RIGHT answer.

Rules state:
"Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal. However if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows."

Ramming has a very specific resolution that does not count weaponry, wargear or vehicle add ons. Ramming is purely based on armour value, movement and vehicle type... nothing more.

The only reason ramming is described as a "special type of tank shock" is due to it being forced to move at its highest speed and causing the normal morale test to other (non vehicle) units in the way.

Bulwark
08-14-2009, 10:08 AM
All Tanks Shocks are Rams, but all Rams are not Tank Shocks
...
it is a Ram- a special type of Tank Shock

2 items cannot be subsets of each other. Either A is a subset of B, B is a subset of A, A is the same as B, or A and B have no relation.

Is Ram a type of Tankshock?
Is Tankshock a type of Ram?
Is Tankshock the same thing as Ram?
Is there no relation between Ram and Tankshock?

I don't have my book in front of me, but the quote I see thrown around is "Ram is a special type of tankshock". This would imply that Ramming is a subset of Tankshock and would inherit all tankshock rules unless specifically stated otherwise.

Now, the tankshock rules state when you shock a vehicle, it counts as a ram. I guess the big question is, 'does this preclude the normal tankshock rules?'. That is where the ambiguidy comes in. You can say with difinity until you are blue in the face one way or another, but that does not make it true. The only conclusion we can draw is to compare it to other rules with exceptions and how they are treated. For example, turboboosting bikes.
When you tuboboost, it is a special type of movement that has it's own set of rules and restrictions. Do you not have to follow the basic movement rules that are not specifically mentioned in the turboboosting section? Of course not. So why would you get to ignore all the rules and restrictions when you ram?

All that being said, I am fairly certain that ROI is that deffrollas cannot hurt vehicles. ROW is a different story.

Nabterayl
08-14-2009, 10:18 AM
All Tanks Shocks are Rams, but all Rams are not Tank Shocks to put it another way.
I don't know if that's what Jwolf meant, but this is precisely what I was referring to. If all A are B, but not all B are A, then it is true that A is a special type of B, but not true that B is a special type of A. The way you have it here is saying that Tank Shock is a special type of Ram.


If hitting infantry, than it is a Tank Shock, and didn't become a Ram because you didn't hit a tank. If you hit infantry, and a tank, than it is still a Tank Shock, but the moment the two tanks hit, it is a Ram- a special type of Tank Shock that follows completely different rules.
It occurs to me that in our zeal to stick to the text in our discussion our mental frameworks may have been obscured. I agree with everything you just said, and yet I reach a different conclusion. I assume that by "completely different rules" you mean something along the lines of "does not behave as a tank shock for purposes of page 68 or any other rule." In my mind this violates the supremacy of the codex, because you are saying that, notwithstanding the fact that a ram is a type of tank shock, it ignores a codex rule that refers to tank shocks for no better reason than the rulebook says it does not behave like another type of tank shock.

I begin to suspect that this brings us to the nub of the disagreement. It sounds to me like you read the rulebook as having two categories, on the same level of organization: "Tank Shock" and "Ram." I am guessing that if you were to write the ruklwbook based on this mental framework you would not say that either is a "type of" the other, but rather simply that they share several characteristics. Since the rulebook did say "type of," it sounds like you are either trying to make that mean "share several special characteristics," or make B a "special type of" A in that the set of B is broader than the set of A (e.g., a quadrangle is a special type of square, rather than the other way around).

I don't know if I've accurately characterized your thinking, but if I have, both of those positions seem to me to torture the natural meaning of "special type of.". And yet, as Jwolf rightly points out, page 68 is explicit, which does indeed pose a problem for my position.

The mental framework that I construct is to have two levels of organization. I posit a maneuver called "tank shock" (level one) which has two types (level two): the "normal" type, unfortunately called "tank shock," and the "special" type, called "ram.". Tank shock (level one) is a maneuver that requires the executing vehicle to pick a heading and a number of inches it will move. Tank shock (level two) is the type of tank shock that applies if the executing vehivle i) does not declare its maximum allowable number of inches or ii) does not encounter an enemy vehicle. Ram is the type of tank shock that applies if the executing vehicle does declare its maximum number of inches. The question still remains which type of tank shock the deff rolla rule applies to, and I answer that by saying both, "both" being included as a part (but not all) of what "any Tank Shock" means.

I am well aware that this approach has the vice of inferring a framework that the rulebook does not make explicit. I prefer it as the best reading, though, because it allows me to give "special type of" and "as normal" their natural meanings. Inferring a framework that seems to be demanded by the natural meaning of the text is more RAW, I think, than avoiding such a framework by giving the text a more tortured reading.

oni
08-14-2009, 10:22 AM
...

Both RAW and RAI say say NO, this can NOT be done.

See my previous post. Ramming which is defined as a "tank contacting an enemy vehicle" has a very specific way of being resolved.

GrandReaper
08-14-2009, 11:17 AM
Oni: I'm not sure where you're from (Narnia perhaps) but here things don't become true just because you really, really, believe it. :confused:


2 items cannot be subsets of each other. Either A is a subset of B, B is a subset of A, A is the same as B, or A and B have no relation.

Is Ram a type of Tankshock?
Is Tankshock a type of Ram?
Is Tankshock the same thing as Ram?
Is there no relation between Ram and Tankshock?

I don't have my book in front of me, but the quote I see thrown around is "Ram is a special type of tankshock". This would imply that Ramming is a subset of Tankshock and would inherit all tankshock rules unless specifically stated otherwise.

Now, the tankshock rules state when you shock a vehicle, it counts as a ram. I guess the big question is, 'does this preclude the normal tankshock rules?'. That is where the ambiguidy comes in. You can say with difinity until you are blue in the face one way or another, but that does not make it true. The only conclusion we can draw is to compare it to other rules with exceptions and how they are treated. For example, turboboosting bikes.
When you tuboboost, it is a special type of movement that has it's own set of rules and restrictions. Do you not have to follow the basic movement rules that are not specifically mentioned in the turboboosting section? Of course you still follow them. So why would you get to ignore all the rules and restrictions when you ram?

All that being said, I am fairly certain that ROI is that deffrollas cannot hurt vehicles. ROW is a different story.

I think this is the argument that has to be decisively overcome to show that ramming is NOT tank shocking and the Deff Rolla doesn't apply. It is well worded (although I did change a couple words in bold because I think they could have been misleading to the point) and is well defined according to basic principles of Set Theory, etc.

Just stating that since Ramming has different resolution to Tank Shocking doesn't preclude ramming from being a specialized type of Tank Shock, it is what makes Ramming special (can enter within 1" of an enemy vehicle and affect it).

Although the argument that Tank Shock is actually a subset of the Ramming rules was quite inspired too. Very well put but not quite concrete enough to end this debate.

I love GW!

Nabterayl
08-14-2009, 11:21 AM
Oni, I'm going to answer you, but nobody forced you to read this thread. If it annoys you, don't read it. If you feel a need to beat down the cheesy rules-lawyers, don't read it, because you won't find any here. This is not a discussion of how we, as players, should play the game. We all know how we play the game, and from what I know of the posters in this thread, they all do so in a gentlemanly and sportsmanlike manner. This is a discussion of what the rule says. Nothing more. No strings attached. No implications for gameplay other than those your gamer's conscience demands.


Rules state:
"Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal. However if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows."
Please see pages 2 and 3 for a discussion of the implications of the word "collision" and whether or not "is resolved as follows" precludes a codex rule from adding to the resolution.


Ramming has a very specific resolution that does not count weaponry, wargear or vehicle add ons. Ramming is purely based on armour value, movement and vehicle type... nothing more.
Again, please see pages 2 and 3 for a discussion of whether a codex can add anything to an event that has a table for resolution in the rulebook.


The only reason ramming is described as a "special type of tank shock" is due to it being forced to move at its highest speed and causing the normal morale test to other (non vehicle) units in the way.
Please see page 5 for a discussion of why this interpretation effectively inverts "ramming is a special type of tank shock" to "tank shock is a special type of ramming."


I don't know what was said and I don't care to read it.
I've been favorably impressed by how much better this thread is than other deffrolla/vehicle threads. People have put a lot of thought and effort into their posts in this thread to really engage with the language of the text and try to lay out the steps in their argument for everbody to see, rather than tossing around conclusory statements like hand grenades. You do them all a discourtesy by refusing to read what they've written and assuming that nobody has dealt with the points you raise. If you don't want to do them the courtesy of reading what's gone before, please at least do them the courtesy of not posting.

Jwolf
08-14-2009, 11:32 AM
Jwolf,

Am I reading you correctly as arguing, in essence, that "ramming is a special type of tank shock" means "ramming is only sometimes a tank shock?"

No, I'm saying that Ramming is absolutely a Tank Shock against models that can be Tank Shocked. Vehicles can be rammed and take collision damage, but cannot be Tank Shocked, so the fact that a Ramming Maneuver is a Tank Shock is immaterial - you could Tank Shock other vehicles in 4th edition, but you clearly cannot do so in 5th edition - there is an entirely different set of rules for what happens when vehicles collide. So not all Tank Shocks are Rams, and not all Rams are Tank Shocks.

Stop sticking on one sentence "Ramming is a special type of tank shock" and read the actual rules. The sentence is correct, as far as it goes. "Ramming is a special type of tank shock" because it has requirements above and beyond a normal tank shock maneuver - you must move at full speed to Ram (and tank shock during a ram). Ramming also has the benefit of allowing you to collide with other enemy vehicles, which tank shock does not allow. Again, this is defined entirely adequately in the actual written rules, with no need for supposition and player-constructed frameworks. The whole framework of "ram is a type of tank shock that affects vehicles" is both fictional and contrary to the actual written rules, and I would appreciate if you, Nabterayl, would cease holding forth on your pleasant fiction and discuss the actual written rules instead of your (nicely written and logically beautiful) flights of unrelated fantasy.

Jwolf
08-14-2009, 11:44 AM
2 items cannot be subsets of each other. Either A is a subset of B, B is a subset of A, A is the same as B, or A and B have no relation.

Is Ram a type of Tankshock?
Is Tankshock a type of Ram?
Is Tankshock the same thing as Ram?
Is there no relation between Ram and Tankshock?

I don't have my book in front of me, but the quote I see thrown around is "Ram is a special type of tankshock". This would imply that Ramming is a subset of Tankshock and would inherit all tankshock rules unless specifically stated otherwise.

Now, the tankshock rules state when you shock a vehicle, it counts as a ram. I guess the big question is, 'does this preclude the normal tankshock rules?'. That is where the ambiguidy comes in. You can say with difinity until you are blue in the face one way or another, but that does not make it true. The only conclusion we can draw is to compare it to other rules with exceptions and how they are treated. For example, turboboosting bikes.
When you tuboboost, it is a special type of movement that has it's own set of rules and restrictions. Do you not have to follow the basic movement rules that are not specifically mentioned in the turboboosting section? Of course not. So why would you get to ignore all the rules and restrictions when you ram?

All that being said, I am fairly certain that ROI is that deffrollas cannot hurt vehicles. ROW is a different story.

The quote would imply that Ram was a subset of the Tank Shock rules, and I can see how that implication might be persuasive if you aren't actually reading the rules. The rules themselves are explicit rather than implicit, so we have no need to depend on implication to determine the truth of the matter.

The tank shock rules state that when you make a tank shock move, it stops 1" away from any vehicle. So the ambiguity does not exist. Again, the actual rules are very useful in sorting out what the rules say - go figure.

The problem is that we have a segment taking one fragment of a line of an involved, detailed, and clearly defined set of rules "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move" and ignoring the rest of that paragraph and the rules for collisions which follow, then taking that sentence fragment to generate non-existent ambiguity via well-written arguments that hold no water in the face of the actual text.

Please, everyone, before posting further in this thread, have the BRB open to pages 68 and 69 and be clear on the actual text; too much throw-away commentary and beautiful prose has been wasted in meritless posts.

Dingareth
08-14-2009, 12:03 PM
And yet again Jwolf is able to get to the point more concisely than I ever could. Add one more to no, you cannot pile for me.

MasterM
08-14-2009, 12:10 PM
I'm with Jwolf on this one. Been following this argument since it's been posted as this actually this came up during an Ork-on-Ork staff challenge at a GW Store a couple of months ago where one battlewagon was ramming another one head-on (both had rollas)- the GW staff clearly didn't allow the rolla to be used; to his detriment as he was the one ramming me. So some anecdotal evidence to throw on the heap for what it's worth... rollas clearly to be used as a meat-grinder, not a vehicle-killer.

Nabterayl
08-14-2009, 12:19 PM
The whole framework of "ram is a type of tank shock that affects vehicles" is both fictional and contrary to the actual written rules, and I would appreciate if you, Nabterayl, would cease holding forth on your pleasant fiction and discuss the actual written rules instead of your (nicely written and logically beautiful) flights of unrelated fantasy.
I'm sorry if you think that my posts in this thread have been in bad faith. I don't know what I can convince you of my good-faith attempt to discuss "the actual written rules" other than providing citations and doing my best to ensure that my posts are "nicely written and logically beautiful."

I've read pages 68-69 at least half a dozen times since this thread began, and it's seemed only courteous to assume that everybody else has done the same. As far as I can tell from reading the thread, this is the first time anybody has posted the argument that you post, or at least it's the first time anybody has articulated it the way you have. If you feel that you're repeating what others have said and I have been willfully ignoring their true meaning, I'm very sorry. If I'm simply stupid for not thinking of your argument before you posted it, I don't know what I can do about that.


So not all Tank Shocks are Rams, and not all Rams are Tank Shocks.

Stop sticking on one sentence "Ramming is a special type of tank shock" and read the actual rules. The sentence is correct, as far as it goes. "Ramming is a special type of tank shock" because it has requirements above and beyond a normal tank shock maneuver - you must move at full speed to Ram (and tank shock during a ram). Ramming also has the benefit of allowing you to collide with other enemy vehicles, which tank shock does not allow. Again, this is defined entirely adequately in the actual written rules, with no need for supposition and player-constructed frameworks.
I disagree that there's no need for supposition and player-constructed frameworks, but whether something is a "framework" or not is really more a question of your philosophy of text, which is neither here nor there.


No, I'm saying that Ramming is absolutely a Tank Shock against models that can be Tank Shocked.

As I understand you, Jwolf (and I'm saying that because I really might not, not because I'm trying to be snarky) you're positing that because page 68 is explicit that "if the tank comes to within 1" of an enemy vehicle, it immediately stops moving," "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed in the same way" cannot mean what I take it to mean (re-articulated below), but must mean something along the lines of (and I apologize for putting words into your mouth; I'm trying to make sure I understand you by being able to repeat it accurately) "Ramming is a tank shock move for purposes of coming within 1" of non-vehicle enemy models or coming into contact with friendly models, and not a tank shock move for purposes of coming within 1" of a vehicle enemy model." Forgive me (truly!) if I'm being dense, but I don't see how that is different than saying, "Ramming is sometimes a tank shock, and sometimes not; it depends on the model you're about to come in contact with."

I'm truly not sure I find that switching reading more persuasive than the reading that ramming modifies the tank shock rules found on page 68. I understand that for you, the totality of pages 68-69 (or perhaps more fairly, the entire rulebook) overrides the "fragment" on page 69 that I seem so stuck on. I'm really not clear, though, on why "If the tank ... comes to within 1" of an enemy vehicle, it immediately stops moving" somehow gets to override "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way, except ..."

In favor of the modification reading (that the gist of page 69 is to override the sentence on page 68 under the right conditions), let me adduce page 73, and the fact that a walker "can attempt a 'Death or Glory!' attack in the same way as infantry." Page 73 makes it very clear that if a walker's DoG fails to stop the ramming tank, it is not removed from play but instead suffers the collision result against its rear armor. But this can surely be nothing more than a modification of the actual Death or Glory! rules, which by the terms of page 69 only apply to "a unit that has been attacked by tank shock" and "passes its Morale test," and specify "the model is removed, regardless of ... any other clever way of staying alive they can think of" as the penalty for failure.

I don't see a viable "switching" reading for pages 73 and 69. Instead it seems clear to me, taking the rules together, that when page 73 says, "If a walker is rammed by a tank, it can choose to ... attempt a 'Death or Glory!' attack in the same way as infantry," we are intended to read page 69 as if the walker were being tank shocked. This makes a lot more sense to me if a rammed walker is tank shocked, because the gist of page 69 is modify, under the appropriate circumstances, the explicit prohibition against tank shocking vehicles coming within 1" of an enemy vehicle.

I apologize if I seem rules-lawyery to you, Jwolf. I am a lawyer, so I suppose to some extent I won't be able to stop myself from thinking like one. I truly am doing my best, though, to read the rules in their totality and find an interpretation that makes the most sense of and does the least violence to the text, which I hope avoids being a "rules lawyer" in the pejorative sense.

Bulwark
08-14-2009, 12:24 PM
The tank shock rules state that when you make a tank shock move, it stops 1" away from any vehicle. So the ambiguity does not exist. Again, the actual rules are very useful in sorting out what the rules say - go figure.

According top p.68 of the rulebook, thats not quite true. The actual rules state that if it comes within 1" of an enemy vehicle, it stops moving. So, there is no rule stating that, in a pure tank shock (not ramming) that a vehicle must stay 1" away, infact, there a specific rules regarding what happens if it does come within an inch. Now, I know you are going to come back and say I am reading to much into this, however, if they intended to say that a vehicle must stay 1" away from an enemy vehicle, they would have said that, and not addressed the special case where you can come within 1".

On p.69 it states that a ram is executed in the exact same way as a tank shock except that the tank must always move at it's highest speed. It then goes on to describe what happens if you tank shock infantry and when you tank shock vehicles.

There is where it gets interesting...

The big rule book states (pardon my pseudo code):

1 if (tankshock) then
2 ...if (target == infantry) then
3 .....tankshock normally
4 ...else if (target == vehicle) then
5 .....ram

The ork codex (page 55) states:

1 if (tankshock) then
2 ...D6 str 10 hits

The debate is: does this replace line 1 or line 3 of the main rule book.

MasterM
08-14-2009, 12:45 PM
The debate is: does this replace line 1 or line 3 of the main rule book.


Don't think it replaces line 3, merely adds to it: If a non-vehicle unit, tank shock as normal (using the deff rolla rules). If the ramming tank comes into contact with a vehicle, the collision is resolved as normal.....

Seems simple enough to me. Both tank shocks and ramming must be declared separately, each under different rules (e.g. when performing a tank shock you can't come into contact with a friendly model or enemy vehicle, although ramming you can tank shock non-vehicle units that are in the way). Deff Rollas only applies to declared tank shocks.

The Mystic
08-14-2009, 04:08 PM
Don't think it replaces line 3, merely adds to it: If a non-vehicle unit, tank shock as normal (using the deff rolla rules). If the ramming tank comes into contact with a vehicle, the collision is resolved as normal.....

Seems simple enough to me. Both tank shocks and ramming must be declared separately, each under different rules (e.g. when performing a tank shock you can't come into contact with a friendly model or enemy vehicle, although ramming you can tank shock non-vehicle units that are in the way). Deff Rollas only applies to declared tank shocks.

Actually, no.

RAW, you only ever declare a tank shock and how many inchs you intend to move. Nowhere in the rules does it say that you declare a ram or a target unit.

So lets break down the second paragraph of "Ramming" on page 69.

First sentence: Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed in the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of.

So, you declare a tank shock and how many inchs you intend to move because it is executed in the same way but you must declare the maximum number of inches the vehicle can move.

Second sentence: Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal.

Ok, As you only declare a tank shock and the number of inches you intend to move, when you come into contact with units other than vehicles you resolve the tank shock as normal.

Last sentence: However, if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows.

Now, if the vehicle that declared a tank shock and declared to move its maximun number of inches comes into contact with an enemy vehicle you resolve the collision using the calculation as follows.

Now the Deff Rolla's rules, Ork codex, page 55, third sentence onwards: Any tank shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit. If the unit elects to make a Death or Glory attack, it takes a further D6 Strength 10 hits in addition to the usual affects.

So as you only ever declare a TANK SHOCK and the number of inches you intend to move the deff rolla's hits would still be accounted for in addition to any other resolutions that occures during the manoeuvre.

Loving this debate BTW!

Jwolf
08-14-2009, 05:41 PM
Going from the top down:

Nabterayl - I don't think you're arguing in bad faith, else I'd treat you badly. I do think your argument is inherently based on assumptions not supported by the majority of the text. If we remove the line "ramming is a special type of tank shock" we are left with entirely consistent rules for tank shock, ramming, and collisions - the only reason to suspect ambiguity is emphasizing a phrase which seems to exist as a transition and connector, not as a definition.
I agree the section on walkers and ramming (note not walkers and tank shock) allows walkers to make a Death or Glory action as if tank shocked. This is, I think, critical to understanding ramming as a whole. Why would walkers need the ability to take an action as if being tank shocked if they were actually being tank shocked? Obviously being able to take an action as if being tank shocked on the part of walkers means that ramming is not a tank shock - else there would be no reason for Walkers to have a special rule allowing them to take an action as if being tank shocked.

Bulwark
There are ony rules for tank shocking infantry, therefore only insertion at step 1 is possible. The "if moving within 1" of a vehicle" line is sloppy, since we know that you may not move within 1" of an enemy model without explicit permission in the rules (because the 1 inch rule tell us so). The line should read "If ...would result in the vehicle being within 1" of an enemy vehicle, the vehicle must stop outside 1", but that is part of the inconsistency that is rife throughout the book. I prefer to treat these inconsistencies as untidy writing that we should know what the writers mean (since they spell out the underlying rule exactly) not as Easter Eggs hidden to allow us to move one model 1.0001" from enemies and another .9999" from the same enemy model.

The Mystic
You don't declare tank shock when you ram. You declare a ramming tank shock, and attempt to move the vehicle the maximum distance it can move straight forward (after pivoting). Non-Vehicles in the path take tank shocks, and vehicles take collisions. So most of your case cannot continue, since the base premise is incorrect.

SeattleDV8
08-14-2009, 06:05 PM
Another spot in the rules that shows us that Ramming and Tank Shock are different.
BRB pg.69 ".....the rammer continues its move, until it reaches its maximum move distance or another enemy (which it will tank shock or ram again!"
The term 'tank shock refers to infantry, ramming to vehicles.

Nabterayl
08-14-2009, 06:28 PM
Going from the top down:

Nabterayl - I don't think you're arguing in bad faith, else I'd treat you badly. I do think your argument is inherently based on assumptions not supported by the majority of the text.
Thanks, I appreciate it.

If we remove the line "ramming is a special type of tank shock" we are left with entirely consistent rules for tank shock, ramming, and collisions - the only reason to suspect ambiguity is emphasizing a phrase which seems to exist as a transition and connector, not as a definition.
I am sympathetic to this view, and I'm aware that the book can only be treated with so much rigor. On the other hand, we'd still have to deal with "as normal," which to me indicates that the text really does mean that there is no hard distinction to be drawn between ramming and tank shocking.

The thing that seems odd to me about treating "ramming is a special type of tank shock" as dicta is that it seems to me we can get a perfectly consistent rule for tank shock, ramming, and collisions without doing so. I'm aware that doing so requires us to read page 68, which seems black and white, as subject to modification. But that seems to be exactly what page 69 says, and in line with, as you say, the general conceptual sloppiness of the book. Having later (in terms of the sequence in which they are presented in the book) rules modify earlier rules seems to be the book's general modus operandi, and the modification reading avoids some of the things I find puzzling about the switching reading.


I agree the section on walkers and ramming (note not walkers and tank shock) allows walkers to make a Death or Glory action as if tank shocked. This is, I think, critical to understanding ramming as a whole. Why would walkers need the ability to take an action as if being tank shocked if they were actually being tank shocked? Obviously being able to take an action as if being tank shocked on the part of walkers means that ramming is not a tank shock - else there would be no reason for Walkers to have a special rule allowing them to take an action as if being tank shocked.
I'm not sure I agree with that. The phrase is "in the same manner as infantry," not "as if tank shocked." The Death or Glory rules on page 69 clearly contemplate being used by a model with wounds and saves, neither of which vehicles have. So even if my reading is correct, it would be necessary to specify that walkers can Death or Glory. It would also be necessary to specify that a walker that fails its Death or Glory attempt is rammed in the rear, rather than removed from play.


You don't declare tank shock when you ram. You declare a ramming tank shock, and attempt to move the vehicle the maximum distance it can move straight forward (after pivoting).
Are you sure? I see that there is such a thing as a "ramming" vehicle, and a "rammer," but every instance I can find refers to a vehicle that is coming into contact with or has just come into contact with an enemy vehicle, which we all agree is accurately described by "ramming." It's not clear to me from "is executed the same way, except" that ramming gets its own declaration (e.g., that "I am tank shocking for twelve inches" is a different declaration than "I am ramming for twelve inches"). The rules seem ambiguous to me on the declaration point, which is another reason I think trying to make ramming a non-tank shock maneuver seems unnatural.

In response to SeattleDV8's point, I'd like to reiterate that I'm not suggesting that the maneuver described on page 68 and the maneuver described on page 69 are the same thing. It's perfectly obvious that they are non-identical, and I can see good reasons to give them different names. The suggestion is that, notwithstanding the differences between them, both maneuvers are types of an entity recognized by the rulebook known as "tank shock."

As an aside, and out of curiosity, Jwolf, under your interpretation, do you think that a Death or Glorying walker suffers 2d6 S10 hits from a deffrolla?

Jwolf
08-14-2009, 07:49 PM
At the risk of answering a question without the codex in front of me:

If I remember the Deffrolla rule correctly, models take d6 hits for a Tank Shock and d6 hits for attempting Death or Glory. A Death or Glorying walker would thus suffer 1d6 hits from a Deffrolla; 0d6 for the collision and 1d6 for the Death or Glory attempt.

It seems to me that if we need to classify these things, and we call Tank Shock the overarching rule that covers all "uses of a vehicle to contact enemy models in the movement phase" then we have two separate actions available within that rule: the unfortunately named Tank Shock [non-vehicle] and Vehicle Collisions (which occur under the heading "Ramming"). These are both types of Tank Shock (the main rule) but Vehicle Collisions are not subsets of Tank Shock [non-vehicle] which is an action available to vehicles. Tank Shock (the main rule) is not an action, and therefore cannot be performed by any model (and thus does not activate any options such as Deffrollas). This is a lot of work to go to for a rule that I believe most everyone understands correctly, and going through the entire rule set with this sort of rigor will, I believe, drive us all insane. Since I already have small children this places nothing at risk for me, but I would caution others from following me into the mouth of madness. :)

Nabterayl
08-14-2009, 08:37 PM
At the risk of answering a question without the codex in front of me:

If I remember the Deffrolla rule correctly, models take d6 hits for a Tank Shock and d6 hits for attempting Death or Glory. A Death or Glorying walker would thus suffer 1d6 hits from a Deffrolla; 0d6 for the collision and 1d6 for the Death or Glory attempt.
For reference (not that you don't have the codex, I'm sure, but for the benefit of other readers), the complete text of the rule is:

Deff Rolla: A Deff Rolla is a great spiked roller that brings the collossal weight of the Battleagon to bear on anything in its way. A Battleagon ith a Deff Rolla may re-roll Dangerous Terrain tests. Any Tank Shock made by a Battleagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength hits on the victim unit. If the unit elects to make a Death or Glory attack, it takes a further D6 Strength 10 hits in addition to the usual effects.

1d6 hits on a Death or Glorying walker makes sense to me given your read of the ramming rules; I was just curious.


It seems to me that if we need to classify these things, and we call Tank Shock the overarching rule that covers all "uses of a vehicle to contact enemy models in the movement phase" then we have two separate actions available within that rule: the unfortunately named Tank Shock [non-vehicle] and Vehicle Collisions (which occur under the heading "Ramming"). These are both types of Tank Shock (the main rule) but Vehicle Collisions are not subsets of Tank Shock [non-vehicle] which is an action available to vehicles. Tank Shock (the main rule) is not an action, and therefore cannot be performed by any model (and thus does not activate any options such as Deffrollas).
I think that's a reasonable rule of thumb to use for working through cases under the way I think the rule is written, though I disagree with the conclusion - I think if all uses of a vehicle to contact enemy models in the movement phase fall under Tank Shock (the main rule), then a vehicle collision, as a type of Tank Shock (main rule), would be triggered by the phrase "any Tank Shock."


This is a lot of work to go to for a rule that I believe most everyone understands correctly, and going through the entire rule set with this sort of rigor will, I believe, drive us all insane. Since I already have small children this places nothing at risk for me, but I would caution others from following me into the mouth of madness. :)
I don't think it's a lot of work to go to to say, "Deff rollas apply to any, and thus all, tank shocks; ramming is a type of tank shock; the general rule about contacting enemy vehicles articulated on page 68 is modified by the special case on page 69, under the conditions articulated." But I'm aware that it apparently strikes most of the player base (or at least a goodly portion of the internet and tournament organizers), and let me reiterate that I do believe in playing games where both parties agree. If I were to ever play any of you and had deffrollas in my list, I'd ask your opinion and acquiesce to your objections, with the request that you let me try to change your mind after the game. As we are not at a game, thank you to all who disagree with me for helping me understand better how the intelligent "no deffrolling vehicles" thinks about things.

Believe it or not, the group of men and women I play with are astonished when I tell them that the national consensus (or at least the internet and tournament consensus) is that deffrollas don't affect vehicles. Deffrollas affecting vehicles is the intuitive reading to them, from a textual, common sense, and even play balance standpoint. Go figure.

Sarigar
08-15-2009, 05:39 AM
Sorry to add fuel to the fire. For the 2nd round of the Ard Boyz, GW did include in their info packets given to TO's a ruling that Deff Rollas can Ram vehicles. I remember this was a huge area of contention after results were being posted from Ard Boyz round 1; in fact, some folks flat out called those who allowed Deff Rollas to Ram vehicles a cheater.

Ironically, the UK GT FAQ does not allow Deff Rollas to Ram, nor does the INAT FAQ.

Best bet is to discuss this bit prior to playing, especially at tourney venues.

Jwolf
08-15-2009, 08:05 AM
No fuel added. I'll look over the round 2 TO packet when I'm at my FLGS later today. Since John Shafer will be my guest next weekend, I'll bend his ear about this one and help him see the light. :)

Nabterayl
08-15-2009, 11:36 AM
If he takes the opposite position from yours, could you do us all a favor and [politely] try to pin him down on why? FAQs, info packets, and all that are all well and good, and I understand why a company might not want to delve into the murk of posting its logic along with its rulings, but I always find reasoning more useful.