Deffrolla/Tankshock/Ramming

[StrikerFox]

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]

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]

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]

Reposted from [url=http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=201]here[/url]:

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]

I predict that GW will fix this shortly with an FAQ now that the new Direct-Only Deff Rolla sprue is available.

[StrikerFox]

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]

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]

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?

1. The victim unit declares whether or not it is attempting Death or Glory
2. The victim unit takes 1d6 S10 hits if it does not attempt Death or Glory, or 2d6 S10 hits if it does
3. Death or Glory, if attempted, is resolved
4. 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:

1. The victim unit, if a walker, declares whether or not it is attempting Death or Glory.
2. The victim unit takes 1d6 S10 hits if it does not attempt Death or Glory, or 2d6 S10 hits if it does
3. Death or Glory, if attempted, is resolved
4. 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
5. 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:

1. Here comes the deffrolla
2. 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)
3. 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
4. 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).
5. Is the victim vehicle a unit? Yes - see rulebook page 5.
6. 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
7. 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]

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]

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.