Deffrolla/Tankshock/Ramming

[Jwolf]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.