PDA

View Full Version : Deff rollaz 2.



Deff Jaw
13-07-2009, 02:19
It nevers says in the codex/rule book/FAQ that deff rollaz CAN'T be used against tanks, so then why won't they let them do that.

Mannimarco
13-07-2009, 02:32
cos of the multiple s10 hits, it stops you moving 1 inch and wrecking an enemy tank

and before i get flamed i run a deffwing army in 4 wagons, so im on the ork side here!

artyboy
13-07-2009, 03:43
"Ramming is a special form of tank shock"

"Any tank shock made by a battlewagon with a deff rolla causes d6 strength 10 hits on the victim unit"

What else is there to debate?

Green Shoes
13-07-2009, 03:53
The thing to debate is whether you use RaW or RaI. To most people, being able to pay such a low amount of points to do so much (potential) damage to an enemy vehicle implies that the Deff Rolla was never intended to be used in such a manner.

RaW says yes, and (IMO at least) RaI says no.

drummerholt1234
13-07-2009, 04:00
GW ruled that it can in the 'ard boyz and its not that unfair. The battlewagons is only a normal tank and therefore can only move 12" (13" with RPJ). So its not that hard to stay out of the arc that it can move. It is also open-topped and most players will not give it the 'ard case to make it no so... Cry about it if you must...

Grimbad
13-07-2009, 04:08
RAI, the fluff for the battlewagon mentions smashing vehicles. ("another type of battlewagon is the krusha... steamrollering enemy infantry and light vehicles, cackling all the while," last paragraph at top, p. 55 codex: orks) They clearly had this in mind, and I think it's as intended that they can do it to vehicles. Without that, it's horribly overpriced.

Lazarus15
13-07-2009, 04:19
Notice it is awefully quiet in this thread from the other side (the ones who try and debate the obvious).....*crickets* hmm...I wonder why.

artyboy
13-07-2009, 04:51
At 20 points isn't the deffrolla by far the most expensive vehicle upgrade in any codex besides ordnance weapons? With that in mind, it's hard to make the case that it's underpriced since the battlewagon actually has to get close enough to ram for it to be viable. A deffrolla is a huge steamroller that's encrusted with spikey, crumpy, smashy bits. Whether it's a vehicle or a unit of infantry it's going to do some damage when it gets run over. The battlewagon pushing it along is just icing on the cake.

Staurikosaurus
13-07-2009, 04:57
It nevers says in the codex/rule book/FAQ that deff rollaz CAN'T be used against tanks, so then why won't they let them do that.

Nowhere in the codex or rulebook does it say you can't change all the stats on your figures to 10 and change all your armour saves to 2+ with a 2+ invulnerable, each with re-rolls either.

Nazerth
13-07-2009, 04:59
Heh, rules-wise... no reason it wouldn't work on vehicles. And that's being lawyery with the words and all.

Logic-wise... no reason it wouldn't work. As stated, big-arsed steam roller of blades, spikes, and flattened enemies pushed by, likely, more than ten tons of steel and horsepower. Tell me with a straight face that you don't think it'll crunch one side of a Russ like a tin can?

Whiney-you-can't-kill-my-tank-with-that-wise... I guess it just shouldn't work. :p

But driving minimum distance for maximum effect... congrats, you are an **** who plays the rules, not the game.

Lord Humongous
13-07-2009, 05:11
"Ramming is a special form of tank shock"

"Any tank shock made by a battlewagon with a deff rolla causes d6 strength 10 hits on the victim unit"

What else is there to debate?

Well, yah... if you selectively (mis)quote the rules, it tends to avoid debate. Of course, so do the actual rules.

TANK SHOCK: "If the tank ... comes to within 1" of an enemy vehicle, it immediately stops moving."
RAMMING: "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move... Units other than vehicles are tank shocked... collision is resolved as follows."

So, if only the tank shock (and thus Deff Rolla) rules apply, you can't contact an enemy vehicle. If you contact an enemy vehicle per ramming, you use the impact rules on p. 69, but at no point is there a call to apply the Deff Rolla effect vs a vehicle. The only reason tank shocks are even mentioned in ramming is to clarify the type of movement used, and its effect on NON vehicle units contacted during that movement.


As stated, big-arsed steam roller of blades, spikes, and flattened enemies pushed by, likely, more than ten tons of steel and horsepower. Tell me with a straight face that you don't think it'll crunch one side of a Russ like a tin can?

Its not gonna do any more damage to a large vehicle than a hedgerow cutter (dozer blade) mounted on a Land Raider would.

Lord Humongous
13-07-2009, 05:22
At 20 points isn't the deffrolla by far the most expensive vehicle upgrade in any codex besides ordnance weapons?

Daemonic possesion is 20 points. A Havoc Launcher is 15. Sponson heavy bolters (for a CSM predator) are 30, and that's one of the cheaper gun options.

Nazerth
13-07-2009, 05:35
...
Its not gonna do any more damage to a large vehicle than a hedgerow cutter (dozer blade) mounted on a Land Raider would.
Now now, you're just misrepresenting scale now. The size of a deff roller is pretty colossal, even the weedy little one GW has made for their rather weedy battlewagon.

Now, a ride on road roller's front roller can weigh up to 21 tons. Now, looking at the Ork ideals of "bigger is better" and "let's use really weight-inefficient materials", I would say an Orky deffroller would weigh in at well over 30 tons. Now, the engine required to push something that behemoth at a ramming speed into anything would be insane, but we also know that orks like to dangerously overpower their vehicles. So, in the event that it would be possible to drive a 30 ton rolling cylender of spikey doom into a tank, any tank, it is going to seriously cause harm.

Also, if some dude with a glove coated in a disruptive power field can punch a tank to oblivion, why, why, WHY would that giant tube of death NOT?

*removes tongue from cheek*Though, your interpretation of the rules problem does indeed make some sense...

Serebrate
13-07-2009, 05:46
To counter the logical argument, it would be very easy to dodge a heavy, unmanageable vehicle. Assuming that you could conjure a rolla powerful enough to crush something without passing over it, sinking it into the ground, or not just pushing it due to lack of inertia or mass - Chimeras are light enough to zip past it and I'm not quite sure how you manage to break the laws of physics to hit skimmers or fliers like Land Speeders, Raiders, or Valkyries. It's the flaws of a general game system.

I think the best thing to do would be to work it out with your opponent on a case-by-case basis. It's about enjoying the game, but these little details can certainly sap enjoyment from the game. 20 points for putting 1-2d6 S10 is very, very cheap. I mean, a Hunter-Killer missile is 10 points for 1 S8 hit.

IMO, after looking through the errata and rules it seems to be intended to be an anti-infantry weapon.

Nazerth
13-07-2009, 05:59
Well, logically, if you are ramming a skimmer/flier, then either it is immobilized or the driver fell asleep. Being skimmers and fliers, they aren't tanks.

I am actually leaning towards the other side of the debate now, seeing as the rules are just weirdly worded for this situation/non-existent for the specific situation. Would be nice for a clarification to be added to the next FAQ. Should provide some sort of ramming bonus, but the D6 S10 attacks is too much. Maybe just resolve two ramming hits or something. So it gives some bonus, but doesn't turn it into some sort of tank seeking steam roller.

Radium
13-07-2009, 07:50
Daemonic possesion is 20 points. A Havoc Launcher is 15. Sponson heavy bolters (for a CSM predator) are 30, and that's one of the cheaper gun options.

Not to mention holofields, bright lances etc. Those are the truly expensive upgrades. If you can get guaranteed tank kills for only 20 points, it's a bargain!

But for the exact reasons Lord Humongous stated, Deff Rollas do NOT work against vehicles.

@Nazerth: how is a falcon not a tank :p?

*EDIT*

It nevers says in the codex/rule book/FAQ that deff rollaz CAN'T be used against tanks, so then why won't they let them do that.

Because 40k is a permissive ruleset. It has to explicitly state you can do something for you to be able to do it.

Bunnahabhain
13-07-2009, 08:14
My thoughts are.

It was supposed to work against vehicles.

It probably doesn't, depending on exactly how you read the rules.

If it does work against vehicles, it should be 40-50pts, as it can bring down just about any armoured target. I've seen two battle wagons, one aimed at each leg, bring down titans. Anything without structure points is exceptionally lucky to survive. Given the infantry screen needs to have melta guns or power fists to have any real chance of stopping it, this is very powerful.

lanrak
13-07-2009, 08:44
Hi all.
Just remember folks the Ork Dex was written before 5th ed rules appeard.
So the 'ram' upgrade does NOT allot trucks to 'ram'.
And the Death Roller can NOT ram vehicles either.

Because RAMMING was NOT in the rules when the Ork Dex was written!:cries:

And also GW do NOT give a FAQ about game play issues.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Nazerth
13-07-2009, 10:56
@Nazerth: how is a falcon not a tank :p?


I was waiting for this. A Falcon, is not a tank, because a tank is defined as "a tracked, armoured fighting vehicle designed for front-line combat which combines operational mobility and tactical offensive and defensive capabilities". By that same token, a Devilfish is not a tank, nor is a landspeeder or anything that does not touch the ground for any reason other than landing and/or crashing. They should be considered in a similar role as a Valkyrie, support and rapid redeployment gunships.

Besides, can't a Falcon achieve sub-orbital altitudes under it's own power? Most skimmers in 40k background can achieve true flight and can do a ton of currently technologically impossible things. Imperial tanks, DO NOT.

:p

shabbadoo
13-07-2009, 11:29
I was waiting for this. A Falcon, is not a tank, because a tank is defined as "a tracked, armoured fighting vehicle designed for front-line combat which combines operational mobility and tactical offensive and defensive capabilities".
:eyebrows:

This isn't Warhammer 2010; it is Warhammer 40,000. When our tanks are made such that they can defy gravity in a very drastic way, I am willing to bet that the definition of "tank" will change accordingly. Best not to site current definitions for things that exist 38,000 years in the made-up future. ;)


It never says in the codex/rule book/FAQ that deff rollaz CAN'T be used against tanks, so then why won't they let them do that.

It never says in the codex/rule book/FAQ that you CAN'T deploy a tank on top of an enclosed bunker, such that you either have to scale the bunker to Assault the tank, or destroy the bunker to bring the tank down to ground level to be able to Assault it.

It never says in the codex/rule book/FAQ that you CAN'T deploy a tank IN an enclosed bunker, such that it can fire out of the bunker and still be protected by the bunker.

It also never says in the codex/rule book/FAQ I CAN'T step on my opponent's models and beat to a pulp any player I don't like(score! :D).

Catching on yet? You'll notice that the codex/rulebook/FAQs don't say much of anything about what you CAN'T do in the game, but a whole lot about what you CAN do in the game.

Yes, the Ork codex is kinda horribly written in many ways, mainly as it is a 4e codex that is NOT specifically written for the 5e rules. The Ork FAQ is horrible in that some very obvious and very frequently asked questions didn't make it into the FAQ for some reason.

The one thing you will note that that ramming is never mentioned in the rules for deff-rollas, but it very specifically mentions Tank Shock. They are specifically separate rules. No, walker vehicles cannot be Tank-Shocked either, so the deff-rolla doesn't work against them at all either. A Walker vehicle cannot be Tank shocked either, but it can Death or Glory, which leads some people to think that Walkers are affected by the deff-rolla. They are not, as a Walker that fails in a Death or Glory attack is merely Rammed instead, and deff-rollas do nothing with regards to Ramming.

Best read your rules and go by what is DOES say and not what it DOESN'T say. Too many Orks players have done the opposite. People are wanting to see something that is simply not there, and when of course the official GW guy who deals with rules says the deff-rolla has no effect on vehicles, well then he must be on drugs/insane/not know what the heck he is talking about. And then of course the tournament pack rules back it up by saying the same thing as well[Edit: It would seem that the organizers are arbitrarily changing those too. Great. That'll help end any confusion. Good job guys.:rolleyes:]

Nope. All these sources are just completely wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. If you say it enough though then it MUST be true.;)

don_mondo
13-07-2009, 11:33
GW ruled that it can in the 'ard boyz ...

No, some local tourney organizers ruled that it can in the Ard Boyz (and some ruled it can not). GW did not make a blanket ruling.

Ram and Tank Shock are two different game mechanics, in spite of the oft mentioned "special type of tank shock" line. The Deffrolla may be used when you Tank Shock, and only when you Tank Shock, as per it's own rules. And since you cannot hit a vehicle when you Tank Shock, that means the Deffrolla cannot be used against vehicles.

Now for the 10 pages of rebuttal all centered around "Ram is a special kind of tank shock.................."

Bunnahabhain
13-07-2009, 11:58
I was waiting for this. A Falcon, is not a tank, because a tank is defined as "a tracked, armoured fighting vehicle designed for front-line combat which combines operational mobility and tactical offensive and defensive capabilities". By that same token, a Devilfish is not a tank, nor is a landspeeder or anything that does not touch the ground for any reason other than landing and/or crashing. They should be considered in a similar role as a Valkyrie, support and rapid redeployment gunships.

Besides, can't a Falcon achieve sub-orbital altitudes under it's own power? Most skimmers in 40k background can achieve true flight and can do a ton of currently technologically impossible things. Imperial tanks, DO NOT.

:p

NO.
In 40k, a tank is defined as a vehicle of the type: tank.

In rules debates, you cannot ignore terms that are defined within the system, and replace them with definitions from outside the system, or the whole system collapses.

If you have a term, such as inch, that is not defined within the system, then and only then you can use a definition from outside.

Nazerth
13-07-2009, 13:26
NO.
In 40k, a tank is defined as a vehicle of the type: tank.


Tch, was I ever talking about game rule terms? According to the word of the game rules, deffcoptas are jetbikes.

As for the definition of tank changing, well, look at all official imperial tank models and tell me the definition has changed :p. We aren't Eldar, and I'm sure to them the vehicle class a Falcon falls into is a highly armoured fighting machine called an Au'touu'vaneille or something, so it's still not technically a tank either :p.

Also, tank traps are there to kill tanks. Skimmers are under no threat from tank traps, thus freeing them from the definition of tank :angel:.

Deff Jaw
14-07-2009, 03:29
The thing that we need is to GW to come down from the heavens and tell us if I am right or I am wrong, but they won't do that because they are lazy. And are ADD 3rd graders on a diet of mountian dew and chocolate cake.

lanrak
14-07-2009, 09:00
Hi all.
The REAL reason GW has NOT given a presice FAQs on the abilities of the Deff Roller , is they have JUST released the sprue with the Deff Roller on.
And if they say Deff Rollers only work against non vehicle targets it may adversly effect sales.

GW PLC is in the buisness of selling its range of products at the highest price possible.
Game play issues are WAY down on the list of priorities.
(Depite the best efforts of the studio staff.)

shabbadoo
14-07-2009, 09:29
The thing that we need is to GW to come down from the heavens and tell us if I am right or I am wrong, but they won't do that because they are lazy. And are ADD 3rd graders on a diet of mountian dew and chocolate cake.

Well, they kinda have. The 40K rules guy, John Spencer, has already said that deff-rollas do NOT affect vehicles. So, according to He from Up On High, you are *WRONG*. Chalk it up as a rules interpretation loss and mollify your loss by moving on to bash some more hapless enemies in true Orky fashion. :cool: Still, it would be *exceptionally intelligent and responsible* for GW to actually update the official Ork FAQ with this information such that more people would be aware of it so that threads like this did not continually keep popping up all over the place.

But remember, if GW answers all of the questions then there is less reason for people to be all crazy excited about the 5e Ork codex and how it could possibly address all of these types of issues *in the actual army book*.:eek:

Yes, I'll believe it when I see it too. :p

Lazarus15
15-07-2009, 02:17
Shabbadoo-

When and where did john spencer say that? Until published in a more official format, I am going with the following; As you said the ork book is 4th ed, and we are talking 5th ed rules. Whose to say that the tank shock section in ork book doesn't include ALL tank shock rules, INCLUDING ramming. You are assuming it means specifically tank shock (infantry). Well if it says ramming is a special type of tank shock, that means I can do it because I can tank shock with a deff rolla.

Every place that I have been at both GW and Rogue Traders stores in Washington and Texas, play it this way. Not that anyone will head that as legit, but it is.

Lord Humongous
15-07-2009, 02:55
Given that, at the time the Ork Codex was written, it was impossible for any vehicle (without a ws) to even come within 1" of an enemy vehicle, its impossible that the Deff Rolla rules included ramming.

Also, per my signature, the rules just don't work that way; tank shock only affects non-vehicle units; for vehicles, there's a specific method for resolving collision.

big squig
15-07-2009, 04:26
Given that, at the time the Ork Codex was written, it was impossible for any vehicle (without a ws) to even come within 1" of an enemy vehicle, its impossible that the Deff Rolla rules included ramming.

Also, per my signature, the rules just don't work that way; tank shock only affects non-vehicle units; for vehicles, there's a specific method for resolving collision.

The ork dex was also written with 5th ed in mind and had rules in it that only worked in 5th ed, like gazkhul's +2 attacks on the charge. And there's still the valid argument that tank-shock does affect vehicles because ramming counts as tank-shocking.

shabbadoo
15-07-2009, 06:26
No it doesn't, for the reasons Lord Humongous states and others. While the Ork codex was "written with 5e in mind", 5e wasn't fully nailed down at that time. It seems that one of the earliest 5e things that was nailed down was the Assault Phase, as the desingers had been unhappy with for some time. No surprise there. Ramming isn't a tank shock, pure and simple, otherwise you'd have Leadership values on vehicles. Look at the game overall. If something has an affect based on a stat, and that stat doesn't exist on a target, that something doesn't affect the target. Can you Weaken Resolve on a Dreadnought? No. Can you tank shock a Dreadnought? No. Can you Ram a Dreadnought? Ah, yes you can, and there is text that specifically states that you can and it uses the specific terms "Ram/Ramming". Kinda obvious why ramming isn't tank shock and why ramming has its own rules heading as isn't just an extra paragraph in the Tank Shock rule. The terminology really does differentiate between two separate rules. They are not one and the same, and the one does not work as itself and as the other, otherwise we'd be doing ramming hits to all units, including non-vehicles that get tank shocked, and of course we are not.

Ramming was specifically designated as "...a special kind of tank shock" because it can not only plow through a unit which *can* be tank shocked but can also plow into a unit *in the course of the same movement* which *cannot* be tank shocked(i.e. a vehicle) as it has no Leadership Value(among other things), but that can be Rammed. The rules writers really were trying to cover all of their bases, but still something is getting read into it. It probably would have been better to *not* describe Ramming as "...a special kind of tank shock" but rather just put in that, if in the course of making a Ramming attack a vehicle does pass through a unit that is eligible to be Tank Shocked then then it counted as being Tank Shocked, and the Ramming attack still takes place as well against the unit that was targeted for Ramming. And that both attacks are completely different, completely separate, and that only one or the other can affect a target(ie. a non-vehicle with a Ld score can only tank shocked while a vehicle unit can only be rammed). Even that would probably have made peoples' heads explode.

People can argue for sure, but the evidence is there to disprove their points time and again, let alone having the 40k rules guy say that a deff-rolla doesn't affect vehicles in the first place. People are free to not believe what is right in front of their faces. It happens all the time.

For instance, I once found a potato chip with a slightly blotchy Jesus face on it. Well, maybe it was, and maybe it wasn't. Then He spoke to me and said "Lo! I do indeed root for all of the winning sports teams." My very religious friend who was having lunch with me at the time excitedly high-fived the potato chip and exclaimed "I so totally knew it!".

Despite witnessing this, I remain an atheist.
(No, not really.) ;)

You've got your potato chip evidence(the rules), and Lo!, He from Up On High(that *main* GW rules guy, not some random Troll) has spoken, yet still there are still unbelievers. You can argue the rules by all means, but when the main GW rules guy says that deff-rollas do NOT affect vehicles there is no counter argument from anyone. Why? Because there isn't one. "The cudgel of enlightenment can penetrate even the helm of iron.", or so it is said. Still hasn't happened yet apparently.

Oh holy FAQ, we call upon thee to stop the madness.
:p

Memnos
15-07-2009, 06:55
Okay - The rules are ambiguous, the wording is ambiguous and everyone is arguing over whether or not it can't.

For those who might remember the older Epic rules, though, I bring the Bonecruncha -

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v672/Kr00zA/Orkz/BoneCruncha/BoneCruncha.jpg

(With thanks to The Waaagh for that pic).

If Games Workshop didn't intend to have it ram vehicles, why did they base its appearance on an old Ork Vehicle that rolled over other vehicles and crushed them? You would think, since people are arguing the ambiguity of the wording, that Games Workshop wouldn't create a vehicle that was based on a previous vehicle specifically designed to roll over and crush other vehicles.

Given the wording seems to suggest they can, shouldn't Games Workshop have said 'Yes, this is the old Bonecruncha variant, but no - It can't do what the Bonecruncha did'.

Nym
15-07-2009, 08:44
Considering how long this problem has been around, and how important it is for the gaming community to have a clear FAQ on this, it's pretty weird to see absolutely no move from GW.

I'm pro-vehicle crushing and at this stage, even if the Deffrola was ruled to NOT work on vehicles, I'd be happy.

C'mon GW, help us !

LawrencePhillips
15-07-2009, 09:48
Although I am pro-deff rolla affecting vehicles I do agree with Lord Humongous conclusion on the RAW; the deff rolla cannot "tank-shock" a tank. However I think that the phrase in the Ram rules that say it's a special type of tank shock will always make this a valid argument, no matter how clear-cut Lord Humongous believes it is. I also agree with many posters who state that it's clearly the intention for the deff-roll to be effective against vehicles. I think if people are reasonable though, they will agree that causing D6 Str 10 hits when moving just 1" in a ram if far too effective.

So some potential solutions:
1. At the start of every game, discuss the issue and if no consensus is reached, roll a D6. On a 4+ the deff rolla works when ramming.

2. House rule it like this: When a vehicle with a deff roller rams a tank, give it +2 to its AP roll instead. This should satisfy the Ork player making it a potent ramming weapon against all but the highest armour but also satisfy the objector as it's only 1 hit and the Ork will have to move the full 12" to get a Str 10 hit and it'll be more likely a Str 8 or 9.


Personally, I'm very disappointed with the rules regarding ramming and tank shocking. After reading the 4th ed and 5th ed rules, it appears that the ram rules were copy+pasted and then simplified before the ram rules where written and then ram was just added as an after thought. It'd been much nicer if Ram and tank shock had been the same thing and any unit touched was affected (either having to take a LD test and DoG or being hit by the Str calculated from the distance moved). Maybe we'll see some improvements by 6th ed.

CrownAxe
15-07-2009, 10:45
I don't believe it works like that based on the simple logic of squares and rectangles. let me explain

By mathematical definition, a rectangle is a quadrilateral with 4 right angles to two pairs of congruent sides

A square is a quadrilateral with 4 right angles with all sides congruent to each other

Now with this in mind a square also fits the definition of a rectangle, however the rectangle doesn't fit the definition of a square. A square is a special type of rectangle

Applying that to this argument, a Ram is a special type of Tank Shock, but a Tank Shock isn't Ramming



Granted is works better for the wrecking ball allows trukks to ram argument, but i feel this applies here also

Sarigar
15-07-2009, 12:08
No, some local tourney organizers ruled that it can in the Ard Boyz (and some ruled it can not). GW did not make a blanket ruling.

Ram and Tank Shock are two different game mechanics, in spite of the oft mentioned "special type of tank shock" line. The Deffrolla may be used when you Tank Shock, and only when you Tank Shock, as per it's own rules. And since you cannot hit a vehicle when you Tank Shock, that means the Deffrolla cannot be used against vehicles.

Now for the 10 pages of rebuttal all centered around "Ram is a special kind of tank shock.................."


On a related note. Our TO went based off of his phone conversation with his GW rep when he was asking questions about the Ard Boyz. I think this is the crux of the arguement. GW needs to come to some type of final decision. Heck, they did for the ally rules for this tourney. As a result of that phone conversation, our TO allowed it. Sadly, we didn't find out about the ruling until the morning of.

Don, while I agree that there are different game mechanics in Tank Shocks and Ramming, GW stepped on its crank when they wrote 'any tank shock' and 'ramming is a special type of tank shock'. I can see both sides of the arguement and have played it both ways.

However, I suspect no ruling as of yet b/c GW is debating the type of impact it could potentially have in regards to their upcoming Deff Rolla kit being released.

If it is a go, I suspect there will be Battlewagon spam in the next round. If not, I suspect poor sales for the Deff Rolla kit. GW will win $$$$-wise as that will sell more BW kits and Deff Rolla upgrade kits. Afterall, this is really what the Ard Boyz is about; making more $$$ for GW.

shabbadoo
15-07-2009, 12:27
This is all about deff-rollas, not Wartrukks and Ramming though. For deff-rollas we have a judgement from the main GW rules guy(which is that deff-rollas do not affect vehicles), and for Wartukks and Ramming we have had a recording from video that Watrukks cannot ram, as they are basically not sturdy enough to do so. Besides, only Tanks can Ram anyways, which is of course yet another point that reinforces that Ramming and Tanks Shock are completely and utterly different rules; the only similarity being that you try to run into/over stuff when you move. The answers from the GW main rules guy and the codex author are not enough to assuage peoples' doubts unfortunately, but that information straight from the source is literally the best we have on these FAQs at this point, regardless of anyone's opinion of those responses.

It would take very little effort to address the questions on a world-wide level, and I think that more than anything is what annoys people the most about these issues not being dealt with in a very blatantly official manner(i.e. in the FAQ). Nearly every Ork player uses at least one Wartrukk, and since the release of the Battlewagon more Ork players are using them too. When the new deff-rolla/kill kannon/lobba/grot sprue comes out, if it isn't accompanied by some sort of more official response to these issues then it will just compound the level of annoyance even more.

Sarigar brings up a good point though, so it wouldn't surprise me if GW either recants their deff-rolla statement in order to sell more of the new sprues, or they could very well release a updated version of ruling such hat deff-rollas still crush non-vehicles the same old way(1d6 hits; 2d6 hits if a Death or Glory attempt is made), but that they are of course more effective than a ram bar and so have an added effect on a Ramming attack, but not to the extent of doing d6 Str 10 hits to the target. The previously mentioned +2 Str bonus to Ramming rolls, to a maximum of 10, would be a very good median solution, and it seems appropriate to the current upgrade cost of the deff-rolla too. One can hope that they will do something when the sprue comes out.

Doppleskanger
15-07-2009, 12:41
Well I think if you compare the rules for the Deathroller to the reinforced ram there is something of interest. The reinforced ram is clearly designed for punching through armour, no question there. It adds +2 to the value of the front armour, which has two effects. The first is that it makes the vehicle a much greater danger when ramming other vehicles, and increases the chance of it surviving a death or glory attack. This sounds a bit bizarre to me, as it's as if they didn't want to let the cat out of the bag regarding the new ramming rules. Surely the principle purpose of a reinforced ram ISN'T so it can survive tankshocking troops better. That the ram has a clear and definite advantage when ramming vehicles I think this was the intended point.

The Deathrolla has no increase that increases the actual rules for ramming, i.e. when you add up speed, armour value etc. If you use the ramming rules it is simply the speed of the Battlewagon plus 5 for armour and it being a tank. The additional rules for the rolla seem to be specific to infantry units, which is why there is the D6, and the 2"6 if a death or Glory move is made, which obviously a tank can't do anyway.

Overall I think it's a pretty clear case and the deathrolla has no additional effect on vehicles, whilst the battlewagon itself can be a formidable weapon in it's own right. 2d6 S10 hits? That's more powerfull than most weapons that a titan comes with! Come on guys, cop on a bit :)

Memnos
15-07-2009, 12:50
Well I think if you compare the rules for the Deathroller to the reinforced ram there is something of interest. The reinforced ram is clearly designed for punching through armour, no question there. It adds +2 to the value of the front armour, which has two effects. The first is that it makes the vehicle a much greater danger when ramming other vehicles, and increases the chance of it surviving a death or glory attack. This sounds a bit bizarre to me, as it's as if they didn't want to let the cat out of the bag regarding the new ramming rules. Surely the principle purpose of a reinforced ram ISN'T so it can survive tankshocking troops better. That the ram has a clear and definite advantage when ramming vehicles I think this was the intended point.

The Deathrolla has no increase that increases the actual rules for ramming, i.e. when you add up speed, armour value etc. If you use the ramming rules it is simply the speed of the Battlewagon plus 5 for armour and it being a tank. The additional rules for the rolla seem to be specific to infantry units, which is why there is the D6, and the 2"6 if a death or Glory move is made, which obviously a tank can't do anyway.

Overall I think it's a pretty clear case and the deathrolla has no additional effect on vehicles, whilst the battlewagon itself can be a formidable weapon in it's own right. 2d6 S10 hits? That's more powerfull than most weapons that a titan comes with! Come on guys, cop on a bit :)

The problem, Dopple, is that the wording is ambiguous.

Even worse, the model is designed based upon an Epic vehicle specifically designed to crush vehicles. As for moving 1 inch and still causing the same damage, consider this:

A car parks six feet in front of a Monster Truck. The Monster Truck rolls slowly over the car - Will the car:

A) Be completely undamaged, since this Monster Truck didn't hit it very hard or:

B) Still be damaged, because an enormous weight just rolled over it.

I'm frankly surprised that this is even an issue. How hard is it to keep 13 inches away from an Orky vehicle with another vehicle?

don_mondo
15-07-2009, 13:00
Also, for those that attend the larger independent tourneys, many of which are using the INAT FAQ, the INAT v2.2 says that the Deffrolla cannot be used against vehicles. Now this is kinda interesting because......... V2.0 originally said it could be used against vehicles. Now, IIRC, when asked about the change, something was said about a conference call between the INAT council and Alessio (ie the guy that wries the FAQs) and also bringing the INAT into line with what John Spencer and the UK GT Houserules (FAQ) had said about the the Deffrolla. So let's see. That Alessio, John Spencer, and the UKGT FAQ that all said it doesn't work against vehicles. Now let's weigh those against some retail guy that a TO talked to.................. Hmmmm, I'll take the sources used by INAT for $2000, Alex.

Nym
15-07-2009, 15:01
For deff-rollas we have a judgement from the main GW rules guy(which is that deff-rollas do not affect vehicles)

John Spencer is only the US rule guy. A lot of other countries also have "rule guys", which are a lot less consistant in their answers.


The answers from the GW main rules guy and the codex author are not enough to assuage peoples' doubts unfortunately

When did Phil Kelly answer the deffrola question ? Could you give us a link please ?


Sarigar brings up a good point though, so it wouldn't surprise me if GW either recants their deff-rolla statement in order to sell more of the new sprues

Sarigar is totally right on this one : GW ruling on this subject will directly affect their sales. But in their interest, they should probably not FAQ this issue. If they take the "pro" road, the game will become a Deffrola slugfest, and some people may stop playing 40k because of this. It they take the "cons" road, the Deffrola sprue sales will be poor. Really, there's no reason for them to ever give a clear cut on the topic. :(

Doppleskanger
15-07-2009, 16:45
Umm ambiguity? Well, it's far from the worse case in GW history lol!
The way I see it, you go to ram a vehicle. You check the rules for tankshock and find that ramning is an addition to these rules. Then you check the rules for the equipment and see it has special rules for tankshock but nothing about ramming. So you go by the rules for ramming in the BGB and ignore the deffrolla.
Arguments based around models from a different era, in a different scale and form a different game system don't really change my opinion about this.
Anyways, untill there is further clarification what more can be said? I won't use a deffrola in this way and wouldn't be happy playing an opponent who wanted to. If you can get away with it, fair (sic) play to you!

Meriwether
15-07-2009, 17:02
This comes up so often on Warseer that you can use it as a calendar. Another Deffrolla debate? Must be July!

Nobody ever manages to convince anybody on this one, folks. So if you're an ork player, don't expect it to be usable on vehicles -- not because anybody is "right" or "wrong" on the proper interpretation of the rules, but because it is best to be generous when playing a game.

Meri

shabbadoo
15-07-2009, 22:08
John Spencer is only the US rule guy. A lot of other countries also have "rule guys", which are a lot less consistant in their answers.

...but as it regards this question, have they actually been inconsistent or are you just saying that to create doubt due to the lack of an argument on your part? Show some inconsistency on their part as it regards this question, otherwise the statement is meaningless. As to the issue at hand, John Spencer addressed the deff-rolla vs. vehicle question directly, the answer being that they cannot affect vehicles. Appently Alesssio Cavatore did too in the process of creating the INAT 2.2 FAQ(a lot of work went into compiling that document). Created mostly for the express purpose of the ADEPTICON tournament, it is hosted by DakkaDakka and simple web search ought to find a direct link to it.
...

When did Phil Kelly answer the deff-rolla question ? Could you give us a link please?

The audio we have of Phil Kelly didn't address deff-rollas at all, but did address Wartrukks with a Reinforced Ram and Ramming, stating that they cannot perform a Ramming attack, even though they can Tank Shock(once again illustrating that these rules are very much similar, but totally different and separate- one affects non-vehicles; one affects vehicles). If you want to listen to the audio then search for a deff-rolla thread started by me.

Yes, it was basically me that started the whole deff-rolla and Wartrukks w/Reinforced Ram inquistition to begin with, both here and at DakkaDakka and The Waaagh! Others have run with it and gotten far better results through their own connections than I have. I have just made of point of letting people know about them. I always forget to mention Alessio though. Still, you'd think that input from the main US rules guy, the *codex writer*, and *Alessio Cavatore* would lay this to rest for the most part, but some people are just stubborn and seem to want to argue just for the sake *of* arguing("It's still not in the offical FAQ so I'll continue to argue about, just for the hell of it, even though I know about all this input from the various GW folks! So there!" Yes, I do obviously find the continuation of the argument a bit annoying at this point :D). Others just don't know about the history of the discussion and about these rulings at all and who they come from, so questions from them as to where I and others are pulling our information from(definitely not out of our butts to be sure) is understandable.

A simple *FORUM SEARCH*(hint hint;)) here would probably have resulted in this thread not having even been started in the first place, but with the deff-rolla sprue coming out soon it might as well pop up again and get some face time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/The_More_You_Know.jpg

;)

Nym
15-07-2009, 22:54
So Phil Kelly never adressed this particular problem, just what I wanted to know.

Concerning the "national" rule persons : the french ones can only be contacted by phone (so I'll have a hard time showing you their inconsistancy), and the last time I talked to them (nearly a year ago), they looked like they didn't even know the basic rules of the game (I called them about a typo on p42 of the french 5th edition rulebook concerning Poisoned weapons, and the guy just couldn't tell me the correct rule).

TopHatMan
15-07-2009, 23:58
RAI, the fluff for the battlewagon mentions smashing vehicles. ("another type of battlewagon is the krusha... steamrollering enemy infantry and light vehicles, cackling all the while," last paragraph at top, p. 55 codex: orks) They clearly had this in mind, and I think it's as intended that they can do it to vehicles. Without that, it's horribly overpriced.

note however, that it says "light vehicles". S10 is meant for heavy tanks. This entry was most likely reffering to the normal ramming rules mixed with using the Deffrolla on infantry. So for my RAI, there is no using this upgrade on vehicles.

Sarigar
16-07-2009, 00:06
[QUOTE=don_mondo;3767815]Also, for those that attend the larger independent tourneys, many of which are using the INAT FAQ, the INAT v2.2 says that the Deffrolla cannot be used against vehicles. Now this is kinda interesting because......... V2.0 originally said it could be used against vehicles. Now, IIRC, when asked about the change, something was said about a conference call between the INAT council and Alessio (ie the guy that wries the FAQs) and also bringing the INAT into line with what John Spencer and the UK GT Houserules (FAQ) had said about the the Deffrolla. So let's see. That Alessio, John Spencer, and the UKGT FAQ that all said it doesn't work against vehicles. Now let's weigh those against some retail guy that a TO talked to.................. Hmmmm, I'll take the sources used by INAT for $2000, Alex.[/QUOTE.]

Ironically, the Necronomicon Indy GT does not allow it. My Ard Boyz list was comprised of my Necro list and some extra stuff to make up the points. I only had one Deff Rolla in my Necro list, so that's all I had for the Ard Boyz.

Don, the funny part about this whole post is the following: if Alessio ruled against it, honestly, how hard would it be for GW to simply add this into their existing Ork FAQ? Is the darn thing so sacred, it can not be occasionally updated? It's non sensical why GW won't support their customers in this manner.

As it is, my local shop in NC is hosting the 2nd round and as it stands, Deff Rollas will be able to affect vehicles. I will be deploying again the end of August, so if it is ruled differently at the Chicago Bunker during the finals (assuming I could advance), it won't matter for me as I won't be able to attend it. It will matter, however, for the tourney system as a whole. This will, once again, be another year of the Ard Boyz being tarnished. First year, crazy missions, 2nd year-questionable playing by the overall winner, now a rule that GW would not address that is pretty game changing.

GW is trying to work things out. I can appreciate this. I see a lot more organization and better missions as compared to year one. However, there is a lot of stink over the Deff Rolla inconsistent ruling. GW was able to put up some rules for allies in regards to the new IG codex. I'd be ok if they put up an impromptu ruling about the Deff Rolla at this point. Anything is better than nothing.

However, if GW doesn't make the ruling, I'm willing to bet NC will be the mecca of Deff Rollas.

shabbadoo
16-07-2009, 06:02
RAI, the fluff for the battlewagon mentions smashing vehicles. ("another type of battlewagon is the krusha... steamrollering enemy infantry and light vehicles, cackling all the while," last paragraph at top, p. 55 codex: orks) They clearly had this in mind, and I think it's as intended that they can do it to vehicles. Without that, it's horribly overpriced.


note however, that it says "light vehicles". S10 is meant for heavy tanks. This entry was most likely reffering to the normal ramming rules mixed with using the Deffrolla on infantry. So for my RAI, there is no using this upgrade on vehicles.

That fluff doesn't go on to give any idea as to what a "light vehicle" is either. Fluff shouldn't be taken to be RAW, RAI, or anything else regarding rules, especially as there is no "light vehicle" classification in the game. There are "vehicles", "transport vehicles", "tanks", "open-topped vehicles", "fast vehicles", "skimmers", and "walkers". There are no "light vehicles". You might say that Bikes and Attack Bikes are "light vehicles", and the deff-rolla actually affects those things. I'm not using this to justify anything in the rules, but it is true and fits both fluff and rules. The point is not to use fluff to justify anything in the rules by taking anything fluff-related out of context or read anything into a description that is not very specifically described/quantified in the game rules. "Light Vehicle" is one of those terms that is not quantified in the rules in any way whatsoever.

Deff Jaw
17-07-2009, 03:03
So in why aren't they going to put in the FAQ that you can't use Deff Rollaz agianst vehicles???

Staurikosaurus
17-07-2009, 04:00
because they assume that the people using the codex and armybook are literate.

Meriwether
17-07-2009, 04:41
Way to raise the bar on the level of conversation, Staurikosaurus.

Anyhow, nobody really knows why GW isn't more diligent on their FAQs. It would certainly make their fan base a lot happier.

Meri

shabbadoo
17-07-2009, 06:02
There could be a variety of reasons:

#1- They are lazy and it is not important enough to get them out of Bugman's, which really means that they are going to do it but haven't gotten around to it yet. :D

#2- They like to annoy their customers to the extent that threads arguing about the rules get started all over the place , which of course leads to loads of trash talking about GW(always the goal of any company). ;)

#3- They want it to play out a bit more and see the results before addressing it in print. :(

#4- They are waiting until the deff-rolla model bit is actually released to address it in White Dwarf(thus selling a few more issues to Orks players at least). Cha-CHING! :p

#5- They'd rather not address it any more than they have until they write the 5e Ork Codex comes out(similar to what was done for the Dark Angels FAQ). :cries:

We'll have to wait and see which reasons get eliminated in the next couple of months.

Pholostan
17-07-2009, 07:48
GW as a company don't care about rules. They never have and they never will. They care about the models, 'cause it's those that bring in the money. Rules are unimportant, models are important. The sooner people realize this, the sooner people can stop being upset about GW's rules. That's why the usual response on how to deal with their poorly worded rules usually are: Roll a die, it's only a game.

Staurikosaurus
17-07-2009, 09:04
Way to raise the bar on the level of conversation, Staurikosaurus.

Meri

Thanks, I aim to please :p

I can understand if a person has an honest question about the rules. However, I have zero tolerance for people who have rules "questions" concerning articles which have 2 possible interpretations (I use the word interpretation loosely). One interpretation is consistent with current rules, the second allows one player a benefit well beyond that represented by points cost and/or convention.

I am an Ork player, I do not use the deffrolla while ramming. For the points, there is no way it was intended to be used while ramming. In game mechanics terms, do you really think that GW intended the deffrolla to be the best anti-tank weapon in the Ork arsenal? Clearly not.

lanrak
17-07-2009, 09:13
Hi Pholostan.
Just to point out the other responce to GW PLCs lack of interest in rules quality -game play issues, is to use alternative better value for money products from other companies.;)

As GW doesnt care about gamers , the gamers generaly move to other companies that are more focused on rules quality and game play .:)

TTFN
Lanrak.

Meriwether
17-07-2009, 22:12
Thanks, I aim to please :p

I can understand if a person has an honest question about the rules. However, I have zero tolerance for people who have rules "questions" concerning articles which have 2 possible interpretations (I use the word interpretation loosely). One interpretation is consistent with current rules, the second allows one player a benefit well beyond that represented by points cost and/or convention.

I am an Ork player, I do not use the deffrolla while ramming. For the points, there is no way it was intended to be used while ramming. In game mechanics terms, do you really think that GW intended the deffrolla to be the best anti-tank weapon in the Ork arsenal? Clearly not.

So this justifies you being a tool to strangers, huh?

Not the direction I'd go in, but suit yourself.

Meri

Staurikosaurus
18-07-2009, 01:11
So this justifies you being a tool to strangers, huh?

Not the direction I'd go in, but suit yourself.

Meri

Actually, if I had a conversation with someone in person regarding this topic (and I have), and encountered the level of obstinance regarding a very loosely interpreted rule I'd say the same thing. People on this forum are not receiving special treatment.

Pholostan
18-07-2009, 08:36
Just to point out the other responce to GW PLCs lack of interest in rules quality -game play issues, is to use alternative better value for money products from other companies.;)

As GW doesnt care about gamers , the gamers generaly move to other companies that are more focused on rules quality and game play .:)

Hi there Lanrak.

I think this has been and is happening to some degree. I've been in the hobby long enough to see people come and leave. GW sometimes makes money, but sometimes they don't. When they are deep in the red they sometimes listen to the gamers and sometimes the rules improve some. But I still think it's true that they don't care about the rules as much as they care about their models. It's the models that bring in the money, rules are just some complementary stuff they can hire a temp to do and fire the guy after and never see him again. I don't know if this have really changed in the last couple of years. This Robin Cruddace whose name is on the IG codex, has he written anything else important rule-wise before? Will he in the future? I don't know. I don't really think GW thinks it matters as long as the rules is good enough for them to sell models.

Fluff isn't rules. GW makes more high quality fluff than they make rules in my opinion. Many of the books are OK, interesting stories that makes people interested in the hobby. This probably sells much more models that their rules-system, don't you think? It was the fluff that got me hooked, and of course the gorgeous models. In terms important to GW: Fluff + models >> rules.

The competition often makes mistakes. GW is old in the game nowdays, they now what they have to do to make by. Other emerging companies thinks they can make a quick buck, not so easy. Building a fanbase takes time, and during that time you usually stay in the red. Warmachine seems to have got it mostly right, they might be here to stay. Their website is quite good too, something GW never seems to understand. I have worked with web-dev, sure GW:s site has gotten better but... well.

Off-topic post, sorry about that.


On-topic: Deff-rolla ramming other vehicles? Sure, I could allow it. A ramming-attack would probably do bad stuff to the orc-vehicle too. Orks have trouble taking down some high AV-tanks as it is, I don't know if deff-rollas really change this that much.

On the other hand, I can easily see the argument to not allow it too. It needs to be worked out beforehand, as so much else.

lanrak
18-07-2009, 09:55
Hi Pholostan.
Yep I can see both points of veiw on the Deff Roller rules interpritation.
As 'ramming' was not in the rule set when the Ork Codex was written, then most people would realise it needed addresing when ramming appeared in the rules!:rolleyes:

I am aware that GWPLC belive the rule sets to be 'optional extras' and do not see the fact that GAMERS collect minatures to play a game ...
And after spending a huge amount of time and money to collect an army to play , the rules just do not justify the expendature for a lot of people.

'The games are just the icing on the cake...'Jervis Johnson.

For gamers, GWs 40k is 'all icing' (asthetics,)and no damn 'cake'(gameplay)!

Some folks get high on GW 'sugar rush',(20%appx) and others are just sick of it, (80%appx).:evilgrin:

TTFN
Lanrak.

Pholostan
18-07-2009, 19:44
I note that the clarifications for the European Warhammer 40k Championship doesn't allow the deff rolla to affect vehicles.

Under 17. Orks:

33. A Deff Rolla only affects enemy non-vehicle units that are ‘Tank Shocked’. Deff Rolla hits don't ignore armour saves.

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=61167&sid=8556ac5424cc38f15185898533a0df6f

I think most of their clarifications are pretty sound, so I would probably roll with that.

snottlebocket
18-07-2009, 19:52
I'm a mech guard player so I've had more than my fair share of expensive leman russ tanks crushed by those cheap, fast deathrolla battlewagons.

That said I can't find and don't see any reason why deathrolla's aren't allowed to roll over tanks. Even though it makes them some of the nastiest, most surefire ways to destroy the best tanks in the game. (it doesn't even have to be their main purpose, they just happen to be good at it)

If anything fluff seems to indicate that it's not only raw, it's as intended. Plenty of examples of deathrolla's destroying tanks, including Pask's fluff story in the guard codex. (if Pask's story isn't a warning to stay away from deathrolla's I don't know what is)

Pholostan
19-07-2009, 10:22
If anything fluff seems to indicate that it's not only raw, it's as intended. Plenty of examples of deathrolla's destroying tanks, including Pask's fluff story in the guard codex. (if Pask's story isn't a warning to stay away from deathrolla's I don't know what is)

I've missed Pask's story, good one.


When an Ork Bonecruncha ploughed over the Hand of Steel, its giant Deff Rolla crushed the turret and ground its commander to a paste.


An Ork Bonecrucha is quite a large tank, it's in Epic and would be at least a super heavy in 40K (I think, correct me if I'm wrong, loong time since I played Epic). I don't really think a battlewagon compares to it :)

On the other hand, if it makes a more interesting game, why not allow it?
The Ork-player I usually play doesn't play with deff rollas. But he's an avid scratch-builder (aren't all Ork palyers?) so there will probably be a couple of battelwagon, battlefortress and so on in the future.

Joewrightgm
19-07-2009, 12:52
I've missed Pask's story, good one.

An Ork Bonecrucha is quite a large tank, it's in Epic and would be at least a super heavy in 40K (I think, correct me if I'm wrong, loong time since I played Epic). I don't really think a battlewagon compares to it :)

On the other hand, if it makes a more interesting game, why not allow it?
The Ork-player I usually play doesn't play with deff rollas. But he's an avid scratch-builder (aren't all Ork palyers?) so there will probably be a couple of battelwagon, battlefortress and so on in the future.

Actually, in the list section, one example of battlewagon they give is a Bonecruncha; armed with vehicle-to-vehicle combat weapons, IE boarding plank, big grabba, deff rolla, and wrecking ball.

Pholostan
21-07-2009, 06:46
Actually, in the list section, one example of battlewagon they give is a Bonecruncha; armed with vehicle-to-vehicle combat weapons, IE boarding plank, big grabba, deff rolla, and wrecking ball.

Ah, totally missed that one. Thanks.

When the ork-player here builds Bonecrunchas we will probably play them as usable against tanks. It will be.... interesting :)

S00N3R FR3AK
21-07-2009, 07:55
The thing to debate is whether you use RaW or RaI. To most people, being able to pay such a low amount of points to do so much (potential) damage to an enemy vehicle implies that the Deff Rolla was never intended to be used in such a manner.

RaW says yes, and (IMO at least) RaI says no.

5 points for a 4+ cover save on Tau vechicles and 15 to be able to fire and move 12. Its very possible that this could do the hits to a vechicle for its point value.

riotknight
21-07-2009, 08:08
I've skimmed over this thread.

At every tournament and every game and every opponent I have ever played with my Orks, I've not had a single "YOU CAN'T!" yelled at my deff rolla/s. After I show them the rule in my Codex and then the wording in the Rule book, they have always come to the conclusion that RAW is they can.

It should also be noted; if the Deff Rolla fails to kill its target I always resolved the ramming rules after wards and occasionally blew up my own tank!

edit: Also, Theres the possibility that If i run into a vehicle, I won't blow it up completely. Also, I resolve hits on whatever Arc i hit it on (I had someone try to convince me that it was like CC.)

archie-d
21-07-2009, 08:44
as cool as the concept is. im in the no camp on this one. the rules say (roughly) ramming is a special tank shock resolved against vehicles as follows....

as i see it that means any ramming should be resolved by the rules for ramming in the rulebook.

the fact that it also states a vehicle cant move within 1" of a vehicle when tank shocking is pretty damning too. kinda hard to crush something if you cant move close to it.

riotknight
21-07-2009, 08:54
Except that the Deff Rolla takes effect at the same time as Tank shock. So you didn't really argue anything other than "The tank can make a special tank shock attack (ramming)." The Deff Rolla special rule occurs when you tank shock....

archie-d
21-07-2009, 09:30
but you cant hit a vehicle during a tank shock. and a ram follows the rules laid out in the rulebook. seems pretty simple to me.

shabbadoo
21-07-2009, 10:15
Yes, many people seem to simply choose to ignore the part of the "Tank Shock!" entry stating "If the tank accidentally moves into contact with a friendly model or comes to within 1" of an enemy vehicle, it immediately stops." If Ramming was considered to be a Tank Shock, which of course it isn't, Ramming wouldn't even be possible under the rules.