Tank Shock yar!!

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Tank Shock yar!!

Post  Dashofpepper on Tue Jan 27, 2009 10:08 pm

I posed the question today about tank-shocking against vehicles, and don't have a conclusive answer as to why you can't do it, so I thought I'd post what I've read and think. I think that Ramming is a form of Tank-shock, and a Deff-Rolla can be used against a vehicle. Some thoughts to try supporting my reasoning:

1. From the Rulebook, page 69: Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same, except...(followed by specific instructions for resolving a vehicle hit). The rulebook establishes here that ramming is a form of tank shock.

2. The Deff Rolla entry (Ork Codex) reads: "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 effects. Vehicles are also units. Furthermore, Dreadnoughts are vehicles, and they can execute a Death or Glory attack. If you claim that a Deff Rolla doesn't work against vehicles, then what happens when a Battlewagon rams a dreadnought who decides to Death or Glory? The Ork codex says that any unit making a Death or Glory attack suffers an additional D6 attacks. Is there justification that Dreadnoughts are an exception to the ramming rule? This seems like a pretty open and shut thing here; players can't pick and choose which vehicles are subject to certain rules, its all or nothing - you can Deff Rolla vehicles or you can't.

3. The only differences is between Tank Shock and Ramming is that one is a Tank Shock against a vehicle and one is a Tank Shock against non-vehicles. Just because they're worked out differently doesn't mean they're not the same thing. You work out shooting differently against infantry and against vehicles, does that mean that firing at a vehicle isn't shooting?

4. The Ork Codex says that "ANY Tank shock....causes D6 hits against the victim unit." It doesn't say any tank shock against infantry units, and we know that vehicles are units. And it says ANY tank shock, and the ramming rule says that ramming is a type of tank shock, which would fall into the inclusive "Any tank shock" category. IE, any kind of tank shock causes D6 hits.

5. Ramming says that it is "executed in the same way" as a tank-shock, except that it provides special guidance for resolving a hit against a vehicle. However, the rulebook explicitly still categorizes this as a tank shock move.

6. To quote someone else...Ramming is a special type of tank shock.

It has four apparent differences.

1) Must move at highest speed.
2) May not shoot.
3) Ram hits go against the armor facing the ramming vehicle (exception applies for walkers).
4) Do not need to stop 1" away from enemy vehicles.

Everything else says it's a tank shock.
Why would it not be treated as such?

7. To quote someone else again; putting a mustache on a banana doesn't make it not a banana; adding special rules to a certain type of tank shock doesn't make it not a tank shock.

Here's some relevant reading material: There's a lot of discussion, but it seems to be about 90% weighted in favor of Ramming being a type of tank shock that allows Deff Rolla hits.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/214382.page#331378
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/216779.page#359935
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/220185.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/222055.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/227443.page

Open to the masses: Input?

*EDIT* Someone linked me a post that yakface made (who's the guy who writes the FAQs right?)

Ramming is a type of Tank Shocking, similar to how a Morale Check is a type of Leadership Test. The Deff Rolla says it works with any Tank Shock and therefore it should function with a Ram. This would be the same concept as if there was a special rule that did D6 S10 hits to a unit when it took a Ld test. If a unit then had to take a Morale check would this not still be a Ld test? Of course it would and as such the rule would apply.

I am currently Banned until: 03/01/2009


Last edited by Dashofpepper on Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:10 pm; edited 1 time in total

Dashofpepper

Posts : 43
Join date : 2009-01-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tank Shock yar!!

Post  Dodiez on Tue Jan 27, 2009 10:12 pm

mmmmmmmmmmm

bananas.

I am currently Banned until: 03/01/2009
avatar
Dodiez

Posts : 7
Join date : 2009-01-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tank Shock yar!!

Post  Fozy on Tue Jan 27, 2009 10:21 pm

O_O your forum Reading abilities frighten me good sir. Makes me miss mah Be bored and read forums job....
avatar
Fozy

Posts : 106
Join date : 2008-12-13
Age : 31
Location : Orange Park, FL

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tank Shock yar!!

Post  Dashofpepper on Tue Jan 27, 2009 10:30 pm

Fozy, I don't comprehend, which I presume is an automatic -1 to my forum reading abilities


I am currently Banned until: 03/01/2009

Dashofpepper

Posts : 43
Join date : 2009-01-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tank Shock yar!!

Post  Dashofpepper on Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:04 pm

Pulling out a post that someone made, and bringing it here for relevance..
------------------------
again.. I go back to the point that trying to hold this mess up as RAW is just silly.

the assumption that the ork codex was written with the specific wording of the 5th book in mind is just rediculous.

but is a rhino really not going to suffer from any damage by a giant mechanical spiked roller on the front of a vehicle 2x its size? I doubt it.

RAW only works when there is enough errata to make a clear distinction. I use magic the gathering as a good example. they have multiple levels of judges that have a progressive understanding of the rules. card text is playtested several sets ahead of release. even they don't catch all the broken mess. but atleast they actively try to fix issues as they come up.

in an average game, I run into between 3 and 10!!! rules issues with my opponent. this to me is a rediculously high number for a newly released set of rules

and sadly the FAQ's didn't answer most of the questions out there. I have a lot of hope that yakface is going to release an updated version of his FAQ. my whole gaming group is waiting for a consensus on the rules.

I think the majority agree that the interpetation that the deff rolla works in this situation

there are a couple of minority speakers that point to RAW and say it does not work. I have to ask.. do you play orks or against them frequently? have you run into a deffrolla and thought it broken? if not why are you complaining so loudly?

I play orks.. and I use the deffrolla in this way. none of my opponents have ever given me grief about it. they all thought it was a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the rules. and so do the majority of the posters in this thread.

for any standard game, thats how it goes. come up with a ruling or roll a dice.

feel free to continue debating RAW to death. but until there is a definitive FAQ (which we all know ISN'T going to come from GW) there really is no point in examining the exact wording of things.

to further my point... look at the rules for assaulting a squad after you blow up its transport.

there are directly contradicting points in the rulebook on this matter. 2 different pages with exactly opposite rules.

without getting into that whole mess, it does illustrate my point that as much of an improvement 5th has been, it still was badly proofread, and obviously needed further playtesting.

but then again, so is EVERY SINGLE BOOK GW PRODUCES.

if they would just get people who want to put in as much effort as yakface to come up with a decent set of rules, we wouldnt be having these debates.

it is not unreasonable to expect rules to be:

clearly written
clearly defined
able to cover all instances
successfully errated to cover unforseen interactions of rules
written in such a way that they are balanced, and fun.

until GW manages to pull this off, I'm not willing to stand in the RAW camp

------------------------------
And another poster makes a note:

Because it says clear as day in the rules, as I've quoted many times, that ramming is a type of tank shock. It prohibits shooting because of the speed, and allows vehicles to collide because that's what it was designed to do.

I still don't know how you can just ignore the sentences provided above, and Stelek's points. Also, to try a different, RAI tack for a second, the upgrade costs 20 points, 4 times as much as a reinforced ram or a big shoota, and twice as much as a kannon. Surely an upgrade so expensive was intended to be good? D6 S10 hits against infantry isn't worth it, vehicles, yes.
------------------------------
Enough from me now. Smile


I am currently Banned until: 03/01/2009

Dashofpepper

Posts : 43
Join date : 2009-01-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tank Shock yar!!

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum