Tau Empire Codex 2013 | Army Builder Program
Dark Angels Codex 2013
Chaos Daemons Codex 2013
Chaos Space Marines Codex 2012

Warhammer 40k Forum Tau Online

 

Warhammer 40K Forum

Issue with Trukks and Ramming (Split)
Reply
Old 22 Feb 2010, 19:36   #1 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,814
Default Issue with Trukks and Ramming (Split)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Zambia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Morgan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Zambia
Orks are a fun army to play and oppose, for the sole reason that reliability is a scarce word in the ork dictionary. Some things that happen in a game are so crazy/funny/what not that they have to be against orks. This thread is made so all us players who play orks, or even played against orks, and something hilarious happened, can post and share around.

Some of my classic ork moments...

3 Killa kans open fire on some marines 8'' away with their grotzookas. 1 of the blasts scatters on one of the kans (or basically exploded before leaving the gun) and got a "weapon destroyed" result. My opponent and I agreed that it shouldnt be anyone's choice which weapon, because obviously the projectile destroyed the gun, not shoot sideways through the kan and killing the other arm (though i wouldnt put it past orks). So we treated it as weapon destroyed: grotzooka. It was funny.

A trukk rams a rhino which had remained stationary all game (blood angels, stalled its overcharge engines on 2 attemps, then this happened) Trukk gathers speed and hits JUST on the brink of 18''(S6 hit) which did nothing to the rhino, who piled a S8 hit back on the trukk. The trukk then went "kareen" and moved 16'' OVER the rhino. So really the trukk had gathered full speed, hit the rhino, crashed and launched over the top of it, and lands 16'' away in a pile of rubble. Luckily there were no boyz inside. Boy i wouldve killed to be one of the rhino drivers, watching that happen :P

So share, and laugh at the poor misfortune of our orky race.

Lord Zambia
Trukks aren't tanks... Unless you meant a wagon.
The thought was funny in any case though. :P
Reinforced ram :P Coz ork drivers have no choppas of their own :'( so they are given the ability to tank shock/ram. And it means they reroll terrain tests.
You know that doesn't work by RAW right? :P

Said best here, it's pretty clear actually. Not that hardly any Ork player will agree on what the English actually says, many going back to the circular reasoning/arguments of "But it says Tank Shock, that must mean/give Ramming as well".
Bah! The RAW doesn't lie, even if it doesn't make sense to some. :

(Not targeted at any Ork player in particular, just that one group who don't want to play by/read the RAW. Truly, I blame GW for this mistake, since I fully believe by RAI that they should be able to Ram. Well, I actually want every vehicle to have that ability, but still, GW's fault...)
__________________


Seventh Sanctum signature oddities.
Alignment: Neutral Pessimistic
Area of Magical Study: Practical Chronomancy
Favorite Spells: Divine Spell of the Cotton Candy Golem and Field of Bacon.

Proud supporter of Joe Wood!

Makes this your one good deed a day.
http://www.thehungersite.com/
enderwiggin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 Feb 2010, 20:49   #2 (permalink)
Shas'Vre
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,629
Send a message via MSN to Lord Zambia
Default Re: If something like this happens...its got to be against orks

Well call it a house rule (or a shopping center rule) but my local gw store play as though reinforced ram lets you tank shock and ram. Im sure a trukk ramming into something wont do too much apart from blowing itself apart (because every vehicle it rams into, the trukk will be taking a higher strength hit, or at least the same)
__________________
Learn about the world from a different prospective - www.uncyclopedia.org

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhontauel
4 lightening claws LMAO. wouldn't the inquisition get involved?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedibean
Killing terminators with flamers is like trying to stop a charging elephant with a fly swatter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genmotty
if your not going to change your ammo between battles then you deserve to be giving people rashes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tetrino
Ah, that's a shame. It's kind of funny, because I'd imagine that running headfirst into a force field would pretty much ruin your initiative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire at Will
Why not take over France? You could do it with a pistol, which in doing would make you the most armed man in the country.
Want to play Robot Wars using 40k Concepts? PM me for details on how you can get your FREE copy of the rules.
Lord Zambia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 Feb 2010, 20:52   #3 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,814
Default Re: If something like this happens...its got to be against orks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Zambia
Well call it a house rule (or a shopping center rule) but my local gw store play as though reinforced ram lets you tank shock and ram. Im sure a trukk ramming into something wont do too much apart from blowing itself apart (because every vehicle it rams into, the trukk will be taking a higher strength hit, or at least the same)
... How did the moniker of "shopping center rule" come about? I've never heard of an expression like that. ???
__________________


Seventh Sanctum signature oddities.
Alignment: Neutral Pessimistic
Area of Magical Study: Practical Chronomancy
Favorite Spells: Divine Spell of the Cotton Candy Golem and Field of Bacon.

Proud supporter of Joe Wood!

Makes this your one good deed a day.
http://www.thehungersite.com/
enderwiggin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 Feb 2010, 07:09   #4 (permalink)
Ethereal
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 18,087
Default Re: If something like this happens...its got to be against orks

The whole business about ramming is just opinion. That linked forum is no different. It comes down to whether you believe that Ramming is a subset of Tank Shocking, or something else. It has never been absolute. Most people play that they are different in order to fix the balance problem you would have with Deff Rollas otherwise. A FAQ would have been great, but so far no such luck (or maybe not...).
khanaris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 Feb 2010, 07:23   #5 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,814
Default Re: If something like this happens...its got to be against orks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khanaris
The whole business about ramming is just opinion. That linked forum is no different. It comes down to whether you believe that Ramming is a subset of Tank Shocking, or something else. It has never been absolute. Most people play that they are different in order to fix the balance problem you would have with Deff Rollas otherwise. A FAQ would have been great, but so far no such luck (or maybe not...).
Quite untrue in this case. RAW is RAW and they explain why something would/wouldn't work.

They do apply the RAW as best as can be said though and unlike many arguments the clearly explain their reasoning. Happily, they have an outlook which just so happens to be largely unbiased and only concerned with pure RAW. Also unlike many other arguments (not just this one), they are willing to re-examine the RAW if anything new comes up or fix their finding if they have ended up being wrong (it has happened and they aren't upset by any new ruling).

I'm not saying RAW is 100% accurate all the time in the end, since we have past examples where it should have been played as intended, but for the majority of players RAW is the standard until an errata or FAQ is available.
__________________


Seventh Sanctum signature oddities.
Alignment: Neutral Pessimistic
Area of Magical Study: Practical Chronomancy
Favorite Spells: Divine Spell of the Cotton Candy Golem and Field of Bacon.

Proud supporter of Joe Wood!

Makes this your one good deed a day.
http://www.thehungersite.com/
enderwiggin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 Feb 2010, 07:51   #6 (permalink)
Shas'Vre
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,629
Send a message via MSN to Lord Zambia
Default Re: If something like this happens...its got to be against orks

Actually spanish deffrollas deal alot of damage to enemy vehicles when they ram.

http://forums.tauonline.org/index.ph...c,93688.0.html

So there :P

Zambia
__________________
Learn about the world from a different prospective - www.uncyclopedia.org

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhontauel
4 lightening claws LMAO. wouldn't the inquisition get involved?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedibean
Killing terminators with flamers is like trying to stop a charging elephant with a fly swatter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genmotty
if your not going to change your ammo between battles then you deserve to be giving people rashes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tetrino
Ah, that's a shame. It's kind of funny, because I'd imagine that running headfirst into a force field would pretty much ruin your initiative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire at Will
Why not take over France? You could do it with a pistol, which in doing would make you the most armed man in the country.
Want to play Robot Wars using 40k Concepts? PM me for details on how you can get your FREE copy of the rules.
Lord Zambia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 Feb 2010, 08:00   #7 (permalink)
Ethereal
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 18,087
Default Re: If something like this happens...its got to be against orks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Morgan
They do apply the RAW as best as can be said though and unlike many arguments the clearly explain their reasoning.
It is just rules-lawyering, by any other name. Their conclusion was just an opinion, not a definitive answer. They spend a lot of time dressing opinions up as legal arguments, but in this case there is no RAW answer, because both interpretations are inherently dependent on subjective definitions. If there was a single RAW answer you wouldn't find the topic strewn across dozens of forums retreading the same ground. The GW FAQ makes the other argument, apparently. Which is just as clear. If Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock, granting the ability to Tank Shock grants the ability to Ram. So ramming is inherited from having the rule "Tank Shock", not having the rule "Tank". The other opinion, which they favor, is that if they are two separate rules the Deff Rolla would have to mention both (which of course it doesn't, being in a 4th Edition Codex). Both are perfectly valid given the vague wording in the book and the fact that the Deff Rolla wasn't exactly written with that wording in mind. Which is why it needed a FAQ.
khanaris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 Feb 2010, 08:38   #8 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,814
Default Re: If something like this happens...its got to be against orks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khanaris
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Morgan
They do apply the RAW as best as can be said though and unlike many arguments the clearly explain their reasoning.
It is just rules-lawyering, by any other name. Their conclusion was just an opinion, not a definitive answer. There is no RAW answer, because both interpretations depended on subjective definitions. If there was a single RAW answer you wouldn't find the topic strewn across dozens of forums retreading the same ground. The GW FAQ makes the other argument, apparently. Which is just as clear. If Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock, granting the ability to Tank Shock grants the ability to Ram. So ramming is inherited from having the rule "Tank Shock", not having the rule "Tank". The other opinion, is that if they are two separate rules, the Deff Rolla would have to mention both (which of course it doesn't, being in a 4th Edition Codex). Both are perfectly valid given the vague wording in the book and the fact that the Deff Rolla wasn't exactly written with that wording in mind.
And what of the name by what it's called? Regardless of your opinion on the matter RAW is only read one way. True that it might not be the correct way as intended by the designers as sometimes revealed later on, but RAW is what the majority of players go by and by actually breaking down the rules in their context it is clear and precise. The reason you have people arguing against is because of opinion on their parts, largely due to the fact that they don't want a debuff to their army.
You also have a very large percentage of players in this game that do not have an education to break down the English into it's base components and context. As much of that internet arguing will quickly reveal, the players reflect society and are largely ignorant ir ill-prepared to do something as simple as decipher the meaning behind the rules by breaking them down.

Rules-Lawyering is also an incorrect label for reading RAW. Reading RAW to gain an advantage is more apt to fall under such a label. Merely reading and explaining RAW is not. Especially when you have nothing vested into the argument really and are only concerned with what the written rule says and not the outcome.

Your argument for the "greyness" of this particular rule is a common one Khanaris. It is also illogical by following the basic premises already put forth.

I'll also wait for the English version of the FAQ that you make mention of, as I said prior in the other topic, the new FAQS have been abruptly changed (considerably, in some cases) before. I'll wait for the final product before judging. If you didn't mean one of the foreign ones, then I'd like to know what GW FAQ you're talking about.

Also keep in mind that GW was already done testing and designing 5th edition when the codex was made, so it may have been a "4th" edition codex but it was made for Fifth a pattern that other armies have followed in the past with newer editions coming up (sometimes even with FW support with gear that wasn't explained yet due to upcoming books).

I also never put forth that it was the definitive, end-all be-all answer, but it is the basic RAW. I also already made it clear that RAW is what a majority play by, but also not necessarily correct in the end. So that strawman is burnt before landing.
__________________


Seventh Sanctum signature oddities.
Alignment: Neutral Pessimistic
Area of Magical Study: Practical Chronomancy
Favorite Spells: Divine Spell of the Cotton Candy Golem and Field of Bacon.

Proud supporter of Joe Wood!

Makes this your one good deed a day.
http://www.thehungersite.com/
enderwiggin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 Feb 2010, 08:41   #9 (permalink)
Ethereal
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 18,087
Default Re: If something like this happens...its got to be against orks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Morgan
And what of the name by what it's called? Regardless of your opinion on the matter RAW is only read one way.
Being Rules as Read. "RAW" is really a pretty poor term when you actually stop and think about it. It works in simple cases when you can compare it to RAI, but it is certainly not definitive. Reading is interpretation. There are as many RAW interpretations as there are ways to interpret the same sentences in the language in which they were written. Which in this case is at least two. All the pompous "legalese" in the world isn't going to make an opinion into a fact. Nor would anyone with training in law expect it to, which is why high courts will still refer to their judgments as opinions. The difference is that it is actually their job to make those decisions.

Again, this is a case where there is no single RAW interpretation. There are just conflicting opinions. I have played with the "no ramming" rule for my Trukks and Deffrollas because I thought it was a debuff that the book needed. Not because I thought it was the only possible RAW interpretation. That isn't illogical. It is being honest. That particular link is a good presentation of one side of the debate, but that is all that it is. It is not the Rules as Written answer.
khanaris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 Feb 2010, 09:00   #10 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,814
Default Re: If something like this happens...its got to be against orks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khanaris
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Morgan
And what of the name by what it's called? Regardless of your opinion on the matter RAW is only read one way.
Being Rules as Read. Reading is interpretation. There are as many RAW interpretations as there are ways to interpret the same sentences. Which in this case is at least two.
That's simply not true.

Using past examples and prior rulings we can make a very good estimate if the writing is ambiguous, but it really isn't in 99% of cases, though it may be worded badly.

This particular rules dispute is easy to dissemble. It's not ambiguous in the slightest, there's only the one side wanting Tank Shock to mean Ram, which may have been the RAI, but it's certainly not worded that way to anyone who can actually understand the English used.

Breaking it down into the simplest of terms and examples you have one side wanting Tank Shock to equal Ramming because it says "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move..."
Emphasis mine on what is a clear weakness in that argument alone, since move would be superfluously included if Ramming were meant to be a sub-clause.

Ignoring the flaws inherent in the above argument already, you have arrayed against it RAW that has the two clearly separated by simple Text size (notice the Death or Glory sub-clause of Tank Shocking being in smaller and less prominent style) along with a slew of reason outlined like

1. Tank Shocking and Ramming operate differently and a player taking one of these actions must declare which one he is taking at the beginning of the action. A player can’t simply declare “I’m tank shocking” and see what happens.
2. Unlike Ramming vehicles, Tank Shocking vehicles can never come within 1? of an enemy vehicle.
3. Unlike non-vehicle units, enemy vehicles can not be forced to take a morale check, which is required when hit by a Tank Shock action.

And that's not even all of the arguments against when taking past examples of similar text, the context of all the above mentioned text, or additional rules and limitations.

Reading is only an issue in interpretation when one side can not fully comprehend the text in front of them. I'm not sure how much of your argument you've actually checked in to, but I would advise you to check out everything arrayed against it, Khanaris, before so casually claiming that both sides are equal.
__________________


Seventh Sanctum signature oddities.
Alignment: Neutral Pessimistic
Area of Magical Study: Practical Chronomancy
Favorite Spells: Divine Spell of the Cotton Candy Golem and Field of Bacon.

Proud supporter of Joe Wood!

Makes this your one good deed a day.
http://www.thehungersite.com/
enderwiggin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ork Trukks Boyz and Assault! Waaghsteve Orks 10 20 Nov 2009 03:53
OrKs, Trukks and Sluggas... Kazadvorn Orks 3 08 Aug 2008 13:00
Flash gits and Warbikes and Trukks oh my! wyrd_ian Orks 3 19 Apr 2008 07:27
Ork trukks agaist the Nids Hyena031 Orks 13 25 Jul 2007 18:20
War trukks......question bout them SMRCommander Orks 6 02 May 2005 22:43