Movement Reaction + Ram

[bluedestiny]

Hi Guys,

 

Might be a dumb question, but can I do this in the following scenario. For argument sake, enemy moves within 12" of my Typhon, I use the Advance reaction on my Typhon which I pivot 90 degrees to face them and move up to 6" forward. Now could I declare a Ram with that 6" move, so i'll be ramming 6" instead of normal distance. i can't find it anywhere saying it can't be done under ramming.

 

Thanks guys

 

[Valkyrion]

I'm going to say 'no' but I'll happily bow to the judgement of my betters here.

 

Advance:

....Vehicles may pivot once up to 90° and then move up to 6" directly forwards.

 

Ramming

When moving a Vehicle, the controlling player may declare that the Vehicle will attempt to Ram instead of moving normally.

 

You aren't 'moving normally' so therefore you can't ram.

Edited October 25, 2022 by Valkyrion

[Cactus]

I have to agree with Vlakyrion's interpretation here but +1 for creative thinking.

[TheNineteenth]

On 10/25/2022 at 11:23 AM, Valkyrion said:

I'm going to say 'no' but I'll happily bow to the judgement of my betters here.

 

Advance:

....Vehicles may pivot once up to 90° and then move up to 6" directly forwards.

 

Ramming

When moving a Vehicle, the controlling player may declare that the Vehicle will attempt to Ram instead of moving normally.

 

You aren't 'moving normally' so therefore you can't ram.

While I can see how it could be seized on to reach for a means to block a player from thusly Reacting to a Move with an Advance reaction from a Vehicle, "move normally" isn't a game term; the Ram section is just describing how with the Ram declaration, you are instructed to move the Vehicle (rather than the other Vehicle movement rules alluded to with "move normally"). This could be an indication of intent, but since Movement Reactions and the Advance Reaction don't specifically require the Vehicle to "move normally", I don't read this to indicate a Ram in an Advance Reaction is prohibited.

 

Therefor, I think as OP suggested you would simply combine the restrictions of Advance with the Restrictions from Ram: both allow the pivot (though Advance restricts it to 90 degrees), then move up to 6" (as Advance stipulates).

 

If anything, I think restricting the Vehicle move to 6" can be read as an intent to cap the strength of Ram as Advance Reactions (why else, or what other game effects would there be in an edition where Vehicles almost never score, for the distance or pivot direction to be limited?).

Edited December 2, 2022 by TheNineteenth
clarity

[General Zodd]

On 12/2/2022 at 7:22 PM, TheNineteenth said:

While I can see how it could be seized on to reach for a means to block a player from thusly Reacting to a Move with an Advance reaction from a Vehicle, "move normally" isn't a game term; the Ram section is just describing how with the Ram declaration, you are instructed to move the Vehicle (rather than the other Vehicle movement rules alluded to with "move normally"). This could be an indication of intent, but since Movement Reactions and the Advance Reaction don't specifically require the Vehicle to "move normally", I don't read this to indicate a Ram in an Advance Reaction is prohibited.

There are actually loads of things referenced in the rules that aren’t “game terms”. As a very obvious example, see “attack” and the fact it applies variously to the whole salvo (to coin a phrase) from a weapon/unit and also to individual dice rolled using a multi-shot weapon, see debates around Fury of the Legion to see what I mean.

 

Unfortunately for rules lawyers everywhere, GW have long ago made a design choice that, broadly speaking, their rule sets aspire to be written in conversational English*, rather than a lot of other systems with more rigorously defined terms of reference and sequencing of conflicting triggers. They view this as more accessible to the newer player who might be put off by loads of pseudo-legal language. The upshot of all that is that when they write “move normally” they expect the reader to interpret that in a “plain English” understanding. To that point, and I appreciate this is still unhelpfully vague, I would say that “move normally” would be mean moving in the normal manner, eg. not during a reaction.
 

*I cannot speak to how much they stick to this when translating into different languages!

[Noserenda]

Eh feels like a ram would be a cool choice and it certainly feels ambiguous enough to me to allow it.

 

Worth writing to the faq email

[TheNineteenth]

On 12/3/2022 at 4:21 PM, General Zodd said:

There are actually loads of things referenced in the rules that aren’t “game terms”. As a very obvious example, see “attack” and the fact it applies variously to the whole salvo (to coin a phrase) from a weapon/unit and also to individual dice rolled using a multi-shot weapon, see debates around Fury of the Legion to see what I mean.

 

Unfortunately for rules lawyers everywhere, GW have long ago made a design choice that, broadly speaking, their rule sets aspire to be written in conversational English*, rather than a lot of other systems with more rigorously defined terms of reference and sequencing of conflicting triggers. They view this as more accessible to the newer player who might be put off by loads of pseudo-legal language. The upshot of all that is that when they write “move normally” they expect the reader to interpret that in a “plain English” understanding. To that point, and I appreciate this is still unhelpfully vague, I would say that “move normally” would be mean moving in the normal manner, eg. not during a reaction.
 

*I cannot speak to how much they stick to this when translating into different languages!

Indeed, this sloppiness of writing/editing is really frustrating, as it seems to be very haphazard; sometimes phrases mean common English things (expressed rules instructions) when addressed in FAQs or errata, sometimes they don't.

 

A lot better technical editing and a lot more intellectual honesty about what needs an errata sure would be nice, but seem approximately as likely as a plastic Thunderhawk (within the realm of possibility but wished for as long as plastic Squats and Sisters before them).

[Stitch5000]

Given the Ramming Attack rules make explicit reference to the Movement Characteristic of the model making the attack and that there is a specific Advanced Reaction that can be made in response to a Ram Attack (When Reactions cannot be made in response to a Reaction), it would seem that one cannot make a Ram Attacking when using the Advance Reaction.