Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My friend and I have been locking In debate for a few days about who can DoG from a squad being tank shocked. I work off the exact wording of the rule book that states that any model under the vehicles path may make an attempt, meaning you can purposely aim the shock to move/land through normal troops without hitting heavy weapons/power fists. However my friend said he went GT last year and when it was challenged a ref ruled that he could pick any model from the squad because it was the squad being effected by the tank shock. I can't read any errata so I'm just assuming it was a House Rule... and that my interpretation is the right one?

The 'any model from the squad' is a common interpretation, but I agree with you: The rules actually call for a model in the vehicle's path.

That is what I don't understand. It may be a common (mis)interpretation because even I used to think those were the rules... just from how other people played it. But since I've looked into it (since considering Torture Amps on Raiders), I realised what it actually said. Any model under the vehicles path is so specific... not sure where people seem to have evidence that allows any member of the unit to allow DoG.

Well it also calls for, in the same sentence, a model that would instead move out of the way. The only way you can move out of the way is if the vehicle lands on top of you or if you roll high enough on a fall back. Would you say that a DoG attempt can only be made by a model that will be eventually sat on by the tank?

The vehicles path is different from the vehicles final resting place. You name the tank shock distance and then the path is drawn. It will be clear which 'models', and not units are under its path.

But a model attempts DoG instead of moving out of the way. How can they attempt DoG unless they would otherwise be required to move out of the way? Models in a tanks path often don't move out of the way. The only way a model that wants to attempt DoG could do so is if the tank were to literally finish its tank shock on top of said model, requiring it to move. The only other way to 'move out of the way' is to fall back (which sometimes moves out of the way, sometimes doesn't), but a falling back unit isn't going to attempt DoG.

Edit: Called it a tank shot...

As I remember tank shock states that the vehicle moves through the models which move/duck/dive to allow the tank through (if they pass their morale check). DoG is a single model holding his ground and not getting out of the way, therefore he must actually be in the vehicles path to get run over. Just happens to be that with model representation you only move any models that the vehicle lands on and anything inbetween is thought to just get back off their feet and reform.

Messiah2k02 wrote:As I remember tank shock states that the vehicle moves through the models which move/duck/dive to allow the tank through (if they pass their morale check). DoG is a single model holding his ground and not getting out of the way, therefore he must actually be in the vehicles path to get run over. Just happens to be that with model representation you only move any models that the vehicle lands on and anything inbetween is thought to just get back off their feet and reform.

What you're saying is that the bit of the sentence you do like is hard rules, and the bit of the sentence you don't like has to be fluff. Models that pass their test let the vehicle pass as if it were not there. There is no moving out of the way. The only time 'move out of the way' is actually said in the Tank Shock rules is when the vehicle lands on top of them and when attempting a DoG attempt.

I think "one of its models in the vehicles path" must be fluff because i don't really like that bit.

I always envisioned it as the squad sees the vehicle coming, then attempt to get out of the way.

Unless one plucky individual decides to run into the path of the oncoming vehicle and punch it with his metal hand.

So I've always accepted DoG as any model in the unit

I always like to imagine 40k as a cinematic experience, and the phases are really just representations of a massive, complex battle.

Tek wrote:I always envisioned it as the squad sees the vehicle coming, then attempt to get out of the way.

Unless one plucky individual decides to run into the path of the oncoming vehicle and punch it with his metal hand.

So I've always accepted DoG as any model in the unit

I always like to imagine 40k as a cinematic experience, and the phases are really just representations of a massive, complex battle.

thats how I've always seen it! and its always fun to see a carnifex fail its DoG on a rhino and die... LOL!

I wasn't pick and mixing the rules. I'm saying it simply states 'any model in the vehicles path'. In this case it clearly defines what can DoG (by my interpretation) as a model in its direct path. You say it can be any model in the unit, fair enough, but from what text in the rulebook are you saying any member of a squad being shocked can DoG?

Messiah2k02 wrote:I wasn't pick and mixing the rules. I'm saying it simply states 'any model in the vehicles path'. In this case it clearly defines what can DoG (by my interpretation) as a model in its direct path. You say it can be any model in the unit, fair enough, but from what text in the rulebook are you saying any member of a squad being shocked can DoG?

The same bit that allows your model to attempt DoG, instead of moving out of the way, when it isn't going to move out of the way anyway?

Well in my case the Raiders will only be moving 4-12" to land on the unit and bunch it up... so in my case it actually will be a model moving

I understand where you are coming from, logically it makes sence and I'd have expected it to be from the squad, but I can't find text in the rulebook to override the exactness of 'any model in the vehicles path'. Meh.

Edit: Infact in the case of Raiders tank shocking you can skim over units inbetween you and your resting place anyways... making them not in your path.

Me and my friends always play "models in path of vehicle only". if a model in the path of the tank shock DoG's and makes it the vehicle stops right there. if the model doing the DoG fails to hurt the oncoming vehicle he is squished (removed from play), so I guess he would have the vehicle resting on him at end of movement (everyone else gets out of the way or runs).

Messiah2k02 wrote:You say it can be any model in the unit, fair enough, but from what text in the rulebook are you saying any member of a squad being shocked can DoG?

Hey I'm saying that's the rule, I'm saying that's how I play it.

Ridcully wrote:The only way a model that wants to attempt DoG could do so is if the tank were to literally finish its tank shock on top of said model, requiring it to move.

That would be the strict RAW reading of the rule, yes.

The fact that they refer to the vehicle's path rather than the vehicle's final position though does suggest that the idea is for you to use any model the vehicle would move over, on the assumption that thse models are also 'moving' to allow the vehicle through.

Otherwise, you would not be able to DoG if the vehicle moves right through the unit.


So, to summarise:
One model in the vehicle's path can attempt a DoG instead of moving.
This doesn't quite fit with the Tank Shock rule itself, since only those models that would end up underneath the vehicle are actually moved.
Regardless, there is nothing in the rule that suggests that models not actually in the vehicle's path can perform a DoG, as they are not (a)in the vehicle's path or (b)moved.

So strict RAW: Only a model under the vehicle's final position can DoG.
RA(IMHO)Intended: Only a model in the path of the vehicle can DoG.
RACommonlyPlayed: Any model in the unit being Tank Shocked can DoG.

Which, IMO, slots this into the 'Talk it over with your opponent before the game' list.

insaniak wrote:

Ridcully wrote:The only way a model that wants to attempt DoG could do so is if the tank were to literally finish its tank shock on top of said model, requiring it to move.

That would be the strict RAW reading of the rule, yes.

What better way to not follow someone's slightly more strict interpretation than to increase the strictness of the same sentence?

The fact that they refer to the vehicle's path rather than the vehicle's final position though does suggest that the idea is for you to use any model the vehicle would move over, on the assumption that thse models are also 'moving' to allow the vehicle through.

Otherwise, you would not be able to DoG if the vehicle moves right through the unit.

Correct. Nor could you if they deliberately clipped the shield drone from a Farsight Enclave Seven Samurai squad, causing a leadership test for the entire squad, and the little drone to decide against a ridiculous DoG attempt on a vehicle it can't possible scratch. There is a complete lack of 'move out of the way' even in terms of whatever fluff they give us for passing the morale test.

So, to summarise:
One model in the vehicle's path can attempt a DoG instead of moving.
This doesn't quite fit with the Tank Shock rule itself, since only those models that would end up underneath the vehicle are actually moved.
Regardless, there is nothing in the rule that suggests that models not actually in the vehicle's path can perform a DoG, as they are not (a)in the vehicle's path or (b)moved.

So strict RAW: Only a model under the vehicle's final position can DoG.
RA(IMHO)Intended: Only a model in the path of the vehicle can DoG.
RACommonlyPlayed: Any model in the unit being Tank Shocked can DoG.

Which, IMO, slots this into the 'Talk it over with your opponent before the game' list.

That last one should also have have an 'Intended'. The stuff about paths, just as the stuff about movement, could easily be a fluff reference. The unit is being tank shocked therefore the models of the unit are in the vehicle's path.

Ridcully wrote:What better way to not follow someone's slightly more strict interpretation than to increase the strictness of the same sentence?

Meh, it doesn't automatically make your looser interpretation correct. Just pushes the argument up into 'The RAW clearly doesn't work as intended, so you'll need to figure it out for yourself' territory.

That last one should also have have an 'Intended'. The stuff about paths, just as the stuff about movement, could easily be a fluff reference. The unit is being tank shocked therefore the models of the unit are in the vehicle's path.

I didn't list the last one as intended because I don't believe it is the intention. I see no reason to assume that the reference to the vehicle's path is just fluff. If they had intended for any model in the unit to be able to perform the DoG attack, they would have just said '...one of its models can ...'

The fact that they specifically refer to a model in the vehicle's path suggests that either the writer thought it was (as you suggest) just a meaningless bit of flavour text, or that he intended it to mean that the model has to actually be in the vehicle's path.

When a rule includes a piece of text that could either be flavour text or actual rule, it just seems more logical to me to take it as a rule. Generally saves arguments.

But, again, that's just my opinion as to what was intended. YMMV.


Edit: And before you point out the apparent inconsistency there, I treat the bit about movement as fluff because not doing so means that DoG becomes practically useless. Since I doubt that it was intended to not work simply because the vehicle was moved right through the unit, in that particular case the evidence leans more strongly towards fluff than rule.

insaniak wrote:

Ridcully wrote:What better way to not follow someone's slightly more strict interpretation than to increase the strictness of the same sentence?

Meh, it doesn't automatically make your looser interpretation correct. Just pushes the argument up into 'The RAW clearly doesn't work as intended, so you'll need to figure it out for yourself' territory.

I misread that as 'loser' interpretation first. Thought you were having a crack.

That last one should also have have an 'Intended'. The stuff about paths, just as the stuff about movement, could easily be a fluff reference. The unit is being tank shocked therefore the models of the unit are in the vehicle's path.

I didn't list the last one as intended because I don't believe it is the intention. I see no reason to assume that the reference to the vehicle's path is just fluff. If they had intended for any model in the unit to be able to perform the DoG attack, they would have just said '...one of its models can ...'

The fact that they specifically refer to a model in the vehicle's path suggests that either the writer thought it was (as you suggest) just a meaningless bit of flavour text, or that he intended it to mean that the model has to actually be in the vehicle's path.

When a rule includes a piece of text that could either be flavour text or actual rule, it just seems more logical to me to take it as a rule. Generally saves arguments.

But, again, that's just my opinion as to what was intended. YMMV.


Edit: And before you point out the apparent inconsistency there, I treat the bit about movement as fluff because not doing so means that DoG becomes practically useless. Since I doubt that it was intended to not work simply because the vehicle was moved right through the unit, in that particular case the evidence leans more strongly towards fluff than rule.

I'll point it out anyway, that's pretty inconsistent Insaniak (especially given they're in the same sentence. There is no degree of separation). DoG is equally useless for the defender if we follow your interpretation of "There's no such thing as a risky Tank Shock".

Also, i said it should have an 'intended' because you took the time to write (IMHO) in the one above it. You didn't write (IMHO) in the RACommonlyPlayed. You just presented it as if those were the three possible options. RAI, RAP, or RAW. In fact the RAP option is also a second RAI option, actual intention being unknown.

Unless you were saying that you don't have to list the third option as also being RAI because it's your opinion in your post. If that's the case, here's what it boils down to:

RAW: Only a model in the path of the vehicle, and will also be under the vehicle on the completion of the tank shock, may attempt a DoG.
RA(IMHO)Intended: Any model in the unit may attempt DoG
RAPlayed: Any model in the unit may attempt DoG

How that would slot into before the game discussions, i'm not sure.

Ridcully wrote:I'll point it out anyway, that's pretty inconsistent Insaniak (especially given they're in the same sentence. There is no degree of separation).

Sure there is.

When you move the tank shocking vehicle, you trace the vehicle's movement as normal. The rulebook explains what happens to the troops in the vehicle's path: They let the vehicle move through them. While it is not actually explained as such, this would involve (fluff-wise) the members of the unit who are in the vehicle's path moving out of the way. We simply don't bother moving the actual models unless they would wind up under the vehicle's final position.

We're faced with the option of 'instead of moving' meaning 'instead of physically moving the model' or 'instead of the trooper getting out of the way of the vehicle as it moves past'

The first makes DoG next to useless, as it is only possible if the vehicle finishes its movement on top of the model wishing to DoG.
The second makes DoG possible by any model in the path of the vehicle.

So, I choose to ignore the first (more RAW) option in favour of the one that allows the rule to work as I believe it to be intended. Namely, to allow a model in the vehicle's path to perform a DoG attack. The reference to movement still has a purpose... it's a reference to what is happening as the vehicle moves through the unit.


The 'any model in the unit' interpretation, by contrast, assumes that the reference to being in the vehicle's path is completely superfluous wording. If we're assuming that the every model counts as being in the vehicle's path because they're a part if the unit being tank shocked, then there is no point at all having those words in the statement. If the unit is being tank shocked then all of it's models are in the vehicle's path anyway.

So, rather than assume that they are a meaningless bit of filler, I choose to assume that they mean what they say... that the model (and not just the unit has to in the vehicle's path.

DoG is equally useless for the defender if we follow your interpretation of "There's no such thing as a risky Tank Shock".

Not sure what you're getting at here. How does my interpretation mean that there is no risky tank shock?

Also, i said it should have an 'intended' because you took the time to write (IMHO) in the one above it. You didn't write (IMHO) in the RACommonlyPlayed. You just presented it as if those were the three possible options. RAI, RAP, or RAW.

I put IMHO on the one above it because it's my opinion. We have no way of knowing what the actual intention is, so I wouldn't presume to say that the second option is RAI. It's just what I believe the RAI to be, based on the wording given. It's also the way I've generally seen the game played.

The third option, I very carefully said 'commonly played' rather than 'played'... 'RAP suggests that everyone plays that way, which from my experience is not the case. It is an interpretation that I have seen commonly used... but not the majority interpretation, at least going by previous discussions on this topic.

And I have no evidence that it's RAI, so I wouldn't list it as such. I might list it as what I believe to be RAI, if I did in fact believe so. I don't.

There can't be a second RAI option. The rule can only have been intended to work one way. So if I believe the second option to be RAI, I can scarcely claim that I think a different option is also RAI.


What this boils down to is that there are three (unless someone has a different one) possible interpretations of the rule. You'll need to discuss with your opponent which of them you're going to use.

Take a practical application of the rule and it only works for models in the path of the vehicle, which is consistent with the RAW

eg: you have a squad of 30 shoota boyz including a nob with powerclaw. The mob is spread out in a long line say 14" long with the nob at one end. (perhaps they are forming an ork 'chain' between two objectivs thereby contesting them both - which I have seen done). Say you tank shock the end of the line opposite to the nob with a Chimera.

Under the RAW reading the only models able to do a DoG attack are those with out any real ability to hurt the tank.. needing a 6 to glance. If you were to play it as any model then you would end up giving the nob a free 14" move in order to attack the Chimera (out of sequence)... virtually an easy kill. So where do you put the nob... in his original starting place or in front of the Chimera in order to attack it??
This free 14" move goes against the RAW and RAI (Rule as Intended).

Or say you even tank shock the ork line with two Chimeras at either end of the ork line... you end up with a nob jumping all over the battlefield which is now just silly DoG is clearly (IMHO) a RAW interpretation. To make it otherwise just can't work.

91viper wrote: If you were to play it as any model then you would end up giving the nob a free 14" move in order to attack the Chimera (out of sequence)... virtually an easy kill. So where do you put the nob... in his original starting place or in front of the Chimera in order to attack it??

Actually, it's the other way around...

The model performing the DoG doesn't move. The vehicle, however:
"If the model successfully manages to stun, destroy or immobilise it, the vehicle grinds to a halt directly in front of the heroic individual (or blows up there)."

So, if the Nob 14" away from the vehicle manages to halt it, the vehicle moves to his position and halts in front of him. Presumably he waves or something to attract the driver's attention, and the driver politely motors on over there in order to let him whack the vehicle.


Which is more than enough proof for me that it's not meant to be any model in the unit... just those actually in the vehicle's path. YMMV.

insaniak wrote:
The model performing the DoG doesn't move. The vehicle, however:
"If the model successfully manages to stun, destroy or immobilise it, the vehicle grinds to a halt directly in front of the heroic individual (or blows up there)."

So, if the Nob 14" away from the vehicle manages to halt it, the vehicle moves to his position and halts in front of him. Presumably he waves or something to attract the driver's attention, and the driver politely motors on over there in order to let him whack the vehicle.


Which is more than enough proof for me that it's not meant to be any model in the unit... just those actually in the vehicle's path. YMMV.

Fantastic.. I get to move my Chimera 12" to tank shock then a further 14" "flying while Stunned" move... for a total of a 30" move...!! If only my Vendetta could move as quick

Granted if the vehicle could even move that far out of its way when since it has to move straight from its spot atleast going battle speed. I think the rule is just who was in the way when it initially tank shocked, if its an ork chain then the nob all the way over at the end probably wouldn't have a crack as much as a tac squad that was together where the guy with the power fist was only half an inch away when the rest of the squad was tank shocked. Maybe the model placement is important for certain things but over all if most of the squad is in one spot then this wouldn't really be an issue.

insaniak wrote:

91viper wrote: If you were to play it as any model then you would end up giving the nob a free 14" move in order to attack the Chimera (out of sequence)... virtually an easy kill. So where do you put the nob... in his original starting place or in front of the Chimera in order to attack it??

Actually, it's the other way around...

The model performing the DoG doesn't move. The vehicle, however:
"If the model successfully manages to stun, destroy or immobilise it, the vehicle grinds to a halt directly in front of the heroic individual (or blows up there)."

So, if the Nob 14" away from the vehicle manages to halt it, the vehicle moves to his position and halts in front of him. Presumably he waves or something to attract the driver's attention, and the driver politely motors on over there in order to let him whack the vehicle.


Which is more than enough proof for me that it's not meant to be any model in the unit... just those actually in the vehicle's path. YMMV.

I accept that as the RAI. Had i read the entire rule through, i probably would have swayed my thinking earlier (or shut up ).

I wouldn't like the tactics it brings about though, for those who play this way. Driving into densely packed enemies, as the intro suggests, would be a rarity if only targeting a single weak model makes a difference. Seems like too much of an advantage to the attacker. We have plenty of rules that don't require certain models to be where they actually are, and i'm fairly sure my club would prefer to continue on that line of thinking for DoG. Go figure.

Hmmm... guess i'll be taking some Torture Amps after all

Thanks for the discussion guys it's been insightful. Will have to remember that Ork scenario.

Remember attacks in a DoG move are resolved at front AV. So a Nob doing a DoG against a Russ,BW, or LR has to roll a 5 to at least glance it (not good odds).

Grimgob wrote:Remember attacks in a DoG move are resolved at front AV. So a Nob doing a DoG against a Russ,BW, or LR has to roll a 5 to at least glance it (not good odds).

8 + 5 = 14?

Gorkamorka wrote:

Grimgob wrote:Remember attacks in a DoG move are resolved at front AV. So a Nob doing a DoG against a Russ,BW, or LR has to roll a 5 to at least glance it (not good odds).

8 + 5 = 14?

He's forgetting they're not charging so no Furious charge... So as you said its 6's to glance

I agree with Insaniak on all points.