Sorry, bit of a misread on my part, it says "if an infantry unit has to move models in responce to a tank shock you must make a morale check"

I read it as if an infantry unit moves model it has to make a morale check.

So it seems that the morale check can be taken before models are moved, therefore the whole thing of standing tall and making your DOG and stopping a model in place.

So it goes back to whether you get to DOG or not if locked in HTH. DIG, what makes you say you can't DOG while locked in HTH?

Because if you are locked in combat you can't shoot into or out of it. Generalizing...

This makes skimmer squadrons rock. Think of the potential for TAU, Eldar, Marine Landspeeders all looking to drag a unit out of a bad combat.

This leads to another question if a unit is tank shocked by a squadron, do they make multiple DoG or just one? Can they actually stop them all or just one if the tank shocked unit makes a successful DoG?

In order to tank shock you have to have "tank" listed in the profile IIRC.

Because if you are locked in combat you can't shoot into or out of it. Generalizing...

They're not shooting out of the combat. They're making a Death or Glory attack.

In order to tank shock you have to have "tank" listed in the profile IIRC.

Yup, Tanks only... and Ork vehicles with Stikkbomm Chuckas. So the only Squadrons that will be Tank Shocking are Killer Kans... and the rules simply don't cover Squadrons Tank Shocking, so you're going to have to figure it out for yourself. I would think that you would work out the Shock for each vehicle seperately, since the Tank Shock rules deal with individual vehicles only. Which would allow a DoG for each vehicle.

Tanks don't come in squadrons.

I don't think there is a squadron of tanks in any army list is there? (Perhaps in the Armored Company list?)

So the issue of being tank shocked by a squadron is technically immpossible isn't it? As there are no squadrons of vehicles classified as tanks.

As I just said, Ork vehicles with stikkbomm Chuckas...

So a DoG isn't a shooting attack?

 

Edit: Nevermind, you can DoG with grenades.

Edit: Nevermind, you can DoG with grenades

And close combat weapons.

I posit that you cannot tank shock close combat.
#1 You can't run over your own guys (no rule permits this)
#2Close combat is considered a swirling melee.
Conclusion1: models in close combat are in their approximate, but theoretically not exact, location.
Conclusion2: Since you can't be sure of the location of your models in close combat, you can't tank shock through that combat, because you cannot demonstrate that you are not hitting your own guys.

Let's start with that approach, and see where it takes us.

Posted By Antonin 08/11/2006 8:48 AM
I posit that you cannot tank shock close combat.
#1 You can't run over your own guys (no rule permits this)
#2Close combat is considered a swirling melee.
Conclusion1: models in close combat are in their approximate, but theoretically not exact, location.
Conclusion2: Since you can't be sure of the location of your models in close combat, you can't tank shock through that combat, because you cannot demonstrate that you are not hitting your own guys.

Let's start with that approach, and see where it takes us.

You can't have two conclusions from one set of premises.

Fix it.

And make sure your conclusion actually follows from your premises.

Posted By mauleed 08/11/2006 10:31 AM

Posted By Antonin 08/11/2006 8:48 AM
I posit that you cannot tank shock close combat.
#1 You can't run over your own guys (no rule permits this)
#2Close combat is considered a swirling melee.
Conclusion1: models in close combat are in their approximate, but theoretically not exact, location.
Conclusion2: Since you can't be sure of the location of your models in close combat, you can't tank shock through that combat, because you cannot demonstrate that you are not hitting your own guys.

Let's start with that approach, and see where it takes us.

You can't have two conclusions from one set of premises.

Fix it.

And make sure your conclusion actually follows from your premises.

Your point is incorrect; you can indeed have two conclusions from one set of premises. However, what you meant to say is that my post does not correctly delineate the connections between the premises and the conclusions, to which I agree. Please change "Conclusion2:" to "derivative conclusion, based upon premise one and two and conclusion1, above:"

I could be wordier, and after making conclusion 1 could restate all of the above as facts, but that would be excessive and unnecessary.

Your conclusions, neither of them, still do not result from your two premises.

Using your argument, Antonin, one could argue that if they get a sweeping advance, they can move from where any model in the combat was that turn, since it is a swirling melee and their own models may have been anywhere in the combat.

I think the rules allow tankshocking into close combat.  But the only thing this could actually do is provide a Death or Glory attack or move the models slightly so that they are not within 1" of the vehicle.  There are absolutely no rules to handle falling back out of an assault if it isn't the result of combat, so the player performing the tank shock is just wishful thinking, especially if they also believe their unit gets a chance to sweeping advance because of it.

Is there anyone out there who thinks it would be a legitimate tactic to tank shock a unit in close combat, perform a sweeping advance with their own unit, and then move that unit because it is still the middle of their own movement phase?!?!

- Oaka

Good point, Oaka. Now, it seems as though the position of models in close combat is somewhat of an approximation - here's why I think that. Say you have a losing unit, that has two models within the kill zone of the other squad. If that losing unit falls back, but rolls lower on initiative, the whole squad is wiped out. In other words, the effects of the winning squad extend throughout the other squad, and do not kill only those within the kill zone. Naturally, there is also the kill zone, which raises the interesting question of whether a DoG attack which does not contact that model but comes within 2' could be subject to its attacks (just an idle digression). Perhaps a better view of combat is that while it is going on, it is a swirling mass, but immediately when it ends, the models are considered to be in their physical location for further moves or overrun attempts, as a necessary game mechanic.

I understand your point, and may ultimately be swayed by it, but at this point it seems like the various zones and combat effects of the game demonstrate that models are not, for rules purposes, and during the combat only, at their physical location - they are "swirling" to use the terrible terminology. This arbitrary placement also appears with Familiars, who exist but not really, and more notably in tanks - the location of a model inside a tank is somewhat equivalent to the question of whether schoedinger's cat is alive - we only know when the troops disembark, and lo! they are always located next to a hatch, apparently.

Also, without some prohibition on tankshocking into close combat, I see no prohibition on the "ludicrous" poisition you deride: the winning models don't need to move to eliminate their enemy, and then would be free during the movement phase- no prohibition on further movement. I don't think that is appropriate under the rules, but I think the cut-off for such a tactic is at the root - which is being able to tankshock into CC.

@Oaka, although I don't think you would get a sweeping advance, you obviously CAN do it. Since it would still be your movement phase, you would then be able to move your models that were engaged (most likely on to the model that tank shocked)

Conclusion1: models in close combat are in their approximate, but theoretically not exact, location.

This is borne out by the LOS rules... but is NOT applied at any time when measurement involving the combat is required. Fall Back distances are measured from actual models, as is coherency, engagement, and kill zones. I see no reason that Tank Shock shouldn't likewise use the actual model.

Look at it this way: The models on the table are pretty much always considered to be in motion, rather than just standing there waiting for the Hand of God to pick them up and move them their alloted movement distance. The static model on the table then in all situations represents the 'approximate location of the model'... but the game rules still use the actual model as a reference point for anything that affects that model.

That's an absolutely disgusting proposition there, happypants.  A unit of assault marines is happily chewing through a large squad of firewarriors, when all of a sudden their devilfish comes over the ridge, scares the assault marines away, while the firewarriors embark into safety and the Tau gunline blows the surviving marines off the board.  Ugh.  I'd like this to be obviously against the rules, but it isn't.  Which stinks, because I feel sympathy for footslogging assault armies that rely on being in a close combat to be immune to being shot at. 

Let's just put this in the legal, but not played that way category, shall we?

- Oaka

A unit of assault marines is happily chewing through a large squad of firewarriors, when all of a sudden their devilfish comes over the ridge, scares the assault marines away, while the firewarriors embark into safety and the Tau gunline blows the surviving marines off the board.

I think a more likely scenario is that the Assault Marines pass their leadership test and on their following turn wipe out the Fire Warriors and punch great gaping holes in the Devilfish...

A unit of assault marines is happily chewing through a large squad of firewarriors, when all of a sudden their devilfish comes over the ridge, scares the assault marines away, while the firewarriors embark into safety and the Tau gunline blows the surviving marines off the board.

I think a more likely scenario is that the Assault Marines pass their leadership test and on their following turn wipe out the Fire Warriors and punch great gaping holes in the Devilfish...

Thing is Insaniak, that only if the assault marines stop the 'fish via DoG will they have a chance to kill the fish & firewarriors, even if they pass leadership they still have to give way and good positioning on the part of the tank shocker will move the marines out of HtH with the firewarriors.

That would require more than just good positioning of the tank... it also requires the marines to be in a position where such a thing is possible.

Frankly, I don't see it actually happening too often.

I don't know about that Insaniak, nothing about tank shock says you have to move forward, and although you would be exposing your side armor, doing a sideways tank shock would probably do the trick, especially because you can quite easily argue that you CAN move a skimmer over friendly models (although I acknowledge that you don't agree on that one, I think friendly models=obstructions is not a leap)

nothing about tank shock says you have to move forward

I am quite sure that you must move in a straight line in the direction you are facing. If someone with easier access to a BBoR could double check that? If not I will when I get home from work.

Straight Line and you can't turn but doesn't say it has to be forward. Seeing as you can move sideways, backwards or whatever in 40k world, you can tankshock any way you like.

Straight Line and you can't turn but doesn't say it has to be forward. Seeing as you can move sideways, backwards or whatever in 40k world, you can tankshock any way you like.

That is a horrendous view on it. Absolutely one of the grossest interpretations of a rule I have seen. Good on ya mate! hehhehehe

Actually I could see a skimmer being justified as rolling sideways but not a treaded ground tank. I believe that's why I thought that all tanks have to move forward in a straight line since not all tanks are skimmers.

 

Edit: Finished my thought

Fluff != Rules

What a horrible loop hole. The new tank shock FOF tactic. Tank shock to break units out of cc then rapid fire with fire warriors and the rest of your army. Makes a Ethereal worth taking for leadership purposes to prolong cc.
I could really see this being abusive with a mech tau FOF army.

What a horrible loop hole. The new tank shock FOF tactic. Tank shock to break units out of cc then rapid fire with fire warriors and the rest of your army. Makes a Ethereal worth taking for leadership purposes to prolong cc.
I could really see this being abusive with a mech tau FOF army.

So this would be a Tau army list WANTING to be in close combat?

Ok, I'll play it!!!

LOL, you do have to take in to consideration that you will most likely have to go through 3x combat to do this because you will most likely have to position your tank one turn of movement, and then do the tank shock the next seeing as tank shock very specifically prohibits moving over your own troops (which even if you can do in a skimmer, tank shock is more specific than that.

Then again, I usually have 3 or 4 tanks hanging around in the same area so there is a good chance a HH could do the tank shock, fish goes over and picks the doods up and then go from there.

I just went over the rules

  If you read any kind of rules for units in combat you will find that you can't affect them by outside influence. ie Fear of the Darkness power. Shooting rules. As they are usually too preoccupied with the swirling melee.  I can bet that the judges will lean toward the shooting into HTH as a guide. Your sportmanship would hit all time lows with this.

I dont think you will be able to tank shock guys out of combat. The rules for tank shock says that if they pass their leadership test then they simply move arround the tank. They can still stay engaged in the combat if they want to and there will be room to stay engagued because you cant cover all sides of the unit unless you have many tanks.

Failing the leadership test is a different story as they would simply run away. Prety usefull but not to reliable as most units dont fail to many tests.

I see what you are saying cypher, but you left out the part about "via the shortest distance possible" Meaning they can't run around to the back, and the side of a 'fish or HH covers a lot of ground.

thehod> I just went over the rules...   If you read any kind of rules for units in combat you will find that you can't affect them by outside influence. ie Fear of the Darkness power. Shooting rules. As they are usually too preoccupied with the swirling melee.  I can bet that the judges will lean toward

So, if you just went over the rules, did you find any that are relevant, want to make a case on that? Or is it just based on conjecture, and "feels like" units in CC can't be affected based on other rules?

theHod> Your sportmanship would hit all time lows with this.

I suppose it would, no one likes finding out they don't play by the rules, (read: marine players don't like finding out they don't have the advantage) usually they see it as your problem, not theirs if they are in that absolutist frame of mind.  Ironic that it could make playing by the rules unsporting? Funny that.

I am with the hod on this one. Consider if some designed an EC army with a good number of transports sporting warp amps. To me this argument sounds like a way to bend the rules. The rules do not specifically mention tank shocking units in close combat. I was under the impression that here you follow along the lines that just because the rules do not state you cannot do something does not necessarily mean that you can do it. This tactic comes across as sneaky.

@bloater, the thing is that the tank shock rules are pretty specific as what you can do and how you have to do it. Not being able to assault a unit in HTH is as specific as not being able to move over your own models so I don't see how the "doesn't say you can't so you can" argument applies here.

this is a funny topic considering i just found it AND was going to tank shock an assault marine squad with a rhino just some 3 hours ago

Nowhere in the rules I have I seen it stated you an tank shot enemy units. I am just saying...

Nowhere in the rules will you see it stated that you can shoot at nurglings, either.

It's simply allowed by the general rules of the game.

@insaniak

You have broken three rules of the road. I quote them here for your reference:

A-4. Offering Up Something That is Not a Rule as a Rule<?

What is a rule? This is an area where people commonly get confused. Rules are limited to:

? The Grey Tome (40K Main Rulebook/<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 /><st1:City><st1:place>Battle</st1:place></st1:City> of Macragge Rulebook)

? Army Codexes

? 40k V4 FAQs published on the website

? Anything with a Chapter Approved Stamp not marked Trial, Experimental, etc.

? Other Official Rulebooks

 

What isn?t a rule? Lots of things seem like rules, but really are not. Here?s some of them:

? Rulezboyz do not create rules. GW doesn't pay someone to be a "Rulezboy," they pay someone to stock shelves, or take phone orders. In their spare time they answer the Rulesboyz e-mail account. They're not experts on the rules. They're often wrong. And if you ask them the same question three or four times, it?s not unheard of to get three or four different answers. If your argument includes any reference to a Rulezboy, you?ve just refuted yourself. Redshirts (i.e. staff at GW stores) fall into this same category.

? Posts from the Eye of Terror (or any other forum on the Internet, for that matter) are not official. They?re interesting and there?s nothing wrong with following them in common practice, but they are not rules, regardless of the alleged source.

 

A-7. ?The rules don?t say I can?t!?
This is the most annoying argument ever made. If you?ve been forced to resort to it, your argument is immediately false. The rules don?t say I can?t place my models back on the board after you?ve killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn?t mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.

 

A-9. Committing a Logical Fallacy
A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. Basically, if an argument includes a logical fallacy, the premises do not support the conclusion reached. Some logical fallacies are specified above, but using any logical fallacy will weaken and facilitate the refutation of your argument. For more information on logical fallacies, here are some websites that examine them in greater detail.

Read them and commit them to memory.

And in regards to your statement about shooting at nurglings... why be such an arse? There is a whole section of the rules under Shooting that explains how to do so. It is all in black and white.

And in regards to your statement about shooting at nurglings... why be such an arse? There is a whole section of the rules under Shooting that explains how to do so. It is all in black and white.

Have you read the rest of this thread? Seriously?

Read my first post. And yeah I have read the whole thread.

Read my first post. And yeah I have read the whole thread.

See I don't think you have because you made a very BIG error on what Insaniak was saying.

Edit: I removed the part that was me being a jerk.

Let's stay on topic and keep our focus.

This low blow tactic along with shooting an Ordinance template on a squad that is next to a close combat (I wonder who's team did that?) is not fun any way what so ever and that basically violates the #1 rule in 40K: Have Fun.

Now you might say that you are not having fun getting in HtH and getting your face smashed in but that is more on the fact of luck, poor deployment, bad tactics, and mission. Some of which you can do but others that are out of your reach.

Posted By Augustus on 08/16/2006 2:47 PM

I suppose it would, no one likes finding out they don't play by the rules, (read: marine players don't like finding out they don't have the advantage) usually they see it as your problem, not theirs if they are in that absolutist frame of mind.  Ironic that it could make playing by the rules unsporting? Funny that.

It's not that players don't like finding out that they are not playing by the rules, but instead that there opponent is "playing by the rules" or those percieved through obvious errors. I am not saying that you can not tank shock into combat, nor am I saying you can, but the fact that an opponent would use very ambiguous interpretations to win a game is what causes low soft scores. I know you Damian for a fact can appreciate soft scores. 40k is a game of politcs. You have your battle scores, and your soft scores. Loop holes like these help battle scores, but also have a detrimental effect on soft scores.

And in regards to your statement about shooting at nurglings... why be such an arse? There is a whole section of the rules under Shooting that explains how to do so.

Yes there is. And oh, look! There's a whole section of the rules under Tank Shock that explains how to do that...

Since you don't appear to have actually read the thread, here's a summary:

The general rules for Tank Shock make it possible to Tank Shock a unit in close combat, so long as your tank doesn't move over your own troops. Nothing in either the Tank Shock or Close Combat rules specifically prohibits this, which means that the rules that say how you can perform a Tank Shock apply as normal.

This low blow tactic along with shooting an Ordinance template on a squad that is next to a close combat (I wonder who's team did that?) is not fun any way what so ever and that basically violates the #1 rule in 40K: Have Fun.

And therein lies the problem with that rule. YOU don't think it's fun. That doesn't mean that everyone else feels the same...

A lot of people seem to assume that anything they don't personally consider 'fun' should automatically be ignored, based on the page 5 rule that says that the 'fun' is the most important thing... which is a misreading of that rule.

All that page 5 is saying is that both players should be playing for the same reason. That means finding an opponent who feels similarly about the way the game should be played... NOT that you should just be able to disregard anything you personally don't like, since that is not necessarily 'fun' for your opponent if they happen to like that particular rule.

Implying the rules for shooting justifies tank shocking enemy units in close combat just does not cut it. That is just my opinion though.

That's not what he is really saying.

Shooting rules don't specifically say you can shoot Nurglings but they don't have to since the shooting rules are a general rule set about how to shoot.

He is saying that the tank shock rules are similar in that they are a general rule as to how to tank shock and therefore don't have to say that you are allowed to tank shock into close combat.

If you can meet the tank shock requirements at an enemy unit in close combat then you can, by the RaW, tank shock them.

 

Edit: added last line and typos

Zigactly!

Well written Gentlmen.  I think this has been a very interesting thread that has helped me understand a bit of the rules that was somewhat grey to me before.  Thank you especially for your contributions D.I.G. and insaniak.

Carry on.

*grins from ear to ear*

See I'm learning!

Okay I have gone back through this entire thread again and cannot find anything that substantially validates tank shocking enemy units in close combat. I don't mean to come across as thick or argumentative, I just don't think a truly valid case has been made. Back slapping and congratulating each others aside I would like to bring this topic back on focus again. Thanks for your understanding!

The argument goes something like this.

P1. You can tank shock enemy units.
P2. Enemy units engaged in CC are enemy units.
P3. You cannot tank shock your own units.

C. You can tank shock enemy units in CC as long as it would not cause you to also tank shock any of your own units.


This of course contains no quotes, but its purpose is to simply give you a general idea of the argument being made.

Perhaps DIG or someone else would like to post the actual structured argument in order to put all doubts to rest?

The fallacy here is you are simply stating because the rules don't say you cannot that you can.

Steve, didn't you get banned once before for being deliberately obtuse while post ing as BloodyT, much as you are doing now? Read Blue Loki's post again. The rules specifically say you can tank shock. There is no fallacy stemming from someone doing something just cause the rules don't specifically mention it. Much like shooting at Nurglings, the rules also state you can tank shock. Get over the fact that you don't like it and try examining it objectively!

I don't think that determining whether a tankshock is allowed is the problem.  The rules are pretty clear that yes, you can tankshock an enemy unit, even if that unit is in *donkey*ault.  However, the rules just fall apart when trying to figure out what happens.  This is what the rules say:

P1:  Tankshocking forces the enemy unit to take a morale test.

P2:  A failed morale test results in the unit falling back.

P3:  Units that fallback must finish their move without moving through imp*donkey*able terrain, coming within 1" of an enemy model, or doubling back.

This means, RAW, that a unit which fails its morale test due to a tankshock would be automatically destroyed as they cannot move without coming within 1" of an enemy model- they are in base contact with enemy models!

Now, as for if a unit is tankshocked and PASSES its morale test, I believe it is a bit trickier, and follows the same problem as getting tankshocked next to a board edge.  The only thing we have to go off of is that units must move out of the way by the shortest distance.  Many argue that they can 'leap' over enemy models and imp*donkey*able terrain and be placed appropriately.  The UK GT says that the tank will stop short to allow the models to remain where they were.

All in all, attempting a tankshock on a close combat opens a can of worms.  A player can definitely do it, but as soon as the action is taken there is no definite effect that can be drawn from the rulebook that would seem reasonable.  If the unit fails its morale test, it is automatically destroyed, is that reasonable?  If the unit p*donkey*es its morale test, what happens?

- Oaka

imp-donkey-able terrain?  Stupid editor...  Also seems like CAPS can get around it, notice how P-A-S-S-E-S works but p-a-s-s-e-s doesn't.

- Oaka

@Rygoth - I am not being obtuse and that said I feel you are insulting me here. I have stated my premise and stand by it. There is nothing wrong with me because I do not agree with what some others here have to say about the issue. Basically you are trying to intimidate me. Give me credit, I am not that stupid.

Posted By Green Bloater on 08/21/2006 11:02 AM
The fallacy here is you are simply stating because the rules don't say you cannot that you can.

Nonsense. The rules DO say that you can. They specifically allow you to Tank Shock enemy units, without imposing any restrictions on who they are, or what they are doing.

Since the shooting reference confused you before, here's another: The rules don't specifically state that you can Tank Shock Eldar Guardians. Does that mean that you can't do so?

No, of course you can Tank Shock them... because the general rules for Tank Shock allow you to do so, without imposing any limitations on who can be shocked.

Same thing with the unit in combat. The general rules for Tank Shock allow you to Tank Shock enemy units. No restriction is imposed that would disallow the general rules if the unit is in combat... so the general rules apply.

Your latest post is simply making the same type of argument to support your case as before. You do keep avoiding the rule here which states you cannot do something simply because it is not stated in the rules that you cannot. I will leave it at that.

The rule about coming within one inch of an enemy model surely refers to movement from >1" away to <1" away and so would no apply to a situation where your model moves from <1" away to >1" away.

Arse.

Arsenic.

There seems to be a problem editing posts which I assume is due to the currently ongoing work on the forum.

I note that the swear filter is American English and cannot recognise the word arse.

How lucky that we do not discuss Ancients as we might have to refer to onagers, donkeys and similar equine-related creatures quite often.

Can you really not say mountain pass?

I note that the swear filter is American English and cannot recognise the word arse.

Since when was arse ever a swear word?

EDIT: Russ, what happened to quick-quote?

Posted By Green Bloater
Your latest post is simply making the same type of argument to support your case as before.

Well of course it's the same argument. Because it's the argument that is backed up by the rules.



You do keep avoiding the rule here which states you cannot do something simply because it is not stated in the rules that you cannot.

So you're saying that it is in fact NOT legal to Tank Shock Eldar Guardians?

Can you provide a single rule to back up your argument that Tank Shock does not, in fact, work as normal in this situation?


Posted by Oaka
This means, RAW, that a unit which fails its morale test due to a tankshock would be automatically destroyed as they cannot move without coming within 1" of an enemy model- they are in base contact with enemy models!

The problem being that the exact same argument would in fact prevent models from ever falling back from a combat, since they can not do so without moving within 1" of an enemy.

As a BA player who's rhinos often go crazy, this is interesting. It means I'd have to whack an enemy in HTH rather than one that wasn't if they were closer. This could greatly be in my favor when it comes to HTH experts like DE witches, or Demons (forcing an instability check).

However, I'm going back to the point that was made: Enemy in hth is considered a swirling combat and should not be considered static (as in the exact figure placement). The rebuttal to that (if I read the post correctly) was the example of running away- where would you start your figures from and where would the opponent?

I'm not sold on the storming hth for the following reasons,

P1. HTH is considered a swirling mass (as stated in the BBB), thus your figures could be anywhere. You can't hit your own figures.
P2. Tank shock is happening DURING ongoing hth so it's still a swirling mass. The rebuttal targeted fall back which was after hth ENDED (the swirling dance of death had stoped and the survivors were at their actual static positions).

C. I can't tankshock an ongoing melee as it's still swirling and therefore can't hit my own figures. Once concluded, the fighters are static, but until that time they are not. Since tank shock happens before this, I can't.

However, I'm going back to the point that was made: Enemy in hth is considered a swirling combat and should not be considered static (as in the exact figure placement). The rebuttal to that (if I read the post correctly) was the example of running away- where would you start your figures from and where would the opponent?

It wasn't actually just for falling back. Despite the 'swirling melee' idea, which is included simply as GW's justification for not allowing you to shoot into combat, ALL measurement to and from models in combat uses the actual position of the model.

If Falling Back, engagement, casualty removal, consolidation, and coherency all rely on the static position of the model, why shouldn't Tank Shock do the same?

Good question. I'll answer it by saying the things you mentioned have specific situations (exceptions) are covered in the rules, and they all happen in the assault phase. Tank shock is not part of those exceptions and happens in a different phase. It seems to me that all the exceptions to the swirl of combat (engagement, divorce, consolidation etc) happen at one time: the assault phase. They don't allow exceptions in any other phase thus no shooting into combat, and no tank shock during movement.

Insaniak is postulating a lot of stuff that has never been done and uses invalid logic to make what he is proposing appear to be on the square. I am sure if tank shocking into close combat was okay people would have already done so long ago.

@Moopy,

The rule against firing into ongoing assaults is simply a game mechanic to let assault be more powerful by making assaulters immune to shooting once they have engaged. The similar situation of firing through your own units while they move is allowed because it is assumed that troops take shots when they get an opportunity, despite the fact that realistically you'd never be able to do that using a squad of troops equipped with automatic weapons because bullets would be going everywhere. These things are just devices to make the game work.

@Green Bloater,

You haven't refuted Insaniak's logic, merely rebutted it. You don't know that people haven't tank shocked into close combat before. Even if they haven't, it doesn't mean it's because it isn't possible.

On a different tack, why do you think tank shocling in CC shouldn't be allowed? I don't mean a rules reason, I mean do you think it would spoil the game and if so, why?

The 1" restriction only applies during the movement phase, so it's not an issue for falling back during the assault phase.

It might be an issue for falling back during the movement phase as a result of tank shock, not sure on that one.

Posted By Green Bloater on 08/22/2006 7:17 AM
Insaniak is postulating a lot of stuff that has never been done and uses invalid logic to make what he is proposing appear to be on the square. I am sure if tank shocking into close combat was okay people would have already done so long ago.

Incidentally Insaniak's logic is immaculate here.

In contrast, an example of invalid logic would be saying it "has never been done" and "people would have already done so long ago."  Those are instances of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Question for the proponents of Tank shocking a CC: For the scenario here, the attacker is the team with the active turn attempting the tank shock.

The tank shocked unit in closecombat fails its LD check -
1 - does it now run?
2 - does the attacker get an attempt to sweep?
3 - does the attacker consolidate?
4 - does the attacker get to move and shoot afterwards?
5 - if there's no fallback corridor thanks to things like pile-in moves and the angle the tank is approaching from, is the squad automatically destroyed?

The tank shocked unit passes the LD check -
1 - If the attacking player positions his vehicles in such a way that any movement would remove the defending unit from base contact with the attackers engaged models, how is the combat resolved?
(Imagine a crisis suit commander for instance, in closecombat with a callidus assasin. The Tau player puts a devilfish behind the commander such that it is 1" from the callidus, but the commander is tucked neatly into the side 'nook' of the vehicle. Now a 2nd devilfish tankshocks directly into the callidus, forcing it to move, but it cannot move and stay based with the crisis suit because of the position of the first tank. For a diagram, take 2 devilfish touching side by side, and note that a crisis suit fits perfectly between them.)

If you are for tank shocking a CC - I hope you have good answers for these situations, the rulebook sure doesn't.

Cities of Death Destroying City Ruins rules (p 37) states that even if a massive structure comes down around an assault, they are unphased (apart from possible wound from collapse). "Any assaults taking place when the ruin collapses continue as normal, the warriors locked in a bitter struggle to the death amidst the fallen debris." Units not locked in combat are automatically entangled.

This is more evidence that the rules point to assault sort of taking place in its own dimension (assault phase) that hardly seems to be affected by events outside.

I believe that you could try tank shocking HtH but enemy units would just move out of the way and remain locked in combat. No morale test would happen, as they would probably not notice the tank was even there.

@ Killkrazy,

I'm not sure why Green Bloater thinks it would be bad for the game, but I think it would be a terrible blow to assault armies that aren't fearless. Allowing tankshocking into close combat is giving every army the potential to get out of assault like Necrons can, and I think we all know how much fun that is to fight against. I have to rely on a lot of strategy in deploying, moving, and assualting, as well as a great deal of luck to get my Kroot units (leadership 8) into an assault with enough numbers to make a difference. Letting an opponent make tankshocks into that assault, forcing me to fallback and have the unit I was just in assault with be able to shoot me would be a kick in the groin. I really don't want to give up on my Kroot and play a fearless, MEQ army, but in a world with monoliths, droppods, and fear of the darkness, allowing close combat tankshocks would really be the thing that tips the scales for me to do that.

- Oaka

@ Moz:  Existing rules do answer all these questions.

"Units make a fall back move upon failing a Morale test" (48).   This rule is not restricted or qualified.  The same rules apply to falling back whether it results from tank shock, losing an assault, fire casualties, or another source, and regardless of the turn phase in which the fall-back occurs.

"When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a Sweeping Advance" (43).  This rule doesn't restrict or specify the cause of the falling back, so if a unit falls back from combat as a result of a tank shock, the normal sweeping, consolidating, and corridor rules apply. 

You can move some, none or all of your eligible units during the movement phase (15).  Because they are no longer locked after the unit they were fighting falls back, the friendly unit freed this way are eligible to move and can move and shoot that turn.

Finally, there's no basis in the rules for assuming that being knocked out of base contact in the opponent's movement phase has any effect on being locked.  Even if a model gets pushed aside by a tank shock, models on both sides are still locked (and so friendly locked units can't move in the movement phase).  If a model is too far away to fight, it still uses its pile-in move to get back into base  at the end of the assualt phase.  If the model can't get re-engaged using a pile in move, then the close combat ends and both sides consolidate (44).

@Killrazy While it's a mechanic, it also sets president.  If you can apply it to one situation you should be able to apply it to all unless otherwise stated. You can shoot through your guys because it says it can, you can't shoot into hth because you might hit your own guys that are always on the move (unless when otherwise stated in the assault phase).  We take that same set of rules and apply it to tank shock- can't do it as you're hitting your own troops.

Tank Shocking into HTH opens a big can of worms as it opens up all sorts of issues:
Tank shock demons in hth forces an instability test potentially killing some or all of them, or causeas an enemy to fail moral and leave combat suddenly freeing up your unit.  This can't happen in hth combat during the movement phase.
There is no explanation on what happens to your units if they are suddenly extricated from HTH in the movement phase during your turn, because it was NOT meant to happen. HTH consolidation, sweeping advance and what not happens only in the Assult phase, no where else (unless a special rule allows it).  If you were to break an enemy unit in the movement phase, do your forces sweeping advance/consolidate, then move, shoot and assault?  Again, no they don't, becuase the start of those chain of actions only happens in the assualt phase. I know I sound like a broken record, but I'm not the best  writer. ^__^;

There are exceptions to this: necrons can teleport out of hth becuase of their special rule.  The enemy gets to do nothing except get shot a lot.
Blood Angels/khorne may charge in the movement phase due to their special rules.
There may be others I'm unfamiliar with, but again, these are exceptions writen out.

@ Everyone else proposing you can sweeping advance, consolidate due to winning HTH, or massacre (spelling?) in any other phase except assault, please show me where it is they can do it, as I must have missed it.

From KillKrazy...
"You haven't refuted Insaniak's logic, merely rebutted it. You don't know that people haven't tank shocked into close combat before. Even if they haven't, it doesn't mean it's because it isn't possible."

I agree I have not yet provided an explanation with regards to the rules to support my case. I will soon however. I have had this conversation many times in the past and the consensus has always been not to do it since the rules do not explain how to go about it. I will give a RAW answer to support my position as well, but it will be later this evening.

"On a different tack, why do you think tank shocling in CC shouldn't be allowed? I don't mean a rules reason, I mean do you think it would spoil the game and if so, why?"

As I said above the rules do not make mention of this tactic, nor do I know anyone who has ever done it. I do know one person that was planning to field an EC army with lots of Rhinos equipped with warp amps and tank shock enemy units in close combat. Most everyone he asked said this was very underhanded. So I am predisposed to think someone who wants to do this is trying to bend the rules for an unfair advantage.

Green Bloater> ...to think someone who wants to do this is trying to bend the rules for an unfair advantage

Rhinos? Imagine what happens with waveserpents making straitline 2 foot moves and efffectively landing on enemy models, Thats what I was thinking about for a worst case.  I have been in the habbit of tank shocking multiple units with Eldar for a long time...

Just try and keep an open mind in order that we may all understand what the rules are, not what we'd like them to be, its hard I know.

I do have an open mind. I think we should also be responsible and not go rushing into new situations without lots of careful thought and deliberation.

Moopy:
It seems to me that all the exceptions to the swirl of combat (engagement, divorce, consolidation etc) happen at one time: the assault phase.

And that's a good point, in so far as it goes. But without anything specifically disallowing Tank Shocking a combat, it's also incorrect, since Tank Shock IS an exception that applies in a different phase.

Shooting into a combat is specifically mentioned as not being allowed. The rules for Tank Shock contain no similar prohibition, and so no matter where, or who, the target of your Shock is, the normal Tank Shock rules apply.

I can see a point for the shooting prohibition providing an intent argument for not allowing Tank Shock... but I can't see anything in the actual rules.



Moz:
The tank shocked unit in closecombat fails its LD check -
1 - does it now run?
2 - does the attacker get an attempt to sweep?
3 - does the attacker consolidate?
4 - does the attacker get to move and shoot afterwards?
5 - if there's no fallback corridor thanks to things like pile-in moves and the angle the tank is approaching from, is the squad automatically destroyed?

Without going back to check, I'm fairly sure all of that was discussed earlier in the thread. (If not, it must have been the other thread that mentioned this idea)... but as Flavius pointed out, it's all pretty much covered by the normal rules.

It's also possibly worth mentioning that, as discussed in another thread, the rules don't allow skimmers to move over friendly troops. The only situation I can think of where moving over your own troops would be a potential problem is a skimmer tank shocking into a combat, and being stopped directly above friendly models by a DoG attack. Can anyone think of any other reason that moving over your own troops, while being allowed to move freely over anything else, would be disallowed?

Circumstantial evidence at best, but worth considering...



I'm ignoring Green Bloater's trolling, since he still hasn't provided any actual rules to back up his 'argument'...

Posted by Oaka
This means, RAW, that a unit which fails its morale test due to a tankshock would be automatically destroyed as they cannot move without coming within 1" of an enemy model- they are in base contact with enemy models!

The problem being that the exact same argument would in fact prevent models from ever falling back from a combat, since they can not do so without moving within 1" of an enemy.

I disagree adamantly.

Pg. 48, 40K Rulebook, under the section Trapped! (emphasis mine): 

"Sometimes a unit will find its Fall Back corridor blocked by impassable terrain and/or models (ignoring enemy models that have fought in close combat against the unit this turn but including friends).  A unit falling back may move around any obstruction in such a way as to get back to their base line by the shortest route.

If a unit cannot perform a full Fall Back move in any direction, without doubling back, it is destroyed."

Since the tank shock occurs in the movement phase, before close combat, they do not get to ignore those enemy models.  This means that a unit that fails its morale check due to a tank shock while in close combat is AUTOMATICALLY DESTROYED.  I think that is my best argument against this being a valid game allowance, it's entirely too unreasonable for those of us that still use armies that aren't fearless.

- Oaka

This is a really interesting thread.

I unfortunately do not have the BBB in front of me, but I do know that unless broken specifically by a speical unit or weapon rule, units LOCKED in close combat can not leave that combat unless one of a specific set of events, laid out in the assault phase of the BBB, occur.

Again, I may be remembering these wrong, but the term locked in combat is used for a reason.

The only way a unit can become unlocked from combat is if they lose a combat and fail a moral check and flee.

The only exception i see to this are those specifially stated, ie: hit and run, teleporting, etc. But these are specifically addressed in special rules. The reason they are specifically spelled out is because they violate two of the basic principals (as i see it, again i dont have the BBB with me) of the game, these being that units locked in combat stay locked, and events take place in a specific order.

also, the argument by precedent works well here, i think. In ALL other conditions, a close combat can not be effected by any other game effect other than another unit joining the assault, or, again, those specifically stated to break the basic rules.

I think that is an interesting idea, however, it overly complicates the game. Because, if you take it as a viable tactic, how do you resolve all of the plethora of new problems that can arise? You would need an entire new section of rules just to handle those possible scenarios and it would interupt the flow of the game too much, IMHO. Plus, as Oaka said, it would be terribly unfair for non fearless assault armies that have to struggle to get into HtH in the first place.

I say stick with the precedent set that close combats occur in a seperate demension (as stated earlier) unless a rule SPECIFICALLY states you can interupt the normal game flow.

my 2 cents.

Posted By insaniak on 08/22/2006 4:13 PM
Moopy:
It seems to me that all the exceptions to the swirl of combat (engagement, divorce, consolidation etc) happen at one time: the assault phase.

And that's a good point, in so far as it goes. But without anything specifically disallowing Tank Shocking a combat, it's also incorrect, since Tank Shock IS an exception that applies in a different phase.

Shooting into a combat is specifically mentioned as not being allowed. The rules for Tank Shock contain no similar prohibition, and so no matter where, or who, the target of your Shock is, the normal Tank Shock rules apply.

I can see a point for the shooting prohibition providing an intent argument for not allowing Tank Shock... but I can't see anything in the actual rules.

Well, my conclusion are pulled from these rules.

All units in HTH are locked together.
All hth is a swirling mass (as stated in the shooting section). True, it's not the best location for this bit of information, but it's there and we can't chose to discard because of it's placing in the book.
Nobody can drive over their own troops.

All of the above are stated in the rules, soooo:

Since hth is swirling your troops can be in any location that's locked, can't tank shock without hitting one of your crazy-go-nuts guys.

Anything more and I think I'll be repeating some of my previous posts.

Okay I have read the rulebook in detail in regard to this issue. Here are my conclusions based on a RAW interpretation:

- If you look in the index at the back Tank Shock is actually listed under the heading Assault, which leads me to believe that Tank Shock is a special type of assault that occurs during the movement phase. This is in no way a guarantee that you can tank shock enemy units locked in close combat.
- Fearless units do not have to take morale checks, so they cannot be tank shocked. A little OT here but that is how the rules read to me.
- Models in close combat are considered Locked and will remain so until the results of the next close combat are decided.

So to me the rules do not provide enough information to decide correctly what would happen as a result of tank shocking an enemy unit locked in close combat that is subject to morale checks. So I would not tank shock said units.

Fearless units do not have to take morale checks, so they cannot be tank shocked. A little OT here but that is how the rules read to me.

you should still be able to technically tank shock them, they would just automatically pass but would still have to move out of the way; right?

No they do not have to fall out of the way. That is why you cannot tank shock them.

I will concede that it is not specifically prohibited by the rules, and that the rules for tank shock do allow you to perform the maneuver wherever it is not specifically prohibited. However, the aftermath is such a wreck that it's hard to ignore the point that the rules seem really ill equipped to handle this specific situation.

At first it's an easy enough sell:"Oh sure they can be tank shocked, no reason in the rules why not."
Then it gets crazier: "Oh I failed, so... wait I can't move because I'm within 1" of enemy models, so they are all dead?"
and crazier: "Ok so they're all dead, and now you're sweeping D6, then taking a full move, then shooting/assaulting?"

If you intend to use this in a game, I hope you explain the full possibility of the situation to your opponent before doing so. Realize that at the beginning he may just be letting you do it to be a nice guy, but by the end of the situation he may be (dare I say rightfully) pretty upset that you've taken advantage of his lenience with a chain of events that is... well, a little crazy.

Allowing tankshocking into close combat is giving every army the potential to get out of assault like Necrons can, and I think we all know how much fun that is to fight against. I have to rely on a lot of strategy in deploying, moving, and assualting, as well as a great deal of luck to get my Kroot units (leadership 8) into an assault with enough numbers to make a difference. Letting an opponent make tankshocks into that assault, forcing me to fallback and have the unit I was just in assault with be able to shoot me would be a kick in the groin. I really don't want to give up on my Kroot and play a fearless, MEQ army, but in a world with monoliths, droppods, and fear of the darkness, allowing close combat tankshocks would really be the thing that tips the scales for me to do that.

As a note Oaka, it really isn't as powerful as you are thinking, if you play kroot you probably have an evicerator in every squad and LD8. I have now done a few times with 'fish and hammerheads and lost 2 of them to a melta gun & a lascannon, because it will generally not move more than 6" to do the tank shock it doesn't get the auto-glance.

At the end of the day, you are better off letting your FCW's die in a lot of cases, or hope they run and don't get caught.

I don't think that's terribly valid for downplaying the power of the action. For one, the kroot have to pass a LD check on an 8 before the single evisc in the squad can even ponder committing suicide on the front of the tank. Then the tank has to actually move through the eviscerator carrying model. Then it's arguable that a skimmer could downgrade all hits to glancing since the last movement phase is the one that decides wether the hits are auto-glance or not.

Further. regarding the power of the strategy, I suggest you consider Chaos vehicles dedicated to Slaanesh. Consider also that even space marines are subject to being wiped out from 'Trapped' fallback rules, and...well this really bones space marines so you'll never see it actually played this way.

It's dirty bad wrong, let your imagination wander further than a tiny scenario where a Tau play goes 'Durrr' and drives his Armor 12 less than 6" directly into a S8 weapon.

The new UKGT rules FAQ says if you tank shock a unit and it can't move out of the way the tank bounces.

It is obviously a good tactic, but it is not the be-all and end-all of a game vs. tank toting tau.

For the record, I personally don't think it's a good idea for the rules to allow tank-shocking units in close combat.

But I don't make the rules, I just read em. Possible abuses, lack of balance, and complexity of application are not factors that change the RAW.

If the designers want the rules to work a particular way, it's their responsibility to write them that way. It's not my responsibility to try to figure out what they probably should have written.

As Moz stated, if only one model in a unit has a weapon capable of hurting the tank, then only a fool would tankshock in such a way that the vehicle touches that model, rather they could skim a single model in the back to force the morale test.

I like the discovery that this 'good tactic', as happypants calls it, affects space marines, effectively killing them instantly regardless of ATSKNF.  I've learned from the past that anything which hurts space marines is quickly banished from gameplay, whether that be unofficially or in an FAQ.  I can rest easier now.

- Oaka

Flavius what you say is a cop out. Try being a good sport. If you want to push the rules don't blame GW.

I can't see how it is that it is possible in almost any situation where one model has a weapon that can harm the tank is in CC and you can figure out how to tank shock the unit and not have to come in to contact with that model.

As for units being swept if they fail morale due to tank shock, no one has proven that this happens with any decent shred of evidence.

You only need to touch a single model in order to tank shock a unit. So eyeball a the closest model to your tank, or pick an angle that bypasses a dangerous weapon, and only declare your tank shock for the distance required to reach that single model.

You either follow the rules for assault in this case, and the defending unit is treated as fleeing from combat (subject to sweep) or you follow the normal rules for morale and retreat and they are instantly destroyed (can't move within 1" of enemy units).

Moopy:
Well, my conclusion are pulled from these rules.
All units in HTH are locked together.

Yup, no problem so far.


All hth is a swirling mass (as stated in the shooting section). True, it's not the best location for this bit of information, but it's there and we can't chose to discard because of it's placing in the book.

It's not just that it's in the shooting section... it's also written very specifically to apply to shooting into and out of the combat. While it's a good (possible) indiciation of intent, there is simply no way that you can read a rule that says 'You can't shoot into combat' to mean 'You can't Tank Shock into a combat'


Nobody can drive over their own troops.

That's never been in any doubt. The debate was to do with hitting enemy troops who are locked, without going near your own models.


Green Bloater:
No they do not have to fall out of the way. That is why you cannot tank shock them.

Uh, no. They can still be Tank Shocked, The only difference that Fearless makes is that they automatically pass their moralle check when they move aside. It's still a Tank Shock, regardless of whether the unit being shocked Falls Back or not.


Moz:
Then it gets crazier: "Oh I failed, so... wait I can't move because I'm within 1" of enemy models, so they are all dead?"

While I'll concede that the 1" rule is a potential problem with the idea, that partly comes down to interpetation of "...may not move within 1"..."

In true English language style, that can either mean 'May not move at all while within 1"...' or can mean 'May not move TO within 1"...'

The first would back up your argument. The second would make it perfectly acceptable for a model to move from beside an enemy model to anywhere further away.


And I still don't think the other unit would get a Sweeping Advance or Consolidation. They haven't won an assault, their opponent just left.

Remember that a tank must move in a straight line towards the unit it is tank shocking as soon as it begins to move.

And I do not necessarily agree with what insaniak said about fearless units, but he could be right on that one.

@ Bloater: Thanks, I'll have to try to remember to be a good sport when I'm playing 40K and not hold the authors of a document responsible for the content of that document.

@ Insaniak: are we sure that a model that can't move within 1" of an enemy model is destroyed? Maybe it's an assumption that they are destroyed. Maybe they just aren't allowed to move, which might create a contradiction (they're required to move by one rule, but they're not allowed to move by another rule).

Bloater:
Remember that a tank must move in a straight line towards the unit it is tank shocking as soon as it begins to move.

Uh... ok. Just felt like quoting random rules?


And I do not necessarily agree with what insaniak said about fearless units, but he could be right on that one.

Well, it's a long shot, but reading the rules for Tank Shock would probably confirm it...



Flavius:
are we sure that a model that can't move within 1" of an enemy model is destroyed?

I believe people are taking the combination of the movement rules (can't move within 1" ) with the Trapped rule (if can't move is destroyed) to mean that the models trying to fall back would be destroyed.

As I said, it comes down to the interpretation of '...move within 1"...'

 

@Insaniak

You are most likely correct about tank shocking fearless units. What you say does make sense, but then again sense does not mean much in these discussions. Just kidding there. I do think you are correct about tank shocking fearless units.

The rule I brought about moving the tank in a straight line was intended to show it is not always going to be easy picking off that one enemy model in close combat that you want to run over.

Posted By burnthexenos on 08/23/2006 7:01 PM


If you wouldn't risk shooting into combat, out of fear of hitting your own troops, you wouldn't drive into it either, for fear of running your own troops over.

The first argument in the post above, class, is a great example of the argumentem ad baculum or appeal to force.  This type of attempt at bullying has mostly vanished from YMDC, but still occasionally crops up.  The "you disagree with me so you will burn in hell" argument is actually much more prevelant on fundie religious forums.

The second argument above is, of course, our old friend the false analogy.

Overall an excellent example of how to jump in at the end of a thread and contribute nothing that advances any argument in any material way.

Indeed, seconded.

Man, there are a LOT of reasons I should burn in hell... but tank shocking a CC probably isn't one of them. (Although who knows, maybe god/gods/godess is/are avid 40k players)

Aaand burnthexenos loses, as the first in the thread to use Nazis, Hitler, and/or Nazism as part of an argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Ah! So you can't tank shock into combat, because burnthexenos says so?

Excellent! Here we were, foolishly discussing what the rulebook says, when all we had to do was ask burnthexenos how he thought it should be played!

Rules be damned... my opponent can hardly argue with 'No, you can't do that, because some angry guy on a forum said so...' now can they?

Wow... deep man, deep.

He means you're on crack, and need to leave.

Make me, ten-year-old.

I would quote with more finess but the editor hates me.

Moopy: All hth is a swirling mass (as stated in the shooting section). True, it's not the best location for this bit of information, but it's there and we can't chose to discard because of it's placing in the book.
Insanik: It's not just that it's in the shooting section... it's also written very specifically to apply to shooting into and out of the combat. While it's a good (possible) indiciation of intent, there is simply no way that you can read a rule that says 'You can't shoot into combat' to mean 'You can't Tank Shock into a combat'

I think this is the only place where we differ in oppinion, yet it is the crux of my arguement. I read this as having set presidence by saying, "Swirling meele" therefore your troops are everywhere, except in specific situations outlayed in the assault section.

Moopy: Nobody can drive over their own troops.
Insanik: That's never been in any doubt. The debate was to do with hitting enemy troops who are locked, without going near your own models.

Agreed, and I understand that. I was using that as part of my conculsion from my logic- If my troops are swirling, they are everywhere, therefore I can drive in there as I'd hit my own troops.

Freekin "critical error" when trying to fix posts. ARRRRRRR!!!

Teh calvary has finally arrived!

One more in before lock!

Posted By burnthexenos on 08/23/2006 9:23 PM
How about you leave, 6 dreadnought taking, rule breaking SCUM!!

For the record, btx is completely off-base here - taking 6 dreads is perfectly legal and condoned. Just so no-one gets confused.

How long do we usually let people like him post here? I think where buttheads are concerned, I am about the worst we ought to tolerate.

Not really bothered reading the whole thread so chances are this has been said but for anyone that actually is interested in the spirit of the game and designers intent and all that, since you cannot shoot into CC for fear of harming your own men, (not even with flamers as the models dont actually represent the exact places where the combatants are "cc is a swirling melee" or something like this) I would put my money on you not being able to tank shock either....


"no sir we cannot shoot the huge mortar shell into CC because we might harm our own!

"ah....ok....are you sure?......well that sounds fair....Send in the TANKS!

"..........yesir......anything you say sir"

Sound right to you?

Don't waste your breathe vsurma... they want to show everyone how clever they are. Pathetic really.

How long do we usually let people like him post here? [Smile] I think where buttheads are concerned, I am about the worst we ought to tolerate.

Um... I am worse than you... I guess that means I am outta here too? :p

Not really bothered reading the whole thread so chances are this has been said but for anyone that actually is interested in the spirit of the game and designers intent and all that, since you cannot shoot into CC for fear of harming your own men, (not even with flamers as the models dont actually represent the exact places where the combatants are "cc is a swirling melee" or something like this) I would put my money on you not being able to tank shock either....


"no sir we cannot shoot the huge mortar shell into CC because we might harm our own!

"ah....ok....are you sure?......well that sounds fair....Send in the TANKS!

"..........yesir......anything you say sir"

Sound right to you?

No, but neither does "OK, you guys, I know that this is the 40th Millenium, and hand to hand combat pretty much went the way of the dodo 38 Millenia ago, but what I want you to do is run at those guys that are shooting at us right now and take them down with your knives... yes I know we have guns but I am sure your knives are better suited in this case, so move out."

40k is to a realistic interpretation of warfare as Tom & Jerry is to Cat & Mouse relations.

Tom and Jervis woz a h00t! Oh I meant Jerry.

I am going to say that its possiable to do a tank shock in HtH but then you are indeed opening a can of worms that your opponent will realize your out to win at all costs the game wont be as fun. This is a possiable legal rule but an abuse of the rules and this will result in a possiable sportsmanship hit. We can use logic till the day we die and frankly, I slept through my logic part of business ethics class and im not going to bring my logic text book or pull up a logic page so then I can sound like Don Juan Del La Nouche.

@burnthexenos dont worry too much on the name calling because were arguing over a very trivial matter that will get FAQed in 3/4 years from now and it wont mean a thing. You are probably a very good guy but everyone on this board apparently thinks they know everything and are living rulebooks or arm chair tough guys. Just say what you gotta say and leave the insults out of it and you will get better responses. I do agree with your point though just tone down the intensity.

My reasoning against tankshocking in close combat revolves around a swirling melee like the book states that units LOCKED in combat do not take morale or pinning checks caused by shooting (ex a miss scatter on indirect weapons) since in combat the troops are far too focused on fighting to worry about getting shot at. By that statement a tank can roll up through the combat and they still would be too focused on the fighting.

It wont really matter since 90% of the armies are fearless or close to fearless or got rerolls or choose to pass. What you are doing is hurting the few non MEQ armies that have little or no chance outside of combat. I. E. Dark Eldar, Kroot, Orc mobs numbering 12 or less and hell they will be at that number thanks to getting shot up, and Eldar.

Wow by the book standards we got some especially twisted and soulless commanders out there.

Hod, you couldn't be more wrong:

thehod> I am going to say that its possiable to do a tank shock in HtH but then you are indeed opening a can of worms that your opponent will realize your out to win at all costs the game wont be as fun.

Fun can not be measured, it defies metrics.  There is a diference between trying to understand the rules in an objective sense and merely trying to defend ones own interpretation(s).  A clever player, a good one, should understand the rules to the fullest to create a mental inventory of  what he may be up against and simultaneously what may be used as advantage.

It is not unsportsmanly, vainglorious or malicious to posses a desire to understand the rules in a strict a sense as possible.  I possit that you do not understand or agree with this. 

Hypothetically speaking, it does not open a can of worms for an opponent who is likewise prepared, only for one who was playing in ignorance or under erroneous assumptions, as is common.

thehod> This is a possiable legal rule but an abuse of the rules and this will result in a possiable sportsmanship hit. We can use logic till the day we die and frankly, I slept through my logic part of business ethics class and im not going to bring my logic text book or pull up a logic page so then I can sound like Don Juan Del La Nouche.

In the context of the thread this is not a possible rule at all, it is clearly defined that an enemy unit may be tank shocked.  Perhaps what happens afterward and the mechanism are under some analysis, the point of the forum, but saying its a possible rule really only demonstrates obstinancy in light of the arguments and evidence made here already.  If you have a counter case and some evidence present it.

thehod> @burnthexenos dont worry too much on the name calling...You are probably a very good guy...everyone on this board apparently thinks they know everything...or arm chair tough guys...I do agree with your point...though just tone down the intensity.

Your comments to burn the xenos demonstrate your position well, as one of ignorant acquiesence, clearly defending another poster who uses profanity, demonstrates obstinancy and builds poor cases is not going to help your case.  If you agree with his point, I assume about tank shock into HtH being impossible, not the profane insults, then how could you also see it as a possible rule from your opening remark?

thehod> My reasoning against tankshocking in close combat revolves around a swirling melee like the book states that units LOCKED in combat do not take morale or pinning checks caused by shooting (ex a miss scatter on indirect weapons) since in combat the troops are far too focused on fighting to worry about getting shot at. By that statement a tank can roll up through the combat and they still would be too focused on the fighting.

Your poorly built case is purely constructed on conjecture.  If you want to present that tank shocking into hand to hand is immposbible and support burnthexenos, make a better case.

thehod> It wont really matter since 90% of the armies are fearless or close to fearless or got rerolls or choose to pass. What you are doing is hurting the few non MEQ armies that have little or no chance outside of combat. I. E. Dark Eldar, Kroot, Orc mobs numbering 12 or less and hell they will be at that number thanks to getting shot up, and Eldar.

If it wont matter why join the thread? It will matter!  You are completely wrong about the hurting non MEQ armies.  It would help them, being most advantageous for those armies with skimmer tanks, as has been suggest throughout the thread.  The ability to break up assaults from small elite armored units is much more useful for Tau and Eldar than perhaps anyone else as they have skimmer tanks.  This tactic would be almost unuseable by any army without them.

This baseless comment seems intended solely to fragment the support that had been built for the RAW interpretation thats was reaching solidarity based on an appeal to non MEq players.

thehod> Wow by the book standards we got some especially twisted and soulless commanders out there.

What a defamatory comment to make, a suggest that by your post you must be frustrated often when rules you don't understand don't feel right.  If you have a better case, present it.

Posted By Augustus on 08/24/2006 1:45 PM

thehod> My reasoning against tankshocking in close combat revolves around a swirling melee like the book states that units LOCKED in combat do not take morale or pinning checks caused by shooting (ex a miss scatter on indirect weapons) since in combat the troops are far too focused on fighting to worry about getting shot at. By that statement a tank can roll up through the combat and they still would be too focused on the fighting.

Your poorly built case is purely constructed on conjecture.  If you want to present that tank shocking into hand to hand is immposbible and support burnthexenos, make a better case.

No guilt by association to help win your arguements.

Agustus said:

"There is a diference between trying to understand the rules in an objective sense and merely trying to defend ones own interpretation(s). A clever player, a good one, should understand the rules to the fullest to create a mental inventory of what he may be up against and simultaneously what may be used as advantage.

"It is not unsportsmanly, vainglorious or malicious to posses a desire to understand the rules in a strict a sense as possible. I possit that you do not understand or agree with this."

I never thought of it this way and respect what you said. That said I also respect what the hod said but I appreciate your position and see it in a new light, though it does not change where I stand on this particular issue.

"The ability to break up assaults from small elite armored units is much more useful for Tau and Eldar than perhaps anyone else as they have skimmer tanks. This tactic would be almost unuseable by any army without them." (Insaniak.)

As a Tau player I would welcome anything that would help get my troops out of H2H and I would never be worried about an opponent tank shocking a combat to kick my guys out of it, because no-one would ever do it.

"The ability to break up assaults from small elite armored units is much more useful for Tau and Eldar than perhaps anyone else as they have skimmer tanks. This tactic would be almost unuseable by any army without them." (Insaniak.)


I didn't say that ...

Sorry, it was Augustus. Unfortunately I can't edit posts because it causes a critical error with the browser I'm using.

Apologies...

So... what?
You can tank shock into an ongoing CC, is that what we're saying?
I got lost back on page 4...

Let's assume arguendo that skimmer tanks can tank shock enemy models in CC. Let's assume also that the shocked models don't try a DoG. Here's my interpretation of how that would play out.

As the tank goes through the area of combat, with the swirling melee, all enemy troops would have to move out of the wayHow this is usually done if the tankshocking tank moves through and on is to move the shiocked model out of the way, and then return it to its prior location. However, this is impossible in this situation, because you can't move within 1" of an enemy model except during an assault or when tankshocking. Therefore, the shocked model moves away, and then can't return to its original locked position. This applies equally to fearless troops, who simply automatically succeed in their test allowing them to move out of the way. Thus, send a hammerhead down the length of the combat, without stopping, breaks the combat fully. Further, you can "sieve" the combat - send it through the middle of a dense combat and it will push all of the enemy out while leaving your models standing in place. DE could well gain an advantage from this - by blowing out of combat during the movement phase, they could then reassault in their charge phase, gaining +1 attack. However, since this break in combat was not caused by a unit breaking or failing a leadership test, it would not give the opportunity to overrun attampts.

"So... what?
You can tank shock into an ongoing CC, is that what we're saying?
I got lost back on page 4..."

The basic gist of it is that Tank Shocking into an ongoing combat appears to be allowed by the rules, but this is probably an oversight rather than something the designers deliberately allowed, as the rules for what happens afterwards are a little hazy.

@ Augustus

I think you misunderstand me because what I was trying to say is that yes it is legal to do this rule but I am merely stating my views on why I would never use the rule and how the implications in a friendly game environment could make the game possiably turn into uncharted territory. Perhaps your group of gamers find it not so much in an abuse of the rules sense as I remember playing your team in adepticon when Gavin attemped to drop an ordinance template in a squad that was next to HtH. That was a most unique experience and shows me how far your team will go to win. I must say that you and your buddies are the most determined players in that tournament.

I was not patrionizing xenos but instead offering constructive criticism instead of blasting him like the usual dakka toughguy. Usually I find that attempting to reason with someone helps out than outright insulting them in that manner.

When I say the phrase possiable rule because this rule in question hasnt been FAQed yet.

If it wont matter why join the thread? It will matter! You are completely wrong about the hurting non MEQ armies. It would help them, being most advantageous for those armies with skimmer tanks, as has been suggest throughout the thread. The ability to break up assaults from small elite armored units is much more useful for Tau and Eldar than perhaps anyone else as they have skimmer tanks. This tactic would be almost unuseable by any army without them.

This one I clearly think you once again misunderstand me. Like I said before this hurts the non MEQ assault armies far worse than the MEQ assault armies. Your forgetting that MEQ shooting army can do the same back vs that non MEQ assault army such as Orks or Darkeldar or assault oriented Eldar, Kroot, etc.

I may also be misunderstanding the tone of your rebuttal but it shows to me a condesending tone to someone who agrees with you in the RAW sense but disagrees with the rule in its application. Like I said before perhaps your group of gamers find it perfectly acceptable to use this rule but other groups wont be as openminded or accepting as much as I applaud your quick thinking.

I see that you are trying to 'march block' the unit in combat similar to the fish of fury tactics of disallowing assault troops to assault and in a similar sense both tactics are a way of denying HtH through an exploit, I think ANY use of a rule that allows a unit to 'march block' to avoid contact, yet still allow it to charge at will is a deliberate exploit and would be guaranteed to draw a zero in sportsmanship from me during a tournament.

I do find your contributions in this debate very much illuminating and that it is possiable to tank shock a unit in Hand to hand provided you meet the criteria for tankshocking. I do see that your willingness to win the game and prove that imperial guard or tau are viable armies in 4th is very commendable. I see that you are a very much different person that I last remembered you. Just remember that not everyone is as openminded as you are and that attitude could/might/possiably misinterpreted as snobbish and arrogant.

Reply by: Moopy - click to view full reply 

36

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/24 12:03:40

Post by: Moopy

Posted By insaniak on 08/24/2006 4:36 PM
... but this is probably an oversight rather than something the designers deliberately allowed, ....

Agreed!

Reply by: insaniak - click to view full reply 

99

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/24 12:08:41

Post by: insaniak

" I was not patrionizing xenos but instead offering constructive criticism instead of blasting him like the usual dakka toughguy. Usually I find that attempting to reason with someone helps out than outright insulting them in that manner."

What you overlooked was that Xenos was just trolling. Reasoning with Trolls works no better than insulting them... they just want the attention.


You have also possibly missed the point of the YMDC forum. The fact that we're arguing that the tactic is possible in no way reflects how we would choose to actually play it. We argue the rules as written so that we can understand exactly what the rules actually SAY on an issue. Once you have that understanding, you're in a much better position both to make up your own mind as to how to play it, and to discuss it with an opponent if the situation actually arises in a game.

Reply by: thehod - click to view full reply 

1986

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/25 05:58:03

Post by: thehod

My friend told me this :

Tank Shock is done in the Movement Phase.
- p44 says (under Pile In Moves): "Once a unit is locked in combat it may only make Pile In moves and may not move in the Movement Phase."

so his tank should would have no effect (giving way or running away are both kinds of "move", and this is a "Movement phase").

then due to the Movement rules on p15, his vehicle wouild have to stop 1" away from friendly models, as this is during the Movement Phase not the Assault Phase.

so his Tank Shock would have no effect other than to waste his Vehicle's Move

Reply by: Flavius Infernus - click to view full reply 

527

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/25 07:36:11

Post by: Flavius Infernus

Good try, but your friend is not right.

The word "move" on page 44 refers to the movement procedure (page 15) which is prohibited for units in assault. Your friend is confusing the everyday meaning of the word "move" with the rules-based, specialized meaning of "move" on page 44.

Reply by: Antonin - click to view full reply 

405

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/25 08:00:29

Post by: Antonin

Posted By Flavius Infernus on 08/25/2006 12:36 PM
Good try, but your friend is not right.

The word "move" on page 44 refers to the movement procedure (page 15) which is prohibited for units in assault. Your friend is confusing the everyday meaning of the word "move" with the rules-based, specialized meaning of "move" on page 44.

This is an interesting position for you to take, Flavius. The rule as stated prevents movement of locked units during the movement phase: "may not move in the Movement Phase". Do you have a rules reference indicating that the Page 44 rule is limited to only the voluntary move? On its face, it is not, and therefore is not limited as you assert. The rule is not limited to only the movement procedure, but rather applies to all movement durign the movement phase. Thus, FI, your position does not appear logically based upon the rules. Please explain your point further.

As a complete aside, what prevents fleet of foot troops from moving away from combat during shooting, or jetbikes from doing so during the CC phase?

Reply by: Moz - click to view full reply 

305

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/25 08:54:47

Post by: Moz

This is actually a really good insight thehod. Particularly since there's this little line in tank shock:
"If an infantry unit has to move in response to a tank shock, it must take a morale check."
and Death or Glory starts with:
"If an infantry unit passes its morale check against tank shock..."

So the P's a C's of it
P1: An infantry unit locked in combat cannot move in the movement phase
P2: An infantry unit must move in the movement phase in order to be tank shocked (specifically to be effected by the morale and death or glory rules)
C: An infantry unit locked in combat cannot be tank shocked.

Thoughts?

Reply by: Flavius Infernus - click to view full reply 

527

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/25 09:07:52

Post by: Flavius Infernus

It is an assumption, Antonin.  I call it the conservation of meaning assumption.  It's one of the three basic assumptions that you have to make in order to logically interpret 40K rules.

Briefly, conservation of meaning is the assumption that (1) words have consistent meanings across rules and rulebooks and (2) words used in a special sense to describe rules do not also denote common usage meanings.

If you don't use this assumption then there's no point in even trying to logically interpet rules.  Otherwise you wind up with rules that say things like Space Marine Scouts get the Scouting special rule.

Reply by: Moz - click to view full reply 

305

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/25 09:23:35

Post by: Moz

Pg 70 "If an infantry unit has to move in response to a tank shock, it must take a morale check."

Is the use of the word Move in this quote also "referring to the movement procedure (page 15)"? Because if so, well... tank shock doesn't work against anything since you can't do the movement procedure on page 15 during your opponent's turn.

Reply by: Antonin - click to view full reply 

405

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/25 09:42:30

Post by: Antonin

A well-reasoned assumption, FI. Agreed that is a necessary unwritten rule for 40K.

Isn't it an assumption, however, to say that the "move" as set forth in "may not move in the Movement Phase" is being used in a special sense, and therefore an exception to the Conservation of Meaning, paragraph (1)? No-one is saying the model itself moves, so we are falling under that Conservation of Meaning already.

Moz, nice P+P=C. Any takers to try to disprove that? I will have to peruse my rulebook again when I get home.

Reply by: Flavius Infernus - click to view full reply 

527

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/25 10:14:15

Post by: Flavius Infernus

Sometimes GW conveniently capitalizes special rules.

But when they dont, it's a kind of corillary of the assumption: if one meaning of a word like "move" creates a contradiction or a rule that cannot be applied, wheras the other meaning of the word creates a situation that functions in relation to other rules, then you pick the one that works with the other rules.

So saying that a model can't move (in the common usage sense) except to pile-in is not an applicable rule. Clearly they can "move" in that they can be jostled around by the cat or packed up if the game ends. The only reason why this rule would exist would be to say that the models can't "Move" in the sense of following the movement procedure.

If the tank shock rule really says that models can't "Move" in response to the tank shock, then that creates a contradiction with other rules. The rules don't allow friendly models to "Move" in the enemy movement phase and there's no rules that cover any other instance of friendly models being compelled to execute a "Move" by the action of any enemy model in the movement phase. But the term "move" in the common sense works there, so that can safely be assumed to be the right meaning.

It's still an assumption, but necessary.

Reply by: Darkness - click to view full reply 

1985

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/25 10:24:31

Post by: Darkness

Posted By Flavius Infernus on 08/25/2006 12:36 PM
Good try, but your friend is not right.

The word "move" on page 44 refers to the movement procedure (page 15) which is prohibited for units in assault. Your friend is confusing the everyday meaning of the word "move" with the rules-based, specialized meaning of "move" on page 44.

As the whole argument for why it should be allowed is purely based on the RAW and not on intent, i see this statement as being the one that is flawed. TheHod is correct as per the RAW. If the unit can not move in the movement phase due to being "locked" in assult, then anything that constitutes moving models in the moving phase regardless of the sorce would not be allowed.

Remeber RAW v. intent.

Reply by: Flavius Infernus - click to view full reply 

527

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/25 10:29:20

Post by: Flavius Infernus

Thanks for the reminder, Darkness.  I'll try my best to remember the difference between RAW and intent.

Reply by: Darkness - click to view full reply 

1985

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/25 10:58:22

Post by: Darkness

Its tough sometimes. GW has proven this with the Nid FAQ.

Reply by: insaniak - click to view full reply 

99

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/25 10:59:59

Post by: insaniak

So the P's a C's of it
P1: An infantry unit locked in combat cannot move in the movement phase
P2: An infantry unit must move in the movement phase in order to be tank shocked (specifically to be effected by the morale and death or glory rules)
C: An infantry unit locked in combat cannot be tank shocked.



P2 is backwards. It doesn't have to move in order to be Tank Shocked... rather Tank Shock forces the unit to move.

A more specific rule always over-rides a general rule. In this case, the general rule for combat (may not move while locked) is over-ridden by a specific situation (forced to move by a Tank Shock)

Reply by: Moz - click to view full reply 

305

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/25 11:53:59

Post by: Moz

P2 is backwards. It doesn't have to move in order to be Tank Shocked... rather Tank Shock forces the unit to move.

A more specific rule always over-rides a general rule. In this case, the general rule for combat (may not move while locked) is over-ridden by a specific situation (forced to move by a Tank Shock)

A unit is not effected (as in doesn't check morale, cannot death or glory) by tank shock unless a model Moves to make way for the tank.  That's the RAW.

Now specific vs. general, well Tank Shock does come later in the book - Though the rules for it it don't seem any more a specific rule than the rules for 'Pile-in'.

Fleet is a more specific rule, are we fleeting out of combat?

Reply by: Strangelooper - click to view full reply 

374

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/25 12:15:19

Post by: Strangelooper

To digress slightly:

If the conservation of meaning assumption applies to the word 'move', then does that mean that units on top of a Castellan Minefield (from a Whirlwind) would only take damage if they 'Move' (during their own movement phase)? Rather than every time they 'move' (eg move + assault + pile in = 3x chances to eat a mine every turn).

This would seem to be a similar situation to the use of the word 'move' in the Tank Shock rules...

Reply by: Green Bloater - click to view full reply 

2884

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/25 12:38:05

Post by: Green Bloater

When we start arguing about the definition of a what a word really means that is pretty sad. Just use an online dictionary.

Reply by: insaniak - click to view full reply 

99

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/25 13:46:24

Post by: insaniak

A unit is not effected (as in doesn't check morale, cannot death or glory) by tank shock unless a model Moves to make way for the tank.  That's the RAW.

Of course it is. But the model moving does not cause the Tank Shock. The Tank Shock causes the model to move.



Now specific vs. general, well Tank Shock does come later in the book - Though the rules for it it don't seem any more a specific rule than the rules for 'Pile-in'.

It doesn't need to be more specific than the rules for Piling In... it simply needs to be more specific than the rule forbidding models to move while locked... which it is.

'Models locked in combat may not move' is a general rule that applies to any models in combat.

'Models must move out of the way of a Tank Shock' is a more specific rule, because it only applies to those models in combat if they get Tank Shocked. If they are in combat and don't get Tank Shocked, then the Tank Shock rules don't apply to them.


Fleet is a more specific rule, are we fleeting out of combat?

While there would certainly be a case for it, I would go with no, because Fleet doesn't force them to move, as Tank Shock does.

It's not specifically spelt out in the rules, but I've always taken Fleet as an action performed instead of shooting. Therefore, if the model cannot shoot, it also can not Fleet.
 

Reply by: Oaka - click to view full reply 

256

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/26 11:13:56

Post by: Oaka

We used to play fleet that way as well, until we realized hormagaunts can never shoot, so could never fleet.  Didn't sit well with the 'Nid player.

- Oaka

Reply by: insaniak - click to view full reply 

99

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/26 12:27:02

Post by: insaniak

That's not what I meant.

The only thing stopping Hormagaunts from shooting is lack of a weapon.

In a normal shooting phase with no other rules in the way, models without a weapon are still allowed to shoot... they just don't have a weapon to do it with.

Fleet is allowed any time the model is not specifically prevented from shooting.

Reply by: Green Bloater - click to view full reply 

2884

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/26 15:05:32

Post by: Green Bloater

Circular logic.

Reply by: Darkness - click to view full reply 

1985

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/27 04:38:51

Post by: Darkness

Posted By insaniak on 08/25/2006 6:46 PM
A unit is not effected (as in doesn't check morale, cannot death or glory) by tank shock unless a model Moves to make way for the tank.  That's the RAW.

Of course it is. But the model moving does not cause the Tank Shock. The Tank Shock causes the model to move.



Now specific vs. general, well Tank Shock does come later in the book - Though the rules for it it don't seem any more a specific rule than the rules for 'Pile-in'.

It doesn't need to be more specific than the rules for Piling In... it simply needs to be more specific than the rule forbidding models to move while locked... which it is.

'Models locked in combat may not move' is a general rule that applies to any models in combat.

'Models must move out of the way of a Tank Shock' is a more specific rule, because it only applies to those models in combat if they get Tank Shocked. If they are in combat and don't get Tank Shocked, then the Tank Shock rules don't apply to them.


Fleet is a more specific rule, are we fleeting out of combat?

While there would certainly be a case for it, I would go with no, because Fleet doesn't force them to move, as Tank Shock does.

It's not specifically spelt out in the rules, but I've always taken Fleet as an action performed instead of shooting. Therefore, if the model cannot shoot, it also can not Fleet.
 

If a unit can not fleet because it is locked in combat and therefore can not shoot, then the same is true for tank shock. A model can not move because it is locked in combat.

Reply by: Strangelooper - click to view full reply 

374

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/27 09:13:02

Post by: Strangelooper

Hmmm...what happens when a Tau ethereal buys it? Don't any Tau locked in combat have to all of a sudden make a morale roll and fallback if they fail? Even if the ethereal was killed by, say, a lasgun in the shooting phase?

That would be a case of being forced to move out of combat when it's not the assault phase. Analagous?

Of course, this is all theoretical since Tau never survive to remain 'locked' in combat...

Reply by: Kilkrazy - click to view full reply 

299

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/27 09:38:00

Post by: Kilkrazy

Actually it's only Tau in CC who don't have to take a morale roll on seeing (LoS required) an Ethereal buy the farm.

Reply by: Strangelooper - click to view full reply 

374

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/27 09:39:48

Post by: Strangelooper

Drat. Thought I was onto something there. Thanks Killkrazy!

I really only wanted to make that funny about Tau in CC anyways...

Reply by: insaniak - click to view full reply 

99

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/27 11:31:49

Post by: insaniak

"If a unit can not fleet because it is locked in combat and therefore can not shoot, then the same is true for tank shock. A model can not move because it is locked in combat."

Fleet is a choice. Tank Shock is a forced move. Not even remotely the same thing.

Reply by: Moz - click to view full reply 

305

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/27 14:53:25

Post by: Moz

Fairly similar in the context of:
A-6. Conflicts With Another Rule
If you?ve provided a set of premises that support your argument, but they are in conflict with another rule, your argument will not hold. It?s important to remember to Break No Rule.

Reply by: Kilkrazy - click to view full reply 

299

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/27 21:22:23

Post by: Kilkrazy

Does "Fleet" require a model to be able to shoot, and voluntarily forgo shooting? I saw it as models that don't shoot, can Fleet -- i.e. a model without a gun would not shoot, therefore could Fleet (subject to other possible restrictions.)

Reply by: Thanatos_elNyx - click to view full reply 

649

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/28 05:14:22

Post by: Thanatos_elNyx

Posted By insaniak on 08/25/2006 6:46 PM
'Models locked in combat may not move' is a general rule that applies to any models in combat.

'Models must move out of the way of a Tank Shock' is a more specific rule, because it only applies to those models in combat if they get Tank Shocked. If they are in combat and don't get Tank Shocked, then the Tank Shock rules don't apply to them. 

I can't remember if this applies to 40k but I know in most games, Can't always beats Can.

Whilst I realise that Must isn't Can, i would still hold the view that Can't Move is stronger for the same reason.

 

And another thing was mentioned earlier in the thread.

If you were to fall back from the combat, would you be auto destroyed?

I don't think so. When falling back you never count the unit you were in combat with. Is there any where that says you aren't in combat during the Movement phase?

Reply by: Oaka - click to view full reply 

256

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/28 05:55:38

Post by: Oaka

The rule you are referring to says that when falling back, you do not count enemy models that the falling back unit fought in close combat with that turn.  Since they are falling back in the movement phase, they haven't fought in close combat that turn, so you have to count those models that they are in base contact with.  Hence, the unit is destroyed while attempting to fall back.

- Oaka

Reply by: Darkness - click to view full reply 

1985

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/28 06:10:00

Post by: Darkness

If GW ever does decide to answer this question and the answer in turn turns out to be yes, I quarentee alot of Emperor's Children armies will be popingup with their whole -4 to tank shocking.

Reply by: Kilkrazy - click to view full reply 

299

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/28 06:16:28

Post by: Kilkrazy

Troops being Tank Shocked don't Fall Back until they have failed their morale check. But they do have to move out of the way of the oncoming tank. It has been held in previous Dakka YMTC threads that models moving away from the vehicle move however far is needed not to be unerneath it, without being harmed at all.

The 1 inch restriction of movement only applies to one's own Movement Phase.

The 1 inch restriction of movement does not include movement away from an enemy model, it means movement towards an enemy model.

Reply by: Augustus - click to view full reply 

284

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/28 09:13:09

Post by: Augustus

Darkness- If a unit can not fleet because it is locked in combat and therefore can not shoot, then the same is true for tank shock. A model can not move because it is locked in combat.

Those are different issues, the first being a voluntary move the second being a forced move. The conclusion does not follow from the premise other than by assumption.  If the second statement was true, the models couldn't be moved, (which I do not think is correct) wouldn't they be killed outright if overun? Are you really proposing that even unengaged locked models would stop a tank shock?

Darkness- If GW ever does decide to answer this question and the answer in turn turns out to be yes, I quarentee alot of Emperor's Children armies will be popingup with their whole -4 to tank shocking.

Unlikely, because non skimmer, slow tanks will have a hard time avoiding their own models, a smart pile in move could easily insulate a unit form asuch an attack, are you sure?

Reply by: ATIRage - click to view full reply 

3389

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/28 09:25:04

Post by: ATIRage

The reason fleet doesn't apply is because Fleet requires that you are able to shoot a weapon, and INSTEAD you move1d6 inches. HOWEVER, in an assault the rules CLEARLY state you aren't allowed to shoot weapons thus you can't utilize the INSTEAD operator for fleet. Much like shooting phase psychic powers.

Reply by: Green Bloater - click to view full reply 

2884

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/28 09:52:42

Post by: Green Bloater

There are people awaiting the outcome of this discussion that are ready to add warp amps to their Rhinos. Don't be a f00.

Reply by: Kilkrazy - click to view full reply 

299

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/28 10:02:37

Post by: Kilkrazy

>>The reason fleet doesn't apply is because Fleet requires that you are able to shoot a weapon, and INSTEAD you move1d6 inches.

I'm not arguing for tank shocking into CC but does the Fleet rule actually require your unit to have a weapon and forgo shooting? My reading is different. The rule says "models... that do not shoot... can move an additional D6 inches." Ths is different to 'instead of shooting, models may move and extra D6.'

Reply by: insaniak - click to view full reply 

99

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/28 10:26:18

Post by: insaniak

"but does the Fleet rule actually require your unit to have a weapon and forgo shooting?"

It doesn't require them to have a weapon. It just requires them to not be forbidden from shooting one, if they had it.

Reply by: ATIRage - click to view full reply 

3389

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/28 11:29:55

Post by: ATIRage

Still while in an assault, weapon or no weapon, you can't shoot as per the assault rules. because fleet requires that you INSTEAD of shooting a weapon you move d6 inches, the fleet rule doesn't work in assault.

You can't have a scenario if X instead Y if no X variable is present. In this situation X is shooting. While in Assault NO shooting can happen thus the final part of equation "Instead Y" can't be reached.

Reply by: Darkness - click to view full reply 

1985

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/28 12:02:09

Post by: Darkness

Posted By Augustus on 08/28/2006 2:13 PM

Unlikely, because non skimmer, slow tanks will have a hard time avoiding their own models, a smart pile in move could easily insulate a unit form asuch an attack, are you sure?

Considering Emperors Children squads are six men, it would be incredibly easy to tank shock a foe in HTH, especialy as most assult units are large in size.

Also, how does death or glory work in assult?

Reply by: Thanatos_elNyx - click to view full reply 

649

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/28 22:12:41

Post by: Thanatos_elNyx

Posted By Oaka on 08/28/2006 10:55 AM

Since they are falling back in the movement phase, they haven't fought in close combat that turn, so you have to count those models that they are in base contact with.  Hence, the unit is destroyed while attempting to fall back.

- Oaka

Well it depends on how you define 'fought'. 

Fought isn't a game defined term. They've been fighting the whole time surely?

Reply by: Green Bloater - click to view full reply 

2884

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/08/29 03:19:07

Post by: Green Bloater

It's getting rather deep in here.

Reply by: Augustus - click to view full reply 

284

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/09/07 07:51:31

Post by: Augustus

Threadromancy!

When I read the thread about the bikes charging multiple targets it brought up a great example where a TS into an ongoing CC would be fairly likely.  In fact, I'm surprised I haven't encountered this more.  Has anyone else?  What if in that example the targets werent Eldar but instead a rhino and a freshly disgrorged chunk of imperial troops immediately adjacent and an (assaulting) attacker had failed to destroy them (but especially the transport) in the assault?  The enemy troops that attacked the vehicle would be right up against it ready for a TS, but also engaged with the remaining passengers...

 

Reply by: Green Bloater - click to view full reply 

2884

Tank Shock vs an ongoing CC? @ 2006/09/07 08:07:47

Post by: Green Bloater

No one has encountered it for good reason.