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

Can you kill a stormsurge that's locked it's legs with a tank shock? The rules states that any model not being able to move out of the way is destroyed, and the leglock thing prevents movment. Of course it gets a death or glory attack.

That is correct. Crazy, eh?

 Nerak wrote:
Can you kill a stormsurge that's locked it's legs with a tank shock? The rules states that any model not being able to move out of the way is destroyed, and the leglock thing prevents movment. Of course it gets a death or glory attack.

People like to bring up the Rhino Rush to wipe out a Stormsurge tactic, but the Rhinos aren't going to get it done because the DoG attack will kill any one of them.

Gets asked as the first question on this page of the Tau draft FAQ.

 Quanar wrote:
Gets asked as the first question on this page of the Tau draft FAQ.

I love that their answer I clear as a bell too. A 35 pt model has a chance to bust a frickin' GC. Fantastic.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Nerak wrote:
Can you kill a stormsurge that's locked it's legs with a tank shock? The rules states that any model not being able to move out of the way is destroyed, and the leglock thing prevents movment. Of course it gets a death or glory attack.

People like to bring up the Rhino Rush to wipe out a Stormsurge tactic, but the Rhinos aren't going to get it done because the DoG attack will kill any one of them.

No where near 100% kill on the rhino, fearless means it fires, but the the pulse blast cannon has to strip 3 hull points or roll a 2,4,5, or 6 on the damage table. It only gets 1 shot.

So you have a 33% chance to not get stopped, and a 66% chance to have a hull point remaining(because you would never attempt this with a damaged rhino).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and Casvar: if a Tau player is foolish enough to leave a stormsurge anchored within 12" of an undamaged rhino, or any tank for that matter(remember it can always stip a hull point in its own turn while anchored), he should not complain that the rules are against his very poor tactical decision.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Quanar wrote:
Gets asked as the first question on this page of the Tau draft FAQ.

I love that their answer I clear as a bell too. A 35 pt model has a chance to bust a frickin' GC. Fantastic.

GCs need some kind of weakness. Currently, they have none.

Martel732 wrote:
GCs need some kind of weakness. Currently, they have none.

I don't think anyone's disagreeing from a rules point of view. The rules are what they are. Rather, I think people are complaining from a fluff point of view. "How is this tiny thing slaughtering this huge thing?". It's like a pickup truck not just damaging a building, but toppling it over and grinding the debris into ashes. It just doesn't make aesthetic sense. Or, to quote the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, "It hung in the air the exact same way that brick's don't."

This is where having a rules set that aims to create realism falls apart. The rules for crushing someone with a Tank Shock worked back when Monstrous Creatures were a lot smaller. Now you have largely the same rule, but some things are many times larger. I don't think GMCs should be insta-killed by failing a Death or Glory attack, but that's only because of the aesthetic. I also don't think GMCs should be allowed in anything short of an "Apocalypse" game, meaning this situation shouldn't even be coming up in a standard game, but that's besides the point.

Kommissar Kel wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and Casvar: if a Tau player is foolish enough to leave a stormsurge anchored within 12" of an undamaged rhino, or any tank for that matter(remember it can always stip a hull point in its own turn while anchored), he should not complain that the rules are against his very poor tactical decision.

Question, if the Rhinos were Fast, would they get 18" of doom on a Stormsurge? Also, keeping a SS safe from a Battle Company worth of Rhinos is going to be quite hard.

Nope. In the movement phase fast does nothing.

It only effects the shooting phase(either number of weapons fired based on distance moved in the movement phase, or greater Flat-out movement).

As far as protecting the Stormsurge from a battle company's worth of rhinos; you also have the rest of your 1500+ point army to either provide other speed bumps or at least harass hull points off of all of them.

Remember if a rhino is transporting a unit, it is a moderate to high priority target. If it is empty it becomes a target of opportunity that has slightly higher priority to strip at least a single hull point.

Any time you have target saturation, the first thing you should do is prioritize your targets.

While the ruling in the FAQ is clear, it does ignore actual game rules rather than address the real problem. GMCs have a rule that states instead of removing the model outright, the GMC takes 1d3 wounds, which the FAQ ignores. The real problem is where does the tank stop, which is not addressed in the rules as in most cases the models are moved out from under the tank. The FAQ favors ignoring actual rules over making a rule addendum, such as simply having the tank stop 1" from the GMC. This creates a bad precedent, while implying that the FAQ authors are not fluent in their own rules. The fact that the FAQ authors have contradicted themselves across specific codex FAQs only reinforces the issue.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
While the ruling in the FAQ is clear, it does ignore actual game rules rather than address the real problem. GMCs have a rule that states instead of removing the model outright, the GMC takes 1d3 wounds, which the FAQ ignores. The real problem is where does the tank stop, which is not addressed in the rules as in most cases the models are moved out from under the tank. The FAQ favors ignoring actual rules over making a rule addendum, such as simply having the tank stop 1" from the GMC. This creates a bad precedent, while implying that the FAQ authors are not fluent in their own rules. The fact that the FAQ authors have contradicted themselves across specific codex FAQs only reinforces the issue.

SJ

The rules support the stormsurge dying too. Because When you tank shock an anchored stormsurge it takes 1d3 wounds because it can't move out of the way of the tank tank shocking vehicle. But once its take 1d3 wounds, it is still in the way of a tank shocking vehicle and can't get out of the way so it takes 1d3 wounds AGAIN, and this will happen until it dies.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
While the ruling in the FAQ is clear, it does ignore actual game rules rather than address the real problem. GMCs have a rule that states instead of removing the model outright, the GMC takes 1d3 wounds, which the FAQ ignores. The real problem is where does the tank stop, which is not addressed in the rules as in most cases the models are moved out from under the tank. The FAQ favors ignoring actual rules over making a rule addendum, such as simply having the tank stop 1" from the GMC. This creates a bad precedent, while implying that the FAQ authors are not fluent in their own rules. The fact that the FAQ authors have contradicted themselves across specific codex FAQs only reinforces the issue.

SJ

The rules support the stormsurge dying too. Because When you tank shock an anchored stormsurge it takes 1d3 wounds because it can't move out of the way of the tank tank shocking vehicle. But once its take 1d3 wounds, it is still in the way of a tank shocking vehicle and can't get out of the way so it takes 1d3 wounds AGAIN, and this will happen until it dies.

Except that infinite loops are not supported in the rules, as all actions only occure once unless otherwise noted.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
While the ruling in the FAQ is clear, it does ignore actual game rules rather than address the real problem. GMCs have a rule that states instead of removing the model outright, the GMC takes 1d3 wounds, which the FAQ ignores. The real problem is where does the tank stop, which is not addressed in the rules as in most cases the models are moved out from under the tank. The FAQ favors ignoring actual rules over making a rule addendum, such as simply having the tank stop 1" from the GMC. This creates a bad precedent, while implying that the FAQ authors are not fluent in their own rules. The fact that the FAQ authors have contradicted themselves across specific codex FAQs only reinforces the issue.

SJ

The rules support the stormsurge dying too. Because When you tank shock an anchored stormsurge it takes 1d3 wounds because it can't move out of the way of the tank tank shocking vehicle. But once its take 1d3 wounds, it is still in the way of a tank shocking vehicle and can't get out of the way so it takes 1d3 wounds AGAIN, and this will happen until it dies.

Except that infinite loops are not supported in the rules, as all actions only occure once unless otherwise noted.

SJ

You are still in the middle of resolving one action. This is just the result of tankshock's interaction with unstoppable from GMC (and the faq supports this)

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
While the ruling in the FAQ is clear, it does ignore actual game rules rather than address the real problem. GMCs have a rule that states instead of removing the model outright, the GMC takes 1d3 wounds, which the FAQ ignores. The real problem is where does the tank stop, which is not addressed in the rules as in most cases the models are moved out from under the tank. The FAQ favors ignoring actual rules over making a rule addendum, such as simply having the tank stop 1" from the GMC. This creates a bad precedent, while implying that the FAQ authors are not fluent in their own rules. The fact that the FAQ authors have contradicted themselves across specific codex FAQs only reinforces the issue.

SJ

Yeah the 1d3 wounds rule only applies to instant death.

mhalko1 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
While the ruling in the FAQ is clear, it does ignore actual game rules rather than address the real problem. GMCs have a rule that states instead of removing the model outright, the GMC takes 1d3 wounds, which the FAQ ignores. The real problem is where does the tank stop, which is not addressed in the rules as in most cases the models are moved out from under the tank. The FAQ favors ignoring actual rules over making a rule addendum, such as simply having the tank stop 1" from the GMC. This creates a bad precedent, while implying that the FAQ authors are not fluent in their own rules. The fact that the FAQ authors have contradicted themselves across specific codex FAQs only reinforces the issue.

SJ

Yeah the 1d3 wounds rule only applies to instant death.

The Gargantuan Creature rule actually say "Any attack that normally inflicts Instant Death or says that the target model is removed from play inflicts D3 Wounds on a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature instead.", so Jeffersonian's reasoning is technically correct. And the rules never states that the GMC needs to continually try to move out of the way; it simply stops functioning after the Stormsurge takes the D3 wounds and the game enters a state of which it cannot exist (namely two units overlapping each other). In terms of a computer program, this is when you get a blue screen as the thing crashes and burns.

The FAQ patches this booboo by just saying the Stormsurge breaks it's legs and dies. Think of it as a giant Peter Griffin gripping his leg on the sidewalk making pained grunts while everyone just awkwardly drives around him.

The issue is that the rules do not cover what happens to a tank that tank shocks a target that can't move. GW answered that, the target is removed as a casualty.

Anyone using a SS should be extra cautious with Anchoring if the enemy has outflanking tanks...

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

mhalko1 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
While the ruling in the FAQ is clear, it does ignore actual game rules rather than address the real problem. GMCs have a rule that states instead of removing the model outright, the GMC takes 1d3 wounds, which the FAQ ignores. The real problem is where does the tank stop, which is not addressed in the rules as in most cases the models are moved out from under the tank. The FAQ favors ignoring actual rules over making a rule addendum, such as simply having the tank stop 1" from the GMC. This creates a bad precedent, while implying that the FAQ authors are not fluent in their own rules. The fact that the FAQ authors have contradicted themselves across specific codex FAQs only reinforces the issue.

SJ

Yeah the 1d3 wounds rule only applies to instant death.

The Gargantuan Creature rule actually say "Any attack that normally inflicts Instant Death or says that the target model is removed from play inflicts D3 Wounds on a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature instead.", so Jeffersonian's reasoning is technically correct. And the rules never states that the GMC needs to continually try to move out of the way; it simply stops functioning after the Stormsurge takes the D3 wounds and the game enters a state of which it cannot exist (namely two units overlapping each other). In terms of a computer program, this is when you get a blue screen as the thing crashes and burns.

The FAQ patches this booboo by just saying the Stormsurge breaks it's legs and dies. Think of it as a giant Peter Griffin gripping his leg on the sidewalk making pained grunts while everyone just awkwardly drives around him.

I think the FAQ supports the actual rules too, though. It's NOT an infinite loop because the Stormsurge doesn't have an infinite number of wounds. It's the exact same thing that were to happen if a vehicle tank-shocked three or more monstrous creatures in a row. If all three stayed in place and all three tried to stop it, it would just be a continual "go to move, get within 1 inch of creature, creature makes Ld tests, if passed makes death or glory and if failed moves out of the way, if it doesn't move it's crushed" for each time that it would move. The only real difference between the FAQ response and the rules-backed one is that (and I could be wrong on this) by forcing the repetition of steps, it would get multiple death or glory attempts.

Tank Shock doesn't end the process with "once the model is removed, the vehicle may continue its movement". I don't have the book in front of me at the moment, but I believe it says "remove the model and continue the vehicle's movement". Well, in this case, continued movement will cause it to Tank Shock the same GMC. It's not an infinite loop because, eventually, the GMC dies or the vehicle tank shocking it is stopped. From the computer program speak, if you make a program that rolls 20 dice, and keeps rolling until it rolls all-6's, well... it'll keep rolling a bunch of times, but not infinitely because 20x 6's is possible. If the GMC had infinite wounds or some way of avoiding suffering the damage from the tank shock such that no matter how many times it was tank shocked it wouldn't be slain, THEN we'd be in place the rules don't cover, because then it really would be an infinite loop.

It's effectively like using a Death Jester with Mask of Secrets casting Mirror of Minds against something with basic Ld7 or less. Once you get the power off, you COULD keep resolving the power until the target died, or you could just remove the model. In theory, the target could always roll 6's for its Ld test, and the Death Jester could always roll 1's, but it's still not an infinite loop because the target doesn't have infinite wounds.

The thing is the core rules just assumes that, in that case, either the model is forced out of the way (via the "move it away" rule) or it has died. It doesn't account for a model that may not be killed by the initial ramming but also cannot be moved out of the way, hence the game breaks as it enters a state in which it cannot exist (two models within 1 inch outside of combat or overlapping each other).

Again the FAQ is like a little patch, telling you how to resolve this unique case.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The thing is the core rules just assumes that, in that case, either the model is forced out of the way (via the "move it away" rule) or it has died. It doesn't account for a model that may not be killed by the initial ramming but also cannot be moved out of the way, hence the game breaks as it enters a state in which it cannot exist (two models within 1 inch outside of combat or overlapping each other).

Again the FAQ is like a little patch, telling you how to resolve this unique case.

Except that this isn't necessarily the case. It says to continue moving, but in this case that means it simply encounters the same road block a second time. Consider this alternate scenario;

A Chaos Predator is trying to Ram a Space Marine Rhino transport. The Rhino is flanked on both sides by Stormraven Gunships, and they are as tight as can possibly be such that, without the Rhino there, the Chaos Predator could not come between them. Due to some crafty manoeuvring by the Chaos Player, he can legally Ram the Rhino without coming within 1" of the flyers, since he is brought within 1" of the Rhino before he "would" touch it, but if he destroys the Rhino there will be absolutely no space for the Predator to continue it's move.

If we assume that a Ramming vehicle must be able to continue the move in the event of a successful Ram, then the above is an illegal play, and the Rhino cannot be rammed. If we assume that a Ramming vehicle need not be able to continue its move even after a successful Ram, then the above is a legal play.

If this is a legal play, I see no difference between it and failing to remove a Stormsurge that was anchored. The game would treat this as a new Tank Shock event that's part of the declared movement of the Tank Shocking vehicle.

I don't have the rulebook with me but I'm pretty sure there are actual rules to stop the scenario you described in the book. What I was getting at is that the Tank and Stormsurge have now clipped into each other, something the rules have no way of dealing with. The rules themselves only deal when one model's base or hull reaches that of another model. It doesn't account for when the two start the movement (not movement phase, the actual movement) clipped into each other. Does the Tank have to physically move out and then back in? Does the model count as completely solid throughout or is it like a papercraft model; only it's edges exist and it's in effect hollow inside? This is why the rules enter a state of limbo; it has no way to account for this and leaves everything up for interpretation.

If a unit is tank shocked, and passes their morale test(which the stormsurge automatically does), the tank just passes through them like they aren't even there.

It is only when models are beneath the tanks final position that they have to move or get crunched. Getting crunched only occurs if there is nowhere for the models to go or if they cannot move.

The gmc rules would only apply d3 wounds once in any situation because the tank only lands on the stormsurge once. If the tank is shocking past the stormsurge, it surbives with no wounds dealt to it.

I've found a hilarious new interaction with Zhadsnark's "can tank shock as if he was a vehicle" rule. Evidently an ork on a bike can Instagib a superheavy by running into it.

Either Tau engineering isn't what I thought it was or the War Bike of the Aporkalypse is a lot more Orky and Apocalyptic than anyone ever could have predicted.

You guys are confusing rules. A Ram, which can only be done versus vehicles, does stop the Ramming vehicle. Tank Shock, which is used against non-vehicles, assumes the tank either mover through the model(s) or is eliminated. The Stormsurge scenario finds us in the situation where the model should survive but the tank cannot preceed to the end of it's movement. Instead of simply stopping the tank at 1" from the Stormsurge as if following the precedent set by Ramming, GW chose to rule that the GMC's abilith to survive such damage is ignored.

Again, it implies that the people answering the FAQ questions are not familiar with the actual rules they are attempting to clarify.

SJ

1) No competent Tau player will EVER let this happen.

2) I find it amusing that an OP (super OP) unit like the Stormsurge can die to a Rhino.

The actual interpretations of GW's ramblings being totally random is about par for the course. I don't know why anyone is surprised.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You guys are confusing rules. A Ram, which can only be done versus vehicles, does stop the Ramming vehicle. Tank Shock, which is used against non-vehicles, assumes the tank either mover through the model(s) or is eliminated. The Stormsurge scenario finds us in the situation where the model should survive but the tank cannot preceed to the end of it's movement. Instead of simply stopping the tank at 1" from the Stormsurge as if following the precedent set by Ramming, GW chose to rule that the GMC's abilith to survive such damage is ignored.

Again, it implies that the people answering the FAQ questions are not familiar with the actual rules they are attempting to clarify.

SJ

How is choosing the actual result from being Tank Shocked (removed from play) more "ignoring the rules" than choosing a completely different set of rules for a completely different unit type?

The whole D3 wounds for instant death likely does not apply to the phrase "removed from play", just as eternal warrior doesn't save you from a "6" stomp.

Stormsurge is OP? Haven't seen them in very many tournaments.

Nevertheless, with my Stormsurges I keep them castled in a back corner. My big concern is an outflanking tank. That, friends, can cut a SS's effectiveness in half. Either you deploy centrally so as to be 13+ inches from the table sides so you can go heels down, or you stay heels up. Relying on your EWOs won't help either since it's a movement phase attack. I like that Achilles's Heel (pun intended) of the Stormsurge. Seems to bring balance to the Warp. Now if we can just find the "rock" to Eldar "scissors" all will be in harmony.

Martel732 wrote:
The whole D3 wounds for instant death likely does not apply to the phrase "removed from play", just as eternal warrior doesn't save you from a "6" stomp.

Actually it's one of the few points Jeffersonian actually got right. If you look at the Gargantuan Creature section it does actually say "or removed from play".

It's just that removing itself from the game is still a base effect of Tank Shocking. His train of logic is that "remove from play" is the basic effect, while the contradictory "D3" wound effect should thus take precedence. But this results in the situation where the tank clips into the model. GW chose to ignore the "advance" rule and instead revert it to the original, but he thinks yet another advanced rule should be created to simulate the tank hitting the leg and then stopping.