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.

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.

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

Agreed!

" 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.

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

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.

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?

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?