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.

Firstly, it is spelled "Straight".

Secondly, you can never move the tank in a straight line as the table will have microscopic pits and dents which means it won't move straight!

Augustus wrote:

insaniak wrote:The problem here is that the rules don't tell us how far we can go with that.

The falcon hopping the rhino is very clearly not moving in a straight line.

But replace the rhino with a low hill. Or a small log. Or a gerbil. Or anything else other than a perfectly flat table surface... the falcon is likewise forced to alter its height along the way, and so can not move in a straight line.

Which leaves us, by RAW, with vehicles only ever being able to perform a tank shock on a dead flat table surface.

How large an obstacle you let them hop over then comes down entirely on you and your opponent sorting it out amongst yourselves.

Insaniak, I'm going to call you out on being argumentative and a little pedantic on this one:

insaniak wrote:But replace the rhino with a low hill.

Not a strait line, this is the same as my image example assuming an equivalent size and geometry.

insaniak wrote:Or a small log.

Would pass beneath the tank moving in a strait line.

insaniak wrote:Or a gerbil.

Obviously a joke, I assume.

insaniak wrote:Or anything else other than a perfectly flat table surface

A strait line can easily be drawn up or downhill for a move. Over things that would fit beneath the skimmer etc. There's a big difference between log jumping and the examples shown in the image.

It's not that complex.

Well in the example I gave it very much is a parabolic motion.

Gwar! wrote:Firstly, it is spelled "Straight".

Secondly, you can never move the tank in a straight line as the table will have microscopic pits and dents which means it won't move straight!

Exactly. It isnt talking about a straight line in the sense of 3 dimensions because that is impossible. Its talking about the left/right, 2d plane.

And on top of that the skimmer rules ignore terrain except when you start and stop.

Augustus wrote:Insaniak, I'm going to call you out on being argumentative and a little pedantic on this one:

Not at all. What I'm trying to point out is that the rules aren't clear on how this is supposed to work.

insaniak wrote:But replace the rhino with a low hill.

Not a strait line, this is the same as my image example assuming an equivalent size and geometry.

So what about if you don't assume an equivalent size? How small does the hill have to be before you no longer consider it an obstacle? And what is the rules basis for that distinction?

insaniak wrote:Or a small log.

Would pass beneath the tank moving in a strait line.

Which means raising the tank, because the base needs to pass over it. So you lose your straight line.

insaniak wrote:Or anything else other than a perfectly flat table surface

A strait line can easily be drawn up or downhill for a move. Over things that would fit beneath the skimmer etc. There's a big difference between log jumping and the examples shown in the image.

Yes, there's a difference... but only if you create one. The rules simply ask for a straight line... which means there can never be any sort of obstacle in the way. The ground doesn't need to be level... but it needs to be perfectly flat. Otherwise the skimmer can not move in a straight line.

What happens in practice is that people either disregard vertical movement, or they introduce their own rule as to what sort of obstacles can be moved over without interfering.

because the base needs to pass over it. So you lose your straight line.

Well if you actually think that we are never going to agree. I find it inherent that the base is simply a display and only the tank has to move in a strait line. Things that would impact the stick and base are irrelevant, the tank is suppose to be levitating afterall.

By the strict raw definition you are advocating no tank can tank shock because of irregularities in the boards non perfect surface? That's just patently absurd.

You must be a bear to play, or I suspect you are just being academically obstinate here actually arguing that a non flat surface of any kind stops tank shock or requires house rules.

Augustus - I take it you missed INsaniaks point, which is that *you* are the one essentially advocating a strict RAW position, as you have no other basis for your houserule - you arbitrarily decide what counts for the "straight line" movement.

AS Insaniak took pains to point out (and you missed) - most people play that terrain, which the skimmer is free to ignore until it *ends* its movement, means exactly that - that they inherently move in a straight line, as they pass "through" any terrain on the way as it does not exist for them. This could be argued as a houserule, or a literal usage of skimmer movement, but it is certainly more widespread than your interpretation.

I assume you treat low based skimmers differently, so sometimes skimmers can tank shock and sometimes they cant, based on base height?

Augustus wrote:

Dracheous wrote:...the rule states that the vehicle must goin in a straight line. I tell you what; if you're going to sit there and say that the skimmer hopping the wall is a straight line...

These are not strait lines, it can't be geometrically done, no matter how 2 people "rule" on ruins, that whole argument is meaningless next to this.

The problem with this chart is that the rule isnt describing the longitudinal plane but the lateral one. You need to redo it from the top down, because that is hte only part that has to be straight.

Otherwise, as other people have said, you have to be on planet bowling ball to ever tank shock.

As an example, I could not tank shock because of a 1" hill somewhere in the 24" I fly to tank shock?? Youre saying in order to tank shock my flying base can never leave the table? If you tried to pull that on me in a game there would be some choice words.

Indeed, I had interpreted the "straight line" rule to reference the X and Y axis, to prevent weaving around and tanking shocking multiple units that are scattered. The "pebble on the ground" example is an extreme one, a more reasonable example would be, for a rhino driving down a shallow slope would not be allowed to tank shock a unit of firewarriors at the base of the hill, because it moved a quarter inch down the Z axis of the board. That seems unreasonable.

Disregard the skimmer aspect for a second, let's say I've got a squad at the bottom of a cliff, flush with the cliff wall. Above me 8 inches up at the top of the cliff is a rhino, the rhino wishes to tank shock me, as he is 8 inches away (above me) he would have to drive right off the cliff to make contact, which would mean he is right on top of me to make contact. Would you allow this? If so, how would you handle death or glory? If I stunned/immobilised/wrecked the vehicle, would it remain at the top of the cliff like it never drove off?

Crablezworth wrote:Disregard the skimmer aspect for a second, let's say I've got a squad at the bottom of a cliff, flush with the cliff wall. Above me 8 inches up at the top of the cliff is a rhino, the rhino wishes to tank shock me, as he is 8 inches away (above me) he would have to drive right off the cliff to make contact, which would mean he is right on top of me to make contact. Would you allow this? If so, how would you handle death or glory? If I stunned/immobilised/wrecked the vehicle, would it remain at the top of the cliff like it never drove off?

It depends entirely on how you defined the cliff edge in regards to movement before the game and how strictly you've decided to play the 'straight line' wording for tank shocks.

If it were me, I'd have made such a large drop impassable to begin with.

Agreed, I would classify a cliff face as impassible terrain, and therefore only units that ignore terrain would be allowed to travel through it.

Falconlance wrote:Agreed, I would classify a cliff face as impassible terrain, and therefore only units that ignore terrain would be allowed to travel through it.

let's say it's not impassable, where would the rhino end up if the squad stunned/immobilised/wrecked it? Would it remain at the top of the cliff like it never drove off or would it still be on top of the dude that stunned/immobilised/wrecked it?

Augustus wrote:

Dracheous wrote:...the rule states that the vehicle must goin in a straight line. I tell you what; if you're going to sit there and say that the skimmer hopping the wall is a straight line...

These are not strait lines, it can't be geometrically done, no matter how 2 people "rule" on ruins, that whole argument is meaningless next to this.

if he wanted to do this, id say he had to ram the vehicle as well.. which if he did well, could then continue on to tank shock the troops.

Only prob with that is what armor value would a wall be?

There's a chart on page 79 of the basic book that assigns an armor value to buildings. So it would depend on the building in this specific instance.

Crablezworth wrote:

Falconlance wrote:Agreed, I would classify a cliff face as impassible terrain, and therefore only units that ignore terrain would be allowed to travel through it.

let's say it's not impassable, where would the rhino end up if the squad stunned/immobilised/wrecked it? Would it remain at the top of the cliff like it never drove off or would it still be on top of the dude that stunned/immobilised/wrecked it?

If the guys are flush against the cliff face, I would say that it remains at the top of the cliff, as thats where it would stop just prior to the unit making their morale test.

My personal rule of thumb for these kind of situations (unclear in rulebook, discuss before game) is to always consider ROI and what's "physically happening" in the situation. RAW often forces some silly things...


So, Tank shock represents the understandable reaction of small squishy people to several tonnes of metal coming along to say hi. So I am tempted to allow it for any situation where a vehicle can fit.

I think a skimmer hopping over a low wall is definitely fine, the idea of a ballsy pilot trying to drop into ruins seems valid.

I'd throw in some extra rules for larger terrain pieces, if the pilot was literally dropping down a chimney to reach troops then I'd suggest a difficult terrain test per "storey" of the building as he drops down a shaft at high speed.


Obviously, RAI and what each player thinks is valid can lead to some godawful arguments - but it's more fun to play from my experience

PS. In the case of the Rhino going over the cliff I'd suggest a leadership test to drive over the edge and an automatic str(?) hit against the front armour as the thing thunders into the floor.

I had always assumed the 'straight line' was from a top down, two dimensional, N/S/E/W perspective. as in, it won't turn corners. As altitude is a complete abstraction with skimmers I don't see how a rise or fall in altitude to hop obstacles would cause a problem with their "straight" line any more than it would for them zooming across a cityscape in one direction during a regular move. If you think otherwise, that means you are saying big cumbersome rhino is in fact more maneuverable than a slick flying anti-gravity tank, just because the rhino would barrel through walls instead of simply going over them.

Just as with TLOS, skimmers altitude gets abstractified. You can't see through a hovertank either even if it's on a 2" flight base or a 3" flight base, and you can see underneat it. altitude is a vague concept in 40k, it really only aplies to ground based troops and levels of elevation, skimmers just sort of float up and down as they go, 2D versus 3D.

3D applies to buildings and ground troops and hills and gerbils. 2D applies to how skimmers move, block LOS, and so I don't see why it would be any different with tank shock (or 'hopshock') This isn't a geometry class about what a straight line means, it was just verbal ambiguity on their part, where they could have just said "in the direction it is facing".

Augustus wrote:By the strict raw definition you are advocating no tank can tank shock because of irregularities in the boards non perfect surface? That's just patently absurd.

Of course it is. Which is why I pointed out that people don't actually play that way.

You must be a bear to play, or I suspect you are just being academically obstinate here actually arguing that a non flat surface of any kind stops tank shock or requires house rules.

No, again, what I'm trying to point out is that the actual rules and the way people play it are two different things.

This is why, when playing against a stranger, you just have to agree before you start, what exactly each piece of terrain counts as. If Rhinos can charge through walls with their whopping 11 FA, I don't see why other stuff like Waveys or Fish can't with a 12.

Just because they float doesn't make them any less a large burly object coming at you fairly fast. Which walls are impenetrable? Which buildings are 'buildings' and which are area terrain lumps of ruins? etc. Which hills are actually hills and which are just LOS/move blockers sort of definite description. A short conversation before you start makes for a much easier way to avoid complications like this. You can't tank shock a specific floor of a building, just the 2D overhead area, because 3D doesn't exist to skimmers. You could have a 2 foot tall cliff face on your board and a jump troop, jetbike, crisis suit, skimmer can zoom right up it, so why can't it tank shock into a building it if a tracked ground pounding tank can?

I think your reading into it too much Augustus, and that, I think, is the point insaniak is trying to make.

The point here is that there a couple of ways to interpret the straight line rule, but when trying to deny certain aspects of it by choosing the most restrictive way, the game breaks.