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.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Respectfully, I understand the prevailing interpretation about the rules around movement for a unit that is being tank shocked. I disagree with this interpretation and believe RAW do not provide units with more movement than they are normally entitled to. You can call this a house rule, but there are situations that can rise when doing tank shocks that make you want to really examine the wording based on common sense.

The basis for this is simple. Movement is movement. I don't see why having a tank bear down on you means you can suddenly move an extra 12 inches a turn. If we were talking about moving a couple inches to get out of the way, I would not have a problem with the prevailing interpretation. But, since 6th edition came out, I have been in this situation at least a half a dozen times.

1) My Rhino tank shocks a unit that can't move except to go through the Rhino.

2) The Rhino's tank shock move ends in the middle of the unit (because otherwise it would hit whatever is behind the target).

3) To get out of the way, the unit would have needed to move about 5 inches to get out of the way of the Rhino and be one inch away and maintain coherency. They still can't really move because of where the Rhino is at.

4) I tank shock with a second Rhino. The unit has to move again, now it's moved about 10 inches (some of the models have gone a lot further than that.)

If I wanted to, I could do another tank shock with a third Rhino and take them further than they could have run. Add that to the natural movement of the unit, and you have squads that are moving almost as far as a bike going flat out. It doesn't make sense to me that infantry should be able to do that - especially slow and purposeful ones.

I have been asking opponents about movement for a while now, and asking them to explain how their troops could go that far. It's a mechanic GW did not consider when designing this game. The other way of looking at it is this, there are restrictions around how far a model can move. What is so special about a tank shock that it lets you break this other, more basic rule?

Also, because the restrictions on movement are determined by phase or action throughout the game. An infantry model can move up to 6" in my movement. It can then run up to d6" inches more in my shooting phase. If it didn't run, it could then potentially charge 2d6 inches in my assault phase and, if unfortunate, flee 2d6 inches more at the end of any fight substep (mine and yours). Hit and Run allows infantry models to move up to 3d6 inches, or potentially 3 times as far as normal.

When your action (tank shock) results in a situation in which your tank is now on top of my models, the rules give me permission to move them. How far do I get to move them? The shortest distance to a point in which they are at least (i.e. > or =) 1" away from your tank and still on the board and in unit coherency.

Thank you everyone for the feedback.

To respond to some specific points:

1) I don't think I need to find a rule that limits says no movement can be over 6 inches - that's silly. There are rules that say how far different kinds of units move based on type - it is a basic mechanic of the game. I refuse to believe game designers were looking to overwrite the rules around movement to account for tank shocks, this is simply a mechanic they had not thought of.

2) I do treat this as a house rule and discuss it with opponents before I even try. In the situation, with models on the board, it's not hard to convince someone the popular interpretation of the rule doesn't make sense. Seriously, line up 2 Rhinos in front of a unit that can only move forward and do multiple tank shocks. It's ridiculous.

3) There's something about 6th edition that makes this situation come up more than it would have in other editions. With hull points, I am always trying to do something with my Rhinos before they die. It's unlikely I am the only person who noticed this. The wording of the rules around tank shock changed since 5th edition, which I discussed in the other thread. I really don't think the rules were intended to stay the same as they were in previous editions.

 techsoldaten wrote:
1) I don't think I need to find a rule that limits says no movement can be over 6 inches - that's silly. There are rules that say how far different kinds of units move based on type - it is a basic mechanic of the game. I refuse to believe game designers were looking to overwrite the rules around movement to account for tank shocks, this is simply a mechanic they had not thought of.

No, I'm pretty sure they thought of it, especially since they spelled out that advanced rules are "stronger" than general ones. The general rules for movement limit you, but the more advanced ones do not.

2) I do treat this as a house rule and discuss it with opponents before I even try. In the situation, with models on the board, it's not hard to convince someone the popular interpretation of the rule doesn't make sense. Seriously, line up 2 Rhinos in front of a unit that can only move forward and do multiple tank shocks. It's ridiculous.

Force a unit to fall back. Under your house rule a unit could potentially fall back many many times farther - just by forcing morale checks - than from a single tank shock, let alone multiples.

3) There's something about 6th edition that makes this situation come up more than it would have in other editions. With hull points, I am always trying to do something with my Rhinos before they die. It's unlikely I am the only person who noticed this. The wording of the rules around tank shock changed since 5th edition, which I discussed in the other thread. I really don't think the rules were intended to stay the same as they were in previous editions.

When you present your stance as RAW (which you did at first) arguing that you don't think it's intended is essentially the same as saying "I was wrong."
In case you were curious, I'd never consent to play that way because it directly contradicts the rules.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Thank you everyone for the feedback.

To respond to some specific points:

1) I don't think I need to find a rule that limits says no movement can be over 6 inches - that's silly. There are rules that say how far different kinds of units move based on type - it is a basic mechanic of the game. I refuse to believe game designers were looking to overwrite the rules around movement to account for tank shocks, this is simply a mechanic they had not thought of.

2) I do treat this as a house rule and discuss it with opponents before I even try. In the situation, with models on the board, it's not hard to convince someone the popular interpretation of the rule doesn't make sense. Seriously, line up 2 Rhinos in front of a unit that can only move forward and do multiple tank shocks. It's ridiculous.

3) There's something about 6th edition that makes this situation come up more than it would have in other editions. With hull points, I am always trying to do something with my Rhinos before they die. It's unlikely I am the only person who noticed this. The wording of the rules around tank shock changed since 5th edition, which I discussed in the other thread. I really don't think the rules were intended to stay the same as they were in previous editions.

As to point one, you are introducing an artifical cap that isn't present in the rules. The tank shock rules clearly tell you to move the shortest distance, be it 2" or 8". There is nothing that support your interpretation of "shortest distance, up to X" where X is the model's maximum movement in a different phase of the game by unit type.

PanzerLeader wrote:

As to point one, you are introducing an artifical cap that isn't present in the rules. The tank shock rules clearly tell you to move the shortest distance, be it 2" or 8". There is nothing that support your interpretation of "shortest distance, up to X" where X is the model's maximum movement in a different phase of the game by unit type.

Well, I am using it as a yardstick, certainly.

The other way of looking at it is, how does an infantry unit get to move further than a biker on turbo boost in a single turn? I have seen this too, it makes no sense.

You think bikers on turbo boost should cover less ground than guardsmen getting out of the way of some tanks?

it would be physically impossible for them to move that much in such a short time correct?

Well rules in a game are supposed to be designed around balance, not physics.


Personally, i think if you were gonna declare tank shock with multiple vehicles, you would have to declare it for all of them at once, if tank shocking the same unit, since movement is supposed to happen at the same time and not in a chain (that could potentially force a unit to move more than 12")


The rules are certainly a mess. Looking over it though im acctually in favor of guys getting squashed in a box in situation. I dont believe the rules allow you to pass through any unit to escape, even the one doing the tank shock.

There is a rule in the book, afterall, that states you may not pass through enemy units. A tank choosing to tank shock instead of positioning better for a shooting attack or more defensive armor facing should be allowed to kill stuff by running it over.

 techsoldaten wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

As to point one, you are introducing an artifical cap that isn't present in the rules. The tank shock rules clearly tell you to move the shortest distance, be it 2" or 8". There is nothing that support your interpretation of "shortest distance, up to X" where X is the model's maximum movement in a different phase of the game by unit type.

Well, I am using it as a yardstick, certainly.

The other way of looking at it is, how does an infantry unit get to move further than a biker on turbo boost in a single turn? I have seen this too, it makes no sense.

You think bikers on turbo boost should cover less ground than guardsmen getting out of the way of some tanks?

I'm not saying I think its a perfect solution, but a regular infantry model with hit and run can move up to 30" in a single assault phase and all models can move up to 12" in an assault phase. Infantry models can also fall back more than 6". Where are you getting support that the movement phase limitations apply to evading tank shock? The rules are clear: models under the tank move the shortest distance to be at least 1" from the tank, on the board, and in coherency. Since the tank shocking vehicle is technically on top of those models until they finish their evade move, it cannot block their evading movement.

In the box in situation you can always tank shock all but one miniature. They then can't be placed in coherency with that miniature, which has no permission to move. So they die.

 techsoldaten wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

As to point one, you are introducing an artifical cap that isn't present in the rules. The tank shock rules clearly tell you to move the shortest distance, be it 2" or 8". There is nothing that support your interpretation of "shortest distance, up to X" where X is the model's maximum movement in a different phase of the game by unit type.

Well, I am using it as a yardstick, certainly.

The other way of looking at it is, how does an infantry unit get to move further than a biker on turbo boost in a single turn? I have seen this too, it makes no sense.

You think bikers on turbo boost should cover less ground than guardsmen getting out of the way of some tanks?

Do you limit fallback moves as well?
Why are you only limiting tank shock moves? Why is your focus laser targeted on tank shocks, ignoring all other ways to move "more than normal"?

After reading the post I would agree that the models could move behind the truck as per the rule. This raises the question though about unit coherency. If I stop halfway through the squad and 3 are forced to move while 2 are not. Assuming the 3 move behind the truck while the two stay in front. Which group is not in coherency? The 2 or the 3? Also I disagree that with Mywik in that it seems more realistic that orks would try and kill models by running them over. The fluff in the ork codec about the truck even says this. I seriously doubt that an ork was thinking about scaring the enemy away with his truck more than he was dreaming up ways to kill them with it.

I believe to make this work you have to surround the models completely. Three have to be in place for you move the fourth in to box them in. But I have only ever used this tactic against landraiders, monoliths, russes, and the like with piranhas. So I know it works there, but troops I guess I'm not sure.

PanzerLeader wrote:
Where are you getting support that the movement phase limitations apply to evading tank shock? The rules are clear: models under the tank move the shortest distance to be at least 1" from the tank, on the board, and in coherency. Since the tank shocking vehicle is technically on top of those models until they finish their evade move, it cannot block their evading movement.

The rules say to move the models. Movement is an established mechanic in 40k. This is RAW in a very literal sense.

If something only moves 6 inches and can't get out from under the tank, I think it should go away.

Only moves six inches during a movement phase move. Please cite, page and para, where the restriction is applied to a tank shock.

Abide by the tenets of the forum please.

rigeld2 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

As to point one, you are introducing an artifical cap that isn't present in the rules. The tank shock rules clearly tell you to move the shortest distance, be it 2" or 8". There is nothing that support your interpretation of "shortest distance, up to X" where X is the model's maximum movement in a different phase of the game by unit type.

Well, I am using it as a yardstick, certainly.

The other way of looking at it is, how does an infantry unit get to move further than a biker on turbo boost in a single turn? I have seen this too, it makes no sense.

You think bikers on turbo boost should cover less ground than guardsmen getting out of the way of some tanks?

Do you limit fallback moves as well?
Why are you only limiting tank shock moves? Why is your focus laser targeted on tank shocks, ignoring all other ways to move "more than normal"?

For a few reasons:

1) I have Rhinos in my armies. It affects my games a lot more than fallback moves. Situations come up often enough where I could use it to my advantage.

2) It's a ridiculous, stupid oversight. Even my opponents have said so. TBH, this was first pointed out to me by someone I was playing.

3) It is completely legal to discuss the popular interpretation of a rule with an opponent. If they agree it doesn't make sense, it's not illegal.

 techsoldaten wrote:

2) It's a ridiculous, stupid oversight. Even my opponents have said so. TBH, this was first pointed out to me by someone I was playing.

Do you limit Fallback moves as well? If not, how is the Tank Shock reaction move any different than chain Tank Shocking a unit has failed a Morale Check and forcing them to potentially move multiple feet and right off the board?

"But Realism!" is a pointless and stupid argument in a game about Psychic Space Dinosaurs battling Genetically Engineered Super-Human Nazis. Especially when the entire justification for them only moving 6" in the movement phase is that they are moving carefully to try and avoid getting maimed or going the wrong way, which is going to be a lesser concern when your alternative is getting turned into a pancake.

@Chrysis - I responded to the point about fallback moves above.

Listen, let's just call this a house rule and move on. I know the popular interpretation and don't agree with it. I don't think I am going to persuade you, and I don't think you are going to persuade me.

But seriously, maybe I will make a video, it's really easy to see the problem when you actually have a unit pinned and an opponent's forces magically appear on the other side of the tank. I don't look for perfect realism with this game but egregious displays of revisionist physics displease me.

I didn't see any explicit answer to the question in your previous reply, and failed to pick up on the implict answer. My mistake.

I don't see any actual reasons there. From what I've read, the first reason boils down to limiting Tank Shock benefiting you, while limiting Fallback does not. I think most people would find that objectionable.

The second is, from what I can tell, is that it's an oversight because crushing models is too hard. But I can't see any reasons why you think it's too hard that don't boil down to "Realism", which are then negated by not applying the movement limit to Fallback (among other things) as well.

The third is that making House Rules is OK. This is true, but the discussion didn't start with House Rules. It started with the assertion that the rules applied the 6" movement cap. It was only when that position couldn't be defended that it shifted to House Rules. You were quite clear that you believe RAW applies the cap to Tank Shock movement, but haven't given any actual rules based reason why.

One thing to keep in mind about the six inch movement limitation:
It is not a "maximum" value, a model is free to move more further as long as a Special Rule grants permission or scenario requires it to do so.

Even the book provides 'fluffy' explanation as to why this six inch limitation exists: Caution.
This is the speed which an infantry model moves while it is keeping it's eyes out for enemy contacts, taking it's time to cross terrain that might be mined or otherwise open to ambush, and doing everything to keep their arse's intact. This sort of movement is naturally slower then standard because one will often over look something vital if they are busy skipping around everywhere. This cautious movement may include start stop motions, as the back of the unit moved up while the front provides covering fire, and other methods of crossing open ground which put caution above speed. Same goes for Bikes and other units too, their movement during the movement phase is limited to speeds which are designed for 'caution' and do not represent the maximum speed they could achieve.

All represented by one abstract rule stating we can't move a model further then X during the movement phase, where cautious moves are more dominant.

This is why models which are falling back have the possibility of moving further then normal, they have discarded caution in order to get out of the battle as soon as possible. It easily explains why models which are getting out of the way from a tank would also be able to move further then they would normally do so, as they put the need to get out of the vehicle above moving with caution. Other Special Rule's which do not behold themselves to this limitation are often in the same situation, describing how a model will react in a situation that involves some very good reasons to put speed above all else.

Personally, I even lump Run, Thrust Moves and any other rule that grants movement during another phase into that heading from a narrative point of view:
Taken together they show a model which gave up caution in order to try and sprint somewhere in a hurry....

Chrysis wrote:
I didn't see any explicit answer to the question in your previous reply, and failed to pick up on the implict answer. My mistake.

I don't see any actual reasons there. From what I've read, the first reason boils down to limiting Tank Shock benefiting you, while limiting Fallback does not. I think most people would find that objectionable.

The second is, from what I can tell, is that it's an oversight because crushing models is too hard. But I can't see any reasons why you think it's too hard that don't boil down to "Realism", which are then negated by not applying the movement limit to Fallback (among other things) as well.

The third is that making House Rules is OK. This is true, but the discussion didn't start with House Rules. It started with the assertion that the rules applied the 6" movement cap. It was only when that position couldn't be defended that it shifted to House Rules. You were quite clear that you believe RAW applies the cap to Tank Shock movement, but haven't given any actual rules based reason why.

Read everything I have posted before for a response. My argument is RAW the rules say to move the models, there are clear rules around movement that apply to units. I think the designers intended for those to apply, otherwise the rules would have said to 'place the model' somewhere like it does for challenges.

Beyond that, people don't walk through tanks, nor should models. The tank shock rules are written around units being able to step out of the way, there are some situations where that's not really possible. I think it's a gap in the rules, you are supposed to fill in gaps when you find them.

If you see it another way, hats off. You are just looking for an argument, I will not be giving you the pleasure.

You still haven't explained why the Tank Shock requirement to move the shortest distance possible to satisfy some conditions is limited by rules that explicitly apply only to movement in the movement phase but the Fallback requirement to move a set distance isn't.

 techsoldaten wrote:
1) I have Rhinos in my armies. It affects my games a lot more than fallback moves. Situations come up often enough where I could use it to my advantage.

So since it's advantageous you limit your opponents movement?

2) It's a ridiculous, stupid oversight. Even my opponents have said so. TBH, this was first pointed out to me by someone I was playing.

It's not ridiculous or an oversight. It's completely reasonable to not want tanks to instant kill any unit in the game with zero risk.

3) It is completely legal to discuss the popular interpretation of a rule with an opponent. If they agree it doesn't make sense, it's not illegal.

Agreed. But in this forum you should abide by the tenets. You failed to by not noting your original argument was a house rule. You made assertions that's what the rules say when they demonstrably do not.
In short, you made up rules and are now falling back on "house rule!" As a defense.

Pile in is one of the few that gives a distance, forced to move move without dice rolls, that allows direct contact with enemy bases

rigeld2 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

2) It's a ridiculous, stupid oversight. Even my opponents have said so. TBH, this was first pointed out to me by someone I was playing.

It's not ridiculous or an oversight. It's completely reasonable to not want tanks to instant kill any unit in the game with zero risk.

.

Except it is not zero risk. You pass the death or glory it is a free auto hit. With a haywire grenade or power fist pretty much an auto kill on the tank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
With the exception of fall back moves i can think of no where else in the BRB with you are given premission to move thru an enemey model at all.

BrotherChaplinMalus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

2) It's a ridiculous, stupid oversight. Even my opponents have said so. TBH, this was first pointed out to me by someone I was playing.

It's not ridiculous or an oversight. It's completely reasonable to not want tanks to instant kill any unit in the game with zero risk.

.

Except it is not zero risk. You pass the death or glory it is a free auto hit. With a haywire grenade or power fist pretty much an auto kill on the tank.

No it's not. Not even close. A Space Marine Power Fist vs. a Rhino Tank Shock still only has a 1/12 probability of getting the kill, and a 1/6 total of not getting run over (assuming the Rhino has more than 1 HP remaining.) Haywire is even worse. Death or Glory is a mugs game unless you've got a Meltagun or some other way of guaranteeing both the pen and the explodes result.

Still a tank shock is not a zero risk move as was stated.

1/12 chance is near zero risk.
And risking a 35 point unit to kill anything in the game? Come on - you understood the point.

0=/=near zero
My DTs are not 35 points they are 80. With that in mind the Dark Angels have two Special chrs for 150ish points that if one hits you with his power and the other with a dagger you are removed from play. How is that fair?

BrotherChaplinMalus wrote:
0=/=near zero
My DTs are not 35 points they are 80. With that in mind the Dark Angels have two Special chrs for 150ish points that if one hits you with his power and the other with a dagger you are removed from play. How is that fair?

Because they're far more expensive and that's a single model removed from play. This is literally any unit in the game that gets "squashed" under the incorrect interpretation of the rules - or "house rule".

I think we determined that per the rules models could be crushed if only part of the unit was ran over thereby forcing them to move through the vehicle while leaving their comrades behind and causing a break in unit coherency. Which as defined in the tank shock rule, does kill the models that had to move out of coherency. This doesn't seem like a house rule.

Makinit wrote:
I think we determined that per the rules models could be crushed if only part of the unit was ran over thereby forcing them to move through the vehicle while leaving their comrades behind and causing a break in unit coherency. Which as defined in the tank shock rule, does kill the models that had to move out of coherency. This doesn't seem like a house rule.

Yup, that bit is fine. What rigeld2 is referring to is the viewpoint that the move to get out of the way is somehow capped at normal movement distance, which would make it extremely easy to destroy whole units.