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.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

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.

Heh. I didn't know that was a clause in GMCs. I'd like to remove all GMCs from play forever, so I guess I'm biased.

deleted

Martel732 wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

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.

Heh. I didn't know that was a clause in GMCs. I'd like to remove all GMCs from play forever, so I guess I'm biased.

I know I was surprised too, I always assumed it to be "Instant Death" until I took a look.

Small wonder why the mere label of GMC causes people to scream OP

Free FNP on a model with T6 and 6+ wounds does it, too.

Some Nid models can do one better than that, but they can be instant-deathed or removed from play even when they somehow get Eternal Warrior. But being able to dodge Remove from Play is huge since a lot of weapons that would otherwise be instant death has that now.

Old Shokk Attak Gun could remove a model from play IIRC.. OOOOOOmy god how great would that be..... Oh this is your WraithKnight "brrvaaappp!!!!" I rolled boxcars!!!!

It is sickening that you have to get to multiple IKs to cause the misery of a single GMC.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
"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."

I would say GW FAQ is 100% RAW, because of this, the unstoppable rule only protects from attacks that are ID or remove from play. Where as a tank shock is never defined or ever referred to as an attack.

On the fluff side of things I can totally see how a rhino takes out a storm surge, when it hits the SS's anchored feet, since they can't move they break off at the ankles, or even just knock the SS over then it can't get back up because of no arms and it being extremely top heavy effectively taking it out of action, thus removed from play as a casualty.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

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.

No, I don't "think" an advance rule should be created to resolve the issue. I have in fact stated that GW is ignoring their own rules in order to resolve the problem of where the tank stops. I have also stated that their ruling is clear and is RAW going forward.

SJ

jeffersonian000 wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

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.

No, I don't "think" an advance rule should be created to resolve the issue. I have in fact stated that GW is ignoring their own rules in order to resolve the problem of where the tank stops. I have also stated that their ruling is clear and is RAW going forward.

SJ

I bolded the relevant part of your quote.

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

No other non-vehicle model in the game just stops a Tank Shock like that without a special rule permitting it. But there have been models that simply cannot move out of the way. The rules for Tank Shock, without anything else, state that the model either has to move or be removed as casualty. Please tell me how this would resolve with the Tank stopping in it's tracks without creating a new rule.

Your argument is flawed because you're only arguing that GW is ignoring one rule, not all of their rules. Going by what you suggested, they would be ignoring the actual Tank Shock Rules (specifically "Any models that cannot manage this are crushed and removed from play as casualties with no saves allowed". This quote comes from the Tank Shock section under Tanks in the core rulebook. This is exactly how their FAQ ruling describes what happens). They either ignore the GMC rule of "reducing 'removed from play' to 1D3 wounds", or they ignore the "Tank Shock removes immobile models from play". They can't satisfy both. Your stance puts the FAQ writers in a lose-lose situation; they have to ignore at least one rule to make it work; but it seems like no matter which rule they ignore, the mere act of ignoring it would be "ignorant" of their own rules. Please stop ragging on the FAQ writers.

I'm sorry that people keep reading into my statements an argument that does not exist. When pointing out a flaw in the rules that leads to a bad interpretation by GW, I am in no way arguing that my way is correct. What I have stated is that there is an actual issue with the vehicle stops, not with what happens to the GMC. GW chose to ignore the GMC rules rather than fix their mistake. If GW had in fact leaned on their existing precedent, they would have fix the problem of where the vehicle stops rather than creating a new precedent of GMC ankle injuries.

SJ

However you still constantly rag on them for apparently not understanding their own rules, when, like I stated above, in most cases they don't really have a choice. Yes, they chose to ignore the GMC rules. But in doing so they didn't ignore the Tank Shock rules. I'd imagine someone would argue that they're ignoring the basic Tank Shock rules and overcomplicating things if they had ruled that the Tanks stopped 1 inch short of the Stormsurge after causing 1D3 wounds, and their claim would be just as valid. You keep saying precedent, but I can't ever recall any Non-Vehicle models stopping a tank like that. A Vehicle can do that, a Walker can do that, but the Stormsurge is neither. We might want it to be a Walker (and indeed I do) but it is not and thus it should not be bound by rules that dictate an entirely different unit type.

You're not happy that GW didn't prefer the GMC rules over normal tank shock rules. Fine. But don't go about poisoning the well by saying that this is a "Mistake" or that GW is ignorant of their own rules. Like I detailed above, they had to ignore some rule to make it work and they had to make a call. Just because they didn't agree with your choice doesn't mean they're ignorant.

Look again. I posted the precedent. That's okay, though, you would not be singling me out if you had actually read my posts. My point has always been that the issue was never what happens to the Stormsurge, but where does the tank stop. GW addressed it. Dead horses are dead.

SJ

The moment you accuse me of not reading is when this discussion has reached it's end. There is no more I can say because even if I provide proof from your own quotes, it's literally impossible because you can simply say I never understood your point.

Good Day Sir.

I have no issue with this, as SS gets a "save" in the form of Death or Glory. Risk that or don't anchor.

Can we move on?

I assume this also applies to for example a monolith ramming a dreadnought that's just deployed but the occupants haven't got out yet - if so what happens to them?

As I see it - monolith hits drop pod with S 10 (7+1+2) vs AV 12 - likely to pen.
Drop pod can't hurt monolith.
Drop pod can't move.
Drop pod dies?

Why would the DP die? With Ramming, you actually stop if you do not destroy the other vehicle. It's definitely not the same as a Tank Shock, where you move the trampled model (and with SS, if anchored, you can't move)

Oh, I'm sorry, I must be getting confused. Thank you for the guidance