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.

This past ‘Ard Boys weekend was not as glorious for me as I had hoped. I must admit to underestimating my opponent in round 2 and my mech Eldar army took one giant step leap toward the eventual extinction of the Eldar race. It was my fault, I know exactly what I did wrong, his army wasn’t broke, I didn’t play a crap list, just a stupid strategic mistake on my part.

Now, on to the substance of my post.

I played two excellent games against two skilled opponents in objective missions. Both opponents were very friendly, no rules lawyering, rubber measuring, or anything of that nature... until turn 6. Now, last turn comes and I’m in a position where my Wave Serpents have to tank shock 24” on to objectives and suddenly my opponents “inner lawyer” takes possession of him and what was an enjoyable competitive game results in the tournament judge being brought over to resolve the dispute taht we simply can not resolve between ourselves.

All tank shock rules disputes were resolved in my favor but I was left with a sense that my opponent considered the tank shocking of objectives somewhat underhanded. Is tank shocking all that rare to the point where it’s a completely unexpected tactic? Are the tank shock rules 'muddy' enough that there isn't a broadly recognized understanding of how to resolve a tank shock? Would it bother you if your opponent, in the bottom of the last turn of a game tank shocked you off an objective? Would you be perturbed if that unit lacked the ability to hurt the vehicle in a ‘Death or Glory’ to prevent you from losing the objective?

Just interested in people’s thoughts. I don’t plan to adjust my play style in any way to compensate for people being surprised or angered by my often-used objective capturing tactic.

Tankshocking is hardly unsportsmanlike or underhanded. It's a fair tactic, especially for fast, mechanized armies. If your opponents don't want it to happen, they can, you know, destroy your vehicles or keep their own scoring units in vehicles so that you can't just tankshock them off of the objective...

Fun & fair!

Getting upset over a tank tank shocking is like getting upset over an assault squad assaulting.

Sounds like an opponent who didn't see it coming and was trying to save himself any way he could.

Your opponent has every right to be upset about being tank shocked off objectives in the last round of tournament play... AT HIMSELF.

Well played sir.

I complelty agree with all the above posts. Tank shocking is an interesting and fun part of 40k which in my head brings together the "grimdark assault gothic tank ramming" kind of theme 40k has and generally adds a bit more tactical diversity to the fairly linear role of the tank.

When I was starting out and had mostly infantry units, I got tank shocked often. It never bothered me though. It was a clear rule and a sensible tactic. I never even thought of arguing it and still wouldn't.

Its fun,and fair,

I'll Tank Shock or Ram at least every other game.

To be honest, I can't understand why someone would be upset about it. So rarely in my experience do people fail their leadership rolls on it.

I agree that its fair. last year in ard boys i had a 750 pt terminator unit run off of the board by my foes land raider.
on the other hand, eldar can be very un-fun to play against. one local player always puts everything in reserve, comes in late game and wins not by fighting but by avoiding the fight until turn five when he begins to tank shock objectives. though this is a legal and very effective tactic it can be really lame to play against. there is no defence especially if your foe is the second player and therefore gets the last move. I used to play the unholy choir with my nids, -5 to my foes leadership and 7-9 barbed stranglers. sometimes my foe would only get to move or shoot if i let him do so by not shooting. my buddies talked me out of using this list because (though it was fair and legal) it was NOT fun to play against.

Definitely a fair tactic and really common. Especially at a competitive event like 'ard Boyz.

Tank shocking is totally kosher...but is also the reason why it was a really dumb decision to make the 'Ard Boyz missions all have a fixed number of turns.

Normally, you tank shock and hope that there isn't another turn (Bad Things usually result for you, if there is). Removing that risk increases the advantage of going last to a rediculous degree.

For myself, all three of the objective games in the preliminaries & semifinals were decided by my tankshocks on the last turn of the game. That fixed turn length gave me a Major win in the preliminaries, and a Massacre & Draw in the Semi's. Without that last-turn tankshock, I would have lost all three.

It's fair and legal. If he didn't want to be tank shocked, like others have said, he should have blown up your tanks.

tank shocking is fair, its just the rules behind it are lame. Only models in the path of the tank shock can death or glory... so all you have to do is not tank shock anything carrying a melta weapon (hit every other model in the squad) and your at no risk.

I can't see a problem with it. It was his fault at the end of the day.

Commander Endova wrote:I'll Tank Shock or Ram at least every other game.

To be honest, I can't understand why someone would be upset about it. So rarely in my experience do people fail their leadership rolls on it.

The leadership check doesn't matter, what matters is physically forcing the enemy unit off of the objective, while your own tank (carrying troops of course) now sits centrally on the objective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sennacherib wrote:I agree that its fair. last year in ard boys i had a 750 pt terminator unit run off of the board by my foes land raider.
on the other hand, eldar can be very un-fun to play against. one local player always puts everything in reserve, comes in late game and wins not by fighting but by avoiding the fight until turn five when he begins to tank shock objectives. though this is a legal and very effective tactic it can be really lame to play against. there is no defence especially if your foe is the second player and therefore gets the last move.

Why aren't you playing random game length? Last turn objective grabbing is a huge problem, tank shock or not, when a player knows this will be the last turn of the game.

Because 'ard boyz used fixed game lengths (6 turns), which exacerbated the advantage going second gave.

Honersstodnt wrote:tank shocking is fair, its just the rules behind it are lame. Only models in the path of the tank shock can death or glory... so all you have to do is not tank shock anything carrying a melta weapon (hit every other model in the squad) and your at no risk.

but the main idea of it is to push somepone off an objective, you won't get to choose who is sitting on top of it

I love the tank shock. One of my favorite tactics. It is neither underhanded nor unexpected. I agree that it is kind of a last ditch effort in the bottom of the last turn, but hey, you gotta do what you gotta do.

Is tank shocking all that rare to the point where it’s a completely unexpected tactic?

Not if you ask my opponents. The last turn objective grab has won me a ton fo games.

I'm surprised! I would never complain about tank shock, Especially because if you pass the leadership test then it doesn't actually do anything. Ive tank shocked gaunts (not under synapse) away from my IG gunline with chimeras, I like the tactic

He's just mad that you caught him off guard. Like others have said: if he doesn't like tank-shocking, then he needs to find a different game to play, because it is a core part of the rules. If it were a special codex rule I could understand the upset, but for a core rule it is stupid to argue whether it is sneaky or underhanded. That guy was just trying to pull his chestnuts out of the fire.

If it were a special codex rule I could understand the upset

I wouldn't. "Special codex rules" are also a part of the game, unles you're going to start whining about ATSKNF as if it's the worst thing ever for being a "special codex rule".

You obviously have not been to a tournament recently. Somebody always complains about special codex rules because it caught them off-guard. I feel the same way sometimes, so I can understand the sentiment. Now, to be clear, I don't get the judge involved unless there is an actual reason to, so "understanding the upset" doesn't mean that I would act the way he did.

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:You obviously have not been to a tournament recently. Somebody always complains about special codex rules because it caught them off-guard. I feel the same way sometimes, so I can understand the sentiment. Now, to be clear, I don't get the judge involved unless there is an actual reason to, so "understanding the upset" doesn't mean that I would act the way he did.

If I am caught off guard by the official rules of the game, it is my fault for not knowing them.

If you are caught off guard by the official rules of the game, it is your fault for not knowing them.


Codices are, combined with the rulebook, the official rules of the game for that army. Therefor you must take it upon yourself to know your opponent's codex if you wish to ensure you will not be surprised by the rules of the army. Otherwise it is your own fault and you should blame noone but yourself.

Might sound self-righteous, but you know it's true.

So you own a copy of every codex? And purchase the new ones the day of release? I have kids. I can't afford to do that.

No, I don't. What I do instead is read copies that my friends own, look up rules on the net, ask people online for advice against armies, etc.

Admittedly, this discussion has touched a bit of a sore point for me-- I'm goddamned tired of arguing exactly this to people who make the ridiculous, asinine, and idiotic claim that my Sisters of Battle army is cheating when I am playing specifically by the rules as put forth in the codex and rulebook. It is a stupid argument made by sore losers who do not deserve anything resembling my respect, and I have no patience for that point of view. If anyone wants to claim that I am cheating by following RAW, they can kiss my heavy flamer.

There's a simple solution for that: educate them beforehand. Say things like "You should know that in my codex, such and such does it this way". That avoids confusion later.

I try to. In fact, the C:WH codex is specifically designed for that-- you have to declare many Acts of Faith on the beginning of the phase, so the unit that has that 3++ invulnerable save has that save BEFORE the opponent declares targets for shooting. That never stopped little brats from whining about being beaten by a girl and being bad sports about it. Or giving me a bad sportsmanship score because "she used a cheater army".