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.

Indeed, tank shocking is quite different to regular movement.

The reason I see it as different is for several reasons:

1) You do not measure before moving.

2) You MUST move the FULL distance you declared (which is a minimum of combat speed).

3) You MUST move in a straight line, and can not pivot during your movement.

Therefor, if you are tank shocking, you suffer several drawbacks to your movement.

I do, of course, understand that this means that people may, with the intent of gaining the extra movement, declare to tank shock... absolutely nothing.

While not in line with the fluff, I consider this a good use of the rules, it adds a layer of strategic depth if you will.

I could also see how some might simply say that to prevent people having to needlessly declare tank shock on tanks they simply want to be able to pivot and move, they would CHANGE the rules (house rule) so that movement allows for pivoting and then measuring distances.

I personally prefer strategic depth in my games as compared to simplification of rules, but it is a personal preference clearly not shared by the majority of players.

On a note of consistency, I find GW rules to generally be more inconsistent than consistent. I would assume that one look at the INAT, and the need for a YMTC forum, not to mention the thread of "Fun List of RAW Fun" that has all kind of absurdities within it, would be a good indicator of just how bad GW rules can get

ihatehumans wrote:On a note of consistency, I find GW rules to generally be more inconsistent than consistent. I would assume that one look at the INAT, and the need for a YMTC forum, not to mention the thread of "Fun List of RAW Fun" that has all kind of absurdities within it, would be a good indicator of just how bad GW rules can get

Nice strawman there.

How "consistent" GW Rules generally are has no bearing on this discussion. The vehicle movement rules are clear and they are consistent.

ihatehumans wrote:Indeed, tank shocking is quite different to regular movement.

The reason I see it as different is for several reasons:

1) You do not measure before moving.

2) You MUST move the FULL distance you declared (which is a minimum of combat speed).

3) You MUST move in a straight line, and can not pivot during your movement.

Therefor, if you are tank shocking, you suffer several drawbacks to your movement.

I do, of course, understand that this means that people may, with the intent of gaining the extra movement, declare to tank shock... absolutely nothing.

While not in line with the fluff, I consider this a good use of the rules, it adds a layer of strategic depth if you will.

I could also see how some might simply say that to prevent people having to needlessly declare tank shock on tanks they simply want to be able to pivot and move, they would CHANGE the rules (house rule) so that movement allows for pivoting and then measuring distances.

I personally prefer strategic depth in my games as compared to simplification of rules, but it is a personal preference clearly not shared by the majority of players.

On a note of consistency, I find GW rules to generally be more inconsistent than consistent. I would assume that one look at the INAT, and the need for a YMTC forum, not to mention the thread of "Fun List of RAW Fun" that has all kind of absurdities within it, would be a good indicator of just how bad GW rules can get

Go soak yourself for that backhanded insult,

"I personally prefer strategic depth in my games as compared to simplification of rules, but it is a personal preference clearly not shared by the majority of players."

Reported for rudeness.

Slackermagee wrote:+1 to ihatehumans for making a diagram of my point several pages ago. You did a heck of a better job explaining it than I did.

Even then my diagrams are not perfect, apparently to get a point accross you need to have mad photo shop skills!

I made a poor diagram trying to roughly explain how it works, I fear it may do more harm than good, but alas I shall post it anyway:



That kind of 'Red Zone' is how I envisage all 40K, movement, shooting, threat range (movement, shooting and assault ranges combined). It's something I believe I picked up from playing games like DotA and LoL, in which it is called "Zoning" apparently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kxGQ3gWdrM

ihatehumans wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:+1 to ihatehumans for making a diagram of my point several pages ago. You did a heck of a better job explaining it than I did.

Even then my diagrams are not perfect, apparently to get a point accross you need to have mad photo shop skills!

I made a poor diagram trying to roughly explain how it works, I fear it may do more harm than good, but alas I shall post it anyway:



That kind of 'Red Zone' is how I envisage all 40K, movement, shooting, threat range (movement, shooting and assault ranges combined). It's something I believe I picked up from playing games like DotA and LoL, in which it is called "Zoning" apparently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kxGQ3gWdrM

Zoning has no relation to how 40k is played. Please stick to the actual rules.

Gwar! wrote:

ihatehumans wrote:On a note of consistency, I find GW rules to generally be more inconsistent than consistent. I would assume that one look at the INAT, and the need for a YMTC forum, not to mention the thread of "Fun List of RAW Fun" that has all kind of absurdities within it, would be a good indicator of just how bad GW rules can get

Nice strawman there.

How "consistent" GW Rules generally are has no bearing on this discussion. The vehicle movement rules are clear and they are consistent.

insaniak wrote:Because, to my mind, where there are two different ways being presented to read the rules, and one of those interpretations results in a related rule working in an inconsistent fashion, I start to wonder if that interpretation may not be the correct one. YMMV, obviously.

I was responding to his comment on rules and consistency in general, I was in no way trying to "strawman" the argument.

I could just as easily call you out for strawmaning my comment about consistency, since it was in no relation to any exact rule, but I understand that you did not mean to, I'll assume you simply were agitated by what appeared to be an attempt to argue badly.

Norade wrote:Go soak yourself for that backhanded insult,

"I personally prefer strategic depth in my games as compared to simplification of rules, but it is a personal preference clearly not shared by the majority of players."

Reported for rudeness.

Please do not see it as an insult, I was just saying that I saw it as strategic depth, while others do not. I mean to say it is clearly not a shared interpretation as can be noticed by the poll and discussion. Insaniak is right, please calm your temper, there is no need to be so jumpy! I would rather you threw the proverbial book at me (with rules quotes from BRB), so to say, than take offense at piddly little comments about my opinion on GW rules.

Here's the thing. I'm not saying that the measure after pivoting school of thought is wrong. I'm not saying that the measure before pivoting school of thought is wrong (as long as you're not trying to tank shock/ram).

I'm just saying that the RAW is unclear in this situation.

ihatehumans wrote:Indeed, tank shocking is quite different to regular movement.

The reason I see it as different is for several reasons:

1) You do not measure before moving.

2) You MUST move the FULL distance you declared (which is a minimum of combat speed).

3) You MUST move in a straight line, and can not pivot during your movement.

Therefor, if you are tank shocking, you suffer several drawbacks to your movement.

...but in exchange can move further than a vehicle moving in exactly the same fashion without trying to run someone over?

I do, of course, understand that this means that people may, with the intent of gaining the extra movement, declare to tank shock... absolutely nothing.

While not in line with the fluff, I consider this a good use of the rules, it adds a layer of strategic depth if you will.

Sorry, you've lost me. How does allowing a vehicle to move further simply by declaring a tank shock add 'strategic depth'?

If anything it removes a layer of strategy, since it means that it's going to be preferable most of the time to simply declare a tank shock instead of moving normally.

I personally prefer strategic depth in my games as compared to simplification of rules, but it is a personal preference clearly not shared by the majority of players.

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

On a note of consistency, I find GW rules to generally be more inconsistent than consistent. I would assume that one look at the INAT, and the need for a YMTC forum, not to mention the thread of "Fun List of RAW Fun" that has all kind of absurdities within it, would be a good indicator of just how bad GW rules can get

The point wasn't that the rules are normally consistent. It was that, when there are two possible interpretations and one of them creates an inconsistency in the rules, the possibility should at least be considered that the inconsistent option is incorrect.

@ ihatehumans Hmmm, isnt the rhino in position A illegal under this interpetation of the rules tho? Because in order to get into the final position is has to move over your line and then pivot back inside the line. Or are you saying that a vehicle can move farther than its movement allowance and then can move back inside that line so its now less? Because the nose of the rhino has definitely crossed over your 12" line before the pivot...which would mean that its pivot gives it extra movement during its movement phase. Its this inconsistency thats causing people to not agree with this line of reasoning.

Remember, we can only measure movement. For a vehicle we can only measure from the hull, and if we are going to move a vehcile 2" forward and then pivot we need to measure 2" from where the hull is at that moment. Then we pivot and move another 3"...so we measure from the hull at that moment and move 3" ahead. And so on. Because movement for vehicles is only straight ahead or back, we are only allowed to measure at that time.


Sliggoth

I'm just saying that the RAW is unclear in this situation.

RaW is pretty clear on this though. The 2 interpretations 1 results in consistency not only with the Tank shock/Ram rules but also with determining how far you have/can move the other results in movement being dependant on what part of the vehicle you measure from, requires you measure wheels for turning (which is not allowed) or creates movement ranges which are never mentioned in the rules (the idea of an area exactly 12" around you vehicle that you can move to and end on facing in any direction). We are told that it doesn;t matter where on the model you measure as long as you keep it the same. Our method results in the measurement always remaining the same for the same distance moved and whenever the pivot is made (in the case of a 180 turn) the other method gives dramatically different results depending on when you pivot and which part fo eth vehicle you measure from. Yet they remain silent on exactly how you choose which part of the vehicle only that (arbitrarily) you can't choose the centre...

Something we were doing that I don't think is specified: measuring from one place one a model to the same place on that model after movement.

Pg12 just tells us not to move any part of the model beyond where we measured to, though the diagram does hint at front to front.

Even when moving multiple times in a turn its as simple as:
>Measure from the edge of the vehicle most directly facing the direction of movement
>Place the entirety of the model in any position you desire (having pivoted during movement) within the distance measured
>Measure in the new direction from the appropriate armor facing
>Place the model in whichever orientation is desired within the new distance measured
>Repeat as necessary

(refering to the OP) I would play option B in this case, since the vehicle is a skimmer and clearly has a base. Battlewagons? option A. The thing for me that changes it is the base. But to be frank, if i was playing with someone who uses option A for skimmers with a base, i really really would not care and would be happy to still play.

i am over this and is not an issue within my gaming group which play it like this - you point the vehicle in the direction you want to travel in and measure the move forward or backward.. edge of the hull to edge of the hull

this method actually allows you to show the path actually travelled.. and not the magical "it can reach there.. pick it up and plunk it down however i want"

my gaming group like our method as much as we like making broooom, brooooom sounds when moving the vehicles in question

The great things about Tank Shock, as discovered so far:

1. It specifies to do the controversial method of measuring--pivot the tank and then measure from that position to the final position.
2. Tank shocking still allows the tank to fire.
3. Tank shocking doesn't prohibit passengers from disembarking. Vehicles that ram, in contrast, tends to prohibit their passengers from getting out.
4. Almost every vehicle that someone would want to use the controversial deployment mechanism with, either is a tank or has a cheap upgrade allowing it to tank shock.
5. The only vehicles negatively impacted by the inability to pivot at the end of movement are Eldar vehicles and rhinos. Open topped vehicles and Land Raiders don't need to turn at the end.

So you convince the other player to measure the vehicle movement before turning for regular vehicle movement, because that pivot across the deployment line thing sounds cheesy. In response, that player who was going to place his land raider sideways next to his deployment zone, pivot and drive forward for some "extra distance" is now instead going to place it sideways, and then declare a 12" tank shock for exactly the same position. Or as an Dark Eldar player, he goes out and models Torture Amps on all of his raiders; or as an Ork player goes out and models rams on all of his transports; and then does the exact same thing using first turn 12" tank shocks.

Edit: One minor correction: Ramming only doesn't directly prohibit passengers from getting out. However, most of the time moving at the greatest possible speed does since so many of the vehicles involved are fast. So ramming just tends to prevent passengers from getting out in the situations where the extra inch would matter.

solkan wrote:The great things about Tank Shock, as discovered so far:

1. It specifies to do the controversial method of measuring--pivot the tank and then measure from that position to the final position.
2. Tank shocking still allows the tank to fire.
3. Tank shocking doesn't prohibit passengers from disembarking. Vehicles that ram, in contrast, prohibit their passengers from getting out.
4. Almost every vehicle that someone would want to use the controversial deployment mechanism with, either is a tank or has a cheap upgrade allowing it to tank shock.
5. The only vehicles negatively impacted by the inability to pivot at the end of movement are Eldar vehicles and rhinos. Open topped vehicles and Land Raiders don't need to turn at the end.

So you convince the other player to measure the vehicle movement before turning for regular vehicle movement, because that pivot across the deployment line thing sounds cheesy. In response, that player who was going to place his land raider sideways next to his deployment zone, pivot and drive forward for some "extra distance" is now instead going to place it sideways, and then declare a 12" tank shock for exactly the same position. Or as an Dark Eldar player, he goes out and models Torture Amps on all of his raiders; or as an Ork player goes out and models rams on all of his transports; and then does the exact same thing using first turn 12" tank shocks.

Solkan has just won the thread.

No Seriously. End. Now. 99.9% of Vehicles you want to do this with are Tanks or have the Ability to Tank Shock. All you have to do is declare a Tank Shock turn 1 instead of moving normally.
Not that you need to, but if you do, you kill off any of these ridiculous arguments that cause pivoting to reduce move.

Good Show Solkan. Good Show. I owe you a Pint of your preferred beverage should we ever cross ways.

Oh, and Solkan, Eldar tanks can take Star Engines, allowing them to re-face themselves in the shooting phase if they need to.

Gwar! wrote:

solkan wrote:The great things about Tank Shock, as discovered so far:

1. It specifies to do the controversial method of measuring--pivot the tank and then measure from that position to the final position.
2. Tank shocking still allows the tank to fire.
3. Tank shocking doesn't prohibit passengers from disembarking. Vehicles that ram, in contrast, prohibit their passengers from getting out.
4. Almost every vehicle that someone would want to use the controversial deployment mechanism with, either is a tank or has a cheap upgrade allowing it to tank shock.
5. The only vehicles negatively impacted by the inability to pivot at the end of movement are Eldar vehicles and rhinos. Open topped vehicles and Land Raiders don't need to turn at the end.

So you convince the other player to measure the vehicle movement before turning for regular vehicle movement, because that pivot across the deployment line thing sounds cheesy. In response, that player who was going to place his land raider sideways next to his deployment zone, pivot and drive forward for some "extra distance" is now instead going to place it sideways, and then declare a 12" tank shock for exactly the same position. Or as an Dark Eldar player, he goes out and models Torture Amps on all of his raiders; or as an Ork player goes out and models rams on all of his transports; and then does the exact same thing using first turn 12" tank shocks.

Solkan has just won the thread.

No Seriously. End. Now. 99.9% of Vehicles you want to do this with are Tanks or have the Ability to Tank Shock. All you have to do is declare a Tank Shock turn 1 instead of moving normally.
Not that you need to, but if you do, you kill off any of these ridiculous arguments that cause pivoting to reduce move.

Good Show Solkan. Good Show. I owe you a Pint of your preferred beverage should we ever cross ways.

Oh, and Solkan, Eldar tanks can take Star Engines, allowing them to re-face themselves in the shooting phase if they need to.

I have no words to properly convey my disgust with this new tactic...

Slackermagee wrote:I have no words to properly convey my disgust with this new tactic...

I believe it begins with "H", and ends with "umble Pie".

Slackermagee wrote:

I have no words to properly convey my disgust with this new tactic...

How is this a "new" tactic? It has been around as long as the 5th edition rulebook.

Edit:

Furthermore, why/how are you disgusted with it?

No, we fairly well figured out that it didn't work the old way people were using it (or at the very least made a huge big stink about the RAW).

With tank shock... blegh, what a way to exploit a attack to do what RAW cannot.

insaniak wrote:
...but in exchange can move further than a vehicle moving in exactly the same fashion without trying to run someone over?

Yes. I'm not sure what your alluding to with your question, as the answer is clear. If it's something about the nature of having a rule where you can only travel in a straight line giving you some extra movement length when compared to one where you may turn and judge a distance... then again the answer is simple, yes traveling with the intent to only go straight forward often gets you further, faster, than traveling in a path with curves and worrying about how far exactly you go.

Sorry, you've lost me. How does allowing a vehicle to move further simply by declaring a tank shock add 'strategic depth'?

If anything it removes a layer of strategy, since it means that it's going to be preferable most of the time to simply declare a tank shock instead of moving normally.

Having to make a choice, each choice having positive and negative effects, adds strategic depth. We could all be restricted to playing vanilla space marine tactical squads, but instead there are several codices with many unit choices and equipment choices, these extra options, each with negative and positive attributes adds strategic depth. Anything that forces you to make a decision between two unequal options, where one of them is not always obviously better, adds strategic depth.

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I speaking only in reference to THIS PRECISE RULE. Indeed the two are not mutually exclusive, and rules that satisfy both are always better IMO.

The point wasn't that the rules are normally consistent. It was that, when there are two possible interpretations and one of them creates an inconsistency in the rules, the possibility should at least be considered that the inconsistent option is incorrect.

Indeed it has clearly been considered that the inconsistent one is incorrect. But I direct you to the Doom from the codex Tyranids, I'm not seeing consistency. Of course that isn't a proper representation of these rules and should be disregarded, but you asked if in my experience I found that rules are done consistently.

Slackermagee wrote:
With tank shock... blegh, what a way to exploit a attack to do what RAW cannot.

What sorry?

ihatehumans wrote:... yes traveling with the intent to only go straight forward often gets you further, faster, than traveling in a path with curves and worrying about how far exactly you go.

But turning 90 degrees and then travelling straight ahead as fast as you can should get you the same distance as turning 90 degrees and then travelling straight ahead as fast as you can with the intention of running someone over, surely?

Because that's where your interpretation leaves us: The driver being keen on running someone over makes the vehicle go faster, but only when the target is off to the side of the tank...

... but you asked if in my experience I found that rules are done consistently.

Er... no, I didn't...

Insaniak, i play blood angels and i'm pretty sure my dudes ONLY drive at "intending to run somebody over" speed.

P.S. I'm lost, who is winning? are there still different sides?

I don't think there are sides anymore...

I agree that tank shocking will perform as per option A, even on turn one with no enemies in sight.

The tactic as a whole probably just lost a lot of player credibility though. It went from something that was assumed to be RAW, to maybe-not-really RAW, to exploiting the rules for tank shock. Again, ick.

The pivoting counts as movement side lost a long time ago, no matter how many inaccurate graphs they made.

Slackermagee wrote:I don't think there are sides anymore...

I agree that tank shocking will perform as per option A, even on turn one with no enemies in sight.

The tactic as a whole probably just lost a lot of player credibility though. It went from something that was assumed to be RAW, to maybe-not-really RAW, to exploiting the rules for tank shock. Again, ick.

So you dislike people playing by the rules? That seems an odd stance to take.

Slackermagee wrote:I don't think there are sides anymore...

I agree that tank shocking will perform as per option A, even on turn one with no enemies in sight.

The tactic as a whole probably just lost a lot of player credibility though. It went from something that was assumed to be RAW, to maybe-not-really RAW, to exploiting the rules for tank shock. Again, ick.

You're reading a different thread: the pivot isnt movement side won ages back, this is just showing how rediculous "your" side is - that despite all your attempts at saying how "silly" or "illogical" it is [in a game about space elves and xenophobic knights] the rules for tank shock do exactly what yo9u say is illogical - that a tank can turn and travel further than if it was simply moving straight ahead.

Your disgust is quite funny, really.

Are people actually trying to disguise an intent argument by trying to make the 40K rules logical or consistent?

Yep, I think its silly. But RAW often leads you to some whacked out conclusions. This one's a little less whacked out, because it's not a case of the rules contradicting each other, its a case of rule a not talking about the subject at all.

insaniak wrote:

ihatehumans wrote:... yes traveling with the intent to only go straight forward often gets you further, faster, than traveling in a path with curves and worrying about how far exactly you go.

But turning 90 degrees and then travelling straight ahead as fast as you can should get you the same distance as turning 90 degrees and then travelling straight ahead as fast as you can with the intention of running someone over, surely?

Because that's where your interpretation leaves us: The driver being keen on running someone over makes the vehicle go faster, but only when the target is off to the side of the tank...

Firstly, since when does RaW, or even RaI have anything to do with how you or I imagine a Science Fiction Future to work?

Secondly, when you move at cruising speed you are not going to be moving with as much abandon as when tank shocking, as such, yes tank shocking is unsurprisingly faster in this example. If you truly think that driving at cruising speed is the same as tank shocking, compare bumper cars where you have the intent of hitting the other cars (or wall) as hard as you can, with bumper cars where you STRICTLY DO NOT HIT ANYONE (remember, RaW and RaI are clear that you never 'hit' enemy models or impassable terrain, EVER), I guarantee your moving around A LOT faster in the former than the latter.

Finally, let's clear this up, you ONLY gain bonus movement distance compared to regular movement IF your tank shocking in a direction AWAY from your current facing (except directly 180* away). Compare this to the other interpretation where deploying with your vehicle to the side of deployment means you move closer to the enemy than if you were front forward. I know which is more realistic, since race car drivers don't start the race side on for that bonus pivot move rofl.

I mean, the obvious rebuttal is that by the opposite RaI you have vehicles that are moving faster BY TURNING than vehicles that just move straight forward. Don't make this an argument about realism because clearly the opposite school of thought is the most absurd.

... but you asked if in my experience I found that rules are done consistently.

Er... no, I didn't...

insaniak wrote:Because, to my mind, where there are two different ways being presented to read the rules, and one of those interpretations results in a related rule working in an inconsistent fashion, I start to wonder if that interpretation may not be the correct one. YMMV, obviously.

I'm sorry insaniak, can you reword exactly what you were conveying by this statement, since I clearly misinterpreted it? I was trying to say, indeed my mileage DOES vary, where related rules do work inconsistently with the correct interpretation, even though the incorrect one would have them work consistently. Perhaps I should have expressly said that rather than going on about how inconsistent GW rules are in general, I apologize.

MOST IMPORTANTLY:

This is YMDC anyway, essentially if we played a game together and you tried setting up your vehicles side on to your deployment zone, I would call you out on it as being 'cheesy', if you said it was completely RaW of you declared them as tank shocking, I would probably smile and allow you to move that way, forcing you to not be able to pivot during our move, and declare the distance before measuring, moving that full distance etc. If you didn't mention tank shocking and tried to say it was RaW, then I would either let it fly with a casual game, telling you that we can play your way this time, then my way the next game or never again. If it was a tourny, then we'd call the TO and he could making a ruling, which I'd stick to no matter what (even if it was that dodgy 27" movement BS some guy tried showing earlier in this thread). If it ruined my games enough, I wouldn't attend that tourny, simple, I don't like the rules as they see I don't have to play with them.

This argument passed well out of what may or may not be RaW in to what level of arguing you please to take, I highly doubt any of us in this thread are really TFG so I'm happy to drop it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:I don't think there are sides anymore...

I agree that tank shocking will perform as per option A, even on turn one with no enemies in sight.

The tactic as a whole probably just lost a lot of player credibility though. It went from something that was assumed to be RAW, to maybe-not-really RAW, to exploiting the rules for tank shock. Again, ick.

You're reading a different thread: the pivot isnt movement side won ages back, this is just showing how rediculous "your" side is - that despite all your attempts at saying how "silly" or "illogical" it is [in a game about space elves and xenophobic knights] the rules for tank shock do exactly what yo9u say is illogical - that a tank can turn and travel further than if it was simply moving straight ahead.

Your disgust is quite funny, really.

Tank shocking rules are completely separate from movement rules, they have to be, they are of a different nature. To PRESUME that you can use part of the tank shock movement for your normal movement and not the rest is to basically say DH assault cannons are heavy 4 rending, and that DA cyclone missile launchers fire 2 missiles.

I understand his upset at the rules, there are MANY rules that are unfortunately open to exploitation, and many players refuse to play with people who wantonly exploit them. There is a big paragraoh about house rules in the BRB that can not be ignored, it is there because the rules are often hard to agree on. For tournaments there are FAQs and TO's that make rulings, and players make the choice to play by those rulings.

To be condescending towards someone who objects to exploiting is very immature.

um.. moving normally at cruising speed is >6" & <12"

tank shocking at cruising speed is >6" & <12"

i dont see the difference that would allow one to be further than the other