Tank Shocking with a Skimmer and Intervening Models

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.

**Ghenghis Jon**

Today I played my Orks against a respected Eldar opponent. An issue came up that I did not agree with on instinct, but I couldn't find anything to say he could not do it. The scenario:

I have Nob Bikers between his Wave Serpent and my Lootas. He declares a Tank Shock and moves over my Nob Bikers (and thus avoiding a Power Klaw Death or Glory attack) and proceeds to Tank Shock my Lootas. A Skimmer can clearly move over models during the movement phase, but can they avoid intervening models while performing a Tank Shock? My argument is that the vehicle can be pivoted in the direction of the Tank Shock, but must move in a straight line while performing it. I contest that he would have to stay close to the ground just like a Jetbike or Jump Infantry making an assault. What do you think?

**Draigo**

While I;d like to agree thatthey have to be on the ground I would have to say he could go over to perform the shock. Nothing more shocking then a tank rollin down at ya from the sky but I'm just goin off first impression. I want to look more into that because that is a good question. For the record I'm becoming a fan of tank shock lol

**insaniak**

It's a bit of a cloudy issue. While the tank shock rules do require the vehicle to move in a straight line, assuming that this prevents any vertical change would prevent ground-traversing vehicles from ever tank-shocking over surfaces that aren't perfectly flat.

My personal take on it is that in the spirit of the straight-line move, the vehicle should contact any unit in its path, rather than being able to choose to skip over them.

It's not actually required by the rules though. As it stands, there is nothing that expressly forbids the skimmer from moving over obstacles as normal.

**nosferatu1001**

As above; technically tank shocks are nigh on impossible, as you cannot change height (the line would no longer be straight in 3D space, only 2D) thus a small forest, ruin etc would stop your vehicle.

Spirit suggests it charges along the ground - however its best to agree this before the game, as people interpret it differently.

**Ghenghis Jon**

It seems I add one thing a weekend to the list of issues I have to qualify with my opponent before the game starts. I had a rather pleasant opponent tell me during a rules discussion in turn 5 that he did not believe my printed FAQ and Errata because "it was not in the rulebook. If GW wanted to change [the rule], they would change the rulebook." I didn't even know what to say to this. I still don't.

**insaniak**

Yup, it gets that way.

To be fair, that list isn't as extensive (or full of issues quite as game-breaking) this edition as it was in 4th edition. That was the reason I stopped playing entirely for a couple of years there... 5th edition brought me back with a much clearer ruleset.

As a game ages, though, people come across more of these sorts of issues. And then a new edition comes along, patches up the worst of those issues, and introduces a new generation of all new issues...

**Nungunz**

Ghenghis Jon wrote:It seems I add one thing a weekend to the list of issues I have to qualify with my opponent before the game starts. I had a rather pleasant opponent tell me during a rules discussion in turn 5 that he did not believe my printed FAQ and Errata because "it was not in the rulebook. If GW wanted to change [the rule], they would change the rulebook." I didn't even know what to say to this. I still don't.

1) Point to the giant "Official Codex Update vX.X" at the top of the page.
2) Read the first two paragraphs on the right:

"Although we strive to ensure that our codexes are
perfect, sometimes mistakes do creep in. In addition,
we occasionally print new versions of our rules, which
require amendments to be made in older versions of
our army books. When such issues arise, we feel that it
is important to deal with them as promptly as we can,
and we therefore produce regular updates for all of
our army books. When changes are made, the version
number will be updated, and any changes from the
previous version will be highlighted in magenta. Where
a version number has a letter, E.g. 1.1a, this means it
has had a local update, only in that language, to clarify
a translation issue or other minor correction.

Each update is split into three sections: Errata,
Amendments, and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’. The
Errata corrects any mistakes in the codex, while the
Amendments bring the codex up to date with the latest
version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions
(or ‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions
about the rules. Although you can mark corrections
directly in your codex, this is by no means necessary –
just keep a copy of the update with your codex.

IE they aren't going to reprint tens of thousands of books and spend stupid amounts of cash to recal books and have several different versions floating around just to make updates. The Errata changes typos and mistakes. The Ammendments updates the codex. and the FAQ answers questions.

Erratas and Ammendments make hard changes to the rulebook/codex. IE re-writing the codex. You MUST follow these. FAQs don't change anything in the books, just GW's answers to questions and how they interpret rules. Technically these aren't hard rules, but most tournaments use them and it is straight from the designers (even if some of the FAQs don't make a lot of sense).

....well except for tournaments that use the INAT (which IMO is a piece of crap) like Adepticon or their own FAQs like Nova (some of their rulings I don't think fit RAW at all and contradict the GW FAQs).

**Ghenghis Jon**

I still don't think it would have swayed him.

**Nungunz**

Then don't play him.

I'd pity him if he played Fantasy as EVERY(outside the 8th edition ones) book has been completely changed by the Errata and Amendments. No one would play him, heh.