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.

So tank shock requires units that have passed their moral check and would end up under the tank to move the shortest distance that would put them 1" away from the tank and maintain unit coherency.

Lets assume for a moment that I have a tau gun line of firewarriors spread along their deployment zone. Waveserpent #1 tank shocks the firewarriors, crossing the T of their line and 5 of the ten end up under the waveserpent. The tau pass their leadership check and therefore don't have to fall back. My understanding is the five warriors need to move to join up with the other 5 warriors who where not in the tank's path of travel.

Now another wave serpent tank shocks the unit, and this time the full unit is covered by the tank. In addition, there is a table edge or impassable terrain on the other side, so the unit can only move rearward, off their table edge, or forward to the rear of the 2nd shocking wave serpent in order to get out of the path of the tank.

Does this mean that the fire warrior unit would end up directly behind the 2nd wave serpent if they pass their moral check? Or would they be destroyed?

If it is the shortest legal distance to get out from underneath the tank, then yes you can move to the rear of the tank that is shocking you or any other that is still on the board.

This is one of the issues I have with the tank shock rules. The sentence in question is not a check list of what must be achieved or 'crunch.' Instead it is written in such a way that it ensures you would never crunch outside a very rare situation. You have permission to move the models in any way that meets the requirements of: Still remaining on the board, in coherence with the rest of the unit, moved 1 inch away from the tank and the shortest distance to achieve all of the above.

Nothing in the rules states that they have to move to the front of the tank.

The only situation we can fathom where crunch would happen requires you to split the unit in half, with at least one model on each side, using a tank large enough that they can't be placed in coherency around it. This would be a very rare indeed as it requires your opponent to have their models stretched out in a line while they stare down this tank. Not only that, but a majority of tanks just do not have the width needed to ensure the enemy can not make a semi-circle around them and touch up the two ends. Also, if the enemy unit has more then six or so men, it will be able to maintain coherency even before moving the other units, so in such a case there is no crunch possible.

It leads to a situation where running a tank through a platoon of men, trapped between two buildings, ensures you run over none of them while a small squad spread out over a field with room to maneuver is in threat of being crunched....

I think the above answer is basically right. But there are other situations where you can crush enemy models. The other player doesn't get to move models that don't end up "underneath" the tank (presumably this means "within 1"), so what you're aiming to do is to stop your tank in such a way that coherency is necessarily broken given that the models you didn't shock can't move.

The long spread-out line is the obvious case, but it also works if one enemy model is in a corner - you tank shock right up to his face and leave no space for more models between your tank and the corner. You could create this sort of corner yourself by moving other models before tank shocking, provided that units moving out from underneath the tank are not allowed to move within 1" of any of your models (instead of just the tank). This works against anything that has a single model on the side, even a fairly tight line or diamond. You move some bikes such that they half-surround the model on a side of the line. Then your tank shocks in and cuts off that model - all of that model's neighbors are underneath the tank and there's no room on the other sides of the model because of your bikes. This is a lot less effective if models that move out from underneath the tank are allowed to be within 1" of enemy models other than the tank, but if we're being this lawyerly we could probably also argue that "underneath" the tank should be interpreted to allow tanks to stop moving less than 1" from a model without forcing it to move, which allows sniping with a tank's weapons.

Regardless of how you go about it, the chance of pulling off a 'crunch' is so damn low that tank shocking is not a viable tactic for killing models... just pushing them around.

Unless you're an Ork with a Def Rolla - one of the best ways to kill with 1d6 str 10 hits. If you challenge the tank to get it to stop hitting your units it's 2d6 str 10 hit instead.

JinxDragon wrote:
Regardless of how you go about it, the chance of pulling off a 'crunch' is so damn low that tank shocking is not a viable tactic for killing models... just pushing them around.

It can be easy if you opponent does not take the proper care. In this case the goal of the first tank should have been to disrupt unit coherency making it impossible for the unit to maintain unit coherency when the second tank hits them. If you are not in coherency to begin with you cannot maintain it. Every model that ends up under the second tank is then crushed.

Remember, with the exception of assault, that coherency is unit based. If one member is out of coherency, the entire unit and every member of it is out of coherency.

Still requires your opponent to set everything up for you, or be in a position by pure chance, before it becomes a viable tactic.

Personally, I think it could of been a great tactic if it wasn't for how poorly written it is. One should always be terrorized of hulking armored vehicles threatening to run you down, particularly if your in a large group or trapped in a position where getting out of the way is difficult. Yet the way it plays out on the tabletop it is more an inconvenience then anything else. In fact, it is more a threat to the tank as it exposes that nice AV 10 far to often.

Oh well.

JinxDragon wrote:
Still requires your opponent to set everything up for you, or be in a position by pure chance, before it becomes a viable tactic.

Personally, I think it could of been a great tactic if it wasn't for how poorly written it is. One should always be terrorized of hulking armored vehicles threatening to run you down, particularly if your in a large group or trapped in a position where getting out of the way is difficult. Yet the way it plays out on the tabletop it is more an inconvenience then anything else. In fact, it is more a threat to the tank as it exposes that nice AV 10 far to often.

Oh well.

It can be tricky/impossible with a single tank vs. a blob of enemy models but with two tanks it gets much easier one can set the unit up for the other. The given scenario was perfect. The enemy models were in a line and two tanks were tank shocking them. It sounds like the player with the tanks needs to practice this tactic though as it does not sound like the unit was forced out of coherency which should have been easily managed by the description.

Was thinking with a group of 3 Raiders and a venom you could form a triangle with the raiders then plonk the venom in the middle for guaranteed unit wipe outs as long as you positioned accurately. Of course that would be difficult and you'd have to upgrade them all to be able to tank shock.