Tank Shock – unfriendly, unsportsmanlike?

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.

**Cheex**

incarna wrote: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.

Out of curiosity, what exactly did your opponent argue against? You're right in that tank shocking an enemy off an objective is a perfectly legitimate tactic, but the post is slightly vague about what (rules) your opponent actually had a problem with.

**Ailaros**

If your opponent can't see a last-turn tank shock coming, they're an idiot. Their griping about their lack of observation skills does not make whatever you do somehow wrong.

The thing that I think is kind of strange is that people seem to forget how easy it is to stop a tank shock. I mean, you get an automatic hit. In the case of most vehicles, if you have a melta anything, you basically get a free penetrating hit, all of the results thereof stop a tank dead before they even get to move your models. As such, it is as much of a failure in the list-building stage as much as it is in the late-game movement.

**Bookwrack**

Unless your opponent aims the tank-shock well enough so that he doesn't hit the melta carrier.

**thunderingjove**

Let's try again: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html

**nosferatu1001**

Bookwrack - they have to aim to get within 3" of the objective. Ensure that your tnak shock stopping models are on the path the vehicle can take.

**Emperors Faithful**

With 36" movement (or something near this) you will have a lot of leeway to manuever around the melta carrier regardless.

**don_mondo**

Emperors Faithful wrote:With 36" movement (or something near this) you will have a lot of leeway to manuever around the melta carrier regardless.

24", since Star Engines is a separate move in the Shooting phase, and no maneuvering around since the Tank Shock has to be in a straight line.

**Emperors Faithful**

I wasn't sure, hence the "something near this". Still 24" is a fair amount, and makes hiding behind a building out of LoS fairly easy until it's needed. But if Tank Shock has to be in a straight line, then this can be countered.

**KingCracker**

FoxPhoenix135 wrote: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 didnt feel like reading the whole thread, so this MAY be out of place on page 3, but I agree. Before games I talk about what I have in my list with my opponent. Specially to a new person that Im showing how to play. Just going into the battle and half way through pulling a "oh by the way, your super awesome plan wont work because my army has a special rule.

Oh and just noticed the new orkmoticon so Im trying it out

Hilarious

**don_mondo**

Emperors Faithful wrote: But if Tank Shock has to be in a straight line, then this can be countered.

Yep, page 68, "Once the vehicle has been ‘aimed’ and the speed declared, move the vehicle straight forward until it comes into contact with an enemy unit or it reaches the distance declared – no other changes of direction are allowed during a tank shock."

**Jackmojo**

While I agree the Tank Shock rules are clear and folks should be prepared for them (especially in objective games), I personally am not a fan of the way the Tank Shock rules allow the tank player to specifically corral the opposing infantry so as to move them off objectives or bunch them up for templatey death. I'd much prefer it if units which were forced to move even after passing their leadership test got some sort of consolidation move under the owning player's control. That's the bit I think can feel unsporting or unnecessarily 'gamey' about Tank Shock.

But that's a rules development debate not a criticism of anyone's playstyle.

Jack

**Kilkrazy**

Interesting terrain placement will help.

If there are more areas of difficult terrain on the table, it will be riskier for tanks to try their last turn dash.

**Emperors Faithful**

Not really for Eldar Skimmers. (Especially if Star Engines still allow Tank Shock to occur).

**Sarigar**

It sounds like it caught an opponent off guard. A way I've found that works is to literally pull out the rulebook while performing the move (as it is going to make/break the game for the opponent) so he can read exactly what is going on if he's not familiar with the rule. Be very precise with the rule and explain it as you're performing the tank shock. I've found some folks aren't used to an Eldar vehicle being able to move 24" and tank shock. Nothing wrong making sure you are very exact with the mechanics of this rule for the benefit of your opponent. By doing this, your opponent may learn something rather than being irritated.

Personally, I do own every codex and have a decent familiarity with how each army works. However, I don't assume every opponent does what I do. Ultimately, I'm playing the game to have fun and will try to ensure my opponent is as well. In a tourney, I don't spell out every nuance of my game plan, but I don't hide what's in my army.

The rules are clear and there really is no problem perfoming tank shocks on units sitting on an objective.

What I've found a lot of times is folks perform tank shocks incorrectly which can lead to some arguments:

-using Star Engines; that's a no go
-not pointing the vehicle in the direction of travel prior to tank shock
-not declaring how far it goes; this is big as I've witnessed folks not declare a distance and tank shock right on top of an objective; sorry, gotta declare distance before moving.

Sadly, I think this was the fault of the Ard Boyz scenario; I thought GW realized fixed turn length wasn't a good idea and went with random game length. This whole tactic was very popular in 4th edition.

**Jihallah**

i feel like tank shanking someone right now...

**Emperors Faithful**

that's what she...said?

**Klawz**

Emperors Faithful wrote:that's what she...said?

But I shall auto-penatrate her rear armor "value", if you know what I mean...

**Emperors Faithful**

**Jihadnik**

Mmm, tank shocking units off of objectives...can't believe I didn't think of that before...and I play Mech IG! God I love Dakka!

**Kilkrazy**

This topic seems to be done, then.