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.
Reasonable people can disagree, but I think Reecius has the correct interpretation.
The first clause is the directive: move the model the shortest distance out from under the tank;
2) the models must also be moved 1" from the tank
3) the models must also stay in unit coherency (within 2" of another friendly model)
4) the models must also stay on the board
If the only way to move your model leaving it in unit coherency or on board is NOT the shortest distance from moving under the tank, it is removed CRUNCH.
On the point of the stormsurge. I think that RAW it would be removed by technicality.
It can't move -> Crunch (D3 wounds) -> still alive -> there is a model where the tank would be placed -> can't move -> crunch (D3) -> repeat.
Usually the situation would resolve itself by actually removing it from play, but in this situation it can only be resolved if the model is removed eventually. There is no premission for the tank to stop early, no permission for the stormsurge to occupy the tanks space, and the tank has permission to remove ( or move) models until it can finish it's move.
I actually don't really have a problem with this for a few reasons.
1. fluff, people saying a rhino shouldnt KO a gargantuan creature are missing the fact that a literal tank is driving at full speed into a monsters leg, and it's ankle is caught. Even looking at the size of the 2 I can see it removing the monsters leg, or even just shattering it, and bringing the monster down.
Scaled up this works even better, I have no doubt a land raider / baneblade level tank would remove a stormsurges leg if it's anchored.
2. It's about time there was an advantage to Super heavy walkers/vehicles to gargantuans.
harkequin wrote: On the point of the stormsurge. I think that RAW it would be removed by technicality.
It can't move -> Crunch (D3 wounds) -> still alive -> there is a model where the tank would be placed -> can't move -> crunch (D3) -> repeat.
Usually the situation would resolve itself by actually removing it from play, but in this situation it can only be resolved if the model is removed eventually. There is no premission for the tank to stop early, no permission for the stormsurge to occupy the tanks space, and the tank has permission to remove ( or move) models until it can finish it's move.
I actually don't really have a problem with this for a few reasons.
1. fluff, people saying a rhino shouldnt KO a gargantuan creature are missing the fact that a literal tank is driving at full speed into a monsters leg, and it's ankle is caught. Even looking at the size of the 2 I can see it removing the monsters leg, or even just shattering it, and bringing the monster down.
Scaled up this works even better, I have no doubt a land raider / baneblade level tank would remove a stormsurges leg if it's anchored.
2. It's about time there was an advantage to Super heavy walkers/vehicles to gargantuans.
Disagree. RAW says nothing of the sort. The tank would be stopped 1' in front of the GC/SH after doing D3 wounds. The GC/SH is tank shocked, so receives D3 wounds. The tank is stopped as it can no longer go any further, just as if there was terrain or a structure blocking them.
RAW gives you no permission to stop early, RAI might be different.
You are told to stop early if you hit a tank and it survives, or you reach impassable terrain, neither of which are gargantuan creatures.
RAW can only be resolved if the model in the space is removed or moved out of the way. Tank shock was designed to resolve a situation where a model couldn't be moved, by removing it, and is only designed to work if that model is removed.
RAW it's either removed, or "removed" until it's not there any more, and the tank shock can be completed.
Anything else is a house rule, or RAI at best.
As for common sense, I have no issue with a baneblade crunching an anchored stormsurge. I can see people complaining about a rhino doing it, but there is no RAW difference in the situaition between the 2.
If someone says its common sense, because a rhino shouldn't, they have to be prepared to say it's common sense, because a baneblade should be able to.
harkequin wrote: RAW gives you no permission to stop early, RAI might be different.
You are told to stop early if you hit a tank and it survives, or you reach impassable terrain, neither of which are gargantuan creatures.
RAW can only be resolved if the model in the space is removed or moved out of the way. Tank shock was designed to resolve a situation where a model couldn't be moved, by removing it, and is only designed to work if that model is removed.
RAW it's either removed, or "removed" until it's not there any more, and the tank shock can be completed.
Anything else is a house rule, or RAI at best.
As for common sense, I have no issue with a baneblade crunching an anchored stormsurge. I can see people complaining about a rhino doing it, but there is no RAW difference in the situaition between the 2.
If someone says its common sense, because a rhino shouldn't, they have to be prepared to say it's common sense, because a baneblade should be able to.
And what in the rules says what you just said? Nothing. It says remove the model from play if the tank would be over it. GC/SH say instead of removing from play, inflict D3 wounds. There. Done. The tank shock has been completed. The D3 wounds overrides the remove from play. If the model is not removed from play, then the tank cannot be on that spot.
Bloodwolf1972 wrote: Reasonable people can disagree, but I think Reecius has the correct interpretation.
The first clause is the directive: move the model the shortest distance out from under the tank;
2) the models must also be moved 1" from the tank
3) the models must also stay in unit coherency (within 2" of another friendly model)
4) the models must also stay on the board
If the only way to move your model leaving it in unit coherency or on board is NOT the shortest distance from moving under the tank, it is removed CRUNCH.
Incorrect. I provided a thorough grammatical analysis.
Ok, let’s dig into the actual grammar.
Reecius’ fixation on the significance of the comma is far too simplistic and his read of the grammar of the Tank Shock rule is wrong.
To be fair though, it’s a very grammatically complicated sentence.
Here’s the rule:
Spoiler:
If some enemy models in the enemy unit would end up underneath the vehicle when it reaches its final position (it makes no difference whether the unit is Falling Back or not), these models must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance, leaving at least 1″ between them and the vehicle whilst maintaining unit coherency and staying on the board.
1) What kind of sentence is this?
Answer:
This whole sentence is a complex sentence composed of a dependent clause (“If..”), followed by an independent clause (“these..”), and then followed by another dependent clause (“leaving..”).
2) What is the whole sentence essentially doing?
Spoiler:
these models must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance
This is the independent clause.
It describes the action of the whole sentence (ie “models moved).
For those curious, “must” is a modal verb and acts as an auxiliary verb, modifying and governing the meaning of the verb “be moved.”
3) What about the confusing dependent clause at the end?
Spoiler:
leaving at least 1″ between them and the vehicle whilst maintaining unit coherency and staying on the board.
This is a dependent participle clause comprised of three adverbial present participle phrases (each joined by conjunctions “whilst” and “and”).
a) “leaving at least 1″ between them and the vehicle”
b) “maintaining unit coherency”
c) “staying on the board”
Each of the present participle phrases acts adverbially on the main independent clause by describing how the one move is to be made.
The rules writer used a string of present participle phrases in a participle clause to lazily tag on a set of criteria for a successful move.
The move made in the independent clause is described as “leaving at least 1″ between them and the vehicle” “maintaining unit coherency” and “staying on the board”
Basically the rule tells you to move the models the shortest distance that also meets a, b, and c.
Anybody who wants to double check my grammatical anyalysis need only look into present participles.
The model must be moved the shortest distance,
a) “leaving at least 1″ between them and the vehicle”
b) “maintaining unit coherency”
c) “staying on the board”
a, b, c are adverbial present participle phrase in a participle clause and are requirements that must be made for the move to actually be a successful move. Furthermore it should be noted that at all times the Models in the Way rule is in effect.
For example, consider:
"The player must pick the lowest whole number between 0.9 and 10.1, not including the numbers 1 or 2."
According to you and Reecius, the player must choose 1.
However "not including ..." is a present participle clause that directly modifies what can be picked. The independent clause by itself would pick 1, but the present participle dependent clause adverbially modifies the verb pick to restrict the inclusion of 1 or 2 as valid picks. So, obviously the player can only pick from this sequence "3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10"
You and Reecius are getting confused because your understanding of the grammar involved is overly simplistic. Delve into the topic of 'present participles' and you will see how the rule is actually grammatically and logically structured.
Furthermore, you also need to remember that the Models in the Way rule is in effect "at any time" so a model can never be legally moved into the space occupied by another model unless unless explicit permission to given to do so is provided, as is the case for the tank and his Tank Shock move.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/17 19:25:54
Even with that though - its still pretty easy to kill a bunch of models with a large enough vehicle.
Drive into the middle of a unit with a long enough tank and the models won't be able to wrap around it maintaining coherency.
This would cause all of the models that were underneath in the first place to be removed.
An ork truk could drive into a group of terminators leaving one on the right side and one on the left - the 3 in the middle that it moved onto are removed since there is no way they could wrap around the outside to maintain coherency.
On a side note any vehicle upgrade that makes a vehicle physically extra long is a good idea to make it harder to wrap around.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hmm - is there a look out sir for this? It seems like a great way to squash an HQ...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/17 19:38:15
So by your interpretation of the rule, Tank Shock CRUNCH is rendered a nullity, which would be against principles of statutory construction, and common sense.
But I think REASONABLE people can disagree. We don't have to agree on this particular interpretation. In the meantime I'd say let's dice for it pending an FAQ from GW with illustrated examples.
Hmm - what about the coherency part though - this is what I'm not clear on.
If a vehicle drives down the middle of a unit, leaving some models on the right side and some on the left, and the models underneath pick a side (the shortest one) to move to (and so leaving a gap in the middle of the unit clearly leaving the unit not in coherency) - does this satisfy the requirement? ... or should the models underneath be killed
Bloodwolf1972 wrote: So by your interpretation of the rule, Tank Shock CRUNCH is rendered a nullity, which would be against principles of statutory construction, and common sense.
But I think REASONABLE people can disagree. We don't have to agree on this particular interpretation. In the meantime I'd say let's dice for it pending an FAQ from GW with illustrated examples.
All you have to do is follow the rules.
The Models in the Way rule is in effect "at any time" so at no point can you move a model the shortest distance into another model. The shortest distance must abide by the Models in the Way rule.
Furthermore, its entirely possible to achieve Crunch results by following the rules as written. This thread is full of such examples.
Even further, actually following the rules is the best RAI argument. A unit that passes its morale check suffers the least consequences from Tank Shock. The alternative aggressive read of the rules rewards units for FAILING their morale save.
There is absolutely no need to roll off. I have provided a strictly RAW way of resolving a Tank Shock. The alternative side has provided an auto-hitting crazy OP attack that goes directly against RAW.
Bloodwolf1972 wrote: So by your interpretation of the rule, Tank Shock CRUNCH is rendered a nullity, which would be against principles of statutory construction, and common sense.
But I think REASONABLE people can disagree. We don't have to agree on this particular interpretation. In the meantime I'd say let's dice for it pending an FAQ from GW with illustrated examples.
Yeah, I don't think this is a viable criticism of col_impact, or my interpretation of Tank Shock. We have both outlined numerous situations where CRUNCH applies. (look here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/669756.page#8250425). You are just choosing to ignore them, and pretend they don't exist. Some of this is due to Recius and your interpretation that the Tank Shock movement isn't governed by the normal rules of movement (Such as the "Models in the Way" rule on BRB page 18).
The way I see it we have 3 possible interpretations here. Which seems more REASONABLE?
1) The rules of Tank Shock apply as written. The rules government movement still applies. Tank Shock can result in a Crunch but doesn't always.
2) The rules of Tank Shock were written with a Grammatical gimmick to create a situation where every tank shock always results in a crunch? <- This is your Grammatical interpretation which I've outline here:
Spoiler:
If the movement is neither governed by the rest of the sentence nor the "Models in the Way" basic rule (BRB page 18) then "those models must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance" would always result with models being moved 0" away from the tank shocking tank. Because the Crunch in this interpretation would apply if models are not 1" away from the tank, it would always apply.
3) The rules of Tank Shock were written with a Grammatical gimmick and are to be ignored in favor of a RAI interpretation that applies the 1" away clause, but not the maintaining coherence or staying on the board clause, and ignores the "Models in the Way" rule for movement except during the controlling player's movement phase. <- This is your rules interpretation.
I think many 40K rules can have reasonable disagreements by reasonable people. I even think that reasonable people could disagree about tank shock (Specifically what happens when a squadron tank shocks? What Happens when a model is less than 1" away, but not under the Tank in its final position?). However, I don't find either your grammatical interpretation nor your RAI interpretation to be very compelling, or very reasonable. I would say that it is a simple mistake to make, but I would say a rereading of the rules, and a consideration of the various implications of this RAI approach (running through enemy models. running into base and thus getting into CC without overwatch, Charging through enemy models) will clarify why it probably isn't a very good RAI interpretation, and why the RAW interpretation is probably the best one.
So if you drive a fairly large vehicle into the center of a small unit and leave atleast 1 model to the left and right of the vehicle - then almost always all the models in the center under the vehicle die?
Do I have that right?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Note - because the small unit is not large enough for the models underneath to draw a line of coherency, around the vehicle, from the left side model to the right side model
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/18 20:12:27
So if you drive a fairly large vehicle into the center of a small unit and leave atleast 1 model to the left and right of the vehicle - then almost always all the models in the center under the vehicle die?
Do I have that right?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Note - because the small unit is not large enough for the models underneath to draw a line of coherency, around the vehicle, from the left side model to the right side model
Yes. Provided the unit isn't large enough to wrap around the unit. Here is a graphical representation of that (right most image is correct):
I think at this point, I agree that the "shortest distance" may not always be the actual shortest distance because that move must also be at least 1" away from the shocking tank and attempting to maintain unit coherency.
One question remains: if a unit like in the above example with the truck is strung out in a line neat 2" apart line, and the tank moves into the middle of said unit ending over models in the middle of the line, leaving some models on either side, all the models in the middle would be CRUNCHED because it would be impossible to maintain unit coherency with the models on either side of the tank, correct?
Bloodwolf1972 wrote: One question remains: if a unit like in the above example with the truck is strung out in a line neat 2" apart line, and the tank moves into the middle of said unit ending over models in the middle of the line, leaving some models on either side, all the models in the middle would be CRUNCHED because it would be impossible to maintain unit coherency with the models on either side of the tank, correct?
Yes. All models under the final position of the Tank would be Crunched.
Also, once a unit is out of coherence from the 1st tank shock, other tank shocks can more easily crunch models. This isn't generally all that useful in game, though because most things that line up like that are cheap bubblewrap units. Once in a while you'll catch a Thundercav or biker, but most of the time its just gretchin, termagants, or conscripts.
There are no look out sirs in CRUNCH. ( there are no wounds taken to look out sir )
Automatically Appended Next Post: A silly thing considering this might be the only action (aside from melee) when you could actually be fast enough to preform a look out sir reaction in real life.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/11/19 13:47:37
Inactive, user. New profile might pop up in a while
That guy is picking the more aggressive route -> you must absolutely move the shortest distance and only the shortest distance.
The grammar experts in this thread are saying you can move the shortest distance which also stays within coherency allowing for a bit of leeway to actually move a bit further than the shortest distance (just enough to maintain coherency)
I personally use the less aggressive interpretation of the rule, where the unit moves the shortest distance while maintaining coherency etc.
As for the instance where the unit in question would be broken in two down the middle, I use the 4th ed (I think?) version where the unit is split into two parts, with no casualties from CRUNCH!
This does, however, force the "split" unit to move into coherency in its next turn. So it's great for forcing heavy weapon teams to snap shoot, or if it's a large enough gap, forces them to give up shooting and assault altogether as have to run to try and get back into coherency too!
All that being said, you can still crunch a unit if it's "boxed in" as units can't just be placed to avoid tank shock, they have to move without coming into contact with an enemy unit/impassible terrain/table edge at any point in its movement. This is true for all unit types, including ones that normally ignore intervening terrain and models! (such as jump infantry, and anything with "jet" in it)
The TFG podcast started this whole thing. They got it wrong because they misread the rules. It was an easy mistake, but Frontline gaming picked it up, and because they want to see a vote to change the RAW of Tank Shock to make it less powerful they have doubled down on the incorrect interpretation. I'll write up a full article with details on how to Tank Shock with pics and stuff, and hopefully put this issue to bed. In the mean time.
Here are the steps to Tank shock:
Spoiler:
1) Pivot the Tank (cannot be done if models are in the way)
2) Declare the distance the tank will move.
3) Move the tank to the 1st enemy unit that isn't a vehicle in its path.
4) Enemy unit takes a moral test and either falls back or doesn't. (Death or Glory happens here)
5) Repeat Step 4 until all enemy units that will be Tank Shocked have taken Moral tests.
5) Check to see if any enemy models will be under the tank's final position. If so move those models following the guidelines outlined. (Crunch happens here)
6) Place the Tank in its final position.
Here are the rules that Govern Crunch (which is what everyone is confused about):
Spoiler:
BRB Page 18:
"Models in the Way
A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the assault phase, and can never move or pivot (see below) through another model (friend or foe) at any time. To move past they must go around."
BRB Page 19:
"Unit Coherency
... Once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2" horizontally and up to 6" vertically. We call this 'unit coherency'"
BRB Page 92:
"Tank Shock
...
If some enemy models in the enemy unit would end up underneath the vehicle when it reaches its final position] (It makes no difference whether the unit is falling back or not), those models must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance, leaving at least 1″ between them and the vehicle whilst maintaining unit coherency and staying on the board.Any models that cannot manage this are crushed and removed from play as casualties with no saves allowed. Crunch!.”
Here is how to Crunch something:
Spoiler:
3 Major ways. 1) Box a unit in. Surrounding it so that in order to get out of the way of the Tank Shocking tank it would have to move within 1" of an enemy model. A few examples.
A) Surround a unit near the board edge, and then bring on a Tank from Reserves. Because moving off of the board edge is the only way to get out of the way of the Tank, and that isn't allowed the unit gets crunched.
B) Surround a unit on all 4 sides, and then Tank Shock with a Skimmer which passes over friendly models. There is no place to go that doesn't move within 1" of an enemy model, so the unit is crunched.
C) Surround a unit on 3 sides completely, then Tank Shock from a 4th side. Because the models cannot move until the Tank moves into base with them and forces a leadership, and they can neither move through the Tank Shocking vehicle, nor through whatever is surrounding them, they are Crunched.
2) Tank Shock and end up over part of a unit and break coherence. Because Tank Shock only gives permission to move models that would end up underneath the vehicle when it reaches its final position, but not the entire unit, and Coherency is unit coherency, not on a model by model basis, it is possible to break Coherency with a Tank shock, and in that case, any models that would end up underneath the vehicle when it reaches its final position are Crunched. A few Examples:
A) A unit is strung out in a line at max coherency. A tank shock in the middle of the line means that they can't reform.
B) Surround a unit on 3 sides, then Tank shock only some of the models. Even if the models can move out of the way of the Tank while staying 1" away, they might not be able to do so while maintaining unit coherency.
3) Tank Shock and end up over part of a unit that is already out of coherence. As long as the models that would end up underneath the vehicle aren't sufficient to patch whatever holes there are in Coherency they get crunched. A few Examples:
A) The unit was unable to reform in coherency after ending an assault.
B) The unit was already Tank Shocked out of Coherency above.
In addition, the "No Escape" rule can often be triggered by a Tank Shock.
Here are some common arguments or alternative ways to read those rules:
Spoiler:
1) Tank Shock gives permission for the Tank to violate the normal rules of movement (for instance staying 1" away from enemy models), therefore any models it comes into contact with can also violate the normal rules for movement, and do things like teleport through the tank.
Response: That is a RAI argument that isn't supported by RAW. It is an attempt to Add rules and conditions where they don't otherwise exist. It might be correct RAI, but I don't know for sure what was in the mind of the writers.
2) The "Models in the Way" Rule only applies to the controlling player's movement phase.
Response: Since it explicitly gives permission to violate the rule in the assault phase, but no other phase it would seem to apply to any phase of the game. In addition, if you follow this line of reasoning, there are many basic concepts that break down. Here is a brief list off the top of my head.
A) You can run / turbo boost / Flat Out through enemy models.
B) You can run into base contact with enemy models, which starts a close combat without overwatch.
3) There is a comma in the sentence on model placement during Tank Shock, therefore it separates a 1st clause from the rest of the rule that only applies after the 1st part has been taken place.
Response: This is wrong on many levels. 1st it is grammatically incorrect: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/669756.page#8254596 2nd, if you use this interpretation, then every Tank shock that would end up over enemy models always results in a Crunch of those models. Here is why:
The independent Clause "If some enemy models in the enemy unit would end up underneath the vehicle when it reaches its final position (It makes no difference whether the unit is falling back or not), those models must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance" The shortest distance will always be 0" away from then Tank Shocking vehicle. So now you take the portion after Comma and apply it to Crunch "leaving at least 1″ between them and the vehicle whilst maintaining unit coherency and staying on the board." Since All of the models were moved 0" away from the vehicle, they violate that and get crunched.
4) The fact that there is a comma in the sentence means that we should selectively pick conditions that follow it to apply and not apply.
Response: This is the way the TFG and Frontline Gaming interpretations attempt to rationalize their more powerful version of Tank Shock. Apply the "Leaving at least 1" between them and the vehicle" condition, but not the "whilst maintaining unit coherency and staying on the board" condition. If you can just start selectively ignoring rules when you see a comma, its going to be awful hard to play a game of 40K.
5) Tank Shock says nothing about what happens to models that would not end up under the Tank, but would end up within 1" of the tank.
Response: This is true. I think by RAW nothing happens to those models, but they must move 1" away from the Tank in their movement phase. If they are in base contact with the tank they get to swing in the enemy assault phase.
5) Tank Shock says nothing about about what happens when a Squadron Tank Shocks.
Response: This is true.
6) Even though "Unit Coherency" is a thing, models can be in Coherency even if an entire unit isn't.
Response: This is possible, it is the most common RAI approach to invalidate many of the scenarios that result in a Crunch.
Please note: Even if you accept this, there are still ways for Crunch to apply.
7) By your interpretation there is no way that a Crunch can ever happen.
Response: Did you read the section above this? I hear this argument a lot, and don't get it.
8) It isn't fluffy that models can move out of the way of an oncoming tank unless they fail leadership and run.
Response: Read the next section. I think it is.
9) I've always played the rule wrong / it is too complicated to play it right and I don't want to.
Response: Play it how you want to, but that isn't an argument that there isn't a RAW way to play it that actually works.
10) Reecius and Frontline Gaming says it works a different way.
Response: Play it how you want to, but they are human, and can make mistakes too.
Here is why Tank Shock when played as RAW is fluffy:
Spoiler:
Tank Shock is an abstraction of a real thing that happens in warfare. From time to time vehicles decide to grease their treads with the innards of infantrymen.
Here is how that process works in real life. The Vehicle points at a group of infantry (Pivot), and then accelerates to attempt to run them over (Declare Move Distance). The Soldiers generally see the vehicle coming and attempt to get out of the way. Because most people don't subscribe to the Prometheus school of running away from things, they generally side step to avoid the vehicle while moving the shortest possible distance (Movement to avoid Crunch). Once the Tank has passed they attempt to reform into their unit. Once in a while they might lose their nerve, and just try to run away from it (Fall Back), or stand there with a anti-Tank weapon of some sort and try to be a hero (Death or Glory). Sometimes there is no place to run or they aren't fast enough, and the infantry get run over (Crunch).
40K is a turn based game, and because there isn't warning prior to the turn of infantry, they have to be given an out of turn ability to move to accommodate what they would generally do in real life. Furthermore, because 40K is squad base there has to be an allowance for Coherency. Therefore they abstracted coherency with soldiers being to slow or unaware to create a situation where infantry could be crunched even when there is a possible escape route.
Some people have made the argument that if a group of infantry don't run away from the Tank they therefore should stand there and get run over. This is based on the infantry already exhausting their movement for the turn. I don't think it is fluffy for a unit of infantry that keeps its wits about it to take more damage from an oncoming tank than one that panicked and ran. Furthermore this is applying a turn based mechanic to real life where real time mechanics are in play.
thanks tag8833 for a solid statement of the issues at hand.
So to summarize, we have 2 main approaches, the "Aggressive Read" approach and the "Just Read the Rules, All the Rules" approach.
The "Aggressive Read" of the rule has several very serious problems.
Spoiler:
1) It runs afoul of RAW by ignoring the "Models in the Way" rule which is easily demonstrated to be in effect "at any time" (the rule explicitly states this and it can be easily inferred)
2) It is grammatically overly-simplistic and incorrect by insisting that at all times information after the terminal comma of an independent clause can never modify the action of the independent clause. This is easily debunked by an examination of the grammatical topic 'present participle.' And, in fact we note that the troublesome clauses in the Tank Shock rule are in fact adverbial present participles.
3) It produces an attack that is MUCH more damaging against a unit that makes a successful leadership saving throw than it is against a unit that fails its leadership saving throw (this seriously runs afoul of our intuition where we would expect less damage to be dealt to unit that makes its save! How can this possibly be RAI?!)
4) It produces an attack that is extremely OP and where a Crunch result is extremely easy to pull off. Cheap 35 point tanks can be used to wipe MCs and GMCs 45% of the time. It quickly leads you into having to make up rules for situations that are commonplace to keep a sense of balance, like having Tank Shock do D3 wounds/HPS instead of simply wiping a GMC (which it does according to strictest RAW) And if you make up a rule that allows GMCs to take D3 wounds/HPs then you must also make up a rule of what to do in the aftermath of a Tank and a GMC occupying the same space. (this seriously raises questions as to RAI as it would expose a massive hole in the rules for what would be a commonplace situation that is wholly unaccounted for!)
The Aggressive Read is simply a wrong reading of the rule. It ignores rules, reads the grammar wrong, resolves damage to units that make their saves in a completely counter-intuitive way, and creates an OP attack that tournaments and players are going to be forced to fix.
######
If, on the other hand, you just follow the "Just Read the Rules, All the Rules" approach, it all just works, and it needs no fixing whatsoever.
Spoiler:
1) It adheres fully to RAW by acknowledging that the "Models in the Way" rule is simply in effect "at any time" as the rule itself unequivocally states. This guards against the bizarre situations of models moving into other models. Tank Shock provides explicit permission for the tank to move into the space occupied by the unit, but explicit permission is NOT granted for the models that are forced to move out of the way of the tank to move into the spaces occupied by other models.
2) It adheres to the actual grammar in the rule (which uses adverbial present participles) and follows RAW and all applicable rules (including "Models in the Way"). The result is a rule that tells you to move a model the shortest distance out of the way of the tank that does not move the model into another model, that leaves the model at least 1" away from the truck, that maintains unit coherency, and that stays on the board. This may seem like it makes a Crunch impossible to pull off but remember this thread is filled with examples of how to pull this off - a player just needs to be crafty to get a Crunch result and it is good that he should have to be crafty - this is what befalls a unit that successfully makes it save!
3) It produces an attack that is much more damaging to a unit that fails its leadership save and much less threatening to a unit that succeeds its leadership save. This is what we would expect to happen. Saves are good things to make.
4) It produces an attack that is only OP in exceptional circumstances were the Tank Shocking player has truly outwitted his opponent (such as when you manage to completely surround a GMC and Tank Shock it with a skimmer tank). Any rules that would have to be made up would be for situations that are extremely unusual and rare.
The "Just Read the Rules, All the Rules" approach just works. We have to follow all the rules in the BRB. Commas are not all there is to grammar. Saves are good things to make and reward the units that make them. OP results like Crunch are meant for situations where one player has truly outwitted his opponent. Situations like skimmer tanks wiping completely surrounded GMCs are so rare that an absence of any discussion about them from the BRB is not surprising in one bit.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/11/20 04:42:05
Everything seems super clear except for one thing that tag8833 pointed out
6) Even though "Unit Coherency" is a thing, models can be in Coherency even if an entire unit isn't.
Response: This is possible, it is the most common RAI approach to invalidate many of the scenarios that result in a Crunch.
Please note: Even if you accept this, there are still ways for Crunch to apply.
This needs to be discussed and makes a huge difference if its one way or the other.
If a unit is split in half - can they move to either side and fulfill the coherency requirement or are they crunched? RAW how does this work.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For helping the discussion here is the rule (note no mention of 'model coherency' in the BRB)
UNIT COHERENCY
When you are moving a unit, its individual models can each move up to their maximum movement
distance. However, units have to stick together, otherwise individual models become scattered and the unit
loses its cohesion as a fighting force. So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must
form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more
than 2" horizontally and up to 6" vertically. We call this ‘unit coherency’.
During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken
casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next Movement phase, the models in the unit
must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency (or get as close as possible to having restored
coherency). If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn,
then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by
Running if they have that option.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/20 15:22:40
Only the models affected by the tank shock can (must) move. The unit cannot move to reinstate coherency until it's subsequent move phase. So those models that are out of unit coherency with the entire unit after moving as discussed in above posts (shortest distance and at least 1" from tank while [attempting] maintaining coherency) suffer CRUNCH.
Bloodwolf1972 wrote: Only the models affected by the tank shock can (must) move. The unit cannot move to reinstate coherency until it's subsequent move phase. So those models that are out of unit coherency with the entire unit after moving as discussed in above posts (shortest distance and at least 1" from tank while [attempting] maintaining coherency) suffer CRUNCH.
Yes, but, there is a divide on weather the models underneath can join half the unit on one side of the vehicle or the half on the other side and still be considered in 'model coherency' even though the unit is split in half.
There seem to be a lot of people playing it this way so the only way you can actually crunch is to box in a unit.
The key is to not run over all of the models, just most of them. When done right, 80-90% of the unit is displaced out of coherency with the the unmoved models, killing the displaced due to the break in coherency, which leads to a moral check on the remainder at under 25%. It's hard to set up, but when you can, it's a thing of tactical beauty!
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
2500 
2200 
