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.

That's not what he is really saying.

Shooting rules don't specifically say you can shoot Nurglings but they don't have to since the shooting rules are a general rule set about how to shoot.

He is saying that the tank shock rules are similar in that they are a general rule as to how to tank shock and therefore don't have to say that you are allowed to tank shock into close combat.

If you can meet the tank shock requirements at an enemy unit in close combat then you can, by the RaW, tank shock them.

 

Edit: added last line and typos

Zigactly!

Well written Gentlmen.  I think this has been a very interesting thread that has helped me understand a bit of the rules that was somewhat grey to me before.  Thank you especially for your contributions D.I.G. and insaniak.

Carry on.

*grins from ear to ear*

See I'm learning!

Okay I have gone back through this entire thread again and cannot find anything that substantially validates tank shocking enemy units in close combat. I don't mean to come across as thick or argumentative, I just don't think a truly valid case has been made. Back slapping and congratulating each others aside I would like to bring this topic back on focus again. Thanks for your understanding!

The argument goes something like this.

P1. You can tank shock enemy units.
P2. Enemy units engaged in CC are enemy units.
P3. You cannot tank shock your own units.

C. You can tank shock enemy units in CC as long as it would not cause you to also tank shock any of your own units.


This of course contains no quotes, but its purpose is to simply give you a general idea of the argument being made.

Perhaps DIG or someone else would like to post the actual structured argument in order to put all doubts to rest?

The fallacy here is you are simply stating because the rules don't say you cannot that you can.

Steve, didn't you get banned once before for being deliberately obtuse while post ing as BloodyT, much as you are doing now? Read Blue Loki's post again. The rules specifically say you can tank shock. There is no fallacy stemming from someone doing something just cause the rules don't specifically mention it. Much like shooting at Nurglings, the rules also state you can tank shock. Get over the fact that you don't like it and try examining it objectively!

I don't think that determining whether a tankshock is allowed is the problem.  The rules are pretty clear that yes, you can tankshock an enemy unit, even if that unit is in *donkey*ault.  However, the rules just fall apart when trying to figure out what happens.  This is what the rules say:

P1:  Tankshocking forces the enemy unit to take a morale test.

P2:  A failed morale test results in the unit falling back.

P3:  Units that fallback must finish their move without moving through imp*donkey*able terrain, coming within 1" of an enemy model, or doubling back.

This means, RAW, that a unit which fails its morale test due to a tankshock would be automatically destroyed as they cannot move without coming within 1" of an enemy model- they are in base contact with enemy models!

Now, as for if a unit is tankshocked and PASSES its morale test, I believe it is a bit trickier, and follows the same problem as getting tankshocked next to a board edge.  The only thing we have to go off of is that units must move out of the way by the shortest distance.  Many argue that they can 'leap' over enemy models and imp*donkey*able terrain and be placed appropriately.  The UK GT says that the tank will stop short to allow the models to remain where they were.

All in all, attempting a tankshock on a close combat opens a can of worms.  A player can definitely do it, but as soon as the action is taken there is no definite effect that can be drawn from the rulebook that would seem reasonable.  If the unit fails its morale test, it is automatically destroyed, is that reasonable?  If the unit p*donkey*es its morale test, what happens?

- Oaka

imp-donkey-able terrain?  Stupid editor...  Also seems like CAPS can get around it, notice how P-A-S-S-E-S works but p-a-s-s-e-s doesn't.

- Oaka

@Rygoth - I am not being obtuse and that said I feel you are insulting me here. I have stated my premise and stand by it. There is nothing wrong with me because I do not agree with what some others here have to say about the issue. Basically you are trying to intimidate me. Give me credit, I am not that stupid.

Posted By Green Bloater on 08/21/2006 11:02 AM
The fallacy here is you are simply stating because the rules don't say you cannot that you can.

Nonsense. The rules DO say that you can. They specifically allow you to Tank Shock enemy units, without imposing any restrictions on who they are, or what they are doing.

Since the shooting reference confused you before, here's another: The rules don't specifically state that you can Tank Shock Eldar Guardians. Does that mean that you can't do so?

No, of course you can Tank Shock them... because the general rules for Tank Shock allow you to do so, without imposing any limitations on who can be shocked.

Same thing with the unit in combat. The general rules for Tank Shock allow you to Tank Shock enemy units. No restriction is imposed that would disallow the general rules if the unit is in combat... so the general rules apply.

Your latest post is simply making the same type of argument to support your case as before. You do keep avoiding the rule here which states you cannot do something simply because it is not stated in the rules that you cannot. I will leave it at that.

The rule about coming within one inch of an enemy model surely refers to movement from >1" away to <1" away and so would no apply to a situation where your model moves from <1" away to >1" away.

Arse.

Arsenic.

There seems to be a problem editing posts which I assume is due to the currently ongoing work on the forum.

I note that the swear filter is American English and cannot recognise the word arse.

How lucky that we do not discuss Ancients as we might have to refer to onagers, donkeys and similar equine-related creatures quite often.

Can you really not say mountain pass?

I note that the swear filter is American English and cannot recognise the word arse.

Since when was arse ever a swear word?

EDIT: Russ, what happened to quick-quote?

Posted By Green Bloater
Your latest post is simply making the same type of argument to support your case as before.

Well of course it's the same argument. Because it's the argument that is backed up by the rules.



You do keep avoiding the rule here which states you cannot do something simply because it is not stated in the rules that you cannot.

So you're saying that it is in fact NOT legal to Tank Shock Eldar Guardians?

Can you provide a single rule to back up your argument that Tank Shock does not, in fact, work as normal in this situation?


Posted by Oaka
This means, RAW, that a unit which fails its morale test due to a tankshock would be automatically destroyed as they cannot move without coming within 1" of an enemy model- they are in base contact with enemy models!

The problem being that the exact same argument would in fact prevent models from ever falling back from a combat, since they can not do so without moving within 1" of an enemy.

As a BA player who's rhinos often go crazy, this is interesting. It means I'd have to whack an enemy in HTH rather than one that wasn't if they were closer. This could greatly be in my favor when it comes to HTH experts like DE witches, or Demons (forcing an instability check).

However, I'm going back to the point that was made: Enemy in hth is considered a swirling combat and should not be considered static (as in the exact figure placement). The rebuttal to that (if I read the post correctly) was the example of running away- where would you start your figures from and where would the opponent?

I'm not sold on the storming hth for the following reasons,

P1. HTH is considered a swirling mass (as stated in the BBB), thus your figures could be anywhere. You can't hit your own figures.
P2. Tank shock is happening DURING ongoing hth so it's still a swirling mass. The rebuttal targeted fall back which was after hth ENDED (the swirling dance of death had stoped and the survivors were at their actual static positions).

C. I can't tankshock an ongoing melee as it's still swirling and therefore can't hit my own figures. Once concluded, the fighters are static, but until that time they are not. Since tank shock happens before this, I can't.

However, I'm going back to the point that was made: Enemy in hth is considered a swirling combat and should not be considered static (as in the exact figure placement). The rebuttal to that (if I read the post correctly) was the example of running away- where would you start your figures from and where would the opponent?

It wasn't actually just for falling back. Despite the 'swirling melee' idea, which is included simply as GW's justification for not allowing you to shoot into combat, ALL measurement to and from models in combat uses the actual position of the model.

If Falling Back, engagement, casualty removal, consolidation, and coherency all rely on the static position of the model, why shouldn't Tank Shock do the same?

Good question. I'll answer it by saying the things you mentioned have specific situations (exceptions) are covered in the rules, and they all happen in the assault phase. Tank shock is not part of those exceptions and happens in a different phase. It seems to me that all the exceptions to the swirl of combat (engagement, divorce, consolidation etc) happen at one time: the assault phase. They don't allow exceptions in any other phase thus no shooting into combat, and no tank shock during movement.

Insaniak is postulating a lot of stuff that has never been done and uses invalid logic to make what he is proposing appear to be on the square. I am sure if tank shocking into close combat was okay people would have already done so long ago.

@Moopy,

The rule against firing into ongoing assaults is simply a game mechanic to let assault be more powerful by making assaulters immune to shooting once they have engaged. The similar situation of firing through your own units while they move is allowed because it is assumed that troops take shots when they get an opportunity, despite the fact that realistically you'd never be able to do that using a squad of troops equipped with automatic weapons because bullets would be going everywhere. These things are just devices to make the game work.

@Green Bloater,

You haven't refuted Insaniak's logic, merely rebutted it. You don't know that people haven't tank shocked into close combat before. Even if they haven't, it doesn't mean it's because it isn't possible.

On a different tack, why do you think tank shocling in CC shouldn't be allowed? I don't mean a rules reason, I mean do you think it would spoil the game and if so, why?

The 1" restriction only applies during the movement phase, so it's not an issue for falling back during the assault phase.

It might be an issue for falling back during the movement phase as a result of tank shock, not sure on that one.

Posted By Green Bloater on 08/22/2006 7:17 AM
Insaniak is postulating a lot of stuff that has never been done and uses invalid logic to make what he is proposing appear to be on the square. I am sure if tank shocking into close combat was okay people would have already done so long ago.

Incidentally Insaniak's logic is immaculate here.

In contrast, an example of invalid logic would be saying it "has never been done" and "people would have already done so long ago."  Those are instances of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Question for the proponents of Tank shocking a CC: For the scenario here, the attacker is the team with the active turn attempting the tank shock.

The tank shocked unit in closecombat fails its LD check -
1 - does it now run?
2 - does the attacker get an attempt to sweep?
3 - does the attacker consolidate?
4 - does the attacker get to move and shoot afterwards?
5 - if there's no fallback corridor thanks to things like pile-in moves and the angle the tank is approaching from, is the squad automatically destroyed?

The tank shocked unit passes the LD check -
1 - If the attacking player positions his vehicles in such a way that any movement would remove the defending unit from base contact with the attackers engaged models, how is the combat resolved?
(Imagine a crisis suit commander for instance, in closecombat with a callidus assasin. The Tau player puts a devilfish behind the commander such that it is 1" from the callidus, but the commander is tucked neatly into the side 'nook' of the vehicle. Now a 2nd devilfish tankshocks directly into the callidus, forcing it to move, but it cannot move and stay based with the crisis suit because of the position of the first tank. For a diagram, take 2 devilfish touching side by side, and note that a crisis suit fits perfectly between them.)

If you are for tank shocking a CC - I hope you have good answers for these situations, the rulebook sure doesn't.

Cities of Death Destroying City Ruins rules (p 37) states that even if a massive structure comes down around an assault, they are unphased (apart from possible wound from collapse). "Any assaults taking place when the ruin collapses continue as normal, the warriors locked in a bitter struggle to the death amidst the fallen debris." Units not locked in combat are automatically entangled.

This is more evidence that the rules point to assault sort of taking place in its own dimension (assault phase) that hardly seems to be affected by events outside.

I believe that you could try tank shocking HtH but enemy units would just move out of the way and remain locked in combat. No morale test would happen, as they would probably not notice the tank was even there.

@ Killkrazy,

I'm not sure why Green Bloater thinks it would be bad for the game, but I think it would be a terrible blow to assault armies that aren't fearless. Allowing tankshocking into close combat is giving every army the potential to get out of assault like Necrons can, and I think we all know how much fun that is to fight against. I have to rely on a lot of strategy in deploying, moving, and assualting, as well as a great deal of luck to get my Kroot units (leadership 8) into an assault with enough numbers to make a difference. Letting an opponent make tankshocks into that assault, forcing me to fallback and have the unit I was just in assault with be able to shoot me would be a kick in the groin. I really don't want to give up on my Kroot and play a fearless, MEQ army, but in a world with monoliths, droppods, and fear of the darkness, allowing close combat tankshocks would really be the thing that tips the scales for me to do that.

- Oaka

@ Moz:  Existing rules do answer all these questions.

"Units make a fall back move upon failing a Morale test" (48).   This rule is not restricted or qualified.  The same rules apply to falling back whether it results from tank shock, losing an assault, fire casualties, or another source, and regardless of the turn phase in which the fall-back occurs.

"When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a Sweeping Advance" (43).  This rule doesn't restrict or specify the cause of the falling back, so if a unit falls back from combat as a result of a tank shock, the normal sweeping, consolidating, and corridor rules apply. 

You can move some, none or all of your eligible units during the movement phase (15).  Because they are no longer locked after the unit they were fighting falls back, the friendly unit freed this way are eligible to move and can move and shoot that turn.

Finally, there's no basis in the rules for assuming that being knocked out of base contact in the opponent's movement phase has any effect on being locked.  Even if a model gets pushed aside by a tank shock, models on both sides are still locked (and so friendly locked units can't move in the movement phase).  If a model is too far away to fight, it still uses its pile-in move to get back into base  at the end of the assualt phase.  If the model can't get re-engaged using a pile in move, then the close combat ends and both sides consolidate (44).

@Killrazy While it's a mechanic, it also sets president.  If you can apply it to one situation you should be able to apply it to all unless otherwise stated. You can shoot through your guys because it says it can, you can't shoot into hth because you might hit your own guys that are always on the move (unless when otherwise stated in the assault phase).  We take that same set of rules and apply it to tank shock- can't do it as you're hitting your own troops.

Tank Shocking into HTH opens a big can of worms as it opens up all sorts of issues:
Tank shock demons in hth forces an instability test potentially killing some or all of them, or causeas an enemy to fail moral and leave combat suddenly freeing up your unit.  This can't happen in hth combat during the movement phase.
There is no explanation on what happens to your units if they are suddenly extricated from HTH in the movement phase during your turn, because it was NOT meant to happen. HTH consolidation, sweeping advance and what not happens only in the Assult phase, no where else (unless a special rule allows it).  If you were to break an enemy unit in the movement phase, do your forces sweeping advance/consolidate, then move, shoot and assault?  Again, no they don't, becuase the start of those chain of actions only happens in the assualt phase. I know I sound like a broken record, but I'm not the best  writer. ^__^;

There are exceptions to this: necrons can teleport out of hth becuase of their special rule.  The enemy gets to do nothing except get shot a lot.
Blood Angels/khorne may charge in the movement phase due to their special rules.
There may be others I'm unfamiliar with, but again, these are exceptions writen out.

@ Everyone else proposing you can sweeping advance, consolidate due to winning HTH, or massacre (spelling?) in any other phase except assault, please show me where it is they can do it, as I must have missed it.

From KillKrazy...
"You haven't refuted Insaniak's logic, merely rebutted it. You don't know that people haven't tank shocked into close combat before. Even if they haven't, it doesn't mean it's because it isn't possible."

I agree I have not yet provided an explanation with regards to the rules to support my case. I will soon however. I have had this conversation many times in the past and the consensus has always been not to do it since the rules do not explain how to go about it. I will give a RAW answer to support my position as well, but it will be later this evening.

"On a different tack, why do you think tank shocling in CC shouldn't be allowed? I don't mean a rules reason, I mean do you think it would spoil the game and if so, why?"

As I said above the rules do not make mention of this tactic, nor do I know anyone who has ever done it. I do know one person that was planning to field an EC army with lots of Rhinos equipped with warp amps and tank shock enemy units in close combat. Most everyone he asked said this was very underhanded. So I am predisposed to think someone who wants to do this is trying to bend the rules for an unfair advantage.