Blocked table edge tank shock?

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.

**solkan**

Dashofpepper wrote:
solkan wrote: "When moving a tank, the player can declare that the vehicle is going to make a tank shock attack instead of moving normally." I have not seen a convincing argument in this thread that a unit which is "moved as normal" is somehow prohibited from using any of the alternatives which are available to a unit positioned on the board.

Couldn't resist one last snipe....

How's this for a convincing argument? You don't get to attack from off the table. You have to be on the table to attack something. Read up a few posts; I addressed this one already. The only thing you're allowed to do is MOVE onto the table. No shooting, no assaulting, no attacking. You have to be on the table for any of those things to work.

The mere fact that you acknowledge that tank shocking from off the table onto the table can cause a myraid of grey issues and broken rules should clue you in on whether you can do it or not.

You're attempt at a last minute argument falls flat. A tank which is tank shocking isn't attacking, it is performing an action which it would be allowed to do if it was on the table instead of moving normally, and because it is conducting a normal move and positioned as if it were on the table, that action is permissible. Are you next going to say that a unit is not allowed to turbo boost in from reserves?

If vague or broken rules were the grounds for not allowing an actions, we may as well throw out half of the remaining third edition codices, and then get started on the other codices because those have even more issues.

**Elessar**

Obviously, if Immob'd at the board edge, it is destroyed.

Dash, still no answer to the Baneblade/Monolith question? Of course not. That would mean you'd have to accept your BS logic falls flat on its face.

**Witzkatz**

Aye, would really like to hear that answer, too!

**Danny Internets**

How's this for a convincing argument? You don't get to attack from off the table. You have to be on the table to attack something. Read up a few posts; I addressed this one already. The only thing you're allowed to do is MOVE onto the table. No shooting, no assaulting, no attacking. You have to be on the table for any of those things to work.

Tank shocking is both movement and an attack.

p.68:
To make this kind of attack, first turn the vehicle on the
spot in the direction you intend to move it and declare
how many inches the vehicle is going to move.

Where's the rule that says you can't make any sort of attack from off table? Please provide both a quotation and page number.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

"On the table" is not to be confused with "looking at the table" or "fractionally in relation to the table" or even "partly on the table" nor even "mostly on the table." Traffic lights do not go from green to somewhat green to fractionally yellow, still pondering green.

On is the opposite of off. They are mutually exclusive with each other, and your attempts here to merge the words "on" and "off" into a grotesque parody of language to get the word "noff" doesn't make "noff" an actual gaming term. Here are some simple examples to provide parallels to the currect situation.

Let's put your odd little scrap of logic to the test.

Look at the following picture: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Iioo_NdWQCLdAnB5o_5ymg?feat=directlink

Is the book on the table? If not, then where exactly is it?

**kirsanth**

Stop calling that logic, please.

**coredump**

Dash, I can play those games too.

If you sit on the desk, are you on the desk? your legs aren't.
If you are not allowed to stand on the carpet, and only put one foot on it, will you still get in trouble?
If the teacher says to put the book on the table, and the corner of the book is hanging over, is it still on the table?

Partially on *is* a on. It is even in the name. Partially *ON*.
That is why we have words to distinguish the difference, like fully on, completely on, all the way on. Otherwise they would not be needed.

But it is your assertion, that 'partially on' is *not* the same as 'on'.

So lets look elsewhere in the rules.
You can't be 'on' impassable terrain. So, by your assertions, I can be partially on, since that is not 'On'.
You can't be 'on' an enemy model. So, by your assertions, I can be partially on another model.
How about cover? When you are partially in area terrain, the rules clarify that as being the same as being in area terrain.
Difficult terrain: If you are only partly on, your assertion means no roll is needed, since I am not really 'on' the terrain.

And I noticed the reverse has been totally ignored.
If it is as you claim, and that sayin 'on' really means 'fully on'; then what about the reverse?
When the rules say 'off', do they really mean 'fully off'.
The rules say you can't go off the board. So by your assertion, you can go partially off the board, since partially off is not the same as 'off'.

The point of this, is that being 'partially on/off' still meets the criteria of being 'on/off'.

So, once you are partially on the table, you are on the table. Thus you can now tank shock.

.

**Dashofpepper**

Danny Internets: Your request for a rule quote is absurd. As you well know, the 40k rules are permissive, not restrictive. The rules tell you what you may do and how to do it, not what you may not do, with everything else allowed. This has been hashed and rehashed; I wish you'd stop bringing up old and answered arguments.

There is no rule quote that says, "Models are not allowed to be partially off the table" because there is a rule that says "Models must be on the table." Don't be ridiculous.

And coredump....your analogies are horrible. The rules do NOT say models "partially on the table." Do not add words to the rulebook with the intent of abusing them...as you continue to try doing.

The rulebook sets forth a condition that we will call "X." The analogies I gave are for setting a condition X, and asking whether you meet the condition or not.

The analogies that you're throwing in there are for behavioral references and "-X" conditions. Meeting the condition "-X" is not the same as meeting condition "X."

Let me revise your analogies into something parallel to the rules and the situation here.

You are instructed to stand on a desk. You place one foot on the desk and one foot on a chair. Have you followed instructions?
You are instructed to stand on the carpet. You put one foot on the carpet and one foot on the tile floor. Have you followed instructions?
The teacher tells you to put a book on the table. You pull up an adjoining table and put it on the adjoining table with the corner touching the table you were instructed to place it on. Are you following instructions?
------------------------------------------
As for the monolith and the baneblade (and vendetta)....this is NOT a case of "Can the model hang off the board a bit because the model is too big to fit onto the table? That's a COMPLETELY seperate issue from "Can I put the tip corner of a vehicle onto the table with 99.9% of it off the table and call it a legal move?"

Again....your sole argument here is skewing scenarios. If you wish to continue making comparisons, please use apples to apples, and oranges to oranges.

We're not talking about whether a monolith is too big to fit onto the table....we're talking about whether it is legal to put a fractional corner of the monolith onto the table and call it an ok movement. No...it is not.

**Danny Internets**

Danny Internets: Your request for a rule quote is absurd. As you well know, the 40k rules are permissive, not restrictive. The rules tell you what you may do and how to do it, not what you may not do, with everything else allowed. This has been hashed and rehashed; I wish you'd stop bringing up old and answered arguments.

Translation: "You're wrong but I can't demonstrate why."

Indeed, the rules are permissive. In fact, they permit models arriving from reserve to move as if they are off the table, moving on to the table. Your point of argument seems to be the meaning of "on the table." I thought we had already established that, but you seem to have missed it.

Please answer the question posed to you. And, no, you haven't addressed it yet (funny how whenever you don't feel like addressing a criticism you simply dismiss it saying you've already discussed it):

Look at the following picture: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/uuSaJFh01ovZEVW74qmWmA?feat=directlink

Is the book on the table? If not, then where exactly is it?

**Boss_SneakyDakka**

So for Dawn of war, is it cool, if my battlewagon is only partially on the table? and I dont want to finish moving it on? Thats not a legal move, but by your reasoning it is? The rules even say youre not supposed to move off the table, the model stops at the edge as soon as the base touches it, so how is it ok to play partially on or off the table when the precedent has been set? And RAW no a monolith cant come on from reserve since its too big, I bane blade can though, sideways.

Why are the pro tank shockers ignoring the fact that the vehicle stops as soon as it hits the unit during tank shock? Can a unit function from off the table?

Also Danny Internets. You quoted it being an attack (tank shock) Is it cool if my Basilisks barrage you from off the table? thats an attack.

**Bookwrack**

nosferatu1001 wrote:GOod one. COntinue sniping away troll.

Can we have a moratorium on people shouting 'troll' please?

Also, still waiting for an answer on the monolith/baneblade trying enter question from the 'must be 100%' on the board side.

**Danny Internets**

Why are the pro tank shockers ignoring the fact that the vehicle stops as soon as it hits the unit during tank shock? Can a unit function from off the table?

In the turn in which it comes in from reserve it most certainly can. The rules are explicit on that point. You should probably review them, they've been quoted more than once in this thread.

**Afrikan Blonde**

You can tank shock onto the table. Movement is normal when coming in from reserve and there are no restrictions that would prevent this.

Dashofpepper wrote:Just because an opinion is popular does not make it right. No...you cannot tank shock onto the table.

Tank shocking is a specific category of "movement" that happens during the movement phase, and prescribes a set of directions for doing so.

1. Declare that the vehicle is going to attempt to make a tank shock attack instead of moving normally. That "moving normally" is VERY important.

2. Turn the vehicle on the spot in the direction you intend to move it and declare how many inches the vehicle is going to move.

3. The vehicle must move at least at combat speed.

4. Move the vehicle straight forward until it comes into contact with an enemy unit or it reaches the distance declared.

5. Resolve tank shock with leadership tests (and/or death or glory).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Important note: Units NOT ON THE TABLE are reserves. Whether mission reserves or true reserves, they are still in reserve.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To bring a unit from reserve into play, you do a few things:

1. At the start of each movement phase except the first, BEFORE MOVING ANY UNIT, the player must roll a dice for each of his units in reserve.

2. Once all units have been rolled for, the player picks any one of the units arriving and DEPLOYS it., moving it onto the table as described later.

**Under the next section "Arriving from Reserves"

3. When a reserve unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling player's own table edge (unless its deep striking or outflanking)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problems with tank-shocking from reserve:

1. a tank shock is elected instead of moving normally. However, reserve deployment happens BEFORE normal moves. Bringing a tank onto the board isn't a normal move that can be exchanged for a tank shock...deployment happens first.

2. The MANDATORY conditions of a tank-shock cannot be met by a unit off the table. To execute a tank shock, the first thing you do is turn the vehicle on the spot....you cannot turn a vehicle that has not deployed into the battle.

3. Another mandatory condition of a tank-shock: The vehicle must move at least at combat speed: Units not on the table aren't moving at any speed. They are moving at no speed, and then deploy onto the table. Deploying units can NEVER deploy within 1" of an enemy model.

4. When you tank shock a unit, you stop at the edge of the unit. From there, that unit may choose to death or glory, or they may choose to take a leadership test and get out of the way. If you were to tank shock into a unit at the edge of the board....your tank stops at the edge of my unit. Which *still* leaves you off the board. Units on the table cannot be affected by units off the table. You don't get to fire plasma guns from vehicles in reserve, nor extend a leadership bubble from off the table...stuff off the table has no effect on the game. There isn't an invisible continuing board edge that extends past the boundaries of the table where you may play from. There just isn't.

So no...you can't tank shock onto the table from reserves. Attempting to do so completely ignores all the rules for movement, deploying, and tank shocking.

If you're playing against a speed-freak ork army, or raider spam dark eldar, or maybe even eldar....anything that can get to your table edge and cover the WHOLE thing....and you choose to keep your whole army in reserve....you deserve what you get. That's just poor generalship. =p

**augustus5**

I don't have anything to add to this that can be put into words better than Dashofpepper already has. But I wanted to throw in my support to him and the other "No Tank Shocking from reserve" crowd.

I think it's absolutly crazy to think that one can tank shock from reserve when the tank shock rules are written the way they are. The biggest thing that kills it is the part where the tank stops before hitting the target unit and waits for them to react. The tank at that time is off the board and in my opinion should not have anything to do with the pieces on the board already.

I think t's important to remember that most of us will never see a situation come up where someone has nowhere to deploy from their table edge.

**Afrikan Blonde**

Wow what a rules lawyer attitude. It seems to me the anti tank shock crowd are all about WAAC. So the tank stops... it is only momentary if successful. You are looking too deep in the abyss my friend. Take a deep breath and loosen up.

**nosferatu1001**

augustus5 wrote:I don't have anything to add to this that can be put into words better than Dashofpepper already has. But I wanted to throw in my support to him and the other "No Tank Shocking from reserve" crowd.

I think it's absolutly crazy to think that one can tank shock from reserve when the tank shock rules are written the way they are. The biggest thing that kills it is the part where the tank stops before hitting the target unit and waits for them to react. The tank at that time is off the board and in my opinion should not have anything to do with the pieces on the board already.

I think t's important to remember that most of us will never see a situation come up where someone has nowhere to deploy from their table edge.

You missed the point where it is demonstrated that, at the time of the tank shock, the tank CAN be on the table. Which throws your argument out the window.

Dash - is "on the table" in any way qualified? No. Thus putting it 1mm on is fulfilling it. You really, really haven't got an argument against this, despite your attempts at deliberately twisting words.

You are the one adding and changing words, or in other words attempting to deliberately cheat. Well done.

**Frenzied Potato**

Even though it is a fantasy game I try to take the approach that I cannot conceivably imagine anything that would stop a large vehicle from coming in. True with the same logic what would stop a vehicle from barraging and staying out?

So long as it came in to be attacked back I dont particularly have a problem but that is just my RAI.

By RAW and RAI the best both sides have is a quote, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Ultimately what is the worst that happens with a tank coming in? Losing that leadership is going to be unlikely at best. The vehicle is going to be placed in a compromising position or hell it might even be death or gloried.

Chalk this one up to GW's gakky ingenuity and leave it to people who are playing the game arriving to this predicament.

**Drk_Oblitr8r**

The situation in which the topic requires is an extreamely rare one.

The situation requires that the enemy covered the entire edge of your own side, yeah? I'd imagine to get there, you'd have to kill most if not all of your units.

When all your units die, don't you lose? With units off the table but on their way not counting as alive til arriving? In that case, the situation would be impossible.

But if some of your units were still alive, focusing your strength on your opponent would probibly remove it quickly. Giving enough room for you to put your units there.

So, I'm concluding that you'd have to suck consideribly for this to work or be playing against someone who you shouldn't be playing against.

**Dracos**

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:When all your units die, don't you lose? With units off the table but on their way not counting as alive til arriving? In that case, the situation would be impossible.

Thats not really how it works. For example, if this was true then leaving all your units in reserve or using all Drop pods would not work as you would instantly lose the game before your first turn.

**Trasvi**

For all these people attempting to say that if the model is partly (0.000001") on the table, it is in play.... DO you ever attempt to deploy/move your models like that? If someone lined their squad so the very tips of their bases were on the table, would that be a legal move to you?

The answer (for me) is a resounding NO. I would wager that the vast majority of all other players don't attempt something like that.

While there are a certain few extra-large models that exceptions need to be made for when moving on from reserves, you are not allowed to be off the table.
The best ruling against this is for fleeing units - if any part of a model/unit is off the table, then they are destoyed.

On the other hand, as I said before, I don't believe blocking off an entire table edge doesn't have any RAW consequence (only inference from other, unrelated special deployment rules) and someone who tries to pull this is... ruining the game for both of you, to say the least.

**usernamesareannoying**

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:The situation in which the topic requires is an extreamely rare one.

The situation requires that the enemy covered the entire edge of your own side, yeah? I'd imagine to get there, you'd have to kill most if not all of your units.

When all your units die, don't you lose? With units off the table but on their way not counting as alive til arriving? In that case, the situation would be impossible.

But if some of your units were still alive, focusing your strength on your opponent would probibly remove it quickly. Giving enough room for you to put your units there.

So, I'm concluding that you'd have to suck consideribly for this to work or be playing against someone who you shouldn't be playing against.

its not that hard with turbo boosting bikes and and or lots of scouting units.
it all hinges on your opponent keeping most of or all of his forces in reserve to be blocked.

**Witzkatz**

@Dashofpepper and Trasvi: So, you say moving a Baneblade/Monolith in from reserve and not being able to get 100% of the model on the table is different from getting only 0,1% of a model onto the table. Alright. Trasvi said there needs to be an exception for large models. Alright.

So, don't get me wrong: From a RAI point of view and for the sake of a nice game, I would totally agree with you! But especially Dashofpepper, you were arguing pure RAW the whole thread and now, when this question comes up, this situation is all of a sudden totally different? You offer no rules statement or even real argument for this. You just say "Well, 90% of a model is different from 1%", if I understood you right. Again, from a RAI point of view I totally agree on that, but if you want to argue RAW, and that's what you're doing, you need to show me and the guys a rule where it says "90% are ok, 1% is not."
If you can't come up with a rule like that, there is no RAW difference between these two cases and you'd either have to disallow big units to come in from reserve...OR allow tank shocking when a vehicle can fit 1% on the table with being 1" away from enemy troops.

Again, I'd agree that if NO part of the model, not even the smallest, can get onto the table without fulfilling the 1" criterium, that tank shocking would most probably be not in order.

(So in the end, we're talking about a situation as probable as...as...an asteroid hitting the 18th hole in a golf tournament at the exact same time as the player's golf ball (which is, of course, instantly evaporated...would it score, though?

))

**Emperors Faithful**

One last shout into oblivion (becuase I think I, and DashofPepper, are right and can't be bothered to continue providing logical arguments. Or read everything...).

If you let you're opponent claim your deployment without a fight and are a weezly enough playa to hold your whole army in reserve for them to come on, and THEN your opponent claims that you're tabled...THEN YOU FETHING WELL DESERVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**Afrikan Blonde**

* yawn *

**Elessar**

Emperors Faithful wrote:One last shout into oblivion (becuase I think I, and DashofPepper, are right and can't be bothered to continue providing logical arguments. Or read everything...).

If you let you're opponent claim your deployment without a fight and are a weezly enough playa to hold your whole army in reserve for them to come on, and THEN your opponent claims that you're tabled...THEN YOU FETHING WELL DESERVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, for trying to prevent, say, a Tau army wiping you out in the first shooting phase, you put your stuff in Reserve...trying to use, those Tictacs you read so much about on the interwebs (only 2 calories!) but then their Kroot Infiltrate along your edge to counter your tictacs with some tictacs of their own (still only 2 calories!)

You are then, defo not a playa bro. Word.

**PhantomViper**

coredump wrote:Dash, I can play those games too.

If you sit on the desk, are you on the desk? your legs aren't.
If you are not allowed to stand on the carpet, and only put one foot on it, will you still get in trouble?
If the teacher says to put the book on the table, and the corner of the book is hanging over, is it still on the table?

Partially on *is* a on. It is even in the name. Partially *ON*.
That is why we have words to distinguish the difference, like fully on, completely on, all the way on. Otherwise they would not be needed.

But it is your assertion, that 'partially on' is *not* the same as 'on'.

So lets look elsewhere in the rules.
You can't be 'on' impassable terrain. So, by your assertions, I can be partially on, since that is not 'On'.
You can't be 'on' an enemy model. So, by your assertions, I can be partially on another model.
How about cover? When you are partially in area terrain, the rules clarify that as being the same as being in area terrain.
Difficult terrain: If you are only partly on, your assertion means no roll is needed, since I am not really 'on' the terrain.

And I noticed the reverse has been totally ignored.
If it is as you claim, and that sayin 'on' really means 'fully on'; then what about the reverse?
When the rules say 'off', do they really mean 'fully off'.
The rules say you can't go off the board. So by your assertion, you can go partially off the board, since partially off is not the same as 'off'.

The point of this, is that being 'partially on/off' still meets the criteria of being 'on/off'.

So, once you are partially on the table, you are on the table. Thus you can now tank shock.

.

DING DING DING DING, we have a winner.

A model that is partially on the table is still ON the table and as such fulfills all the required requisites to be able to tank shock.

**Dashofpepper**

Witzkatz wrote:

So, don't get me wrong: From a RAI point of view and for the sake of a nice game, I would totally agree with you! But especially Dashofpepper, you were arguing pure RAW the whole thread and now, when this question comes up, this situation is all of a sudden totally different? You offer no rules statement or even real argument for this. You just say "Well, 90% of a model is different from 1%", if I understood you right.

I'll say this again; compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. There *IS* a difference between the monolith/baneblade issue and trying to tank shock onto the table.

Monolith/Baneblade: These two models can't fit onto the table even if they move 6" onto the table because of their size. They can get mostly on the table, and hanging off the edge is simply the result of the way GW designed the models.

Tank shocking from off the table: That is NOT an issue with the model being too big to fit onto the table. Its an issue with people attempting to abuse the rules to redefine "on the table" to mean "touching the table" Its not the same issue. The *REASON* I call you a troll is because you're not bringing anything contextually relevant to the discussion, you're not even arguing something in the same realm.

You're literally saying, "These watermelons are much bigger than those oranges. Since those oranges are not as big as these watermelons, I should get a discount on the oranges for being undersized."

You can't compare the two. One is a GW model design, and the other is an attempted exploit of the rules.

**kirsanth**

Dashofpepper wrote:You can't compare the two. One is a GW model design, and the other is an attempted exploit of the rules.

Wait, which is which?

**Night Lords**

Dashofpepper wrote:
Monolith/Baneblade: These two models can't fit onto the table even if they move 6" onto the table because of their size. They can get mostly on the table, and hanging off the edge is simply the result of the way GW designed the models.

I think the problem people have with your argument is that you were arguing RAW the entire time, but now that the RAW states "you must be on the table" (and technically being 0.001 inches on the table IS on the table), youre going with RaI.

So what if there was a model in the way and the monolith had to stop 2, 3, 4, or 5 inches from the table edge? Which of these are acceptable?

**willydstyle**

Ok, so a lot of the argument here now is based on not being able to tank shock if you're not "on the table."

I would say that 99% of the time, Dash's argument that a unit that is off the table cannot effect things which are on the table is true. However, this is not an explicit rule in the rulebook.

However, the "arriving from reserves" section details how and when these "off the table" models are interacting with the table. They say that you move as though you were parked at the edge of the table the turn before.

Therefor, the rules tell you that your units which are arriving can effect units which are on the table.

The argument that a unit can move .0001" on to the table, then declare the tank shock is flawed, because you cannot move a unit then declare a tank shock. You must declare the tank shock at the beginning of the units move.

**nosferatu1001**

Autarchs modify the reserve roll when off the table. That is most definitely affecting the game....

The argument isn't "move then declare" it is "declare tank shock move, stop when in base contact (which you CAN be on the table, round bases make it impossible to fully cover an edge) as required to do so, resolve rest of tank shock"

Dash was wrongly stating

a) that the unit cannot stop in front of the unit as there is no room
b) that a unit is not on the table when the model is less than fully on

As the entire reason why TS was failing. As these are not actual rules but made up his argument falls apart.

"On the table" is not qualified therefore being ON any amount satisfies the rules. This is the point when it got difficult for Dash so "RAI" came out, weakening the argument somewhat.

But Dash still calls others trolls, amusingly.