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.

Is it possible to tank shock an enemy unit in an ongoing close combat?

Lets assume the attacking tank could make a strait line move over exclusively enemy models? (Particularly a skimmer.)

???

SO long as the tank only passes through enemy models (since there are no rules allowing your own models to move out of the way) I see no reason that you couldn't do this.

As to what happens if the unit fails its morale check, that's a little more hazy. I suspect that they simply didn't consider it.

No question it is legal. But good luck convincing the other guy of that.

I concur with you both.

Ultimately I don't think it got considered either.

If it did happen, I have no idea how to handle the break from CC. What if one wanted to land their tank on top of the enemy models in cc?  What if the enemy unit actually broke? Would they flee? Would they stay in CC? If they passed could they elect to fire a weapon in DOG since they are in melee?  I have no answers based on rules for any of those situations, it would ultimartely be speculation.  I guess I'm just glad it has never come up.

I just find myself suddenly thinking about both Tau and Eldar armies simultaneously and realizing it's a tactic I might like to try to save models from bad CCs.  There ought to be some equitable means to do it, but I think it is a big hole in the rules for the reasons above.

Actually, most of that is answered by the rules.

What if one wanted to land their tank on top of the enemy models in cc?

You can't. The movement rules simply don't let you 'land' on enemy models.

What if the enemy unit actually broke? Would they flee? Would they stay in CC?

If they break, then they flee. Since Tank Shock does not list an exception for models in close combat, they follow the normal rules and fall back.

If they passed could they elect to fire a weapon in DOG since they are in melee?

Again, since there is no exception listed for models in close combat, the normal rules apply, which would allow the unit to perform a DoG.


The only thing I can see that is in any doubt at all is whether the other unit in the combat would get to make a sweeping advance as the unit flees. Personally, I don't think they would, since they haven't actually won a combat at that point.

Hey,

Posted By Augustus 08/09/2006 2:16 PM

Is it possible to tank shock an enemy unit in an ongoing close combat?

No. Rulebook pg45, Multiple Combats.

Playa

Uh... what...?

I can't see a single reference to Tank Shock on page 45. Or anywhere in the Close Combat section, for that matter.

Insaniak, It seems what you listed is a clean way to resolve it.  I think that is reasonable. I concur about the sweeping part but I think a case could be made that the unit remains locked in assault, and that a tank shock can not drive them off.  Im not sure however, but there are rules for broken units being caught by assaulters, albiet probably by a different method usually.  How about using the assaulted while falling back rule for rallying a unit that fails a tank shock test and is already in Close Combat?

 

What if one wanted to land their tank on top of the enemy models in cc?

Insaniak> You can't. The movement rules simply don't let you 'land' on enemy models.

I think that should be re examined in light of rules for tanks ending their moves colocated with enemy models and especially skimmer rules.

Of course a vehicle can not end its move co located with enemy models, I wasn't trying to suggest that at all.  The tank shock rules do allow for a vehicle that ends its move in the same position as the victims of its tank shock, the enemy models have to move out from the position by the shortest distance (assuming they passed their morale check and didnt stop the vehicle with a DOG attack).  It is outlined on page 70.

Hypothetically this could push them out of close combat even if they did pass their morale check.

Where this might get even more complex is with a skimmer tank, that could make a strait line tank shock move, electing to fly over its own models in CC (by the skimmer rules) and effectively "land" on the enemy models on the other side.

Imagine multiple skimmers and see where it could really lead.

 

 

DAMMIT! I didn't think you could do that, that is AMAZING for Tau! I could have cleaned up in a game last night!

Again, since there is no exception listed for models in close combat, the normal rules apply, which would allow the unit to perform a DoG.

Actually when is the DoG resolved? Before or after the morale check? Because if it's before then the answer is NO as they are locked in combat and therefore cannot shot out of it regardless of the reason.

By the way it is worded it seems that you make your morale check and then can claim DOG, problem with that is... it says that you move before doing morale check...

Ahhh GW, how I love thee...

Posted By Playa 08/10/2006 12:55 AM
Hey,

Posted By Augustus 08/09/2006 2:16 PM

Is it possible to tank shock an enemy unit in an ongoing close combat?

No. Rulebook pg45, Multiple Combats.

Playa

Playa, how about you explain the part on Page 45 that supports your "no", as none of the rest of us see anything that would.

Sorry, bit of a misread on my part, it says "if an infantry unit has to move models in responce to a tank shock you must make a morale check"

I read it as if an infantry unit moves model it has to make a morale check.

So it seems that the morale check can be taken before models are moved, therefore the whole thing of standing tall and making your DOG and stopping a model in place.

So it goes back to whether you get to DOG or not if locked in HTH. DIG, what makes you say you can't DOG while locked in HTH?

Because if you are locked in combat you can't shoot into or out of it. Generalizing...

This makes skimmer squadrons rock. Think of the potential for TAU, Eldar, Marine Landspeeders all looking to drag a unit out of a bad combat.

This leads to another question if a unit is tank shocked by a squadron, do they make multiple DoG or just one? Can they actually stop them all or just one if the tank shocked unit makes a successful DoG?

In order to tank shock you have to have "tank" listed in the profile IIRC.

Because if you are locked in combat you can't shoot into or out of it. Generalizing...

They're not shooting out of the combat. They're making a Death or Glory attack.

In order to tank shock you have to have "tank" listed in the profile IIRC.

Yup, Tanks only... and Ork vehicles with Stikkbomm Chuckas. So the only Squadrons that will be Tank Shocking are Killer Kans... and the rules simply don't cover Squadrons Tank Shocking, so you're going to have to figure it out for yourself. I would think that you would work out the Shock for each vehicle seperately, since the Tank Shock rules deal with individual vehicles only. Which would allow a DoG for each vehicle.

Tanks don't come in squadrons.

I don't think there is a squadron of tanks in any army list is there? (Perhaps in the Armored Company list?)

So the issue of being tank shocked by a squadron is technically immpossible isn't it? As there are no squadrons of vehicles classified as tanks.

As I just said, Ork vehicles with stikkbomm Chuckas...

So a DoG isn't a shooting attack?

 

Edit: Nevermind, you can DoG with grenades.

Edit: Nevermind, you can DoG with grenades

And close combat weapons.

I posit that you cannot tank shock close combat.
#1 You can't run over your own guys (no rule permits this)
#2Close combat is considered a swirling melee.
Conclusion1: models in close combat are in their approximate, but theoretically not exact, location.
Conclusion2: Since you can't be sure of the location of your models in close combat, you can't tank shock through that combat, because you cannot demonstrate that you are not hitting your own guys.

Let's start with that approach, and see where it takes us.

Posted By Antonin 08/11/2006 8:48 AM
I posit that you cannot tank shock close combat.
#1 You can't run over your own guys (no rule permits this)
#2Close combat is considered a swirling melee.
Conclusion1: models in close combat are in their approximate, but theoretically not exact, location.
Conclusion2: Since you can't be sure of the location of your models in close combat, you can't tank shock through that combat, because you cannot demonstrate that you are not hitting your own guys.

Let's start with that approach, and see where it takes us.

You can't have two conclusions from one set of premises.

Fix it.

And make sure your conclusion actually follows from your premises.

Posted By mauleed 08/11/2006 10:31 AM

Posted By Antonin 08/11/2006 8:48 AM
I posit that you cannot tank shock close combat.
#1 You can't run over your own guys (no rule permits this)
#2Close combat is considered a swirling melee.
Conclusion1: models in close combat are in their approximate, but theoretically not exact, location.
Conclusion2: Since you can't be sure of the location of your models in close combat, you can't tank shock through that combat, because you cannot demonstrate that you are not hitting your own guys.

Let's start with that approach, and see where it takes us.

You can't have two conclusions from one set of premises.

Fix it.

And make sure your conclusion actually follows from your premises.

Your point is incorrect; you can indeed have two conclusions from one set of premises. However, what you meant to say is that my post does not correctly delineate the connections between the premises and the conclusions, to which I agree. Please change "Conclusion2:" to "derivative conclusion, based upon premise one and two and conclusion1, above:"

I could be wordier, and after making conclusion 1 could restate all of the above as facts, but that would be excessive and unnecessary.

Your conclusions, neither of them, still do not result from your two premises.

Using your argument, Antonin, one could argue that if they get a sweeping advance, they can move from where any model in the combat was that turn, since it is a swirling melee and their own models may have been anywhere in the combat.

I think the rules allow tankshocking into close combat.  But the only thing this could actually do is provide a Death or Glory attack or move the models slightly so that they are not within 1" of the vehicle.  There are absolutely no rules to handle falling back out of an assault if it isn't the result of combat, so the player performing the tank shock is just wishful thinking, especially if they also believe their unit gets a chance to sweeping advance because of it.

Is there anyone out there who thinks it would be a legitimate tactic to tank shock a unit in close combat, perform a sweeping advance with their own unit, and then move that unit because it is still the middle of their own movement phase?!?!

- Oaka

Good point, Oaka. Now, it seems as though the position of models in close combat is somewhat of an approximation - here's why I think that. Say you have a losing unit, that has two models within the kill zone of the other squad. If that losing unit falls back, but rolls lower on initiative, the whole squad is wiped out. In other words, the effects of the winning squad extend throughout the other squad, and do not kill only those within the kill zone. Naturally, there is also the kill zone, which raises the interesting question of whether a DoG attack which does not contact that model but comes within 2' could be subject to its attacks (just an idle digression). Perhaps a better view of combat is that while it is going on, it is a swirling mass, but immediately when it ends, the models are considered to be in their physical location for further moves or overrun attempts, as a necessary game mechanic.

I understand your point, and may ultimately be swayed by it, but at this point it seems like the various zones and combat effects of the game demonstrate that models are not, for rules purposes, and during the combat only, at their physical location - they are "swirling" to use the terrible terminology. This arbitrary placement also appears with Familiars, who exist but not really, and more notably in tanks - the location of a model inside a tank is somewhat equivalent to the question of whether schoedinger's cat is alive - we only know when the troops disembark, and lo! they are always located next to a hatch, apparently.

Also, without some prohibition on tankshocking into close combat, I see no prohibition on the "ludicrous" poisition you deride: the winning models don't need to move to eliminate their enemy, and then would be free during the movement phase- no prohibition on further movement. I don't think that is appropriate under the rules, but I think the cut-off for such a tactic is at the root - which is being able to tankshock into CC.

@Oaka, although I don't think you would get a sweeping advance, you obviously CAN do it. Since it would still be your movement phase, you would then be able to move your models that were engaged (most likely on to the model that tank shocked)

Conclusion1: models in close combat are in their approximate, but theoretically not exact, location.

This is borne out by the LOS rules... but is NOT applied at any time when measurement involving the combat is required. Fall Back distances are measured from actual models, as is coherency, engagement, and kill zones. I see no reason that Tank Shock shouldn't likewise use the actual model.

Look at it this way: The models on the table are pretty much always considered to be in motion, rather than just standing there waiting for the Hand of God to pick them up and move them their alloted movement distance. The static model on the table then in all situations represents the 'approximate location of the model'... but the game rules still use the actual model as a reference point for anything that affects that model.

That's an absolutely disgusting proposition there, happypants.  A unit of assault marines is happily chewing through a large squad of firewarriors, when all of a sudden their devilfish comes over the ridge, scares the assault marines away, while the firewarriors embark into safety and the Tau gunline blows the surviving marines off the board.  Ugh.  I'd like this to be obviously against the rules, but it isn't.  Which stinks, because I feel sympathy for footslogging assault armies that rely on being in a close combat to be immune to being shot at. 

Let's just put this in the legal, but not played that way category, shall we?

- Oaka