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.

Check out this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViiIY3AqgOc

It depicts a method of using 2+ tanks to wipe models off the board. If a tank is behind a unit and another tank tank-shocks perpendicular into the other tank, the video depicts that the models centrally underneath the tank-shocking tank will be forced the shortest distance into the other tank and wiped from the table with no recourse. Makes for an interesting way of insta-wiping MCs that fail their Death and Glory.

I don't think the tactic depicted works RAW.

I would think this rule is in effect.





Tank Shock does not give the unit being tank shocked permission to legally move into an enemy vehicle so the unit would be forced to take the shortest distance that is still legal (e.g. to the side).

Of course if Tank Shock is played that way then its next to impossible to resolve a tank shock unless you have a unit backed into a battlefield corner.

So what say you YMDC?

I disagree with Reece on this. I think the rules want you to move the models the shortest distance that is also legal, only killing them if it's impossible, whereas he thinks it means to just move them the shortest distance and then check the legality of said move.

Still possible to kill things, but not from just one marine sneaking up behind the unit before a rhino floors it.

To successfully destroy units you need a unit of your own behind them, units to each side of them and a tank to perform the shock.
Like plugging a bottle. It is very hard to do and works even better with fast tanks.

konst80hummel wrote:
To successfully destroy units you need a unit of your own behind them, units to each side of them and a tank to perform the shock.
Like plugging a bottle. It is very hard to do and works even better with fast tanks.

That is not even true. you need to have the unit surrounded with another unit then use a skimmer tank to tank shock the encapsulated unit.

If you have Units on 3 sides and Tank shock from the Opening in the U that you have created with the unit on 3 sides, the Tank Shocked unit can move to where the tank was before it performs the Tank Shock.

It is really difficult to kill a whole unit with Tank Shock.

 DeathReaper wrote:

konst80hummel wrote:
To successfully destroy units you need a unit of your own behind them, units to each side of them and a tank to perform the shock.
Like plugging a bottle. It is very hard to do and works even better with fast tanks.

That is not even true. you need to have the unit surrounded with another unit then use a skimmer tank to tank shock the encapsulated unit.

If you have Units on 3 sides and Tank shock from the Opening in the U that you have created with the unit on 3 sides, the Tank Shocked unit can move to where the tank was before it performs the Tank Shock.

It is really difficult to kill a whole unit with Tank Shock.

I think you are correct in the case of a unit that passes its morale test and that is the case we are discussing (ie using Tank-Shocks to wipe models that pass the morale test).

The unit that passes its morale test can move to where the Tank was. So the unit pulls a Legolas maneuver or a Time Cop maneuver (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0ILQpmUMRc)

But it should be clarified that boxing in still works in the case of a unit that fails its morale test.

Boxing in only works if they are totally surrounded and it fails its morale test...

 DeathReaper wrote:
Boxing in only works if they are totally surrounded and it fails its morale test...

Yeah, I wasn't correcting you per se, just making sure it was clarified for the sake of thread discussion.

However, in the case of failed morale, the Tank Shocking tank will block one direction of escape. The Tank Shock specifies that the unit "immediately" falls back.


I hadn't spotted that the only way it works with units that pass morale is with a skimmer tank Tank Shocking into a fully surrounded unit so thanks for pointing that out.

 DeathReaper wrote:

konst80hummel wrote:
To successfully destroy units you need a unit of your own behind them, units to each side of them and a tank to perform the shock.
Like plugging a bottle. It is very hard to do and works even better with fast tanks.

That is not even true. you need to have the unit surrounded with another unit then use a skimmer tank to tank shock the encapsulated unit.

If you have Units on 3 sides and Tank shock from the Opening in the U that you have created with the unit on 3 sides, the Tank Shocked unit can move to where the tank was before it performs the Tank Shock.

It is really difficult to kill a whole unit with Tank Shock.

Actually you can kill MOST of the enemy unit by declaring your tank shock distance JUST shy of the rear-most enemy model in the unit. (The one surrounded by your stuff.) As he is not under the tank, he is not given permission to move, and since the other models won't be able to get coherent with that guy, who is totally surrounded at this point, they get a free tank tread massage.

The video also makes a mistake by ignoring 1/2 of the movement rules for a unit being tank shocked.

“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 o fthe 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!.”

You don't move the shortest distance. You move the shortest legal distance while maintaining unit coherency and staying on the board. So in the early example with the Orks, they would have always moved slightly farther to maintain unit coherency, because that was easily doable.

Tank shock is very useful for forcing a unit into a smaller and smaller space, but it is very, very difficult to destroy an entire unit with it. The main methodology is to use a board edge. A tank coming on from reserves can possibly tank shock a unit that is already boxed in and leave it no place to legally move such that the entire unit is destroyed.

The way that people can use it against deathstars is by boxing in a unit, and then tank shocking a portion of it. The models that would not end up under the tank are not allowed to move, and thus it is possible to force the models that have to move out from under the tank to have no legal placement and to be removed.

It is a super powerful ability. But it isn't nearly as powerful as depicted. Not even close.

Dang, Niv-Mizzet and Tag8833!

You have pushed this discussion into a whole new level. Advanced tactics level!

Reecius has got it wrong and DeathReaper and I have stamped down that fact. But you guys have pointed the discussion towards the exploits that are actually RAW legal. Cool. Thanks!

Tank shock or Ram with a thunder blitz vehicle is pretty cool... Makes me contemplate bringing a malcador into my lists once I actually finish building my army I will consider it.

 Intercessor wrote:
Tank shock or Ram with a thunder blitz vehicle is pretty cool... Makes me contemplate bringing a malcador into my lists once I actually finish building my army I will consider it.

Sadly I think that the terrible performance of the Malcadors in all other respects doesn't make up for it. Even the cheapest variant is 85 points more than a bare LRBT, with worse AV and all you get is the Thunderblitz, which 2/3rds of the time you only end up inflicting a few S6 hits.

As regarding deliberately missing out some models of a unit, forcing only the hit models to move and leave coherency and thereby be removed for losing coherency: can someone post the rules supporting that the models not directly under the tank don't fall back with the rest of the unit? I don't see why they can't.

 God In Action wrote:
As regarding deliberately missing out some models of a unit, forcing only the hit models to move and leave coherency and thereby be removed for losing coherency: can someone post the rules supporting that the models not directly under the tank don't fall back with the rest of the unit? I don't see why they can't.

Here are the rules in play, and I've marked the section that is pertinent. Note that this has nothing to do with a unit "Falling Back". If the unit falls back it does so before this rule applies as noted in the rule.

“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!.”

You are given a criteria for determining which models in the unit have permission to move, and the parameters of how they move, and the consequences if they cannot complete those moves. I think the RAW argument for being able to partially destroy a unit is strong. However, because you Tank Shock a unit instead of tank shocking models there is a bit of a RAI argument that the Crunch result is only intended if an entire unit was unable to be placed such as the board edge or skimmer examples above. I think that RAI argument is actually pretty good, but because the RAW is fairly clear and is generally the accepted way to play at tournaments and such, that is how I play it.

Just a note. In my personal observation the most common cause of someone ejected or given a loss for poor sportsmanship at a tournament is related to the argument between Models and Units in this section of the rules. Because it is so powerful, and can easily change the outcome of the game, tank shock is a rule prone to evoking very strong and aggressive arguments. I think that for this reason a clarification in a tournament FAQ that removes the ability to tank shock a partial unit might be a good thing overall for ease of tournament play, but that is just my 2 cents.

All right I like to tank shock And I feel like images would help the discussion.
So I made some pictures to clarify the crushing.

[Edit hid the pictures, they where not precise enough]

Tank shocking in the most ideal situation
Is the unit of space marines crushed in this picture ?


Tank shocking near the table edge
How does it work ?



Tank shocking something that can jump or fly
How does it work


Tank shocking a line how does it work

 oldzoggy wrote:
All right I like to tank shock And I feel like images would help the discussion.
So I made some pictures to clarify the crushing.

Tank shocking in the most ideal situation
Is the unit of space marines crushed in this picture ?

It depends. The vehicle does not stop over every model so the models it does cover will just move out of the way as long as they can stay in coherency.

Tank shocking near the table edge
How does it work ?

In both of those scenarios, it depends if the models can keep coherency or not. If not, the models you stopped over, would be killed.

Tank shocking something that can jump or fly
How does it work

The model would simply move to where the vehicle came from, The model will not die.

Tank shocking a line how does it work

The bottom right is correct. if you do not end your move on top of any models, then no enemy models can move.

That is still a bit to vague for me, but I feel we are getting somewhere
Lets try some better pictures with options.

Situation 1 with options


Situation 2 with options


Situation 3 with options


Situation 4 ( the unit was already not in coherency before you started to tank shock ) with options

 oldzoggy wrote:
That is still a bit to vague for me, but I feel we are getting somewhere
Lets try some better pictures with options.

Situation 1 with options

from left to right (Ill call them 1 -4 with the furthest left being 1) of the 4 pannels:

1) this is the starting position of the models.

2)Correct, if you only move that far 2 models do not move and 4 die.

3) Correct if you move so all models are covered, if you leave a model not covered with the vehicle then it is like 2. Models that are not under the vehicles final location do not move.

4)This will never happen. it can not happen as the modes (If they were all under the final location of the vehicle) would all move like in #3

Situation 1 with options

1) this is the starting position of the models.

2) This is correct. Since all models are under the vehicles final location they will all move to the new position.

3) this is not correct.

Situation 3 with options

1) this is the starting position of the models.

2A) Top: Incorrect, models that do not end under the vehicle can not move.

2B) Bottom: Incorrect. you can not kill models that the vehicle does not end thier move over.

2) Furthest right is correct.

DR you are incorrect on the last example. The 3rd picture is wrong. You cannot kill that marine as he can easily get into coherency with either side.

How can you be in coherency with half of the unit, are you then not just not in coherency ?
Also how would example 4 work where coherency is already broken before the tank shock.

Fragile wrote:
DR you are incorrect on the last example. The 3rd picture is wrong. You cannot kill that marine as he can easily get into coherency with either side.

I am not incorrect. coherency is unit based, either the unit is in coherency or it isnt

If the model can not move to a place where the whole unit is in coherency then it is killed and the unit is out of coherency.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Also how would example 4 work where coherency is already broken before the tank shock.

The rules do not cover this situation But you would probably just kill the two models you ended over.

You can never kill models that you did not end over.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
Also how would example 4 work where coherency is already broken before the tank shock.

The rules do not cover this situation But you would probably just kill the two models you ended over.

You can never kill models that you did not end over.

This is getting interesting. So if you happen to kill a model so that the unit is no longer in coherency, you can actually kill any model you drive over as long as the movement of models doesn't fix the coherency gab.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I suddenly see the real use of da rippa's Turbo boost tank shock ability.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
Also how would example 4 work where coherency is already broken before the tank shock.

The rules do not cover this situation But you would probably just kill the two models you ended over.

You can never kill models that you did not end over.

This is getting interesting. So if you happen to kill a model so that the unit is no longer in coherency, you can actually kill any model you drive over as long as the movement of models doesn't fix the coherency gab.

It seems so, but it takes a lot to get models to that position.

This is now an allstar thread thanks to OldZoggy and DeathReaper. Great questions. Great answers. Great diagrams. This thread should be pinned or enshrined or something so it can be linked for all future tank shock questions.

From my point of view this is the best Dakka has to offer. It is the reason I come YMDC.

I would encourage the 2 of you to collaborate in an article submitted to BOLS and Frontline Gaming. Our community is made stronger by thoughtful rational discourse like this.

The big questions that even I don't know (and I consider myself an expert at tank shock) are the same ones I brought up in the FLG comments:

1. How do you tank shock with a squadron of say…3 tanks? One at a time? All at once? Does the unit take one morale test or three? How many death or glory attempts can they make? If they stun a tank does the entire squadron stop? If they don’t, what happens when the remaining tanks end up leaving a stunned unit member out of squadron coherency?

2. What happens if you declare a final position for a tank shock that is within 1″ of an enemy non-vehicle model, but not OVER it? Does the model still need to budge out to 1″ away despite no rule telling it to? Is the tank not allowed to declare that position? Do you just leave the models in each others’ personal space?

3. If a unit of two models is forcibly split up by a tank shock, which one is crunched for being out of coherency?

4. When a unit is moving out from under a tank’s final position, do you make ALL model moves before checking the legality and crunchiness, or do you check for deaths as each model moves?

These are some nagging questions to me that if like to hear some possible solutions to.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
1. How do you tank shock with a squadron of say…3 tanks? One at a time? All at once? Does the unit take one morale test or three? How many death or glory attempts can they make? If they stun a tank does the entire squadron stop? If they don’t, what happens when the remaining tanks end up leaving a stunned unit member out of squadron coherency?

The Rule book is sufficiently unclear about this that I don't think there is a clear answer available. How I would play it: All at once, the unit takes 1 Leadership test, and 1 Death or glory. One Stunned result does stop the squadron.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
2. What happens if you declare a final position for a tank shock that is within 1″ of an enemy non-vehicle model, but not OVER it? Does the model still need to budge out to 1″ away despite no rule telling it to? Is the tank not allowed to declare that position? Do you just leave the models in each others’ personal space?

This is the stupidest part of Tank Shock from a RAW perspective. In my opinion the RAI is that that model would move as if it were under the Tank, but reasonable people could disagree. Honestly I'm hoping that one of the other thread contributors to this thread can make a case for one way or the other.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
3. If a unit of two models is forcibly split up by a tank shock, which one is crunched for being out of coherency?

This isn't really a concern. The only models that can be Crunched are the ones that would end up under the Tank's final position. So that is your answer. Whichever one would end up under the Tank's Final position.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
4. When a unit is moving out from under a tank’s final position, do you make ALL model moves before checking the legality and crunchiness, or do you check for deaths as each model moves?

They happen at the same time. All of the models move at once. If any model in incapable of moving legally it is crunched. If there is a situation where you have to move 5 models, and can legally move 2 of them, and thus 3 are going to be Crunched, I think the choice of which ones get Crunched would go to the controlling player.

Good questions all.

Pretty reasonable takes on those. On q1 I would personally lean more towards it being a "triple tank shock" entailing 3 possible morale checks and 3 possible death of glories. Since the rules don't seem to even consider the possibility of a squadron tank shocking, that one is up in the air.

On q3 I guess I should've clarified a bit more. If both models were under the tank and required to move, and against all odds, there was space for exactly one model on two different sides of the tank, would they both be removed for being out of coherency? My assumption there is yes, that they would be removed simultaneously as part of the same rulecheck, but I can see someone reasonably saying that after removing the first model, the second model is no longer out of coherency, since he IS the entire unit.

Tank shock can be scary though. I got through a GT in the summer with the remains of a tau commander, 2 crisis suits, and a full ravenwing command squad on the front bumper of a couple of my Razorbacks.

@ DR: I have a question about Situation #1 panels 3 and 4.

If the marines board edge was north and they failed leadership (ie forced to fall back), then 4 would be what would happen, not 3. Is that right?


EDITED....

 doktor_g wrote:
@ DR: I have a question about Situation #1 panels 3 and 4.

If the marines board edge was north and they failed leadership (ie forced to fall back), then 4 would be what would happen, not 3. Is that right?


EDITED....

No it would still be #3. They would simply fall back moving as far as they can towards their board edge even if they have to go away from their board edge because of models or impassible terrain.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
That is still a bit to vague for me, but I feel we are getting somewhere
Lets try some better pictures with options.

Situation 1 with options

from left to right (Ill call them 1 -4 with the furthest left being 1) of the 4 pannels:

1) this is the starting position of the models.

2)Correct, if you only move that far 2 models do not move and 4 die.

3) Correct if you move so all models are covered, if you leave a model not covered with the vehicle then it is like 2. Models that are not under the vehicles final location do not move.

4)This will never happen. it can not happen as the modes (If they were all under the final location of the vehicle) would all move like in #3

Ugh. This is why I hate GW rules, and RAW debates in general. You would think that completely crushing the enemy would be the best course of action - but no: if you shock all but one you kill all but one; but if you shock all of them they all survive. WAT.

The whole game is not realistic.

What would make sense in the real world has no bearing on the 40k ruleset

Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).