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.

... I'm not saying it has to be a 100% realistic simulation. It doesn't have to model real battle tactics nor real physics.
On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be anything outlandishly odd here about being crushed by a tank, and the lead-in paragraphs to Tank Shock give an in-universe explanation about why soldiers die when a tank lands on top of them.


The result here is counter-intuitive. Its using a quirk in the rules to achieve the best game outcome, when the expected best course of action results in the worse game outcome. I would EXPECT that driving my tank over an entire unit would cause more damage to it than driving my tank over half the unit; in the same way that I EXPECT firing all my weapons at an enemy to cause more damage than firing half my weapons. The game rules in this instance do not meet my (quite reasonable) expectations, and so I'm going to call it a bad rule, regardless of what the RAW or RAI is.

Its quite possible for a rule to be objectively bad, no matter whether there is a RAW way of playing that rule or not.

 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

Spoiler:

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

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

My friend suggest a scenario where #4 could indeed happen. It depends on the original placement of the Tank Shocking Vehicle.


Because of Order of operations, the Infantry have to move before the Tank Shocking Tank moves. That means that the Tank Shocking Tank Can't actually be moved through, and must be moved around. If there is not sufficient space between the Tank Shocking tank and other enemy models, then the infantry can't move out of the way. Additionally, this line of thinking would indicate that models being Tank Shocked can never occupy the space that was vacated by the Tank Shocking model.

Am I reading this right, or have I made a mistake?

tag8833, that is my reading of things. The guys at TFG Podcast also have several videos on youtube about tank shock that are good to look at.
Tank shock is a tool... it takes a really skilled player to set it up correctly. Really skilled opponents can see it coming and take steps to avoid it.

Lets go back to the rules discussion. What happens in this situation.



Does the unit escape or is is crushed completely ( assumed that the unit is completely boxed in later more on that)

In my understanding it depends al on two things.

1) Do you agree with the assumptions that
A) Tanks move and not teleport even while tank shocking.
B) Models can't move trough tanks.
If you don't agree with these assumptions then the unit will never be crushed if you tank shock all of them.
They can only be crushed if you spared at least 1 that would be breaking the coherency for the other models

2)If you do agree on these assumptions then it does matter when the effect triggers.

rulebook wrote: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.

There are 3 moments when I can think of it could trigger.

Moment 1: When the tank declares it is tank shocking but has not moved at all. -> the unit moves away before the tank is there and moves away safe.
Moment 2: When the tank tutches the first model and the unit needs to make its moral check. -> The unit is boxed and can't escape being crushed when the tank continues to move.
Moment 3: It triggers at its final destination. Tank somehow is occupying the same space in a 2d plane as the unit, they are on top of each other. Creating an situation that needs to be solved by moving the models out of the way. Note that it suddenly does not matter where the tank came from. All models are now under the tank and all need to be not under the tank in order to do this the unit moves away. -> The unit is not crused but moves away.
(Note that this seems to break the earlier assumptions. Suddenly a tank can be in the same space as a unit not surprisingly resulting in the same result)

Personally I feel that
The assumptions should be right but probably are not (1)
That a trigger at moment 2 and triggering at each following model should be the most logical but that it actually happens at moment 3. (2)(3)
(I love it if someone could prove me wrong)

Support for it is in the bold text

rulebook wrote:A Tank Shock is an exception to the rule that enemy models cannot be moved through(1). Remember,
though, that friendly models still cannot be moved through, so the Tank’s movement will be stopped if any
friendly models are in the way. Also, a Tank Shock cannot be attempted against enemies that
are locked in combat, as the risk of harming allies is too high.
If an enemy unit other than another vehicle is reached, that enemy unit must take a Morale check and
immediately Fall Back if it fails. If the test is passed, the unit simply lets the Tank move through, as if it
was not there. Regardless of the result of the test, the Tank keeps moving straight on, possibly Tank
Shocking more enemy units until it reaches its final position(2). If the Tank would move into contact with a
friendly model, enemy vehicle, impassable terrain or a board edge, it immediately stops moving 1" away.
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. Any models that cannot manage this are crushed and removed
from play as casualties with no saves allowed. Crunch!(3)

Side note
@TagThe drawings where not intended to be drawn in a way you could weasel trough it, the next diagrams I make will be clearer.
Added point: I believe that your <2" doesn't isn't tight enough since you only check the 1" barriers at the end of the moving but this is an other discussion. Lets assume that When I draw a boxed situation they are actually boxed in the future



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
tag8833, that is my reading of things. The guys at TFG Podcast also have several videos on youtube about tank shock that are good to look at.
Tank shock is a tool... it takes a really skilled player to set it up correctly. Really skilled opponents can see it coming and take steps to avoid it.

I love the idea of running over units but it is actually almost impossible to pull of an near total unit crunch to a not so ignorant opponent even if you have an obsession with tank shocking.
Most opponents do not have the tendency to box in their own units. Its not that they think of it not to box them. Its just that there is no need for it, and if they box a unit by accident they usually have a open side much wider then normal transports.
So you have to build a box yourself. This is harder then it seems since you have to build the box yourself with at least 4 vehicles (most of the time its more like 6-8) and tank shock all in a single turn while moving max 12" with all the vehicles. This isn't only very costly but also quite risky since you have to be a turn within 12" and can't afford to lose a single vehicle.

I can only think of a few situations where it might work in a real game.

-4+ Landraider equivalent spam vs an army that doesnt' have any heavy anti tank weapons.
-Boxing a unit with drop pods or other no scatter deep strikers.
-An opponent who walks his unit really close to your vehicle wall but does not damage it.
-Da rippa or lucky looted wagons ( in combination with bies or deffcopta's) they are able to tank shock while turbo boosting.

tag8833 wrote:

 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

Spoiler:

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

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

My friend suggest a scenario where #4 could indeed happen. It depends on the original placement of the Tank Shocking Vehicle.


Because of Order of operations, the Infantry have to move before the Tank Shocking Tank moves. That means that the Tank Shocking Tank Can't actually be moved through, and must be moved around. If there is not sufficient space between the Tank Shocking tank and other enemy models, then the infantry can't move out of the way. Additionally, this line of thinking would indicate that models being Tank Shocked can never occupy the space that was vacated by the Tank Shocking model.

Am I reading this right, or have I made a mistake?

Order of operations?

models never move until the tank reaches its final position.

Then any models under the final location are forced to move. If they are not allowed to move through the tank that moven onto them, then they would never be able to move.

Therefore, models need to be able to move through the Tank Shocking vehicles final location. Ergo #4 could never happen.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Spoiler:

tag8833 wrote:

 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:

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

My friend suggest a scenario where #4 could indeed happen. It depends on the original placement of the Tank Shocking Vehicle.


Because of Order of operations, the Infantry have to move before the Tank Shocking Tank moves. That means that the Tank Shocking Tank Can't actually be moved through, and must be moved around. If there is not sufficient space between the Tank Shocking tank and other enemy models, then the infantry can't move out of the way. Additionally, this line of thinking would indicate that models being Tank Shocked can never occupy the space that was vacated by the Tank Shocking model.

Am I reading this right, or have I made a mistake?

Order of operations?

models never move until the tank reaches its final position.

Then any models under the final location are forced to move. If they are not allowed to move through the tank that moven onto them, then they would never be able to move.

Therefore, models need to be able to move through the Tank Shocking vehicles final location. Ergo #4 could never happen.

I'm not sure that is correct. The rule in question:
“If some enemy models in the enemy unit would end up underneath the vehicle when it reaches its final position....."

If the Tank moved 1st, and then the models moved it would be "When" instead of "if". If would seem that the process works like this.
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.

I feel like I might be getting a little too much into the weeds here, and your interpretation that the tank moves 1st, and then infantry move through it to get out from under it would be simpler, but it seems like the RAW might not quite work that way.

 oldzoggy wrote:

1) Do you agree with the assumptions that
A) Tanks move and not teleport even while tank shocking.
B) Models can't move trough tanks.

Actually, I'm not sure I agree with those as much as I'd like to.
A) It seems to me that Tanks move in a series of Quantum leaps. That is they instantly move from one position until they reach contact with the 1st enemy model (Moral Test), their final position, or any of the other obstacles that stop a tank shock like the board edge.
B) DR Seems like he knows exactly what he is talking about, and he thinks models can move through Tanks when the Tanks are Tank Shocking them. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Tanks can move through enemy models when performing a Tank Shock, and it might be something of a paradox to argue that models can't move through tanks as part of this process in return. On the other hand, if my proposed order of operations are correct, then this assumption would indeed be valid.

tag8833 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Spoiler:

tag8833 wrote:

 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:

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

My friend suggest a scenario where #4 could indeed happen. It depends on the original placement of the Tank Shocking Vehicle.


Because of Order of operations, the Infantry have to move before the Tank Shocking Tank moves. That means that the Tank Shocking Tank Can't actually be moved through, and must be moved around. If there is not sufficient space between the Tank Shocking tank and other enemy models, then the infantry can't move out of the way. Additionally, this line of thinking would indicate that models being Tank Shocked can never occupy the space that was vacated by the Tank Shocking model.

Am I reading this right, or have I made a mistake?

Order of operations?

models never move until the tank reaches its final position.

Then any models under the final location are forced to move. If they are not allowed to move through the tank that moven onto them, then they would never be able to move.

Therefore, models need to be able to move through the Tank Shocking vehicles final location. Ergo #4 could never happen.

I'm not sure that is correct. The rule in question:
“If some enemy models in the enemy unit would end up underneath the vehicle when it reaches its final position....."

If the Tank moved 1st, and then the models moved it would be "When" instead of "if". If would seem that the process works like this.
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.

I feel like I might be getting a little too much into the weeds here, and your interpretation that the tank moves 1st, and then infantry move through it to get out from under it would be simpler, but it seems like the RAW might not quite work that way.

That is exactly how it works if the unit passes its LD test.

If there are any models that would be under the tanks final position you move those models then you place the vehicle.

You cant place the vehicle first because there are models where the tank will end up.

Wow, been a loooong time since I set foot in YMDC. Often degenerates into an ego driven circular arguments, but there's some interesting and intelligent debate going on, here. Cool to see other's perspectives on it.

I think the crux of this argument boils down to a few key interpretations.

1.) Does the sentence describing what tank shocked models do after being tank shocked read as: an independent clause (move the shortest possible distance) followed by conditions which must be met or the final part of the rule: Crunch, is applied; or, you move the unit the shortest possible distance while also maintaining squad coherency and staying on the table (here meaning not placing the model illegally) all occurring simultaneously as a single clause? I can see how the rule can be read both ways.

2.) Does the wording "...whilst maintaining unit coherency and staying on the board" mean that a model MUST be placed on the board in some way (in which case Crunch would never occur), or that tank shock can force a model into an illegal position wherein it cannot be placed onto the board, and then suffers crunch? Again, you can read it both ways.

For number 1, if you read it as a set of instructions followed by conditions and consequences, then it is actually quite clear. That is how we read it in the video. The weak part to that argument though, is the use of the word whilst after the comma, indicating that the first clause (moving the shortest possible distance) and maintaining unit coherency may occur simultaneously. I see how folks can read it that way, for sure. The other weakness to this reading is that the sentence is ambiguous, it should have been two sentences or one with no comma and written a bit more clearly. However, it's not. The strength of this reading is that it is grammatically (mostly) sound. It does leave the annoying situation of the second clause after the comma being a sentence fragment. But, if it is read as a set of instructions it does follow logically.

For number 2, if you read it as the unit can never be placed over another unit or off of the table, into impassible terrain, etc., then Crunch will very rarely, if ever occur, and then, what is the point of the rule? A single model unit such as an IC, MC, or lone survivor of an infantry unit would literally never suffer crunch and you could have situations where, like some kind of slippery bar of soap, they magically slip between the cracks and appear somewhere else very far from the tank shocking tank, or the same logic, after determining where the tank would end it's movement, you would be able to move a unit "through" the tank, which would also violate the argument that you can never move within 1" of an enemy model (which by the way, that rules is applying to the movement phase in regards to the unit that is moving, not necessarily being moved in the opponent's movement phase). The Crunch aspect of the rule wold be largely superfluous.

However, if you read it as the tank shock move CAN force models into a situation where they cannot be placed on the table, then the rule is actually very simple and logical. You tank shock an MC in such a way as to force it straight back into another model, it then cannot be placed on the board following the instructions for tank shock, and suffers crunch. I think the main resistance to this reading of the rule is that is is perceived as being too powerful, which is a fair assessment.

So, it really comes down to if you read the rule as permissive or restrictive. Is it allowing you to force a model into an illegal position or is it restricting you from doing that? It can be read both ways.

So, do you see tank shock as a weapon, or not?

And probably most importantly, how do you want to play the rule?

When a tank rams another vehicle, it hurts it. When an MC charges another unit, it hurts it (HoW). I think it stands to reason that the RAI was most likely that if a tank runs over you, it hurts you. And while yes, bringing "real world" arguments into rules debates is always shaky ground, the rules writers are most certainly thinking of real world situations when they write them. The rules are trying to depict "real" situations as best as possible in an abstract game like 40k. Unfortunately, those rules are often written in very ambiguous terms leaving us debating how to interpret them.

So Reece. Say you were running a big tournament later today and someone asked you for a stopgap temp ruling for the following:
-squadron tank shock. Single shock or multiples with all that entails?
-tank shock ends within 1" of an enemy model but not over it. Legal? How to resolve?
-tank shock path takes the tank within 1" of enemy non-vehicle units that it isn't shocking, (but it isn't stopping there.) Legal?

So how would you rule those if you just had to make a call and roll with it for the day?

 Reecius wrote:

So, do you see tank shock as a weapon, or not?

And probably most importantly, how do you want to play the rule?

Thanks for joining us Reecius.

I want to point out something that maybe people have lost focus on. We are largely dealing with what happens after a unit PASSES its morale test and deals with a Tank Shock. It's extremely debatable whether a unit should suffer any negative consequence at all. The unit has passed its save (which in this case is a morale test). It is entirely reasonable that a unit should suffer no negative consequence unless it has been entirely set up and backed into a hole.

I also want to point out another problem with your reading of the rule - it's crazy OP! By your interpretation, a couple of rhinos could instantly wipe away a GMC. Surely this cannot be RAI.

And, I want to point out the most significant problem with your reading of the rule - it goes against the rules.



The Models is the Way rule is in effect "at any time". Reecius, please point to the portion of the Tank Shock rule which you think gives specific permission to ignore the Models in the Way rule. If you cannot then you must concede that your interpretation goes directly against the rules as written.

 Reecius wrote:
1.) Does the sentence describing what tank shocked models do after being tank shocked read as: an independent clause (move the shortest possible distance) followed by conditions which must be met or the final part of the rule: Crunch, is applied; or, you move the unit the shortest possible distance while also maintaining squad coherency and staying on the table (here meaning not placing the model illegally) all occurring simultaneously as a single clause? I can see how the rule can be read both ways.

If someone did choose to read the rule in this way, then they would necessarily have to conclude that every Tank Shock that ends with enemy models under the final position of the Tank would ALWAYS result in a Crunch. The reason is simple. 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.

 Reecius wrote:
For number 2, if you read it as the unit can never be placed over another unit or off of the table, into impassible terrain, etc., then Crunch will very rarely, if ever occur, and then, what is the point of the rule? A single model unit such as an IC, MC, or lone survivor of an infantry unit would literally never suffer crunch and you could have situations where, like some kind of slippery bar of soap, they magically slip between the cracks and appear somewhere else very far from the tank shocking tank, or the same logic, after determining where the tank would end it's movement, you would be able to move a unit "through" the tank, which would also violate the argument that you can never move within 1" of an enemy model (which by the way, that rules is applying to the movement phase in regards to the unit that is moving, not necessarily being moved in the opponent's movement phase). The Crunch aspect of the rule wold be largely superfluous.

We have lots of examples above where this reading is applied and Crunch does indeed occur. Crunch is clearly an important part of the rule to explain certain somewhat rare situations. The fundamental reason that you are confused by the consistency of this rules interpretation is that you are starting from the premise that basic rules for movement do not apply in this situation. One rule that should clearly apply here (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."
Because it explicitly calls out the Assault Phase as the only time this rule doesn't apply, being in the movement section doesn't negate it. Furthermore if the rule was only limited to the controlling player's movement phase as you state, it would be possible for me to "Run" (Shooting phase) through enemy models or into base contact with enemy models

We need the movement rules to govern the rule for running, and we need them to govern the rules for Tank Shock.

 Reecius wrote:
So, do you see tank shock as a weapon, or not?

Absolutely. There are many diagrams and explantions in this thread about the uses for, and power of Tank Shock. It is an enormously powerful rule even if you play it by RAW.

 Reecius wrote:
And probably most importantly, how do you want to play the rule?

My preference would be that you Tank Shock the Unit instead of individual models, and then the unit is allowed to move out of the way or not following the restrictions applied on how to move them. That would solve the real rules questions related to a tank shock ending within 1" of enemy models, and the ability of enemy models not covered by the tank to move. It is my experience that this is the most widely held understanding of it to begin with, which is why the arguments that erupt from its usage in tournament games tend to be so virulent. Also answer niv-mizzet's question about a squadron getting 1 tank shock or 1 per member of the squadron.

 Reecius wrote:
When a tank rams another vehicle, it hurts it. When an MC charges another unit, it hurts it (HoW). I think it stands to reason that the RAI was most likely that if a tank runs over you, it hurts you. And while yes, bringing "real world" arguments into rules debates is always shaky ground, the rules writers are most certainly thinking of real world situations when they write them. The rules are trying to depict "real" situations as best as possible in an abstract game like 40k. Unfortunately, those rules are often written in very ambiguous terms leaving us debating how to interpret them.

Have you considered that the rules writers are trying to abstract a real world situation that is much more common than infantry being run over by a Tank?

So, Here I am, an infantryman standing there with all of my squishy human bits. Suddenly a giant metal box starts speeding towards me. What do I do? Attempt to run through the nearby wall? Find another nearby enemy tank and attempt to run through that? Maybe I step to the side? Find some place to stand so that the path of the tank doesn't squish me. But tag, you may ask, "What if there is no path for you to get to safety from the oncoming tank? What if you are surrounded by walls, Enemy tanks and other impassible obstetrical on every side? What would happen then? Well I guess in that situation I would grease the treads of that Tank. Get "Crunched" if you will. Tank Shock is a rule that relatively fairly reflects real world situations (to a point, My Barbed Heirodule shouldn't get squished by a measly rhino). It is complicated, but I would say that in general it is a successful abstraction of a real warfare possibility.

Folks are using the 1" rule as a defense against tank shock used as a weapon, but ironically, we actually read it the exact opposite way you guys did.

Some of you are reading it as: you cannot be moved within 1" of another unit, so therefore, a tank shock pushes you in such a way as to avoid other units.

However, if you read the rule as it is written from a different perspective: if a model cannot be placed on the table it suffers crunch.

So, put another way:

A model can never move within 1" of an enemy model.
Tank Shock can force an enemy model to be in a position where it would have to be placed within 1" of an enemy model.
Tank shock tells us if you cannot place a model on the table, it suffers crunch and is removed form the table.
A model that would only be able to be placed over another model, cannot be placed on the table.
Therefore, if an enemy model is tank shocked into another unit, it suffers crunch and is removed from the table.

That is 100% logical, and contains everything you need to use it in the language of the rule itself without pulling anything else in, therefore being RAW. However, it is based on the assumption that you CAN force a unit into an illegal position.

If you are basing your argument off of the assumption that you CANNOT force a model into an illegal position, then the opposite reading of the rule is also 100% logical! haha

You can read it both ways. It boils down to if you see the rule as breaking the 1" rule or not, as being permissive or restrictive. Unfortunately, it doesn't give us enough information to let us know which it is.

Do you guys mind showing me which diagrams you were referring to? I looked at them but it was hard to tell what was being communicated in some of them.

@Niv

If I was in a position where I had ot make a rule call at a tournament today? OK, sure, I'm game for that. Hypothetically:

1.) I would say to resolve each tank separately as inherently in this game, you move models one at a time. Tank shock occurs in the movement phase and vehicle squadrons give us no further restrictions on moving squadrons beyond the fact that they must remain in 4" unit coherency.

2.) That is a weird one, isn't it? The rules tell us nothing about this situation. I would rule it that the unit being tank shocked would simply have to move 1" away in their movement phase.

3.) Again, a weird one and not addressed in the rules. But, I would rule it as above, with the unit not having to take a morale check as they technically weren't tank shocked.

Hope that helps!

And just for the record, I have no dog in this fight. I could play it either way and be just fine. The aggressive reading of the rule is pretty rough, particularly for armies like Tyranids, but it applies to every other army in the game that has access to vehicles that can tank shock, which is everyone else.

The Diagrams with Dark Reapers correct interpretation of each.

The most common scenarios that I've seen Tank Shock used aggressively to crunch units are as follows:
#1 If a unit is surrounded by enemy units next to the board edge, and a tank comes on from reserves on that board edge then the models are Crunched. Usually this situation applies when someone is bringing on a large number of models from reserve, and can choose the order in which they arrive such that the others are in place when the Tank initiates the Tank Shock.

#2 If a unit is surrounded by enemy units (or the board edge) on all 4 sides, and a Skimmer Tank executes a Tank Shock, then the Unit can be Crunched.

#3 As most of the diagrams illustrate if not all models in a unit are Tank Shocked, only the ones that would actually end up under the Tank are allowed to move, and therefore the models that can move might not be able to maintain Coherence and stay 1" away from enemy models and get crunched. This is the tactic that niv-mizzet was able to pull off against a couple of guys at Iron Halo that you mentioned on the last signals episode. I hadn't considered this tactic before, but I've used it numerous times since. This is the one that can get people hot and bothered, although I once saw a guy lose a bloodthirster to #2, and he was pretty pissed. I beat a centstar with a Ork Trukk list using this tactic to deal with Draigo, a librarian, and 2 Centurions that were all invisible at the time.

Not often that I post on Dakka, let alone YMDC, but man, this is one of the sillier things I've heard lately!

Lets take it literally that any model that moves, must move the shortest distance possible (ignoring the "whilst" part of the rule which would include a second set of instructions on how to perform that move), and that if the position it is moved to is out of coherency or overlapping another model (or within impassible terrain), that the model is destroyed. That would mean this occurs:



Both models in the unit are touched by the tank shock, so they both move, and must move in such a way that neither are in Coherency, congratulations you just removed a squad of MC's from the game by sticking a Rhino between them. The reason I mention GMC in there too is because if you don't actually remove the model (by only suffering D3 wounds from the Unstoppable rule), you must then make up a new rule that says the vehicle must either stop short should the GMC be forced into a position where it would overlap another model, the GMC gets placed somewhere else altogether, or the GMC is removed despite having Unstoppable.

It's really bonkers and only makes sense if you ignore the fact that we're given multiple instructions to follow whilst moving the models. Additionally, when you tank shock a unit down the middle and split them, which side is "in coherency"?



Now we have a pretty easy situation where every model in a small squad is forced to move, presumably as long as at least 1 model is not within 2" of another, the whole unit both moved and was not able to move into a position where coherency was possible, and as such the whole unit dies. You don't even need to surround them, forget all this boxing stuff in, just drive down the middle of the unit and watch them all die.

This is exactly why we're given the instruction that you need to move WHILST maintaining coherency. Whilst isn't an optional condition of the rule, it's adding another condition onto the rule for it's movement. The whole rule for removing models is given as a catch all rule to cover awkward situations where it would literally be impossible to move the models in such a way that wouldn't either be within 1" of an enemy, while in coherency and not in impassible terrain. These kinds of things are awesome, catch all rules are great for edge cases. It's not an impossible situation, just an improbable one that needs a rule made for how to handle it.

Situations like this:


It doesn't happen often, but when it does, we're glad that GW actually had the forethought to give us some instruction on what to do, if they hadn't, instead of us all complaining about how we choose to ignore the "whilst" part of movement, we'd be arguing over how GW didn't tell us what to do and the game is broken.

While I agree on your reading of the rule, I just wanted to point out a slight oversight in your third picture. Only models covered by the tank at its final position are forced to move and in peril of dying. So even with Reece's reading that we both disagree with, driving through the unit would have no effect on the line of models except for the last few where the rhino stopped.

And yeah GMC's with unstoppable is another issue, assuming you get past their smash death or glory, where do you put them after they take their d3 wounds? It's another rules oversight.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
While I agree on your reading of the rule, I just wanted to point out a slight oversight in your third picture. Only models covered by the tank at its final position are forced to move and in peril of dying. So even with Reece's reading that we both disagree with, driving through the unit would have no effect on the line of models except for the last few where the rhino stopped.

And yeah GMC's with unstoppable is another issue, assuming you get past their smash death or glory, where do you put them after they take their d3 wounds? It's another rules oversight.

Ah, good point, I'll drop that 3rd picture... doesn't really go far to make it seem not silly though.

The funny thing is that the rules only become an issue once you choose to ignore the "whilst" part, if you don't ignore that, then there are actually no ambiguities, just some weird circumstances where guys run under/over/through tanks to get out of the way, but at least it all works mechanically within the rules of the game. Even bashing into a cornered gargantuan would force him to pop out the other side of the tank. Not ambiguous, but maybe a little funny.

So after reading all previous posts I still have some questions:

Can a model under the final position take a longer route from underneath the vehicle if it is required to maintain coherency?

and if not...

If every model underneath is forced to move 'exactly' the shortest distance...wouldn't that mean that each model's movement is predetermined and you just have to hope they are still in coherency after or else they are all removed?

Do you move all of the models underneath at the exact same time and check for coherency afterwards? (I'd assume so since moving them 1 at a time would make it even trickier to maintain coherency)

 chaosmarauder wrote:
So after reading all previous posts I still have some questions:

Can a model under the final position take a longer route from underneath the vehicle if it is required to maintain coherency?

As far as I can tell, RAW, you are supposed to take the shortest route possible which also maintains coherency, so if the shortest route possible doesn't make coherency, it'll mvoe the shortest route that does, as the rule states, “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.” Which would seem to imply that you're not simply only following the first item on the list "leaving at least 1" between them and the vehicle" but also the second "whilst maintaining unit coherency" and third "and staying on the board" clauses as well.

The interpretation that some people here seem to be mentioning would mean ignoring the second or third clauses, or assuming that it's in some way not a mandatory part of the move (but the 1" part for some reason still is).

 chaosmarauder wrote:
So after reading all previous posts I still have some questions:If every model underneath is forced to move 'exactly' the shortest distance...wouldn't that mean that each model's movement is predetermined and you just have to hope they are still in coherency after or else they are all removed?

Do you move all of the models underneath at the exact same time and check for coherency afterwards? (I'd assume so since moving them 1 at a time would make it even trickier to maintain coherency)

You are correct, that is what they are saying. By that interpretation, if you tank shock in a position where you push 8 models to one side and two to the other, all 10 are wiped out, as they did not move into a position where unit coherency was maintained. This however still only works if you don't play by the "whilst maintaining unit coherency" part of the rule. Additionally, playing this way means if you tank shock a GMC in a position where it would have to move back onto another model or off the board, you need to suddenly make up a new rule to resolve what happens. Due to the Unstoppable rule, it would only suffer D3 wounds, but now where do you place it? It cannot be on top of the tank or other models, so now you need to decide if the vehicle will stop short, or if the GMC will move somewhere else entirely.

So basically you have two possibilities:
1. Play with the rule as it is, meaning you will move the least distance possible to cover all the clauses of the movement (outside of 1", maintaining coherency, staying on the board), or...
2. Ignore that rule and have to make up new rules to cover edge cases that wouldn't exist by the previous interpretation.

Generally, I believe if you have to make up more rules to make your interpretation work, then you're probably doing it wrong.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
So after reading all previous posts I still have some questions:

Can a model under the final position take a longer route from underneath the vehicle if it is required to maintain coherency?

and if not...

If every model underneath is forced to move 'exactly' the shortest distance...wouldn't that mean that each model's movement is predetermined and you just have to hope they are still in coherency after or else they are all removed?

Do you move all of the models underneath at the exact same time and check for coherency afterwards? (I'd assume so since moving them 1 at a time would make it even trickier to maintain coherency)

Well the first question has come up as something of a disagreement, as is evident in this thread. My take is yes, they'll go where they need to to not get crunched if possible. It's also the less-powerful reading, as it makes it harder to kill things.

And yes I'd also say you move all the models first and then check for crunchiness. Again this isn't something non-debatable. The tank shock rules leave a bit to be desired as far as clarity is concerned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 minionboy wrote:

Generally, I believe if you have to make up more rules to make your interpretation work, then you're probably doing it wrong.

As far as the gmc situation goes, that can still come up even with the more conservative reading of the rules. If you surround it and skimmer-shock it for example, or circle the wagons and make it unable to fit out the corridor that the shocking tank used to come in, due to the 1" bubble space from the two units that were beside it that the gmc can't move through.

So the issue of whether it insta dies or takes d3 and warps somewhere random is still an issue regardless of which reading is going on.

So the interpretation for moving the models underneath is something like:

Move the shortest distance that maintaining coherency allows.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
So the interpretation for moving the models underneath is something like:

Move the shortest distance that maintaining coherency allows.

Depends on whose interpretation you're reading.

Some of us are saying that. Others are saying you move the shortest distance, and hope that's in coherency, if not, you're dead.

One big problem that Reecius' aggressive read of the rules comes from a RAI standpoint. So let us set aside the bigger problem that his read breaks the Models in the Way rule.

Presumably a unit is allowed a leadership save against a Tank Shock.

In the Reecius read, a unit that makes it's save is more likely to incur damage from a Tank Shock. A failed leadership save leads to a unit that is smart enough to get out of the way. A successful leadership save leads to a unit that is not smart enough to get out of the way. Counter-intuitively, the units that we would think would be best against a Tank Shock (e.g. fearless) are actually the most vulnerable to it. And Counter-intuitively we are punishing a unit that makes a successful save.

However, in a read that follows all the rules in the BRB (which includes the Models in the Way rule) Tank Shock will be most effective against units that fail their leadership save and will require craftiness to be successful against a unit that passes its leadership save. So, Tank Shock in this read winds up much more intuitive - it works best against low leadership units and will usually not work against fearless units unless you craftily set up a trap. And intuitively it rewards a unit for making a successful save.

Another interesting question occurred to me reading this thread. If a Stormsurge has it's anchors deployed, it "can not move under any circumstance" and cannot make a stomp attack. Basically, it would automatically get crunched and automatically take the d3 wounds (if the tank actually survived).
This leads me to ask 2 questions:

1. The rules, as i read them, say he would take the wounds with no saves. My friend will argue differently (he is a staunch Tau player). Under the unstoppable rule it just says "takes d3 wounds instead". Would the stormsurge get a save?

2. If the Stormsurge cannot move for any reason, where does the tank and stormsurge end up on the field?

lokithefool wrote:
Another interesting question occurred to me reading this thread. If a Stormsurge has it's anchors deployed, it "can not move under any circumstance" and cannot make a stomp attack. Basically, it would automatically get crunched and automatically take the d3 wounds (if the tank actually survived).
This leads me to ask 2 questions:

1. The rules, as i read them, say he would take the wounds with no saves. My friend will argue differently (he is a staunch Tau player). Under the unstoppable rule it just says "takes d3 wounds instead". Would the stormsurge get a save?

2. If the Stormsurge cannot move for any reason, where does the tank and stormsurge end up on the field?

I don't have the Stormsurge rules in front of me, but I think I'm familiar enough with them to give you some advice. One thing to note, because the Stormsurge is auto-crunched, it should probably always death or glory. If it has the pulseblast cannon that means a SD AP1 auto hit which is likely to stop most tanks. On to your questions.
1) No Save. This is a RAI interpretation, but a pretty sound one. Let me give you another example where the unstoppable rule would come into play. Let's say a Wraith Knight with the Shield (5+ invul) gets force weaponed. He 1st takes his Invul, then having failed that the unstoppable rule comes into to play and instead of being removed, he takes D3 wounds.

2) I don't know of any rules that give us guidance for this scenario. I would suggest that the Tank stops 1" away. That is completely a HIWPI suggestion.

Tank Shock isn't really an attack nor does it inflict Instant Death or remove from play.



Technically, Tank Shock places a tank where the Stormsurge was, and the anchored Stormsurge cannot be deployed anymore where it was and it cannot move to change that state of affairs. Even though it will eventually wind up being removed from the game, it is resulting from 2 models trying to occupy the same space and not from a "remove from game attack". So a nice house rule that treats it a remove from game attack is just as valid as a mean one that takes the model off the battlefield and house rule is definitely required to untangle a way to resolve this exact scenario. The only thing that promotes the nice house rule to be the one you should play is Rules As Balanced (ie a rhino has no business wiping a GMC off the table so easily).

If you are talking about a squadron of Stormsurges with anchors then a single Tank Shock on the center Stormsurge can possibly wipe the whole squadron.

col_impact wrote:
Tank Shock isn't really an attack nor does it inflict Instant Death or remove from play.

The Crunch rule:
"...Any models that cannot manage this are crushed and removed from play as casualties with no saves allowed."

It does inflict "Remove from play". It is certainly possible that you could argue that it isn't an attack. I'm not exactly sure what criteria are needed to qualify it as an Attack. Since it can generate casualties, I think of it as an Attack, but don't have explicit rules to back that up.

tag8833 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Tank Shock isn't really an attack nor does it inflict Instant Death or remove from play.

The Crunch rule:
"...Any models that cannot manage this are crushed and removed from play as casualties with no saves allowed."

It does inflict "Remove from play". It is certainly possible that you could argue that it isn't an attack. I'm not exactly sure what criteria are needed to qualify it as an Attack. Since it can generate casualties, I think of it as an Attack, but don't have explicit rules to back that up.

I am agreeing with a house rule that sees it as a remove from play attack, since it's a balanced way of going about patching a hole in the rules. It's intuitive to consider it as an attack, but there is no rule designating it as such.

Technically, what happens is the rhino has permission to be on the battlefield where the Stormsurge was anchored and the Stormsurge no longer has permission to be where it was. It must move, but it cannot move. It suffers a remove from play effect that isn't the result of an attack, but of a movement that the rhino had permission to make and of a movement that it must but cannot make.

Actually, in the BRB, tank shock is considered an attack. Page 92 under Death or Glory it states, "if a unit that has been attacked by the tank shock".
Personally i thought the same thing with stopping the tank at 1" away. I still can not find anything that would allow a save (even invulnerable saves) but I could see it as being reasonable. As the rules read, for example, a terminator making a death or glory fails, he is removed from play.
Talking to my group we will house rule it if it ever comes up. Probably allowing the invulnerable save it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, the crunch rule negates saves, but i don't think GW thought people would tank shock a GC. :-)

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. Any models that cannot manage this are crushed and removed
from play as casualties with no saves allowed. Crunch!

replacing the word "this" in the last sentence with the details from the second last sentence gives

Any models that cannot manage moving 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, are removed.

-When you look at it like this it actually seems to support the more aggressive version of the reading:

Removing the text within the commas gives:

Any models that cannot manage moving out the way by the shortest distance are removed.

The text in the commas, according to http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm, are "parenthetical elements"

a part of a sentence that can be removed without changing the essential meaning of that sentence. The parenthetical element is sometimes called "added information."

So...if the part in the commas is "added information" then:

-must move the shortest distance
-must also stay 1" away from the vehicle
-must also maintain coherency
-must also remain on the board

Thoughts?

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:



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?

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?


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.