Pancake part #2: Will they even become flattened?

[wkz]

Part 1: Skimmer tankshocking through friendly units (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=14255)
The article which spawned all of the above: the Pancake (http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2011/03/spacecurves-tactics-class-research-and.html)

While discussing if a Skimmer can even tankshock by flying over the heads of their allies, another point came up in the thread: Will the units getting pancaked even die at all?


BRB:
- 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 1" between them and the vehicle and maintaining unit coherency

Arguments for/against:
- For: One of the most basic of rules: Enemy models count as impassable terrain. You just simply cannot move past enemy models because of that.

- Against: The tankshocking vehicle is ALSO impassable terrain, technically. Depends on how you read "moved out of the way by the shortest distance", it can have the interpretation: move to nearest LEGAL location. Which is outside the circle.

Note that the T guy even noted: nowhere in the rulebook even discusses what happens in this case, whereas other cases of mandatory movement has a "dead" condition written in (Can't disembark out of vehicle? Dead. Can't fallback without doubling back? Dead. )

Discuss.

[DarkLink]

I didn't really look over the thread on this (where'd it go?), so I don't know what it covered, but here's a couple things.

1. Tank Shock replaces normal movement.

"the player can declare the the vehicle is going to attempt to make a tank shock attack instead of moving normally" BRB pg 68

So you cannot move a vehicle, then tank shock. This is important because of:

2. You cannot pass over friendly models during a tank shock.

"Remember, though, that friendly models still cannot be moved through, so a tank shock cannot be attempted if friendly models are in the way" BRB pg 68.


So even though a skimmer could normally move over friendly models during its regular movement, it cannot do so during a tank shock. A tank shock is not a normal movement, and specifically disallows moving over friendly models. During their normal movement, skimmers can move over friendly models, but a tank shock is not a normal movement so it does not apply (I'll point out that the same rule that allows skimmers to move over other models is the same rule that specifies that they cannot end their movement on top of other models, so if one applies then the other must as well).



Tank shocking over friendly models is not a legal move, even with skimmers. As a result, it is effectively impossible to block in an enemy unit the way the article describes.



And that's not even getting into what happens to the unit that is forced to move. That's a whole different issues there.

[JxKxR]

@ Darklink

Yeah that's what I said, but apparently it has been revised via the FAQ so that skimmers can tank shock over friendlys. Although if you are going strictly by the book I am totally with you.

[eldargal]

That been covered in the other thread Darklink, and GWs FAQ indicates that you can tank shock skimmers over friendly troops, and it is consistent with other intepretations ofthe rules. Namely the skimmer movement rule overriding the general tank shock rule.

I really can't see why pancaked models would die.

[JxKxR]

I'm just going to recomend to my group (if it ever happens) then the tank shocked unit that has to move out of the circle takes a dangerous terrain test to "teleport" out of it. That's fair right? They have to crawl over the enemy.

Space wolf to Dark Eldar: "Hey can you give me boost?":p

[Bean]

There's no provision in the rules for the models being destroyed--though it seems odd, following the rules requires that the models be "teleported" to the nearest safe spot, as jxkxr suggests.

[Fellend]

One solution if somewhat annoying is simply moving the dark eldar first. Because if the SM needs to move one inch to a safe distance then the DE needs to do the same.

As there is no rule that say that they die I can't see why this wouldn't be a solution

[Lemt]

Not really a rule, but there's some precedent. Mawlocs can push units when they arrive via DS, and if those units can't be moved because there's not enough space, they're removed as casualties.

[AngelsofDeath]

Ok instead of reading and treating each paragraph as its own point, read them together as a story almost. You do not use the vehicles normal movement, you have to guess and state the distance you will travel (IE.. 11 inches), if the enemy is reached at 7inches you perform a tank shock, that unit roles morale and follows the results, if it fails moral you continue moving the last 4inches since you declared 11inches, if during that final move to go 11inches and models would end up underneath the vehicle you do not tank shock the same unit twice and do not count them as running them down, they are moved 1inch from the vehicle but maintain unit coherency.

This is so that if for example you are tank shocking directly towards your enemys deployment zone, you have declared 11inch movement, tank shocked an enemy unit at 7inches, the unit fails moral and runs 3inches, but the tank has to move its final 4inches for a total of 11inches, catches the unit at 10inches and actutally is parked on top of them at 11inches, you do not destroy the unit, you just move them.

[AngelsofDeath]

I didn't really look over the thread on this (where'd it go?), so I don't know what it covered, but here's a couple things.

1. Tank Shock replaces normal movement.

"the player can declare the the vehicle is going to attempt to make a tank shock attack instead of moving normally" BRB pg 68

So you cannot move a vehicle, then tank shock. This is important because of:

2. You cannot pass over friendly models during a tank shock.

"Remember, though, that friendly models still cannot be moved through, so a tank shock cannot be attempted if friendly models are in the way" BRB pg 68.

Tank shock is not a normal movement, you are correct. First you have to declare how far you are going to move and then move straight forward. The tank shock makes you guess/declare how far you are going to move, unlike a normal move and then you can not turn but must go straight. In a regular move you can just go ahead and move how you want turning and such as long as you do not go over the vehicles movement rate. It does not say on pg. 68 that it supersedes a vehicles characteristics. The skimmer does not place down some wheels an rolls over the ground. It is still a skimmer and by being one it may go over models and terrain. You are not moving THROUGH them at all but over. As far as I can tell you can tank shock through difficult terrain, would you make a skimmer take a difficult terrain test if it passed through difficult terrain on its way to the enemy?

I think people are just reading each little bit of each paragraph to compile an argument in their favor. If it does not say you can not do it, or mention that a rule in some way supresedes that rule then it can be done. People are trying to take rules away to prove their point.

[spacecurves]

Hey guys,

Spacecurves here again. I think that as the rules stand right now, the pancake special presents an unresolvable situation. I think there is just as much reason to say the models underneath the tank die, as there is to say they "ooze" through the surrounding units to safety.

BUT

Even though I think you CAN currently do this, you certainly SHOULDN'T be able to! The game designed obviously did not intend for me to crush thundercav under my paper airplanes.

I've been in contact with many of the people on the INAT rules council, and I think it is very likely they will resolve this in the next edition of the INAT. After that point at least, tournaments using the INAT won't be hijacked by pancake arguments.

[Denzark]

Many people call INAT flawed, or worse. As for me, I can't either make it fit the rules or not, but can't see it is intending to be in either the spirit of the rules or good sportsmanship, I would tell anyone stupid or nasty enough to try this to jog right on.

[JxKxR]

@ spacecurves

Well it's nice to see when you unleash this sort of craziness into our world you take a little bit of responsibility for it.:)

[hisdudeness]

The rules are pretty clear on this part of the issue. Being killed is in no way supported by the rules.

But it is a moot point, this situation cannot happen anyways.

[Tynskel]

The rules are pretty clear on this part of the issue. Being killed is in no way supported by the rules.

But it is a moot point, this situation cannot happen anyways.

Yeah, when something dies, the rulebook clearly states that something dies. A really good example is Flat Out Forced Disembarkation in the same turn you moved Flat Out. The rules state under disembarking that if a model cannot disembark it is removed from the game, and the rules for Flat Out state you cannot disembark if you moved flat out in that movement phase. (ie the next player turn your model is no longer moving flat out for the purposes of disembarking).

[DarkLink]

Right. There's no universal rule that "if you can't place a model for some reason it dies". There are a bunch of specific rules for each case, many of which are different. This case doesn't really have a rule governing it, so we can't assume that the squad dies.

[wkz]

....
I've been in contact with many of the people on the INAT rules council, and I think it is very likely they will resolve this in the next edition of the INAT. After that point at least, tournaments using the INAT won't be hijacked by pancake arguments.

Would be interesting to see what they come up with...


Many people call INAT flawed, or worse. As for me, I can't either make it fit the rules or not, but can't see it is intending to be in either the spirit of the rules or good sportsmanship, I would tell anyone stupid or nasty enough to try this to jog right on.
a) The INAT may have some questionable judgements in it, but it at the very least has one thing over GW's FAQs: it covers quite a LOT MORE bases and situations then GW will ever deign to try... (and talking about questionable judgements, GW's FAQs have their share of it)


B) So I can't sit around the campfire as my Falcon burns those weedy Thunderwolf Calvary with the power of an eldar falcon and its engine of suns?

Just a note that I don't know you, so I don't know if this apply, but I've noticed every time someone brings up "spirit of the rules or good sportsmanship" in their favor, there's this feeling I wouldn't play well with him regardless of his actual position... and that, due to "spirit of the rules or good sportsmanship" as a matter of fact...

[AngelsofDeath]

I see this as a really great discussion by people who enjoy Warhammer 40K. If you contribute to it in a positive educated manor points can be made which cause players to look at things from multiple points of view. Posts like this bring up realistic actions that may occur on a gaming table top that is being played by possibly millions world wide. So far most have made strong points for or against this type of tank shock in one way or another, and I look forward to some official rules call.

But if you are just going to just troll the forums and look to spread negativity, this we can do without.

[JxKxR]

I see this as a really great discussion by people who enjoy Warhammer 40K. If you contribute to it in a positive educated manor points can be made which cause players to look at things from multiple points of view. Posts like this bring up realistic actions that may occur on a gaming table top that is being played by possibly millions world wide. So far most have made strong points for or against this type of tank shock in one way or another, and I look forward to some official rules call.

But if you are just going to just troll the forums and look to spread negativity, this we can do without.

Well said man. I've fliped floped on this one a few times and seen it on both sides, and it's been great. I've loved this little brain teaser and I really like how most of us have come to an understanding and found some measure of middle ground, unlike that horror of a thread about assaults.