Hey folks, I had an interesting happenstance at a friendly game this weekend, which even after the game we couldn't figure out what should really happen. We had a large blast land on two troop units that were entirely within a Void Shield. After scatter we decided that there were 10 models hit, across 2 different units. Now the rules for void shields state that if a unit gets hit while under a void shield, the shield gets hit instead. So the question is, since a blast is only firing one shot, does the void shield only get hit once, or 10 times?

Assuming the void shield only takes one hit, what happens to the hits on the second unit if the hit from the first fail to bring down all the void shields? The rules tell us the void shield should get hit instead, but the void shield has already been hit from the blast once... It seems like no matter what we do we are breaking a rule.

Thanks for the replies!

-James

RAW, 10 times

But honestly, I'd walk away from any player who attempted to pull that one on me.

10 times. Don't stick infantry underneath the shield

If the unit gets hit INSTEAD hit the shield - not and hit the unit and then the shield. It is clear but people says you hit the unit and the shield then the unit. That makes no grammatical sense,

It is clear if you hit ANYTHING instead hit an AV 12 shield. INSTEAD being the key work and not and.

People want to hit the unit AND the shield not just the shield.

If a target takes a hit INSTEAD hit the shield. Clear as day.

Yes, and the target too 10 hits. Instead the shield gets hit, 10 times.

Anything else isn't following the actual written rules

How can you hit the target if you INSTEAD hit an AV 12 shield? Your hiting the unit and the shield.

And we've been through you basic misunderstanding of this process before.

The SHOOTING ATTACK hits the shield. The SHOOTING ATTACK is a blast so to determine if. It hits a target you place the blast over. This generates a number of hits. These hits - which are still part of the he shooting attack - instead hit the shield.

You seem to think you stop the process before calculating the number of hits, which is wrong. Until you calculate the number of hits you have not HIT with a blast marker.

Your way also doesn't work, as a blast can't hit a special rule. So your made up single hit is even less secure an interpretation, as the number if hits has to be undefined.

You are hitting the unit and the shield. If I am told instead of going to work stay home. I don't go to work then go home.

Instead of hitting the unit hit the shield. You are still hitting the unit instead of the shield then hitting the shield and then hitting the unit.

Bring that to any college professor and ask if I instead hit X do I still get to hit the original target also? The answer is no instead precludes that. That is grammar, Instead is clear doesn't mean and.

There is no way you place blast count the hits then hit shield and then hit the unit again. If the blast hit INSTEAD hit the AV 12 shield. Again it isn't and hit unit then hit the shield then hit the unit again. That really makes no sense hitting twice.

Sigh.

Then blasts can never hit the shields, as you cannot place the blast over the shield as it isn't a unit, meaning you cannot know if it hits.

Of course, that isn't how the actual rules work. After all the VSG rules state if you hit the unit INSTEAD you hit the shield.

So first you have to work out if you hit the unit. Which you do by placing the blast marker and counting the number of models hit

Your shooting attack now has a number of hits associated with it. These hits are intercepted by the shield, and you start to resolve these hits against the shield - otherwise you aren't complying with the rule that the SHOOTING ATTACK - all of it, including the hits you generated - is hitting the shield.

You are failing to support your argument with a single rule, so as per the tenets will be ignored in future.

Oh, and your crap work / home analogy doesn't exactly replicate the situation, does it? Not even close.

Extensive discussion here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/570101.page

Each weapon shot does 1 hit on the Void Shield, yes. So his large blast takes down the Shield. Any other weapons (or other blasts) then hit the units as normal.

If you had more than 1 shield, he would need more shots to Glance/Pen before anything is resolved on the Unit(s).

Wrong. Really, just wrong

If I shoot an auto cannon at the unit, and get two hits, then two shots from one weapon have hit the shield, not one as you erroneously state.

If you fire a blast, then to determine if you hit a unit inside the shield you HAVE to place the blast and count hits. Failure to do so means you are breaking rules, and thus your argument cannot be RAW.

AS such please edit your post to note it is "hywpi" , as per the tenets of this forum.

The blast can hit the shield b/c it tells you to instead resolve it vs an AV 12 target making it the target of the hit not the unit.

You all want to count the hits. I am saying once you hit INSTEAD hit and AV 12 target like the rules states. I think until a FAQ comes out both side will say it is absolutely their way.

The rule states if it HITS instead hit an AV 12 shield. It doesn't say if hits start counting what it hit then go hit the shield. If it HITS you can immediately use to rule to INSTEAD hit an AV 12 target, Why can you not?

So your saying if a blinding venom attack hits my unit under shield it would 1st take an init test then I would resolve the attack against the shield? So the shield blocks the attack but my unit is blind? No b/c you INSTEAD hit the shield you don't count or resolve anything.

Nope it is RaW: SHA, VSG Rule:"Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield."
You are told that your attack has Hit the shield ("hits the projected void shield"). Now resolve Phase 4 & Pen rolls.

As for auto-canon each shot hits the shield, yes. 2x Shot = 2x Hit = 2x Shield Pen. Where is the issue?

Black talos - your assertion that one weapon is one hit. I was showing it wasn't.

Your attack at step three has 10 hits. Why are you only rolling one at step four? RAW you remain incorrect on this,

Mythra - wrong, it still isn't a unit, or a model, so cannot be hit by blasts. At all. So, IF your interpretation were correct you made vsg immune to blast.

Luckily it isn't correct.

What about blinding venom? You never answered b/c it shows your wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Your attack at step three has 10 hits. Why are you only rolling one at step four? RAW you remain incorrect on this,

"Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield."

RaW is clear: I've split the phrase into it's core components.
Red = Requirement 1: Outside the shield
Green = Requirement 2: Score hits (10 from a blast, 1 from an autocanon shot, 1 from a Vulcan Mega-bolter)
Orange = Result: Hit on the VS

Note that the last part does not ask for a roll of the Hit, simply "you have a hit".

Black - sigh. You broke it down, but clearly don't understand the components and the language construction.

Orange shows it "hits" the shield. What hits the shield? The subject is "shooting attack" , so we know the shooting attack hits the shield, and the shooting attack has 10 hits. So, when we resolve the shooting attack against the shield, we resolve the 10 hits first against the shield.

It doesn't say "you have a hit", as you erroneously concluded

Mythra - no, I just didn't continue reading your post to the end, as your first few statements were wrong. You also don't seem to understand the sentence construction.

You take blind checks immediately on being hit, but instead the shield is hit first. So no, it doesn't prove me wrong.

Ok so your blast hits the shield 1st and I agree. Finally we agree.

No, we don't agree. The instead intercepts the hits on the unit onto the shield.

How are you hitting a non-unit, non-model special rule, using the blast rules? Page and paragraph .

 BlackTalos wrote:
Note that the last part does not ask for a roll of the Hit, simply "you have a hit".

You really can't stop making up rules around this, can you?

The rule does not say "you have a hit". It doesnt use the singular anywhere. You made up the words you have in quotes.
Please do not make up rules.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Each weapon shot does 1 hit

That last thread was more than 10 pages showing, proving, demonstrating and supplying examples that this is WRONG.
Has never been correct.
Will never be correct.

Until you can actually prove this is true (a day that will never come) please don't post this incorrect information.

There is no need to reopen this debate, simple read the old one:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/570101.page

Best just ask GW

it would be nice if GW responded to email requests but regardless of if they did nobody on here at least would take it as fact unless it was a screen shot of the email from the design team as a whole with a countermanded GW approved sticker on...even then some would reject it as its just an email and not in an FAQ....

needless to say, within the last debate the one shot = one hit crew couldn't answer how a blast weapon worked or indeed any of the other weapons worked without inventing a rule step out of thin air.

(examples being beam, blast, template)

its just people wanting to use their shields to protect infantry and the rules don't allow it.

it will be possible that GW may alter the wording but I find it unlikely due to the rule being printed in 2/3 books.

that being said if you follow the RAW to the letter it works out like this:

non blast weapons roll to hit, you total the number of hits that the weapon has scored on the unit, you then transfer those hits to the shield due to the instead hits the shield criteria of the projection rule, you then resolve each of those hits sequentially until you either run out of hits or all the shields are down, you then resolve as normal.

blast/beam/template weapons substitute the rolling to hit with placing a template, the total number of models under the template = the number of hits caused by the weapon, those hits are then transferred to the shield as per the criteria of the projection rule, you then resolve each of those hits sequentially until you either run out of hits or all the shields are down, you then resolve as normal.

what people are not getting their heads around is that the shield is protecting each and every model within the unit.

but again, that other thread degenerated into a nu-uh because I said so stamping the feet and digging in heels.

your best bet really is to take the rule for void shields, take the rule for blast/template/beam weapons and then sit down with the shooting phase rules.

read each in turn and draw your own conclusion as you are unlikely to find help online until an FAQ turns up to support one way or the other or even change the wording completely.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, we don't agree. The instead intercepts the hits on the unit onto the shield.

How are you hitting a non-unit, non-model special rule, using the blast rules? Page and paragraph .

Mythra- still waiting for this citation, as per the tenets. Or you can go back and edit your posts to make it clar you are not arguing from a rules basis.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Orange shows it "hits" the shield. What hits the shield? The subject is "shooting attack" , so we know the shooting attack hits the shield, and the shooting attack has 10 hits. So, when we resolve the shooting attack against the shield, we resolve the 10 hits first against the shield.

This is the part the other side of the argument never got:

We know, per Green, that the shooting attack scores 10 hits on the unit. So we know that our 1 Shot, 10 Hits attack is substituted (definition of "instead") by "shooting attack on the shield". No transfer of shots, "hits the projected void shield". Your shooting attack hits the shield.

I guess the main issue that was never solved is this:
"hits the projected void shield" - Hits as and indefinite Verb, not a plural Noun.

A truck hits a car. - Not 10 trucks...
The man hits the door. - Not 10 men...
Any shooting attack hits the Void shield. - Not 10 Hits....

Again, bested by Grammar that some will never get...

If I say: Any truck that hits potholes instead hits my car. - It doesn't matter if there were 2,10 or 20 potholes, there's only 1 Car.

The shooting attack has hit, and has 10 hits.

Cite exact page and para that allows you to ignore these number of hits from the shooting attack, then the page that allows you to make up "1" as the number.

Bested by rules you cannot cite, as well as a failure to understand 40k rules, even when explained.

Oh, and none of your analogies are even close to the same situation. The shooting attack has one of more hits associated to it, yet you are cheating AND making up a rule that only one hit is transferred.

Page, para or concede

RaW: SHA, VSG Rule:"Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield."

1. Any shooting attack that hits a target

2. instead hits the projected void shield.

1) 10 hits.
2) Hit on the shield.

Now please cite exact page and para that allows you to transfer 10 Hits from a Unit to 10 Hits to a Void shield.

The shooting attack has one or more hits associated to it, yet you are cheating AND making up a rule that all hits are transferred.

Page, para or concede

BlackTalos : How do you determine how many hits there are? By rolling to hit the target. What is the target? The unit within the void shield is the target.

Once those hits are determined, the shooting attack instead hits the shield, so we resolve those hitS against the shield instead of the target unit (and we've already determined how many hits there are to be resolved .. and it's not 1 in this particular scenario).

You have no rule or permission to reduce the number of hits to 1 just because you are told to resolve them against the shield instead of the target unit. If you are using the shield as a new target (which is not what the rule says) then you can never hit it because it is not a model, nor a unit.

TL;DR - You have already determined there are 10 hits .. resolve them against the shield instead of the unit

You place blast over unit, roll scatter, determine that one or more models are under hit (i.e. the number of hits on the target)

Only then have you 'hit a target within the shield'.

Or would the blast scattering off the unit STILL 'hit" the shield? That would be silly.

Raw it works fine.

Here is a picture for proof on how void shields work.



As you can see the blast would have wiped out the two individuals kissing, however it instead hits the dome, one time and explodes. When targeting this area, the shooter believed he would wipe out the target and placed his aim on his targets.

Raw we have to use our imagination, and I have thus forth proved how a SHIELD works.

Stormbreed wrote:
Here is a picture for proof on how void shields work.

And there's the picture following the RaW:

Don't you mean RAI with those pictures?

Logically the shield would intercept it before the one shooting attack became a blast.

But RAW would generate hits after scatter then apply those hits to the shield.

Hopefully its faq'd soon as its pretty weak for infantry or clump of stuff you'd actually want to protect from the D

 grendel083 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Here is a picture for proof on how void shields work.

And there's the picture following the RaW:

This is trash, that's not a shield its a chain link fence trying to block a Nuke, gimme a break.

I picture it very differently from a narrative point of view:
The initial shot hits the shield and in that moment the kinetic force from the blast causes it to falter. Being a 40K weapon, it has all sorts of unimaginable killing technicians worked into it that would include things like mono-filament shrapnel, plasma discharge and that is just what we can imagine. In that moment when the shield falters the round does explode, but thanks to the fact the shield has faltered it doesn't keep the rest of the blast out. The expanding ball of plasma and whom knows what else then rains down onto the unit behind the shield anyway, causing a few casualties in doing so.

That doesn't even take into account most anti-armour rounds are designed to explode a second or so after impact.

nuke knight wrote:
Best just ask GW

That's funny.

There are only two responses I've ever received from GW regarding rules. The first one was telling me the customer service email was not for rules inquiries. Fortunately, they gave me the right email address as it's not listed on their site. The second one is a form letter thanking my for the inquiry and lets me know that it's been forwarded to their FAQ team for "possible" inclusion into a FAQ and that no one will get back to me directly.

All very polite..and a complete waste of time. I'd love to have an actual answer on various items even if I couldn't post it here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
I picture it very differently from a narrative point of view:
The initial shot hits the shield and in that moment the kinetic force from the blast causes it to falter. Being a 40K weapon, it has all sorts of unimaginable killing technicians worked into it that would include things like mono-filament shrapnel, plasma discharge and that is just what we can imagine. In that moment when the shield falters the round does explode, but thanks to the fact the shield has faltered it doesn't keep the rest of the blast out. The expanding ball of plasma and whom knows what else then rains down onto the unit behind the shield anyway, causing a few casualties in doing so.

That doesn't even take into account most anti-armour rounds are designed to explode a second or so after impact.

Nice.

Oh that is a nice typo, I think I will keep it in:
All these little people in lab suits and hard hats being scattered out when the round goes off....

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, even Anti-Personal explosives are going down the 'delayed trigger' path. Many modern weapon systems are designed to deliver the grenade or round not towards the target directly, but towards a point above the target. Some do this by having the round simply explode after a period of time, and that period is calculated so it will be above the target when it occurs. Others do it by having the round hit the ground, triggering a small explosive that then propels the grenade upwards before it finally explodes in a ball of shrapnel. Mines have used similar technology for decades now because of one simple fact:

Exploding mid-air has a higher chance of inflicting more casualties.

 BlackTalos wrote:
RaW: SHA, VSG Rule:"Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield."

1. Any shooting attack that hits a target

2. instead hits the projected void shield.

1) 10 hits.
2) Hit on the shield.

You really struggle with this section, don't you

It does not say "hit", it is "hits". As in, the shooting attack hits the shield. As in, the 10 hits in the shooting attack, calculated at step three , are transferred to the shield

You are recalculating the number of hits, when you have no permission to do so.

black talos wrote:Now please cite exact page and para that allows you to transfer 10 Hits from a Unit to 10 Hits to a Void shield.

The shooting attack has one or more hits associated to it, yet you are cheating AND making up a rule that all hits are transferred.

Page, para or concede

Done. I have transferred the shooting attack, entire, to the shield.

You have created a rule that one hit is generated , when there are ten.

Your concession is accepted. Please do not post further without marking your posts as "hywpi" or "rai", as you cannot present an actual rules based argument.

It's almost a trend.

The only trend is your smug harassment of the guy in every thread

The rule is unclear. Thats why its being asked about repeatedly. You are not the end-all authority on an unclear or poorly worded rule nos

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The only trend is your smug harassment of the guy in every thread

The rule is unclear. Thats why its being asked about repeatedly. You are not the end-all authority on an unclear or poorly worded rule nos

I think your lacking a little context although I can see why you would conclude this.

go and read the 10 page thread and see if you still think its unclear.

I still stand by earlier post in this thread though, but I agree with Nos on this one, you have no permission to reduce the number of hits that blast/beam/template weapons cause down to a singular hit, the 'target' of the attack is still the unit, that does not change, the hits caused by the attack hit the shield and template/blast/beam weapons have to cause hits via models, there is literally no difference between an assault 4 weapon that rolls 4 successful hits on a unit of 4 men and a blast weapon that causes 4 hits on the unit of 4 men.

still this is going to degenerate again and I really can't be bothered getting into it, the RAW is there in black and white for those that actually care to read the rulebook.

Jibes and barbs are no substitute for clear explanation of the rules on either side of the debate. If all one can post is "you are wrong as I have already explained" or "that's just your opinion" then one has nothing further to legitimately contribute and the likelihood of posting something that violates Rule Number One of Dakka Dakka appears to increase. Please keep two things in mind, (1) don't let debate about toy soldiers raise your blood pressure and (2) you are writing not just for the people posting in the thread but mostly for the ones who are silently reading the points and making up their own minds. Therefore, be calm and state your explanation so that it is easily understood. Clear up misunderstandings as they arise without clouding things over by contesting egos. Follow this advice to avoid suspensions and educate readers.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The only trend is your smug harassment of the guy in every thread

The rule is unclear. Thats why its being asked about repeatedly. You are not the end-all authority on an unclear or poorly worded rule nos

Except it isn't unclear.

People have an idea of how shields should "logically" work, and are transferring that opinion to this rule set, and twisting rules to make it say what they think th rule should say.

The rule is simple: determine hits, transfer those hits to the shield. This is 100% consistent for all weapons .

@nutty_nutter:

No I read the other thread in its entirety before it devolved into a pissing match. I agree nos is right.

Edited by Manchu. Please see above. Also, tone arguments are irrelevant. If you have a problem with the way someone posts, please use the yellow triangle in the upper right hand corner of their post to bring it the attention of the staff. Thanks!

And I don't believe the intent of the void shields was to make high model count units weaker against d blasts which most d weapons are then low model count units due to funky blast hit generation. As it stands, high count units aren't worth putting under a shield and will die anyways outside of it

I do not think this is the right place or time to air such concerns though, Private Messaging exist for a reason.

@WrentheFaceless

apologies for my presumption and I do agree with the analysis of the thread.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
RaW: SHA, VSG Rule:"Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield."

1. Any shooting attack that hits a target

2. instead hits the projected void shield.

1) 10 hits.
2) Hit on the shield.

You really struggle with this section, don't you

It does not say "hit", it is "hits". As in, the shooting attack hits the shield. As in, the 10 hits in the shooting attack, calculated at step three , are transferred to the shield

You are recalculating the number of hits, when you have no permission to do so.

The number of hits is substituted, as per the dictionary definition of what "Instead" means.
I agree: the shooting attack hits the shield. As in, the 1 shot, 10 hits in the shooting attack, calculated at step three, and mentioned as "hits a target within the Void Shield Zone", IS transferred to the shield.

The 10 hits have hit the target. They don't get transferred to the shield (or please quote rules) but substituted by the word "instead" (again, see dictionary) by a hit on the shield.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

black talos wrote:Now please cite exact page and para that allows you to transfer 10 Hits from a Unit to 10 Hits to a Void shield.

The shooting attack has one or more hits associated to it, yet you are cheating AND making up a rule that all hits are transferred.

Page, para or concede

Done. I have transferred the shooting attack, entire, to the shield.

You have created a rule that one hit is generated , when there are ten.

Your concession is accepted. Please do not post further without marking your posts as "hywpi" or "rai", as you cannot present an actual rules based argument.

It's almost a trend.

Where? You have quoted the grand total of Nothing
Page, para or concede
Clear
you have conceded, i put a clear quote right from the SHA book as first line and that line does not have the word "transfer", sorry...

WrentheFaceless wrote:You are not the end-all authority on an unclear or poorly worded rule nos

Argument it correctly and with Rules support, maybe you'll get somewhere...

 Manchu wrote:
Jibes and barbs are no substitute for clear explanation of the rules on either side of the debate. If all one can post is "you are wrong as I have already explained" or "that's just your opinion" then one has nothing further to legitimately contribute and the likelihood of posting something that violates Rule Number One of Dakka Dakka appears to increase. Please keep two things in mind, (1) don't let debate about toy soldiers raise your blood pressure and (2) you are writing not just for the people posting in the thread but mostly for the ones who are silently reading the points and making up their own minds. Therefore, be calm and state your explanation so that it is easily understood. Clear up misunderstandings as they arise without clouding things over by contesting egos. Follow this advice to avoid suspensions and educate readers.

Indeed, I have nothing further to legitimately contribute. The RaW as i read it is clear.
As a note, we had a game today at my local GW. BlackShirt confirmed exactly what 50% of people say here: 10 hits Blast - 10 Hits shield. Explanation: Blasts are still Blasts that deal many hits, shield or not.

Did his breakdown of the rule convince me? Nope, when i read the following phrase, RaW from Void Shields:
"Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield."
My only conclusion is that the attack hits the shield, just like any attack hits any Rhino, Land Raider, Trukk, Wave Serpent, Monolith or AV12 vehicle that the shield is. 1 armour Pen Roll, regardless of transport capacity or models under the shield.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Here is a picture for proof on how void shields work.

And there's the picture following the RaW:

I bet those templates would have scored about 60 hits each, even Small blasts...
RAI of course

Also, many apologies, i scoured the forum FAQ on how to resize it but failed miserably...

The concept of a shooting attack, which may be a single shot weapon, a blast or a beam, etc.. hitting a target is separate from the concept of 'hits' on the target unit.

If you cause one or more hits on models in a unit then the shooting attack has hit, but that doesn't mean there's only one hit total it could be 100 hits on models in the unit and the shooting attack would still be considered 'to have hit the target'.

Black,
In that picture; Those weapons where clearly below Strength 6, they only caused the shield to flicker even after so many hits.

also you cannot apply real life/other sci-fi settings logics and rules to 40k.

you need to forget about your personal concept of what a shield does and is and apply the rules as they are, not apply a concept of our world or starwars' version of how shields work.

I don't get whats so hard to understand here. The hits on units under the shield are transferred to the shield. If 10 men would be hit by a blast, then instead the shield is hit 10 times. The hits are all transferred before any are resolved. If the shield can only survive one hit then the other 9 hits are lost because we have no permission to transfer the hits to anything else, including back to the original unit. Works no different then if you hit a 10 man squad with 15 hits from a weapon 15 hits from a single weapon, if the 10 men die while resolving the 1st 10 hits then the rest are lost.


edit: for clerirty

 DJGietzen wrote:
I don't get whats so hard to understand here. The hits on units under the shield are transferred to the shield. If 10 men would be hit by a blast, then instead the shield is hit 10 times. The hits are all transferred before any are resolved. If the shield can only survive one hit then the other 9 hits are lost because we have no permission to transfer the hits to anything else, including back to the original unit. Works no different then if you hit a 10 man squad with 15 hits from a weapon, if the 10 men die while resolving the 1st 10 hits then the rest are lost.

it isn't that it is difficult to understand, it is that people want a shield to act how they envision a shield working.

as such this leads to a 1 shot = one hit scenario but the rules do not back that assertion up (at least not without inventing steps in a shooting phase or back tracking without permission).

needless to say that this is just going to go in circles again

Black talos - indeed I quoted the rule, as others have quoted it. You are just ignoring the shooting rules and substituting in your own version of the rules. Clearly not RAW.

The shooting attack has 10 hits. Instead the shooting attack, which has ten hits, hits the shield.

You keep pretending it says "hit". It doesn't .

Your argument is refuted,

I see what each side is Saying. The Blast weapon against multi level buildings would be the only Argumeant in favour here I feel. If a blast marker hit the upper level with 1 space marine, yet covers 9 marines on the lower level. Only 1 hit is generated as you can only allocate to a single level. And in the case of the Shield even though the blast covers 10 models underneath the blast marker. it is on a different level And hit a single target only. the Void shield.

However the void shield is not a unit and as such cannot be targetted so we have no rules giving permission to use those from the Blast markers Vs multi level buildings. And instead have to go with RAW.

And in this occasion, You cannot Hit a shield without first targeting a unit that is underneath it. And as per the rules of the 40k rule book. The blast would in fact hit 10 models. And so those 10 hits are then taken on shield.

We all have to get out of the mind set of the phisical word when we read these rules.

As above. The rules are clear and consistent. It is only when making up rules -that you recalculate the number of hits at step 3- and don't therefore resolve the shooting attack against the shield, but something else made up, that you get into inconsistencies

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Black talos - indeed I quoted the rule, as others have quoted it. You are just ignoring the shooting rules and substituting in your own version of the rules. Clearly not RAW.

The shooting attack has 10 hits. Instead the shooting attack, which has ten hits, hits the shield.

You keep pretending it says "hit". It doesn't .

Your argument is refuted,

For the record, it does say "hit". The use of 'hits' in most of the rule is the singular third person form of the 'hit'. But that does not change that all the hits from a single weapon will all be transferred before any are resolved. Its only further hits generated after the those hits are resolved and the shield collapses that do not get transferred.

Can someone clarify something for me then? I am seeing this as a pretty clear case that you take 10 hits on the shield but one thing has me question it:

"If a shooting attack hits soemthing under the shield, then transfer that hit to the shield".

Ok, Im with ya. Here is where I am confused, and please I apologize if this seems like I am missing something but I really am missing something here :

if a shooting ATTACK hits a unit (so ok our attack hits and would have caught 10 guys under the pie plate, Im with it that far), then transfer the hit to the shield.

To me this seems to read as though we transfer the ATTACK to the shield, not the individual hits? IE - vindicator fires and gets a hit on the squad it shoots, don't we then redirect, not the number of hits, but the attack itself? Thereby if you had only a single blast weapon it would indeed get stopped fully by a single shield, but if you had multiple blasts, say a thunderfire cannon, you would have to resolve each blast separately in order to see which shells got stopped and which ones got through?

Maybe Im overthinking this?

 Gideon999 wrote:
Can someone clarify something for me then? I am seeing this as a pretty clear case that you take 10 hits on the shield but one thing has me question it:

"If a shooting attack hits soemthing under the shield, then transfer that hit to the shield".

Ok, Im with ya. Here is where I am confused, and please I apologize if this seems like I am missing something but I really am missing something here :

if a shooting ATTACK hits a unit (so ok our attack hits and would have caught 10 guys under the pie plate, Im with it that far), then transfer the hit to the shield.

To me this seems to read as though we transfer the ATTACK to the shield, not the individual hits? IE - vindicator fires and gets a hit on the squad it shoots, don't we then redirect, not the number of hits, but the attack itself? Thereby if you had only a single blast weapon it would indeed get stopped fully by a single shield, but if you had multiple blasts, say a thunderfire cannon, you would have to resolve each blast separately in order to see which shells got stopped and which ones got through?

Maybe Im overthinking this?

I think you're spot on! I even posted this pic earlier as proof.



However resolving the 10 hits against the shield could also be RAW correct. I'd play it as I've pictured above. We don't have a RAW step to go back in time, but the picture I just posted is a clear RAI.

Proof? In that picture the blast would have hit what 4000 or so times? But the 4000 hits were transferred to the shield/dome. The pic you posted depicts 4000 hits being resolved and all of them failing to collapse the shield.

 Gideon999 wrote:
Can someone clarify something for me then? I am seeing this as a pretty clear case that you take 10 hits on the shield but one thing has me question it:

"If a shooting attack hits soemthing under the shield, then transfer that hit to the shield".

Ok, Im with ya. Here is where I am confused, and please I apologize if this seems like I am missing something but I really am missing something here :

if a shooting ATTACK hits a unit (so ok our attack hits and would have caught 10 guys under the pie plate, Im with it that far), then transfer the hit to the shield.

To me this seems to read as though we transfer the ATTACK to the shield, not the individual hits? IE - vindicator fires and gets a hit on the squad it shoots, don't we then redirect, not the number of hits, but the attack itself? Thereby if you had only a single blast weapon it would indeed get stopped fully by a single shield, but if you had multiple blasts, say a thunderfire cannon, you would have to resolve each blast separately in order to see which shells got stopped and which ones got through?

Maybe Im overthinking this?

But it does not say transfer the attack .. it says transfer the hit.

What did you hit? You hit something under the shield, correct?
Oh, you hit that something with a blast? How many hit(s) did the blast generate? Transfer them to the shield because that's what the rule tells you to do.

I was always under the impression blast templates only hit once. On anything.

You nominate the target.
You place the blast template.
You roll scatter dice to see if it 'hits'. (it either scatters or hits)
<---- this is where the void shield would interrupt and absorb the hit ---->
Once the blast is in its final location, count the models under it. (these are not hits)
You now allocate wounds to X number of models under the template.
Roll X dice to wound.
Models have X dice to save wounds.
Remove casualties.
Leadership rolls.

Does the BRB use the word 'hit' when allocating wounds to models under the template?

To me, hit only refers to the location of where the template scatters.

 deviantduck wrote:
I was always under the impression blast templates only hit once. On anything.


Once the blast is in its final location, count the models under it. (these are not hits)
You now allocate wounds to X number of models under the template.

Starting with Pg 6 of the BRB, "To work out the number of hits, you normally need to hold the template over an enemy unit or a particular point on the battlefield,
and then look underneath (or through, if using a transparent template) to see how many models' bases lie partially or
completely underneath. A unit takes a hit for each model that is fully, or even partially, underneath the template"

And Pg 33 "Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above - the unit suffers one hit for each model with its base fully or partially
beneath the blast marker"

If you're not counting the number of models under the template to determine "hits" then how do you know how many wounds to allocate?
You also don't necessarily allocate wounds to the models under the template. You allocate starting with the closest to the firing unit (except for barrage of course), even if they aren't under the template.

So yes, the blast template is used to determine # of hits, it does not in and of itself hit only once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deviantduck wrote:

You roll scatter dice to see if it 'hits'. (it either scatters or hits)

And this part .. if you roll a Hit! on the scatter die that does not indicate hits .. it indicates your blast does not scatter. Notice the way they use the word "Hit!" in the description. And besides, according to Blast and Large Blast "When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit", so clearly the "Hit!" result on a scatter die is not rolling to hit, it is determining scatter/final position of the marker.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deviantduck wrote:

Does the BRB use the word 'hit' when allocating wounds to models under the template?

No the BRB tells you to use the models under the template to determine the number of hits. Then allocate and resolve wounds as normal (starting from closest model to the firing unit)

You nominate the target.
You place the blast template.
You roll scatter dice to see if it 'hits'. (it either scatters or hits) where the blast template's final location will be.
<---- this is where the void shield would interrupt and absorb the hit ----> If a Hit! is rolled the template does not move but has still technically scattered
Once the blast is in its final location, count the models under it. (these are not hits as per "the unit suffers one hit for each model with its base fully or partially beneath the blast marker")
You now allocate wounds to X number of models under the template. <---- this is where the void shield would interrupt and all X hits are transferred to the shield ---->
Roll X dice to wound penetrate .

DJ - I disagree that excess are lost, as it tells you to resolve against the original target once the shields are down. That can only work from a single attack dropping the shield

It tells you to resolve further hits against the original target. Sense all these hits came from a single shot and are generated at the same exact time they are not further hits. I would would, however, agree that multiple shots from a single weapon, like a heavy 3 weapon, could bring down the shield with out loosing the excess hits because those hits are generated one at a time. Keep in mind I understand all the shooting attacks are technically simultaneous but this is a situation where the mechanics of the game determine if a hit is indeed a 'further hit'.

 Gideon999 wrote:
To me this seems to read as though we transfer the ATTACK to the shield, not the individual hits? IE - vindicator fires and gets a hit on the squad it shoots, don't we then redirect, not the number of hits, but the attack itself? Thereby if you had only a single blast weapon it would indeed get stopped fully by a single shield, but if you had multiple blasts, say a thunderfire cannon, you would have to resolve each blast separately in order to see which shells got stopped and which ones got through?

Maybe Im overthinking this?

No, that's exactly how quite a few people read the rule. Other seem to invent a part where you "transfer all the Hits over", but they've never quoted rules for this or shown where the "Transfer" comes from...

And you example is right: A weapon that's Heavy 5, Blast would indeed have 5 attempts at the shield.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
also you cannot apply real life/other sci-fi settings logics and rules to 40k.

you need to forget about your personal concept of what a shield does and is and apply the rules as they are, not apply a concept of our world or starwars' version of how shields work.

Jumped on that picture like wolves on fresh meat =p
Lucky i clearly said it was RaI - or HIWPI even...
But let's get back to RaW because that's where it actually says, "Hits the shield"

Rorschach9 wrote:
But it does not say transfer the attack .. it says transfer the hit.

Oh, so wrong: "Any shooting attack that (...) instead hits the projected void shield." It says attack. And no word "transfer".

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DJ - I disagree that excess are lost, as it tells you to resolve against the original target once the shields are down. That can only work from a single attack dropping the shield

That would be a clear infraction of Blast Raw: "The unit suffers one hit for each model with its base (...) beneath the blast marker" If you intercept just 1, you now break that statement.
But feel free to use your interpretation, we'll be playing by the Rules ;-)

only your interpretation of a single hit has no rules basis.

as has been said time and again:

1 shot does not = one hit in all instances

a shooting attack comprises of a collection of hits

the void shield rules cannot instigate until you have determined the number of hits for the shooting attack

there is no permission within the void shield rules to re-calculate or revisit the step within the shooting phase rules that calculates the number of hits, as such you must work with what you already have generated.

the target of the attack is always the unit, the use of the word instead, when applied in context, is for the resolution of the attack which is resolved against an AV12 shield instead of whatever was being targeted, the target however remains the unit that was shot at.

true there is no use of the word transfer, but there is also no use of the word intercept either.

please also keep in mind that your interpretation breaks the blast/beam/template rules not mine, mine works fine I have X hits where X is the number of models under the template, I have express permission to resolve those hits against an AV 12 shield and any remaining are to go back on the unit I originally shot at, the blast rules do not require that the number of hits caused has to all be resolved on the targeted unit if another rule interferes, only that a number of hits are generated = to the number of models underneath the template/invisible line.

and yes, of course an irrelevant picture was going to be commented upon when it was being submitted as a basis for a rule that does not function like that, the fact is intended or not, that is not how it works RAW, feel free to house rule it how you like but in a RAW fashion it does not function that way.

also Talos, just because you ignore the people that have shown you the rules, broken it down for you and proven with examples that the hits are the composition of a shooting attack that instead hits the shield does not mean they are making it up, it means you refuse to listen.

but to ensure a complete posting:

p6 and 33 of the BRB concerning blast/template weapons: these cause a number of hits = to the models under the template after scatter, you roll for scatter in lieu of rolling to hit.

p69 beam weapons: these cause a hit = to the number of models underneath the invisible line between 2 points, this has since been FAQ'd to state the line is 1" in width.

p31 Strong Hold Assault: Projected void shields:

this is the crux of the matter, the summery as to do otherwise breaks the rules of the forum:

a shield is considered AV12

a shooting attack originating outside of 12" from the generator on a unit that is within 12" of the generator will hit a shield instead of the targeted unit.

Shooting Phase: BRB p12: 5 step process to a shooting attack: nomination of a unit to shoot, choosing a target, rolling to hit, rolling to wound/rolling to penetrate (added later in the vehicle section on p73/74), allocating wounds & removing casualties/resolving vehicle damage.


conclusion:


the void shield cannot be hit instead until the rolls to hit have been made, it is too late at that point to reduce the number of hits that have been generated by any weapon of any type as they have already been rolled for/calculated, blast/beam/template weapons replace the rolling to hit part with placing a template/scattering a template/drawing an invisible line between two points to work out how many have hit just like an assault 20 weapon rolls 20 dice to see how many out of 20 have hit. the number of hits cannot be effected once they have been resolved and void shields do not allow a recalculation of those hits.

Black talos - still no rules support for not resolving the shooting attack against the blast, but something else instead? Cool story, I'll stick with the rules, you can play the version which makes rules up instead.

This again? uggg. ALL hits must be transfered RAW. # of hits must be determined for the VSG rule tobe activated. Hits are part of the shooting attack. VSG rule says the ATTACK is transfered to the shield. That would be the entire attack, including the hits that have already been generated. Using the blast template for generating a number of hits on a unit is the same thing as rolling a number of dice for an assualt weapon. The rules say nothing of "shots." People keepin getting hung up on the whole "common sense" idea that "1 shot = one hit," which has zero rules support. "Common sense" is not a viable argument in a game that makes no sense to begin with. We have only one way of generating hits for a blast weapon and it must be used. No permission is granted to throw the required hits away, or reduce their number to 1.

am I the only one not the least bit surprised that a tool called a void shield is shielded by the void of terribly misconceptualised rules?

LOL! Yeah I actually bought stronghold assault so I could read the rules directly, and they are STUPID. Standard GW stuff of course. I can now actually see a case where both camps are correct AND wrong (and before anyone leaps to their keyboards to tell me what an awful statement that is, I agree!).

So my friends and I have a HIWPI idea to deal with it instead. We are going to take the blast that "hits" and measure out to where the void shield actually would and resolve the blast there. From a fluff/narrative perspective it just seems silly that a blast that theoretically would have hit 10 guys "over there somewhere" would still hit them if the shell first hit a shield. But it also doesnt make sens that things sitting under that new place shouldnt get hit now.

So we will run the blast like anything that is under the template at the new location, but outside the shield, is hit like normal. The shield will block the blast on the inside location unless enough hits are done to strip all the void layers, at which point units under that part of the template are now hit as well. To see how many hits the shield takes, we use the number of layers (so a 2 layer shield gets hit twice).

Seems a lot more RAI and fun to us for the beer and pretzels games, and for the competitive environment basically just gonna have to only shield single models or just take an Aegis...

So if I have a shooting attack that causes 10 hits on a unit that is within the Void Shield Projection how many times is the void shield hit and what?

You have to treat it like a building or a vehicle with units in it. Hence, 1 shot is equal to 1 hit unless the specific rule for the weapons states otherwise.

Its the same as a vehicle carrying troops on the inside. If you place a template on it, then you don't do as many hits to the vehicle as there are troops inside it. You do only 1 hit regardless of how many models are directly under the template.

Dont think this thread needed a bump as the bigger thread was already locked

I was just answering the last question on this thread. Since it was unanswered. And, as such, my answer should end this debate and thread as well.

Yet your answer is incorrect and lacks any rule support.
Just as it was incorrect in the recently locked thread.

Its only incorrect to those that believe that 1 shot causes 7,233,532 hits like you. Hahahaha go make up your rules somewhere else.

Obviously, just like in a bunker or a vehicle 1 shot causes 1 hit unless the weapon profile states otherwise. Not as many hits as there are inside a vehicle or bunker.

Its obvious this is too complicated for you.

 CveleZT wrote:
Its only incorrect to those that believe that 1 shot causes 7,233,532 hits like you. Hahahaha go make up your rules somewhere else.

Obviously, just like in a bunker or a vehicle 1 shot causes 1 hit unless the weapon profile states otherwise. Not as many hits as there are inside a vehicle or bunker.

Its obvious this is too complicated for you.

Still you use insults instead of any actual rules?

There is no rule anywhere that says 1 shot = 1 hit
Can you supply one?

No rule says to treat the shield as a vehicle with a unit inside.
Can you supply one?

Instead of insults, and digging up old threads just to get the last (incorrect) word in, how about trying to be polite, and actually supply some rules to back up your claims?

Lol watch, I can do that too:

Show me the rule that says all shots = multiple hits

Show me the rule that says dont treat the shield like a bunker

Come on? You are ignoring the 12'' radius of the SHIELD. Its a dome!

What I am saying is correct because thats how it works for those units as well. Since it clearly says shots outside a 12" radius hit the shield instead. Then it implies its a dome. Hence... you are wrong. Which is not an insult. Its a fact.

Give it up because you are just grasping at straws with you arguments. Which are simply like a child crying show me show me show me.

These are the mechanics of the game. Period. You are wrong.

If you don't hit troops inside a vehicle or a bunker then you don't hit them under a shield. Because they give you the rule that there is a 12'' radius. Obviously you are choosing to ignore this very important part of the rule for VSG.

I've given examples showing you are incorrect. Examples showing a single shot can generate multiple hits.

You've made wild statements without ever backing up a single one. Not one.

You failed to provide a rule in the last thread, so you just dig up an old one to paste in more theories without any rule support?

Follow the rules of the forum. Support your claim.

 CveleZT wrote:
Its only incorrect to those that believe that 1 shot causes 7,233,532 hits like you. Hahahaha go make up your rules somewhere else.

Obviously, just like in a bunker or a vehicle 1 shot causes 1 hit unless the weapon profile states otherwise. Not as many hits as there are inside a vehicle or bunker.

Its obvious this is too complicated for you.

Just a few friendly reminders:

 Lorek wrote:
1. Rule #1 is Be Polite! It's easy!
6. No Thread Necromancy. If a thread is more than a month old, leave it alone. If you're really interested in the topic, start a new thread! There are exceptions, like updates to modelling blogs or threads in forums that don't get much traffic, but in general bringing back old threads is simply annoying to the bulk of the posters who have already moved on.

 Lorek wrote:
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

 grendel083 wrote:
I've given examples showing you are incorrect. Examples showing a single shot can generate multiple hits.

You've made wild statements without ever backing up a single one. Not one.

You failed to provide a rule in the last thread, so you just dig up an old one to paste in more theories without any rule support?

Follow the rules of the forum. Support your claim.

LOL I have. You just choose to ignore them. 12 inch radius directly in the VSG rule. Read it again and again and again and again...

Hence treat it like a bunker with an AV12.

Show me the rules I asked you otherwise just concede.

"Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield"

Honestly sounds to me like it should hit the shield and once instead of the squad ten times. I'm sure if its generated this sort of nonsense there must be more to it than this, but that does look pretty straightforward

That said, CveleZT I don't see any rules support for "treat it like a bunker" or whatever.

 Happyjew wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
Its only incorrect to those that believe that 1 shot causes 7,233,532 hits like you. Hahahaha go make up your rules somewhere else.

Obviously, just like in a bunker or a vehicle 1 shot causes 1 hit unless the weapon profile states otherwise. Not as many hits as there are inside a vehicle or bunker.

Its obvious this is too complicated for you.

Just a few friendly reminders:

 Lorek wrote:
1. Rule #1 is Be Polite! It's easy!
6. No Thread Necromancy. If a thread is more than a month old, leave it alone. If you're really interested in the topic, start a new thread! There are exceptions, like updates to modelling blogs or threads in forums that don't get much traffic, but in general bringing back old threads is simply annoying to the bulk of the posters who have already moved on.

 Lorek wrote:
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

Hahaha so you can say someone is wrong but when someone tells you you are wrong you get offended. Please. Get a life.

I provided my rule its right in the VSG entry. States 12 inch radius. Which means up down left right. Like a dome.

If you dont have the book you should not comment on this thread. As you are not reading the actual rule. I am and am providing you the facts for all my arguments. You just choose to ignore them.

Now instead of asking me to repeat myself how about YOU provide the rule that proves me wrong? Go on please, humor me.

Otherwise you posting this above is simply just sour grapes because you dont have an argument or a rule to back up your claims.

Sounds good?

 CveleZT wrote:
LOL I have. You just choose to ignore them. 12 inch radius directly in the VSG rule. Read it again and again and again and again...

Hence treat it like a bunker with an AV12.

Show me the rules I asked you otherwise just concede.

Concede? Based on wild theories with no rules support at all?
The one and only way I'll concede is if you demonstrate, using rules, that your position is correct. No other way.

And from what your proposing that is an impossibility.

Yes it has a 12" radius. So far the only correct thing in your posts.
Treat it like a bunker? You mean ignore the actual rules and do something not written?

So the shield can be assaulted? Since it's a bunker?
So the shield can be shot? Without targeting another unit? Since it's a bunker?

Oh and I still no rule posted for your "1 shot = 1 hit" theory. Is it because no rule exists?

 Dakkamite wrote:
"Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield"

Honestly sounds to me like it should hit the shield and once instead of the squad ten times. I'm sure if its generated this sort of nonsense there must be more to it than this, but that does look pretty straightforward

That said, CveleZT I don't see any rules support for "treat it like a bunker" or whatever.

Im only referring to "treat it like a bunker" as to units concealed within it. If you agree that the shield only takes one hit from a template weapon then thats exactly how you treat a bunker or a vehicle.

Nothing else.

Ah I see the problem now. You pick a target, roll to scatter, and then the final location generates 'hits' which get re-allocated to the shield

Frankly that leads to a rather absurd result, but that does seem to be the result that it leads to.

But when did I start caring about RaW anyway?

 grendel083 wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
LOL I have. You just choose to ignore them. 12 inch radius directly in the VSG rule. Read it again and again and again and again...

Hence treat it like a bunker with an AV12.

Show me the rules I asked you otherwise just concede.

Concede? Based on wild theories with no rules support at all?
The one and only way I'll concede is if you demonstrate, using rules, that your position is correct. No other way.

And from what your proposing that is an impossibility.

Yes it has a 12" radius. So far the only correct thing in your posts.
Treat it like a bunker? You mean ignore the actual rules and do something not written?

So the shield can be assaulted? Since it's a bunker?
So the shield can be shot? Without targeting another unit? Since it's a bunker?

Oh and I still no rule posted for your "1 shot = 1 hit" theory. Is it because no rule exists?

Obviously I was referring only to treating it like a bunker to units within its range. But I see again that's WAY to complicated for you.

Here is something simple enough, shield takes only 1 hit from a template weapon unless the profile of the weapon specifically says so. Regardless of how many troops are under it.

Again you haven't shown me the rule that say it takes any more than that. You are just as you say... imagining and inventing rules that don't exist without proving anything to back up your argument.

So as you say show me?

 CveleZT wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
Its only incorrect to those that believe that 1 shot causes 7,233,532 hits like you. Hahahaha go make up your rules somewhere else.

Obviously, just like in a bunker or a vehicle 1 shot causes 1 hit unless the weapon profile states otherwise. Not as many hits as there are inside a vehicle or bunker.

Its obvious this is too complicated for you.

Just a few friendly reminders:

 Lorek wrote:
1. Rule #1 is Be Polite! It's easy!
6. No Thread Necromancy. If a thread is more than a month old, leave it alone. If you're really interested in the topic, start a new thread! There are exceptions, like updates to modelling blogs or threads in forums that don't get much traffic, but in general bringing back old threads is simply annoying to the bulk of the posters who have already moved on.

 Lorek wrote:
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

Hahaha so you can say someone is wrong but when someone tells you you are wrong you get offended. Please. Get a life.

I provided my rule its right in the VSG entry. States 12 inch radius. Which means up down left right. Like a dome.

If you dont have the book you should not comment on this thread. As you are not reading the actual rule. I am and am providing you the facts for all my arguments. You just choose to ignore them.

Now instead of asking me to repeat myself how about YOU provide the rule that proves me wrong? Go on please, humor me.

Otherwise you posting this above is simply just sour grapes because you dont have an argument or a rule to back up your claims.

Sounds good?

Somebody saying I'm wrong does not bother me. I've been corrected numerous times in this forum, including on things regarding units I use, in the armies I play (rather recently I might add). What annoys me, is:
a) People being impolite. Sure I could click on the yellow triangle of friendliness and alert a mod, but why waste their time? It is possible, the other poster doesn't realize their comment offends. Of course, calling people immature, or saying something is complicated, is not very polite, and the poster should realize this.
b) digging up a thread that is over a month old, shortly after a more recent thread on the exact same topic has been locked.
c) People making claims and refuse to back them up with rules. For example, if someone claims that 1 shot = 1 hit, then when asked for a citation, they should be able to, and willing to give it. If I claimed that models without eyes cannot shoot, and I'm asked for a citation, I can (and will) give it.
d) If I tell someone they are wrong, I will try to show them why they are wrong. Usually the wording of the rule confuses them and clarification is needed. However, I don't ever recall saying to you "You're wrong." You on the other hand have posted multiple times things along the lines of "You're wrong, you haven't read the rule and it is very simple."

You've made claims and when asked to back them up you ignore it. You continually state that poster s have not read the rule. I have. In fact I've read it enough times on these threads I can probably quote it almost verbatim. Probably something along the lines of "Any shooting attacks that originates from outside the shield zone and hits a target within the shield zone instead hits the shield." You are arguing that any weapon that generates multiple hits per shot, instead only generates 1 hit. Where are you getting 1 hit from? Clearly, you are not getting it from the Void Shield rules, because it never mentions shots. It's not the blast rules, as the only way to determine hits with blast weapons is to count the models underneath the marker, and the shield is clearly not a model. So I'm asking for a page number in the BRB that states "1 shot = 1 hit". Please tell me what page number that it is on and I'll not only concede but will apologize to all who said 1 hit with blast weapons.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Ah I see the problem now. You pick a target, roll to scatter, and then the final location generates 'hits' which get re-allocated to the shield

Frankly that leads to a rather absurd result, but that does seem to be the result that it leads to.

But when did I start caring about RaW anyway?

I completely agree. Thats not whats written. It clearly states shots from outside the 12'' radius hit the shield first. The projectile/shot that would cause the template blast would never reach its target as it detonates at a different location hitting the shield first.

Some people here just try to ignore whats clearly written.

 CveleZT wrote:
Obviously I was referring only to treating it like a bunker to units within its range. But I see again that's WAY to complicated for you.

Insults again? Can't come up with a rules based argument, so you still resort to them?

Here is something simple enough, shield takes only 1 hit from a template weapon unless the profile of the weapon specifically says so. Regardless of how many troops are under it.

That's an assumption. Can you quote any rule to back that up?

Again you haven't shown me the rule that say it takes any more than that. You are just as you say... imagining and inventing rules that don't exist without proving anything to back up your argument.

It's your statement. As per the rules of this forum you should back it up.

And you want me to prove a rule doesn't exist? My proof is simple, your lack of being able to supply it. I've asked you, and anyone else to provide the rule. No one can.

I've given examples before showing that 1 shot at a single model target can generate more than 1 hit.
You chose to ignore that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CveleZT wrote:
It clearly states shots from outside the 12'' radius hit the shield first.

No it doesn't. The rule is the unit must be hit, before the shooting attack is transferred. The unit must be hit first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
So I'm asking for a page number in the BRB that states "1 shot = 1 hit". Please tell me what page number that it is on and I'll not only concede but will apologize to all who said 1 hit with blast weapons.

Count me in, I'll even hand write the letter of concession and post it.

How many times has this question been asked? How many threads?
No one has provided the quote, nor made a decent attempt to prove it.

 Happyjew wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
Its only incorrect to those that believe that 1 shot causes 7,233,532 hits like you. Hahahaha go make up your rules somewhere else.

Obviously, just like in a bunker or a vehicle 1 shot causes 1 hit unless the weapon profile states otherwise. Not as many hits as there are inside a vehicle or bunker.

Its obvious this is too complicated for you.

Just a few friendly reminders:

 Lorek wrote:
1. Rule #1 is Be Polite! It's easy!
6. No Thread Necromancy. If a thread is more than a month old, leave it alone. If you're really interested in the topic, start a new thread! There are exceptions, like updates to modelling blogs or threads in forums that don't get much traffic, but in general bringing back old threads is simply annoying to the bulk of the posters who have already moved on.

 Lorek wrote:
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

Hahaha so you can say someone is wrong but when someone tells you you are wrong you get offended. Please. Get a life.

I provided my rule its right in the VSG entry. States 12 inch radius. Which means up down left right. Like a dome.

If you dont have the book you should not comment on this thread. As you are not reading the actual rule. I am and am providing you the facts for all my arguments. You just choose to ignore them.

Now instead of asking me to repeat myself how about YOU provide the rule that proves me wrong? Go on please, humor me.

Otherwise you posting this above is simply just sour grapes because you dont have an argument or a rule to back up your claims.

Sounds good?

Somebody saying I'm wrong does not bother me. I've been corrected numerous times in this forum, including on things regarding units I use, in the armies I play (rather recently I might add). What annoys me, is:
a) People being impolite. Sure I could click on the yellow triangle of friendliness and alert a mod, but why waste their time? It is possible, the other poster doesn't realize their comment offends. Of course, calling people immature, or saying something is complicated, is not very polite, and the poster should realize this.
b) digging up a thread that is over a month old, shortly after a more recent thread on the exact same topic has been locked.
c) People making claims and refuse to back them up with rules. For example, if someone claims that 1 shot = 1 hit, then when asked for a citation, they should be able to, and willing to give it. If I claimed that models without eyes cannot shoot, and I'm asked for a citation, I can (and will) give it.
d) If I tell someone they are wrong, I will try to show them why they are wrong. Usually the wording of the rule confuses them and clarification is needed. However, I don't ever recall saying to you "You're wrong." You on the other hand have posted multiple times things along the lines of "You're wrong, you haven't read the rule and it is very simple."

You've made claims and when asked to back them up you ignore it. You continually state that poster s have not read the rule. I have. In fact I've read it enough times on these threads I can probably quote it almost verbatim. Probably something along the lines of "Any shooting attacks that originates from outside the shield zone and hits a target within the shield zone instead hits the shield." You are arguing that any weapon that generates multiple hits per shot, instead only generates 1 hit. Where are you getting 1 hit from? Clearly, you are not getting it from the Void Shield rules, because it never mentions shots. It's not the blast rules, as the only way to determine hits with blast weapons is to count the models underneath the marker, and the shield is clearly not a model. So I'm asking for a page number in the BRB that states "1 shot = 1 hit". Please tell me what page number that it is on and I'll not only concede but will apologize to all who said 1 hit with blast weapons.

Again I am not insulting anyone, I have also only returned in kind the comments that were given to me. If someone says I am wrong I will say they are wrong.

As for the rule 1 shot = 1 hit

Go to page 12 of BRB and read the Roll to Hit rule.

"Roll "A" D6 for each shot that is in range." Not Roll X D6 for each shot that is in range"

Now please do as you said you would do since you were so adamant about it.

Thanks


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
Obviously I was referring only to treating it like a bunker to units within its range. But I see again that's WAY to complicated for you.

Insults again? Can't come up with a rules based argument, so you still resort to them?

Here is something simple enough, shield takes only 1 hit from a template weapon unless the profile of the weapon specifically says so. Regardless of how many troops are under it.

That's an assumption. Can you quote any rule to back that up?

Again you haven't shown me the rule that say it takes any more than that. You are just as you say... imagining and inventing rules that don't exist without proving anything to back up your argument.

It's your statement. As per the rules of this forum you should back it up.

And you want me to prove a rule doesn't exist? My proof is simple, your lack of being able to supply it. I've asked you, and anyone else to provide the rule. No one can.

I've given examples before showing that 1 shot at a single model target can generate more than 1 hit.
You chose to ignore that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CveleZT wrote:
It clearly states shots from outside the 12'' radius hit the shield first.

No it doesn't. The rule is the unit must be hit, before the shooting attack is transferred. The unit must be hit first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
So I'm asking for a page number in the BRB that states "1 shot = 1 hit". Please tell me what page number that it is on and I'll not only concede but will apologize to all who said 1 hit with blast weapons.

Count me in, I'll even hand write the letter of concession and post it.

How many times has this question been asked? How many threads?
No one has provided the quote, nor made a decent attempt to prove it.

Go to page 12 of BRB and read the Roll to Hit rule.

"Roll "A" D6 for each shot that is in range." Not Roll X D6 for each shot that is in range"

Thats the definition of 1 shot = 1 hit. Regardless if its template or not. You roll 1 scatter die instead of a D6. Now I expect an apology from you as well.

 CveleZT wrote:
Again I am not insulting anyone,

You've not been insulting?

Just a small list:

 CveleZT wrote:
Its obvious this is too complicated for you.

CveleZT wrote:People here must be willfully ignorant.

CveleZT wrote:You are extremely ignorant but I forgive you.

I'm curious as how you do not see those as not insulting.

I have also only returned in kind the comments that were given to me. If someone says I am wrong I will say they are wrong.

No, people say you are wrong, and you reply with things such as "You are ignorant". While there are a couple people who tend to get a little impolite, for the most part people here don't respond by saying that people are stupid. Sorry, ignorant, don't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth.

As for the rule 1 shot = 1 hit

Go to page 12 of BRB and read the Roll to Hit rule.

"Roll "A" D6 for each shot that is in range." Not Roll X D6 for each shot that is in range"

That tells you how to generate hits. Again there is no rule that says that 1 shot=1 hit.

 CveleZT wrote:
Go to page 12 of BRB and read the Roll to Hit rule.

"Roll "A" D6 for each shot that is in range." Not Roll X D6 for each shot that is in range"

Thats the definition of 1 shot = 1 hit. Regardless if its template or not. You roll 1 scatter die instead of a D6. Now I expect an apology from you as well.

That rule at no point ever says one shot can only generate one hit.
That rule simply says how you roll to hit. There is no limitation placed on number of hits.

So you still haven't proved your statement. Unless you can prove (with rules) that one shot can only generate one hit, then your theory on shields remains incorrect.

And your apology for all the insults you threw at various users is still long overdue.

 Happyjew wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
Again I am not insulting anyone,

You've not been insulting?

Just a small list:

 CveleZT wrote:
Its obvious this is too complicated for you.

CveleZT wrote:People here must be willfully ignorant.

CveleZT wrote:You are extremely ignorant but I forgive you.

I'm curious as how you do not see those as not insulting.

I have also only returned in kind the comments that were given to me. If someone says I am wrong I will say they are wrong.

No, people say you are wrong, and you reply with things such as "You are ignorant". While there are a couple people who tend to get a little impolite, for the most part people here don't respond by saying that people are stupid. Sorry, ignorant, don't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth.

As for the rule 1 shot = 1 hit

Go to page 12 of BRB and read the Roll to Hit rule.

"Roll "A" D6 for each shot that is in range." Not Roll X D6 for each shot that is in range"

That tells you how to generate hits. Again there is no rule that says that 1 shot=1 hit.

HAHAHAHAAAAaaaaaaa 1 shot = 1 hit is the definition of "Roll "A" D6 for each shot that is in range."

No apology? I see how good your word is and I am not surprised. You have lost all credibility here and to anyone reading this.

I agree with the rude guy.

Otherwise I'm supposed to pretend the blast magically knows how many models it would have hit. Then goes back in time and hits the shield instead.

However we know it hits the shield first.

you mean 1 shot is a roll for a chance to hit. it won't always equal 1 hit. you can miss after all.

you can also quote template weapons pg 52, units with more than 1 shot with a template type is resolved one at a time.

I voted 10 hits in the poll, but who knows how GW will faq it if they ever do. good luck to you.

 CveleZT wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
That tells you how to generate hits. Again there is no rule that says that 1 shot=1 hit.

HAHAHAHAAAAaaaaaaa 1 shot = 1 hit is the definition of "Roll "A" D6 for each shot that is in range."

No apology? I see how good your word is and I am not surprised. You have lost all credibility here and to anyone reading this.

Lost credibility? Happyjew has posted well thought out responses, rules quotes where required, and despite your constant insults has managed to not loose his temper and remain polite. A credit to good posters everywhere.

The same cannot be said for you.

The rule you provided does not show that 1 shot can only generate 1 hit.
Can you provide a rule showing this, and can you do it politely?

 grendel083 wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
Go to page 12 of BRB and read the Roll to Hit rule.

"Roll "A" D6 for each shot that is in range." Not Roll X D6 for each shot that is in range"

Thats the definition of 1 shot = 1 hit. Regardless if its template or not. You roll 1 scatter die instead of a D6. Now I expect an apology from you as well.

That rule at no point ever says one shot can only generate one hit.
That rule simply says how you roll to hit. There is no limitation placed on number of hits.

So you still haven't proved your statement. Unless you can prove (with rules) that one shot can only generate one hit, then your theory on shields remains incorrect.

And your apology for all the insults you threw at various users is still long overdue.

I was expecting this. Your word is just as good as your argument. Virtually non-existent.

Obviously something as simply stated as "Roll "A" D6 for each shot that is in range." is way to complicated for you. And you just cant admit being wrong.

You asked for something. You were provided the exact page and rule. And now you are in denial.

Thanks for proving me right. Have a nice life.

Stormbreed wrote:
However we know it hits the shield first.

I would say fluff it hits the shield first. The actual rule says the unit must be hit.
So rules wise the unit is hit first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CveleZT wrote:
You asked for something. You were provided the exact page and rule. And now you are in denial.

Its called "failure to deliver" which is how I would describe your rules quote.
It doesn't say what you claim it says.
Please try again, see if you can do it with rules instead of insults (something I doubt based on track record).

As I said above in the rules it says the shield is hit first at a 12'' radius. Hence the need for AV12. Otherwise, this would be just a cover save.

Hence, just like with regards to shooting at a bunker or a vehicle it doesn't make any difference how many models are in the bunker or vehicle to how many hits the bunker or vehicle take.

PS Im gonna ignore some people on here from now on as they dont mean what they say and they break their word when they are proven obviously wrong when provided clear evidence they ask for.

 CveleZT wrote:
As I said above in the rules it says the shield is hit first at a 12'' radius. Hence the need for AV12. Otherwise, this would be just a cover save.

Hence, just like with regards to shooting at a bunker or a vehicle it doesn't make any difference how many models are in the bunker or vehicle to how many hits the bunker or vehicle take.

PS Im gonna ignore some people on here from now on as they dont mean what they say and they break their word when they are proven obviously wrong when provided clear evidence they ask for.

Underlined : But that's not at all what the rules for the VSG say.

 CveleZT wrote:
As I said above in the rules it says the shield is hit first at a 12'' radius.

No it doesn't. The rules don't say that at all.
The unit must be hit, then the shooting attack is transferred. According to the rules the unit is hit first. And it never says the hit occurs at 12"

Hence, just like with regards to shooting at a bunker or a vehicle it doesn't make any difference how many models are in the bunker or vehicle to how many hits the bunker or vehicle take.

Vehicle and bunker rules are nothing like the PVS rules. The only similarity is the AV value. Nothing tells you to treat it like a vehicle or bunker. So rules for those are irrelevant.

PS Im gonna ignore some people on here from now on as they dont mean what they say and they break their word when they are proven obviously wrong when provided clear evidence they ask for.

You've proven no one wrong.
The rule you've posted does not state that one shot can only cause one hit.
Rules have been provided showing the opposite.

Your apology to all the users you insulted is now very long overdue.

Rorschach9 wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
As I said above in the rules it says the shield is hit first at a 12'' radius. Hence the need for AV12. Otherwise, this would be just a cover save.

Hence, just like with regards to shooting at a bunker or a vehicle it doesn't make any difference how many models are in the bunker or vehicle to how many hits the bunker or vehicle take.

PS Im gonna ignore some people on here from now on as they dont mean what they say and they break their word when they are proven obviously wrong when provided clear evidence they ask for.

Underlined : But that's not at all what the rules for the VSG say.

Indeed, the part that says you are shooting at the unit is simply because of range of your weapons.

You must be in range to target a unit but even though you shoot at it, all shoots (template or not) will hit the shield first until the shield is destroyed. They hit the shield at a different location than the unit. Somewhere on that 24''+ diameter.

 CveleZT wrote:
Indeed, the part that says you are shooting at the unit is simply because of range of your weapons.

No it's not. The rule requires the unit be hit. That's a lot more than simply range. More made up rules.

You must be in range to target a unit but even though you shoot at it, all shoots (template or not) will hit the shield first until the shield is destroyed. They hit the shield at a different location than the unit. Somewhere on that 24''+ diameter.

Again wrong. No part of the rule ever says the shield is hit first. Completely made up.
No rule says the hit is at a different location. Completely made up.
No rule says the shot hits at the edge of the shields radius. Completely made up.

So you admit your making up rules then? Or can you quote these rules?

 CveleZT wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
As I said above in the rules it says the shield is hit first at a 12'' radius. Hence the need for AV12. Otherwise, this would be just a cover save.

Hence, just like with regards to shooting at a bunker or a vehicle it doesn't make any difference how many models are in the bunker or vehicle to how many hits the bunker or vehicle take.

PS Im gonna ignore some people on here from now on as they dont mean what they say and they break their word when they are proven obviously wrong when provided clear evidence they ask for.

Underlined : But that's not at all what the rules for the VSG say.

Indeed, the part that says you are shooting at the unit is simply because of range of your weapons.

You must be in range to target a unit but even though you shoot at it, all shoots (template or not) will hit the shield first until the shield is destroyed. They hit the shield at a different location than the unit. Somewhere on that 24''+ diameter.

The VSG rules state absolutely none of what you're claiming here.
In fact, it says that a shooting attack that originates from outside the projected shield that HITS a unit inside the shield instead hits the shield. Clearly stating you must hit the unit first, then the attack hits the shield instead. There is nothing about the range or "hits the shield first" .. instead, not first. You absolutely must hit the unit first to instead hit the shield.

How do you determine if you have hit the unit? Roll to hit. That has now determined a number of hits. Now instead, hit the shield. You've already determined # of hits. Resolve those hits on the shield.

Rorschach9 wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
As I said above in the rules it says the shield is hit first at a 12'' radius. Hence the need for AV12. Otherwise, this would be just a cover save.

Hence, just like with regards to shooting at a bunker or a vehicle it doesn't make any difference how many models are in the bunker or vehicle to how many hits the bunker or vehicle take.

PS Im gonna ignore some people on here from now on as they dont mean what they say and they break their word when they are proven obviously wrong when provided clear evidence they ask for.

Underlined : But that's not at all what the rules for the VSG say.

Indeed, the part that says you are shooting at the unit is simply because of range of your weapons.

You must be in range to target a unit but even though you shoot at it, all shoots (template or not) will hit the shield first until the shield is destroyed. They hit the shield at a different location than the unit. Somewhere on that 24''+ diameter.

The VSG rules state absolutely none of what you're claiming here.
In fact, it says that a shooting attack that originates from outside the projected shield that HITS a unit inside the shield instead hits the shield. Clearly stating you must hit the unit first, then the attack hits the shield instead. There is nothing about the range or "hits the shield first" .. instead, not first. You absolutely must hit the unit first to instead hit the shield.

How do you determine if you have hit the unit? Roll to hit. That has now determined a number of hits. Now instead, hit the shield. You've already determined # of hits. Resolve those hits on the shield.

This is the whole reason there is a debate on this. Since they use the word instead the shield is its own unit with an AV12. While generator is AV13. Based on this my interpretation is that even if there is no unit under the template after it scatters the shield still takes a hit as long as part of the template is anywhere within 12 inches of the generator. Hence it cannot cause multiple hits on anything under the shield as the shield is hit instead of whatever its protecting until its destroyed.

 CveleZT wrote:

This is the whole reason there is a debate on this. Since they use the word instead the shield is its own unit with an AV12. While generator is AV13. Based on this my interpretation is that even if there is no unit under the template after it scatters the shield still takes a hit as long as part of the template is anywhere within 12 inches of the generator. Hence it cannot cause multiple hits on anything under the shield as the shield is hit instead of whatever its protecting until its destroyed.

That is a perfectly fine house rule, but it is merely that. If there is no unit under the template (or no unit hit within the shield) then the shield is not hit. The rule clearly states that you must first determine that you have hit a unit inside the shield. If you have not met that condition you have no permission to still hit the shield (nor any way to work out a number of hits on the shield as it is not a unit). If you have not, in order to hit the shield at that point requires making up a rule that does not exist.

Rorschach9 wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:

This is the whole reason there is a debate on this. Since they use the word instead the shield is its own unit with an AV12. While generator is AV13. Based on this my interpretation is that even if there is no unit under the template after it scatters the shield still takes a hit as long as part of the template is anywhere within 12 inches of the generator. Hence it cannot cause multiple hits on anything under the shield as the shield is hit instead of whatever its protecting until its destroyed.

That is a perfectly fine house rule, but it is merely that. If there is no unit under the template (or no unit hit within the shield) then the shield is not hit. The rule clearly states that you must first determine that you have hit a unit inside the shield. If you have not met that condition you have no permission to still hit the shield (nor any way to work out a number of hits on the shield as it is not a unit). If you have not, in order to hit the shield at that point requires making up a rule that does not exist.

That's where we disagree, their wording in the SA clearly makes the shield itself a unit with AV12, 1 to 3 layers and radius of 12". Since they don't call it one either way, unless they clear it up this is open to interpretation and not just a house rule.

You'd have to quote that wording then because it literally doesn't exist in my copy.

Because you've invented it. As you said above, that's your interpretation - which has no basis in actual rules.

Please engage in an honest debate where no rules are made up. Thanks.

So if I death ray infantry underneath a void shield, I get hits equal to the number of models under the line on the shield with a S10 AP1 weapon?

Seems pretty silly when if I was shooting the unit itself, I'd only get one hit... But because I shoot those guys sitting at the side of it, I get 10.

I'd probably just take one hit and assume that I hit the shield once.

sonicaucie wrote:
So if I death ray infantry underneath a void shield, I get hits equal to the number of models under the line on the shield with a S10 AP1 weapon?

Seems pretty silly when if I was shooting the unit itself, I'd only get one hit... But because I shoot those guys sitting at the side of it, I get 10.

I'd probably just take one hit and assume that I hit the shield once.

"The unit itself" .. as in the infantry unit? You'd get the hits equal to the number of models under the line. The line is not "on" the shield. You target the unit that happens to be within the shield. You roll (or in the case of the deathray or template, count) for hits. Then instead, you hit the shield.
Silly or not, that is the rule.

This topic apparently is too hot for people to discuss in a rational manner, so it's going to be locked for the time being.

Please DO NOT start another thread on this topic in the meantime.