Note: This thread is How Would You Play It, NOT Rules as Written.

Found a couple threads on this, but none with numbers attached.

We all know how this processes according to the RAW.

A unit of ten guys is hit by a large blast, but are under the protection of a Void Shield.

How many times do you roll to pen on the Void Shield? Ten, or one?

10. Raw and hywpi

Same, It would involve too much mental twisting to justify within the rules why it only gets hit once to play it other than as written.

well...I voted 10 because you technically have 10 hits to resolve vs the shields, but you actually resolve them one at a time until either there is no shield or you run out of hits (whichever comes first)

I voted 10, and seeing as it was a How Would You Play it question I feel the need to justify more then just 'Rules as Written:'
Blast Markers are a Risk Factor that is too complicated and vital to the rest of the game to simple House Rule a way around.

Blast Weapons, particularly Large Blast Weapons, are designed with one clear intention: To be more devastating against groups then against sole targets. This intention brings a certain tactical Risk to the table, in particular it creates an obvious example of the good old question of 'sacrificing defense for greater offense,' that we should always be considering when it comes to the placement of our men. There is a reason the majority of blast weapons have low enough strengths to render them only effective against large groups of infantry for a reason, the writers clearly intended for explosions devastating the rank and files to be a big concern on the battlefield.

Blast Markers are it far too complicated a matter to simply House Rule away at the best of times.
Let alone to make a single inexpensive network become god-like protection for Armies where the Risk of Blast Markers are clearly a factor.

Personally, I see it as ten hits, but there's nothing that says you can resolve the hits at separate times.

So be it one hit or ten, I take it all as hitting the shield at once (which is how I see it occurring in my mind as well.)

Once, having more Orks behind the shield should not magically make your battle cannon shot do more damage to the shield.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Once, having more Orks behind the shield should not magically make your battle cannon shot do more damage to the shield.

I can sort of see it...because I imagine a blast weapon as peppering the shield from multiple points. But then, it should be a d3 or a d6 for blast hits...not fully dependent upon hitting a unit that it never got to.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
well...I voted 10 because you technically have 10 hits to resolve vs the shields, but you actually resolve them one at a time until either there is no shield or you run out of hits (whichever comes first)

This is why I voted "Other" as it's correct.

 ductvader wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Once, having more Orks behind the shield should not magically make your battle cannon shot do more damage to the shield.

I can sort of see it...because I imagine a blast weapon as peppering the shield from multiple points. But then, it should be a d3 or a d6 for blast hits...not fully dependent upon hitting a unit that it never got to.

Well, a lot of blast weapons are like battle cannon shells, single shots that explode to create the blast, though some are like stinger salvos, a spray of weapons. Even then, should the number of models behind the shield affect how much damage the salvo does to the shield?

10.

Thematically i see it as the Blast taking out the shield and continuing on to the Models behind(as is RAW); similar to a few scenes in Star Trek

A picture from a third party is 'Rule as Written' support now?

Each blast or template is a single shooting attack, and a shield/field can only be hit once per shooting attack.

So the answer for me is once.


Besides, the game is already in a stupid idiotic state because of D weapons, there is simply no reason to try to crazily attempt to make them even more potent...they're plenty potent enough even only taking down a single field/shield at a time.

Stormbreed wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
10. Raw and hywpi

Not RAW, and not how you should play it.

Here is RAW proof how shields work.



If you want to ask more questions, let me know.

That is a screen grab from a TV show and has absolutely nothing to do with Void Shields or the rules for 40k. Stop trying to claim it is "proof" of anything.

Hey guys, leave it be. This is not a thread to argue the rules, just state your opinions (and vote).

If some guy wants to believe that a TV show counts as RAW, he's entitled to his opinion in this case.

Or in other words, don't feed the troll.

As based on Memphis GW staff discussion it had been intended to be played as a single hit on the Void sheild, HWYPI is this way, but by RAW it does read as 10 hits.

Raw: 10 hits

HWYPI: 1 hit

 nutty_nutter wrote:
well...I voted 10 because you technically have 10 hits to resolve vs the shields, but you actually resolve them one at a time until either there is no shield or you run out of hits (whichever comes first)

This is my vote

Personally, I'd prefer it worked that one blast/template equals a single hit.

TV shows aside, consider this. A full squad of Guardsman behind a Void shield gets hit with a Battle Cannon. Odds are very high that the shield will go down very quickly and do huge damage to the squad. But if the squad is reduced to a single guardsman, suddenly it becomes literally impossible for the same blast to penetrate the shield and still injure him.

I understand that some people are reluctant to countermand the rules as written, but this is a clear case where the RAI not only clearly goes against the RAW, but the RAW doesn't even make any sense.

The hit/hits all go to the shield/shields till they down.


Looking at it from a balance perspective, I personally would change it so that if a large blast hits a unit under a void shield it would inflict either a d6 or half the models acctually hit to the shield. And for a small blast would be a D3 or half, whichever is greater.

Makes the most sense. But that is just a house rule.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Looking at it from a balance perspective, I personally would change it so that if a large blast hits a unit under a void shield it would inflict either a d6 or half the models acctually hit to the shield. And for a small blast would be a D3 or half, whichever is greater.

Makes the most sense....

Really? Sounds needlessly complicated, to be honest.

I'm with Yakface on this one. Regardless of how the RAW may appear to read (and I would question the hardline RAW interpretation on this one, frankly) it's leading to a nonsensical situation. One roll against the shield makes far more sense.

Oh its definately not a time saver, but i think its the most balanced way to do it.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Once, having more Orks behind the shield should not magically make your battle cannon shot do more damage to the shield.

Yep. Reminds me of barrage sniping - RAW are clear, but it makes no sense thematically. Void shields should only get hit once for every shot fired, not for every hit scored. What makes sense is for the void shield to take one hit if the blast marker scatters within it.

Once, because this is just another example of RAW stupidity.

Once is way OP, 10 times is nonsensical. I agree that is should be D6 hits, but since that's not an option I voted 10, because:
There are a TON of nonsensical rules in 40k. Nothing makes sense if you really stop and think about it. Whining that one rule doesn't make sense when it's surrounded by a sea of other, equally nonsensical rules just seems silly to me.

Even the way people *move* in the 40k universe doesn't really make sense. Overwatch doesn't make sense. Look Out Sir! Really doesn't make sense. Armor and Cover not stacking doesn't make sense. Really, complaining about one element because it doesn't make sense just...
Doesn't make sense.

Waaaghpower wrote:
Once is way OP, 10 times is nonsensical. I agree that is should be D6 hits, but since that's not an option I voted 10, because:
There are a TON of nonsensical rules in 40k. Nothing makes sense if you really stop and think about it. Whining that one rule doesn't make sense when it's surrounded by a sea of other, equally nonsensical rules just seems silly to me.

Even the way people *move* in the 40k universe doesn't really make sense. Overwatch doesn't make sense. Look Out Sir! Really doesn't make sense. Armor and Cover not stacking doesn't make sense. Really, complaining about one element because it doesn't make sense just...
Doesn't make sense.

I voted 10 for this reason.

I see it as 1 as I do not agree that the RAW says 10.

Waaaaaghpower,
That is the problem with abstract systems but they are needed for Rules because they are far easier to write, learn and play by. I would love for the system to make sense in all situations but we are not going to see it happen without rule books as thick law books and years of 'warhammer.edu' to understand when clause 123.3 subsection A is being applied and when it is not. All we can do is let the Rule writers worry about concepts like 'Game Balance' and 'Rule Interaction' hope they don't screw up too badly.

Sadly, this is Game Workshop we are dealing with here and they are far to easy a target for ridicule....

Instead means hits the av12 target once INSTEAD of the unit. Instead is fairly clear.

 Mythra wrote:
Instead means hits the av12 target once INSTEAD of the unit. Instead is fairly clear.

I would ask that you re-read the entire sentence structure of how the projected void shield works, and while on that page, ask yourself how exactly hits are generated.

just because the RAW doesn't make sense to you on how a 50point item operates does not mean that the RAW is incorrect, your infusing your personal envisionment in what a shield is onto a rule that cannot possibly operate as such.

a blast marker/template/beam weapon replaces the normal operations for rolling to hit, nothing else, nothing more, nothing less, the act of placing a template and scattering then counting up the number of model underneath the template is no different that rolling to hit with a non blast/template/beam weapon.

once you have your number of hits the projected rule kicks in and says you resolve these hits (not the exact wording, but it is what it says in layman's terms) against the shield instead.

you have to do it in this order as the void projection rules do not replace the target unit, do not occur in the rolling to hit aspect of the shooting rules and you have no permission to re-asses the number of hits you have scored.

as the blast rules themselves dictate, one shot does not always = one hit, otherwise how would a single shot ever cause more than one wound? you don't suddenly have only ever a single hit on a non-shielded unit, the shield does it's job for the 50pt price tag, it reduces the incoming damage from shots by a minimum of one.

10 hits on the shield is RAW, HIWPI and I could see it making sense in fluff (weapons with blasts could cause more strain on a shielding system due to the nature of how they'd interact with the shield once they 'hit').

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
10 hits on the shield is RAW, HIWPI and I could see it making sense in fluff (weapons with blasts could cause more strain on a shielding system due to the nature of how they'd interact with the shield once they 'hit').

RAI and Fluff wise it makes 0 sense. The shot hits the shield on its way to the target, we don't have a RAW way for that to happen in Warhammer atm, but fluff wise and RAI there would be no way for that shot to know it hit "10" models as it would explode on its way in.

Stormbreed wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
10 hits on the shield is RAW, HIWPI and I could see it making sense in fluff (weapons with blasts could cause more strain on a shielding system due to the nature of how they'd interact with the shield once they 'hit').

RAI and Fluff wise it makes 0 sense. The shot hits the shield on its way to the target, we don't have a RAW way for that to happen in Warhammer atm, but fluff wise and RAI there would be no way for that shot to know it hit "10" models as it would explode on its way in.

This is why I like d6 hits or 1+d6

The shield though non visible , is between the blast and the unit your scoring 10 hit on. Shield is in the way, you have to take it out before you can target the enemy unit under it. So targeting the unit IMHO can't happen till it's shield is destroyed.

I voted 1

The shot hits the shield but its a blast so it tears the shield apart better than a bullet would.

If we want to talk actual physics, a single shot should cause more damage than a dispersed barrage against a shield.

For the same reasoning that power swords slice through armor, or shuriken weapons have a chance to slip between the molecular bonds of armor.

Fixing more strength on a certain point would be much more likely to cause it to collapse...especially for a shape such as a dome...though many of the buildings I've seen are square...

It's got to be once. So if someone hits a 30 man Gretchin squad with a Baneblade cannon that hits all 30 of them, do you really think that the shield gets hit 30 times? I somehow doubt that GW intended it to work that way.

 Mythra wrote:
Instead means hits the av12 target once INSTEAD of the unit. Instead is fairly clear.

Yep, the ten hits instead hit the shield. That means you have ten hits, anything else ignores the written rules.

Ductvader,
You are trying to apply real world physics to an energy shield of unknown make and design. We humans are still unable to maintain a stable magnetic-based plasma containment system, let alone a shield system designed to repel or absorb energy/physical attacks that are described as being more devastating then plasma. Therefore it is impossible for us to envision, let alone prove, methods to overwhelm this unknown shield system. We simply are not alive in the Warhammer 40K universe, required to have the first clue needed to figure out how these things operate within the realm of physics.

If we have to play that game though:
What is to stop this from being a reaction based shield system?

In all likelihood the shield would not create a dome running at full power, all the time, because that would involve generators capable of supplying insane levels of energy in a constant stream. Instead, such a system is likely going to be designed to increase power as required and those designs often create ways for it to focus that power only to sectors that are currently requiring increased power. A weapon which creates multiple strike points, or just a large affected area such as an explosion, would likely cause a sharp increase in the power consumption to these areas. This increase in power has to come from somewhere, and if the generator is not able to supply that energy it will burn out as it attempts to supply the increase power requirements. Once the generator has burned out, no more power can be supplied to the shield and it collapses completely.

Not because we focused more force on a single point, but because a larger surface area takes more power to maintain then the generator can provide.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Mythra wrote:
Instead means hits the av12 target once INSTEAD of the unit. Instead is fairly clear.

Yep, the ten hits instead hit the shield. That means you have ten hits, anything else ignores the written rules.

Which this thread isnt about, its about how you would play it; not the RAW which is established in other threads.

I was responding to a rules reasoning, and pointing out the reasoning is wrong

I voted for one shot.

It's one shield. The number of models, squads, etc under it changes, but the shield and the blast weapon shooting at it don't............so yeah...

Running a campaign right now where we changed it to you cannot drop pod through it and you only get one hit with the blast weapon.

Nosferatu1001,
Understandable urge, but if one can not convince them that they are wrong in many pages dedicated to the 'Rules As Written' then how does one do so on a thread dedicated to 'How I Would Play It?'

JinxDragon wrote:
Nosferatu1001,
Understandable urge, but if one can not convince them that they are wrong in many pages dedicated to the 'Rules As Written' then how does one do so on a thread dedicated to 'How I Would Play It?'

The same way. Plug your ears, and go "La, la, la, you're wrong, I'm right." and stick your tongue out at them. Eventually they will just tire of it and leave.

Just kidding of course.

Considering how funky rules have been in the history of 40k, taking anything as gospel is bound to cause an argument

I just don't understand (and I am being serious, not sarcastic) how if everyone can read and realize that a rule is wonky and makes no sense, common or otherwise, why they don't just change it in their games. Everyone just argues how

"It's written this way...GRRR must be played this way!!! GRRR...."

 foto69man wrote:
I voted for one shot.

It's one shield. The number of models, squads, etc under it changes, but the shield and the blast weapon shooting at it don't............so yeah...

Running a campaign right now where we changed it to you cannot drop pod through it and you only get one hit with the blast weapon.

If I showed up to a game and was told that my Drop Pod Assault army list was completely nullified by a 50 point upgrade and a house rule, I'd pack up and leave.


If you want to play 'Realistically', you shouldn't be playing 40k. The Void Shield says that if a unit gets hit, the shield instead takes the hit. If a blast weapon causes 10 hits, the shield takes 10 hits. And since arguing that it 'Doesn't Make Sense' in a 40k game is like getting mad at an infant for not doing his taxes...

Waaaghpower wrote:

 foto69man wrote:
I voted for one shot.

It's one shield. The number of models, squads, etc under it changes, but the shield and the blast weapon shooting at it don't............so yeah...

Running a campaign right now where we changed it to you cannot drop pod through it and you only get one hit with the blast weapon.

If I showed up to a game and was told that my Drop Pod Assault army list was completely nullified by a 50 point upgrade and a house rule, I'd pack up and leave.


If you want to play 'Realistically', you shouldn't be playing 40k. The Void Shield says that if a unit gets hit, the shield instead takes the hit. If a blast weapon causes 10 hits, the shield takes 10 hits. And since arguing that it 'Doesn't Make Sense' in a 40k game is like getting mad at an infant for not doing his taxes...

Which hes in his right to do as this thread, again, isnt about the Raw, but how you would play it

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 foto69man wrote:
I voted for one shot.

It's one shield. The number of models, squads, etc under it changes, but the shield and the blast weapon shooting at it don't............so yeah...

Running a campaign right now where we changed it to you cannot drop pod through it and you only get one hit with the blast weapon.

If I showed up to a game and was told that my Drop Pod Assault army list was completely nullified by a 50 point upgrade and a house rule, I'd pack up and leave.


If you want to play 'Realistically', you shouldn't be playing 40k. The Void Shield says that if a unit gets hit, the shield instead takes the hit. If a blast weapon causes 10 hits, the shield takes 10 hits. And since arguing that it 'Doesn't Make Sense' in a 40k game is like getting mad at an infant for not doing his taxes...

Which hes in his right to do as this thread, again, isnt about the Raw, but how you would play it

And we also have three brand new players who are starting to try and grasp the rules and how they make sense...........so for our campaign we aren't being brutal to them. Especially since our resident blood angels player only does drop pods, that's it. As a one trick pony goes it's effective...and sorry it takes a house rule for him to try something new and make the game enjoyable for everyone

 foto69man wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 foto69man wrote:
I voted for one shot.

It's one shield. The number of models, squads, etc under it changes, but the shield and the blast weapon shooting at it don't............so yeah...

Running a campaign right now where we changed it to you cannot drop pod through it and you only get one hit with the blast weapon.

If I showed up to a game and was told that my Drop Pod Assault army list was completely nullified by a 50 point upgrade and a house rule, I'd pack up and leave.


If you want to play 'Realistically', you shouldn't be playing 40k. The Void Shield says that if a unit gets hit, the shield instead takes the hit. If a blast weapon causes 10 hits, the shield takes 10 hits. And since arguing that it 'Doesn't Make Sense' in a 40k game is like getting mad at an infant for not doing his taxes...

Which hes in his right to do as this thread, again, isnt about the Raw, but how you would play it

And we also have three brand new players who are starting to try and grasp the rules and how they make sense...........so for our campaign we aren't being brutal to them. Especially since our resident blood angels player only does drop pods, that's it. As a one trick pony goes it's effective...and sorry it takes a house rule for him to try something new and make the game enjoyable for everyone

Wait... You're using this house rule to nerf a Blood Angels player? As in a worst-codex-option-available Blood Angels player?

well...I voted 10 because you technically have 10 hits to resolve vs the shields, but you actually resolve them one at a time until either there is no shield or you run out of hits (whichever comes first)

kinda makes sense if you have 10 models under a blast weapon the shield may be overloaded trying to protect -each- of them. as its the models being protected that is taking the shield down, not the shield generator being hit.

Additionally if a Void shield generator is capable of stopping lets say 3 hits, and it has 3 models near it, and a blast hits it saves them all if each one is 1 hit.

The same shield generator would save 3 and 7 would be hit if it were 10 models near it.


and then if its 1 shooting attack = 1 hit =1 shield the shield would protect 3 guys as easily as it protects 10? sounds implausable.

HIWPI is 1 hit = 1 shield, if x models hit = x shield hits.

Dont keep your large amounts of fodder near the shield, and you wont tax its powa!

It isn't a matter of re-reading rules, I think we can rely on our fellow hobbiest's comprehension abilities.

We have two choices of how to interpret the rules in regards of templates and void shield.

It comes down to how we view thr placement of the template. Some say a template hits a unit as many times as there are models under the template others say the template hits the unit once but inflicts a hit on as many individual models there under the template.

It sounds the same but there is a subtle difference in interpretation.

Both interpretations have merit but only one of them makes sense to me.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
It isn't a matter of re-reading rules, I think we can rely on our fellow hobbiest's comprehension abilities.

We have two choices of how to interpret the rules in regards of templates and void shield.

It comes down to how we view thr placement of the template. Some say a template hits a unit as many times as there are models under the template others say the template hits the unit once but inflicts a hit on as many individual models there under the template.

It sounds the same but there is a subtle difference in interpretation.

Both interpretations have merit but only one of them makes sense to me.

Except we actually do know which interpretation to use as GW told us:

BRB pg.6 wrote:A unit takes a hit for each model that is fully, or even partially, underneath the template.

Emphasis theirs for once. They bolded it on their own. And in this context GW is using the word template to mean both the large and small blasts and the teardrop template:

BRB pg.6 wrote:Copies of these templates can be found in the reference section.

Same page just above the paragraph that has the other quote. A shame they couldn't have used a thesaurus for once for another word for template (general) as opposed to template (teardrop). Stencil maybe?

Anyway, HWYPI and RAW would be 10.

Once as the rules say for each shooting attack, if you fire one blast that is one shooting attack. If you really want an idea of how this will play out, do you really think GW would make something that a single battle cannon on a LR would tear through like it's nothing. "Oh look my battle cannon hit 5 models, that's 5 S 8 Ordinance hits against 1-3 AV 12 shields"

 CrashCanuck wrote:
Once as the rules say for each shooting attack, if you fire one blast that is one shooting attack.

Except that's not what the rules say.

I have a question that I don't know if it came up before or not, but seems very relevant:

How many hits would a Void Shield take from a single firing model (Pathfinder with Ion Rifle) with a rapid fire weapon with 30" range firing from within 15"? For those saying it is one shooting attack, what happens now? For argument's sake, both shots hit. It is one shooting attack, firing two shots and getting two hits on the protected unit. It seems to me the the crux of the issue is one shooting attack causing multiple hits on a unit. So ignoring Large Blasts, consider the above and discuss.

There is nearly always 2 ways to read a rule.

The nature of the void shield could be that each model is wrapped in its own shield, in whivh case several hits would make sense with any that fail having implications for the shield generator itself. In effect everymodel within yhe shield is AV12.

Alternatively it could be a single dome that protects all within and thus a fragmenting weapon would simply hit the shield once.

There is no clear , correct interpretation of the rule and it needs clarification and I think it is over reaching the rules to suggest certainty which ever interpretation you apply.

The question isn't "How many hits does a multishot weapon generate when it hits a void shield" but rather " how many hits are generated when a template is placed on a void shield"?

Uptopdownunder wrote:
The question isn't "How many hits does a multishot weapon generate when it hits a void shield" but rather " how many hits are generated when a template is placed on a void shield"?

Why isn't that the question though? From all the rules I've read concerning this, the answer to one is the answer to the other.

You have a Pathfinder with an Ion Rifle at 14" away from 10 Guardsmen protected by a Void Shield. The Pathfinder makes one shooting attack with his rapid fire weapon and hits twice. What happens?

You have a Hellhound with an Inferno Cannon at 14" away from 10 Guardsmen protected by a Void Shield. The Hellhound makes one shooting attack with its Inferno Cannon and only covers two models (somehow). What happens?

You have a LRBT with a Battle Cannon at 14" away from 10 Guardsmen protected by a Void Shield. The LRBT makes one shooting attack with its Battle Cannon and scatters horribly only covering two models. What happens?

The answer to all three of those scenarios should be the same.

What about this one.

A barrage weapon is fired at a unit on the bottom level of a ruin and the template covers 5 models. There is a single model on thd top level of the ruin. The ruin is within a void shield.

How many hits ?

Uptopdownunder wrote:
What about this one.

A barrage weapon is fired at a unit on the bottom level of a ruin and the template covers 5 models. There is a single model on thd top level of the ruin. The ruin is within a void shield.

How many hits ?

Depends where the hole of the barrage blast marker is:

BRB pg.100 wrote:Barrage weapons always strike the highest level that is under the hole in the centre of the marker.

It could be one, five, or zero depending on where that hole is.

Really?

Is that because the rule says that the template instead hits the highest level on the ruin ?

Using the proposed void shield logic it would mean that the numder of hits wrought on the target unit would be applied to the guy on the top and hence on the shield.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
10. Raw and hywpi

Agreed. No different to striking 10 hits against a unit under the protection of a Void Shield

An Even better question is,

If I hit a unit of beasts (Khorne Dogs, for example) 20 times from 4 Blast Templates with the Cluster Fire Special Rule, do I hit the void Shield 40 times at S7, or 20 times at S6?

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Really?

Is that because the rule says that the template instead hits the highest level on the ruin ?

Using the proposed void shield logic it would mean that the numder of hits wrought on the target unit would be applied to the guy on the top and hence on the shield.

Except that's not what the rule says at all. I quoted it and I'll quote it again:

BRB pg.100 wrote:Barrage weapons always strike the highest level that is under the hole in the centre of the marker.

Emphasis mine. Barrage weapons don't always hit the highest level in a Ruin. So again, depending on the highest level of the Ruin that the center hole of the barrage blast marker is over, it could be one hit, five hits, or zero hits in the question you posed. From that the Void Shield would take one hit, five hits, or zero hits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
An Even better question is,

If I hit a unit of beasts (Khorne Dogs, for example) 20 times from 4 Blast Templates with the Cluster Fire Special Rule, do I hit the void Shield 40 times at S7, or 20 times at S6?

Ohhhh, where do I find the "Cluster Fire" Special Rule? I cannot begin to form an answer without knowing that first.

Sure but you nominate the level you fire at because it is a blast weapon and according to blast weapon rules if you hit a different level you "hit that level instead" so using the proposed logic the number of hits are transferred from the original target, if there is no scatter, to the highest level the centrehole is over.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Sure but you nominate the level you fire at because it is a blast weapon and according to blast weapon rules if you hit a different level you "hit that level instead" so using the proposed logic the number of hits are transferred from the original target, if there is no scatter, to the highest level the centrehole is over.

Please go back and read pg. 100 in the BRB. You do not get to "declare which floor you are aiming at" with barrage weapons. You would use the rules for blast weapons per the Barrage rules on pg. 34, however, pg. 100 has more specific rules on how barrage weapons interact when targeting a unit in Ruins. Which I honestly don't feel like quoting for a third time. I cannot make it any more clear to you how barrage and ruins interact.

Perhaps it is you who needs to reread my friend. Barrage weapons also have the blast special rule. Blast weapons nominate the level they are shooting at and if they hit another level they hit that level instead. The only mention of barrage weapons in the ruin rules is that they always "strike" the highest level, what ever that might mean.

Logic says that hitting another level instead means that you hit that level the number of times there are models on that level and all relationship to the original level is gone.

Yet we are asked to accept that when a single void shield is hit instead of the unit it should be hit the number of times you would have hit the original unit had you actually hit it, except you didn't hit it because you hit the shield INSTEAD.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Perhaps it is you who needs to reread my friend. Barrage weapons also have the blast special rule. Blast weapons nominate the level they are shooting at and if they hit another level they hit that level instead. The only mention of barrage weapons in the ruin rules is that they always "strike" the highest level, what ever that might mean.

Logic says that hitting another level instead means that you hit that level the number of times there are models on that level and all relationship to the original level is gone.

Yet we are asked to accept that when a single void shield is hit instead of the unit it should be hit the number of times you would have hit the original unit had you actually hit it, except you didn't hit it because you hit the shield INSTEAD.

Fine, I don't know why I even still try:

BRB pg.100 wrote:Barrage weapons always strike the highest level that is under the hole in the centre of the marker.

I'll break it down. "Barrage weapons" so we know we are specifically talking about barrage weapons here not blast weapons. As I said in my last post, you would be correct that barrage weapons also use the blast weapon rules, however, pg. 100 in the BRB which specifically deals with both blast and barrage weapons and how they interact with ruins is more specific than the general rule of, barrage weapons also use the blast weapon rules from page 34. "always strike" so no picking of levels for barrage weapons because they "always strike". "the highest level that is under the hole in the centre of the marker" see the blast markers? See how they have that tiny hole in the center of them. Well, when you target a unit in a ruin, and put that hole over a model, resolve scatter, then check to see which is the "highest level" that the "centre of the marker" is over. That is the level you then hit with the barrage and any models under the blast marker for that level are hit. I literally cannot break this down any further for you.

You cannot, do not, get to pick the level you target with a barrage weapon. If there weren't specific rules on how barrage weapons work in ruins vs. how blast weapons work in ruins, you would be correct in that you would get to choose the level. Except that there are rules there on how to do this. See the two sections on page 100? One deals with blast weapons exclusively. The other with barrage. We are talking about barrage weapons here. If we weren't meant to follow the barrage weapon rules laid out on page 100 and instead were meant to follow the blast weapon rules on page 100 for barrage weapons, then GW would not have bothered to actually write different rules for barrage weapons and ruins. Yet they did.

The barrage rules say that all rules for blasts apply unless excepted. Nowhere does it say that units on lower levels cannot be targeted, simply that the barrage always "strikes" the top level.

Or do you are you suggesting that we should move beyond what is precisely written and accept stike=hit and if you alway strike something there is an implied exception and that if you hit something instead of what you would have hit originally then the number of hits is determined without reference to what you wanted to hit but didn't?

Perhaps you can then explain why it is that a shot that hits a unit and instead always hits a void shield somehow retains the effects of what would have happened had it hit the unit and not hit the void shield?

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

 CrashCanuck wrote:
Once as the rules say for each shooting attack, if you fire one blast that is one shooting attack.

Except that's not what the rules say.

"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." Pretty sure the rule says each shooting attack, I don't care if you fire a blast, it's still one shooting attack.

Uptopdownunder, please stop this train of argument. You aren't contributing to the discussion at hand by arguing the barrage rules. Please try to stay on topic. Since there is almost a 50/50 split here, I would seriously like to see some legitimate discussion, and would hate for this thread to get locked because it got dragged off on a side tangent. The barrage rules are quite clear.

I have never had a more rude exchange on dakka than when I responded to a similar question.

Void Shields = Nerd Rage.

It just brings out a singular difference in 40k gamers. I think it will probably precipitate WW3.

The only only problem is you have no permission to hit anything more than once. You can't hit a unit then the shield and then the unit. A hit is once. The Void rules gives you permission to hit a 2nd time once the shield is collapsed.

The barrage rules show a clear precedent of shooting attacks being redirected to hit something else due to something other than scatter and illustrate quite clearly the the mechanic of something hitting something else instead.

If you choose to ignore that then locking this thread is the best outcome as the debate is pointless if you choose to ignore similar situations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doktor_g wrote:
I have never had a more rude exchange on dakka than when I responded to a similar question.

Void Shields = Nerd Rage.

It just brings out a singular difference in 40k gamers. I think it will probably precipitate WW3.

I agree with this whole heartedly.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
The barrage rules show a clear precedent of shooting attacks being redirected to hit something else due to something other than scatter and illustrate quite clearly the the mechanic of something hitting something else instead.

If you choose to ignore that then locking this thread is the best outcome as the debate is pointless if you choose to ignore similar situations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doktor_g wrote:
I have never had a more rude exchange on dakka than when I responded to a similar question.

Void Shields = Nerd Rage.

It just brings out a singular difference in 40k gamers. I think it will probably precipitate WW3.

I agree with this whole heartedly.

If you want to use one rule to illustrate another, that's fine. You haven't been doing that. You've been arguing that confusion exists on a separate (unrelated) rule where no such confusion exists. If you can't either find a different way to illustrate your point or understand the correct way that barrage rules work, I'd ask you to kindly stop posting in this thread.

You don't see how one instance of a blast hitting something instead of something else, which you yourself said has a clear resolution, gives a good indication of how to resolve an unclear situation where a blast hits something instead of something else?

 Mythra wrote:
The only only problem is you have no permission to hit anything more than once. You can't hit a unit then the shield and then the unit. A hit is once. The Void rules gives you permission to hit a 2nd time once the shield is collapsed.

The shooting attack hits are instead resolved. So if the shooting attack has ten hits, all ten hits are instead resolved against the shield. Stop presenting a rules argument when you are making up rules instead.

Well I have obviously won b/c once personal attack starts "Making up rules." then I win. This is a close issue if you have to accuse people of making things up then you are only trying to intimidate people and this is very much against YMTC. I can concede this is a very close call and could go either way and for the reasons I have stated I believe you hit the Void once, Thanks and no more personal attacks.

That isn't personal attack, just a fact. The rules , already stated, state you get one HiT per model under the template. You the are told these instead hit the shield. It is making up rules to claim that one shooting attack can only ever generate one hit against the shield, and repeating this untruth is against the tenets of this firum

Ten times. 50% [ 58 ]
Once. 45% [ 52 ]

Wow a world where facts are almost 50/50. It is a fact if I flip a coin it will land heads.

Sigh. Not a raw poll, so don't cite it to support the point it is a fact that ten hits results in ten hits.

The rules were already given, do you disagree? I assume so, since you created a rule out of thin air.

This is very much in debate and not a fact. It is a post about a RAW poll. So stick to topic please. Don't tell people they are making things up. That is not an argument. That is an attack by all definitions of an attack. You are saying I am in make believe land and you are right b/c I am simply making things up. Then you say I shouldn't be allowed to even post on this hot subject b/c drum roll........

"It is making up rules to claim that ONE shooting attack can only ever generate ONE hit against the shield, and repeating this untruth is against the tenets of this firum" -- What ever a firum is. See that is an attack b/c I attacked your poor spelling. Try not to do that and try to ague the rules.

That again is a bully move. You realize you just told me - "You can't post and you are wrong." When this is a debate about raw and can go either way and we are having fun discussing it.

Camp 1 - Blast hits unit count the hits then you instead hit the shield.

Camp 2 - Blast hits unit then instead you place your template over an imaginary AV12 target like the rule states.

Both are valid and both are up for debate so don't tell me I am breaking the rules and don't tell me I am making things up. Post arguments not attacks. Please.

 Mythra wrote:
This is very much in debate and not a fact. It is a post about a RAW poll. So stick to topic please. Don't tell people they are making things up. That is not an argument. That is an attack by all definitions of an attack. You are saying I am in make believe land and you are right b/c I am simply making things up. Then you say I shouldn't be allowed to even post on this hot subject b/c drum roll........

"It is making up rules to claim that ONE shooting attack can only ever generate ONE hit against the shield, and repeating this untruth is against the tenets of this firum" -- What ever a firum is. See that is an attack b/c I attacked your poor spelling. Try not to do that and try to ague the rules.

That again is a bully move. You realize you just told me - "You can't post and you are wrong." When this is a debate about raw and can go either way and we are having fun discussing it.

Camp 1 - Blast hits unit count the hits then you instead hit the shield.

Camp 2 - Blast hits unit then instead you place your template over an imaginary AV12 target like the rule states.

Both are valid and both are up for debate so don't tell me I am breaking the rules and don't tell me I am making things up. Post arguments not attacks. Please.

This.

As if often the case in these forums there is a dogma that has been presupposed and a general refusal to accept counter point argument that challenges that.

 Mythra wrote:
This is very much in debate and not a fact. It is a post about a RAW poll. So stick to topic please.

The poll in this thread is asking how people play it, not RAW.


The results of such a poll have no bearing on what people think the RAW says.

Thanks Insaniak maybe he is right I am in looney land. Well not like he was masking any argument but calling me crazy anyhow.

Ok then my store and everyone I know plays it that it is 1 hit. No one even proposed it be played other wise and that is why it surprises this is so close.

The reason the poll is close is because, I assume, YMDC is full of people that play as close to pure RAW as they can get until it gets so ridiculous that helmeted Marines can't draw line of sight.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The reason the poll is close is because, I assume, YMDC is full of people that play as close to pure RAW as they can get until it gets so ridiculous that helmeted Marines can't draw line of sight.

most likely, although I am still waiting for the response to 'prove that the marine is wearing a helmet to begin with and that what his head is, is not in fact his 'head' and where his eyes are' to that particular stupid argument.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The reason the poll is close is because, I assume, YMDC is full of people that play as close to pure RAW as they can get until it gets so ridiculous that helmeted Marines can't draw line of sight.

Absolutely! I always try and play as close to the rules as possible.
But this rule is a mess.

I can see how they've tried to make this a counter to stupidity that is Str. D weapons (I can't emphasise "hobby ruining utter utter stupidity" enough in reference to Str. D), but it just causes more problems.

If you take the 1 shot = 1 hit approach the shields are just a nightmare. Way to powerful.
If you take the all hits transfer approach then shields become not worth taking.
There's no middle ground, no balance. The rule is a mess.

Scrap voids and Str. D
Then the world becomes a better place.

I too like to play quite close to the rules, but I am capable of realising when the RAW is just too dumb to actually play it that way. I'm all in favour of simply pretending that Void Shields and Strength D weapons don't actually exist, it would go a long way towards making the supplements somewhat reasonably balanced.

 Mythra wrote:
Thanks Insaniak maybe he is right I am in looney land. Well not like he was masking any argument but calling me crazy anyhow.

Ok then my store and everyone I know plays it that it is 1 hit. No one even proposed it be played other wise and that is why it surprises this is so close.

See, you're still making stuff up. I never said you were in looney land, or anything close to it. Just that you made up a rule. Which you did. Don't misrepresent others, as that isn't debate

I never said you couldn't post. Another lie. What I said was that posting as you we're is against the tenets of this forum.

Your claim that one shooting attack results in one hit is false. This is proven.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The reason the poll is close is because, I assume, YMDC is full of people that play as close to pure RAW as they can get until it gets so ridiculous that helmeted Marines can't draw line of sight.

I voted for ten times.

Why? In my opinion voidshields arent as OP that way. They still protect single Models like vehicles just fine but arent as good for protecting infantry. I think thats much better balanced for a 50pt item than being fine for vehicles and crazy good in protecting infantry.

Other than that i wouldnt start a fight over it and would play it how my opponent wants it if necessary.

Grendel083,
Will agree there, the inclusion of D class weapons into 'normal' level play has caused quite a few issues. We shouldn't be surprised that a measure to counter them would also cause just as many issues when it comes to interacting with the 'normal' 40K rules. There are many reasons to simply deny the inclusion of D-weapons into games but I still feel that void shields and shield networks might have a few good redeeming qualities left, it is just a possibility that protecting large horde based Armies is not one of them.

Personally I am still for it generating 10:
I think the loss of the 'balance' that comes with how Blast Markers function against Horde based armies is not justified enough just by the specter of D class weapons.

 Mythra wrote:
Thanks Insaniak maybe he is right I am in looney land. Well not like he was masking any argument but calling me crazy anyhow.

Ok then my store and everyone I know plays it that it is 1 hit. No one even proposed it be played other wise and that is why it surprises this is so close.

I acctually did propose how to play it fairly. Not my fault you ignored my post.


Proposal being:

On a blast hit vs a void shield, the shield takes either d6/d3 (d6 for large blast, d3 for small blast) hits, or half of the hits that would have been inflicted on the unit under it, whichever is the greater amount.

example: Large blast scores 8 hits. Shooting player rolls a d6 and gets a 3. 4 (half of the total hits) is greater than 3 so the shield takes 4 hits.


This is of course a house rule but it is the most fair way to play it.

Mywik,
I think they can still be Wonderful for protecting infantry, even infantry blobs, but just not something one can start to hold as a guarantee when facing any weapon strength 7 or greater. Anything with Frag in it's name, quite a few anti-Infantry weapons designed to blanket a large field and even a few 'explosive warhead' type meant for Mid-Toughness Units or as 'more accurate' Light Vehicle weapons for low BS armies are weapons that quickly come to mind. All those are rendered as less effective against blobs hiding under the shield, and these are all weapons that where designed specifically for taking out those sort of blob armies. Anything under a certain strength is as low as 0% effective, which includes nearly everything with frag in it's name and most of the anti-infantry specialty weapons, and even the standard 'anti-vehicle' strength is only 33% effective at inflicting 1 point off the shield. Even tightly packed, heavy horde units, will still see mid-high level Blast Weapons dropping the number of hits from 'a few' to 'not as bad as a few' before the shield winks out, even large blast markers are not going to hit every model in a 30 man squad.

It is only around strength 8-10 that one find Blast Marker weapons that seriously decrease the usability of the shield to 'why bother having one' levels of disappointment. However given that the high strength weapons are designed to be a threat to squadrons of vehicles, vaporize entire fields of the battlefield and otherwise be a focused and serious threat to Terminator-equivalent units I have to ask one question: Is the fact the shield fails to be guaranteed protection against "Anti-Everything" types of Blast Weapons really that much of a loss when, for how point effective it is, one still gain quite a lot of benefits for having one in the situations where one is already not facing oh-my-god levels of destruction?

If we're proposing rules:

"Models within 12" recieve a 5+ invulnerable save from shooting attacks, even against Str. D weapons"

Void shields also (much like embarked fortifications) completely nullify grav weaponry.

I find this pretty unfair.

RAW you can hit and wound with grav, which then moves to the shield. Since grav weapons deal no glances or pens, the shield completely negates their effect.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Void shields also (much like embarked fortifications) completely nullify grav weaponry.

I find this pretty unfair.

RAW you can hit and wound with grav, which then moves to the shield. Since grav weapons deal no glances or pens, the shield completely negates their effect.

I don't even KNOW what the RAI there would be...

 Jimsolo wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
Void shields also (much like embarked fortifications) completely nullify grav weaponry.

I find this pretty unfair.

RAW you can hit and wound with grav, which then moves to the shield. Since grav weapons deal no glances or pens, the shield completely negates their effect.

I don't even KNOW what the RAI there would be...

been thinking about that myself and cannot think of anything that would even remotely come to being palatable or fair. unless they FAQ grav weapons to cause specifically a pen based result with a fixed damage output (only real one but it then puts gets rid of my own opinion of intentional working on vehicles not having cover)

It would be reasonable for me to say that the Immobilized result from a '6' would be enough to collapse the Void Shield.

It also seems reasonable that they wouldn't work on a Void Shield. (Since the force shield has no mass.)

I dunno.

I'm more inclined for them not to work tbh, for the simple reason that as you point out, the shield has no mass for the gravitational effect to work on.

but meh, its moot with regards to the original topic and they could only function under a house rule (I dislike house rules as a rule since they breed bad habbits)

 CrashCanuck wrote:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

 CrashCanuck wrote:
Once as the rules say for each shooting attack, if you fire one blast that is one shooting attack.

Except that's not what the rules say.

"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." Pretty sure the rule says each shooting attack, I don't care if you fire a blast, it's still one shooting attack.

if I have a Tyrranofex fire its fleshborer hive, 20 shots at a unit of 10 tac marines sitting inside a void shield, and it hits 10 times. Did it score 1 hit or 10 hits? I think it scored 10 hits. 1 shooting attack =/= 1 hit. and the conversive 1 hit =/= 1 shooting attack. The only time that works is if only 1 model is hit from 1 hit, then and only then is 1 shooting attack = 1 hit.

If a Void Shield generator was a power strip connected to a wall socket, and that strip had 10 slots for sockets...

lets imagine each socket is 1 model if it has something plugged in.

Each thing plugged in takes 100w

Now if I plug 1 thing in its 100w

if I plug 10 things in its 1000w

If more gets hit it taxes the system more because its protecting more / powering more.

Despite HIPI, this thread looks like people are tying to push HYWPI into the how it should work, and some peoples HYWPI is based on sillyness and them wanting it to work a certain way not them thinking it should work a certain way or even taking the RAW to think about how it should work for their HYWPI.

blaktoof wrote:

 CrashCanuck wrote:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

 CrashCanuck wrote:
Once as the rules say for each shooting attack, if you fire one blast that is one shooting attack.

Except that's not what the rules say.

"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." Pretty sure the rule says each shooting attack, I don't care if you fire a blast, it's still one shooting attack.

if I have a Tyrranofex fire its fleshborer hive, 20 shots at a unit of 10 tac marines sitting inside a void shield, and it hits 10 times. Did it score 1 hit or 10 hits? I think it scored 10 hits. 1 shooting attack =/= 1 hit. and the conversive 1 hit =/= 1 shooting attack. The only time that works is if only 1 model is hit from 1 hit, then and only then is 1 shooting attack = 1 hit.

If a Void Shield generator was a power strip connected to a wall socket, and that strip had 10 slots for sockets...

lets imagine each socket is 1 model if it has something plugged in.

Each thing plugged in takes 100w

Now if I plug 1 thing in its 100w

if I plug 10 things in its 1000w

If more gets hit it taxes the system more because its protecting more / powering more.

Despite HIPI, this thread looks like people are tying to push HYWPI into the how it should work, and some peoples HYWPI is based on sillyness and them wanting it to work a certain way not them thinking it should work a certain way or even taking the RAW to think about how it should work for their HYWPI.

I disagree with your assumption that it takes more power for a force field to work because more people are standing under it.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I
It also seems reasonable that they wouldn't work on a Void Shield. (Since the force shield has no mass.)

That's what I'd go with.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I
It also seems reasonable that they wouldn't work on a Void Shield. (Since the force shield has no mass.)

That's what I'd go with.

Yeah, especially as Grav weapons have no effect against buildings (which are similar to vehicles), clearly there is precedent for them only affecting vehicles when they say how they affect vehicles.

I think I really dislike Voids or D in regular games. We have already agreed at the local store not to use D or more than 1 void building.

Isen't this one pretty easy?

You don't get 10 hits on the unit because you essentially don't hit the unit. you hit the void shield. It's fine if people want to house rule it otherwise, but I'd say the rules are pretty clear on how this works.

 Mythra wrote:
I think I really dislike Voids or D in regular games. We have already agreed at the local store not to use D or more than 1 void building.

something your entitled to but you shouldn't put off new visitors because they want to play with their new shiny toys with big guns.

FunJohn wrote:
Isen't this one pretty easy?

You don't get 10 hits on the unit because you essentially don't hit the unit. you hit the void shield. It's fine if people want to house rule it otherwise, but I'd say the rules are pretty clear on how this works.

Yep, the shooting attack hits. How do you know it has hot a unit? You place the blast marker, and count how many models are underneath. That I'd the ONLY way you can determine if a blast hits

So why do you then discard those ten hits, in favour of one? You stated the rules were clear, yet failed to cite a single one.

I'd play it as D3 or D6 hits.
It's stupid to have a mechanic where the last guardsmen is more survivable than a squad of 20.

Likewise, I think the explosive force of blasts should do more than a single hit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

FunJohn wrote:
Isen't this one pretty easy?

You don't get 10 hits on the unit because you essentially don't hit the unit. you hit the void shield. It's fine if people want to house rule it otherwise, but I'd say the rules are pretty clear on how this works.

Yep, the shooting attack hits. How do you know it has hot a unit? You place the blast marker, and count how many models are underneath. That I'd the ONLY way you can determine if a blast hits

So why do you then discard those ten hits, in favour of one? You stated the rules were clear, yet failed to cite a single one.

Leaving the specifics of Void Shields for a moment the key question is IMO :

How do you determine the number of hits inflicted on a unit if it doesn't hit the unit but hits something else instead?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

FunJohn wrote:
Isen't this one pretty easy?

You don't get 10 hits on the unit because you essentially don't hit the unit. you hit the void shield. It's fine if people want to house rule it otherwise, but I'd say the rules are pretty clear on how this works.

Yep, the shooting attack hits. How do you know it has hot a unit? You place the blast marker, and count how many models are underneath. That I'd the ONLY way you can determine if a blast hits

So why do you then discard those ten hits, in favour of one? You stated the rules were clear, yet failed to cite a single one.

Each blast or template is a single shooting attack, and a shield/field can only be hit once per shooting attack.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

FunJohn wrote:
Isen't this one pretty easy?

You don't get 10 hits on the unit because you essentially don't hit the unit. you hit the void shield. It's fine if people want to house rule it otherwise, but I'd say the rules are pretty clear on how this works.

Yep, the shooting attack hits. How do you know it has hot a unit? You place the blast marker, and count how many models are underneath. That I'd the ONLY way you can determine if a blast hits

So why do you then discard those ten hits, in favour of one? You stated the rules were clear, yet failed to cite a single one.

Each blast or template is a single shooting attack, and a shield/field can only be hit once per shooting attack.

The Fleshborer Hive is an Assault 20 weapon. Since it is a single shooting attack does that mean it can only hit the shield once?

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

FunJohn wrote:
Isen't this one pretty easy?

You don't get 10 hits on the unit because you essentially don't hit the unit. you hit the void shield. It's fine if people want to house rule it otherwise, but I'd say the rules are pretty clear on how this works.

Yep, the shooting attack hits. How do you know it has hot a unit? You place the blast marker, and count how many models are underneath. That I'd the ONLY way you can determine if a blast hits

So why do you then discard those ten hits, in favour of one? You stated the rules were clear, yet failed to cite a single one.

Each blast or template is a single shooting attack, and a shield/field can only be hit once per shooting attack.

The Fleshborer Hive is an Assault 20 weapon. Since it is a single shooting attack does that mean it can only hit the shield once?

No, but there's a clear difference. The Assault 20 weapon has twenty shots, but a blast only has one shot (which can generate multiple hits). It seems like there's a pretty distinct difference between the two.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

FunJohn wrote:
Isen't this one pretty easy?

You don't get 10 hits on the unit because you essentially don't hit the unit. you hit the void shield. It's fine if people want to house rule it otherwise, but I'd say the rules are pretty clear on how this works.

Yep, the shooting attack hits. How do you know it has hot a unit? You place the blast marker, and count how many models are underneath. That I'd the ONLY way you can determine if a blast hits

So why do you then discard those ten hits, in favour of one? You stated the rules were clear, yet failed to cite a single one.

Each blast or template is a single shooting attack, and a shield/field can only be hit once per shooting attack.

The Fleshborer Hive is an Assault 20 weapon. Since it is a single shooting attack does that mean it can only hit the shield once?

No, but there's a clear difference. The Assault 20 weapon has twenty shots, but a blast only has one shot (which can generate multiple hits). It seems like there's a pretty distinct difference between the two.

That is very much the stumbling block on this whole affair, there is a slight difference in execution between templates and other weapons, I think the wider community is able to make the leap using their understanding of the abstract nature of things.

I dunno. The responses to this thread seem to indicate a pretty even split.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I dunno. The responses to this thread seem to indicate a pretty even split.

Yeh I agree, however I don't believe that to be representative of the wider community.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

FunJohn wrote:
Isen't this one pretty easy?

You don't get 10 hits on the unit because you essentially don't hit the unit. you hit the void shield. It's fine if people want to house rule it otherwise, but I'd say the rules are pretty clear on how this works.

Yep, the shooting attack hits. How do you know it has hot a unit? You place the blast marker, and count how many models are underneath. That I'd the ONLY way you can determine if a blast hits

So why do you then discard those ten hits, in favour of one? You stated the rules were clear, yet failed to cite a single one.

Each blast or template is a single shooting attack, and a shield/field can only be hit once per shooting attack.

The Fleshborer Hive is an Assault 20 weapon. Since it is a single shooting attack does that mean it can only hit the shield once?

No, but there's a clear difference. The Assault 20 weapon has twenty shots, but a blast only has one shot (which can generate multiple hits). It seems like there's a pretty distinct difference between the two.

But do the rules say that each shot hits the shield, or that the shooting attack hits the shield?

Rorschach9 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
10. Raw and hywpi

Not RAW, and not how you should play it.

Here is RAW proof how shields work.



If you want to ask more questions, let me know.

That is a screen grab from a TV show and has absolutely nothing to do with Void Shields or the rules for 40k. Stop trying to claim it is "proof" of anything.

Lighten up man, it's intended as a joke I hope haha

I'd say 10 too, otherwise it gets too confusing to me

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I dunno. The responses to this thread seem to indicate a pretty even split.

Yeh I agree, however I don't believe that to be representative of the wider community.

So are you saying that Dakka is a poor representative of the 40k community? That the poll is poorly constructed? Or that people are not responding honestly in the poll/discussion? If it's the first, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. If it's the second, then please suggest how it could be constructed better. If it's the third, then I don't really see a way to help or even measure that.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

FunJohn wrote:
Isen't this one pretty easy?

You don't get 10 hits on the unit because you essentially don't hit the unit. you hit the void shield. It's fine if people want to house rule it otherwise, but I'd say the rules are pretty clear on how this works.

Yep, the shooting attack hits. How do you know it has hot a unit? You place the blast marker, and count how many models are underneath. That I'd the ONLY way you can determine if a blast hits

So why do you then discard those ten hits, in favour of one? You stated the rules were clear, yet failed to cite a single one.

Each blast or template is a single shooting attack, and a shield/field can only be hit once per shooting attack.

Citation required.
The new Knights have Heavy 2 blast weapons. Is that 2 separate shooting attacks? Please show rules evidence.

Well, the one blast marker is not a variable number of shooting attacks.

it is a single shooting attack.

If you disagree please cite rules that say a vindicator that hits more than one enemy model is more than one shooting attack.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well, the one blast marker is not a variable number of shooting attacks.

it is a single shooting attack.

If you disagree please cite rules that say a vindicator that hits more than one enemy model is more than one shooting attack.

cite the rule that stipulates one shot = one hit.

p6, templates flat out shows you to be incorrect

template weapons cause a number of hits = to the number of models underneath them, placing a template is in lieu of rolling 'to hit dice' is it not a replacement for anything other than that, also note that void shields are not models and thus a shield, not having been classified as such, is immune to blast weapons, which frankly is stupid.

next point is to lok at the timing, the shield cannot intercept the attack until after the number of hits of the shooting attack has been generated, as such the roll to hit/placement of the template (and subsiquant calculation of the number of hits) has already happened and the number of hits that are to be placed on the unit transfer over to the shield, there are also no rules that permit you to re-calculate the number of hits you have scored.

an assualt 20 weapon that rolls 20 successful hits is no iferent than a blast weapon covering 20 models, both have 20 hits and both transfer 20 hits to the shield.

the fact that the hits go onto a shield has no bearing on the initial attack, otherwise the rule would be written, 'when a unit is targetted for a shooting attack and the attack originates outside of 12" from the project void shield source, the target is instead one of the projected void shields."

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well, the one blast marker is not a variable number of shooting attacks.

it is a single shooting attack.

If you disagree please cite rules that say a vindicator that hits more than one enemy model is more than one shooting attack.

Cite a rule that states why this is relevant to the void shield rules, which simply state that the shooting attack hits the shield. My shooting attack has hit 10 times, please cite permission to recalculate the number of hits and come up with "1", bearing in mind you have NO RULES basis to allow a blast marker to hit a non-model void shield.

Page and para.

Come on guys.

If you want to play it from a strict RAW perspective, I can at least accept that. I may not agree with the position, but there are several good reasons to take that position, and it can be argued from a bedrock of rationality.

But you can't seriously try to say that a blast that hits ten people is actually ten separate attacks, can you? Doesn't that seem a little silly?

No, I'm not saying it is 10 separate attacks. I am saying it is one shooting attack that has caused more than one hit

Same as an assault 20 weapon is one shooting attack that can cause more than 1 hit.

Same as a heavy 2 weapon is one shooting attack that can cause more than 1 hit

Consistency is a wonderful thing, especially when there is zero rules support suggesting blasts should be treated as special bunnies.

I am with Jim seems like 1 shooting attack with X hits that never happen b/c they instead hit the shield.

1 Attack hits the shield RAW.

 Mythra wrote:
I am with Jim seems like 1 shooting attack with X hits that never happen b/c they instead hit the shield.

1 Attack hits the shield RAW.

Please show permission to recalculate the number of hits obtained at step 2 of the shooting process. Page and para.

Since youve claimed "RAW" I assume you can do this?

Are you at least being consistent now? So an autocannon can only ever "hit" once now? How about a fleshborer hive - 1 hit or 20 is the max?

 Mythra wrote:
I am with Jim seems like 1 shooting attack with X hits that never happen b/c they instead hit the shield.

1 Attack hits the shield RAW.

I lol'd at that.

cite the page that makes the shield a model, then go read p6 as to why that is a relevant question

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well, the one blast marker is not a variable number of shooting attacks.

it is a single shooting attack.

If you disagree please cite rules that say a vindicator that hits more than one enemy model is more than one shooting attack.

That's not even close to what you originally said.

You need to cite evidence that one shooting attack can only ever generate one hit.
I can cite evidence to the contrary. Please support your argument with rules.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Come on guys.

If you want to play it from a strict RAW perspective, I can at least accept that. I may not agree with the position, but there are several good reasons to take that position, and it can be argued from a bedrock of rationality.

But you can't seriously try to say that a blast that hits ten people is actually ten separate attacks, can you? Doesn't that seem a little silly?

If someone fires 1 weapon that puts out so many single shots that it can hit 10 models [a gatling gun]

and someone fires 1 weapon that puts out grenade that explodes and shrapnel from it hits 10 models [ a rpg]

they still both cause 10 hits from the 1 weapon firing.

are people getting confused because the template is just 1 of something [1 template] so it must be just 1 hit? If its just 1 hit do you only remove 1 model if you got hit 8 times and failed 6 saves?

10 is clearly the RaW, and to me appears to be the RaI. 1 hit makes the shields a little imbalanced and causes all sorts of problems (does Tesla work on shields etc) and has no rules support. They tell you to work out the number of hits before transferring the attack to the shields it seems pretty clear to me. You can mitigate it by spreading. You can make it impossible to generate more than 3 hits with a direct hit and having a void shield shouldn't remove the tactical need to avoid huddling up.

This is not some hard line semantic RaW reading (like Gravguns vs invulnerable saves, etc) this is a simple process you are following and you are never told to not count the number of hits a unit causes on the shield nor do you ever have a method of doing so with a blast/template weapon.

 FlingitNow wrote:
10 is clearly the RaW, and to me appears to be the RaI.

You think RAI, is..... The shot is on its way to its target, it never knows how many models it his because the shield intercepts the shot. However the shot then still somehow figures out how many times it WOULD HAVE hit the models (which it never did) and then hits the shield that many times instead?

That doesn't sound intended to me.

You think RAI, is..... The shot is on its way to its target, it never knows how many models it his because the shield intercepts the shot. However the shot then still somehow figures out how many times it WOULD HAVE hit the models (which it never did) and then hits the shield that many times instead?

That doesn't sound intended to me.

How many models is the shield?

The rules give us a clear sequence to follow for shooting and tells us to interrupt that process and do something different but otherwise follow the normal process. They give us literally no way of working out how many hits go on the shield other than by counting the models under the blast. Why do you think they expect us to make up an entirely new process and ignore a part of the process they have already explicitly told us to follow.

Yes it is the RaI to be and seems pretty clear.

So your telling me the models are still hit and not the shield right? I am saying the special rule says hit the shield once INSTEAD of what was hit under the shield. So if my gargoyles hit your models under the shield then they must still test to be blinded? Or if a grav gun hits a vehicle under the shield it is still immobilized on a 6? B/c according to you all your still hitting then model then the shield.

 Mythra wrote:
So your telling me the models are still hit and not the shield right? I am saying the special rule says hit the shield once INSTEAD of what was hit under the shield. So if my gargoyles hit your models under the shield then they must still test to be blinded? Or if a grav gun hits a vehicle under the shield it is still immobilized on a 6? B/c according to you all your still hitting then model then the shield.

Have you found any rules to back up your "1 is RAW" assertion yet? Or will you hand wave the tenets away again?

How have you arrived at one hit! Is it your fallacious "one shooting attack = 1 hit " argument again? Y

 Mythra wrote:
So your telling me the models are still hit and not the shield right? I am saying the special rule says hit the shield once INSTEAD of what was hit under the shield. So if my gargoyles hit your models under the shield then they must still test to be blinded? Or if a grav gun hits a vehicle under the shield it is still immobilized on a 6? B/c according to you all your still hitting then model then the shield.

Well you hit the unit (not its models you never hit models) then transfer the attack to the shield. So you either throw away the number of hits caused and recalculate them or just carry over the number of hits the shooting attack has caused.

If the former, you need permission to do so which we both know doesn't exist and results in the shield being entirely immune to all blast weapons. Or we do the later which is what the rules tell us to do...

The rule that tells you to INSTEAD hit an AV12 Shield. Not and hit the unit. So you would instead put your pie plate over your imaginary av12 shield. You get a hit on it.

If you do it your way you still blind the unit and Grav guns still immobilize the target vehicle b/c all you have to do is hit for those effects to go off.

You never ever hit the unit b/c it clearly says in the rules for voids INSTEAD hit an av 12 target. Again I see no "and hit the unit" and then hit the shield. It tells you how to play it. INSTEAD. In its stead. It takes its place.


Look instead of hitting Joe hit AV 12 BOB. Did you ever hit Joe? Nope you hit AV 12 BOB.

Instead of hitting Joe, the shooting attack hits Bob.
Since the shooting attack consists of 10 hits, 10 hits go to bob instead of Joe.

The rule that tells you to INSTEAD hit an AV12 Shield. Not and hit the unit. So you would instead put your pie plate over your imaginary av12 shield. You get a hit on it.

Why would that generate 1 hit? Using actual rules why would placing the pie plate over an imaginary shield generate a hit.

Further more where to the rules state anything about moving templates and recalculating hits?

If you do it your way you still blind the unit and Grav guns still immobilize the target vehicle b/c all you have to do is hit for those effects to go off.

That's just not true. You generate hits on a unit and then move the attack onto the shield as the rules tell you to.

You never ever hit the unit b/c it clearly says in the rules for voids INSTEAD hit an av 12 target. Again I see no "and hit the unit" and then hit the shield. It tells you how to play it. INSTEAD. In its stead. It takes its place.

But the hits have to be generated on the units before they can instead hit the shield. Read the rules you do not roll to hit against the shields. You do that against the unit. By your new method anything is immortal behind a shield as no one can ever draw LoS to the shield to roll to hit against it.

rigeld2 wrote:
Instead of hitting Joe, the shooting attack hits Bob.
Since the shooting attack consists of 10 hits, 10 hits go to bob instead of Joe.

Bob's only one guy though, wouldnt it hit 10 Bobs?

in·stead
adverb
1.
as a substitute or replacement; in the place or stead of someone or something: We ordered tea but were served coffee instead.
2.
in preference; as a preferred or accepted alternative: The city has its pleasures, but she wished instead for the quiet of country life.
Idioms
3.
instead of, in place of; in lieu of: You can use milk instead of cream in this recipe.

English says so. Instead never includes the original item. The rules tell you to instead hit the AV 12 shield. Where do the rules give you permission to place that over the target and start counting? You instead hit an av 12 shield it is clear.

Instead isn't inclusive. You want to instead/and hit the original target. You all never did start why effects like entropic strike wouldn't take effect either? The only rules condition is a hit not a wound or a pen, so if my Scarabs are manning a Quad and I hit your vehicle under the shield your going to lose AV.

They are not immortal the rule tells you to instead hit the shield. They give you the permission to hit it right there.

I know what instead means. So you believe you don't place the blast marker over the target roll for scatter and then count how many models are under the template? So what do you think you do with blast weapons and what rules are you using to do that?

I don't hit both the shield and unit. I generate hits on the unit as I am told by the rules then take those hits and instead assign them to the shield. Why is that so difficult for you to understand. Why do you insist that GW expect us to make up a whole list of our own rules?

Lets agree to disagree we won't see eye to eye on this. IF you hit the unit or anything stop there don't do anything else. INSTEAD hit a shield. You can roll your hit and scatter and if it does hit INSTEAD hit the AV shield don't go generating hits on something you instead hit an AV 12 shield.

You generate hits? You just hit the unit. You were told in the special rule if hit INSTEAD hit the shield. Why are you making up rules and generating hits on the unit when it told you to instead hit the shield? it said to instead hit the shield. How do generate hits when you instead HIT an av 12 shield.

You have to know if you hit the unit right?

So you have to roll to hit against the unit? Are you claiming you do not roll to hit against the unit?

If you put the blaster marker over the shield how many models are you counting? What models are you counting? How are you reach the number 1?

This is not a matter of agreeing to disagree this is you knowing what you're saying is wrong and knowing you have no rules back up but arguing anyway because you want the rules to work a particular way.

I'd rather the rules be clear instead of murky. I can't really see how this rule would work your way.

The rule states if you hit instead hit an AV 12 shield. So if you scatter on to a tank, a ferret, or on to 20 Guardsmen then you instead stop and hit a shield. That is English. You want it to hit all those guardsmen then transfer to the shield. Why then didn't they they say to transfer those hits? They didn't they said instead.

You even want special abilities that work on hit to not hit the original target but hit the shield then stop there. You want them to instead hit the shield. Why is the blast not working the same way? That is the way any attack that hits should work. You instead hit the shield.

 Mythra wrote:
I'd rather the rules be clear instead of murky. I can't really see how this rule would work your way.

The rule states if you hit instead hit an AV 12 shield. So if you scatter on to a tank, a ferret, or on to 20 Guardsmen then you instead stop and hit a shield. That is English. You want it to hit all those guardsmen then transfer to the shield. Why then didn't they they say to transfer those hits? They didn't they said instead.

You even want special abilities that work on hit to not hit the original target but hit the shield then stop there. You want them to instead hit the shield. Why is the blast not working the same way? That is the way any attack that hits should work. You instead hit the shield.

Your problem is you're misquoting the rule.
If a unit under the shield is hit, instead the shooting attack hits the shield.
How do we know if a unit under the shield is hit by a blast? We generate hits by counting models under the marker.
So our shooting attack has hit 10 times. We now know a unit under the shield has been hit - the shooting attack (that has hit 10 times) instead hits the shield.
Your method requires recalculating the number of hits generated - please cite a rule supporting that.

The scatter die tells you if you hit not counting models. You want to hit then start counting adding a whole extra step. I am saying the rules states if you hit instead hit a shield you don't start counting. All you have to know is if anything under the template is hit. Then simply follow the rule and instead hit the shield.

I can see what your saying and I think it is incorrect like you think I am incorrect. Anyway I am out this is just going in circles. Good Luck.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Spoiler:

There are a number of things that cannot be explained. How does a FMC Swooping high above the battlefield hide in area terrain? How does a laser pointer cause an FMC to crash into the ground? How does a heavy tank "mishap" when dropped on a single normal human being?

1. It's "swooping", clearly it has swooped down low to get cover.
2. Agh! My eye! (this should work on Flyer pilots as well)
3. Extremely fragile underside?

The scatter die tells you if you hit not counting models.

Absolutely false. So you're now telling me I can scatter zero inches and miss the unit? For blast weapons the only way to determine if you hit and how many hits the weapon causes is by counting models.

You still refuse to answer simple questions about how your proposed method works.

So again if you transfer the blast to you imagine shield how many models are underneath it?

Where are you told to recalculate the number of hits a shooting attack causes after making to hit rolls for it?

You claim the RaW method is murky it is not. You simply follow the processes as laid out the rules. You start a normal shooting attack. This is interrupted after you have s hit on a unit within the PVS. How do you know if you've hit? That's right you make your to hit rolls. So you have already generated a number of hits on the unit before the shield intercepts, which it does and those hits are instead resolved on the shield. You are not told to recalculate the number of hits. You are not told to treat blast weapons differently to other weapons. You are not told to do anything other than follow the process I have just laid out.

I just don't understand why people want to treat a blast weapon any different from a "regular" shooting weapon. No one would argue a 20 shot weapon only hits the shield once, why is a blast different? Both shooting attacks happen at the same time as far as the rules are concerned.

 FlingitNow wrote:

You think RAI, is..... The shot is on its way to its target, it never knows how many models it his because the shield intercepts the shot. However the shot then still somehow figures out how many times it WOULD HAVE hit the models (which it never did) and then hits the shield that many times instead?

That doesn't sound intended to me.

How many models is the shield?

The rules give us a clear sequence to follow for shooting and tells us to interrupt that process and do something different but otherwise follow the normal process. They give us literally no way of working out how many hits go on the shield other than by counting the models under the blast. Why do you think they expect us to make up an entirely new process and ignore a part of the process they have already explicitly told us to follow.

Yes it is the RaI to be and seems pretty clear.

GW expects us to be playing on a planet a billion miles away. They expect imagination.

You're using RAW to create a RAI argument. However you're doing RAI wrong by implying GW cares about RAW.

RAI the shield intercepts the incoming shot. RAI since it hit the shield first it explodes in a blaze of glory. RAI it never knows how many models would have been under that blast marker.

Currently there are plenty of rules that don't follow RAI. Of those we choose to play what makes the game more fun and imaginative, because that is RAW. Or we use what clearly makes sense.

RAW I see the argument for 10 hits. But RAI not at all.

JPong wrote:
I just don't understand why people want to treat a blast weapon any different from a "regular" shooting weapon. No one would argue a 20 shot weapon only hits the shield once, why is a blast different? Both shooting attacks happen at the same time as far as the rules are concerned.

Because in one scenario you're firing 20 bullets at the shield and getting (at BS 3) 10 hits, and in the other you're firing 1 bullet which repeatedly rams itself into the shield based on how many models it would have hit had it not encountered the shield. One of these situations is just slightly more believable than the other.

RaI is they set out a straight forward process to follow you start your shooting attack and generate hits for it then resolve that attack now made up of hits against the shield. It is straight forward if they had wanted it to work differently they would have told us something. There is literally no hint that the process should work differently for blast weapons than for any other type of weapon. Thus it is the clear RaI unless you have done evidence that they intend us to resolve blast weapons differently to every other type of weapon?

Also what happens when a blast covers 2 or more different units? Do you still resolve just 1 hit even though several units are effected? If so your interpretation is just getting more ludicrous by the second.

Follow the process treat all weapons the same.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

JPong wrote:
I just don't understand why people want to treat a blast weapon any different from a "regular" shooting weapon. No one would argue a 20 shot weapon only hits the shield once, why is a blast different? Both shooting attacks happen at the same time as far as the rules are concerned.

Because in one scenario you're firing 20 bullets at the shield and getting (at BS 3) 10 hits, and in the other you're firing 1 bullet which repeatedly rams itself into the shield based on how many models it would have hit had it not encountered the shield. One of these situations is just slightly more believable than the other.

Not everything that uses the markers are described as a single bullet. Some are a hail of acid, others are a torrent of fire, yet even others are salvos of shots. Trying to bring the real world into a rules argument is a terrible argument.

JPong wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

JPong wrote:
I just don't understand why people want to treat a blast weapon any different from a "regular" shooting weapon. No one would argue a 20 shot weapon only hits the shield once, why is a blast different? Both shooting attacks happen at the same time as far as the rules are concerned.

Because in one scenario you're firing 20 bullets at the shield and getting (at BS 3) 10 hits, and in the other you're firing 1 bullet which repeatedly rams itself into the shield based on how many models it would have hit had it not encountered the shield. One of these situations is just slightly more believable than the other.

Not everything that uses the markers are described as a single bullet. Some are a hail of acid, others are a torrent of fire, yet even others are salvos of shots. Trying to bring the real world into a rules argument is a terrible argument.

Also the number of dice you roll to hit isn't exactly equal to the number of bullets fired. A salvo of bullets from a boltgun at full range is represented by 1 roll to hit but if their weapons follow similar patterns to today it is likely a 3 shot burst.

FlingitNow wrote:RaI is they set out a straight forward process to follow you start your shooting attack and generate hits for it then resolve that attack now made up of hits against the shield. It is straight forward if they had wanted it to work differently they would have told us something. There is literally no hint that the process should work differently for blast weapons than for any other type of weapon. Thus it is the clear RaI unless you have done evidence that they intend us to resolve blast weapons differently to every other type of weapon?

Also what happens when a blast covers 2 or more different units? Do you still resolve just 1 hit even though several units are effected? If so your interpretation is just getting more ludicrous by the second.

Follow the process treat all weapons the same.

This isn't RAI, this is HYWPI.

JPong wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

JPong wrote:
I just don't understand why people want to treat a blast weapon any different from a "regular" shooting weapon. No one would argue a 20 shot weapon only hits the shield once, why is a blast different? Both shooting attacks happen at the same time as far as the rules are concerned.

Because in one scenario you're firing 20 bullets at the shield and getting (at BS 3) 10 hits, and in the other you're firing 1 bullet which repeatedly rams itself into the shield based on how many models it would have hit had it not encountered the shield. One of these situations is just slightly more believable than the other.

Not everything that uses the markers are described as a single bullet. Some are a hail of acid, others are a torrent of fire, yet even others are salvos of shots. Trying to bring the real world into a rules argument is a terrible argument.

A) Ok, then the hail/torrent/cluster/whatever magically gets better at breaking through shields when there are more guys standing behind them, still just as silly.
B) You might not have noticed, but this isn't actually a rules argument, maybe you should read the thread title.

This isn't RAI, this is HYWPI.

And why on earth would you play it differently to the RaI? Surely the aim is to play as close to RaI as possible without having the design team there telling you have what to do?

I just can't wait for the FAQ so I can say told you so.

Mythra wrote:The scatter die tells you if you hit not counting models.

Wrong.

The relevant rules quotes were given to you in the previous thread. Please do not spout something as true when you know it isnt.

The only way you know if a Blast has Hit a unit is by...placing the blast and counting models. That determines your Hits.

Mythra wrote:You want to hit then start counting adding a whole extra step.

Wrong. Counting IS determiniung if the shooting attack has Hit a unit inside the shield

Mythra wrote: I am saying the rules states if you hit instead hit a shield you don't start counting.

Then you are lying about what thye rules state, as they never state that.

The SHOOTING ATTACK hits the shield. The SHOOTING ATTACK has 10 hits. Page and para why you are discarding those ten hits and making up, out of thin air, 1 hit

Failure to again support your argument with some actual rules wil be reported for trolling.

Mythra wrote:All you have to know is if anything under the template is hit. Then simply follow the rule and instead hit the shield.

The shooting attack, with 10 hits, instead hits the shield. How manby times? 10 times, because that is how many hits you have. Why are you ignoring written rules?

Mythra wrote:I can see what your saying and I think it is incorrect like you think I am incorrect. Anyway I am out this is just going in circles. Good Luck.

No, we know your position is incorrect, as it involves making up rules that do not exist, ignoring the actual rules (by ignoring "shooting attack") and is also woefully inconsistent in treating shooting attack from weapon A as magically differnt from shooting attack B, when the rules make no such distinction.

I do not care what they FAQ, as GW are incompetent at a) kniwing their own rules and b) stating when they change them (for example, noone sane would disagree that the FAQ to page 16 out of range was an actual errata, as it replaces the entire rule. GW did not issue it as such though), so whether they FAQ it either way will not help either side

It does not alter that, as it stands, RAW 10 hits on a unit inside the shiled INSTEAD hit the shield. All 10 hits.

Come on NOS, if they FAQ it to be only one hit, it will mean the RAW is only 1 hit.

Frequently Asked Questions = Answered.
The
Frequently Asked Questions (or ‘FAQ’) section answers
commonly asked questions about the rules. Although you can
mark corrections directly in your rulebook, this is by no means
necessary – just keep a copy of the update with your rulebook.

So if they rule its 1 hit, then you had simply misunderstood how GW explains rules. (Or tried to explain them )

Now if they

The Errata corrects any
mistakes in the codex, while the Amendments bring the
rulebook up to date with the latest version of the rules.

Then you were right (probably) however GW had a different idea of RAI.

All of that aside.

RAI = 1 HIt.

RAW = 10Hits (IMHO)

Also they won't update the FAQ's so none of this matter.

I've talked it over with local TO's and LGS group and we'll be playing 1 hit, because it makes the most sense.

Eh, not really. SitW and Vehicles flip flopped from Yes to No - meaning one certainly wasnt "RAW". Similarly out of sight should be an errata, as it replaces the written rule with something that operates very differently - it does not clarify the original at all (in so much as you cannot get from the intiial text, no matter how you read it, to the FAQ!)

All of that aside.

RAI = 1 HIt.

RAW = 10Hits (IMHO)

Your opinion is OK and you are entitled to it. But I really don't see any justification for RaI being 1 hit. You have to invent an entire process that is unsupported by the rules and create a different set of rules for one type of weapon with literally nothing telling you to do so. For me this is the strong evidence required to believe you treat blast weapons just like any other weapons when dealing with the Void shields.

I for once agree with Fling - I do not see the "RAI" as strongly 1 hit, as it requires the invention of a new mechanic - allowing you to disregard the number of hits, recalculate the hits while necesssarily then creating a non-model that you can count as a hit - its too much work.

It is entirely probable they took the VS rules for titans, and slapped thm on with a range limitation, without remembering that titans are single models, meaning the blast issue was never an issue - it was always the degenerate case.

 yakface wrote:

Each blast or template is a single shooting attack, and a shield/field can only be hit once per shooting attack.

So the answer for me is once.

Lol back to this post again? Ok, HIWPI instead of arguing Raw?

As said previously, let's just wait for FaQs to solve the issue rather than 20 pages of "i am right , you are not"

I have voted, and most active users here know RaW and RaI what my opinion is ;-)

The quote above is a very nice way of putting it to which i agree!

 BlackTalos wrote:

 yakface wrote:

Each blast or template is a single shooting attack, and a shield/field can only be hit once per shooting attack.

So the answer for me is once.

Lol back to this post again? Ok, HIWPI instead of arguing Raw?

As said previously, let's just wait for FaQs to solve the issue rather than 20 pages of "i am right , you are not"

I have voted, and most active users here know RaW and RaI what my opinion is ;-)

The quote above is a very nice way of putting it to which i agree!

It is also something which, while a nice concept, has no basis in the rule as written. A shooting attack hits once, but is itself composed of 1+ hits and it is THOSE that you resolve against the shield. Or do you agree that an autocannon can only cause one hit on a shield?

RAW it is 10 hits. RAI? who the hell knows, a case can be made in a number of ways. (as is usually the case when trying to make RAI arguments)

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 yakface wrote:

Each blast or template is a single shooting attack, and a shield/field can only be hit once per shooting attack.

So the answer for me is once.

Lol back to this post again? Ok, HIWPI instead of arguing Raw?

As said previously, let's just wait for FaQs to solve the issue rather than 20 pages of "i am right , you are not"

I have voted, and most active users here know RaW and RaI what my opinion is ;-)

The quote above is a very nice way of putting it to which i agree!

It is also something which, while a nice concept, has no basis in the rule as written. A shooting attack hits once, but is itself composed of 1+ hits and it is THOSE that you resolve against the shield. Or do you agree that an autocannon can only cause one hit on a shield?

RAW it is 10 hits. RAI? who the hell knows, a case can be made in a number of ways. (as is usually the case when trying to make RAI arguments)

No i will not take the bait and start arguing RaW Again. The OP was asking about HWYPI and i fully agree on "who the hell knows"...

 BlackTalos wrote:

 yakface wrote:

Each blast or template is a single shooting attack, and a shield/field can only be hit once per shooting attack.

So the answer for me is once.

Lol back to this post again? Ok, HIWPI instead of arguing Raw?

As said previously, let's just wait for FaQs to solve the issue rather than 20 pages of "i am right , you are not"

I have voted, and most active users here know RaW and RaI what my opinion is ;-)

The quote above is a very nice way of putting it to which i agree!

So the answer for you on a Assault 6 weapon hitting 6 times is only 1 hit on the shield?
I've literally never seen a rule saying a shield can only be hit once per shooting attack. Ever. Such a statement is invented and clearly not actual rules.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 yakface wrote:

Each blast or template is a single shooting attack, and a shield/field can only be hit once per shooting attack.

So the answer for me is once.

Lol back to this post again? Ok, HIWPI instead of arguing Raw?

As said previously, let's just wait for FaQs to solve the issue rather than 20 pages of "i am right , you are not"

I have voted, and most active users here know RaW and RaI what my opinion is ;-)

The quote above is a very nice way of putting it to which i agree!

A squad of 10 marines firing 4 autocannons is 1 shooting attack I'm guessing if they hit with all 8 dice you'd agree that is only 1 hit on the shields then?

rigeld2 wrote:
So the answer for you on a Assault 6 weapon hitting 6 times is only 1 hit on the shield?
I've literally never seen a rule saying a shield can only be hit once per shooting attack. Ever. Such a statement is invented and clearly not actual rules.

Wait, when did this become RaW?

Actual rules? for a HWYPI argument?

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So the answer for you on a Assault 6 weapon hitting 6 times is only 1 hit on the shield?
I've literally never seen a rule saying a shield can only be hit once per shooting attack. Ever. Such a statement is invented and clearly not actual rules.

Wait, when did this become RaW?

Actual rules? for a HWYPI argument?

When someone asserts a fact (ie:

 yakface wrote:
Each blast or template is a single shooting attack, and a shield/field can only be hit once per shooting attack.

)
As support for their HIWPI position, and that fact is invented - ie not actual rules - I feel the need to respond.
And I wanted to point out that you'd be inconsistent if you allowed an Assault 6 weapon 6 hits from one shooting attack, but a Blast weapon of any kind only 1 hit. What about a Heavy 2 Blast weapon? 1 hit or 2? It's a single shooting attack.

I just said i agreed to the following statement. Not actually arguing it as that has been done already... (I am aware i'm feeding Trolls, so posts by me will soon stop again)

I would point out the word "Each" that starts the sentence. A Heavy 2, blast being 2 templates would work just fine...

I also agree with the statement because "a shield/field can only be hit once per shooting attack" works perfectly fine, as the shooting attack only contains shots (and hits! oh no wait, we replaced those hits).

1 shot = 1 hit is still my position on this, and has always been both RaW and HWYPI

That actually allows Assault 6 = 6 Hits
Heavy 3, Blast = 3 Hits

omg it works! And the shield will perform the exact same way whether it's protecting 2 tanks or 40 infantry, because you paid a set amount of points playing guard or Imperial Knights. Hooray!

You will notice I have now clearly defined my position and will no longer participate in the "i am right" debate so many lurking users here adore

Too bad, RAW shots =/= hits. Otherwise, no matter how many models are underneath a blast marker, it would still be one hit.

1 shot = 1 hit is still my position on this, and has always been both RaW and HWYPI

This is not correct and you know it. 1 shot = 1 hit might be HYWPI it might even be your opinion on what is RaI, but it is not RaW and has literally no basis in RaW it is something you have entirely made up.

 BlackTalos wrote:
I just said i agreed to the following statement. Not actually arguing it as that has been done already... (I am aware i'm feeding Trolls, so posts by me will soon stop again)

Reported. As stated by the mods, accusations of trolling is in fact trolling. I've done no such thing.

I also agree with the statement because "a shield/field can only be hit once per shooting attack" works perfectly fine, as the shooting attack only contains shots (and hits! oh no wait, we replaced those hits).

1 shot = 1 hit is still my position on this, and has always been both RaW and HWYPI

That actually allows Assault 6 = 6 Hits
Heavy 3, Blast = 3 Hits

1 shooting attack is not 1 shot. Your stance requires that they're the same. Demonstrably untrue.

omg it works! And the shield will perform the exact same way whether it's protecting 2 tanks or 40 infantry, because you paid a set amount of points playing guard or Imperial Knights. Hooray!

Yes, if you ignore rules you can make all kinds of things seem correct.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I just said i agreed to the following statement. Not actually arguing it as that has been done already... (I am aware i'm feeding Trolls, so posts by me will soon stop again)

Reported. As stated by the mods, accusations of trolling is in fact trolling. I've done no such thing.

Case and point right there.

A true user would have simply ignored the accusation then.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 yakface wrote:

Each blast or template is a single shooting attack, and a shield/field can only be hit once per shooting attack.

So the answer for me is once.

Lol back to this post again? Ok, HIWPI instead of arguing Raw?

As said previously, let's just wait for FaQs to solve the issue rather than 20 pages of "i am right , you are not"

I have voted, and most active users here know RaW and RaI what my opinion is ;-)

The quote above is a very nice way of putting it to which i agree!

So the answer for you on a Assault 6 weapon hitting 6 times is only 1 hit on the shield?
I've literally never seen a rule saying a shield can only be hit once per shooting attack. Ever. Such a statement is invented and clearly not actual rules.

Reading his posts I never saw him talk about Assault weapons, please don't put words into people's mouths. On that note, if you report someone there is no need to "reported" just do it and let the mods handle their jobs please.

RAW 10 hits.

RAI 1 Hit - There is no way to know that the one blast would have turned into 10 had it never made it there. We know it doesn't make it there because it instead hits the shield.

Stormbreed wrote:
Reading his posts I never saw him talk about Assault weapons, please don't put words into people's mouths.

I never said that he did.
I was taking his conclusion and applying it to another, similar, situation and showing the outcome.

On that note, if you report someone there is no need to "reported" just do it and let the mods handle their jobs please.

I did so explaining why - because apparently people don't know that.

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Reading his posts I never saw him talk about Assault weapons, please don't put words into people's mouths.

I never said that he did.
I was taking his conclusion and applying it to another, similar, situation and showing the outcome.

On that note, if you report someone there is no need to "reported" just do it and let the mods handle their jobs please.

I did so explaining why - because apparently people don't know that.

I do see both sides myself, I think I'd just stay RAI as 1, but I do agree with RAW being 10. No way they release FAQ's at this point, they don't care :(

Stormbreed wrote:

But it is not similar in any way.

2. We know how many shots an assault weapon fires before it even hits the target. We have no such luck with blast weapons, they need to hit before we know how many hits we get. (Clearly from the poll above creating the "Grey" area)

3. We don't know how many times a unit is hit by a blast until we resolve the scatter. We also know the shot never makes it to the target, it hits the shield. RAI its hits the shield and rains candy and unicorns down on the models inside.

We know an assault weapon (and the unit it is contained in) makes one shooting attack. We do not know how many hits will be generated without rolling. Just like we don't know how many hits a blast will have without counting models under the marker.
The shooting attack from the assault weapon never makes it to the target either and hits the shield. So how do you determine how many hits you have? It is, after all, only one shooting attack just as the blast is one shooting attack.

So yes, it is entirely similar.

Stormbreed wrote:


2. We know how many shots an assault weapon fires before it even hits the target. We have no such luck with blast weapons, they need to hit before we know how many hits we get. (Clearly from the poll above creating the "Grey" area)

3. We don't know how many times a unit is hit by a blast until we resolve the scatter. We also know the shot never makes it to the target, it hits the shield. RAI its hits the shield and rains candy and unicorns down on the models inside.

Stormbreed, I know your having a discussion with rigeld (and I do think he has residual feelings of malcontent from the last time this topic was discussed) but I would like to address your points above.

2) as has been shown, the number of shots a weapon fires is not = to the number of hits it can inflict, this is true for all Blast, Template and Beam based weapons, this is also true of Necron Tesla weapons.

3) this is somewhat corect, you don't know how many hits have taken place until the scatter has happend, this is true, but it is also true that the roll to scatter is a replacement for the roll to hit (as per p6 and 33 of the BRB), as such the roll for scatter (and counting the models for the number of hits) take the place of rolling to hit, so the result of rolling to hit for an assualt 20 weapon and scoring 10 hits is equivilant of blast ending up over 10 models which also causes 10 hits.

the rules for a projected void shield cannot come into play until after the rolls to hit have taken place, there is just no other time within the rules that this can take place, the rule also does not state that you re-count the number of hits you made nor does it state that you treat blast weapons or any other weapon any different than normal.

in other words, we have permission for how these weapons work, there is no rule within void shields that prevents them from acting like we already have permission to do so, thus they must act as normal.

Rorschach9 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

But it is not similar in any way.

2. We know how many shots an assault weapon fires before it even hits the target. We have no such luck with blast weapons, they need to hit before we know how many hits we get. (Clearly from the poll above creating the "Grey" area)

3. We don't know how many times a unit is hit by a blast until we resolve the scatter. We also know the shot never makes it to the target, it hits the shield. RAI its hits the shield and rains candy and unicorns down on the models inside.

We know an assault weapon (and the unit it is contained in) makes one shooting attack. We do not know how many hits will be generated without rolling. Just like we don't know how many hits a blast will have without counting models under the marker.
The shooting attack from the assault weapon never makes it to the target either and hits the shield. So how do you determine how many hits you have? It is, after all, only one shooting attack just as the blast is one shooting attack.

So yes, it is entirely similar.

Reason I edited was to avoid the useless banter, but I will continue to disagree that a model firing a weapon with Assault 4 is the same as that same model firing a Frag Rocket, reason being, one we know how many hits after rolling to hit, one we have no idea until after scatter.

I believe the added factor of a force shield between myself and the target changes how the hits would count.

Yes we know RAW, I've said I agree.

RAI I believe if you throw a stone at a window with someone behind it, the stone hits the window. If I throw a bigger stone, or throw the same stone harder the window may indeed break, but the stone will be slowed/deflected from its original line of targeting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nutty_nutter wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:


2. We know how many shots an assault weapon fires before it even hits the target. We have no such luck with blast weapons, they need to hit before we know how many hits we get. (Clearly from the poll above creating the "Grey" area)

3. We don't know how many times a unit is hit by a blast until we resolve the scatter. We also know the shot never makes it to the target, it hits the shield. RAI its hits the shield and rains candy and unicorns down on the models inside.

Stormbreed, I know your having a discussion with rigeld (and I do think he has residual feelings of malcontent from the last time this topic was discussed) but I would like to address your points above.

2) as has been shown, the number of shots a weapon fires is not = to the number of hits it can inflict, this is true for all Blast, Template and Beam based weapons, this is also true of Necron Tesla weapons.

3) this is somewhat corect, you don't know how many hits have taken place until the scatter has happend, this is true, but it is also true that the roll to scatter is a replacement for the roll to hit (as per p6 and 33 of the BRB), as such the roll for scatter (and counting the models for the number of hits) take the place of rolling to hit, so the result of rolling to hit for an assualt 20 weapon and scoring 10 hits is equivilant of blast ending up over 10 models which also causes 10 hits.

the rules for a projected void shield cannot come into play until after the rolls to hit have taken place, there is just no other time within the rules that this can take place, the rule also does not state that you re-count the number of hits you made nor does it state that you treat blast weapons or any other weapon any different than normal.

in other words, we have permission for how these weapons work, there is no rule within void shields that prevents them from acting like we already have permission to do so, thus they must act as normal.

Hahaha, I just assume Rigeld2 is always mad at anyone who disagrees with him. Even if the person already stated they were making a HIYPI argument.

I fully see your RAW point of view, as I've said from the outset of this HIWYI <--------- Poll.

So while your RAW points make sense from a RAW point of view, they have little baring on a HIWPI point of view.

Clearly there is a shield guarding something, clearly the shot will hit the shield first. Clearly Warhammer 40k rules don't make that possible from a RAW standpoint with regards to blast weapons. (and many other types)

That doesn't stop me from taking two seconds to look at the situation with any player and make sure we are both on the same page. I am lucky to play in an area of Canada where we have many players, and many of those players trek long distances to play at the LGS or many of the other tournaments around North America. Without trying to make dumb ass claims, I've spoken with two major tournament winners, a major TO and three LGS guys who have been playing since 2nd and of them only 1 has said he would play it RAW, and even he said he would make sure to talk it over with the other player first to make sure they agreed.

That aside the poll clearly shows we're near 50/50 on this and it should be talked about before anyone plays a game.

Stormbreed wrote:
RAI I believe if you throw a stone at a window with someone behind it, the stone hits the window. If I throw a bigger stone, or throw the same stone harder the window may indeed break, but the stone will be slowed/deflected from its original line of targeting.

The problem is that not all blast weapons are a single shell. Some are more of a "shotgun" effect, where they fire numerous small pellets. For example, Venom Cannons (a Blast weapon) are as firing a salvo of corrosive crystals that shatter.

 Happyjew wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
RAI I believe if you throw a stone at a window with someone behind it, the stone hits the window. If I throw a bigger stone, or throw the same stone harder the window may indeed break, but the stone will be slowed/deflected from its original line of targeting.

The problem is that not all blast weapons are a single shell. Some are more of a "shotgun" effect, where they fire numerous small pellets. For example, Venom Cannons (a Blast weapon) are as firing a salvo of corrosive crystals that shatter.

But it's still a simultaneous barrage, unlike the Heavy X weapons that I'm aware of, which are firing consecutively. All six barrels on an assault cannon aren't firing at once-it's a steady stream of projectiles, which is why some of them can still penetrate after the shield is broken open. A blast weapon is a single detonation, so it's all-or-nothing.

By the flip side, it seems totally reasonable that successive blasts would be placed normally. So a Thunderfire Cannon would get four chances to glance the shield, and if it did so with any blasts left, then those would allocate the higher number of hits to the unit beneath normally. That seems to be the most reasonable way to play it.

Edit

 Happyjew wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
RAI I believe if you throw a stone at a window with someone behind it, the stone hits the window. If I throw a bigger stone, or throw the same stone harder the window may indeed break, but the stone will be slowed/deflected from its original line of targeting.

The problem is that not all blast weapons are a single shell. Some are more of a "shotgun" effect, where they fire numerous small pellets. For example, Venom Cannons (a Blast weapon) are as firing a salvo of corrosive crystals that shatter.

Like the r'varna's blast which can hit things multiple times.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
RAI I believe if you throw a stone at a window with someone behind it, the stone hits the window. If I throw a bigger stone, or throw the same stone harder the window may indeed break, but the stone will be slowed/deflected from its original line of targeting.

The problem is that not all blast weapons are a single shell. Some are more of a "shotgun" effect, where they fire numerous small pellets. For example, Venom Cannons (a Blast weapon) are as firing a salvo of corrosive crystals that shatter.

But it's still a simultaneous barrage, unlike the Assault X weapons, which are firing consecutively. All six barrels on an assault cannon aren't firing at once-it's a steady stream of projectiles, which is why some of them can still penetrate after the shield is broken open. A blast weapon is a single detonation, so it's all-or-nothing.

Are they? We don't know that. I have always assumed all shots from an Assault X weapon are simultaneous myself. At least the rules would back that up. And we also don't know how a blast weapon "works" fluff-wise. Just how it works in the rules. We don't know a blast weapon is a single detonation or if it's multiple small projectiles causing an area effect (outside of those who specifically state they are multiple small projectiles in the fluff of course .. which goes to show they aren't all a single detonation).

By the flip side, it seems totally reasonable that successive blasts would be placed normally. So a Thunderfire Cannon would get four chances to glance the shield, and if it did so with any blasts left, then those would allocate the higher number of hits to the unit beneath normally. That seems to be the most reasonable way to play it.

It's also totally reasonable that a TFC's blasts would be simultaneous (it has several barrels after all).

HIWPI - # of hits on the unit = # of hits transferred to the shield because that seems (to me) to be what the rules say to do.

There really needs to be a squinty eyed 'suspicious' orkmoticon.

Really? You really think an Assault Cannon fires all of its barrels simultaneously? (Suspicious orkmoticon goes here ) Or that a bolter spits out two shells side-by-side? Be reasonable. We all know how these weapons 'work.'

Don't get me wrong, your interpretation is correct by strict RAW. And if you want to take the position of "we need to play by the RAW unless the RAW is unplayable; the game is an abstraction and sometimes the rules won't make 'real-world' sense," I'd be willing to nod, accept your opinion (disagree with it in this case) and move on.

But let's agree to at least approach the discussion with a little bit of common sense. It's OBVIOUS that weapons like the big shoota, heavy bolter, assault cannon, and the like, are weapons with a sequential, rather than simultaneous, stream of fire.

 Jimsolo wrote:
But let's agree to at least approach the discussion with a little bit of common sense. It's OBVIOUS that weapons like the big shoota, heavy bolter, assault cannon, and the like, are weapons with a sequential, rather than simultaneous, stream of fire.

It's obvious you're trying to apply the logic of some Assault weapons to all of them - Devourers, Deathspitters, and dozens of other Assault weapons fire simultaneously.

But let's agree to at least approach the discussion with a little bit of common sense. It's OBVIOUS that weapons like the big shoota, heavy bolter, assault cannon, and the like, are weapons with a sequential, rather than simultaneous, stream of fire.

I feel it is equally obvious that a bolter spits out more than 1 round when fired at full range. That the to hit roll isn't a measure of 1 round leaving the barrel. Its an abstraction.

Just as the blast template is. The RaI is pretty clear here they do not even hint at treating blast weapons any differently to any other weapons. So why break clear RaW and RaI?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
But let's agree to at least approach the discussion with a little bit of common sense. It's OBVIOUS that weapons like the big shoota, heavy bolter, assault cannon, and the like, are weapons with a sequential, rather than simultaneous, stream of fire.

It's obvious you're trying to apply the logic of some Assault weapons to all of them - Devourers, Deathspitters, and dozens of other Assault weapons fire simultaneously.

Are those Tyranid things? I don't know Tyranids. I'd have to look at the codex to check out their fluff. I couldn't think of any Assault weapons that fired simultaneously. Thanks, I'll go back and edit the original post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

But let's agree to at least approach the discussion with a little bit of common sense. It's OBVIOUS that weapons like the big shoota, heavy bolter, assault cannon, and the like, are weapons with a sequential, rather than simultaneous, stream of fire.

I feel it is equally obvious that a bolter spits out more than 1 round when fired at full range. That the to hit roll isn't a measure of 1 round leaving the barrel. Its an abstraction.

Just as the blast template is. The RaI is pretty clear here they do not even hint at treating blast weapons any differently to any other weapons. So why break clear RaW and RaI?

I think that we should break clear (again, absolutely clear) RAW because the RAI is NOT clear. To be even more accurate, I think that the RAI IS clear. And so do you. But we think it is "clearly" saying opposite things. So do nearly half of respondents, apparently.

Also - the big shoota, heavy bolter, assault cannon are all Heavy weapons, not Assault.

How is rules as intended not clear? Rules as written is, in a flash brilliance by GW, completely functional and without any ambiguities. The only way you could possibly read different intentions, is to make something up, and come up with some convoluted reasons that only loosely relate to the real world (remember, we are talking about a force field here) and only applies to some of the relevant weapons in 40k..

If GW intended something else, they would have written something else. They may very well FAQ it away, if they ever get around to FAQing things, but given their previous FAQs even that would hardly show their original intention.

The argument for only hitting once is based on feelings of "it not being right."

rigeld2 wrote:Also - the big shoota, heavy bolter, assault cannon are all Heavy weapons, not Assault.

True. Thanks. Again, fixed.

JPong wrote:How is rules as intended not clear? Rules as written is, in a flash brilliance by GW, completely functional and without any ambiguities. The only way you could possibly read different intentions, is to make something up, and come up with some convoluted reasons that only loosely relate to the real world (remember, we are talking about a force field here) and only applies to some of the relevant weapons in 40k..

If GW intended something else, they would have written something else. They may very well FAQ it away, if they ever get around to FAQing things, but given their previous FAQs even that would hardly show their original intention.

The argument for only hitting once is based on feelings of "it not being right."

I think it's pretty clear that there are a significant number of people who see a pretty big ambiguity here. (In the RAI.) I find it inconceivable that GW intended for the oft-cited group of ten guardsmen to be MORE vulnerable at full strength than at half strength.

I don't think people who see it that way are "making something up," I think they're pointing out that the proposed way of doing it makes no sense whatsoever. None. And the issue applies to MOST weapons in 40k. (I concede that it might not be all of them, I haven't had the opportunity to see some of the weapons from some codexes.)

rigeld2 wrote:
Also - the big shoota, heavy bolter, assault cannon are all Heavy weapons, not Assault.

Big shoota is assault

Bah - that'll teach me to speak about codexes I don't own!

rigeld2 wrote:
Bah - that'll teach me to speak about codexes I don't own!

Apparently I'm in the same boat.

Jpog,
If we want to get technical we are talking about a shield that functions on gravity manipulation to create a distorted time effect that can then "disperse" a projectile or energy field. I put disperse into quotation marks as, it appears, we are not even sure from a science fiction point of view just what the Void Shield does to the projectile in question. Given that we have people whom are trying to document this universe and they can't even tell us the effect the shield has on the projectile, any conjecture on how this shield 'realistically functions' is going to be premature and that includes the idea that it must physically block the shot.

So even more questionable as to what would and wouldn't find it easier to collapse such a shield....

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Void_Shield



Automatically Appended Next Post:
JimSolo,
I think it is just as big a mistake to assume that the writers intended for the primary anti-horde weapons to be so easily circumvented, all by sticking said horde behind a shield with such a low point value.

This is particularly obvious when we stop focusing on the D class weapons, or Plasma Cannons or anything else that would have a high chance of instant-gibbing an entire unit to begin with. Should we limit our focus to just blast weapons that have a low enough strength they can only ever be considered 'anti-horde based infantry' weapons, then we already encounter a situation that gives horde based armies an amazing benefit in and of itself. The Armour Value of the shield is high enough that quite a few anti-infantry weapons have a 0% chance to to penetrate in the first place. Many more see the number of successful hit's greatly dwindle, even some anti-vehicle weapons see the chance of a successful shot drop to as low as 16.5% or 33% compared to the normal.

That is a huge benefit for such a low point cost, so why does the shield need to be made stronger to benefit these armies?

 Jimsolo wrote:
There really needs to be a squinty eyed 'suspicious' orkmoticon.

Really? You really think an Assault Cannon fires all of its barrels simultaneously? (Suspicious orkmoticon goes here ) Or that a bolter spits out two shells side-by-side? Be reasonable. We all know how these weapons 'work.'

Don't get me wrong, your interpretation is correct by strict RAW. And if you want to take the position of "we need to play by the RAW unless the RAW is unplayable; the game is an abstraction and sometimes the rules won't make 'real-world' sense," I'd be willing to nod, accept your opinion (disagree with it in this case) and move on.

But let's agree to at least approach the discussion with a little bit of common sense. It's OBVIOUS that weapons like the big shoota, heavy bolter, assault cannon, and the like, are weapons with a sequential, rather than simultaneous, stream of fire.

I didn't specify a particular assault (or other) weapon tbh. And since assault weapons are all treated the same way, it is what it is. We can't say that they act, 100%, in a particular fashion because "it only makes sense" (and bringing sense into a set of abstract rules almost invariably breaks those rules in some fashion).

For example - Storm Bolter is an assault 2 weapon. And guess what? it has 2 barrels. It can absolutely fire 2 shots simultaneously. Other assault weapons only have 1 barrel so obviously fire sequential shots. But that is, as pointed out, irrelevant as it's just fluff. Not all weapons are equal in fluff operation, but from a rules perspective, simulating a war in the year 40,000, it is all an abstraction. How something works in our physical "real world" is irrelevant to rules.

And it is the rules, after all, that we follow in order to play a game. If you're abstracting them even further (or less) for it to make "real world" sense to you (where others may find it makes perfect sense as written), then you're playing house rules (HIWPI).

Rorschach9 wrote:

And it is the rules, after all, that we follow in order to play a game. If you're abstracting them even further (or less) for it to make "real world" sense to you (where others may find it makes perfect sense as written), then you're playing house rules (HIWPI).

But this whole thread is about HIWPI. Really, all of YMDC should come down to HIWPI eventually, since none of us are just trying to argue rules abstractions in a vacuum. The only reason to post about rules discussions is so that you CAN play the game. There are several occasions where the RAW make the game either unplayable, or are so ridiculous that everyone agrees to not play it the way they are written. (No one plays Assault Vehicle the way it's written, nor do they play the USRs that Flying Monstrous Creatures have access to as written. Everyone--MOST everyone--accepts that the intent in those circumstances is clear and plays them RAI.)

The whole point of this thread was to establish whether or not the RAI is clear. I think it's pretty obvious now that there is a great deal of disagreement on this. This is probably the closest I've ever seen a rules poll be, at least that I can remember.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JimSolo,
I think it is just as big a mistake to assume that the writers intended for the primary anti-horde weapons to be so easily circumvented, all by sticking said horde behind a shield with such a low point value.

This is particularly obvious when we stop focusing on the D class weapons, or Plasma Cannons or anything else that would have a high chance of instant-gibbing an entire unit to begin with. Should we limit our focus to just blast weapons that have a low enough strength they can only ever be considered 'anti-horde based infantry' weapons, then we already encounter a situation that gives horde based armies an amazing benefit in and of itself. The Armour Value of the shield is high enough that quite a few anti-infantry weapons have a 0% chance to to penetrate in the first place. Many more see the number of successful hit's greatly dwindle, even some anti-vehicle weapons see the chance of a successful shot drop to as low as 16.5% or 33% compared to the normal.

That is a huge benefit for such a low point cost, so why does the shield need to be made stronger to benefit these armies?

You make a good point, and it's certainly the most persuasive argument I've heard, but I think that the problem is that if you go the other way (a Leman Russ Battle Cannon his twelve Fire Warriors, say, and thus gets 12 hits on the Void Shield) makes Blasts WAY too powerful against the Void Shield.

 Jimsolo wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

And it is the rules, after all, that we follow in order to play a game. If you're abstracting them even further (or less) for it to make "real world" sense to you (where others may find it makes perfect sense as written), then you're playing house rules (HIWPI).

But this whole thread is about HIWPI. Really, all of YMDC should come down to HIWPI eventually, since none of us are just trying to argue rules abstractions in a vacuum. The only reason to post about rules discussions is so that you CAN play the game. There are several occasions where the RAW make the game either unplayable, or are so ridiculous that everyone agrees to not play it the way they are written. (No one plays Assault Vehicle the way it's written, nor do they play the USRs that Flying Monstrous Creatures have access to as written. Everyone--MOST everyone--accepts that the intent in those circumstances is clear and plays them RAI.)

The whole point of this thread was to establish whether or not the RAI is clear. I think it's pretty obvious now that there is a great deal of disagreement on this. This is probably the closest I've ever seen a rules poll be, at least that I can remember.

The thread may have intended to be a simple HIWPI poll, but clearly when discussion starts it comes down to RAW vs RAI (And HIWPI is not necessarily the same as RAI really).

There is absolutely a lot of disagreement on the RAW in this case. HIWPI is probably not the best indication that there is clear intent or a clearly written rule. I know there are plenty of rules that my local group play different than written (or likely intended) simply because we like it better done in a different way. That does not indicate that there is any gray area in the rules, just that we prefer something else.

In any case, I've stated my HIWPI. I will leave the rules discussion for those more interested in repeating themselves.

Rorschach9 wrote:

There is absolutely a lot of disagreement on the RAW in this case.

Granted. And for the record, I've attempted to repeat (and will continue to do so) that I do not now nor have I ever thought the answer to the poll question should be 1 as a matter of RAW. The RAW is clearly 10.

JimSolo,
Another factor to keep in mind is this:
Why are all the scenarios being put forth involve a single blast marker, even a larger one, generating a dozen + hits against the unit?

I bring this up because your example of 12 Fire Warriors is perfect to explain my problem with this concept. For a unit of fire warriors to be hit 12 times by a Blast Marker, every single model in that unit would have to be underneath it. That is a situation that, while possible, would likely involve the opposing player setting his unit into a formation deliberately designed to maximize the number of hits in order to get these results. Even when discussing Horde based armies it seems unreasonable to assume that a single blast marker is going to be able to cover the entirety of the enemy unit, or even a large enough chunk of it, compared to the fractions we realistically see on the table.

I feel such high numbers are extremes being used to make it seem like the opposing view, more then one, is more broken then it really is.

Now I will grant a fair size Horde army still faces quite a few hit from Blast Markers, it is why I consider them primarily anti-horde weapons, I am simply finding it hard to believe they would be generating as high a number as put forth in the examples here. This is because no opponent, unless forced to by some rule like Deep Strike, is going to position a unit in such a formation that it would be possible to wipe it out with a single Blast Marker. If properly spread out, even a direct hit right into the center of the unit is hard pressed to generate more then half a dozen hit's at best. Of all the players; Horde Army players have to be the most informed on how to minimize numbers of hits when it comes to Blast Markers and putting the unit behind a shield doesn't change this tactic.

So why are we not using more reasonable numbers, three or four for example, within these situations?

JinxDragon wrote:
So why are we not using more reasonable numbers, three or four for example, within these situations?

Whilst 12 is clearly absurd for a small or even large blast marker, once you start considering weapons that are reasonably common on super-heavies, dropping 7" or 10" getting close to a full squad of something becomes much more reasonable.

Yet even in examples of normal Large Blast Markers we keep getting numbers put forth that are a dozen +, which clearly is not a fair representation....

While I can understand the fear of them, those insane D class weapons and the 'nuke the table' sized markers, they are still a tiny minority and one can simply decide not to play against them. Yet if I decided to make a few Void shields, very inexpensive seeing they are model-less, and pay a minor amount I can ensure that I see them in every game I decide to field them in. That element is also something which needs to be considered because it isn't just how crippling the two extreme outcomes might be but also how often one is going to encounter either one and what the middle ground looks like. For this reason I feel a proper representation of the shield would have to involve light-anti vehicle Large Blast Marker based weaponry hitting against a moderate size unit which is spread out to receive an enemy attack but not perfectly calculated so somewhat less effective a formation then 2 inch exact per model. I feel it is proper to use a Large Blast Marker as the normal one is not likely to generate more hits then a standard attack anyway.

Then we would have a reasonable representation on how many shots the shield could absorb before it crashes and the probability of having to absorb that many shots in a single 'attack.'

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I just said i agreed to the following statement. Not actually arguing it as that has been done already... (I am aware i'm feeding Trolls, so posts by me will soon stop again)

Reported. As stated by the mods, accusations of trolling is in fact trolling. I've done no such thing.

Case and point right there.

A true user would have simply ignored the accusation then.

(And therefore yes, this is a Troll post, just to point out we now both are
And to make a point to others )

Ah, the no true poster informal fallacy at work.

You asserted something as fact. Something demonstrably untrue. When this was pointed out you fell back on cries of "troll!".

Removed text, as post I was referencing has now been removed.

I really like that you pointed out a fallacy, Nos.

Does anyone else notice that this poll is exactly 48% each way (yes/no, not the "I don't know" that Jim insists on putting in these HYWPI posts. )

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
I really like that you pointed out a fallacy, Nos.

Does anyone else notice that this poll is exactly 48% each way (yes/no, not the "I don't know" that Jim insists on putting in these HYWPI posts. )

I learned a long time ago to ALWAYS leave room for failure of clarity (as well as a "I'm not going to read your post but still want to click buttons" option). I just like to save time and roll them all into one.

Poll is nearly exactly 50/50,

Both sides insist that their side is "obvious" and their is no possible source of confusion...

Reminds me of this quote:
"The most savage controversies are about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way."
-Bertrand Russell

Despite all this, I think it is pretty obvious they intended for 1 shot to inflict 1 hit on the shield.

JinxDragon wrote:
JimSolo,
Another factor to keep in mind is this:
Why are all the scenarios being put forth involve a single blast marker, even a larger one, generating a dozen + hits against the unit?

I bring this up because your example of 12 Fire Warriors is perfect to explain my problem with this concept. For a unit of fire warriors to be hit 12 times by a Blast Marker, every single model in that unit would have to be underneath it. That is a situation that, while possible, would likely involve the opposing player setting his unit into a formation deliberately designed to maximize the number of hits in order to get these results. Even when discussing Horde based armies it seems unreasonable to assume that a single blast marker is going to be able to cover the entirety of the enemy unit, or even a large enough chunk of it, compared to the fractions we realistically see on the table.

I feel such high numbers are extremes being used to make it seem like the opposing view, more then one, is more broken then it really is.

Now I will grant a fair size Horde army still faces quite a few hit from Blast Markers, it is why I consider them primarily anti-horde weapons, I am simply finding it hard to believe they would be generating as high a number as put forth in the examples here. This is because no opponent, unless forced to by some rule like Deep Strike, is going to position a unit in such a formation that it would be possible to wipe it out with a single Blast Marker. If properly spread out, even a direct hit right into the center of the unit is hard pressed to generate more then half a dozen hit's at best. Of all the players; Horde Army players have to be the most informed on how to minimize numbers of hits when it comes to Blast Markers and putting the unit behind a shield doesn't change this tactic.

So why are we not using more reasonable numbers, three or four for example, within these situations?

You bring up a good point. The whole line of reasoning which brought me to the Void Shields is actually LARGE blasts. I have an Iron Hands army I've been doggedly trying to get working (despite relentless failure) and Void Shields seem like a good addition to it, but AP 3 Large Blasts that Ignore Cover (courtesy of Riptides) tend to jack my world up. In addition, I've been contemplating an IG flamer-horde, and any kind of large blast will really mess my day up. 7-8 hits seem to be the norm when I take large blasts.

Dast wrote:
Poll is nearly exactly 50/50,

Both sides insist that their side is "obvious" and their is no possible source of confusion...

Reminds me of this quote:
"The most savage controversies are about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way."
-Bertrand Russell

Despite all this, I think it is pretty obvious they intended for 1 shot to inflict 1 hit on the shield.

Well, this is a HYWPI poll. I think you'd have a different result of it were a RAI or RAW poll.

Jimsolo,
AP 3, Large Blast, Ignore Cover weapons ruin everyone's day, horde or not.
Honestly, if it was only weapons with Strength 8 or greater using Blast Markers then I would have no problem with this interpretation.