I'm playing an obscene WAAC chump next week who runs two helldrakes. He seems to think they can vector strike over a unit and inflict the hit on any individual model they fly over or something. My understanding (which ain't great as I'm pretty new to flyers) is that its a 'shooting attack' and resolved from a direction against the nearest model.

So overall really confused as to how these things work. Could someone help a guy out, the RB entry for vector strike isn't making it clearer

Neither of you is right, random allocation

Random allocation

Sweet. While I'm here, where on the model do you measure the 12" for torrent? We had flamers coming from the wings and gak. Is that legal?

Illegal, we are instructed to use the base of the model when measuring this 12 inch bubble.
This was explained best in one of the Frequently Asked Questions that we are still waiting to come back to the site.

Thanks. Both of those rulings take a little edge off of the drake

Q: How do I determine the Arc of Sight for a Heldrake’s ranged weapon? (p52)
A: Treat the Heldrake’s ranged weapon as a Turret Mounted Weapon, measuring all ranges from the edge of the Heldrake’s base nearest to the target unit.

Fragile wrote:
Random allocation

Where does it state to use random allocation? I'm always arguing with the FMC Players in my area whether it's the point of impact on the squad or if it's the nearest model to the FMC after it's finished moving.

The other issue we've had is when vector striking Imperial Knights. Imperial knights gain a 4+invul on a facing of the owning players choice. Vector strikes hit side armor. How do you determine which side is hit in the case that one side has the invul save?

The best place to find that answer is the Frequently Asked Questions, where it out-right states to use Random Allocation.

As for the Side Armour there are several lines of thoughts and I would recommend looking for a previous thread on the matter when the search function has been re-indexed. I was going to try and pull out the most common conclusions that past discussions on that fact brought to light but I doubt they can be done justice at 2:30 in the morning. Needless to say there is several interpretations and quite a few suggested House Rules to try and make it less of a concern. However I will point out that, from a pure Rule as Written view point, it is impossible to gain a Invulnerability save because the attack is not being resolved against either the Left or Right side... just an undefined 'side.'

Acctually since vector strikes use random allocation to units, best way to do it is to randomly select a side facing that its hitting.

RAW: Vector Strike hits "side armour", the shield cannot be placed on "side armour", the Knight doesn't get the save
RAI: Hitting side armour represent the FMC/Heldrake striking the top of the vehicle, the shield cannot be placed on top, the Knight doesn't get the save

FAQ is available on Black Library for CSM
http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/Chaos-Space-Marines.pdf

 PrinceRaven wrote:
RAW: Vector Strike hits "side armour", the shield cannot be placed on "side armour", the Knight doesn't get the save

So Left side is not a part of "side armour"? That statement is demonstrably incorrect.

Doesn't vector strike happen at the end of the movement phase? I thought the Knight's shield came on during the shooting phase, so the shield wont be on when it hits.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
RAW: Vector Strike hits "side armour", the shield cannot be placed on "side armour", the Knight doesn't get the save

So Left side is not a part of "side armour"? That statement is demonstrably incorrect.

Ahhh, but how do you determine WHICH side the vector strike hits? The side that was chosen for the shield or the other side? I think that is DRs point, that the Knight has to choose a specific side and the Vector Strike can (by RAW) be hitting either or even both sides.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Doesn't vector strike happen at the end of the movement phase? I thought the Knight's shield came on during the shooting phase, so the shield wont be on when it hits.

You choose the facing of the shield when the IK is deployed, and you can reposition it during your opponents shooting phase.

The shield is always up on the facing you choose from the start of the game, so there could be a shield on the left side or right side during the movement phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 don_mondo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
RAW: Vector Strike hits "side armour", the shield cannot be placed on "side armour", the Knight doesn't get the save

So Left side is not a part of "side armour"? That statement is demonstrably incorrect.

Ahhh, but how do you determine WHICH side the vector strike hits? The side that was chosen for the shield or the other side? I think that is DRs point, that the Knight has to choose a specific side and the Vector Strike can (by RAW) be hitting either or even both sides.

Exactly if the VS hits "side armour" that includes left and right side. RAW VS hits both sides, as it hits "side armour"

 DeathReaper wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Doesn't vector strike happen at the end of the movement phase? I thought the Knight's shield came on during the shooting phase, so the shield wont be on when it hits.

You choose the facing of the shield when the IK is deployed, and you can reposition it during your opponents shooting phase.

The shield is always up on the facing you choose from the start of the game, so there could be a shield on the left side or right side during the movement phase.

Ah okay, I've never played a IK yet so I wasn't sure.

its side armor, now it doesnt say which but as its controling players turn eg they decide right, if it came down to that. so a knight in this example really wont benefit. the str 7 his from a drake is against its side armor profile

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
its side armor, now it doesnt say which but as its controling players turn eg they decide right, if it came down to that. so a knight in this example really wont benefit. the str 7 his from a drake is against its side armor profile

That is not at all correct. the controlling player does not get to pick a side for the Vector Strike to hit. it simply hits "side armour"

You are thinking about the controlling player getting to choose the order that simultaneous rules happen in. Which of course has no bearing on Vector Strike and any subsequent saves that may or may not be available.

RAW: unknown.

That said, the only way I've seen it ruled (and granted it was a small local tourney), was that regardless of which AV you are using to resolve the attack (i.e. side armour for barrage and VS), if the model is in the facing that is protected, it gets the save.

The TO never did answer me on what happens if the VS model left the board...

 Happyjew wrote:

The TO never did answer me on what happens if the VS model left the board...

I've always played it that you can vector strike off the board, as it simply states "a unit that it passed over in the movement phase" or some such statement (not got a rulebook to hand).

personally, I'd play it as the side the model is facing prior to movement - it strikes it as it flies over, it doesn't lash out backwards so much as slam into its target. that's the way I see it, anyway. with no set rules for it, I'd play it the "how it'd work in the real world" scenario.

I think HappyJew's comment was more on the Tournament Organizers rule, in which the side being hit is the closest to the Heldrake. It is one of several solutions that has been presented to correct this particular problem, that we use the side Armour Value for resolving the attack but consider the hit to still be against the side facing the Heldrake. While it does have some simplicity, I find fault with this method from a Rule as Written point of view. The original instructions for resolving hits against a vehicle use the words 'resolve against the side facing' while the Vector Strike rules state to 'resolve against the side armor.' In this situation we have two Rules using the same terminology and people trying to state that the Resolve for vector strike is somehow different to the Resolve for the original method.

However, that is a side point, as HappyJew's comment was directly in relation to how you resolve a Heldrake flying off the table and therefore not facing any side....

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
RAW: Vector Strike hits "side armour", the shield cannot be placed on "side armour", the Knight doesn't get the save

So Left side is not a part of "side armour"?

Choosing the left side give the Knight a 4++ invulnerable save against any pens/glances that are resolved against it's left side armour, Vector Strike is not resolved against "left side armour".

You did not answer my question.

Is Left side a part of "side armour" or not?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Choosing the left side give the Knight a 4++ invulnerable save against any pens/glances that are resolved against it's left side armour, Vector Strike is not resolved against "left side armour".

Slight correction, the IK gets a 4++ against all hits on that facing.

"The Knight has a 4+ invulnerable save against all hits on that facing until the start of your opponent’s next Shooting phase." (Codex IK's)

Vector strike reads:
"Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target's side armour."(BRB 43)

If the shield is on the left side, that is a part of "the target's side armour" where the VS hits are resolved.

So if you hit "side armour." that includes left and right side as they are both "side armour."

VS hits both the left and right side as it simply is "resolved against the target's side armour."

There is no rule that says a hit can hit multiple facings.

There is a lack of clarifaction on GW's part on how these 2 rules interact, and because of that there is no correct answer to what to do when it comes up.

im certain that due to the "cinematic" nature of the vector strike the RAI would have been "..resolved against the side armor VALUE"

but ofcourse GW left out the last word out.

it doesnt specify which side it hits so that leaves it up in the air thanks GW your amazing

 DeathReaper wrote:
You did not answer my question.

Is Left side a part of "side armour" or not?

It is not, side armour is a characteristic value, left side is a facing that uses the side armour characteristic. Vector Strike does not hit facings, it is resolved against the side armour characteristic.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You did not answer my question.

Is Left side a part of "side armour" or not?

It is not, side armour is a characteristic value, left side is a facing that uses the side armour characteristic. Vector Strike does not hit facings, it is resolved against the side armour characteristic.

So the side armor does not include Left side armor?

Basic English proves your statement to the contrary incorrect.

Left and right side armor are both side armor...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You did not answer my question.

Is Left side a part of "side armour" or not?

It is not, side armour is a characteristic value, left side is a facing that uses the side armour characteristic. Vector Strike does not hit facings, it is resolved against the side armour characteristic.

So the side armor does not include Left side armor?

Basic English proves your statement to the contrary incorrect.

This is a 40k rules discussion, not an English lesson.

Left and right side armor are both side armor...

Other way around, side armour is a characteristic that is used by both the left and right side armours, so if you hit either facing you resolve the hit against side armour, but resolving against side armour does not necessarily mean you have hit either side.

The side armour value is used as a stand-in for the top armour. The front and rear armour values are set, side is everything else.

When this question was discussed here recently, someone supplied previous edition rule background to explain where this is coming from

Why not take the closest side for the side armour strike on the knights?

 n0t_u wrote:
Why not take the closest side for the side armour strike on the knights?

Because doing so has no rules support whatsoever?

Also, the closest to what? the position of the FMC before moving? After moving? At some arbitrarily decided point between the two positions?

As someone who plays both Knights and Chaos, in a "vector strike the knight" situation like this my inclination would be to just roll off, really that little thing is made for uncertin things like this

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
Why not take the closest side for the side armour strike on the knights?

Because doing so has no rules support whatsoever?

Also, the closest to what? the position of the FMC before moving? After moving? At some arbitrarily decided point between the two positions?

Hmm, well with the choices being:

the Imperial Knight player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight’s ion shield is covering. The choices are: front, left side, right side or rear.

I think this is the only time I've seen a rule specifically split the side value into two halves, as the rules don't accommodate this split wouldn't it then mean that a rule that states it strikes the side armour, but not specify how the side is chosen, that both sides would be struck? As the rules are permissive thus it says you strike the side, you do not get to choose which side does; no one does.

With the vector strike, logically it's happening as the flyer is passing over striking in the direction it has passed over, yet it could also be firing backwards in some cases so on more thought I'll actually agree it isn't as simple as just picking a spot it was at at some point then to use that. So I'd have to agree with those that have said to roll for the side as well to see if the strike is blocked by the shield, but so as to add to the game. Because, I think as it is by it saying it strikes the side it could be taken as hitting both sides thus apply anyway.

Neither side is struck, Vector Strike does not hit a facing.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You did not answer my question.

Is Left side a part of "side armour" or not?

It is not, side armour is a characteristic value, left side is a facing that uses the side armour characteristic. Vector Strike does not hit facings, it is resolved against the side armour characteristic.

So the side armor does not include Left side armor?

Basic English proves your statement to the contrary incorrect.

Left and right side armor are both side armor...

Side armor might include left and right, but your shield only covers Left. So my VS hits your Right side since Right side is included in side armor. Now what do you do?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Neither side is struck, Vector Strike does not hit a facing.

It is resolved against side armor, both left and right are included in side armor as they both use the side armor value.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

So the side armor does not include Left side armor?

Basic English proves your statement to the contrary incorrect.

This is a 40k rules discussion, not an English lesson.

There are words that the 40k Rules do not define.

The game is written in English and as such we need to use the standard English definitions to have the rules make sense at all.

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You did not answer my question.

Is Left side a part of "side armour" or not?

It is not, side armour is a characteristic value, left side is a facing that uses the side armour characteristic. Vector Strike does not hit facings, it is resolved against the side armour characteristic.

So the side armor does not include Left side armor?

Basic English proves your statement to the contrary incorrect.

Left and right side armor are both side armor...

Side armor might include left and right, but your shield only covers Left. So my VS hits your Right side since Right side is included in side armor. Now what do you do?

Remember it hits both left and right side armor.

It also hits the left side, so you get the save, as the VS is resolved against a side where the shield is.

So all attack that are 'resolved against side armor' hits both left and right?

JinxDragon wrote:
So all attack that are 'resolved against side armor' hits both left and right?

Well does side armor include left and right side?

Not an answer to the question I put forth.
A follow up question: Where in the Rule Book does it define 'Left' and 'Right,' instead of just telling us that both facings are simply 'Side?'

JinxDragon wrote:
Not an answer to the question I put forth.
A follow up question: Where in the Rule Book does it define 'Left' and 'Right,' instead of just telling us that both facings are simply 'Side?'

It was an answer in the form of a question. does side armor include left and right side? (A: Yes of course it does, as left and right side are both side armor).

The main rule book does not define left and right facing (Not that I could find anyway). Some rules do, like the Ion shield, but I could not find any rules for left or right facing in the BRB.

The English language needs to be used to define words when the rule book fails to define those words. It is literally the only way the rules make any sense.

Which is the issue with your interpretation, that lack of definition.

It is not because we are too stupid to determine which side Left and Right would be on a model, with a clear front and back, but because Rules as Written is such a literal thing. Whenever we are left to define some sort of terminology ourselves, all sorts of unintended loopholes and consequences have this annoying way of bleeding into the system. Putting aside the usual cause of such problems, players may disagree on what that definition includes as clearly evidence by the numerous suggestions on how to determine which side is actually hit by a Vector Strike, that definition still has to be universally applied before it can be given any real credit. As the definition was not one penned by the original Authors, the other Rules are rarely written to accept such application.

For example:
If a Hit resolved against "Side Armor" trigger any rule related to "Left OR Right Side," then all Hits which are resolved against the Side Armor will include both the Left and Right side.

Sooo....Schrödinger's Armour? It is both protected and not protected at the same time?

Of course, if it was ray-shielded then a precise hit with a proton torpedo should set off a chain reaction which should destroy the Knight.

More reason for Game Workshop to stop creating new Rules which are not compatible with the current system!
Would it really have really been all that 'overpowered' to simply allow the Ion Shield to be placed on Side Armor?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Neither side is struck, Vector Strike does not hit a facing.

It is resolved against side armor, both left and right are included in side armor as they both use the side armor value.

Please back up this statement using relevant rule quotations.

JinxDragon wrote:
More reason for Game Workshop to stop creating new Rules which are not compatible with the current system!
Would it really have really been all that 'overpowered' to simply allow the Ion Shield to be placed on Side Armor?

It wouldn't really make sense for a shield to suddenly split into two just because it's been turned 90 degrees.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Neither side is struck, Vector Strike does not hit a facing.

It is resolved against side armor, both left and right are included in side armor as they both use the side armor value.

Please back up this statement using relevant rule quotations.

I have. Basic English tells us this is the case, as Left side armor and Right side armor are both Side armor as they both use the side armor value.

We have to understand English to even play the game because the rules do not define every word in the rule book. When the BRB does define a word we need to use that definition instead of the commonly accepted English definition if they differ.

To prove that we need to use common English definitions where none is present in the BRB I give you this:

"All models in the unit must shoot at the same target unit." (BRB 13)

If you can not find a definition in the BRB for these two words: All, same, that must mean we have to use the Common English definitions to even be able to understand the ruleset.

PrinceRaven,
When as Rules as Written followed 'sense?'

DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Please back up this statement using relevant rule quotations.

I have. Basic English tells us this is the case, as Left side armor and Right side armor are both Side armor as they both use the side armor value.

We have to understand English to even play the game because the rules do not define every word in the rule book. When the BRB does define a word we need to use that definition instead of the commonly accepted English definition if they differ.

To prove that we need to use common English definitions where none is present in the BRB I give you this:

"All models in the unit must shoot at the same target unit." (BRB 13)

If you can not find a definition in the BRB for these two words: All, same, that must mean we have to use the Common English definitions to even be able to understand the ruleset.

I do not see a relevant rules quotation, please try again.

The problem with your argument is that both side armour and facings are defined in the rulebook.

JinxDragon wrote:PrinceRaven,
When as Rules as Written followed 'sense?'

Rarely. I'm just suggesting a reason it only covers 1 facing at a time.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Please back up this statement using relevant rule quotations.

I have. Basic English tells us this is the case, as Left side armor and Right side armor are both Side armor as they both use the side armor value.

We have to understand English to even play the game because the rules do not define every word in the rule book. When the BRB does define a word we need to use that definition instead of the commonly accepted English definition if they differ.

To prove that we need to use common English definitions where none is present in the BRB I give you this:

"All models in the unit must shoot at the same target unit." (BRB 13)

If you can not find a definition in the BRB for these two words: All, same, that must mean we have to use the Common English definitions to even be able to understand the ruleset.

I do not see a relevant rules quotation, please try again.

No need to try again, It was explained sufficiently the first time.


Left side and Right side are not defined in the rules, so we need to use the Common English definitions for these two terms.

Left side and Right side are both a part of Side, and as such anything that hits side will hit Left and Right side.

The problem with your argument is that both side armor and facings are defined in the rule book.

That is not an issue either. The BRB actually tells us that side armor is used for the left and right side...

"Vehicles have separate Armour Values to represent the protection on their front (F), sides (S) and rear (R)." (70)

S = Sides (that includes Left and Right).

Check out the explanation on page 73 that shows left and right are both Side Armor.

Correct, the side armour characteristic is used for the left and right side facings, but the left and right side facings are not used for the side armour characteristic.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Correct, the side armour characteristic is used for the left and right side facings, but the left and right side facings are not used for the side armour characteristic.

The left and right side facings are what the Side armor is referring to...

The Warhammer 40k rulebook I'm reading says it's an Armour Value characteristic that represents the protection on the sides of the vehicle. I don't know what book you're reading.

are we ugnoring that it doesnt need to be left or right your just told to use the "Side Armor Value" its not actually hitting a side, just using the side AV...

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
are we ugnoring that it doesnt need to be left or right your just told to use the "Side Armor Value" its not actually hitting a side, just using the side AV...

This is an issue for the knight titan's ion shield which does care about left and right

DR, basic English doesn't support your argument. Left and right sides of the vehicle use the side armour value they are not the side armour.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
are we ugnoring that it doesnt need to be left or right your just told to use the "Side Armor Value" its not actually hitting a side, just using the side AV...

Exactly what I've been arguing.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
are we ugnoring that it doesnt need to be left or right your just told to use the "Side Armor Value" its not actually hitting a side, just using the side AV...

This is an issue for the knight titan's ion shield which does care about left and right

but where does it say that vector strikes HIT a side?

it just says to use the Side AV when determining pens.

just the numerical value, it never discusses and actual side, so the knights extra shield will have no effect as your not actually hitting a side.

IF the rule said that the hit was to come from a certain location using those values you could say so, BUT it doesnt, its just taken against the side AV, meaning in the case of most models not the highest or lowest just the medium AV a vehicle has

 liturgies of blood wrote:
DR, basic English doesn't support your argument. Left and right sides of the vehicle use the side armour value they are not the side armour.

So left side armor is not the side armor?

Care to explain, because that does not make any sense.

In basic English Left side of the vehicle is the side armor of the vehicle. Proven by page 73

Also In basic English Right side of the vehicle is the side armor of the vehicle. Proven by page 73


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
are we ugnoring that it doesnt need to be left or right your just told to use the "Side Armor Value" its not actually hitting a side, just using the side AV...

Exactly what I've been arguing.

If something is resolved against the side AV, then it is resolved against the Left and Right side AV, because that is what Side armor is, as per P.73.

And yet, the Ion shield only protects one of those, yes?

 don_mondo wrote:
And yet, the Ion shield only protects one of those, yes?

Sure. Of course, that does not matter though as you have an attack being resolved on the side with the shield and as such get a save against it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
And yet, the Ion shield only protects one of those, yes?

Sure. Of course, that does not matter though as you have an attack being resolved on the side with the shield and as such get a save against it.

Yet you also do not get a save against it. As I said before, Schrödinger's Armour.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
And yet, the Ion shield only protects one of those, yes?

Sure. Of course, that does not matter though as you have an attack being resolved on the side with the shield and as such get a save against it.

Yet you also do not get a save against it. As I said before, Schrödinger's Armour.

Except you do because it demonstrably does get resolved against the side that the shield is on. You have a save available, this is demonstrably true. Nothing says you do not get a save against it, the other side simply lacks a save value.

We get a save from the left and there is no listed save value from the right, so we are allowed to take the best save available (p. 19), since it is available to one of the facings where damage is being resolved against.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
And yet, the Ion shield only protects one of those, yes?

Sure. Of course, that does not matter though as you have an attack being resolved on the side with the shield and as such get a save against it.

Unless it's resolved on the side without the shield and you don't.

 don_mondo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
And yet, the Ion shield only protects one of those, yes?

Sure. Of course, that does not matter though as you have an attack being resolved on the side with the shield and as such get a save against it.

Unless it's resolved on the side without the shield and you don't.

But it is not resolved on the side without the shield.

It is resolved on Side armor (This includes left and right side) so it is resolved on a side where the shield is.

And also on the side where the shield is not..............

So which takes precedence?

DR, do you know what the difference is between the definite and indefinite article?
Well it's more or less the issue at play here. It's resolved against the side armour but not a specific side which would possibly allow a save.


So again, if you have the shield on your left side armour and you are told to resolve it on the side armour, where do you derive permission to make a save?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
And yet, the Ion shield only protects one of those, yes?

Sure. Of course, that does not matter though as you have an attack being resolved on the side with the shield and as such get a save against it.

Unless it's resolved on the side without the shield and you don't.

But it is not resolved on the side without the shield.

It is resolved on Side armor (This includes left and right side) so it is resolved on a side where the shield is.

The hit is resolved against the Side Armor VALUE. The word "value" should be spelled out in the RAW but it isn't.

However, even if it is, a hit against "Side Armor" does not, in the context of 40k rules, mean the same thing as "hit against right model facing" or "hit against left model facing", which is what you are trying to argue.

So no. RAW you don't get a save vs the Vector Strike. The vector strike hits your side armor. But it does not hit either the left or right model facing.

 don_mondo wrote:
And also on the side where the shield is not..............

So which takes precedence?

Page 19 does.

"a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Murrdox wrote:
The hit is resolved against the Side Armor VALUE. The word "value" should be spelled out in the RAW but it isn't.

However, even if it is, a hit against "Side Armor" does not, in the context of 40k rules, mean the same thing as "hit against right model facing" or "hit against left model facing", which is what you are trying to argue.

So no. RAW you don't get a save vs the Vector Strike. The vector strike hits your side armor. But it does not hit either the left or right model facing.

Left side facing, and right side facing are both Side armor as noted on page 73.

"Armour Values for individual vehicles often vary between its front, side and rear facings." Side Facing = Side armor value as noted in this passage from Page 73.

So yes RAW the vehicle gets the save.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
DR, do you know what the difference is between the definite and indefinite article?
Well it's more or less the issue at play here. It's resolved against the side armour but not a specific side which would possibly allow a save.


So again, if you have the shield on your left side armour and you are told to resolve it on the side armour, where do you derive permission to make a save?

It is resolved against side armor.

What does the side armor cover?

Page 73 tells us that the side armor is both the Left and right side armor.

Permission comes from VS being resolved against a facing that has the shield active. It is resolved against side armor, this includes left and right side armor as noted on page 73.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Murrdox wrote:
The hit is resolved against the Side Armor VALUE. The word "value" should be spelled out in the RAW but it isn't.

However, even if it is, a hit against "Side Armor" does not, in the context of 40k rules, mean the same thing as "hit against right model facing" or "hit against left model facing", which is what you are trying to argue.

So no. RAW you don't get a save vs the Vector Strike. The vector strike hits your side armor. But it does not hit either the left or right model facing.

Left side facing, and right side facing are both Side armor as noted on page 73.

"Armour Values for individual vehicles often vary between its front, side and rear facings." Side Facing = Side armor value as noted in this passage from Page 73.

So yes RAW the vehicle gets the save.

If you want to go that direction then, you should be able to tell me which armor facing I hit when Vector striking without even looking at any models.

Okay so there's your situation. I execute a Vector Strike on you. I hit your Side Armor. Now, using the rules, tell me which facing of your model I have hit.

You are resolving the VS against Both Facings, Left side armor and Right side armor as per the rules on page 70 and 73.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You are resolving the VS against Both Facings, Left side armor and Right side armor as per the rules on page 70 and 73.

\

Neither of those rules tell you to treat a hit against a "Side Armor" value as if it had hit both facings of the model.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You are resolving the VS against Both Facings, Left side armor and Right side armor as per the rules on page 70 and 73.

So you roll to pen twice per VS hit?

"Vehicles have separate Armour Values to represent the protection on their front (F), sides (S) and rear (R). Armour Values typically range from 10 to 14, depending on which side of the vehicle is being attacked," (70)

Sides = Left and Right side. Page 73, the diagram on how to determine what facing your in, confirms that Left and Right side are both Side armor.

Therefore if you resolve against Side armor, you look at P.70 and 73 and that confirms that side armor is both left and right side armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You are resolving the VS against Both Facings, Left side armor and Right side armor as per the rules on page 70 and 73.

So you roll to pen twice per VS hit?

You only hit the vehicle once, as per VS (Well D3+1 hits but you know that already).

DR, it's weak to say that a side must be the side I have a shield on and not the other side that I don't. Especially when you have no evidence other than poor logical leaps. You have still to show that "side armour" is a specific side.

All I'm seeing from your repeated statements are that: "A side has side armour, hence side armour designates a specific side."

Can you show why the shielded side is hit in your model and not the other side?

liturgies of blood wrote:DR, it's weak to say that a side must be the side I have a shield on and not the other side that I don't. Especially when you have no evidence other than poor logical leaps. You have still to show that "side armour" is a specific side.

All I'm seeing from your repeated statements are that: "A side has side armour, hence side armour designates a specific side."

Can you show why the shielded side is hit in your model and not the other side?

DeathReaper wrote:You are resolving the VS against Both Facings, Left side armor and Right side armor as per the rules on page 70 and 73.

He literally said you hit both sides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You are resolving the VS against Both Facings, Left side armor and Right side armor as per the rules on page 70 and 73.

So you roll to pen twice per VS hit?

You only hit the vehicle once, as per VS (Well D3+1 hits but you know that already).

But you've said you are resolving VS against [i]both/i] facings. Your word, not mine.
To resolve something against both facings, you must attempt to pen both facings.

Rigeld that's why I said it was weak.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Vehicles have separate Armour Values to represent the protection on their front (F), sides (S) and rear (R). Armour Values typically range from 10 to 14, depending on which side of the vehicle is being attacked," (70)

Sides = Left and Right side. Page 73, the diagram on how to determine what facing your in, confirms that Left and Right side are both Side armor.

Therefore if you resolve against Side armor, you look at P.70 and 73 and that confirms that side armor is both left and right side armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You are resolving the VS against Both Facings, Left side armor and Right side armor as per the rules on page 70 and 73.

So you roll to pen twice per VS hit?

You only hit the vehicle once, as per VS (Well D3+1 hits but you know that already).

You can't seriously be arguing that. If your interpretation was correct, then ANY hit to the side armor of the vehicle would hit BOTH sides simultaneously, and you'd be making TWO penetration rolls for every side armor hit! Your logic would go:

A) I hit the a side facing of the vehicle.
B) Page 73 says that the left side of the vehicle is equal to the "Sides" armor value.
C) "Sides" armor value is equal to both left and right facing.
D) I resolve my lascannon shot against both facings.

Even if you are correct, and you DO hit both facings, the BEST situation that you have argued yourself into is that now your Knight suffers TWICE as many hits because you'd roll to penetrate both armor facings?

Side Armor does NOT equal Model Facing.

Model Facing CAN equal Side Armor. The equation does not work in both directions like you are trying to argue.

All poodles are dogs, not all dogs are poodles.

The ion shield gives the Knight an invulnerable save against all hits on one particular facing (front, left, right, rear).

None of the VS rules state that its hits impact upon any particular facing, but merely that we use the side armour for the purpose of resolving armour penetration rolls.

Therefore, the ion shield invulnerable save cannot be taken for VS hits regardless of the vehicle facing upon which the ion shield is positioned.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
DR, it's weak to say that a side must be the side I have a shield on and not the other side that I don't. Especially when you have no evidence other than poor logical leaps. You have still to show that "side armour" is a specific side.

I have never claimed that Side armor was a specific side...

I have said Side armor is both sides though, because the rule book says it is as per P.73

All I'm seeing from your repeated statements are that: "A side has side armour, hence side armour designates a specific side."

Can you show why the shielded side is hit in your model and not the other side?

They are both hit as VS hits Side armor.

Side armor is the left and right sides of the vehicle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

You only hit the vehicle once, as per VS (Well D3+1 hits but you know that already).

But you've said you are resolving VS against [i]both/i] facings. Your word, not mine.
To resolve something against both facings, you must attempt to pen both facings.

You have resolved it vs both sides by using the Side armor value. but you only resolve it once per hit as the side armor has a single armor value.

There are not two different values for Side armor, just one. Therefore if you attempt to hit side armor you hit that specific value for the sides of the vehicle. You hit both sides with a VS if you hit twice you try to pen twice.

I declare Left side for the shield. Your Vanquished is in my side arc on the ride side of my Knight. You fire, hit, and pen.

Do I get my shield save? Why or why not?

Where in the rules/faq does it say Vector Strike wounds are allocated randomly?

Marshall Ragnar wrote:
Where in the rules/faq does it say Vector Strike wounds are allocated randomly?

BRB Errata/FAQ. One of the first couple of pages in the Errata section.

rigeld2 wrote:
I declare Left side for the shield. Your Vanquished is in my side arc on the ride side of my Knight. You fire, hit, and pen.

Do I get my shield save? Why or why not?

You do not because in that case you are only hitting the right side (and you were not hitting 'side armor', you hit Right side armor). and the shield is not on the right side it is on the left side.

If it simply hit Side armor, like barrage, you would get the shield because you use the best save available.

Please stop saying that page 73 defines the side armour characteristic as being made up of the left and right side facings, that is a blatant lie.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Please stop saying that page 73 defines the side armour characteristic as being made up of the left and right side facings, that is a blatant lie.

It is not a lie, but I didn't only tag page 73.

I used Page 73 and page 70 to show the relevant quotes. As long as a person understands basic English they can put this all together.

Page 70 " Vehicles have separate Armour Values to represent the protection on their front (F), sides (S) and rear (R)" (BRB 70) Note: Sides = left side and right side as proven by page 70 and 73...

Check out the diagram on vehicle armor facing on page 73. This shows that Side armor is on the Left and Right side of that tank. The text reads: " Armour Values for individual vehicles often vary between its front, side and rear facings."(73)

And finally "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from. To see what facing a shot is corning from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle" (73) Doing this creates a right side armor and a left side armor.

Linguistically if you are in the vehicles right side armor, you will hit the right side armor. That is just how the English Language works.

It does count against the side armor value not a particular side. Now the special shield thingy only covers one side and not the other.
So you only get half of the save.
half of 4 is 2.
so you get a a save of 2
you then rub a pumpkin pie onto your chest
and take a nap.

That's about all the rules that I've read have to say on the subject.

Honestly, I don't believe that RAW has a lot to say on the subject. Chalk it up to rules writers for a unit not realizing that it has an effect on how other rules work.

Edit: I forgot to include that you also cover your entire face with red lipstick. Whew! got that in before someone corrected me.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Please stop saying that page 73 defines the side armour characteristic as being made up of the left and right side facings, that is a blatant lie.

It is not a lie, but I didn't only tag page 73.

I used Page 73 and page 70 to show the relevant quotes. As long as a person understands basic English they can put this all together.

Page 70 " Vehicles have separate Armour Values to represent the protection on their front (F), sides (S) and rear (R)" (BRB 70) Note: Sides = left side and right side as proven by page 70 and 73...

Check out the diagram on vehicle armor facing on page 73. This shows that Side armor is on the Left and Right side of that tank. The text reads: " Armour Values for individual vehicles often vary between its front, side and rear facings."(73)

And finally "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from. To see what facing a shot is corning from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle" (73) Doing this creates a right side armor and a left side armor.

Linguistically if you are in the vehicles right side armor, you will hit the right side armor. That is just how the English Language works.

All of this is actually correct, hitting a left or right side facing does mean you are resolving the attack against the side armour characteristic. Nowhere does it say the opposite is true. This is the affirming the consequent logical fallacy:
If X then Y
Y
Therefore X
In which X is left or right side facing and Y is side armour characteristic.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
All of this is actually correct, hitting a left or right side facing does mean you are resolving the attack against the side armour characteristic.

This you have correct.

Nowhere does it say the opposite is true. This is the affirming the consequent logical fallacy:
If X then Y
Y
Therefore X
In which X is left or right side facing and Y is side armour characteristic.

Not sure what you are getting at here...

Any attack that hits side armor, must hit both sides as we are not told they hit left or right, simply side armor.

Side armor is made up of two facings, left and right...

I'm saying that even though hitting a side facing means you resolve against the side armour value, resolving against the side armour value doesn't mean you hit a side facing and that you are using an invalid argument form.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm saying that even though hitting a side facing means you resolve against the side armour value, resolving against the side armour value doesn't mean you hit a side facing and that you are using an invalid argument form.

Except VS hits side armor, it doesn't just resolve against Side Armor, it actually causes hits on Side Armor..

Side armor consists of Left side and Right side, so that is what you hit with VS.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm saying that even though hitting a side facing means you resolve against the side armour value, resolving against the side armour value doesn't mean you hit a side facing and that you are using an invalid argument form.

Except VS hits side armor, it doesn't just resolve against Side Armor, it actually causes hits on Side Armor..

Support this statement with rules please.

Side armor consists of Left side and Right side, so that is what you hit with VS.

This one too, using a valid argument form this time.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm saying that even though hitting a side facing means you resolve against the side armour value, resolving against the side armour value doesn't mean you hit a side facing and that you are using an invalid argument form.

Except VS hits side armor, it doesn't just resolve against Side Armor, it actually causes hits on Side Armor..

Support this statement with rules please.

Too easy:

"At the end of the Movement phase, nominate any one unengaged enemy unit the model has moved over that turn. This unit may even be an enemy Flyer. That unit takes D3+1 hits resolved at the model's unmodified Strength and AP 3. Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target's side armour." (Emphasis mine BRB 43 Vector Strike Entry).

Is a vehicle a unit? If so it takes D3+1 hits, and these hits are resolved against the target's side armor...

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Side armor consists of Left side and Right side, so that is what you hit with VS.

This one too, using a valid argument form this time.

I have, page 70 and 73. Side armor consists of Right and Left side of the vehicle as noted on Page 73, the diagram is what you are looking for.

To determine what facing is hit with a shot we look at the diagram. "To see what facing a shot is corning from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle " (73)

Notice how the Left side and Right side of that vehicle say Side armor. The front of the vehicle is Front Armor, the back is Rear Armor, and the Left and Right sides are Side Armor.

There is your Left and Right side armor.

The Imperial Knight Codex confirms that this is true: "The Imperial Knight player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight’s ion shield is covering. The choices are: front, left side, right side or rear." (IK Codex Digital edition 359)

Clearly there is a Left facing and a Right facing as noted in the RAW.

 Idolator wrote:
It does count against the side armor value not a particular side. Now the special shield thingy only covers one side and not the other.
So you only get half of the save.
half of 4 is 2.
so you get a a save of 2
you then rub a pumpkin pie onto your chest
and take a nap.

That's about all the rules that I've read have to say on the subject.

Honestly, I don't believe that RAW has a lot to say on the subject. Chalk it up to rules writers for a unit not realizing that it has an effect on how other rules work.

Edit: I forgot to include that you also cover your entire face with red lipstick. Whew! got that in before someone corrected me.

Other option is random allocations to facing.... not really rules based but neither is the above, nor getting the save, next best would be not getting the save.
As the knight doesn't have protection for both side armor, only one facing, and the VS is never hitting one facing.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm saying that even though hitting a side facing means you resolve against the side armour value, resolving against the side armour value doesn't mean you hit a side facing and that you are using an invalid argument form.

Except VS hits side armor, it doesn't just resolve against Side Armor, it actually causes hits on Side Armor..

Support this statement with rules please.

Too easy:

"At the end of the Movement phase, nominate any one unengaged enemy unit the model has moved over that turn. This unit may even be an enemy Flyer. That unit takes D3+1 hits resolved at the model's unmodified Strength and AP 3. Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target's side armour." (Emphasis mine BRB 43 Vector Strike Entry).

Is a vehicle a unit? If so it takes D3+1 hits, and these hits are resolved against the target's side armor...

You have proven it takes hits and you have proven these hits are resolved against the side armour characteristic, you have not proven that these hits actually hit a facing.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Side armor consists of Left side and Right side, so that is what you hit with VS.

This one too, using a valid argument form this time.

I have, page 70 and 73. Side armor consists of Right and Left side of the vehicle as noted on Page 73, the diagram is what you are looking for.

To determine what facing is hit with a shot we look at the diagram. "To see what facing a shot is corning from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle " (73)

Notice how the Left side and Right side of that vehicle say Side armor. The front of the vehicle is Front Armor, the back is Rear Armor, and the Left and Right sides are Side Armor.

There is your Left and Right side armor.

The Imperial Knight Codex confirms that this is true: "The Imperial Knight player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight’s ion shield is covering. The choices are: front, left side, right side or rear." (IK Codex Digital edition 359)

Clearly there is a Left facing and a Right facing as noted in the RAW.

I said using a valid argument form, you're just repeating your old invalid argument. Your conclusion may be correct (though I doubt it), but as long as you continue along these lines your argument does not support the conclusion.

You still have yet to prove that resolving against the side armour characteristic means you have hit a side facing.

I have proven it, you are ignoring the rules quotes.

You have quoted many a rule that builds a very strong argument that the side facings use the side armour characteristic.

There are no RAW stating which direction VS attacks come from therefore it cannot be determined that they hit a vehicle on any particular facing. If VS attacks came from a known direction why do we use random allocation for hits on infantry units?

RAW tells us to use side armour for resolving armour penetration results and that is all. It does not logically follow that this means those hits impacted either a left side, right side, or both. RAI, this instruction is most likely in order to represent a VS from above in the absence of a "top" AV although this is not specifically stated. Consider a CC situation in which we use rear armour for resolving armour penetration even if you're chopping away at the front facing of said vehicle.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I declare Left side for the shield. Your Vanquished is in my side arc on the ride side of my Knight. You fire, hit, and pen.

Do I get my shield save? Why or why not?

You do not because in that case you are only hitting the right side (and you were not hitting 'side armor', you hit Right side armor). and the shield is not on the right side it is on the left side.

If it simply hit Side armor, like barrage, you would get the shield because you use the best save available.

You've equated Side Armor to both sides. Since I must resolve the attack using the Side armor value, and Side Armor is both sides, why do I not get the best save available?

rigeld2 wrote:
You've equated Side Armor to both sides.

I have not, the rules do that. Specifically page 73. The rules equate Side armor as including both the Left and Right side.

Since I must resolve the attack using the Side armor value, and Side Armor is both sides, why do I not get the best save available?

You do with VS and Ion Shields as you simply hit side armor which includes Left and Right. VS does not specifically hit any single side, it just hits side armor, unlike when you have a Devastator squad in the Right side Armor facing of said Imperial Knight.

Had VS hit Left side armor and the shield was on the Right side armor then you would not get the save. But VS just hits side armor.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You've equated Side Armor to both sides.

I have not, the rules do that. Specifically page 73. The rules equate Side armor as including both the Left and Right side.

Since I must resolve the attack using the Side armor value, and Side Armor is both sides, why do I not get the best save available?

You do with VS and Ion Shields as you simply hit side armor which includes Left and Right. VS does not specifically hit any single side, it just hits side armor, unlike when you have a Devastator squad in the Right side Armor facing of said Imperial Knight.

Had VS hit Left side armor and the shield was on the Right side armor then you would not get the save. But VS just hits side armor.

If resolving a hit against side armor means you resolve it against both left and right sides,
And if resolving a hit against the left side means you resolve it against the side armor,
Then if a weapon hits the left side it is resolved against both sides.

I've taken the underlined from your statements in your posts. Please let me know what is incorrect - if you believe I've misquoted you let me know - I'll go grab the quotes.

Almost rig.

VS Hits side armor, Side armor includes left and right sides as noted on page 73.

Resolving a hit on the Left side, means you hit the Left side armor. not Side armor. Subtle but important difference.


(I never said "And if resolving a hit against the left side means you resolve it against the side armor")

 DeathReaper wrote:
Almost rig.

VS Hits side armor, Side armor includes left and right sides as noted on page 73.

Resolving a hit on the Left side, means you hit the Left side armor. not Side armor. Subtle but important difference.


(I never said "And if resolving a hit against the left side means you resolve it against the side armor")

Please show the armor value of the left side armor.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
RAW: Vector Strike hits "side armour", the shield cannot be placed on "side armour", the Knight doesn't get the save

So Left side is not a part of "side armour"? That statement is demonstrably incorrect.

Page 73 shows that Left side and Right side both use Side armor values.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Page 73 shows that Left side and Right side both use Side armor values.

Great!
That agrees with the statement you made:
"So Left side is not a part of "side armour"? That statement is demonstrably incorrect."
Would you agree that a shot from the left side is resolved against the side armor? I'm trying not to put words in your mouth. I'm assuming you agree with this statement.
"Is a vehicle a unit? If so it takes D3+1 hits, and these hits are resolved against the target's side armor..."
So what's the difference between a hit that resolves against the target's side armor and a hit that is resolved against the target's side armor? Please elaborate using rules.

Left side is a part of side armor in the same way that all apples are fruit, but not all fruit is apples.

All Left side armor is side armor but not all side armor is left side armor.

Geez, you guys are still going on about this.

This is not a syllogism.

The left side of a vehicle has an attributed side armor value. The right side of a vehicle has an attributed side armor value. Neither side has a required attribution to have a side armor value.

It exists on it's own.

Now, this mechanic is a real turd when things occur such as having differing armor values on a side facing or special rules for one of the sides.Because the rules are poorly written without regard to the side armor mechanic. Just deal with it as there is currently no definitively right answer. No matter how much we all want there to be one.

You should be just as torqued that there are plenty of models (including the Imperial Knight) that have differing armor values for a side with no real method for determining what those sides are, since you can pose the models in a fashion where parts of the back are on the side and parts of the side are in the front and back!

 DeathReaper wrote:
Left side is a part of side armor in the same way that all apples are fruit, but not all fruit is apples.

All Left side armor is side armor but not all side armor is left side armor.

Wait! Whoa whoa whoa. Are you actually using my "All poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles" logical example that I gave you to prove how WRONG you are, MISUNDERSTANDING the example... and then using it to BOLSTER your bad argument?

Really, Deathreaper it's time to give this one a rest.

The argument goes the exact opposite of the way you quoted it.

All hits that hit the "Left Model Facing" are resolved against "Side Armor". But not all hits that are resolved against "Side Armor" hit the "Left Model Facing". So what this means is that if I am recounting a battle to you, and I tell you "My Knight got hit on the side armor!" There is no way for you to logically conclude which Model Facing my Knight was hit on.

It's exactly the same example as if I were to tell you "I have a dog!" There is no way for you to logically extrapolate from that what kind of dog I have. However if I tell you "I have a poodle!" You can logically extrapolate that I DO have a dog.

Logic does not work the way you're trying to insinuate.

Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a MINUTE!

DeathReaper, you are just arguing to argue. On a point not even concerning the topic at all.

You even agree that the standard side armor value is what you use to determine vector strike hits. Heck everyone seems to agree on this as the RAW.

You're caught up in some language vortex debating if left side armor is still side armor. Which has zilch to do with the topic. Or even a reasoned debate for that matter.

None of the sides are side armor, front armor, or rear armor. The front of a vehicle uses the front armor value to determine what happens when struck by a weapon. The left side of a vehicle uses the side armor value to determine what happens when struck by a weapon.The rear of a vehicle uses the rear armor value to determine what happens when struck by a weapon.The right side of a vehicle uses the side armor value to determine what happens when struck by a weapon.

Now, there are instances where one side or the other may have it's armor value decrease while the other remains the same. Even if this weren't the case, but in those cases especially players refer to each individual side as that sides armor value. That's all and you know it.

Left side armor is side armor. Right side armor is side armor. Side armor is both left and right side armor. Side armor is left side armor. Side armor is right side armor.

Geez,man.

edit: For when a vehicle is considered to have been hit on the top or bottom armor you are instructed to use side armor values to represent the weaker armor of the top and bottom of the vehicle. While this is what is instructed, I have always felt that the underside should use the rear armor value as(unless specially outfitted) the underside armor is the weakest on the vehicle.

Murrdox wrote:
Wait! Whoa whoa whoa. Are you actually using my "All poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles" logical example that I gave you to prove how WRONG you are, MISUNDERSTANDING the example... and then using it to BOLSTER your bad argument?

Except I am not incorrect.

All left side armor is side armor, but not all side armor is Left side armor. This is true no matter how much you say it is a misunderstanding/bad...

All hits that hit the "Left Model Facing" are resolved against "Side Armor".

This, what I have underlined in your post, you have incorrect. That is not how it is at all.

All hits that hit the "Left Model Facing" are resolved against "Left Side Armor". Subtle but important difference.

But not all hits that are resolved against "Side Armor" hit the "Left Model Facing".

All hits that are resolved against "Side Armor" hit "Side Armor". Not really sure what you are getting at here.

Side armor includes Left Side Armor and Right Side Armor as per Page 73. The English Languages proves this is correct. If we can not understand the English language then the rule set means nothing.

So what this means is that if I am recounting a battle to you, and I tell you "My Knight got hit on the side armor!" There is no way for you to logically conclude which Model Facing my Knight was hit on.

This is of course true. If you say, My tank was shot in its side armor you can not logically determine if the tank was hit on the left or right side, since there is not enough information to glean the answer from...

 DeathReaper wrote:
All hits that hit the "Left Model Facing" are resolved against "Left Side Armor". Subtle but important difference.

We know per your statement that left side armor is part of side armor.
We also know that left side armor doesn't exist - again, per your statement.
Since we must resolve a hit on the left side against side armor, and side armor includes both left and right (again, per your statements), how do you not roll for pen twice? I'm truly confused here.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except I am not incorrect.

All left side armor is side armor, but not all side armor is Left side armor. This is true no matter how much you say it is a misunderstanding/bad...

All hits that hit the "Left Model Facing" are resolved against "Side Armor".

This, what I have underlined in your post, you have incorrect. That is not how it is at all.

All hits that hit the "Left Model Facing" are resolved against "Left Side Armor". Subtle but important difference.

Can all the hits on the left model facing be resolved against port side armor? Can I do that? Is all left side armor also the-opposite-of-right side armor? Can all hits on the sinister model facing be resolved against the larboard side armor?

For someone that is consistently shouting "ENGLISH LANGUAGE" "ENGLISH LANGUAGE!" you don't seem to understand some of the key concepts.

Can you point to the instances in the rule book where Left side armor or Right side armor are even mentioned?

The only place that Left Side or Right side armor appear is in the rules for the Ion shield.

So either it does not work as there is no such thing (Unlikely that the shield does nothing).

Or the left facing of a vehicle is the Left side armor and the right facing is Right side armor, and they are both Side armor.

rigeld2 wrote:
We also know that left side armor doesn't exist - again, per your statement.

When did I say this?

left side armor exists, but it is not specifically called left or right in the BRB, it is in the IK book though.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The only place that Left Side or Right side armor appear is in the rules for the Ion shield.

So either it does not work as there is no such thing (Unlikely that the shield does nothing).

Or the left facing of a vehicle is the Left side armor and the right facing is Right side armor, and they are both Side armor.

rigeld2 wrote:
We also know that left side armor doesn't exist - again, per your statement.

When did I say this?

left side armor exists, but it is not specifically called left or right in the BRB, it is in the IK book though.

What are the actual words used? That is very important.

 Idolator wrote:
What are the actual words used? That is very important.

Here is what the IK codex says:

From the IK codex:

"...the Imperial Knight player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight’s ion shield is covering. The choices are: front, left side, right side or rear. The Knight has a 4+ invulnerable save against all hits on that facing until the start of your opponent’s next Shooting phase." (154.5 in the Digital Codex)

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
What are the actual words used? That is very important.

Here is what the IK codex says:

From the IK codex:

"...the Imperial Knight player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight’s ion shield is covering. The choices are: front, left side, right side or rear. The Knight has a 4+ invulnerable save against all hits on that facing until the start of your opponent’s next Shooting phase." (154.5 in the Digital Codex)

So no references to "left side armor" just references to front, left side, right side and rear in regards to a facing. There is no such thing as "left side armor" nor "right side armor" listed in the rules. The designation "left" and "right" are merely adjectives added by players for ease. The terms port and starboard or sinister and dexter could also be used.

So these terms only exist in the minds of the players (you) not in any official capacity of the rules. To argue otherwise is foolish.

That being said. The rules as whole when it comes to this situation are a dismal failure and should be decided on by the players. Now, how to do that....first get a stick of red lipstick and a pumpkin pie.............

 DeathReaper wrote:
Left side is a part of side armor in the same way that all apples are fruit, but not all fruit is apples.

All Left side armor is side armor but not all side armor is left side armor.

Doesn't this directly contradict your position on the Knight's invulnerable save?

 Happyjew wrote:
RAW: unknown.

That said, the only way I've seen it ruled (and granted it was a small local tourney), was that regardless of which AV you are using to resolve the attack (i.e. side armour for barrage and VS), if the model is in the facing that is protected, it gets the save.

The TO never did answer me on what happens if the VS model left the board...

HIWPI: The strike should come from the side the helldrake moved over in its movement phase . If the drake moved over more than one side then determine the side the strike comes from randomly from among the sides the drake moved over. But as for your local TO's much siomplier solution. If the drake left the board you could count the strike as coming from point on the board edge where the drake left.

 DJGietzen wrote:
HIWPI: The strike should come from the side the helldrake moved over in its movement phase .

You mean the top side?

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
HIWPI: The strike should come from the side the helldrake moved over in its movement phase .

You mean the top side?

Where is top side referenced in the rules? Nowhere! It doesn't exist in respect to the rules!

Come on!!!! These rules are busted!

The top side doesn't actually exist in the rules, correct, but that is the side the Vector Striking model moves over, and is represented by resolving Vector Strike against the Side AV value.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The top side doesn't actually exist in the rules, correct, but that is the side the Vector Striking model moves over, and is represented by resolving Vector Strike against the Side AV value.

I know, but this is a unique circumstance enacted by a couple of dingbats who crammed something into a rule supplement because they thought it was cool and never thought of how it would work with all the other rules involved.

G-dubs, because you know...narrative.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Left side is a part of side armor in the same way that all apples are fruit, but not all fruit is apples.

All Left side armor is side armor but not all side armor is left side armor.

Doesn't this directly contradict your position on the Knight's invulnerable save?

Not at all.

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
What are the actual words used? That is very important.

Here is what the IK codex says:

From the IK codex:

"...the Imperial Knight player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight’s ion shield is covering. The choices are: front, left side, right side or rear. The Knight has a 4+ invulnerable save against all hits on that facing until the start of your opponent’s next Shooting phase." (154.5 in the Digital Codex)

So no references to "left side armor" just references to front, left side, right side and rear in regards to a facing. There is no such thing as "left side armor" nor "right side armor" listed in the rules. The designation "left" and "right" are merely adjectives added by players for ease. The terms port and starboard or sinister and dexter could also be used.

So these terms only exist in the minds of the players (you) not in any official capacity of the rules. To argue otherwise is foolish.

No these terms do not only exist in the minds of players...

To be more clear it really should read "left side armor value"

Page 73 equates facing with its armor value.

"As such, vehicles have different Armour Values) representing the thickness of their armour.[sic] Armour Values for individual vehicles often vary between its front, side and rear facings." (BRB 73)

...

You'll have to explain the logic behind that one, given that one argument is "if I put the shield on the left side I get to use it against vector strike because side armour always includes the left side" and the other is "not all side armour is left side armour".

 PrinceRaven wrote:
...

You'll have to explain the logic behind that one, given that one argument is "if I put the shield on the left side I get to use it against vector strike because side armour always includes the left side" and the other is "not all side armour is left side armour".

Because you have hit Side armor yes?

Since Side armor is made up of left side armor value and right side armor value, you have hit a side where the shield is positioned and as such get to take the best save available.

So you have a 4+ Invuln and a - for saves, and as such you get to take the best one, in this case the 4+ Invuln.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
...

You'll have to explain the logic behind that one, given that one argument is "if I put the shield on the left side I get to use it against vector strike because side armour always includes the left side" and the other is "not all side armour is left side armour".

Because you have hit Side armor yes?

Since Side armor is made up of left side armor value and right side armor value, you have hit a side where the shield is positioned and as such get to take the best save available.

So you have a 4+ Invuln and a - for saves, and as such you get to take the best one, in this case the 4+ Invuln.

Vector Strike doesn't "hit side armour", but I'll play along...

Ok, now since resolving against side armour automatically means you've hit both side facings for some reason, why doesn't hitting the right side, meaning you resolve your attack against side armour, make you hit the left facing?

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
...

You'll have to explain the logic behind that one, given that one argument is "if I put the shield on the left side I get to use it against vector strike because side armour always includes the left side" and the other is "not all side armour is left side armour".

Because you have hit Side armor yes?

Since Side armor is made up of left side armor value and right side armor value, you have hit a side where the shield is positioned and as such get to take the best save available.

So you have a 4+ Invuln and a - for saves, and as such you get to take the best one, in this case the 4+ Invuln.

Vector Strike doesn't "hit side armour", but I'll play along...

Yes it does. VS clearly hits side armor...

"...That unit takes D3+1 hits, resolved at the model's unmodified Strength and AP 3. Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target's side armour." (43)

Ok, now since resolving against side armour automatically means you've hit both side facings for some reason, why doesn't hitting the right side, meaning you resolve your attack against side armour, make you hit the left facing?

Because you are not hitting side armor you are hitting right side armor. Subtle but important difference.

A shot in the right side facing will hit right side armor.

VS simply hits side armor and not left or right side specifically, just side, thus both left and right are included in side armor.

All left side armor is side armor but not all side armor is left side armor.

"The unit takes d3+1 hits" What is hit? The unit.
"Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target's side armour" - which AV are they resolved against? Side armour.

Once again, you're claiming characteristics and facings are the same thing without rules to back it up.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"The unit takes d3+1 hits" What is hit? The unit.
"Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target's side armour" - which AV are they resolved against? Side armour.

Once again, you're claiming characteristics and facings are the same thing without rules to back it up.

Having read through the debate, it suddenly puts me in the camps of "We must use random allocation then" ?

As the hits are not "defined" onto the facing, but use the AV for armour Pen, then it isn't "a hit on side armour", but "a hit with random allocation (from the FAQ), using Side AV". P73 then says: "comparing this total with the AV of the appropriate facing of the vehicle" - in this case forced to use Side AV, and as to picking which side: FAQ Random allocation.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
We also know that left side armor doesn't exist - again, per your statement.

When did I say this?

left side armor exists, but it is not specifically called left or right in the BRB, it is in the IK book though.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Page 73 shows that Left side and Right side both use Side armor values.

Care to explain the rest?

 BlackTalos wrote:
Having read through the debate, it suddenly puts me in the camps of "We must use random allocation then" ?

As the hits are not "defined" onto the facing, but use the AV for armour Pen, then it isn't "a hit on side armour", but "a hit with random allocation (from the FAQ), using Side AV". P73 then says: "comparing this total with the AV of the appropriate facing of the vehicle" - in this case forced to use Side AV, and as to picking which side: FAQ Random allocation.

You're misquoting the rules here. Random allocation is used to determine which models take the wounds in a multi-model unit. Not to determine which direction a hit comes from or which facing on a vehicle it hits. Doing so is essentially making up rules. There's no need to randomly allocate wounds on a one model unit.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Having read through the debate, it suddenly puts me in the camps of "We must use random allocation then" ?

As the hits are not "defined" onto the facing, but use the AV for armour Pen, then it isn't "a hit on side armour", but "a hit with random allocation (from the FAQ), using Side AV". P73 then says: "comparing this total with the AV of the appropriate facing of the vehicle" - in this case forced to use Side AV, and as to picking which side: FAQ Random allocation.

You're misquoting the rules here. Random allocation is used to determine which models take the wounds in a multi-model unit. Not to determine which direction a hit comes from or which facing on a vehicle it hits. Doing so is essentially making up rules. There's no need to randomly allocate wounds on a one model unit.

If that is the case, then how do you interpret the last few pages of "there is no Side facing for Vector Strike" ?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Having read through the debate, it suddenly puts me in the camps of "We must use random allocation then" ?

As the hits are not "defined" onto the facing, but use the AV for armour Pen, then it isn't "a hit on side armour", but "a hit with random allocation (from the FAQ), using Side AV". P73 then says: "comparing this total with the AV of the appropriate facing of the vehicle" - in this case forced to use Side AV, and as to picking which side: FAQ Random allocation.

You're misquoting the rules here. Random allocation is used to determine which models take the wounds in a multi-model unit. Not to determine which direction a hit comes from or which facing on a vehicle it hits. Doing so is essentially making up rules. There's no need to randomly allocate wounds on a one model unit.

If that is the case, then how do you interpret the last few pages of "there is no Side facing for Vector Strike" ?

I've stated this previously, but for your benefit the RAW do not define VS hits as coming from any particular direction or as hitting any particular vehicle facing. There are also no RAW stating that we need to determine which facing is hit, or how to do so. All we are told is that side armour is used to resolve the hits I.e. armour penetration rolls.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

I've stated this previously, but for your benefit the RAW do not define VS hits as coming from any particular direction or as hitting any particular vehicle facing. There are also no RAW stating that we need to determine which facing is hit, or how to do so. All we are told is that side armour is used to resolve the hits I.e. armour penetration rolls.

I agree it is currently undefined, but as RaW goes, we are told that Vector Strike uses Random allocation when determining Hits. As the Rules for Glance/Pens states "appropriate facing", this means that a facing must be "Chosen", either by rules, or in this case: randomly.

Occam's would agree here too...

Random Allocation is for Wounds, not hits, and applies once the number of wounds has been determined.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Random Allocation is for Wounds, not hits, and applies once the number of wounds has been determined.

Random allocation is probably the best and only way to accurately depict what is going on. Two reasons. There is no option for "top" to place the shield. There is no way to determine how much of this "top" is covered by the shield.

It's almost as if these were written without considering vector strike rules.

DR, are you honestly saying that a term exists and is an irrefutable rule and is the gospel truth, when there is absolutely no instance of the term in any rule book. Did the port/starboard, sinister/dexter examples have no meaning to you.

Maybe there is no option for top on the shield because 10'000+ years ago the designers of the Knights never considered the possibility of Heldrakes, Hive Crones and Daemon Princes threatening them, or even existing.

I know, not a rules argument, but neither is Idolator's.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Maybe there is no option for top on the shield because 10'000+ years ago the designers of the Knights never considered the possibility of Heldrakes, Hive Crones and Daemon Princes threatening them, or even existing.

I know, not a rules argument, but neither is Idolator's.

I'll accept that.

In truth, though, this hasn't really been a rules argument for a while. It more closely resembles something I saw at a zoo once, involving primates and feces.

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Random Allocation is for Wounds, not hits, and applies once the number of wounds has been determined.

Random allocation is probably the best and only way to accurately depict what is going on. Two reasons. There is no option for "top" to place the shield. There is no way to determine how much of this "top" is covered by the shield.

It's almost as if these were written without considering vector strike rules.

I think you're getting confused between Random Allocation as actually defined in the RAW and random allocation as a general concept for a HIWPI scenario.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Random Allocation is for Wounds, not hits, and applies once the number of wounds has been determined.

Random allocation is probably the best and only way to accurately depict what is going on. Two reasons. There is no option for "top" to place the shield. There is no way to determine how much of this "top" is covered by the shield.

It's almost as if these were written without considering vector strike rules.

I think you're getting confused between Random Allocation as actually defined in the RAW and random allocation as a general concept for a HIWPI scenario.

No, I know how those rules work. I've been quite clear that I don't think that RAW can apply. There's no confusion, on my part.

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Random Allocation is for Wounds, not hits, and applies once the number of wounds has been determined.

Random allocation is probably the best and only way to accurately depict what is going on. Two reasons. There is no option for "top" to place the shield. There is no way to determine how much of this "top" is covered by the shield.

It's almost as if these were written without considering vector strike rules.

I think you're getting confused between Random Allocation as actually defined in the RAW and random allocation as a general concept for a HIWPI scenario.

No, I know how those rules work. I've been quite clear that I don't think that RAW can apply. There's no confusion, on my part.

You're claiming RAW don't apply in this instance? That's an interesting position to take in a rules based discussion.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
We also know that left side armor doesn't exist - again, per your statement.

When did I say this?

left side armor exists, but it is not specifically called left or right in the BRB, it is in the IK book though.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Page 73 shows that Left side and Right side both use Side armor values.

Care to explain the rest?

That does not say "that left side armor doesn't exist - again, per your statement."

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Random Allocation is for Wounds, not hits, and applies once the number of wounds has been determined.

Random allocation is probably the best and only way to accurately depict what is going on. Two reasons. There is no option for "top" to place the shield. There is no way to determine how much of this "top" is covered by the shield.

It's almost as if these were written without considering vector strike rules.

I think you're getting confused between Random Allocation as actually defined in the RAW and random allocation as a general concept for a HIWPI scenario.

No, I know how those rules work. I've been quite clear that I don't think that RAW can apply. There's no confusion, on my part.

You're claiming RAW don't apply in this instance? That's an interesting position to take in a rules based discussion.

No, as I said, I don't think that the rules were properly written to cover this instance. I've been upfront about that from the very beginning. I'm still discussing the rules. There are many, many instances where rules contradict or don't work as written. This happens to be one of those times. Discussing that you believe that using the RAW is an untenable situation is exactly what these forums are for. It is You Make Da Call. I made a call.

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Random Allocation is for Wounds, not hits, and applies once the number of wounds has been determined.

Random allocation is probably the best and only way to accurately depict what is going on. Two reasons. There is no option for "top" to place the shield. There is no way to determine how much of this "top" is covered by the shield.

It's almost as if these were written without considering vector strike rules.

I think you're getting confused between Random Allocation as actually defined in the RAW and random allocation as a general concept for a HIWPI scenario.

No, I know how those rules work. I've been quite clear that I don't think that RAW can apply. There's no confusion, on my part.

You're claiming RAW don't apply in this instance? That's an interesting position to take in a rules based discussion.

No, as I said, I don't think that the rules were properly written to cover this instance. I've been upfront about that from the very beginning. I'm still discussing the rules. There are many, many instances where rules contradict or don't work as written. This happens to be one of those times. Discussing that you believe that using the RAW is an untenable situation is exactly what these forums are for. It is You Make Da Call. I made a call.

I'll concede that there should be some clarification on the issue from GW (like a lot of things) but I don't agree that the RAW don't work in this instance. In any event they're all we have to go on at the moment unless you take the house rule route.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
We also know that left side armor doesn't exist - again, per your statement.

When did I say this?

left side armor exists, but it is not specifically called left or right in the BRB, it is in the IK book though.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Page 73 shows that Left side and Right side both use Side armor values.

Care to explain the rest?

That does not say "that left side armor doesn't exist - again, per your statement."

I apologize.
Please cite the rule supplying left side armor.
And please address the rest of the example.

I have, Left side armor comes from the definition in the IK codex. coupled with pages 70 and 73 of the BRB.

 Tonberry7 wrote:


I'll concede that there should be some clarification on the issue from GW (like a lot of things) but I don't agree that the RAW don't work in this instance. In any event they're all we have to go on at the moment unless you take the house rule route.

Ignoring the fact that half of the side armor in this instance has a special rule would be a house rule. Ignoring the fact that the rules don't allow you to definitively declare which side is hit would be a house rule. Either way you go, you as a player have to decide which rules to ignore. The rules don't tell you what to do when the armor values of opposing sides are of a different value either!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have, Left side armor comes from the definition in the IK codex. coupled with pages 70 and 73 of the BRB.

Where neither of the books ever use the term "left side armor".

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have, Left side armor comes from the definition in the IK codex. coupled with pages 70 and 73 of the BRB.

The BRB never talks about left side armor.

Still declining to address the point I was trying to make?

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:


I'll concede that there should be some clarification on the issue from GW (like a lot of things) but I don't agree that the RAW don't work in this instance. In any event they're all we have to go on at the moment unless you take the house rule route.

Ignoring the fact that half of the side armor in this instance has a special rule would be a house rule

Actually it's the one of the side facings of the vehicle that has the special rule, not the side armour AV. I'm not ignoring this either, I'm following the rules for VS which don't define that the hits come from any particular direction or that a particular facing is hit.

 Idolator wrote:
Ignoring the fact that the rules don't allow you to definitively declare which side is hit would be a house rule.

As above, I'm not ignoring this but acknowledging it. If you can't define which facing is hit you can't therefore apply a special rule associated with one of those facings.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:


I'll concede that there should be some clarification on the issue from GW (like a lot of things) but I don't agree that the RAW don't work in this instance. In any event they're all we have to go on at the moment unless you take the house rule route.

Ignoring the fact that half of the side armor in this instance has a special rule would be a house rule

Actually it's the one of the side facings of the vehicle that has the special rule, not the side armour AV. I'm not ignoring this either, I'm following the rules for VS which don't define that the hits come from any particular direction or that a particular facing is hit.

 Idolator wrote:
Ignoring the fact that the rules don't allow you to definitively declare which side is hit would be a house rule.

As above, I'm not ignoring this but acknowledging it. If you can't define which facing is hit you can't therefore apply a special rule associated with one of those facings.

So when the rulebook says: "comparing this total with the AV of the appropriate facing of the vehicle", and requires "A facing" and not just using a number, you ignore this and just continue with resolving the Glance/Pen roll?
I agree that there is no answer, but not that RaW tells you how to resolve it.
As previously said, the path with the least assumptions is that of Random Allocation, and have quoted RaW to accompany that statement. The Random allocation might apply to Wounds and not hit, but it is there to figure out "who takes the wound", correct? Which translates to "who takes the Glance" - ie. "who within the 2 available facings, will take the Glance" to which you then move to the next step- Armour/Invun Saves.

Most obviously from this, each Wound is Allocated Randomly: Each Glance/Pen is allocated randomly, you don't roll once for all 4 Pens.

 BlackTalos wrote:
So when the rulebook says: "comparing this total with the AV of the appropriate facing of the vehicle", and requires "A facing" and not just using a number, you ignore this and just continue with resolving the Glance/Pen roll?

What part of "resolve against side armour" don't you understand?

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
So when the rulebook says: "comparing this total with the AV of the appropriate facing of the vehicle", and requires "A facing" and not just using a number, you ignore this and just continue with resolving the Glance/Pen roll?

What part of "resolve against side armour" don't you understand?

I understand it just as well as "Resolve against closest model" Don't we roll-off those when they are "the same" ?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
So when the rulebook says: "comparing this total with the AV of the appropriate facing of the vehicle", and requires "A facing" and not just using a number, you ignore this and just continue with resolving the Glance/Pen roll?

What part of "resolve against side armour" don't you understand?

I understand it just as well as "Resolve against closest model" Don't we roll-off those when they are "the same" ?

There is only 1 side AV.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
So when the rulebook says: "comparing this total with the AV of the appropriate facing of the vehicle", and requires "A facing" and not just using a number, you ignore this and just continue with resolving the Glance/Pen roll?

What part of "resolve against side armour" don't you understand?

I understand it just as well as "Resolve against closest model" Don't we roll-off those when they are "the same" ?

There is only 1 side AV.

There is only 1 Toughness value in the unit.

This does not make Marine A or Marine B the same.
Just as Left Side facing and Right Side facing are not the same.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
So when the rulebook says: "comparing this total with the AV of the appropriate facing of the vehicle", and requires "A facing" and not just using a number, you ignore this and just continue with resolving the Glance/Pen roll?

What part of "resolve against side armour" don't you understand?

I understand it just as well as "Resolve against closest model" Don't we roll-off those when they are "the same" ?

There is only 1 side AV.

There is only 1 Toughness value in the unit.

This does not make Marine A or Marine B the same.
Just as Left Side facing and Right Side facing are not the same.

But it isn't asking you which facing you're hitting, it's asking you which armour value you're resolving against.
"comparing this total with the AV of the appropriate facing of the vehicle"
The "AV of the appropriate facing" is the side AV, you bypass checking which facing you hit because Vector Strike does not hit a facing and is resolved against side AV.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

But it isn't asking you which facing you're hitting, it's asking you which armour value you're resolving against.
"comparing this total with the AV of the appropriate facing of the vehicle"
The "AV of the appropriate facing" is the side AV, you bypass checking which facing you hit because Vector Strike does not hit a facing and is resolved against side AV.

That is all correct, but you would bypass Random Allocation if you hit a single character too...

However a unit with more than one model needs to decide who takes the wound.
Just as an Imperial Knight needs to decide which facing takes the Pen.

Because that was the original OP question, modified: Which facing, Left or Right, is Hit be the Vector strike? (he said: which side of the unit)

Now i've answered the OP question, have you? Please also support with rules.

Yes, in fact you just quoted it:
" you bypass checking which facing you hit because Vector Strike does not hit a facing and is resolved against side AV."
Therefore, as it does not hit a facing, the shield does not work against Vector Strikes.
As for rules support: "That unit takes D3+l hits, resolved at the model's unmodified Strength and AP 3. Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target's side armour."

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Yes, in fact you just quoted it:
" you bypass checking which facing you hit because Vector Strike does not hit a facing and is resolved against side AV."
Therefore, as it does not hit a facing, the shield does not work against Vector Strikes.
As for rules support: "That unit takes D3+l hits, resolved at the model's unmodified Strength and AP 3. Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target's side armour."

So, what facing is hit then? because that matters for the shield.

None, the unit is hit.

Fro the FAQ: "Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles, suffers a penetrating or glancing hit."

"When it suffers a penetrating or glancing hit" you are require to check: At that very point of checking, please tell me Left or Right, which facing is hit?

I have got rules support for Random Allocation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
None, the unit is hit.

So, in the case of 10 marines, and the unit is hit, how do you decide which model is removed or gets an Invun save?

 BlackTalos wrote:
Fro the FAQ: "Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles, suffers a penetrating or glancing hit."

"When it suffers a penetrating or glancing hit" you are require to check: At that very point of checking, please tell me Left or Right, which facing is hit?

Neither.

I have got rules support for Random Allocation.

As random allocation applies to wounding a unit of multiple models you definitely do not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
None, the unit is hit.

So, in the case of 10 marines, and the unit is hit, how do you decide which model is removed or gets an Invun save?

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Fro the FAQ: "Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles, suffers a penetrating or glancing hit."

"When it suffers a penetrating or glancing hit" you are require to check: At that very point of checking, please tell me Left or Right, which facing is hit?

Neither.

Well then Vector Strike does not Glance or Pen knights, good to know

 BlackTalos wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Fro the FAQ: "Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles, suffers a penetrating or glancing hit."

"When it suffers a penetrating or glancing hit" you are require to check: At that very point of checking, please tell me Left or Right, which facing is hit?

Neither.

Well then Vector Strike does not Glance or Pen knights, good to know

It does, you just don't get the invulnerable save as it has further restrictions to the general invuln rules, such as only applying to hits against 1 facing. If you had an invulnerable save that wasn't facing specific you could definitely take it.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Fro the FAQ: "Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles, suffers a penetrating or glancing hit."

"When it suffers a penetrating or glancing hit" you are require to check: At that very point of checking, please tell me Left or Right, which facing is hit?

Neither.

Well then Vector Strike does not Glance or Pen knights, good to know

It does, you just don't get the invulnerable save as it has further restrictions to the general invuln rules, such as only applying to hits against 1 facing.

Which is the facing that Vector strike uses. So therefore it involves the Invulnerable save.

Random allocation: "This usually happens when two or more models are equidistant from the shooting unit, but can also occur if the position of the attacker is unclear, such as with the Tyranid Mawloc's Terror From the Deep special rule, a Callidus Assassin's Polymorphine specialrule or any attack said to use Random Allocation"

Vector Strike, FAQ: "That unit takes D3+1 hits (...) using Random Allocation." Note - These hits use Random Allocation.

Vector Strike, FAQ: "Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target’s side armour." These are hits, and therefore:

BRB p73: "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from." The shot is coming from a side Facing, but which one? Work your way back to the top and done.

Vector strike causes Hits.
These hits are Resolved on Side Armour.
The Knight can have an Invun save on one of the Side Armours.

Please say if you deny any of these.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Which is the facing that Vector strike uses. So therefore it involves the Invulnerable save.

Side AV is not a facing, it a characteristic.

Random allocation: "This usually happens when two or more models are equidistant from the shooting unit, but can also occur if the position of the attacker is unclear, such as with the Tyranid Mawloc's Terror From the Deep special rule, a Callidus Assassin's Polymorphine specialrule or any attack said to use Random Allocation"

Vector Strike, FAQ: "That unit takes D3+1 hits (...) using Random Allocation." Note - These hits use Random Allocation.

Vector Strike, FAQ: "Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target’s side armour." These are hits, and therefore:

BRB p73: "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from." The shot is coming from a side Facing, but which one? Work your way back to the top and done.

There are no "shots" from Vector Strike, there are only hits resolved against the Side AV characteristic.

Vector strike causes Hits.
These hits are Resolved on Side Armour.
The Knight can have an Invun save on one of the Side Armours.

Please say if you deny any of these.

I deny the last one for 2 reasons.
1. There is only 1 side armour.
2. The Knight's shield is placed on a facing, not an armour value characteristic.

This is How I View It:

VS goes and hits the model, roll against side AV characteristic, with the random number of rolls.....as this is supposed to indicate a number of hits on the model, these are the rolls to glance/pen and have a chance to do so....the Shield is one facing, whilst the hits are all over the vehicle, just as if you've been hit by multiple shots with no wounds etc....the roll is to see which of those get through.
Because no facing is decided on the VS rule, there is no facing the model can invoke, to my mind, the shield doesn't come into play.
The rules specifically state the side AV characteristic is to be rolled against in this state, not left facing armour or right armour facing....so no save.

There -is not- only one side armor.

There is only 1 armor value listed for side armor.

if you look at any diagram for how a vehicles facings are broken up you will see that all vehicles have 2 sides, a left side and a right side.

the value for armor is the same on both sides, so it is listed only as side armor value because it applies to both the left and right sides which have the same armor.

There is no logical reason to have two different armor values for side armor, so the value for both is listed as they are the same.

Yet there are two sides, each with their own armor value which happens to be the same.

the statement about knights shield not affecting the side is ludicrous, and the statement about the side not being side armor is ludicrous. If its not side armor its not front or rear so then vector strike would have 0 effect as it hits part of a model that does not exist.

There is one side armour value characteristic.

There are two side facings, and when you hit either facing you resolve the attacks against the side armour value characteristic.

There is no rule stating that there are multiple side armour values.

Sure there is, if I have a land raider and a model is on the left, and and a separate model is on the right, the model on the left hits the left armor it has a value, the model on the right hits the right armor, it has a value. the values are the same, but they are separate facings with their own armor values. The values are both equal to each other.

Rules quote please?

rules quote that there is only 1 side armor please?

blaktoof wrote:
rules quote that there is only 1 side armor please?

Look at the datasheet of any vehicle.
How many side armours are listed?

I see that, then I look in the rulebook and clearly see when it shows armor facings that the vehicle has 2 side armors, a left side and a right side.

I then look at the datsheet and see the value for those sides have the same armor value, but they are still two separate sides.

blaktoof wrote:
rules quote that there is only 1 side armor please?

Here ya go.

p.73 of the BRB clearly shows two separate side facings.

blaktoof wrote:
p.73 of the BRB clearly shows two separate side facings.

And does not show a separate side armour characteristic for each facing.

Side *facing* is not the same as side *armor*

Yes, each model as two side *facings*.

That does not mean it has two side *armor* values. each *facing* uses the same side armor value.

The vector strike does not effect a *facing*, it bypasses that determination entirely. Its rule says to use the value for the side armor (which is a characteristic in the profile). It never says it effects a facing, nor does it say to determine a facing.


Some of you are stuck because you believe the VS must effect a *facing*... but that is not in the rules at all.

coredump wrote:
Some of you are stuck because you believe the VS must effect a *facing*... but that is not in the rules at all.

This. Referring to the vehicle facing section on p73 of the BRB is irrelevant as this is addressing shooting attacks. "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from."

VS is not a shooting attack. It does not come from a particular direction. It does not hit a facing. You cannot therefore take an inv save specifically associated with any particular facing.

Random Allocation is also completely irrelevant with regard to VS against a knight on its own. Random Allocation is used to determine which models are allocated wounds from a VS within a multi-model unit once the number of wounds has been resolved. There is no need to randomly allocate wounds within a single model unit.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

coredump wrote:
Some of you are stuck because you believe the VS must effect a *facing*... but that is not in the rules at all.

This. Referring to the vehicle facing section on p73 of the BRB is irrelevant as this is addressing shooting attacks. "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from."

VS is not a shooting attack. It does not come from a particular direction. It does not hit a facing. You cannot therefore take an inv save specifically associated with any particular facing.

Random Allocation is also completely irrelevant with regard to VS against a knight on its own. Random Allocation is used to determine which models are allocated wounds from a VS within a multi-model unit once the number of wounds has been resolved. There is no need to randomly allocate wounds within a single model unit.

I would disagree on this, VS is a shooting attack, because they even FAQed it to "ignore cover saves".

But this is bringing us back to the long-winded argument of "There only exists Close combat and Shooting attacks" of which Vector Strike is the last.

Random allocation is not determining who is hit, please read it correctly.

randomly determine which model is treated as being the closest

Is the exact rule. In the case of a single model with 2 different facings, it helps to pick which is closest.

"Treated as" for the purpose of the Vector Strike makes everything quite clear. And Vector Strike is told to use Random Allocation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More simply put: The Special Rule Ion shield that the Knight has requires all shooting attacks to define a Facing they are hitting.

Vector Strike specifies it hits and uses Side armour, but does not specify a side. I does use Random Allocation, however.

The method with the less assumptions is to assume Random Allocation wording "which model is treated as being the closest" applies here and is used.

In any case, any way of resolving this debate will make assumptions, and I would follow Occam's Razor at this stage.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

coredump wrote:
Some of you are stuck because you believe the VS must effect a *facing*... but that is not in the rules at all.

This. Referring to the vehicle facing section on p73 of the BRB is irrelevant as this is addressing shooting attacks. "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from."

VS is not a shooting attack. It does not come from a particular direction. It does not hit a facing. You cannot therefore take an inv save specifically associated with any particular facing.

Random Allocation is also completely irrelevant with regard to VS against a knight on its own. Random Allocation is used to determine which models are allocated wounds from a VS within a multi-model unit once the number of wounds has been resolved. There is no need to randomly allocate wounds within a single model unit.

OK, replace vector strike with Ordnance Barrage direct hit. Now what?

 don_mondo wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

coredump wrote:
Some of you are stuck because you believe the VS must effect a *facing*... but that is not in the rules at all.

This. Referring to the vehicle facing section on p73 of the BRB is irrelevant as this is addressing shooting attacks. "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from."

VS is not a shooting attack. It does not come from a particular direction. It does not hit a facing. You cannot therefore take an inv save specifically associated with any particular facing.

Random Allocation is also completely irrelevant with regard to VS against a knight on its own. Random Allocation is used to determine which models are allocated wounds from a VS within a multi-model unit once the number of wounds has been resolved. There is no need to randomly allocate wounds within a single model unit.

OK, replace vector strike with Ordnance Barrage direct hit. Now what?

Honestly, I would use the placement of the center hole in relation to the model hit. If it happened to hit dead center, I would randomly determine. Due to all the same reasons that I have previously mentioned.

(I have a novel approach ... since vector strike can only hit side armour and the Knight has right side and left side armour it can not be hit by VS.

 Idolator wrote:

Honestly, I would use the placement of the center hole in relation to the model hit. If it happened to hit dead center, I would randomly determine. Due to all the same reasons that I have previously mentioned.

My point too :-/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
(I have a novel approach ... since vector strike can only hit side armour and the Knight has right side and left side armour it can not be hit by VS.

That sounds a lot like the model with no eyes that can't shoot... :p

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

Honestly, I would use the placement of the center hole in relation to the model hit. If it happened to hit dead center, I would randomly determine. Due to all the same reasons that I have previously mentioned.

My point too :-/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
(I have a novel approach ... since vector strike can only hit side armour and the Knight has right side and left side armour it can not be hit by VS.

That sounds a lot like the model with no eyes that can't shoot... :p

Oh, I agree, but if one of the guys I played with refused to allow an shot at the invuln save I would prove, in the Knights codex and the BRB, that there is no 'Side' armour. Only left side and right side, and therefore his VS would have no effect on my knight. With the group I play with this would not be a problem.

 BlackTalos wrote:
I would disagree on this, VS is a shooting attack, because they even FAQed it to "ignore cover saves".

That is the most ridiculous thing I've read today. Ignoring cover saves does not make something a shooting attack, otherwise the following are also shooting attacks:
- Close combat attacks
- Perils of the Warp
- Dangerous terrain checks
- Grounding checks
- Toxic Miasma
- Terror from the Deep
- Razorwing Nests
- Carnivorous Jungles
- Industrial Ooze
- Gets Hot
- Warp Storm table results
- Failed nova reactor tests

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I would disagree on this, VS is a shooting attack, because they even FAQed it to "ignore cover saves".

- Gets Hot

Well... this IS sort of a shooting attack. Just in an unfortunate direction.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

coredump wrote:
Some of you are stuck because you believe the VS must effect a *facing*... but that is not in the rules at all.

This. Referring to the vehicle facing section on p73 of the BRB is irrelevant as this is addressing shooting attacks. "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from."

VS is not a shooting attack. It does not come from a particular direction. It does not hit a facing. You cannot therefore take an inv save specifically associated with any particular facing.

Random Allocation is also completely irrelevant with regard to VS against a knight on its own. Random Allocation is used to determine which models are allocated wounds from a VS within a multi-model unit once the number of wounds has been resolved. There is no need to randomly allocate wounds within a single model unit.

I would disagree on this, VS is a shooting attack, because they even FAQed it to "ignore cover saves".

You are claiming that VS is a shooting attack because it ignores cover saves. This is an incorrect assumption on your part. VS are not even resolved in the shooting phase.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Random allocation is not determining who is hit, please read it correctly.

I never claimed that Random Allocation had anything to do with determining who is hit; my whole point was that it doesn't. Please read my point correctly. It determines which models are closest to an attacking unit for the purposes of wound allocation, or "can also occur if the position of the attacker is unclear"

 BlackTalos wrote:

randomly determine which model is treated as being the closest

Is the exact rule. In the case of a single model with 2 different facings, it helps to pick which is closest.

It doesn't help because the rules don't allow you to do so. If you randomly allocate the facing a VS is hitting, you are making up rules.

 BlackTalos wrote:
"Treated as" for the purpose of the Vector Strike makes everything quite clear. And Vector Strike is told to use Random Allocation.

If you wish to apply Random Allocation correctly to a single model unit that is fine, however you will get the same result every time i.e. that single model making up the unit is treated as the closest for the purpose of wound allocation. It still doesn't let you determine which vehicle facing is hit.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
More simply put: The Special Rule Ion shield that the Knight has requires all shooting attacks to define a Facing they are hitting.

No, it doesn't. You've made this up. The Ion Shield rule gives an invulnerable save to one specific facing of a Knight. p73 of the BRB requires for shooting attacks, to determine which facing a shot is coming from. And VS is not a shooting attack.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Vector Strike specifies it hits and uses Side armour, but does not specify a side. I does use Random Allocation, however.

Correct. It also does not specify front or rear facing either. And Random Allocation demonstrably serves no purpose in this case as there is only one model to allocate wounds to.

 BlackTalos wrote:
The method with the less assumptions is to assume Random Allocation wording "which model is treated as being the closest" applies here and is used.

In any case, any way of resolving this debate will make assumptions, and I would follow Occam's Razor at this stage.

Again, if you want to use Random Allocation to establish which model is the closest, you're going to get the same result every single time. It's the big Knight on its own that just took a VS. The method of resolving a VS against that Knight with least assumptions is to use the RAW, which involves no assumption whatsoever.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I would disagree on this, VS is a shooting attack, because they even FAQed it to "ignore cover saves".

That is the most ridiculous thing I've read today. Ignoring cover saves does not make something a shooting attack, otherwise the following are also shooting attacks:
- Close combat attacks
- Perils of the Warp
- Dangerous terrain checks
- Grounding checks
- Toxic Miasma
- Terror from the Deep
- Razorwing Nests
- Carnivorous Jungles
- Industrial Ooze
- Gets Hot
- Warp Storm table results
- Failed nova reactor tests

- Close combat attacks - have a specific section of the rulebook for you to follow in order to move from Hits, to Removing casualties.
The entire rest of your list requires you to either follow p 20 and Close combat, or p12 and is indeed a Shooting Attack

I will not discuss this further as it is a metaphysical question that just cannot be decided on the forums.
Original discussion: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/586270.page#6665801

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
The method with the less assumptions is to assume Random Allocation wording "which model is treated as being the closest" applies here and is used.

In any case, any way of resolving this debate will make assumptions, and I would follow Occam's Razor at this stage.

Again, if you want to use Random Allocation to establish which model is the closest, you're going to get the same result every single time. It's the big Knight on its own that just took a VS. The method of resolving a VS against that Knight with least assumptions is to use the RAW, which involves no assumption whatsoever.

By using Random allocation, you can find out which "side" of the model is closest. And what is even your "use the RaW"? i have just been talking about how the RaW work. And anything else will involve assumption.

By RaW, Vector Strike is a Hit on the vehicle side armour.
By RaW, the Imperial knight has got an invulnerable save that cannot be used against Close combat attacks.

If you can prove to me, with RaW support, that the Vector Strike Special Rule is a Close combat attack, then i will concede.

Until that happens however, we are stuck at a position where we have Hits, affecting side armour, and an invulnerable save on a specific Side armour (Left or Right) an absolutely no RaW to solve this issue.

 BlackTalos wrote:

By using Random allocation, you can find out which "side" of the model is closest. And what is even your "use the RaW"? i have just been talking about how the RaW work. And anything else will involve assumption.

BlackTalos, I don't know how many people have to tell you this in how many different ways.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS USING RANDOM ALLOCATION TO DETERMINE WHAT FACING OF A VEHICLE YOU HIT. There is never any mention in the rulebook of "randomly" determining which facing of a vehicle has been hit either in shooting or close combat, or otherwise.

RANDOM ALLOCATION IS ONLY EVER USED TO DETERMINE WHAT MODEL HAS EITHER BEEN HIT OR WOUNDED. You'd be better off arguing that the random roll for "Weapon Destroyed" results somehow applies to Knight Model facing.

You can certainly house-rule it when Vector Striking a Knight if you absolutely cannot live with the fact that "Side Armor" in the Vector Strike rule is meant to invoke the imaginary "Top" armor value of a vehicle. If in your mind a Vector Strike absolutely must hit either the left or the right side, go ahead, roll a dice for it in your game. But there is absolutely no precedence in RAW for this to be the case.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I would disagree on this, VS is a shooting attack, because they even FAQed it to "ignore cover saves".

That is the most ridiculous thing I've read today. Ignoring cover saves does not make something a shooting attack, otherwise the following are also shooting attacks:
- Close combat attacks
- Perils of the Warp
- Dangerous terrain checks
- Grounding checks
- Toxic Miasma
- Terror from the Deep
- Razorwing Nests
- Carnivorous Jungles
- Industrial Ooze
- Gets Hot
- Warp Storm table results
- Failed nova reactor tests

- Close combat attacks - have a specific section of the rulebook for you to follow in order to move from Hits, to Removing casualties.
The entire rest of your list requires you to either follow p 20 and Close combat, or p12 and is indeed a Shooting Attack

No, the entire list, including close combat, requires me to follow the rules on pages 15-19. These rules apply to every wound in the game, not just shooting attacks, being found in the Shooting Phase section does not change that only shooting attacks are shooting attacks.

 BlackTalos wrote:
By using Random allocation, you can find out which "side" of the model is closest. And what is even your "use the RaW"? i have just been talking about how the RaW work. And anything else will involve assumption.

No, you can't use Random Allocation to find out which facing of a vehicle is hit. This has been demonstrated to you time and time again. If you make any sort of roll to determine a facing that is hit by a VS, this is you making up a rule. "Using the RAW" is using the rules that are actually written down in the BRB etc. to resolve the VS attack.

 BlackTalos wrote:
By RaW, Vector Strike is a Hit on the vehicle side armour.
By RaW, the Imperial knight has got an invulnerable save that cannot be used against Close combat attacks.

No, you're deliberately altering the rules here. VS results in hits on the target unit (the Knight in this case). It does not hit either side facing (or front or rear facing for that matter). The Armour Penetration rolls for those hits are then resolved using the Side Armour Characteristic for the Knight.

 BlackTalos wrote:
If you can prove to me, with RaW support, that the Vector Strike Special Rule is a Close combat attack, then i will concede.

Until that happens however, we are stuck at a position where we have Hits, affecting side armour, and an invulnerable save on a specific Side armour (Left or Right) an absolutely no RaW to solve this issue.

In fact it is only you that is stuck. This is because you refuse to accept that VS does not hit a particular facing of a Knight as per the RAW. Your assumption and insistence that it does hit a facing has led to you making up rules to determine which facing, and you have even discounted front and rear facings as a possible outcomes for your invented rule.

You appear to be justifying these assumptions by making yet another assumption, namely that because VS is not a CC attack then it must be a shooting attack. This is incorrect, as nowhere is VS defined as a shooting attack, it does not take place in the shooting phase, and as has been pointed out to you there are numerous instances of things that can cause wounds without being from either a shooting or CC attack. Even if VS was a shooting attack Random Allocation would still not apply, and this would then require you to make even more assumptions to decide which direction the VS attack was coming from.

As said, i will not return to discussing how all attack are Shooting attacks apart from Close combat attacks that have their own rule set.

But your insistence that VS does not hit a Facing is false. The RaW on page 73 has 3 types of facing, one of which covers 2 sides:it is not mentioned by the BrB but is included in the Imperial Knight Codex, and is therefore RaW.

The following is all rules quotes and therefore further denial will be assumed originating from your own opinions and thoughts:

IK Codex:

"which facing (...) The choices are: front, left side, right side or rear."

4 facings exist, by RaW.

"Armour Penetration Rolls: Once a hit has been scored on a Vehicle, (...), comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the Vehicle."

When you roll an AP roll, you use the AV of the appropriate facing.

VS:

"Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target’s side armour."

Please explain to me how you resolve a S x AP 3 hit? Because i do believe you follow p73 and "Armour Penetration Rolls"

Because so far, it seems like you are using "Vector Strike Penetration Roll" that just picks your side AV, uses that, and is nowhere to be found in the Rules...

The "Armour Value of the appropriate facing" has already been given in the Vector Strike rules, it is the side AV. They had to state this because Vector Strike does not hit a facing.

It hits no facing but is resolved against side armor.
There is no appropriate facing to compare your armor pen result to.

It's a good thing you compare your armour pen result to an armour value instead of a facing, or we'd be in a pickle.

Exactly.

 BlackTalos wrote:
As said, i will not return to discussing how all attack are Shooting attacks apart from Close combat attacks that have their own rule set.

But your insistence that VS does not hit a Facing is false. The RaW on page 73 has 3 types of facing, one of which covers 2 sides:it is not mentioned by the BrB but is included in the Imperial Knight Codex, and is therefore RaW.

VS does not hit a facing as the attack does not come from a defined direction. The wording in the BRB and FAQ makes this quite clear. It does not state anywhere in the IK codex that this is the case as you are now claiming.

 BlackTalos wrote:
The following is all rules quotes and therefore further denial will be assumed originating from your own opinions and thoughts:

IK Codex:

"which facing (...) The choices are: front, left side, right side or rear."

4 facings exist, by RaW.

I am happy that you now wish to confine your argument to actual rules despite your first point. I have never denied that an IK Ion Shield covers one of four facings.

 BlackTalos wrote:

"Armour Penetration Rolls: Once a hit has been scored on a Vehicle, (...), comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the Vehicle."

When you roll an AP roll, you use the AV of the appropriate facing.

I am not denying this rule. However as VS is not a shooting attack, does not come from a particular direction, and therefore does not hit a particular facing, we are specifically and explicitly told to use the Side Armour AV to resolve the hits, i.e. for the AP rolls (p43, BRB).

 BlackTalos wrote:
VS:

"Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target’s side armour."

Yes, that's the VS rule I'm referring to. You've even quoted it. I am not denying this rule.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Please explain to me how you resolve a S x AP 3 hit? Because i do believe you follow p73 and "Armour Penetration Rolls"

Because so far, it seems like you are using "Vector Strike Penetration Roll" that just picks your side AV, uses that, and is nowhere to be found in the Rules...

Is this not a repetition of your second point? I also believe you follow the rules in the "Armour Penetration Rolls" section to resolve the hits. I am not denying this. The only thing that you are overlooking is that instead of using the AV of the appropriate facing as stated in this section (because there isn't an appropriate facing for VS) the VS USR specifically and explicitly tells us to use the Side Armour AV to resolve the hits.

rigeld2 wrote:
It hits no facing but is resolved against side armor.
There is no appropriate facing to compare your armor pen result to.

Precedence of p76 and: "Armour Penetration is worked out in the same way as for shooting (...). In close combat, however, all hits are resolved against the vehicle's rear armour,"

Would indicate that the wording "resolved against AV" means you still have a hit on a facing (Rear in CC and Side in VS and Barrage)

Barrage is a shooting attack that uses the same "rule" as Vector Strike, you would therefore argue that the Knight gets no Inv save from this shooting attack?
If you say that there is no appropriate facing to compare your armor pen result to, then are you not breaking the "comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the Vehicle" Rule?

Most of the argument here is based on that one line, which i believe says you must have a hit on one of the existing facings...
Vector Strike and Barrage only specify which is the "appropriate facing", they do not ignore the rules for Armour Penetration.

By ignoring Facings, you are ignoring that line of RaW.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Precedence of p76 and: "Armour Penetration is worked out in the same way as for shooting (...). In close combat, however, all hits are resolved against the vehicle's rear armour,"

Would indicate that the wording "resolved against AV" means you still have a hit on a facing (Rear in CC and Side in VS and Barrage)

That quote doesn't even mention facings, so I don't understand how you're getting that you've hit a facing.

Barrage is a shooting attack that uses the same "rule" as Vector Strike, you would therefore argue that the Knight gets no Inv save from this shooting attack?

Yes.

If you say that there is no appropriate facing to compare your armor pen result to, then are you not breaking the "comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the Vehicle" Rule?

No, because the armour value is given by the Vector Strike rule as side armour. You don't compare against facings, you compare against Armour value. I'm confused as to how you would even compare against a facing, does a 13 glance the word "front"?

Vector Strike and Barrage only specify which is the "appropriate facing", they do not ignore the rules for Armour Penetration.

Vector Strike and Barrage shots are resolved against side armour; side armour is an armour value, not a facing; left is a facing.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It hits no facing but is resolved against side armor.
There is no appropriate facing to compare your armor pen result to.

Precedence of p76 and: "Armour Penetration is worked out in the same way as for shooting (...). In close combat, however, all hits are resolved against the vehicle's rear armour,"

Would indicate that the wording "resolved against AV" means you still have a hit on a facing (Rear in CC and Side in VS and Barrage)

So a model punching a Baneblade from the front reaches all the way around and hits the rear?
Or the hit is simply resolved against the rear armor because a) that's what the rules say and b) it's in CC so there are nooks and crannies that are more vulnerable and easier to target up close.

Barrage is a shooting attack that uses the same "rule" as Vector Strike, you would therefore argue that the Knight gets no Inv save from this shooting attack?
If you say that there is no appropriate facing to compare your armor pen result to, then are you not breaking the "comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the Vehicle" Rule?

There is no appropriate facing. Without the instruction to resolve against side AV in both Barrage and VS cases, they'd be in resolvable.

By ignoring Facings, you are ignoring that line of RaW.

Not at all. There simply is no appropriate facing.

I still personally believe, reading RaW, that when you resolve hits on vehicles, it must involve a facing, from "comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the Vehicle".

Seeing that the general consensus seems to be that you ignore that rule because "appropriate facing" does not exist in some cases, i will concede and agree that RaW (or that one line) is ignored here.

Let's wait until the 24th see if this is cleared up =)

Because there is no appropriate facing for VS, they wrote a specific instruction into the USR to tell us how to resolve the attack, I.e. use the Side Armour AV.

For VS attacks this essentially supercedes that line in the BRB I.e. using the AV for the appropriate facing. So in the case of VS yes, this line basically doesn't apply.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
RAW: Vector Strike hits "side armour", the shield cannot be placed on "side armour", the Knight doesn't get the save
RAI: Hitting side armour represent the FMC/Heldrake striking the top of the vehicle, the shield cannot be placed on top, the Knight doesn't get the save

Incorrect. As an owner of both models, ie, chaos knights, I'll do my best to chime in my 2 cents.
At the beginning of each opponent shooting phase, when the heldrake vectors, the owning player of the knight chooses a direction for his shield to protect.
Now because the heldrakes vector hits a random side the drakes owner rolls off to see which side is attacked. 1-3 left 4-6 right. This is the gamble of the knight vs drake.

Spaz431 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
RAW: Vector Strike hits "side armour", the shield cannot be placed on "side armour", the Knight doesn't get the save
RAI: Hitting side armour represent the FMC/Heldrake striking the top of the vehicle, the shield cannot be placed on top, the Knight doesn't get the save

Incorrect. As an owner of both models, ie, chaos knights, I'll do my best to chime in my 2 cents.
At the beginning of each opponent shooting phase, when the heldrake vectors, the owning player of the knight chooses a direction for his shield to protect.
Now because the heldrakes vector hits a random side the drakes owner rolls off to see which side is attacked. 1-3 left 4-6 right. This is the gamble of the knight vs drake.

I'd like to not immediately dismiss your argument as completely unsupported by the rules, so could you find a rule that supports your argument? Particularly the underlined.

Spaz431 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
RAW: Vector Strike hits "side armour", the shield cannot be placed on "side armour", the Knight doesn't get the save
RAI: Hitting side armour represent the FMC/Heldrake striking the top of the vehicle, the shield cannot be placed on top, the Knight doesn't get the save

Incorrect. As an owner of both models, ie, chaos knights, I'll do my best to chime in my 2 cents.
At the beginning of each opponent shooting phase, when the heldrake vectors, the owning player of the knight chooses a direction for his shield to protect.
Now because the heldrakes vector hits a random side the drakes owner rolls off to see which side is attacked. 1-3 left 4-6 right. This is the gamble of the knight vs drake.

Heldrakes Vector Strike in the movement phase, not shooting phase.
Please cite rules support for your statement - as far as I can tell you've made up that randomization.

Spaz431 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
RAW: Vector Strike hits "side armour", the shield cannot be placed on "side armour", the Knight doesn't get the save
RAI: Hitting side armour represent the FMC/Heldrake striking the top of the vehicle, the shield cannot be placed on top, the Knight doesn't get the save

Incorrect. As an owner of both models, ie, chaos knights, I'll do my best to chime in my 2 cents.
At the beginning of each opponent shooting phase, when the heldrake vectors, the owning player of the knight chooses a direction for his shield to protect.
Now because the heldrakes vector hits a random side the drakes owner rolls off to see which side is attacked. 1-3 left 4-6 right. This is the gamble of the knight vs drake.

Thats a logical HIWPI, but lacks rule support.

Also HIWPI, and i'm not going to repeat my RaW position, but I agree

*don't hit me* *don't hit me* lol

Next you are going to claim that Mawloc's Terror From the Deep can also be blocked by the shield.