Blacktalos - this is the same point you keep ignoring on every thread.

How do you know a blast weapon has hit? You count up the number of models under the blast. The shield is not a model.

I hit five models. I have five hits. My shooting attack has five hits. According to you my shooting attack has one hit, and you do it without citing a single, relevant rule

That's whT you're missing, any actual rules .

I disagree, you know a blast hits if you roll the scatter dice and get a hit and a unit is underneath, or if it scatters and there ends up a unit underneath. The only reason the number of models underneath matters is if you're rolling to wound or for AP. If the blast hits a Void Shield first instead of a unit of any kind, then the number of models underneath doesn't matter at all.

Really Black Talos. Right lets go through it again shall we?

So you're going with 1 shot = 1 hit again despite knowing this is not true. So you have 9 shots lets say you get 8 hits how many hits are resolved against the shield?

The shield rules give you a defined process to follow it at no point tells you to count shots or consider shots. So if you're going to bring those in please post rules that tell us shots are in any way relevant.

You make a shooting attack with a unit. Then you have to determine if it hits. So you generate hits and check if that is 1 or more if so you proceed. You then say that attack hits the shield instead. So where is your permission to change or recalculate the hits? Why are you arbitrarily deciding 1 hit per shot?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
I disagree, you know a blast hits if you roll the scatter dice and get a hit and a unit is underneath, or if it scatters and there ends up a unit underneath. The only reason the number of models underneath matters is if you're rolling to wound or for AP. If the blast hits a Void Shield first instead of a unit of any kind, then the number of models underneath doesn't matter at all.

Please read the rules. You can disagree but what Nos has stated is a 100% fact in the rules.

I agree with Blacktalos, although I can see both sides of the debate, this one seems the most reasonable.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
I disagree, you know a blast hits if you roll the scatter dice and get a hit and a unit is underneath, or if it scatters and there ends up a unit underneath. The only reason the number of models underneath matters is if you're rolling to wound or for AP. If the blast hits a Void Shield first instead of a unit of any kind, then the number of models underneath doesn't matter at all.

Your disagreement is noted but ignored, as it is not an assertion based on any actual rules.

Read the blast rules, note you never roll to hit with blasts. The only rules that tell you if you have hit is the one I have stated, which generates a number of hits, not always one. Your method would require making up a few rules - that you ignore the rules for blasts, discard the number of hits with no permission to do so, and then make up a rule allowing you to hit a shield that isn't a model.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
discard the number of hits with no permission to do so, and then make up a rule allowing you to hit a shield that isn't a model.

Doesn't the rule for Void Shields directing you to hit the shield instead of the unit cover both of those?

Hitting something instead of something else surely means the hits on the first thing are ignored and you are told to hit the shield instead of the unit really does look like a permission to hit something that isn't a model.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
discard the number of hits with no permission to do so, and then make up a rule allowing you to hit a shield that isn't a model.

Doesn't the rule for Void Shields directing you to hit the shield instead of the unit cover both of those?

Hitting something instead of something else surely means the hits on the first thing are ignored and you are told to hit the shield instead of the unit really does look like a permission to hit something that isn't a model.

OK, but how do you know how many hits you have on the shield? Nobody in the "1 hit per shot" group has cited an actual rule allowing you to re-calculate the number of hits generated by a shooting attack (which is what gets transferred).

Ok that is a little bit of a problem but not an insurmountable one.

The word transferred isn't used in the rule so that isn't any help.
It seems to me that if a template hits a shield instead of the unit then it will generate a single hit on the shield, simply because it is a single round.
A Thunderfire cannon for example would get 4 hits (if each template lands over a model or building of course)

Yes I agree this is not laid out explicitly but then again neither is the transference notion, it is just the most logical resolution to my mind.

About the nearest you get is with the blast templates in buildings, if it scatters to a different level you hit what is on that level instead, that doesn't mean you take the hit from the original level and apply them to the new level, you just recalculate the new number of hits. It's a bit out there but pretty much all we have to go off atm.

 Happyjew wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
discard the number of hits with no permission to do so, and then make up a rule allowing you to hit a shield that isn't a model.

Doesn't the rule for Void Shields directing you to hit the shield instead of the unit cover both of those?

Hitting something instead of something else surely means the hits on the first thing are ignored and you are told to hit the shield instead of the unit really does look like a permission to hit something that isn't a model.

OK, but how do you know how many hits you have on the shield? Nobody in the "1 hit per shot" group has cited an actual rule allowing you to re-calculate the number of hits generated by a shooting attack (which is what gets transferred).

Rather than saying "which is what gets transferred", which I think is confusing to many people as that is not used in the rules ("transfer"), what people should be saying is that there is no rule allowing you to recalculate the number of hits from the shooting attack (which has already been determined, by the rules, prior to "instead" hitting the shield).

If you follow the rules, you have already calculated the number of hits before being told to hit the shield. You cannot go backwards and recalculate the number of hits at this point.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Ok that is a little bit of a problem but not an insurmountable one.

The word transferred isn't used in the rule so that isn't any help.
It seems to me that if a template hits a shield instead of the unit then it will generate a single hit on the shield, simply because it is a single round.
A Thunderfire cannon for example would get 4 hits (if each template lands over a model or building of course)

The part I underlined is not defined in the rules. We do not know how many rounds/projectiles/whatever a blast template represents. All we know is how many hits are generated by the number of models under the template.
You have already determined the number of hits prior to being told that it hits the shield instead. There is no permission, at all, to re-calculate those hits. Simply follow the instructions as laid out.

There is nothing any where that prohibits recalculating the hits and a very strong indication that you must.
If you hit something instead of something else then it's pretty clear that the first something hasn't been hit at all.

How many shots are fired by a single template is made very clear by them being described as "Heavy 1" or similar.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Why not?

There is nothing anywhere that says you can't

You need permission to do so, not denial to do so. There is no permission to recalculate hits after they have been calculated. Or have you found one that nobody else has?

and a very strong indication that you must.

The blast template in buildings? You are not recalculating hits when scattering to a different level. You scatter, then you calculate hits, then you roll to wound (and so on). You don't calculate hits, THEN scatter, then recalculate.
If that is your indication that you must, it is based on a false reading of the rules for templates/blasts and multi level buildings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Uptopdownunder wrote:

How many shots are fired by a single template is made very clear by them being described as "Heavy 1" or similar.

Yes, shots .. that does not tell us a "shot" is a "single round". "Shot" is an abstraction .. it entitles you to roll X dice to hit. Period. It is not a description of the shot itself (for example : a blast can be a hail of small projectiles scattering over a large area, OR it could just as easily be a single large projectile exploding on impact .. so to say a shot is a "single round" is not a rule, but a guess about fluff (and different for different weapons at that)). A "Heavy 1" blast simply means you use one template. Just as "Heavy 4" means 4 blast templates. It does not describe fluff (which is what saying "it is a single round" would be .. fluff)

Rorschach9 wrote:

You need permission to do so, not denial to do so. There is no permission to recalculate hits after they have been calculated. Or have you found one that nobody else has?

You are told to hit the shield INSTEAD of the unit, that is a permission to recalculate the hits.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

You need permission to do so, not denial to do so. There is no permission to recalculate hits after they have been calculated. Or have you found one that nobody else has?

You are told to hit the shield INSTEAD of the unit, that is a permission to recalculate the hits.

How? You've calculated hits. You now hit the shield. With the number of hits already calculated in the sequence given. That is not a permission to recalculate. The (already calculated number of) hit(s) will now hit the shield instead of the target unit.

Rorschach9 wrote:

Yes, shots .. that does not tell us a "shot" is a "single round". "Shot" is an abstraction .. it entitles you to roll X dice to hit. Period. It is not a description of the shot itself (for example : a blast can be a hail of small projectiles scattering over a large area, OR it could just as easily be a single large projectile exploding on impact .. so to say a shot is a "single round" is not a rule, but a guess about fluff (and different for different weapons at that))

I game turns it make absolutely no difference what the actual projectile/hail of whatever actually is.
It's a pretty basic fundamental that Heavy 1 is a single round/shot/cannister/bomb/ whatever.

Do you agree that a single template hitting a single object generates a single hit?

Dammit, I reread the blast rules; I was remembering things incorrectly.
So with that, a blast certainly can cause bunches of hits on a single unit.

And RAW, I will have to admit it appears that a single blast can indeed inflict multiple hits upon a single shield equal to the number of hits it did on a unit(s) under the shield(s).

However there's no way in hell that was RAI, nor would I ever insist on playing it like the RAW which unfortunately appears to be stupid crappy for Void Shields. I could see PLENTY of T.O.s ruling that one shot can only ever take out 1 shield, just like 1 D table result can only kill 1 model, just like 1 Instant Death double wounding template hit can only kill 1 Swarms model.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

Yes, shots .. that does not tell us a "shot" is a "single round". "Shot" is an abstraction .. it entitles you to roll X dice to hit. Period. It is not a description of the shot itself (for example : a blast can be a hail of small projectiles scattering over a large area, OR it could just as easily be a single large projectile exploding on impact .. so to say a shot is a "single round" is not a rule, but a guess about fluff (and different for different weapons at that))

I game turns it make absolutely no difference what the actual projectile/hail of whatever actually is.
It's a pretty basic fundamental that Heavy 1 is a single round/shot/cannister/bomb/ whatever.

Do you agree that a single template hitting a single object generates a single hit?

A single template covering one model in a target unit generates a single hit, yes.

And yes it makes no difference what it actually is. However, I am not the one that claimed "it will generate a single hit on the shield simply because it is a single round" (then using the TFC as an example stating Heavy 4 = 4 hits).

Rorschach9 wrote:
A single template covering one model in a target unit generates a single hit, yes.

So why then when the template is notionally "placed" over a void shield does it generate the number of hits that it would have had if it hit the thing it didn't hit?

Rorschach9 wrote:
And yes it makes no difference what it actually is. However, I am not the one that claimed "it will generate a single hit on the shield simply because it is a single round" (then using the TFC as an example stating Heavy 4 = 4 hits).

I don't know what you mean by that, I was simply illustrating that contrary to your assertion that the number of rounds isn't made apparent in the rules, it is.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
A single template covering one model in a target unit generates a single hit, yes.

So why then when the template is notionally "placed" over a void shield does it generate the number of hits that it would have had if it hit the thing it didn't hit?

How do you determine the number of hits in the shooting attack prior to that shooting attack instead hitting the void shield?
Using the rules.

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

This clearly shows that you have to hit the target unit first and THEN instead you hit the shield. You have already calculated hits. Now you hit the shield instead. It's simply following the order of operations.
If you're talking about trying to hit the void shield itself with a blast (without ever targeting a unit inside the shield in the shooting attack), then that is another story altogether as the BRB does not provide rules for a blast to hit something that is not a unit.

"and hits a target" says nothing about placing the template and working out the number of models under it. All that is required is for a hit on the unit to be made.

Even if it did I still maintain that your belief that once "the hits have been calculated" they can't be recalculated is not presented in the rules anywhere.

We are simply told that if it hits a target then it doesn't hit the target at all it hits the shield, simple as that.

The BRB does give rules on how to resolve a hit against something that isn't a unit. It talks at length how to resolve hits against buildings, a very similar situation to this one.

So why then when the template is notionally "placed" over a void shield does it generate the number of hits that it would have had if it hit the thing it didn't hit? 

Three reasons firstly the shield has no physical presence. Secondly the shield is not a model so if you count the blast as covering the shield and only the shield it generates no hits on the shield. Finally you are never told to move or place the template anywhere other than its original spot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

"and hits a target" says nothing about placing the template and working out the number of models under it. All that is required is for a hit on the unit to be made

The way you determine if you have hit with a blast weapon is by placing the blast marker and counting models. That is what the blast rules tell us.

You can't recalculate huts without permission to do so. You hqve to show permission you have not so you can't do it.

 FlingitNow wrote:

So why then when the template is notionally "placed" over a void shield does it generate the number of hits that it would have had if it hit the thing it didn't hit? 

Three reasons firstly the shield has no physical presence. Secondly the shield is not a model so if you count the blast as covering the shield and only the shield it generates no hits on the shield. Finally you are never told to move or place the template anywhere other than its original spot.

All that would mean that despite hitting a target within the shield it would never have any effect on the void shield at all.
The void shield is very much a corporeal object that is hittable and has an armour value, the rules tell us that much clearly.

You are told that if you hit a target it hits the shield, so if "hitting a target" means "unit under the template where the template landed" then "hitting the shield instead" would mean "the template lands on the shield".

If the template doesn't land on the shield, how can the template hit it?
I think that much is clear in the rules as well, a template can't hit something that isn't underneath it.

The permission to recalculate hits is given by the direction to hit the shield instead of the target.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
"and hits a target" says nothing about placing the template and working out the number of models under it. All that is required is for a hit on the unit to be made.

Even if it did I still maintain that your belief that once "the hits have been calculated" they can't be recalculated is not presented in the rules anywhere.

How do you determine a templates hits? A "hit" (or hits) on the unit is determined by calculating the number of models under the blast marker.

And again, to your second point, because you require permission to recalculate the hits; There is none.

We are simply told that if it hits a target then it doesn't hit the target at all it hits the shield, simple as that.

So then, by your interpretation, we are told that there are no hits generated when a shield is in place as you cannot hit something that is not a unit.

The BRB does give rules on how to resolve a hit against something that isn't a unit. It talks at length how to resolve hits against buildings, a very similar situation to this one.

Against occupied buildings, not just buildings. Those rules then go on to tell us how to generate hits and wounds on the unit inside, whereas the void shield tells us that the shooting attack instead hits the shield. What is the shooting attack that hits the shield? Exactly what you calculated when you targeted and (generated a number of) hits (as per the rule) the unit under the shield.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Clearly there is a comprehension issue with regards to the meaning of several words being used within the rules and the understanding of abstract concepts. I'm going to bow out now.

RAW : Calculate hits on the unit, hit the shield that number of times instead.

HIWPI : However my opponent wants as I don't and won't likely ever be using one myself.

Actually the BRB rules covers all buildings, not just unoccupied ones. Only "unclaimed buildings" can't be attacked'

RAW : If the template hits a target , it hit the shield instead.

You'll note my RAW doesn't add in any words that aren't actually used in the actual rule.

Your RaW also doesn't state how many hits are caused and your interpretation forces blasts to do nothing to the shield ever.

A model is a defined thing in the rules what unit type does the shield model have? It must have one to be a model. Or is it simply counted as a model for template and blast weapon hits. If so please quote the rule that says this. Or is it treated as an occupied building (or using the SHA optional rules a claimed building) if so quote the rule that states this.

If you cant provide any of the above then a template placed over the shield does ZERO hits. This is how your interpretation interacts with the blast and template rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Your RaW also doesn't state how many hits are caused and your interpretation forces blasts to do nothing to the shield ever.

A model is a defined thing in the rules what unit type does the shield model have? It must have one to be a model. Or is it simply counted as a model for template and blast weapon hits. If so please quote the rule that says this. Or is it treated as an occupied building (or using the SHA optional rules a claimed building) if so quote the rule that states this.

If you cant provide any of the above then a template placed over the shield does ZERO hits. This is how your interpretation interacts with the blast and template rules.

The rules for void shield make it quite clear that a void shield can be hit by an attack and has an armour value, what more do you need?

 BlackTalos wrote:

If you hit the shield instead of the unit, certain shots will not generate all the hits they did when they hit the unit. Why?
Because the placement of the template was simply to clear the condition "And hits a target within the VS zone" as opposed to the template scattering off of any unit at all (and not generating a Hit at all).
Once you confirm a hit, you Instead hit the VS, and something like a Battlecannon will have 1 roll to pen/glance the shield.
If you read this thoroughly, you will see that the assault 5 weapon is still rolling 5 pen/glances, and none of this is inconsistent.

So you agree the Template/Blast will generate more than 1 hit.
Cite permission to recalculate the number of hits in the shooting attack please. Because as you declined to state, the shooting attack hits the shield instead.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Your RaW also doesn't state how many hits are caused and your interpretation forces blasts to do nothing to the shield ever.

A model is a defined thing in the rules what unit type does the shield model have? It must have one to be a model. Or is it simply counted as a model for template and blast weapon hits. If so please quote the rule that says this. Or is it treated as an occupied building (or using the SHA optional rules a claimed building) if so quote the rule that states this.

If you cant provide any of the above then a template placed over the shield does ZERO hits. This is how your interpretation interacts with the blast and template rules.

The rules for void shield make it quite clear that a void shield can be hit by an attack and has an armour value, what more do you need?

we need permission to treat the shield like a model (there isn't any) and since blast weapons are explicitly only ever allowed to cause hits on models (go read p6 of the rulebook) your interpretation falls on it's face with the first hurdle.

I need the things stated. Just because it can be hit and has an AV to resolve that hit against doesn't answer any of my questions. Remember it can be targeted can nit be hit by a to hit roll rolled against it and can not be drawn to LoS by anything.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Your RaW also doesn't state how many hits are caused and your interpretation forces blasts to do nothing to the shield ever.

A model is a defined thing in the rules what unit type does the shield model have? It must have one to be a model. Or is it simply counted as a model for template and blast weapon hits. If so please quote the rule that says this. Or is it treated as an occupied building (or using the SHA optional rules a claimed building) if so quote the rule that states this.

If you cant provide any of the above then a template placed over the shield does ZERO hits. This is how your interpretation interacts with the blast and template rules.

The rules for void shield make it quite clear that a void shield can be hit by an attack and has an armour value, what more do you need?

we need permission to treat the shield like a model (there isn't any) and since blast weapons are explicitly only ever allowed to cause hits on models (go read p6 of the rulebook) your interpretation falls on it's face with the first hurdle.

Are you suggesting that Void Shields simply can't be hit at all by templates so they have no effect against them ?

Because I'm really not understanding how you can take "if it hits a target, it hits the void shield instead" as not being a specific permission to hit the void shield.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Your RaW also doesn't state how many hits are caused and your interpretation forces blasts to do nothing to the shield ever.

A model is a defined thing in the rules what unit type does the shield model have? It must have one to be a model. Or is it simply counted as a model for template and blast weapon hits. If so please quote the rule that says this. Or is it treated as an occupied building (or using the SHA optional rules a claimed building) if so quote the rule that states this.

If you cant provide any of the above then a template placed over the shield does ZERO hits. This is how your interpretation interacts with the blast and template rules.

The rules for void shield make it quite clear that a void shield can be hit by an attack and has an armour value, what more do you need?

we need permission to treat the shield like a model (there isn't any) and since blast weapons are explicitly only ever allowed to cause hits on models (go read p6 of the rulebook) your interpretation falls on it's face with the first hurdle.

Are you suggesting that Void Shields simply can't be hit at all by templates so they have no effect against them ?

Because I'm really not understanding how you can take "if it hits a target, it hits the void shield instead" as not being a specific permission to hit the void shield.

Yes, the void shield is hit.
By the hits in the shooting attack that hit it instead of the target unit. If you require a recalculation, there's no rule allowing blasts or templates to generate any hits on something that isn't a model.

rigeld2 wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Your RaW also doesn't state how many hits are caused and your interpretation forces blasts to do nothing to the shield ever.

A model is a defined thing in the rules what unit type does the shield model have? It must have one to be a model. Or is it simply counted as a model for template and blast weapon hits. If so please quote the rule that says this. Or is it treated as an occupied building (or using the SHA optional rules a claimed building) if so quote the rule that states this.

If you cant provide any of the above then a template placed over the shield does ZERO hits. This is how your interpretation interacts with the blast and template rules.

The rules for void shield make it quite clear that a void shield can be hit by an attack and has an armour value, what more do you need?

we need permission to treat the shield like a model (there isn't any) and since blast weapons are explicitly only ever allowed to cause hits on models (go read p6 of the rulebook) your interpretation falls on it's face with the first hurdle.

Are you suggesting that Void Shields simply can't be hit at all by templates so they have no effect against them ?

Because I'm really not understanding how you can take "if it hits a target, it hits the void shield instead" as not being a specific permission to hit the void shield.

Yes, the void shield is hit.
By the hits in the shooting attack that hit it instead of the target unit. If you require a recalculation, there's no rule allowing blasts or templates to generate any hits on something that isn't a model.

Yes there is, the void shield rules tell you that you can generate a hit on the void shield.
There isn't anything beyond the void shield rules that allows any weapon to generate a hit on something that isn't a model.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Yes there is, the void shield rules tell you that you can generate a hit on the void shield.

No it doesn't.
It says the "shooting attack instead hits the shield"
You never generate a hit against a shield. Not once does the rule say that.
Follow the shooting sequence, the "shooting attack" is what has generated hits, and the target of that shooting attack has just been changed to the shield.
The target is the only thing that is transferred. No rule says to recalculate anything.

 grendel083 wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Yes there is, the void shield rules tell you that you can generate a hit on the void shield.

No it doesn't.
It says the "shooting attack instead hits the shield"
You never generate a hit against a shield. Not once does the rule say that.
Follow the shooting sequence, the "shooting attack" is what has generated hits, and the target of that shooting attack has just been changed to the shield.
The target is the only thing that is transferred. No rule says to recalculate anything.

If you never generate a hit against the shield then how do you score a glancing or penetrating hit against it to make it collapse?
The rule specifically talks about hitting the shield on a number of occasions but never once says anything about things being transferred.

I didn't introduce the notion of recalculating things.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Yes there is, the void shield rules tell you that you can generate a hit on the void shield.

No it doesn't.
It says the "shooting attack instead hits the shield"
You never generate a hit against a shield. Not once does the rule say that.
Follow the shooting sequence, the "shooting attack" is what has generated hits, and the target of that shooting attack has just been changed to the shield.
The target is the only thing that is transferred. No rule says to recalculate anything.

If you never generate a hit against the shield then how do you score a glancing or penetrating hit against it to make it collapse?
The rule specifically talks about hitting the shield on a number of occasions but never once says anything about things being transferred.

It doesn't say hitting the shield. It says the shooting attack hits the shield.

One of the requirements of the shield is that the unit under it had been hit. So the shooting attack must have generated hits before the attack (whole shooting attack) can be transferred. At the stage where the shooting attack is transferred it has already generated hits.

I didn't introduce the notion of recalculating things.

You did, just not directly. The unit has been hit. Hits have been generated. The shooting attack is then transferred.
To use anything other than the number of hits already generated means you are recalculating the number of attacks the shooting attack has caused.

So what rule allows you to recalculate the (already generated) hits?

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Yes there is, the void shield rules tell you that you can generate a hit on the void shield.

No it doesn't.
It says the "shooting attack instead hits the shield"
You never generate a hit against a shield. Not once does the rule say that.
Follow the shooting sequence, the "shooting attack" is what has generated hits, and the target of that shooting attack has just been changed to the shield.
The target is the only thing that is transferred. No rule says to recalculate anything.

If you never generate a hit against the shield then how do you score a glancing or penetrating hit against it to make it collapse?
The rule specifically talks about hitting the shield on a number of occasions but never once says anything about things being transferred.

I didn't introduce the notion of recalculating things.

The other side is arguing that "generating a hit against the shield" is actually re-calculating the hits that were on the target.
However i agree with you:

The VSG Rule never asks you to transfer anything, nor even count how many hits 1 shot of a weapon has inflicted. If you count hits on the target, you are already breaking the VSG SR, as all it asks is a status of YES/NO, has your shooting attack hit the target.

If its a Yes, then you have 1 hit for every shot of your weapon (Shooting attack is Weapon+Shots+Hits, but Hits on target is not "counted" - it is a 0-1 situation).
If it is a NO, like, say your Assault 5 weapon misses 4 times, then those 4 shots are discounted, just like a blast covering nothing would be...

I will expand on this when i have my BrB with me, but Uptopdownunder is right in the way it is read.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:
It doesn't say hitting the shield. It says the shooting attack hits the shield.

I would correct that statement saying "the shooting attack Instead hits the shield", so the component of the shooting attack, minus the hits because the Shooting attack Instead hits the shield

 BlackTalos wrote:
The other side is arguing that "generating a hit against the shield" is actually re-calculating the hits that were on the target.
However i agree with you:

The VSG Rule never asks you to transfer anything, nor even count how many hits 1 shot of a weapon has inflicted. If you count hits on the target, you are already breaking the VSG SR, as all it asks is a status of YES/NO, has your shooting attack hit the target.

If its a Yes, then you have 1 hit for every shot of your weapon (Shooting attack is Weapon+Shots+Hits, but Hits on target is not "counted" - it is a 0-1 situation).
If it is a NO, like, say your Assault 5 weapon misses 4 times, then those 4 shots are discounted, just like a blast covering nothing would be...

I will expand on this when i have my BrB with me, but Uptopdownunder is right in the way it is read.

If it's a Yes/No then 3 hits with an assault cannon will only ever yield 1 hit on a shield.
That interpretation works even worse than the blast multi hit interpretation.

The rule says quite clearly that the shield is hit and makes no mention of anything being transferred.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
It doesn't say hitting the shield. It says the shooting attack hits the shield.

I would correct that statement saying "the shooting attack Instead hits the shield", so the component of the shooting attack, minus the hits because the Shooting attack Instead hits the shield

A shooting attack minus the hits is a failed shooting attack.

Look at the next stage of the shooting sequence.
Rolling to wound ((or in this case armour pen). You need to roll a number of D6 equal to the number of hits scored.
You've just discarded the hits! How many dice do you roll?
By your logic all you now have to go on is the VSG rule "hits the shield instead". Great, so it's hit, but how many times? Without this number you can't complete the next step. Saying 1 is entirely made up, as the rules doesn't ever say that.

 grendel083 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
The other side is arguing that "generating a hit against the shield" is actually re-calculating the hits that were on the target.
However i agree with you:

The VSG Rule never asks you to transfer anything, nor even count how many hits 1 shot of a weapon has inflicted. If you count hits on the target, you are already breaking the VSG SR, as all it asks is a status of YES/NO, has your shooting attack hit the target.

If its a Yes, then you have 1 hit for every shot of your weapon (Shooting attack is Weapon+Shots+Hits, but Hits on target is not "counted" - it is a 0-1 situation).
If it is a NO, like, say your Assault 5 weapon misses 4 times, then those 4 shots are discounted, just like a blast covering nothing would be...

I will expand on this when i have my BrB with me, but Uptopdownunder is right in the way it is read.

If it's a Yes/No then 3 hits with an assault cannon will only ever yield 1 hit on a shield.
That interpretation works even worse than the blast multi hit interpretation.

Why? "If its a Yes, then you have 1 hit for every shot of your weapon" is what was proposed

(I'd contend that it is number of shots that hit that hit the shield instead)

Uptopdownunder wrote:
The rule says quite clearly that the shield is hit and makes no mention of anything being transferred.

The shooting attack instead hits the shield.

Instead means in place of.
Transfer being a shorter way of writing this. Same meaning, less words.

Now how are you recalculating hits please?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Why? "If its a Yes, then you have 1 hit for every shot of your weapon" is what was proposed

(I'd contend that it is number of shots that hit that hit the shield instead)

1 shot does not mean 1 hit.
It is never EVER stated because that is a very very false statement.

I would ask you to provide this rule, but it's been asked many times, on many threads, and it's been well established the rule does not, cannot, exists.

Blasts, templates, tesla all disprove this statement

A single model firing a single weapon with a single shot can generate more than one hit on a single model target.

Transfer and instead have very different meanings.

Transfer means to move from one to another, Instead means in place of.

The difference is crucial, if it said transfer I would agree that the hits are moved from the unit to the shield but it doesn't it says Instead which means the shield is hit and the unit is not.

I am not "Recalculating" because I don't need to.
As Blacktalos said it is simply a yes/no situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

1 shot does not mean 1 hit.
It is never EVER stated because that is a very very false statement.

I never said that, I said the number of shots that hit.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

1 shot does not mean 1 hit.
It is never EVER stated because that is a very very false statement.

I never said that, I said the number of shots that hit.

So a Necron tesla (single shot) hits with a 6 causing 3 hits, can only cause 1 hit because it's 1 shot?

If a blast causes 3 hits on a unit, you're recalculating to 1 hit.
What rule allows this recalculation, and what rule gives the formula that the number of hits is capped at the number of shots?

 grendel083 wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

1 shot does not mean 1 hit.
It is never EVER stated because that is a very very false statement.

I never said that, I said the number of shots that hit.

So a Necron tesla (single shot) hits with a 6 causing 3 hits, can only cause 1 hit because it's 1 shot?

If a blast causes 3 hits on a unit, you're recalculating to 1 hit.
What rule allows this recalculation, and what rule gives the formula that the number of hits is capped at the number of shots?

No because the Necron Telsa hits are not target dependent, regardless of what a tesla hits it gets extra hits when it rolls a 6.

Not so a blast, it depends on what it hits to determine how many times it hits what it hits.
Hitting the shield instead of the unit means that the number of hits is calculated by what it hit, i.e. "A" (one) void shield.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Yes there is, the void shield rules tell you that you can generate a hit on the void shield.
There isn't anything beyond the void shield rules that allows any weapon to generate a hit on something that isn't a model.

Citation required.

rigeld2 wrote:

Citation required.

"A glancing or penetrating hit (or any hit from a Destroyer weapon) scored against a projected void shield causes it to collapse."

Uptopdownunder wrote:
If you never generate a hit against the shield then how do you score a glancing or penetrating hit against it to make it collapse?
The rule specifically talks about hitting the shield on a number of occasions but never once says anything about things being transferred.

If there's no transfer, the shield is invulnerable. We know the shield is not. Therefore the shooting attack must transfer.

I didn't introduce the notion of recalculating things.

You did, you just didn't use that word so you can pretend you didn't.
When you change the number of hits in a shooting attack, you're recalculating them.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
No because the Necron Telsa hits are not target dependent, regardless of what a tesla hits it gets extra hits when it rolls a 6.

Can you please give me the page number for "target dependant hits"?

Not so a blast, it depends on what it hits to determine how many times it hits what it hits.
Hitting the shield instead of the unit means that the number of hits is calculated by what it hit, i.e. "A" (one) void shield.

Hits have already been determined. You're instead using another number without a single rule saying so, discarding those hits.

What rule allows for a max 1 hit per shot? Page number please.

I get where the real world logic is coming from, but it has absolutely no rules support.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Citation required.

"A glancing or penetrating hit (or any hit from a Destroyer weapon) scored against a projected void shield causes it to collapse."

Where, in that sentence, does it say - and I'll quote so you know what I was asking you to cite - "Yes there is, the void shield rules tell you that you can generate a hit on the void shield. "

Again 1 shot means one hit.

If that shot would only cause 1 hit on a vehicle then same applies to a shield with an AV 12. Whats so complicated about that? People here must be willfully ignorant.

SHOTS CANNOT PASS 12'' within the VSG. Hence blast templates only cause 1 hit on AV12 of the shield. Because they hit it only once. Regardless of how many modles are under the template because the flames or whatever never make it to them.

This is not an armor save or a cover save. This is a shield. AKA list a vehicle or building. So if your shot would only cause 1 hit on a vehicle or building it does the same to the shield.

 BlackTalos wrote:
The VSG Rule never asks you to transfer anything, nor even count how many hits 1 shot of a weapon has inflicted. If you count hits on the target, you are already breaking the VSG SR, as all it asks is a status of YES/NO, has your shooting attack hit the target.

Absolutely false and has no basis in rules.

How do you know if you have hit the shield with an Assault Cannon?
How do you know if you have hit the shield with a Battle Cannon?

If you say anything other than "I hit the unit underneath" you need to cite some rules. Please do so. It'd be a nice change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CveleZT wrote:
Again 1 shot means one hit.

Citation required.

If that shot would only cause 1 hit on a vehicle then same applies to a shield with an AV 12. Whats so complicated about that? People here must be willfully ignorant.

We could do without the insults, thanks.

SHOTS CANNOT PASS 12'' within the VSG.

Not at all what the actual rules say.

This is not an armor save or a cover save. This is a shield. AKA list a vehicle or building. So if your shot would only cause 1 hit on a vehicle or building it does the same to the shield.

Citation required.

 CveleZT wrote:
Again 1 shot means one hit.

Said no rule ever.
Can you provide a quote?

I can give examples proving you wrong, but for once it would be nice if someone could quote this (non existent) rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
Happyjew I didnt misquote it... shots = shooting attacks. I felt it was simple enough that anyone would understand what I meant

No, you're wrong. One shooting attack (an auto cannon) can have more than one shot (2, in this case).

You launched into a 20 page thread, made up rules while accusing others of not reading the, in short, you were incredibly rude.

Lol so anyone that doesnt agree with your made up rules is incredibly rude. Hahahaha Autocannon has 2 shots. Hence 2 shooting attacks. Not one like a template. And they both hit the shield 12 inches away from the generator. You are extremely ignorant but I forgive you.

 CveleZT wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
Happyjew I didnt misquote it... shots = shooting attacks. I felt it was simple enough that anyone would understand what I meant

No, you're wrong. One shooting attack (an auto cannon) can have more than one shot (2, in this case).

You launched into a 20 page thread, made up rules while accusing others of not reading the, in short, you were incredibly rude.

Lol so anyone that doesnt agree with your made up rules is incredibly rude. Hahahaha Autocannon has 2 shots. Hence 2 shooting attacks. Not one like a template. And they both hit the shield 12 inches away from the generator. You are extremely ignorant but I forgive you.

False.
It's one shooting attack with 2 shots.

Your ignorance will be forgiven when you quote the rule of "1 shot = 1 hit"

 grendel083 wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
Again 1 shot means one hit.

Said no rule ever.
Can you provide a quote?

I can give examples proving you wrong, but for once it would be nice if someone could quote this (non existent) rule.

Yes I can... how many hits does a single template cause on a single building or a vehicle? Come on its not hard. You can use all of your brain power and try to figure this one out. Otherwise it wouldnt have to separate the D weapon clasification. Now go read the rules again instead of inventing them as you go.

 CveleZT wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
Again 1 shot means one hit.

Said no rule ever.
Can you provide a quote?

I can give examples proving you wrong, but for once it would be nice if someone could quote this (non existent) rule.

Yes I can... how many hits does a single template cause on a single building or a vehicle? Come on its not hard. You can use all of your brain power and try to figure this one out. Otherwise it wouldnt have to separate the D weapon clasification. Now go read the rules again instead of inventing them as you go.

Ha! I'll ignore your use of insults instead of actual rules for now.
No rules quote then?

I can give you an example of one shooting attack firing one shot on a single model target causing more than one hit.
This example completely disproves your made up rule.

Before I do however, please follow the rules of this forum and quote the rule you keep going on about.

 CveleZT wrote:

Lol so anyone that doesnt agree with your made up rules is incredibly rude. Hahahaha Autocannon has 2 shots. Hence 2 shooting attacks. Not one like a template. And they both hit the shield 12 inches away from the generator. You are extremely ignorant but I forgive you.

Ah no now that I don't agree with a shooting attack is the entire act of a model firing it is independent of the actual number of shots fired.

Calling people ignorant really doesn't help anyone.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
Happyjew I didnt misquote it... shots = shooting attacks. I felt it was simple enough that anyone would understand what I meant.

Again main and key thing is the 12 inch radius. Since the shot cant get within 12 inches of the VSG it cant cause individual wounds on units beyond that point. So only hits once.

Thats it. One battle cannon shot = one S8 hit on the shield. No more.Unless the template doesn't scatter off it completely... which should be impossible as you can only roll a 12, and the shield is 12''.

Well given you start by questioning if everyone has read the rules maybe actually reading the rules yourself and what people have said would have been a good start.

How to blast weapons generate hits? Imagine the shield as a 24inch diameter single model. Thats what 12 inch radius means. Sort of like half a ball on the table.
How many models is a void shield? Answer: 1 the void shield generator.
I have 2 shoiting attacks, one is an assault cannon and scores 4 hits on a unit inside the PVS, the other is a battle cannon 4 hits on a unit inside the PVS, how many hits are tranferred to the shield in each case. If the numbers are different where is your permission to treat the shooting attacks differently? Because in both instances they hit the shield 12 inch away from their target. The autocannon shots are individual and you roll a dice for each one TO HIT, you dont roll 4 scatter dice. Its really not that difficult. Well maybe for some of you here it is.

See inline.

OK we're going a bit loopy now, I'm off to bed. Night all !

 CveleZT wrote:
See inline.

No rules quote? Nothing from the rulebook?

Not a single rule saying "1 shot = 1 hit"?
No page number?

Here's 2 examples showing you're wrong, and no such rule exists.

Example 1: A Necron Immortal armed with a Tesla Carbine shoots a Rhino. Immortal rolls a 6 to hit.
One Shooting Attack.
One shot (assault 1)
One single model target.
Three hits scored.

Example 2: XV107 R’varna Battlesuit with Pulse Submunitions Cannon shoots a Rhino.
One Shooting Attack.
One shot (Heavy 1, large blast)
One single model target.
Three hits scored.

 grendel083 wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
See inline.

No rules quote? Nothing from the rulebook?

Not a single rule saying "1 shot = 1 hit"?
No page number?

Here's 2 examples showing you're wrong, and no such rule exists.

Example 1: A Necron Immortal armed with a Tesla Carbine shoots a Rhino. Immortal rolls a 6 to hit.
One Shooting Attack.
One shot (assault 1)
One single model target.
Three hits scored.

Example 2: XV107 R’varna Battlesuit with Pulse Submunitions Cannon shoots a Rhino.
One Shooting Attack.
One shot (Heavy 1, large blast)
One single model target.
Three hits scored.

Thanks for proving my point. Unless the rule for the weapon states specifically its 1 shot = multiple hits its 1 shot = 1 hit.

GG Im off to work. Have fun trying to find an argument now.

 CveleZT wrote:
Thanks for proving my point. Unless the rule for the weapon states specifically its 1 shot = multiple hits its 1 shot = 1 hit.

GG Im off to work. Have fun trying to find an argument now.

Not one of those weapons listed states it overrides your made-up rule.
The reason they don't is because your made-up rule is made-up and doesn't exist.

Since you're so sure this rule exists, why can't you, or anyone else, quote it?
What page is it on?
Anyone?

 CveleZT wrote:
Thanks for proving my point. Unless the rule for the weapon states specifically its 1 shot = multiple hits its 1 shot = 1 hit.

GG Im off to work. Have fun trying to find an argument now.

Your statement was that one shooting attack is one shot.
You've failed to prove your statement using rules and he sure as hell didn't prove that for you.

Perhaps you'd like to support your statement with actual rules?

rigeld2 wrote:
Your statement was that one shooting attack is one shot.

Not only that but:

 CveleZT wrote:
Again 1 shot means one hit.

Two very incorrect statements.

Can anyone, anywhere, provide a rules quote for either of those statements? Anyone at all?

They can't , but will instead continue to trot out that made up line every few pages.

The shooting attack has a number of hits associated with it. If you change those number of hits to another number, you need a rule allowing you to do so.

Those supporting this side: cite that EXACT rule allowing you to do that

No more dissembling. No more beating around the bush. That exact rule, or those supporting one shot = one hit need to concede.

Ok, so i will expand on the position where 1 shot = 1 hit. Not really a position, but RaW that we find clear:

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

Now, that phrase contains 2 Requirements:
1) The Shooting attack must originate outside a VSZ.
2) The Shooting attack must hit a target within the VSZ
Once both are met, the Shooting Attack hits the VS. It does not say "transfer hits" or even "transfer shooting attack".

I will use my previous example, modified, of 5 Weapons: 2x Pistol; 2x Assault 10; 1x Heavy 2 Blast.
So 24 Shots. 1 Pistol Hits, Assault hit 4 and 8, Heavy blast hits 2 and 4. All on a target unit.
So: 5 Weapons - 24 Shots - 19 Hits

It states that the shooting attack, having hit the target, Instead hits the void shield.

 grendel083 wrote:
The shooting attack instead hits the shield.

Instead means in place of.

I like that meaning: In place of.
The shooting attack hits the VS in place of the unit. The unit could be a tank, 50 models, a MC.... but this does not matter as the shooting attack hits the shield instead.

So, the Shooting Attack hits the shield. What was contained in our shooting attack? The nominated unit, the target unit, the weapons shot, the number of shots, and the hits.

Nominated unit, unaffected. Target unit, Instead: Void Shield. Weapons shot, same. Number of shots, same. Hits, Instead: Hits on Void Shield.
So each shot that scored a hit (back to 1/0 status) instead scores a hit on the VS. In the example:
Pistol: 1 shot hit, so 1 shot hits the VS, roll to pen
Assault 10: 4 shots and 8 shots hit, so 4 shot and 8 shot hit the VS, roll to pen
Heavy 2: 2 shots hit, so 2 shot hit the VS, roll to pen
And so on for any weapon fired within the shooting attack which if transferred.


Now, further supporting the RaW, is the following parts of SA (p31):

"A Void Shield generator has a single projected Void Shield."
Why specify singularity if the hits are just transferred to the layers, the rest of the rule would have done that...

"within more than one VSZ when it is hit, randomly determine which of the buildings' projected void shields is hit"
Again, singular hit. If a single shot is multiple hits how do you roll to determine which shield takes the 1 hit?


This is the explanation of the RaW with full references to the rules. If you are in on the side of transferring all hits:
Where is the rules support allowing you to transfer multiple hits per shot?
Why did the VSG rule include the entire 1st paragraph of the special rule?
How do you determine the hits of 1 shot on 2 VSZ?

You have no raw. You still. Fail to instead have the shooting attack hit the shield, as you still cannot prove where the hits have gone, and how your blast weapon is able to hit the non model exactly once, when the blast rules do not allow that.

Your continual conflation of shot and shooting attack is amusing, but telling as to why you are confused here.

 BlackTalos wrote:
I will use my previous example, modified, of 5 Weapons: 2x Pistol; 2x Assault 10; 1x Heavy 2 Blast.
So 24 Shots. 1 Pistol Hits, Assault hit 4 and 8, Heavy blast hits 2 and 4. All on a target unit.
So: 5 Weapons - 24 Shots - 19 Hits

So, the Shooting Attack hits the shield. What was contained in our shooting attack? The nominated unit, the target unit, the weapons shot, the number of shots, and the hits.

Nominated unit, unaffected. Target unit, Instead: Void Shield. Weapons shot, same. Number of shots, same. Hits, Instead: Hits on Void Shield.
So each shot that scored a hit (back to 1/0 status) instead scores a hit on the VS. In the example:
Pistol: 1 shot hit, so 1 shot hits the VS, roll to pen
Assault 10: 4 shots and 8 shots hit, so 4 shot and 8 shot hit the VS, roll to pen
Heavy 2: 2 shots hit, so 2 shot hit the VS, roll to pen
And so on for any weapon fired within the shooting attack which if transferred.

I've underlined an assumption without rules support.
And again - you're changing the number of hits (I quoted the original number, and underlined where they changed) and have failed to show a rule allowing this.

"A Void Shield generator has a single projected Void Shield."
Why specify singularity if the hits are just transferred to the layers, the rest of the rule would have done that...

So an assumption that could imply intent? Useless for your argument.

"within more than one VSZ when it is hit, randomly determine which of the buildings' projected void shields is hit"
Again, singular hit. If a single shot is multiple hits how do you roll to determine which shield takes the 1 hit?

You do realize that they have used hit to mean Penetrating/Glancing Hit and also a shooting attack hit, right?
So context should help you figure it out.

Where is the rules support allowing you to transfer multiple hits per shot?

You've quoted them and mangled what they actually mean. When the shooting attack is transferred, the hits go with it. You're recalculating them, refusing to cite allowance to do so.

Why did the VSG rule include the entire 1st paragraph of the special rule?

What - this?

A Void Shield Generator has a single projected void shield. It can be upgraded to include additional layers of void shielding.

So that you know how many shields are there to be penetrated...

How do you determine the hits of 1 shot on 2 VSZ?

As the rule you quoted says - randomly.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have no raw. You still. Fail to instead have the shooting attack hit the shield, as you still cannot prove where the hits have gone, and how your blast weapon is able to hit the non model exactly once, when the blast rules do not allow that.

Your continual conflation of shot and shooting attack is amusing, but telling as to why you are confused here.

p31 of SA: "Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield."

The word "Instead" tells you to resolve a hits from the Shooting attack, on the VS, in place of at the original target.
Regardless of what the target is.
Whether it's T3 or T8, 2 models or 24.

Now if you have nothing new to bring to the debate than "wrong wrong wrong", add rules and page support as per Tenet 1a.

This is the explanation of the RaW with full references to the rules. If you are in on the side of transferring all hits:
Where is the rules support allowing you to transfer multiple hits per shot?
Why did the VSG rule include the entire 1st paragraph of the special rule?
How do you determine the hits of 1 shot on 2 VSZ?

 BlackTalos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have no raw. You still. Fail to instead have the shooting attack hit the shield, as you still cannot prove where the hits have gone, and how your blast weapon is able to hit the non model exactly once, when the blast rules do not allow that.

Your continual conflation of shot and shooting attack is amusing, but telling as to why you are confused here.

p31 of SA: "Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield."

The word "Instead" tells you to resolve a hits from the Shooting attack, on the VS, in place of at the original target.
Regardless of what the target is.
Whether it's T3 or T8, 2 models or 24.

Yes, resolve the hits that have already been generated.
You are recalculating the number of hits. Per the tenet you quoted, please show allowance to do so.

 BlackTalos wrote:
p31 of SA: "Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield."

The shooting attack has hit. That means you've rolled to hit, or used a blast etc... In other words hits have been generated aginst the unit (if they hadn't, then the unit would not have been hit).

So the shooting attack now includes a number of hits.

The shooting attack no longer hits the target, but instead hits the shield.

Now what rule allows you to use any hits other than those already generated? In order to roll to pen you need to use a number of D6 equal to the hits scored. How many hits have been scored? A magical number 1 has no rules support. Simply saying "it's been hit" means nothing unless you know with how many hits. 1? 100? Where is this number coming from?
If you're going to use any hits other than those the shooting attack has already generated, then by what rule are you doing so?

rigeld2 wrote:
I've underlined an assumption without rules support.
And again - you're changing the number of hits (I quoted the original number, and underlined where they changed) and have failed to show a rule allowing this.

Again, p31 of SA, word "Instead"

rigeld2 wrote:

"A Void Shield generator has a single projected Void Shield."
Why specify singularity if the hits are just transferred to the layers, the rest of the rule would have done that...

So an assumption that could imply intent? Useless for your argument.

More of: part of the special rule ignored by your argument.

rigeld2 wrote:

"within more than one VSZ when it is hit, randomly determine which of the buildings' projected void shields is hit"
Again, singular hit. If a single shot is multiple hits how do you roll to determine which shield takes the 1 hit?

You do realize that they have used hit to mean Penetrating/Glancing Hit and also a shooting attack hit, right?
So context should help you figure it out.

Paragraph referring to hits. Only the next one mentions Rolling to Glance/Pen, why bring in irrelevant information?

rigeld2 wrote:

Where is the rules support allowing you to transfer multiple hits per shot?

You've quoted them and mangled what they actually mean. When the shooting attack is transferred, the hits go with it. You're recalculating them, refusing to cite allowance to do so.

Where is the support that "the hits go with it"? You're transferring them, refusing to cite allowance to do so.

rigeld2 wrote:

Why did the VSG rule include the entire 1st paragraph of the special rule?

What - this?

A Void Shield Generator has a single projected void shield. It can be upgraded to include additional layers of void shielding.

So that you know how many shields are there to be penetrated...

That's the reason for the second phrase. Explain the first in your argument?

rigeld2 wrote:

How do you determine the hits of 1 shot on 2 VSZ?

As the rule you quoted says - randomly.

But per shot or per hit? and where is the support for A or B, or even making such a choice?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have no raw. You still. Fail to instead have the shooting attack hit the shield, as you still cannot prove where the hits have gone, and how your blast weapon is able to hit the non model exactly once, when the blast rules do not allow that.

Your continual conflation of shot and shooting attack is amusing, but telling as to why you are confused here.

Even if the other side of this argument was able to prove a target hit under the shield redirects the whole blast towards the shield, it still doesn't even take into account multiple units hit. Or more specifically what if one unit is in the shield and one unit isn't. Their "The shot is resolved against the shield" means a unit outside the shield would get the protection from it if it hit a unit inside as well. This could totally be abused since, from what I gathered reading here, the measurement to the unit is made like anything else, the unit does not have to be wholly inside the shield to get the benefit. Incoming string of void shielded guardsmen all the way across the board.

Well, it's either that, or if it hits 2 units in the shield, it generates 2 hits on the shield. Either way, it isn't a consistent ruling, which means it's probably wrong.

Their position just totally breaks the game. Not from a balance perspective but from a rules perspective.

Going nowhere now it seems, so we're done.