Was reading the rules for Gauss and for void shields and I want to see if anyone else is interpreting this the same way.

The Gauss rule states that

Against vehicles and buildings an armor penetration roll of a 6 that does not cause a penetrating hit automatically causes a glancing hit.

The Void shield rule says that attacks against models inside the void shield originating from outside the void shield instead hit the projected void shield

Now as I see it, as the projected void shield (not the void shield generator) is neither a building or a vehicle the gauss rule cannot cause auto-glances to the projected void shield.

Is everyone in agreement?

Yes.

 Aftersong wrote:
Is everyone in agreement?

Not even slightly

Armour Value (AV) is found under "Vehicle Characteristics".

Rolling to Pen or Glance is found under the rule "Shooting at Vehicles.

If Gauss can't glance it, by that logic nothing can.

Yes, because the Void shield is not a vehicle or a building.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
Is everyone in agreement?

Not even slightly

Armour Value (AV) is found under "Vehicle Characteristics".

Rolling to Pen or Glance is found under the rule "Shooting at Vehicles.

If Gauss can't glance it, by that logic nothing can.

but a building is not a vehicle and it has an AV value so clearly having an AV does not qualify you as a vehicle.

Attacking Buildings:
"treat the building as a vehicle"

Try again.

Only vehicle rules allow for glancing hits.

If it's not damagable by Gauss, it's not damagable by anything.

 Aftersong wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
Is everyone in agreement?

Not even slightly

Armour Value (AV) is found under "Vehicle Characteristics".

Rolling to Pen or Glance is found under the rule "Shooting at Vehicles.

If Gauss can't glance it, by that logic nothing can.

but a building is not a vehicle and it has an AV value so clearly having an AV does not qualify you as a vehicle.

From the Buildings section.

Attacking Buildings wrote:...treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise...

Show me the rule that says Projected void shields are buildings?

 Aftersong wrote:
Show me the rule that says Projected void shields are buildings?

Show they can be damaged by a lascannon, without using the rules for vehicles.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
Show me the rule that says Projected void shields are buildings?

Show they can be damaged by a lascannon, without using the rules for vehicles.

so by your logic a gun emplacement is an infantry model because you can't shoot at it without using the toughness table?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vehicles and buildings have hull points, how many hull points does a projected void shield have?

 Aftersong wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
Show me the rule that says Projected void shields are buildings?

Show they can be damaged by a lascannon, without using the rules for vehicles.

so by your logic a gun emplacement is an infantry model because you can't shoot at it without using the toughness table?

Not at all. Artillery and Monstrous Creatures also have a toughness value.

Have you found any way for Lascannon to roll against the shield yet?

have you figured out how many hull points this voidshield vehicle you are talking about has?

 Aftersong wrote:
have you figured out how many hull points this voidshield vehicle you are talking about has?

Its clearly stated in the void shield rule.

Fragile wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
have you figured out how many hull points this voidshield vehicle you are talking about has?

Its clearly stated in the void shield rule.

Got the rule open in front of me, no mention of it having any hull points. Vehicles and buildings universally have hull points. Void Shields (not void shield generators) do not.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
Show me the rule that says Projected void shields are buildings?

Show they can be damaged by a lascannon, without using the rules for vehicles.

You still have not answered this question.

Having to use vehicle damage rules does not mean it is a vehicle, dreadnoughts use infantry rules to charge into close combat, this does make them infantry.

 Aftersong wrote:
have you figured out how many hull points this voidshield vehicle you are talking about has?

You're missing the point here.

Proving me wrong, will not prove you right. At most you're trying to prove us both wrong, and that gets no one anywhere now does it?

Instead try and prove how you can damage it if it's in no way a vehicle as you claim.
Building aren't vehicles, but there's a rule telling us to treat it as one, therefore we can roll against it's armour.
If a shield is in no way a vehicle, how can we pen or glance it, as that is a vehicle rule?

If we accept that we must use the rule "Shooting at Vehicles" - then why would Gauss not effect it?

Because the gauss rule specifically says it only affects vehicles and buildings, as the shield is neither it cannot be affected.

As the shield is specifically not a vehicle or a building, it cannot EVER be destroyed as we have no rules for firing at something not clarified in the rules.

But since is has AV, perhaps we should use the vehicle rules....

 Aftersong wrote:
Because the gauss rule specifically says it only affects vehicles and buildings, as the shield is neither it cannot be affected.

Then it can't be pen'd by a lascannon, can it? As that involves using the rule "Shooting at Vehicles" which the shield isn't.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Attacking Buildings:
"treat the building as a vehicle"

Try again.

Only vehicle rules allow for glancing hits.

If it's not damagable by Gauss, it's not damagable by anything.

Do you have a similar rule telling you to "treat the projected void shield as a vehicle"? Guass affects vehicles and anything we're told to treat as vehicles. Are we specifically told to treat projected void shields as vehicles? I don't feel like typing out the enitre rules entry for projected void shields, but the answer is no. We're never told to treat them as a vehicle.

My answer is that Guass has no impact on projected void shields.

Then I guess the voidshield is even more powerful than previously thought I have to concede that by RaW it cannot be glanced or penetrated by any weapon as it is neither a vehicle or a building.

If it is neither a vehicle or building there is no way to resolve how to glance a void shield unless treating it as a building/vehicle then as there are no rules for how non vehicles non buildings treat AV one could easily state any roll of anything glances a projected void shield because you will not be able to find a rule to state that any roll does not.

or it is treated as a vehicle/building in how you determine if it is glanced.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
Because the gauss rule specifically says it only affects vehicles and buildings, as the shield is neither it cannot be affected.

Then it can't be pen'd by a lascannon, can it? As that involves using the rule "Shooting at Vehicles" which the shield isn't.

Well then, take your toys and go home. The game is clearly broken and we'll never be able to get past this crisis...

Or...

You declare a target inside the shield and shoot at it with your lascannon. You hit. You are old that instead of hitting the target, you hit the projected void shield. The projected void shield has an AV of 12. How do you roll to wound against things with an AV? Do that. Did you glance or pen? Collapse the shield and move on to the next weapon.

This is pretty straightforward.

Guass doesn't come into play as we aren't hitting a vehicle or hitting something we're told to treat as a vehicle. Guass only works on vehicles.

 Kriswall wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
Because the gauss rule specifically says it only affects vehicles and buildings, as the shield is neither it cannot be affected.

Then it can't be pen'd by a lascannon, can it? As that involves using the rule "Shooting at Vehicles" which the shield isn't.

Well then, take your toys and go home. The game is clearly broken and we'll never be able to get past this crisis...

Or...

You declare a target inside the shield and shoot at it with your lascannon. You hit. You are old that instead of hitting the target, you hit the projected void shield. The projected void shield has an AV of 12. How do you roll to wound against things with an AV? Do that. Did you glance or pen? Collapse the shield and move on to the next weapon.

This is pretty straightforward.

Guass doesn't come into play as we aren't hitting a vehicle or hitting something we're told to treat as a vehicle. Guass only works on vehicles.

Well that's the point, to some extent you MUST treat it as a vehicle or the rules don't work.

So we're cheery-picking. Lets use this rule, but not that one. Then justify the choices.

For you it's not a vehicle, so Gauss isn't justified. For me it's rolling for a pen or glance were we must treat it as a vehicle, so it is justified.

RaW it simply doesn't work, we all see that. So now we just have to debate how to play it. And you'll never have everyone agree on that sadly.

Fragile wrote:
As the shield is specifically not a vehicle or a building, it cannot EVER be destroyed as we have no rules for firing at something not clarified in the rules.

You don't fire at the shield, so this argument is void.

But since is has AV, perhaps we should use the vehicle rules....

Using the vehicle rules for determining armor pen does not make the shield a vehicle.

 grendel083 wrote:


RaW it simply doesn't work, we all see that. So now we just have to debate how to play it. And you'll never have everyone agree on that sadly.

I have to agree here, if you follow the rules you can't harm the shield at all, any treatment or interpretation after that is in fact cherry picking.

 Kriswall wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
Because the gauss rule specifically says it only affects vehicles and buildings, as the shield is neither it cannot be affected.

Then it can't be pen'd by a lascannon, can it? As that involves using the rule "Shooting at Vehicles" which the shield isn't.

Well then, take your toys and go home. The game is clearly broken and we'll never be able to get past this crisis...

Or...

You declare a target inside the shield and shoot at it with your lascannon. You hit. You are old that instead of hitting the target, you hit the projected void shield. The projected void shield has an AV of 12. How do you roll to wound against things with an AV? Do that. Did you glance or pen? Collapse the shield and move on to the next weapon.

This is pretty straightforward.

Guass doesn't come into play as we aren't hitting a vehicle or hitting something we're told to treat as a vehicle. Guass only works on vehicles.

I am in agreement with this version of effect:
Rolling to Pen or rolling To Wound does not define the Type of a model.

Gun emplacement is a good example. It has no Type, but you still roll To Wound.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
Because the gauss rule specifically says it only affects vehicles and buildings, as the shield is neither it cannot be affected.

Then it can't be pen'd by a lascannon, can it? As that involves using the rule "Shooting at Vehicles" which the shield isn't.

Well then, take your toys and go home. The game is clearly broken and we'll never be able to get past this crisis...

Or...

You declare a target inside the shield and shoot at it with your lascannon. You hit. You are old that instead of hitting the target, you hit the projected void shield. The projected void shield has an AV of 12. How do you roll to wound against things with an AV? Do that. Did you glance or pen? Collapse the shield and move on to the next weapon.

This is pretty straightforward.

Guass doesn't come into play as we aren't hitting a vehicle or hitting something we're told to treat as a vehicle. Guass only works on vehicles.

Well that's the point, to some extent you MUST treat it as a vehicle or the rules don't work.

So we're cheery-picking. Lets use this rule, but not that one. Then justify the choices.

For you it's not a vehicle, so Gauss isn't justified. For me it's rolling for a pen or glance were we must treat it as a vehicle, so it is justified.

RaW it simply doesn't work, we all see that. So now we just have to debate how to play it. And you'll never have everyone agree on that sadly.

It's one thing to say "let's use the vehicle armour penetration roles rules as the PVS doesn't explicitly tell us how to resolve a hit against a non-vehicle target with an armour value". It's an entirely different thing to say "let's use ALL the vehicle rules as the PVS doesn't explicitly tell us how to resolve a hit against a non-vehicle target with an armour value".

I'm not cherry-picking. I'm "borrowing" the minimum amount of rules from the vehicle type to resolve the situation. Counting the PVS as a vehicle so that Guass will work against it is going above and beyond what is needed to resolve the hit.

What about the FAQ that says Blast and Template Weapons roll to penetrate? Should that be taken into consideration?

I've always played it as 'Roll against Armour Penetration' that just seems to be the correct way to play..

 Frozocrone wrote:
What about the FAQ that says Blast and Template Weapons roll to penetrate? Should that be taken into consideration?

I've always played it as 'Roll against Armour Penetration' that just seems to be the correct way to play..

It's clearly the correct way to play.

This thread is really just a couple of people who really want Guass to work against PVS's despite them not being vehicles. They are using the fact that the rules for making armour pen rolls are in the vehicle section to say we either have to consider the PVS to be a vehicle for ALL purposes or for NO purposes. If we consider the PVS a vehicle for NO purposes, the rules break since we aren't told how to do an armour pen roll. If we consider it a vehicle for ALL purposes, the rules also break. How many hull points does it have? When it collapses, does it become difficult/dangerous terrain? Can I assault the PVS? Can I tank shock it? If it's a vehicle, how do I move through it? Etc, etc.

The most reasonable solution is to consider it a vehicle for SOME purposes... namely the purpose of explaining how to make an armour pen roll when a hit resolves against it. That's the only reason we ever need to consider it a vehicle. Guass would no more work against it than the Necron power that allows you to take control of vehicles.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
As the shield is specifically not a vehicle or a building, it cannot EVER be destroyed as we have no rules for firing at something not clarified in the rules.

You don't fire at the shield, so this argument is void.

But since is has AV, perhaps we should use the vehicle rules....

Using the vehicle rules for determining armor pen does not make the shield a vehicle.

So prove how to penetrate the AV of the Shield without using Vehicle rules.. We are all waiting.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
What about the FAQ that says Blast and Template Weapons roll to penetrate? Should that be taken into consideration?

I've always played it as 'Roll against Armour Penetration' that just seems to be the correct way to play..

It's clearly the correct way to play.

This thread is really just a couple of people who really want Guass to work against PVS's despite them not being vehicles. They are using the fact that the rules for making armour pen rolls are in the vehicle section to say we either have to consider the PVS to be a vehicle for ALL purposes or for NO purposes. If we consider the PVS a vehicle for NO purposes, the rules break since we aren't told how to do an armour pen roll. If we consider it a vehicle for ALL purposes, the rules also break. How many hull points does it have? When it collapses, does it become difficult/dangerous terrain? Can I assault the PVS? Can I tank shock it? If it's a vehicle, how do I move through it? Etc, etc.

The most reasonable solution is to consider it a vehicle for SOME purposes... namely the purpose of explaining how to make an armour pen roll when a hit resolves against it. That's the only reason we ever need to consider it a vehicle. Guass would no more work against it than the Necron power that allows you to take control of vehicles.

I disagree, the Void shield is never considered anything. It uses the rules for Penetrating/Glancing Hits, but it is a self-contained rule.
You start with a Hit(s) (on the target Unit).
You follow the Void Shield USR.
You end up with a result: Collapsed / Not collapsed.

Start again with the next shot, or continue shooting normally if there are no shields left.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
What about the FAQ that says Blast and Template Weapons roll to penetrate? Should that be taken into consideration?

I've always played it as 'Roll against Armour Penetration' that just seems to be the correct way to play..

It's clearly the correct way to play.

This thread is really just a couple of people who really want Guass to work against PVS's despite them not being vehicles.

Its clearly a couple people who want to cherry pick the rules to avoid Gauss.

The most reasonable solution is to consider it a vehicle for SOME purposes... namely the purpose of explaining how to make an armour pen roll when a hit resolves against it. That's the only reason we ever need to consider it a vehicle. .

Blatant cherry picking.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
As the shield is specifically not a vehicle or a building, it cannot EVER be destroyed as we have no rules for firing at something not clarified in the rules.

You don't fire at the shield, so this argument is void.

But since is has AV, perhaps we should use the vehicle rules....

Using the vehicle rules for determining armor pen does not make the shield a vehicle.

So prove how to penetrate the AV of the Shield without using Vehicle rules.. We are all waiting.

I use the vehicle rules to determine armor penetration.

That does not mean the shield is a vehicle.

Fair enough - I'll probably play it as Gauss CAN Glance a Void Shield or whatever a Tournament organizes but shall gracefully bow out as I don't really have enough knowledge to decide

link for FAQ if anyone wants it

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
As the shield is specifically not a vehicle or a building, it cannot EVER be destroyed as we have no rules for firing at something not clarified in the rules.

You don't fire at the shield, so this argument is void.

But since is has AV, perhaps we should use the vehicle rules....

Using the vehicle rules for determining armor pen does not make the shield a vehicle.

So prove how to penetrate the AV of the Shield without using Vehicle rules.. We are all waiting.

I use the vehicle rules to determine armor penetration.

That does not mean the shield is a vehicle.

Why do you use the Vehicle rules. Prove RAW how you do so.

If the total is less than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot has no effect.
• If the total is equal to the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.
• If the total is greater than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating
hit.

Note the key word Vehicle in every line. VS are not vehicles. Where are you getting permission to use the vehicle rules for something clearly not a vehicle to resolve the shots.

From an old discussion, spent some time writing this so might as well be used:
Shooting Sequence (from 6th, but just add "choose weapon"):

BlackTalos wrote:

Phase 1 wrote:Nominate Unit to shoot
(No need to clear)

Phase 2 wrote:Choose a target.
(Fully within the void shield, here)

Phase 3 wrote:Roll to hit.
Roll a D6 for each shot fired

Phase: VSG Special Rule wrote:First, you will notice how this is a step, a Special Rule step, where things happen according to the Special Rule. Not a "To Hit" stage where Blast Weapons rules count many models. In this step we have a hit portion, a "Roll to pen" portion and an allocation of Hits portion.
The Rule, from SHA:

Spoiler:

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

Each projected void shield has a 12" area of effect (measured from any point on the Void Shield Generator building), known as a Void Shield Zone. 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. If a unit is within 12" of more than one Void Shield Generator, and so within more than one Void Shield Zone when it is hit, randomly determine which of the buildings’ projected void shields is hit.

Each projected void shield has an Armour Value of 12. A glancing or penetrating hit (or any hit from a Destroyer weapon) scored against a projected void shield causes it to collapse. If all the projected void shields have collapsed, further hits strike the original target instead. At the end of each of the controlling player’s turns, roll a dice for each projected void shield that has collapsed; each roll of 5+ instantly restores one shield.

Now, the shots that scored Hits in Phase 3 (" Any shooting attack (...) and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone") INSTEAD Hits the Void Shield.

Now, certain Special Rules trigger when a shot Hits a target, such as Rending and Tesla on 6. Right above, I have shown that the attack hits the shields: Those Rules trigger.
So, the rules that trigger on Hit, such as Tesla, now triggers, and: Tesla adds 2 more hits.

Then, those hits given to you above, move to the next part: "A glancing or penetrating hit (or any hit from a Destroyer weapon) scored against a projected void shield causes it to collapse"
So you resolve the Armour Penetration until all of your shields are down.
Then:
" If all the projected void shields have collapsed, further hits strike the original target instead."
This part discards you extra Tesla Hits, for example, as they are not a "further hit" but originate from 1 hit on the shield. Just as you discard wounds from shots that are out of range when half a unit dies.
Those hits are then INSTEAD hitting the original target, so at this point of the phase, we are left with a number of hits on the target.

Phase 4 wrote:Roll to Wound.
You will have noticed, this is the Wounding Phase. Anything to do with the VSG Rule is now non-existant.
I quote the BRB:"For each shot that Hit, roll again(...)" These shots that hit are what is left of the attack that made through. A Heavy 1, Blast, that interacted with the shield is long gone and forgotten by this stage. As are any other shots that hit the VS, like 3 out of the Assault 5 that all hit, or a Heavy 1, Beam, etc

Fragile wrote:
Why do you use the Vehicle rules. Prove RAW how you do so.

If the total is less than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot has no effect.
• If the total is equal to the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.
• If the total is greater than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating
hit.

Note the key word Vehicle in every line. VS are not vehicles. Where are you getting permission to use the vehicle rules for something clearly not a vehicle to resolve the shots.

The fact that it has an Armor Value and there's a hit to resolve. It seems like you're insisting it is either 100% nonfunctional or you treat the PVS 100% like a vehicle and there's no in between.

That's a false dichotomy.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Why do you use the Vehicle rules. Prove RAW how you do so.

If the total is less than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot has no effect.
• If the total is equal to the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.
• If the total is greater than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating
hit.

Note the key word Vehicle in every line. VS are not vehicles. Where are you getting permission to use the vehicle rules for something clearly not a vehicle to resolve the shots.

The fact that it has an Armor Value and there's a hit to resolve. It seems like you're insisting it is either 100% nonfunctional or you treat the PVS 100% like a vehicle and there's no in between.

That's a false dichotomy.

That's the problem, agreeing on the "in between", as the RaW doesn't work.
It now becomes a HIWPI debate, and you'll never get everone to agree to the same answer.

Gonna have to explain to me how I can nominate a unit behind a void shiel generator and shoot it with gauss but not get to roll armour penetration with the weapons because the Void Shield Generator shields are not vehicles and not buildings and are in fact in a mythical land of purgatory.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Why do you use the Vehicle rules. Prove RAW how you do so.

If the total is less than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot has no effect.
• If the total is equal to the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.
• If the total is greater than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating
hit.

Note the key word Vehicle in every line. VS are not vehicles. Where are you getting permission to use the vehicle rules for something clearly not a vehicle to resolve the shots.

The fact that it has an Armor Value and there's a hit to resolve. It seems like you're insisting it is either 100% nonfunctional or you treat the PVS 100% like a vehicle and there's no in between.

That's a false dichotomy.

I have pointed out its broken. The easy fix is that you treat anything with AV as a vehicle and follow those rules. Others are claiming you pick the rules you want to resolve. You have yet to show how to resolve it in any way other than treating it as a vehicle.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Why do you use the Vehicle rules. Prove RAW how you do so.

If the total is less than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot has no effect.
• If the total is equal to the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.
• If the total is greater than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating
hit.

Note the key word Vehicle in every line. VS are not vehicles. Where are you getting permission to use the vehicle rules for something clearly not a vehicle to resolve the shots.

The fact that it has an Armor Value and there's a hit to resolve. It seems like you're insisting it is either 100% nonfunctional or you treat the PVS 100% like a vehicle and there's no in between.

That's a false dichotomy.

I have pointed out its broken. The easy fix is that you treat anything with AV as a vehicle and follow those rules. Others are claiming you pick the rules you want to resolve. You have yet to show how to resolve it in any way other than treating it as a vehicle.

No, the easy fix is to make an armor penetration roll against AV 12 (the PVS's AV). That has literally nothing to do with treating it as a vehicle.

The easiest fix is to take your quote above and replace "vehicle" with "Projected Void Shield". That requires those changes and nothing more. Doing more than that changes things like Tank Hunters, Guass, and other rules that interact with vehicles and/or buildings.

Why not treat it as a building? That's more likely based on the fact that it's coming from a building, not a vehicle. But you've asserted it can only be vehicle.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Why do you use the Vehicle rules. Prove RAW how you do so.

If the total is less than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot has no effect.
• If the total is equal to the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.
• If the total is greater than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating
hit.

Note the key word Vehicle in every line. VS are not vehicles. Where are you getting permission to use the vehicle rules for something clearly not a vehicle to resolve the shots.

The fact that it has an Armor Value and there's a hit to resolve. It seems like you're insisting it is either 100% nonfunctional or you treat the PVS 100% like a vehicle and there's no in between.

That's a false dichotomy.

I have pointed out its broken. The easy fix is that you treat anything with AV as a vehicle and follow those rules. Others are claiming you pick the rules you want to resolve. You have yet to show how to resolve it in any way other than treating it as a vehicle.

No, the easy fix is to make an armor penetration roll against AV 12 (the PVS's AV). That has literally nothing to do with treating it as a vehicle.

The easiest fix is to take your quote above and replace "vehicle" with "Projected Void Shield". That requires those changes and nothing more. Doing more than that changes things like Tank Hunters, Guass, and other rules that interact with vehicles and/or buildings.

Why not treat it as a building? That's more likely based on the fact that it's coming from a building, not a vehicle. But you've asserted it can only be vehicle.

OK lets treat it as a building, then as the building rules dictate we treat it like a vehicle.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:
OK lets treat it as a building, then as the building rules dictate we treat it like a vehicle.

Why are you treating it like anything?
It's far simpler rules-wise to just replace "vehicle" with "PVS" like I said.

And are you saying that Tank Hunter works on buildings?

rigeld2 wrote:

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:
OK lets treat it as a building, then as the building rules dictate we treat it like a vehicle.

Why are you treating it like anything?
It's far simpler rules-wise to just replace "vehicle" with "PVS" like I said.

And are you saying that Tank Hunter works on buildings?

Don't have my rule book atm, but as buildings are treated like vehicles when being shot at I would hazard a guess and say yes Tank hunter works on buildings.

And for being simpler rules-wise for "PVS" instead of "Vehicle" it's not because as others have pointed out there are no rules for what to do when shooting at a non-vehicle that have an AV value. Or do you want to replace everywhere in the BRB that says "Vehicle" and replace it with "PVS"? or just specific locations in the BRB? If the first then they pretty much become interchangeable and I don't see why I can't replace vehicle in the gauss special rule with pvs and if the second then you are cherry picking rules for your benefit.

kriswall is right (as per usual) and he is probably the finest rules-lawyer on the forum.
if you cant handle what he has to say then you should really put it in an e-mail to GW rather than railing about it to him.

sorry, but there it is.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:
OK lets treat it as a building, then as the building rules dictate we treat it like a vehicle.

Why are you treating it like anything?
It's far simpler rules-wise to just replace "vehicle" with "PVS" like I said.

And are you saying that Tank Hunter works on buildings?

Don't have my rule book atm, but as buildings are treated like vehicles when being shot at I would hazard a guess and say yes Tank hunter works on buildings.

And for being simpler rules-wise for "PVS" instead of "Vehicle" it's not because as others have pointed out there are no rules for what to do when shooting at a non-vehicle that have an AV value.

Sure there are. You have a hit vs AV you must resolve. How do you resolve hits against AV?

I don't see why I can't replace vehicle in the gauss special rule [ith pvs

Because nothing in the guass special rule implies it works against a PVS.

and if the second then you are cherry picking rules for your benefit.

Incorrect. I'm doing the literal bare minimum for the rule to function. Treating the PVS as a vehicle is doing significantly more than the bare minimum.

Clearly I'm missing something in this thread. How is the, admittedly correct, assertion that shots against a void shield are resolved using the vehicle rules for armor penetration in any way relevant to whether or not Gauss can glance void shields? The rules for Gauss weapons specifically discuss roll AP against buildings and vehicles. That's it, not any model that uses vehicle rules for AP, not any model that is "treated as a vehicle" (which would make buildings redundant in this rule). Buildings and vehicles, that's what it says.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Clearly I'm missing something in this thread. How is the, admittedly correct, assertion that shots against a void shield are resolved using the vehicle rules for armor penetration in any way relevant to whether or not Gauss can glance void shields? The rules for Gauss weapons specifically discuss roll AP against buildings and vehicles. That's it, not any model that uses vehicle rules for AP, not any model that is "treated as a vehicle" (which would make buildings redundant in this rule). Buildings and vehicles, that's what it says.

Anything that's "treated as" something else, is that something for pretty much all purposes (in whatever manner they're treated as - buildings are vehicles as far as shooting them is concerned).

The "and buildings" portion of the rule is redundant, but it clarifies it for people who don't make that connection.

According to the logic that PVS should not be treated as vehicles, this is a quick list I assembled with all the things the PVS would be completely immune to:

haywire
lance
melta
ordnance
rending
tank hunters

And PVS cannot use cover saves

and those are just from the BRB. Does anyone think that PVS should provide an immunity against all these special rules?

edit: HoW and destroyer weapons out. Ordnance in. Armourbane out, strafing run out, cover saves not allowed

copper.talos wrote:
According to the logic that PVS should not be treated as vehicles, this is a quick list I assembled with all the things the PVS would be completely immune to:

armourbane
destroyer weapons
hammer of wrath
haywire
lance
melta
rending
strafing run
tank hunters

and those are just from the BRB. Does anyone think that PVS should provide an immunity against all these special rules?

PVS explicitly calls out D weapons.
HoW still deals a hit that must be resolved.
otherwise, sure - why not?

Sure, HoW and D weapons are out. Ordnance is in.

copper.talos wrote:
According to the logic that PVS should not be treated as vehicles, this is a quick list I assembled with all the things the PVS would be completely immune to:

armourbane
destroyer weapons
hammer of wrath
haywire
lance
melta
rending
strafing run
tank hunters

and those are just from the BRB. Does anyone think that PVS should provide an immunity against all these special rules?

If these things are worded such that they work against vehicles only, then no, I would not expect them to work against a non-vehicle. I don't currently have the time to go through each and validate the wording.

copper.talos wrote:
According to the logic that PVS should not be treated as vehicles, this is a quick list I assembled with all the things the PVS would be completely immune to:

armourbane
haywire
lance
melta
ordnance
rending
strafing run
tank hunters

and those are just from the BRB. Does anyone think that PVS should provide an immunity against all these special rules?

edit: HoW and destroyer weapons out. Ordnance in.

Yes

When resolving a hit against a PVS, you roll for armour penetration, correct?

If so, then Armourbane still works.

Lance wouldn't matter as PVS is already AV12.

Strafing Run deals with rolling to hit, which is before you hit a PVS.

All these rules work only on vehicles. PVS not using vehicle rules gives immunity to all of the above.

copper.talos wrote:
All these rules work only on vehicles. PVS not using vehicle rules gives immunity to all of the above.

Armourbane does not only work on vehicles.

Armourbane deals with armour penetration rolls, however, it has no effect on non-vehicle models. Do you make armour penetration rolls against PVS? Yes. Is it a non-vehicle model? No. Therefore Armourbane works.

Strafing Run gives the model +1 BS when firing at certain targets. Do you target a PVS? No. You targeted a unit and the hit(s) transfer to the PVS. As such, Strafing Run doesn't apply.

OK about Strafing Run. Armourbane mentions "In either case, this special rule has no effect against non-vehicle models." So PVS not being a vehicle does prohibit rerolling the penetrration roll against its AV.

copper.talos wrote:
OK about Strafing Run. Armourbane mentions "In either case, this special rule has no effect against non-vehicle models." So PVS not being a vehicle does prohibit rerolling the penetrration roll against its AV.

Is the PVS a model? No, therefore it cannot be a non-vehicle model.

It's not a building or vehicle so it's pretty silly to argue it is.
However the void shield generator is not the only void shield in the game. Several apoc units have void shields. Such as big Mek stompas. When I get home I will look up how they word those shields.

But you would think the intentions are that the mechanics of a gauss weapon has a chance to damage a physical object which is why it is able to damage vehicles and buildings and is unable to damage a force field/void shield which is entirely an energy based armour.

 Happyjew wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
OK about Strafing Run. Armourbane mentions "In either case, this special rule has no effect against non-vehicle models." So PVS not being a vehicle does prohibit rerolling the penetrration roll against its AV.

Is the PVS a model? No, therefore it cannot be a non-vehicle model.

Which means it only affects vehicle models. Which means it does nothing.

Hollismason wrote:
Gonna have to explain to me how I can nominate a unit behind a void shiel generator and shoot it with gauss but not get to roll armour penetration with the weapons because the Void Shield Generator shields are not vehicles and not buildings and are in fact in a mythical land of purgatory.

It's an energy shield.
Also there are several versions of this in the apoc book as well on things such as big Mek stompas.

Here is a funny thing. If you start arguing that void shields are actually a vehicle then I guess I'm going to be placing a bunch of 15 point Meks on top of the void shield generator and repairing those shields indefinitely. Giving myself permanent void shields.

Fair enough. Armourbane is out, no cover saves is in.

I find it funny that no-one has as of yet quoted the whole rules for actually rolling armour penetration. Here they are, in full:

Hitting a vehicle is no guarantee that you will actually damage it. Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapons Strength, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.

If the total is less than the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot has no effect.

If the total is equal to the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.

If the total is greater than the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating hit.

Now, here's the bits which allow buildings to be attacked:

BUILDING ARMOUR VALUES
All buildings have an Armour Value listed on their terrain datasheet. If only a single Armour Value is listed, then it is used against all attacks, no matter which facing is hit.

ATTACKING BUILDINGS
When determining if a building can be targeted by a shooting attack or psychic power, charged and fought against in combat, or affected by a special rule, treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise. When attacking a building, roll To Hit and for armour penetration as if it were a vehicle.

So far so good? Cool. Now here's the gauss wording again:

Against vehicles and buildings an Armour Penetration roll of a 6 that does not cause a penetrating hit automatically causes a glancing hit.

Well, let's take a look at the VSG rules then:

Each projected void shield has an Armour Value of 12. A glancing or penetrating hit (or any hit from a Destroyer weapon) scored against a projected void shield causes it to collapse. If all the projected void shields have collapsed, further hits strike the original target instead. At the end of each of the controlling player’s turns, roll a dice for each projected void shield that has collapsed; each roll of 5+ instantly restores one shield.

Hmm, okay, let's see. No hull points, and the rulebook is quite clear that EVERY vehicle has hull points. Therefore, not a vehicle. Does it count as a building? Well, it doesn't explicitly say so, so let's suppose it is a special unique thing called a void shield. Cool So far so good.

Now, let's fire a krak missile at an Ork Boy protected by the void shield bubble. Seems simple enough, right? So, we roll to hit, and suppose we get one. Cool. Right, now let's roll to get through AV12.

Oh. Hang on. How do we actually do that? See, it's not a vehicle, so we don't have any rules to resolve this hit. I mean, it's not a vehicle, right? So, where's our permission to use weapon strength+D6? That's only for hits against vehicles. We're assuming it's not a building, so we can't supplant those rules to let us roll as though it's a vehicle either. Well, let's just ignore that. Okay. Compare facing? Right, well it says it's AV12, but that's not a facing. What facing am I firing at, exactly? It's not a vehicle, right, and it's not a building so I can't use the rule to supplant a single AV for all facings. Okay, so we can neither roll to penetrate nor actually determine what we've hit. Let's just bumble past that too. Let's just pretend we can roll anyway. Right, now, what's a glancing hit? I mean, we aren't using vehicle rules, so we can't use total greater than armour value - that's explicitly in the case that it's a vehicle. We can't use the building rules because, as we said earlier, it's no building. So, we have no idea what the concept of a glancing hit is.

So, if it's neither a vehicle nor building, we can't use the rules for armour penetration as we have:
-no way to roll for penetration
-no way to determine facing, nor a circumventing method as provided on buildings
-no concept of a glancing or penetrating hit


But not all is lost to the mighty void shield! You can still break it with a destroyer hit! Amazing!

But suppose then that at any point you decide this is ridiculous. Well, then you must at some point acknowledge that we are treating the void shield generator as either a vehicle or building, because you need to do so in order to resolve any damage whatsoever from non-Str D weaponry. You can't even begin to resolve damage. If you do that, say, to actually determine what on earth a "roll to penetrate" actually is, then gauss works normally. If you do not, you have no permission to do squat.


So, you have 2 RAW outcomes here:
1) It's neither a vehicle nor building nor model. As such, it follows its own special rules and, as those don't stipulate how to glance or penetrate and the current rules only define that for vehicles and buildings, you may only collapse void shields with Str D weaponry.
2) It's a shield projected from a building and has a single defined armour value. The only things which can do this in the rules are buildings, therefore a void shield counts as a building for the purposes of resolving damage. Therefore gauss works against it.

Pick your poison. Probably the silliest thing on YMDC since the person who tried to argue that 1 Spyder=3 Spyders.

Okay, so let's go with that. Once I've rolled my AP against a void shield, and I get a penetrating hit, do I now roll on the Vehicle Damage Chart? I fired a multi-melta, and rolled a 5+2. Does the Void Shield explode, damaging the model?

Treated as a vehicle and is a vehicle are not the same thing. Yes, you treat the PVS as a vehicle for the sake of AP, because that's where the rules for AP and AV are, but that does not mean that it is a vehicle. Gauss states it work against vehicles and buildings, not models that are treated as vehicles and buildings.

Void shields and power shields both of which are all over apoc units not just in the void shield generator are neither vehicles or buildings.

Arguing they are vehicles or buildings opens up a whole slew of other issues. Such as giving void shields cover saves or invulnerable saves. Allowing repair rolls. There are weapons that automatically stun or cause shaken results on buildings and vehicles, Etc.

None of this is intended and you breaking the game even more once you decide a void shield is considered a separate building or vehicle.

gungo wrote:
Void shields and power shields both of which are all over apoc units not just in the void shield generator are neither vehicles or buildings.

Arguing they are vehicles or buildings opens up a whole slew of other issues. Such as giving void shields cover saves or invulnerable saves. Allowing repair rolls, etc.

None of this is intended and you break the game even more once you decide a void shield is a separate building or vehicle.

Now I've got this image in my head of a Big Mek nailing some scrap metal into the force field. Although, with orks that might make sense.

AnFéasógMór wrote:Okay, so let's go with that. Once I've rolled my AP against a void shield, and I get a penetrating hit, do I now roll on the Vehicle Damage Chart? I fired a multi-melta, and rolled a 5+2. Does the Void Shield explode, damaging the model?

Treated as a vehicle and is a vehicle are not the same thing. Yes, you treat the PVS as a vehicle for the sake of AP, because that's where the rules for AP and AV are, but that does not mean that it is a vehicle. Gauss states it work against vehicles and buildings, not models that are treated as vehicles and buildings.

Do you roll on the vehicle damage chart for buildings? Do you understand the difference between "treated as a vehicle because the rules say to" (a la buildings), "an actual vehicle" and "undefined thing with armour value"? You can't roll to penetrate. Ever. You have absolutely no permission to. Read the exact words:
Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapons Strength
Are you firing at a vehicle? No? Then where are you getting permission to treat it as a vehicle for armour penetration. You have no explicit allowance to, unlike buildings, because you have defined it as some mythical thing outside the rules. If you are rolling for it as though it were a vehicle, then where exactly is gauss failing?

Further, there's this:
comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.
Are you firing at a vehicle? No? Do you have allowance to use a single AV for all facings? No? Then where is the permission to proceed? There is none - these rules are for vehicles and things treated partially as vehicles (like buildings) only. If it's neither treated as a vehicle nor building for armour penetration (because if it was there's no reason gauss wouldn't glance) then how are you resolving this?

Plus this:
If the total is equal to the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.
It's not a vehicle. It's not using the vehicle rules. If it were, there'd be no issue with gauss as, again, you'd be firing at something treated as either a building or a vehicle. So, what on earth defines a "glancing hit" against a void shield?

The entire line of logic you're using to cherry pick the rules allowing you to roll to penetrate also must allow gauss to do the same, or else you can never roll. The interpretation is nonsensical at best.

gungo wrote:Void shields and power shields both of which are all over apoc units not just in the void shield generator are neither vehicles or buildings.

Arguing they are vehicles or buildings opens up a whole slew of other issues. Such as giving void shields cover saves or invulnerable saves. Allowing repair rolls. There are weapons that automatically stun or cause shaken results on buildings and vehicles, Etc.

None of this is intended and you breaking the game even more once you decide a void shield is considered a separate building or vehicle.

No, you're not. You have explicit rules for the void shield as to how to resolve damage. What you don't have is the rules allowing you to ever actually resolve damage without supplanting text which also allows gauss to function. Either it all works, or none of it. And, frankly, I would consider things like granting a shield cover or repairability much less game breaking than never, ever being able to actually resolve damage, assign facing or define meaning to the words literally being used in the VSG rules, aka glancing/penetrating hits.

AnFéasógMór wrote:


Now I've got this image in my head of a Big Mek nailing some scrap metal into the force field. Although, with orks that might make sense.

Nah, the Big Mek would nail a void shield to a void shield and say "Hey dawg, I heard you like void shields. That's why I put a void shield on your void shield so you can void shield while you void shield!"

Like I said before I will look through the apoc book and see what's the wording on the power shields and void shields those units have.

But no one is saying it's broken or impossible to hit a void shield except you. What they are saying is there are other unit types other then vehicles or buildings that can have an armour value.

You are jumping to the conclusion that the void shield is a building or vehicle without any justification.

We are jumping to the conclusion that the void/power shield is another type of unit that uses the same amour penetration rules as a vehicle just like the building type states. This is again without justification.

The reason I go with conclusion number two is because you end up breaking the game with much more unintended consequences and rules abuse when you classify a void shield as a building or vehicle.

The sad part is you are so unsure about your own conclusion that you are completely unable to make a decision on the classification of a void shield as either building or vehicle. Because no where does it state a void shield is either.

 Happyjew wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
OK about Strafing Run. Armourbane mentions "In either case, this special rule has no effect against non-vehicle models." So PVS not being a vehicle does prohibit rerolling the penetrration roll against its AV.

Is the PVS a model? No, therefore it cannot be a non-vehicle model.

I tend to agree with this. The PVS is no more a non-vehicle model than it is a vehicle model. It is a special rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SirDonlad wrote:
kriswall is right (as per usual) and he is probably the finest rules-lawyer on the forum.
if you cant handle what he has to say then you should really put it in an e-mail to GW rather than railing about it to him.

sorry, but there it is.

I also tend to agree with this!

gungo wrote:
Like I said before I will look through the apoc book and see what's the wording on the power shields and void shields those units have.

But no one is saying it's broken or impossible to hit a void shield except you.

I'm not saying you can't hit it, I said you have no permission to ever resolve damage. It's frankly irrelevant what other people are saying if you can't refute what I've just said.

What they are saying is there are other unit types other then vehicles or buildings that can have an armour value.

Name a single one then.

You are jumping to the conclusion that the void shield is a building or vehicle without any justification.

No, I'm using the justification of "the void shield generator rules are completely useless, so you need to treat it as one of the two to actually be able to resolve damage, which is clearly intended". Seems pretty valid to me.

We are jumping to the conclusion that the void/power shield is another type of unit that uses the same amour penetration rules as a vehicle just like the building type states. This is again without justification.

Okay, fine - why? I mean, why allow this and not gauss? It makes no sense to do so, it's just cherry picking rules.

The reason I go with conclusion number two is because you end up breaking the game with much more unintended consequences and rules abuse when you classify a void shield as a building or vehicle.

Name literally one single thing more broken than an almost invincible shield. Conclusion number 2 allows you to use gauss - are you allowing gauss to work against void shields then? If so, why are you even debating this point?

The sad part is you are so unsure about your own conclusion that you are completely unable to make a decision on the classification of a void shield as either building or vehicle. Because no where does it state a void shield is either.

Please show me where I actually made a conclusion. I'd love to see it, because I can't actually read the invisible text on the imaginary page. I gave 2 scenarios, both of which are asinine, because the rules are broken. You can call it sad all you want, but without actually saying why you either are allowed to exactly cherry pick and deny gauss, or why you're allowing armour penetration rolls, it's somewhat of a worthless statement.

Your claiming its invincible its not
We are claiming void shields and power shields use the vehicle armour penetration rules but that does not make it a vehicle.

You can't even make a distinction as to what unit type it is. Because it can't have a type because no model exists. Instead you keep claiming its both a vehcile and building but you have no justification for your premise other then is has an armour value. However even though all vehicles have an armour value everything that has an armour value is not a vehicle.

Void shields and power shields are not vehicles, tanks, flyers, buildings, structures or even a model. It is a special save that USES the armour penetration rules listed in the vehicle section.

Nothing else about vehicles pertains to void or power shields even the results of a glance or penetration do not. It has its own separate rules for resolving those. You can not control contest kill or use any other rule for vehicles or buildings on a void shield save.

This seems like a null and void argument, just because something uses a portion of the vehicle rules does not make it a vehicle... gauss affects vehicles, the void shield is a void shield, not a vehicle. It's a unique thing in the 40K universe that kind of stands alone.

Is it a vehicle? clearly no, therefore Gauss does not affect it.

Eyjio wrote:
I find it funny that no-one has as of yet quoted the whole rules for actually rolling armour penetration. Here they are, in full:

Hitting a vehicle is no guarantee that you will actually damage it. Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapons Strength, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.

If the total is less than the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot has no effect.

If the total is equal to the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.

If the total is greater than the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating hit.

Now, here's the bits which allow buildings to be attacked:

BUILDING ARMOUR VALUES
All buildings have an Armour Value listed on their terrain datasheet. If only a single Armour Value is listed, then it is used against all attacks, no matter which facing is hit.

ATTACKING BUILDINGS
When determining if a building can be targeted by a shooting attack or psychic power, charged and fought against in combat, or affected by a special rule, treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise. When attacking a building, roll To Hit and for armour penetration as if it were a vehicle.

So far so good? Cool. Now here's the gauss wording again:

Against vehicles and buildings an Armour Penetration roll of a 6 that does not cause a penetrating hit automatically causes a glancing hit.

Well, let's take a look at the VSG rules then:

Each projected void shield has an Armour Value of 12. A glancing or penetrating hit (or any hit from a Destroyer weapon) scored against a projected void shield causes it to collapse. If all the projected void shields have collapsed, further hits strike the original target instead. At the end of each of the controlling player’s turns, roll a dice for each projected void shield that has collapsed; each roll of 5+ instantly restores one shield.

Hmm, okay, let's see. No hull points, and the rulebook is quite clear that EVERY vehicle has hull points. Therefore, not a vehicle. Does it count as a building? Well, it doesn't explicitly say so, so let's suppose it is a special unique thing called a void shield. Cool So far so good.

Now, let's fire a krak missile at an Ork Boy protected by the void shield bubble. Seems simple enough, right? So, we roll to hit, and suppose we get one. Cool. Right, now let's roll to get through AV12.

Oh. Hang on. How do we actually do that? See, it's not a vehicle, so we don't have any rules to resolve this hit. I mean, it's not a vehicle, right? So, where's our permission to use weapon strength+D6? That's only for hits against vehicles. We're assuming it's not a building, so we can't supplant those rules to let us roll as though it's a vehicle either. Well, let's just ignore that. Okay. Compare facing? Right, well it says it's AV12, but that's not a facing. What facing am I firing at, exactly? It's not a vehicle, right, and it's not a building so I can't use the rule to supplant a single AV for all facings. Okay, so we can neither roll to penetrate nor actually determine what we've hit. Let's just bumble past that too. Let's just pretend we can roll anyway. Right, now, what's a glancing hit? I mean, we aren't using vehicle rules, so we can't use total greater than armour value - that's explicitly in the case that it's a vehicle. We can't use the building rules because, as we said earlier, it's no building. So, we have no idea what the concept of a glancing hit is.

So, if it's neither a vehicle nor building, we can't use the rules for armour penetration as we have:
-no way to roll for penetration
-no way to determine facing, nor a circumventing method as provided on buildings
-no concept of a glancing or penetrating hit


But not all is lost to the mighty void shield! You can still break it with a destroyer hit! Amazing!

But suppose then that at any point you decide this is ridiculous. Well, then you must at some point acknowledge that we are treating the void shield generator as either a vehicle or building, because you need to do so in order to resolve any damage whatsoever from non-Str D weaponry. You can't even begin to resolve damage. If you do that, say, to actually determine what on earth a "roll to penetrate" actually is, then gauss works normally. If you do not, you have no permission to do squat.


So, you have 2 RAW outcomes here:
1) It's neither a vehicle nor building nor model. As such, it follows its own special rules and, as those don't stipulate how to glance or penetrate and the current rules only define that for vehicles and buildings, you may only collapse void shields with Str D weaponry.
2) It's a shield projected from a building and has a single defined armour value. The only things which can do this in the rules are buildings, therefore a void shield counts as a building for the purposes of resolving damage. Therefore gauss works against it.

Pick your poison. Probably the silliest thing on YMDC since the person who tried to argue that 1 Spyder=3 Spyders.

so your saying that if I roll a 1 on a d6 with a s3 weapon I can argue that I knocked out a PVS because the chart to determine if something is glanced or not requires the thing to be a vehicle as in "if the total is more than the vehicles armor value"

so if the rules for glancing only affect vehicles, as they call out vehicles, but buildings are told to be treated as vehicles.

if a PVS is neither, there are no rules on how to glance them, or rather no rules on how you do not glance them.

Just to throw in a curve ball, think about Grav weapons.
What happens when you fire a grav weapon at a unit in a Void Shield?

Grav works against vehicles, but doesn't work against buildings. Where does that leave void shields vs grav?

-Matt

It's pretty obvious it's broken, so in either case it Will Require House Rules. It's like the HP issue, there is no hp written so the shield itself is immortal or instantly destroyed on placement, so we use 6th edition size comparison rules because there is all there is. right?
If you want to penetrate this thing it will require house rules RAI, get chummy with your local meta and state your cases, it will obviously not be decided universally in this thread.

Eyjio wrote:
I find it funny that no-one has as of yet quoted the whole rules for actually rolling armour penetration. Here they are, in full:

Hitting a vehicle is no guarantee that you will actually damage it. Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapons Strength, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.

If the total is less than the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot has no effect.

If the total is equal to the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.

If the total is greater than the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating hit.

Now, here's the bits which allow buildings to be attacked:

BUILDING ARMOUR VALUES
All buildings have an Armour Value listed on their terrain datasheet. If only a single Armour Value is listed, then it is used against all attacks, no matter which facing is hit.

ATTACKING BUILDINGS
When determining if a building can be targeted by a shooting attack or psychic power, charged and fought against in combat, or affected by a special rule, treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise. When attacking a building, roll To Hit and for armour penetration as if it were a vehicle.

So far so good? Cool. Now here's the gauss wording again:

Against vehicles and buildings an Armour Penetration roll of a 6 that does not cause a penetrating hit automatically causes a glancing hit.

Well, let's take a look at the VSG rules then:

Each projected void shield has an Armour Value of 12. A glancing or penetrating hit (or any hit from a Destroyer weapon) scored against a projected void shield causes it to collapse. If all the projected void shields have collapsed, further hits strike the original target instead. At the end of each of the controlling player’s turns, roll a dice for each projected void shield that has collapsed; each roll of 5+ instantly restores one shield.

Hmm, okay, let's see. No hull points, and the rulebook is quite clear that EVERY vehicle has hull points. Therefore, not a vehicle. Does it count as a building? Well, it doesn't explicitly say so, so let's suppose it is a special unique thing called a void shield. Cool So far so good.

Now, let's fire a krak missile at an Ork Boy protected by the void shield bubble. Seems simple enough, right? So, we roll to hit, and suppose we get one. Cool. Right, now let's roll to get through AV12.

Oh. Hang on. How do we actually do that? See, it's not a vehicle, so we don't have any rules to resolve this hit. I mean, it's not a vehicle, right? So, where's our permission to use weapon strength+D6? That's only for hits against vehicles. We're assuming it's not a building, so we can't supplant those rules to let us roll as though it's a vehicle either. Well, let's just ignore that. Okay. Compare facing? Right, well it says it's AV12, but that's not a facing. What facing am I firing at, exactly? It's not a vehicle, right, and it's not a building so I can't use the rule to supplant a single AV for all facings. Okay, so we can neither roll to penetrate nor actually determine what we've hit. Let's just bumble past that too. Let's just pretend we can roll anyway. Right, now, what's a glancing hit? I mean, we aren't using vehicle rules, so we can't use total greater than armour value - that's explicitly in the case that it's a vehicle. We can't use the building rules because, as we said earlier, it's no building. So, we have no idea what the concept of a glancing hit is.

So, if it's neither a vehicle nor building, we can't use the rules for armour penetration as we have:
-no way to roll for penetration
-no way to determine facing, nor a circumventing method as provided on buildings
-no concept of a glancing or penetrating hit


But not all is lost to the mighty void shield! You can still break it with a destroyer hit! Amazing!

But suppose then that at any point you decide this is ridiculous. Well, then you must at some point acknowledge that we are treating the void shield generator as either a vehicle or building, because you need to do so in order to resolve any damage whatsoever from non-Str D weaponry. You can't even begin to resolve damage. If you do that, say, to actually determine what on earth a "roll to penetrate" actually is, then gauss works normally. If you do not, you have no permission to do squat.


So, you have 2 RAW outcomes here:
1) It's neither a vehicle nor building nor model. As such, it follows its own special rules and, as those don't stipulate how to glance or penetrate and the current rules only define that for vehicles and buildings, you may only collapse void shields with Str D weaponry.
2) It's a shield projected from a building and has a single defined armour value. The only things which can do this in the rules are buildings, therefore a void shield counts as a building for the purposes of resolving damage. Therefore gauss works against it.

Pick your poison. Probably the silliest thing on YMDC since the person who tried to argue that 1 Spyder=3 Spyders.

As Kriswall aptly put:

 Kriswall wrote:
I tend to agree with this. The PVS is no more a non-vehicle model than it is a vehicle model. It is a special rule.

Both RaW outcomes you posted are incorrect. A "Projected Void Shield" does not "follow its own special rules".
That simple statement of yours shows how you are misinterpreting this.

Take a look at the Stronghold Assault book:

Composition: 1 Void Shield Generator.
Terrain Type: Impassable Building (Armour Value 13) with battlements.

Special Rules:
Projected Void Shields: "Rules"

The Void Shield Generator is an armour 13 Building, and we know exactly how to play with those. It also has a Special Rule, which is slightly more tricky to grasp: "Projected Void Shields"

A Special Rule is never an entity. It is a set of instructions you follow to obtain a result.

How do 2 Special Rules (Gauss + Projected Void Shields) interact with each other?
They would both apply to the model unless there is contradiction in the Rules:

What happens when you fire a "Gauss" weapon at a Space marine with the "Projected Void Shields" Special rule? (he is quite close to a building that provides him with this rule)
You resolve "Gauss" on the Space Marine.
You resolve "Projected Void Shields" on the Space marine.
I'm quite sure "Projected Void Shields" is the rule that would have its effect applied first.

Now the great RaW question that the OP started: Can a Special rule "modify" another spacial rule?
Only if the rule is referenced, such as Eternal Warrior modifying the Instant Death Rule.

 Frozocrone wrote:
What about the FAQ that says Blast and Template Weapons roll to penetrate? Should that be taken into consideration?

I've always played it as 'Roll against Armour Penetration' that just seems to be the correct way to play..

Do you penetrate AV or a vehicle?

I'm leaning towards 'Gauss doesn't come into play'.

Just because something uses the rules of a vehicle, that doesn't mean you're rolling to hit against a vehicle. The fact that Gauss specifically says "Against vehicles and buildings.", to me, makes that abundantly clear.

If 'using vehicle rules' would equal 'shooting against a vehicle', Gauss wouldn't include buildings.

 Whacked wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
What about the FAQ that says Blast and Template Weapons roll to penetrate? Should that be taken into consideration?

I've always played it as 'Roll against Armour Penetration' that just seems to be the correct way to play..

Do you penetrate AV or a vehicle?

We know how to perform Armour Penetration Rolls:
"roll a D6 and add the weapon’s Strength, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle"
Resulting in "no effect", "Pen", or "Glance".

The Void shield does not have an "appropriate facing of the vehicle", but it has an AV.
You must perform "Armour Penetration Rolls" in a vacuum (of the "Projected Void Shields" Special Rule)

I'm still struggling to understand how this has gone on for three pages. the PVS is a rule, that uses elements of game mechanics from other sections of the game, but is not a vehicle.

And therefore is not affected by Gauss.

If you want to argue that Gauss affects it, the test is showing a statement, or combination of rules that make it a vehicle. So far that has not been done. What has been demonstrated is that there are many instances within the game where the rules from different sections are mixed and matched to achieve a particular desired game scenario (c.f. the referenced example above, of walkers and close combat).

It is clearly defined where the void shield is (12" from tye generator). So can you ram a void shield? If not, why not? Is it because it is not a vehicle? If so then why is it suddenly counted as a vehicle for gauss, as both use the AV of the target? Would this not be cherry picking which vehicle rules to use?

If yes, how? Do you ram all 3? Just 1? Why? If it's on a vehicle itself, do you ram the shield and the vehicle or just the shield? Why?

Using the vehicle rules for rolling to glance/pen does not make it a vehicle (IMO) as many have stated.

 goblinzz wrote:
I'm still struggling to understand how this has gone on for three pages. the PVS is a rule, that uses elements of game mechanics from other sections of the game, but is not a vehicle.

And therefore is not affected by Gauss.

If you want to argue that Gauss affects it, the test is showing a statement, or combination of rules that make it a vehicle. So far that has not been done. What has been demonstrated is that there are many instances within the game where the rules from different sections are mixed and matched to achieve a particular desired game scenario (c.f. the referenced example above, of walkers and close combat).

I agree 100%. You have two options in this scenario. Option 1 is saying that the rules don't explicitly cover how to make an armour pen roll for a non-vehicle, making the game unplayable. Option 2 is saying the rules don't explicitly cover how to make an armour pen roll for non-vehicles, we fill in the gap and use the vehicle process, but apply it to the AV12 of the PVS instead of the armour facing of a vehicle.

Neither option allows or requires us to count the PVS as a vehicle.

 Kriswall wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:
I'm still struggling to understand how this has gone on for three pages. the PVS is a rule, that uses elements of game mechanics from other sections of the game, but is not a vehicle.

And therefore is not affected by Gauss.

If you want to argue that Gauss affects it, the test is showing a statement, or combination of rules that make it a vehicle. So far that has not been done. What has been demonstrated is that there are many instances within the game where the rules from different sections are mixed and matched to achieve a particular desired game scenario (c.f. the referenced example above, of walkers and close combat).

I agree 100%. You have two options in this scenario. Option 1 is saying that the rules don't explicitly cover how to make an armour pen roll for a non-vehicle, making the game unplayable. Option 2 is saying the rules don't explicitly cover how to make an armour pen roll for non-vehicles, we fill in the gap and use the vehicle process, but apply it to the AV12 of the PVS instead of the armour facing of a vehicle.

Neither option allows or requires us to count the PVS as a vehicle.

Sure if you want to cherry pick rules, your HIWPI works just fine.

Isn't choosing to ignore the fact you could ram it if it was counted as a vehicle cherry picking?

Fragile wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:
I'm still struggling to understand how this has gone on for three pages. the PVS is a rule, that uses elements of game mechanics from other sections of the game, but is not a vehicle.

And therefore is not affected by Gauss.

If you want to argue that Gauss affects it, the test is showing a statement, or combination of rules that make it a vehicle. So far that has not been done. What has been demonstrated is that there are many instances within the game where the rules from different sections are mixed and matched to achieve a particular desired game scenario (c.f. the referenced example above, of walkers and close combat).

I agree 100%. You have two options in this scenario. Option 1 is saying that the rules don't explicitly cover how to make an armour pen roll for a non-vehicle, making the game unplayable. Option 2 is saying the rules don't explicitly cover how to make an armour pen roll for non-vehicles, we fill in the gap and use the vehicle process, but apply it to the AV12 of the PVS instead of the armour facing of a vehicle.

Neither option allows or requires us to count the PVS as a vehicle.

Sure if you want to cherry pick rules, your HIWPI works just fine.

There is no cherry picking rules.
A vehicle is a unit type.
A unit type is a model.
The void shield has no model and thus no unit type.
It therefore cannot be a vehicle.
You can NEVER have a vehicle, building, infsntry, etc that doesn't have a model.

Go look up the rules for unit types. You will explicitly see its a model.
The void shield is a save that uses the vehicles rules for armour penetration. At no point does it have a unit type.
This is why you can not target the void shield to shoot it. You target the unit within the void shield. You roll to hit that model. You resolve the hit versus the void shield or power shield if you are using an apoc unit that has one.

so I just want to point out no one has relied that you do not actually target the void shield for the shots you are targeting the unit under the void shield. and what allows the hit to be allocated to the void shield is the rules for void shields

"Whilst a building has a void shield, any hits scored by shooting attacks against the building, models embarked within it or upon its battlements will instead hit the void shield"

Fragile wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:
I'm still struggling to understand how this has gone on for three pages. the PVS is a rule, that uses elements of game mechanics from other sections of the game, but is not a vehicle.

And therefore is not affected by Gauss.

If you want to argue that Gauss affects it, the test is showing a statement, or combination of rules that make it a vehicle. So far that has not been done. What has been demonstrated is that there are many instances within the game where the rules from different sections are mixed and matched to achieve a particular desired game scenario (c.f. the referenced example above, of walkers and close combat).

I agree 100%. You have two options in this scenario. Option 1 is saying that the rules don't explicitly cover how to make an armour pen roll for a non-vehicle, making the game unplayable. Option 2 is saying the rules don't explicitly cover how to make an armour pen roll for non-vehicles, we fill in the gap and use the vehicle process, but apply it to the AV12 of the PVS instead of the armour facing of a vehicle.

Neither option allows or requires us to count the PVS as a vehicle.

Sure if you want to cherry pick rules, your HIWPI works just fine.

To be clear...

Rules as Written - The game comes to a stall as there are no rules telling us how to perform an armour penetration roll against a non-vehicle. Both players wait indefintely for an FAQ from GW. Eventually the shopkeep gets tired of them standing around and asks them to leave. The players, paralyzed by a rules void, stare blankly at him.

HIWPI - I would say that despite not being defined, an armour penetration roll against a non-vehicle, non-model special rule created entity with AV12 is performed by rolling 2D6, adding the Strength of the firing weapon and then comparing that result to the AV of 12. Per the PVS rule, if the result is 12 (glance) or 13+ (pen), the shield shuts down. I would not allow any other rules interactions that require the target to be a vehicle, such as Guass.

I see NO evidence that the rules tell me to treat the PVS as a vehicle. In the absence of ANY rules text telling me to do so, I would have to conclude that treating the PVS as a vehicle for the purposes of Guass is another kind of HIWPI.

As such, this thread has now devolved to he said/she said, or HIWPI/HYWPI. Mod Lock incoming in 3... 2... 1...

To the OP... work this out with your local gaming group. I think most reasonable people will understand how to make an armour pen roll against a non vehicle even when it isn't spelled out. I also think you'll run into a fair number of people who don't agree that a PVS should be treated as a vehicle. YMMV. My gaming group tends to be pretty relaxed when genuine rules conflicts like this come up, but given that this is a permissive ruleset and we have no permission for Guass to work on non-vehicles... I don't think we'd allow it. It's too much of a stretch. Rolling 2D6 and adding Strength to make an armour pen roll against a non-vehicle with AV12 isn't much of a stretch at all.

 Kriswall wrote:

HIWPI - I would say that despite not being defined, an armour penetration roll against a non-vehicle, non-model special rule created entity with AV12 is performed by rolling 2D6, adding the Strength of the firing weapon and then comparing that result to the AV of 12.

You'd allow Grot Blasts to destroy void shields?

That makes less sense than your not allowing Gauss.

Yeh that basically makes every gun armour bane against void shields.

 Kriswall wrote:
HIWPI - I would say that despite not being defined, an armour penetration roll against a non-vehicle, non-model special rule created entity with AV12 is performed by rolling 2D6, adding the Strength of the firing weapon and then comparing that result to the AV of 12. Per the PVS rule, if the result is 12 (glance) or 13+ (pen), the shield shuts down. I would not allow any other rules interactions that require the target to be a vehicle, such as Gauss.

I am quite sure he meant the standard D6 + Weapon Strength. Kriswall will confirm, but that is essentially how i see it too, although i'd go as far as saying it is RaW rather than HIWPI.

The Special rule asks you to roll for penetration and tells you that the shield is AV12.
Penetration rolls mention Vehicles, but you are told to use those rules, why is it such a game-breaker?

 BlackTalos wrote:

I am quite sure he meant the standard D6 + Weapon Strength. Kriswall will confirm, but that is essentially how i see it too, although i'd go as far as saying it is RaW rather than HIWPI.

I think you meant RAI there unless you have access to a book I can't find.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
HIWPI - I would say that despite not being defined, an armour penetration roll against a non-vehicle, non-model special rule created entity with AV12 is performed by rolling 2D6, adding the Strength of the firing weapon and then comparing that result to the AV of 12. Per the PVS rule, if the result is 12 (glance) or 13+ (pen), the shield shuts down. I would not allow any other rules interactions that require the target to be a vehicle, such as Gauss.

I am quite sure he meant the standard D6 + Weapon Strength. Kriswall will confirm, but that is essentially how i see it too, although i'd go as far as saying it is RaW rather than HIWPI.

The Special rule asks you to roll for penetration and tells you that the shield is AV12.
Penetration rolls mention Vehicles, but you are told to use those rules, why is it such a game-breaker?

Yes. Confirmed. D6. People mistype. It happens.

 Nilok wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

I am quite sure he meant the standard D6 + Weapon Strength. Kriswall will confirm, but that is essentially how i see it too, although i'd go as far as saying it is RaW rather than HIWPI.

I think you meant RAI there unless you have access to a book I can't find.

Nope, RaW:

Projected Void Shields: (...) Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield. (...) Each projected void shield has an Armour Value of 12. A glancing or penetrating hit (or any hit from a Destroyer weapon) scored against a projected void shield causes it to collapse.(...)

So, let's read the above:
The rule require you Hit the shield.
The rules lets you know you have AV 12.
Any Pen or Glance will collapse the shield. (This is probably the most important: It requires you to have a Pen or Glance result, while you are give a Hit and an AV)

So, you have:
Hit, AV12 - IN -----> OUT - Pen or glance, possibly.

What part of the Rulebook is anywhere close to what i need?

Armour Penetration Rolls
Hitting a vehicle is no guarantee that you will actually damage it. Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapon’s Strength, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.
• If the total is less than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot has no effect.
• If the total is equal to the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.
• If the total is greater than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating hit.

Unfortunately, the above says "Vehicle", so it cannot possibly apply ! Because we know that the Projected Void shield is a rule, not a model.
But the VSG Rule (RaW) requires that you go from Hit to Pen/Glance. So you have to follow the above:

Armour Penetration Rolls
Hitting a vehicle is no guarantee that you will actually damage it. Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapon’s Strength, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.
• If the total is less than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot has no effect.
• If the total is equal to the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.
• If the total is greater than vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating hit.

ED:
The VSG Rule even says: "A glancing or penetrating hit" Implying you must resolve the Hit as a Pen/Glance.

No, it isnt RAW - you have admitted you have changed the rules to suit.

JUst because I require you to obtain a result, doesnt mean you can choose any method to get there that you think is sufficiently close enough; if there is no process, RAW, you stop. You cannot proceed.

The query then is how many rules do you wish to break - jsut the bit where you dont consider it a vehicle, but use vehicle rules for AV, or more. That is a matter of degrees, and ther is no right or wrong at that point.

Personally as we're in the land of "what makes sense" (as we're not discussing RAW anylonger - we cannot do so), does it make "sense" that the only thing with AV in the game that we cannot affect with Gauss is this item? to me, no.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it isnt RAW - you have admitted you have changed the rules to suit.

JUst because I require you to obtain a result, doesnt mean you can choose any method to get there that you think is sufficiently close enough; if there is no process, RAW, you stop. You cannot proceed.

The query then is how many rules do you wish to break - jsut the bit where you dont consider it a vehicle, but use vehicle rules for AV, or more. That is a matter of degrees, and ther is no right or wrong at that point.

Personally as we're in the land of "what makes sense" (as we're not discussing RAW anylonger - we cannot do so), does it make "sense" that the only thing with AV in the game that we cannot affect with Gauss is this item? to me, no.

So you are saying that by Raw, a Slow and Purposeful Unit breaks Fleet? (SnP forbids running)

Fleet
A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule can re-roll one or more of the dice when determining Run moves and charge ranges (...).

You try to follow the Fleet rule, but it says Run moves and charge ranges, however, you cannot run, so the RaW breaks?

RAW and RAI. Gauss auto-wounds or auto-glances on a 6. Simple as that. Necrons troops can easily deal with Void-Shields, one of their bonuses..... live with it.

 Otto Weston wrote:
RAW and RAI. Gauss auto-wounds or auto-glances on a 6. Simple as that. Necrons troops can easily deal with Void-Shields, one of their bonuses..... live with it.

If the Void shield was a Vehicle, of course.

RAW and RAI. Void shield is a Special Rule

 BlackTalos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it isnt RAW - you have admitted you have changed the rules to suit.

JUst because I require you to obtain a result, doesnt mean you can choose any method to get there that you think is sufficiently close enough; if there is no process, RAW, you stop. You cannot proceed.

The query then is how many rules do you wish to break - jsut the bit where you dont consider it a vehicle, but use vehicle rules for AV, or more. That is a matter of degrees, and ther is no right or wrong at that point.

Personally as we're in the land of "what makes sense" (as we're not discussing RAW anylonger - we cannot do so), does it make "sense" that the only thing with AV in the game that we cannot affect with Gauss is this item? to me, no.

So you are saying that by Raw, a Slow and Purposeful Unit breaks Fleet? (SnP forbids running)

Fleet
A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule can re-roll one or more of the dice when determining Run moves and charge ranges (...).

You try to follow the Fleet rule, but it says Run moves and charge ranges, however, you cannot run, so the RaW breaks?

Only if you are chronically unable to parse an english sentence.

When determining run moves and when determining charge moves, is how you unfold that sentence. Otherise, using your suggestion, noone could use Fleet as it would be requriing you to resolve a "run and charge range" at the same time, something that is not possible.

So, nothing on how you have changed the rules then? If you could admit you were incorrect that your version of playing the game is RAW, we could move onto a discussion of how much to change the rules so that void shields dont become invulnerable.

This isn't rocket science. Necron players are arguing thAt the use of av makes a shield a vehicle. It does not further more it is clearly RaW.
Buildings and vehicles are unit types
The rulebook flat out states unit types are models.
You cannot have a unit type without a model. Ever EVER
The void shield has no model and no unit type.
You can't target it because you can only target models
Again reinforcing the fact for those who are to stubborn to comprehend it's not a model it doesn't have a unit type.

It is a special rule. It is not even a save. It is simply an energy based void shield or power shield for those that play apoc that requires an armour pen roll. You do not even resolve it anything like a vehicle or building. Once you hit the Magic number 12. You do not stun shaken roll on any damage vehicle building chart. Why? Because it can never have a type. It's not a model. You can't target it.
It follows non of the rules for buildings or vehickes. It has no battlements or firepoints. It has no occupancy and has no access to building or vehicle upgrades. It is not even terrain.
You can not give it cover or contest it.
The Brb flat out word for word describes unit type in the back of the book as a model. A vehicle is also called a model. The void shield is not a model. Nothing that targets models can target a void shield. The necron psychic power that controlled your opponents vehicles was never able to control void shields. Why? Again it was never a valid target. It was never a model and never had a unit type. The rulebook directly states that a void shield is not a building or vehicle because the rulebook directly states vehickes and buildings are models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So the above is raw now lets look at RAI.

Guass weapons are a necron weapon that works by tearing apart the molecular bonds of atoms. Seriously this is straight out of your codex.

Void shields Are an energy based force field. Energy does not have atoms. Energy is not matter. Basic elementry school physics told us e=mc2. Even in the realm of crazy undead scifi robots in space energy does not equal matter. You can't shear apart the atomic bonds of a void shield because it never had atoms.

You attack models, not special rules.

When you hit the shields on any model in the game, you are resolving hits against that model.

The Void Shield Generator is a building, the shields are an extention of that building.

 adamsouza wrote:
You attack models, not special rules.

When you hit the shields on any model in the game, you are resolving hits against that model.

The Void Shield Generator is a building, the shields are an extention of that building.

You are correct you target models not special rules
However you are Completely wrong The void shield rules directly say you resolve the attack on the void shield not the model.

Furthermore when you target say an Orc greentide. You never at any time target a building. You are targeting infantry. That is a competely different unit type then building. At no point is the void shield called a building. If you attack an ork big Mek stompa and it has up to 3 av12 power fields. That is not a building either. You are making up rules and callin things unit types when it has no unit type and never states it's a unit type because it has no model.

 Otto Weston wrote:
RAW and RAI. Gauss auto-wounds or auto-glances on a 6. Simple as that. Necrons troops can easily deal with Void-Shields, one of their bonuses..... live with it.

RaW is that Guass auto-glances VEHICLES on a 6. Again, this is the underlying issue. You need to demonstrate via rules citations that the AV12 "thing" created by the PVS special rule is a vehicle or is treated as a vehicle.

RaW doesn't appear to have anything to say about what happens when a weapon with Guass is fired at a non-vehicle with an AV. Since this is a permissive ruleset, and we're not told to auto-glance non vehicles, we don't.

To be fair, I don't think grav weapons will affect void shields either.
Not that either guass or gravitons affecting an energy shield makes sense fluff wise either.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Otto Weston wrote:
RAW and RAI. Gauss auto-wounds or auto-glances on a 6. Simple as that. Necrons troops can easily deal with Void-Shields, one of their bonuses..... live with it.

RaW is that Guass auto-glances VEHICLES on a 6. Again, this is the underlying issue. You need to demonstrate via rules citations that the AV12 "thing" created by the PVS special rule is a vehicle or is treated as a vehicle.

RaW doesn't appear to have anything to say about what happens when a weapon with Guass is fired at a non-vehicle with an AV. Since this is a permissive ruleset, and we're not told to auto-glance non vehicles, we don't.

Raw you cannot roll to penetrate anyway, so arguing raw becomes pointless.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Raw you cannot roll to penetrate anyway, so arguing raw becomes pointless.

Correct. This thread needs to be locked, the answer is found, there's no point in continuing.

Pointless bickering about HIWPI doesn't belong here.

Im still waiting for those who believe it is a vehicle to tell me how to ram it...