Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 FlingitNow wrote:

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

That doesn't sound intended to me.

How many models is the shield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow the process treat all weapons the same.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

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

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

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

JPong wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow the process treat all weapons the same.

This isn't RAI, this is HYWPI.

JPong wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

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

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

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

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

This isn't RAI, this is HYWPI.

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

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

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

Wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now if they

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

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

All of that aside.

RAI = 1 HIt.

RAW = 10Hits (IMHO)

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

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

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

All of that aside.

RAI = 1 HIt.

RAW = 10Hits (IMHO)

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

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

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

 yakface wrote:

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

So the answer for me is once.

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

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

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

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

 BlackTalos wrote:

 yakface wrote:

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

So the answer for me is once.

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

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

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

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

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

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 yakface wrote:

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

So the answer for me is once.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 BlackTalos wrote:

 yakface wrote:

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

So the answer for me is once.

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

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

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

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

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

 BlackTalos wrote:

 yakface wrote:

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

So the answer for me is once.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait, when did this become RaW?

Actual rules? for a HWYPI argument?

 BlackTalos wrote:

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

Wait, when did this become RaW?

Actual rules? for a HWYPI argument?

When someone asserts a fact (ie:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rigeld2 wrote:

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

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

Case and point right there.

A true user would have simply ignored the accusation then.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 yakface wrote:

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

So the answer for me is once.

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

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

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

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

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

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

RAW 10 hits.

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

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

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

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

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

rigeld2 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Stormbreed wrote:

But it is not similar in any way.

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

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

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

So yes, it is entirely similar.

Stormbreed wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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