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.

Rorschach9 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

But it is not similar in any way.

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

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

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

So yes, it is entirely similar.

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nutty_nutter wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Happyjew wrote:

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

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

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

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

Edit

 Happyjew wrote:

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

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

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

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rigeld2 wrote:

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

True. Thanks. Again, fixed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big shoota is assault

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

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

Apparently I'm in the same boat.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rorschach9 wrote:

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

 Jimsolo wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rorschach9 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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

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

Case and point right there.

A true user would have simply ignored the accusation then.

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

Ah, the no true poster informal fallacy at work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll is nearly exactly 50/50,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dast wrote:
Poll is nearly exactly 50/50,

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

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

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

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