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.

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

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

Because doing so has no rules support whatsoever?

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

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

 PrinceRaven wrote:

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

Because doing so has no rules support whatsoever?

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

Hmm, well with the choices being:

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

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

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

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

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You did not answer my question.

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

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

So the side armor does not include Left side armor?

Basic English proves your statement to the contrary incorrect.

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

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

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

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

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

So the side armor does not include Left side armor?

Basic English proves your statement to the contrary incorrect.

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

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

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

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You did not answer my question.

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

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

So the side armor does not include Left side armor?

Basic English proves your statement to the contrary incorrect.

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

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

Remember it hits both left and right side armor.

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

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

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

Well does side armor include left and right side?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

Please back up this statement using relevant rule quotations.

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

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

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

Please back up this statement using relevant rule quotations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 PrinceRaven wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

S = Sides (that includes Left and Right).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly what I've been arguing.

 CrownAxe wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So left side armor is not the side armor?

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

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

Exactly what I've been arguing.

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

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

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

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