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.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
ooooo this thread again!

I'm going to get my popcorn, link my very useful, fully rules backed up post and link to the thread and sit back.

Here is the thread

p6 and 33 of the BRB concerning blast/template weapons: these cause a number of hits = to the models under the template after scatter, you roll for scatter in lieu of rolling to hit.

p69 beam weapons: these cause a hit = to the number of models underneath the invisible line between 2 points, this has since been FAQ'd to state the line is 1" in width.

p31 Strong Hold Assault: Projected void shields:

this is the crux of the matter, the summery as to do otherwise breaks the rules of the forum:

a shield is considered AV12

a shooting attack originating outside of 12" from the generator on a unit that is within 12" of the generator will hit a shield instead of the targeted unit.

Shooting Phase: BRB p12: 5 step process to a shooting attack: nomination of a unit to shoot, choosing a target, rolling to hit, rolling to wound/rolling to penetrate (added later in the vehicle section on p73/74), allocating wounds & removing casualties/resolving vehicle damage.


conclusion:


the void shield cannot be hit instead until the rolls to hit have been made, it is too late at that point to reduce the number of hits that have been generated by any weapon of any type as they have already been rolled for/calculated, blast/beam/template weapons replace the rolling to hit part with placing a template/scattering a template/drawing an invisible line between two points to work out how many have hit just like an assault 20 weapon rolls 20 dice to see how many out of 20 have hit. the number of hits cannot be effected once they have been resolved and void shields do not allow a recalculation of those hits.

*edit to fix link

wow.


that is awesome. hopefully I can show some guys at the workshop this and we can discuss this.


Why the hell did Games workshop make such a rule and not have it defined properly?

Actually it IS well defined - it just runs contrary to what some people believe "real world" logic shoudl dictate. Of course, real world logic has little to no place in an abstract ruleset set in the far future involving genetically enhanced warrior monks, space elves and daemons, but meh....

It is well defined but it is just that there are two ways of reading it.

Each has its merits.

So What should I do? try and discuss this way to rule it with the blasts generating more hits on void shields

or should I go along with the group and silently steam under my collar at it?

Uptopdownunder wrote:
It is well defined but it is just that there are two ways of reading it.

Each has its merits.

No, there are not two ways of reading it

You can only end up with "1 hit" from a Blast weapon that hit 10 models by breaking the Blast rules. Unarguable
You can only end up with "1 hit" from a blast weapon on a non model SPecial RUle by making up new rules. Unarguable.

There is only one way which actually follows the rules;: You place the blast marker, count the number of hits, work out if the unit is within 12" of the VSG and then transfer each hit, 1 at a time, to the shield(s).

Thats it. It does not sit well with people, who argue only from a position of realism and / or "balance" against ranged D weapons (which are almost without exception Blast (2?), and come up with a bizarre mishmash of made up and broken rules to try to justify it.

Eh, Why are you transferring the hits one at a time?
Shooting is simultaneous and the hits are from the same shooting attacks. Why are you creating a "hit pool"?
You transfer the hits, not transfer hits one at a time. It appears I am not the only one making up rules.

Not T all points it isn't. Resolving wounds for instance. Here you have a special rule that interrupts,

Again, why one hit only?

Nosferatu1001,
One of the things I like to bring up to show how broken the 'One Marker = 1 Hit' argument is to have people focus on any situation that doesn't involve Class-D weapons, given that a player with a Void Shield is going to encounter low-medium Strength Blast Makers a great deal more then the Class-D weapons.

Blast Markers have always been one of the 'balancing elements' when it comes to fighting Horde based armies. They, at the very least, forces Horde players to spread their Models out in ways that might lower their fighting effectiveness, forcing a tactical choice between clumping the models together to get more into range or spreading them out so they survive return fire. Anything which changes the interaction of how Blast Markers work against Horde Armies has to be very closely inspected to ensure this element is preserved. Anything which would reduce the threat of Blast Markers to the point that a Horde Unit are... well not immune, but able to weather 7 rounds of intense fire from these weapons, has to have some very strong Rule as Written support for it.

The concept of 'One Marker = One Hit' does just that, it reduces the Blast Marker's attack against a Horde army to such an extent that a shot from any other weapon would be more effective! That is before we even take the Void Shield itself into the equation, a Shield which already grants the Horde immunity to the majority of the anti-infantry weaponry out there. It would even reduce the the threat from the biggest 'anti-heavy infantry' weapon out there, Blast Marker based plasma, making it so that a single shot from this devastating weapon will never inflict a wound on the unit being targeted. A fully upgraded Void Shield Network would be able to over-lap their shields so that 7 Rounds of firing from a single Plasma Cannon, using the 'one Marker = 1 Hit' logic, would have a grand total of 0 Casualties no matter how good the firing player rolls.

Is that what they really believe the Shield intended to do, make Horde armies near impossible to remove from the field?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Not T all points it isn't. Resolving wounds for instance. Here you have a special rule that interrupts,

Again, why one hit only?

I'm happy to give up on the one shot is one hit. It kind of made a 75 point fortification unbelievably powerful.

What I'm wondering is why does the rule that interrupts and moves all of the hits from a shooting attack not transfer all of the hits from that shooting attack?
It may not be simultaneous at all points but the step we're talking about is, just after deciding if it hit. The next normal step is simultaneous but the last one that doesn't apply here, the wound allocation step, isn't.
The reason the wound pool's allocation is irrelevant is that the shooting attack in question doesn't have an impact on the unit but rather the void shield. To get to the wound/glance or pen allocation phase you have to have already moved the hits. It is not LOS! for the unit to the shield.

You must show permission to transfer the hits one at a time otherwise the break in the process moves everything at that point to the shield.

the RAW is absolutely with no question all "hits" transferred to the shield.

So 10 models under template is 10 hits to the shield.


Since there is also specific mention that all remaining hits after the shield goes down is transferred back to the squad, there really is no question about this.

You've read the rule that states "further hits ." Yes? It's right there. That requires sequential resolution.

Nosferatu1001,
It also states 'against the original target' after that line, which makes no sense if the remaining Hits are to be discarded as the next attack could be against a completely different target.

Jinx, I think you misunderstood that nos was answering a question posed by liturgies about why the hits are resolved sequentially.


to answer the question more directly, the only instance you ever have permission to resolve anything simultaneously (referred to as fast rolling) is when the action has no bearing on the game.

for example, if I shoot a squad of imperial guardsmen who are just rank and file and I hit with 12 shots, I would roll all 12 hits together to work out wounds, since all the guardsmen are the same T value and all my bolter shots are the same S value. you would then roll all applicable saves together since they are all the same and then remove any casualties in the normal manner.

however, if I were to replace one of those bolters with a plasma gun, and you had a sergeant in the guard squad, I would roll to hit with all my dice (using a different dice for the plasma (for arguments sake at least one plasma hit)) I would then roll all the bolter wound rolls together and the plasma separately.

for arguments sake, lets say I scored 5 bolter wounds and 1 plasma wound and your sergeant is 4th closest model.

you would take applicable saves 3 at a time, since after 3 rank and file guardsmen we then have a different save/stat line/ ability to LoS. and resolve from there.

now, while this may not seem applicable to the conversation its important to outline the flow of applicable fast rolling.

now replace the guardsman squad with a squadron of leman russ and the bolters with Las canons.

you have 3 leman russ and I have 4 las canons, I would roll all my to hit dice at the same time since they are all the same. and I would then resolve those hits one at a time, this is because armour penetration rolls are always sequential, most people apply a fast roll approach if there is only one vehicle they are shooting at since all damage is done to the one target, but in a squadron you must resolve sequentially.

now the void shields thankfully do not take damage as such, they are either there or they are not there, so you can take a number of hits = to the number of present shields (as raw after each shield is taken down the hits go back to the squad to be intercepted by the next the shield again, the same applies to multiple shield generators overlapping the same squad, after each shield you should be randomising again between applicable generators' shields) and resolve them until either there are no shields left or there are no hits left to resolve.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
It is well defined but it is just that there are two ways of reading it.

Each has its merits.

No, there are not two ways of reading it

Yes there are, it may come as something of a shock to you but there are people in the world who see things differently to you.

Nutty_nutter,
No misunderstanding, I knew he was trying to highlight that they are sequentially resolved because this is the only logical way to resolve these attacks. I just felt that the entire sentence would further strengthens this concept as it mentions the 'original target,' something which only makes sense if we use sequential resolution. I was going to sign off that post using a joke along the lines of 'the only other way of reading is it that every hit generated from that point forward must be resolved against the unit under the shield... for the rest of the game!' For some strange reason I thought it wouldn't add to the discussion, or maybe I have learned what posting here is like as I just reasoned someone would take that out of context.

I'm firmly in the belief that every Rule in the game is resolved sequentially, including each individual shot during a shooting attack.
We simply throw multiple Rolls at the same time for time-saving purposes, and this is completely fine as long as the order of resolution would not not influence the outcome of the game.

If you count the hits under the template instead of counting the blast as 1 hit then the unit is still affected by anything that hits it like Blind or Entropic strike. As you only had to hit the unit for those effects to go off.

Rules as written IMHO if anything is hit instead hit the shield. I say the rule is triggered as soon as anything is hit. You don't take additional step the rule tells to instead hit the shield. Rule is triggered as soon as you know anything is hit.

Which, for blasts, you do by COUNTING the number of models. Which you well know. That is the ONLY way to know a blast has hit anything

Up- nope, the "other say" to read it requires making up rules. That isn't another way to read it, just a house rule. Just because there is disagreement doesn't mean there is a valid reason

I'm stuck with 1 blast equals one hit because aparantly, trying to make sense of it other wise makes me a fething game lawyering feth bag. I hate my community some times

Then use their own Rules against them, a network of the things only costs a few hundred points for 9 Shields and one can scratch build them. Let them see how terrible it is to play against an Army that will take three or four rounds of Plasma Cannon fire before they start being Wounded. Either they will take a closer look at the Rules for something to make it less over-powered, or they will be force to build armies dedicated to anti-tank tactics or containing expensive Class-D weapons. All to take out a single squad of boys....

Or maybe they'll just deep strike inside and blow the building away.

How, without landing on the group of boys that are scattered around the thing?

Also, what if you do not agree to use StrongHold assault?
Then the Shields can never be targeted and as they come with their own Datasheet usable in any 40k game....

By landing on it in a drop pod, if anything the boys will actually help the pod land.

Can void sjields be used without stronghold assault ?

With horde armies all cowering under the thing... the battlements are guaranteed to be filled with Models as well.

I think that a blast landing on 7 models and causing 7 void shield hits versus that exact same blast that lands on a single tank causes only 1 shield to go down is ludicrous.

A shield absorbs a hit. If there was some sort of rule in the game that when a blast is attempted to be absorbed in its entirety by a single target the blast did more damage (grenade exploding in a box as opposed to a grenade exploding out in a field nearby a box), I could see it. But the fact that the plasma cannon, that fires ones, scatters or lands within the shield radius, and somehow is BETTER at downing the shield when there's lots of gribblies and TERRIBLE at bringing down the shield when there is a tank seems ridiculous.

Sure, be a RAW stickler for it if you just can't handle a void shield being effective at all. But a plasma cannon that can only ever take down a single titan's void shield (because you can only hit the titan once with the blast) but can take down 9 void shields being projected (because it hit 9 models packed together) doesn't pass the stupid test. Just tell your opponent you don't want to play with stronghold assault, rather than letting them waste points on them and then laughing as you loophole the rules to uselessness.

Page 114 states that all Fortifications will have Datasheets containing the information needed to use them in the standard game, it is an official Warhammer 40k Fortification so it has permission to use any Datasheets that comes with it.

Yeah yeah, same with Escalation no?

If you don't want to play against something, you can just say "no, don't bring that".

I feel that way about escalation - I have titans and such but they're not fun in standard games. Same with all-knight armies, at least in my experience.

So if you don't like the model or the rules, tell your opponent not to bring it. Or tell them directly exactly the way you intend to interpret the rules to make sure it's completely useless.

I just can't fathom why someone would shoot a plasmacannon at a squad of guardsmen that are spread out so only one gets hit at a time versus a squad that's packed in and somehow say that the SHIELD is less effective at blocking hits for the packed squad than the spaced out squad.

Except that this is a Rule Debate Forum, so an argument based on 'you can simply choose not to play against an opponent' holds no weight what so ever. We all already know that we all have the ability to not play an opponent, and it might surprise you to learn that everyone here has a list of House Rules and concepts they will not play against, but that has no bearing to the Rule Debate at hand. Should you have a problem with how Blast Markers calculate their Hits, the requirement for Hits to be calculated before the Void Shield Projector Rule can Trigger or anything else then feel free to add your comments to the discussion at hand. All I respectfully ask is that you do so with actual Rule support, instead of a statement that basically translates to 'do it my way or choose not to play at all.'

As for ridiculous?
I personally find it ridiculous that, under certain interpretations, such a cheap Building can greatly reduce the effectiveness of Blast Markers against armies most threatened by them.
Changing the veritable between tests, in order to skewer the results, doesn't sway me that your argument is more correct.

Oooh, are we having this conversation again? I passed this thread up because I thought someone had just revived one of the old threads.

RAW: Blast marker hits ten guys, Void Shield takes ten his, period.

RAI: Blast marker hits ten guys, Void Shield sustains a single hit. Personal opinion, but I think it's pretty clear.

JinxDragon wrote:
With horde armies all cowering under the thing... the battlements are guaranteed to be filled with Models as well.

I would welcome a hoard army clustered tightly into a 24" area to the point where there is no room to drop a pod, particularly if your going to say my Vindicator/ Orbital Bombardment hits the void shield as many times as people uner the pie plate.

Uptopdownunder,
Indeed, clumping together has always been a very bad move for horde armies.
So why should a cheap fortification greatly reduce, if not eliminate, that threat to them?