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.

Pure RAW, toy can't roll to penetrate the AV of something that is not a vehicle (or like a building, explicitly treated as a vehicle). The rules for armor penetration all assume you've shot at a vehicle.

That being said, we have to extrapolate the intent of the author. In this case they likely intended us to treat resolve the armor penetration roll of a void shield by replacing "vehicle's armor value" with "void shield's armor value", To me this sets up a basic equivalency of void shields to vehicles and I see no reason that equivalence need not extend to special rules and other effects as well.

A void shield is not a vehicle nor building. It is either purchased as a building Upgrade or it is a Special Rule that comes with a building (VSG). Nowhere in either description is this Special Rule reference as a vehicle or building. When you assume those effects also affect the shields, you are adding your own context. That's called "ad-lib".

Fyi, 3 major GTs this year ruled against classifying Void shields as vehicles/buildings.

OK, so you agree a void shield cannot ever be pen'ed or glanced, as you have no permission to follow the Armour Penetration rules?

 Nyghoma wrote:
A void shield is not a vehicle nor building. It is either purchased as a building Upgrade or it is a Special Rule that comes with a building (VSG). Nowhere in either description is this Special Rule reference as a vehicle or building. When you assume those effects also affect the shields, you are adding your own context. That's called "ad-lib".

Fyi, 3 major GTs this year ruled against classifying Void shields as vehicles/buildings.

Really 3 GTs actually ruled a PVS can never be hurt by anything and you agree with this interpretation?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Nyghoma wrote:
A void shield is not a vehicle nor building. It is either purchased as a building Upgrade or it is a Special Rule that comes with a building (VSG). Nowhere in either description is this Special Rule reference as a vehicle or building. When you assume those effects also affect the shields, you are adding your own context. That's called "ad-lib".

Fyi, 3 major GTs this year ruled against classifying Void shields as vehicles/buildings.

Really 3 GTs actually ruled a PVS can never be hurt by anything and you agree with this interpretation?

Oh, it that your attempt at a bait? Is this where you tell me that if a Special Rule has an AV that it automatically qualifies as a vehicle?

When you can show me an entry that states "Armor values mechanics are strictly limited to vehicles and building for purposes of penetration", then I will concede to an obvious misinterpretation of the current rules.

You're misunderstanding the burden of proof

The current rules permit you to roll AP against Vehicles, and buildings that are treated as Vehicles.

As a VSG is not a vehicle, please show permission to roll armour penetration. you cannot reference the armour penetration rules to do so, as has been established

To whit: its a permissive system. Show your permission

Right, so this very quickly became a debate thread, which was not my intention at all as it's nigh impenetrable RAW.

How would y'all play it? Vehicle, non-vehicle, RAW, ITC house-ruling, other?

HIWPI is to treat it as a vehicle for purposes of SHOOTING, so that things like gauss, melta, armorbane, and the like would affect it.

Is this just me?

This may sound insane, but HIWPI is that if you have to treat armor values as vehicles to resolve the shooting, I would... Treat them as vehicles to resolve the shooting.
Crazy, eh?

-Matt

Yep. Artificially limiting it to say "well it's a vehicle for this but not for this" seems unsupportable.

 Nyghoma wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Nyghoma wrote:
A void shield is not a vehicle nor building. It is either purchased as a building Upgrade or it is a Special Rule that comes with a building (VSG). Nowhere in either description is this Special Rule reference as a vehicle or building. When you assume those effects also affect the shields, you are adding your own context. That's called "ad-lib".

Fyi, 3 major GTs this year ruled against classifying Void shields as vehicles/buildings.

Really 3 GTs actually ruled a PVS can never be hurt by anything and you agree with this interpretation?

Oh, it that your attempt at a bait? Is this where you tell me that if a Special Rule has an AV that it automatically qualifies as a vehicle?

When you can show me an entry that states "Armor values mechanics are strictly limited to vehicles and building for purposes of penetration", then I will concede to an obvious misinterpretation of the current rules.

Have you read the Armour Penetration rules? You roll a d6 add your strength and compare to the VEHICLES armour value. So yes those rules only work for vehicles. So either you treat the PVS as a vehicle (and thus is effected by tank hunters etc) or you don't and there are jo rules that can cause it ANY damage ever...

Man, I hope I don't catch flak for this. I usually play it as, Haywire works fine, but the original target is what dictates if you get tank hunter. If you're not shooting at a vehicle underneath, you don't get it.

Unseeablething wrote:
Man, I hope I don't catch flak for this. I usually play it as, Haywire works fine, but the original target is what dictates if you get tank hunter. If you're not shooting at a vehicle underneath, you don't get it.

This is fine as long as you make it clear to your opponents that you want to play by this houserule before the game and they agree.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Unseeablething wrote:
Man, I hope I don't catch flak for this. I usually play it as, Haywire works fine, but the original target is what dictates if you get tank hunter. If you're not shooting at a vehicle underneath, you don't get it.

This is fine as long as you make it clear to your opponents that you want to play by this houserule before the game and they agree.

Flingit, this is unnecessarily antagonistic. He already said it's how he plays it. At this point everyone is answering the HIWPI question. Badgering him about "as long as you admit that it's a houserule, blah, blah-blah", is not required. We get that you're unhappy that other people disagree with you about RAW, but this is no longer a RAW discussion - the OP has changed it to a HYWPI discussion. Please leave the badgering at the door and just discuss HYWPI.

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but the wording on Gauss has changed in the new codex. "An Armor Penetration roll of 6 that does not cause a penetrating hit automatically causes a Glancing hit, regardless of the Armour value"

It doesn't specify vehicles anywhere.

 NightHowler wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Unseeablething wrote:
Man, I hope I don't catch flak for this. I usually play it as, Haywire works fine, but the original target is what dictates if you get tank hunter. If you're not shooting at a vehicle underneath, you don't get it.

This is fine as long as you make it clear to your opponents that you want to play by this houserule before the game and they agree.

Flingit, this is unnecessarily antagonistic. He already said it's how he plays it. At this point everyone is answering the HIWPI question. Badgering him about "as long as you admit that it's a houserule, blah, blah-blah", is not required. We get that you're unhappy that other people disagree with you about RAW, but this is no longer a RAW discussion - the OP has changed it to a HYWPI discussion. Please leave the badgering at the door and just discuss HYWPI.

No badgering, he said he expected flak for his HYWPI but I was pointing out it is fine as long as you are open and honest about it with your opponents.

Lets not forget, this thread is not about the RAW. The original post asked us our opinions on what we feel the RAI would be. I don't think any one plays it in a way they personally don't think it was intended to work so every single answer to the original question is a HIWPI answer.

Since it was asked about HYWPI, IMO (and I know I will get flak for the inconsistency) is that you roll armour pen (as if it were a vehicle), however only things that say they affect Armour Pen rolls (such as Gauss), and makes no mention of vehicles an/or buildings would apply.

This is due to the fact that numerous abilities that affect vehicles were re-worded to apply to buildings as well. As such, if rolling penetration against buildings allowed special rules to work (when the special rule only mentioned vehicles), then there is no need to specify vehicles and buildings.

Page 110 of the rulebook already states that buildings are treated as transport vehicles with no movement. That should clarify any confusion between vehicles and buildings as well as non-vehicles.

I treat the voids as buildings also, just no tank hunter etc, i cant be bothered with the rule lawering and nitty picky stuff, just get on and play the bloody game.

Tank Hunter works on buildings. Page 110 in bold.

 arinnoor wrote:
I don't recall the wording of gauss of the top of my head, but seem to remember it not mentioning vehicles in it.

If it has an AV it's a vehicle for all intents and purposes. Anything that works against a vehicle works against it unless explicitly stated. If you tell people the rules are different as a way to win or because you want them to be different you're cheating. Now if two people agree to play differently that's great.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
Since it was asked about HYWPI, IMO (and I know I will get flak for the inconsistency) is that you roll armour pen (as if it were a vehicle), however only things that say they affect Armour Pen rolls (such as Gauss), and makes no mention of vehicles an/or buildings would apply.

This is due to the fact that numerous abilities that affect vehicles were re-worded to apply to buildings as well. As such, if rolling penetration against buildings allowed special rules to work (when the special rule only mentioned vehicles), then there is no need to specify vehicles and buildings.

Says buildings are treated as vehicles in the rules. There is absolutely no ambiguity about it. I agree



text removed.
No need for comments like this.
Reds8n

So the way we've been playing void shields is:

1) haywire, melta, gauss, ordnance/primary weapon etc. take effect
2) but no tank hunters

Seems to make sense to me, but might be at odds with what is emerging as a trend?

The big question in my mind is whether haywire/melta/gauss take effect.

Have there been any updates on how this might consistently be expected to play out?

Foul threadromancer begone!

Thread: I rebuke you, return to the depths of the forum from whence you came.

Seriously; I can appreciate your desire to add to the topic but this thread has been resting for 3 months and while you added a nice HIWPI, it doesn't really add anything new to the topic. Don't let all this discourage you from posting and commenting here on dakka just try to make sure you are on a current topic unless you have found either a new ruling that could be applied to the old topic or a bit of rules that were somehow overlooked in the original discussion. Even in those 2 cases it is often better to start a new topic if it has been more than a month since the last post.

Don't mind me, I am just cowering behind the Kommissar as he seems to know how to banish necro-threads....