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.

Note: This thread is How Would You Play It, NOT Rules as Written.

Found a couple threads on this, but none with numbers attached.

We all know how this processes according to the RAW.

A unit of ten guys is hit by a large blast, but are under the protection of a Void Shield.

How many times do you roll to pen on the Void Shield? Ten, or one?

10. Raw and hywpi

Same, It would involve too much mental twisting to justify within the rules why it only gets hit once to play it other than as written.

well...I voted 10 because you technically have 10 hits to resolve vs the shields, but you actually resolve them one at a time until either there is no shield or you run out of hits (whichever comes first)

I voted 10, and seeing as it was a How Would You Play it question I feel the need to justify more then just 'Rules as Written:'
Blast Markers are a Risk Factor that is too complicated and vital to the rest of the game to simple House Rule a way around.

Blast Weapons, particularly Large Blast Weapons, are designed with one clear intention: To be more devastating against groups then against sole targets. This intention brings a certain tactical Risk to the table, in particular it creates an obvious example of the good old question of 'sacrificing defense for greater offense,' that we should always be considering when it comes to the placement of our men. There is a reason the majority of blast weapons have low enough strengths to render them only effective against large groups of infantry for a reason, the writers clearly intended for explosions devastating the rank and files to be a big concern on the battlefield.

Blast Markers are it far too complicated a matter to simply House Rule away at the best of times.
Let alone to make a single inexpensive network become god-like protection for Armies where the Risk of Blast Markers are clearly a factor.

Personally, I see it as ten hits, but there's nothing that says you can resolve the hits at separate times.

So be it one hit or ten, I take it all as hitting the shield at once (which is how I see it occurring in my mind as well.)

Once, having more Orks behind the shield should not magically make your battle cannon shot do more damage to the shield.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Once, having more Orks behind the shield should not magically make your battle cannon shot do more damage to the shield.

I can sort of see it...because I imagine a blast weapon as peppering the shield from multiple points. But then, it should be a d3 or a d6 for blast hits...not fully dependent upon hitting a unit that it never got to.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
well...I voted 10 because you technically have 10 hits to resolve vs the shields, but you actually resolve them one at a time until either there is no shield or you run out of hits (whichever comes first)

This is why I voted "Other" as it's correct.

 ductvader wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Once, having more Orks behind the shield should not magically make your battle cannon shot do more damage to the shield.

I can sort of see it...because I imagine a blast weapon as peppering the shield from multiple points. But then, it should be a d3 or a d6 for blast hits...not fully dependent upon hitting a unit that it never got to.

Well, a lot of blast weapons are like battle cannon shells, single shots that explode to create the blast, though some are like stinger salvos, a spray of weapons. Even then, should the number of models behind the shield affect how much damage the salvo does to the shield?

10.

Thematically i see it as the Blast taking out the shield and continuing on to the Models behind(as is RAW); similar to a few scenes in Star Trek

A picture from a third party is 'Rule as Written' support now?

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.


Besides, the game is already in a stupid idiotic state because of D weapons, there is simply no reason to try to crazily attempt to make them even more potent...they're plenty potent enough even only taking down a single field/shield at a time.

Stormbreed wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
10. Raw and hywpi

Not RAW, and not how you should play it.

Here is RAW proof how shields work.



If you want to ask more questions, let me know.

That is a screen grab from a TV show and has absolutely nothing to do with Void Shields or the rules for 40k. Stop trying to claim it is "proof" of anything.

Hey guys, leave it be. This is not a thread to argue the rules, just state your opinions (and vote).

If some guy wants to believe that a TV show counts as RAW, he's entitled to his opinion in this case.

Or in other words, don't feed the troll.

As based on Memphis GW staff discussion it had been intended to be played as a single hit on the Void sheild, HWYPI is this way, but by RAW it does read as 10 hits.

Raw: 10 hits

HWYPI: 1 hit

 nutty_nutter wrote:
well...I voted 10 because you technically have 10 hits to resolve vs the shields, but you actually resolve them one at a time until either there is no shield or you run out of hits (whichever comes first)

This is my vote

Personally, I'd prefer it worked that one blast/template equals a single hit.

TV shows aside, consider this. A full squad of Guardsman behind a Void shield gets hit with a Battle Cannon. Odds are very high that the shield will go down very quickly and do huge damage to the squad. But if the squad is reduced to a single guardsman, suddenly it becomes literally impossible for the same blast to penetrate the shield and still injure him.

I understand that some people are reluctant to countermand the rules as written, but this is a clear case where the RAI not only clearly goes against the RAW, but the RAW doesn't even make any sense.

The hit/hits all go to the shield/shields till they down.


Looking at it from a balance perspective, I personally would change it so that if a large blast hits a unit under a void shield it would inflict either a d6 or half the models acctually hit to the shield. And for a small blast would be a D3 or half, whichever is greater.

Makes the most sense. But that is just a house rule.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Looking at it from a balance perspective, I personally would change it so that if a large blast hits a unit under a void shield it would inflict either a d6 or half the models acctually hit to the shield. And for a small blast would be a D3 or half, whichever is greater.

Makes the most sense....

Really? Sounds needlessly complicated, to be honest.

I'm with Yakface on this one. Regardless of how the RAW may appear to read (and I would question the hardline RAW interpretation on this one, frankly) it's leading to a nonsensical situation. One roll against the shield makes far more sense.

Oh its definately not a time saver, but i think its the most balanced way to do it.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Once, having more Orks behind the shield should not magically make your battle cannon shot do more damage to the shield.

Yep. Reminds me of barrage sniping - RAW are clear, but it makes no sense thematically. Void shields should only get hit once for every shot fired, not for every hit scored. What makes sense is for the void shield to take one hit if the blast marker scatters within it.

Once, because this is just another example of RAW stupidity.

Once is way OP, 10 times is nonsensical. I agree that is should be D6 hits, but since that's not an option I voted 10, because:
There are a TON of nonsensical rules in 40k. Nothing makes sense if you really stop and think about it. Whining that one rule doesn't make sense when it's surrounded by a sea of other, equally nonsensical rules just seems silly to me.

Even the way people *move* in the 40k universe doesn't really make sense. Overwatch doesn't make sense. Look Out Sir! Really doesn't make sense. Armor and Cover not stacking doesn't make sense. Really, complaining about one element because it doesn't make sense just...
Doesn't make sense.

Waaaghpower wrote:
Once is way OP, 10 times is nonsensical. I agree that is should be D6 hits, but since that's not an option I voted 10, because:
There are a TON of nonsensical rules in 40k. Nothing makes sense if you really stop and think about it. Whining that one rule doesn't make sense when it's surrounded by a sea of other, equally nonsensical rules just seems silly to me.

Even the way people *move* in the 40k universe doesn't really make sense. Overwatch doesn't make sense. Look Out Sir! Really doesn't make sense. Armor and Cover not stacking doesn't make sense. Really, complaining about one element because it doesn't make sense just...
Doesn't make sense.

I voted 10 for this reason.

I see it as 1 as I do not agree that the RAW says 10.

Waaaaaghpower,
That is the problem with abstract systems but they are needed for Rules because they are far easier to write, learn and play by. I would love for the system to make sense in all situations but we are not going to see it happen without rule books as thick law books and years of 'warhammer.edu' to understand when clause 123.3 subsection A is being applied and when it is not. All we can do is let the Rule writers worry about concepts like 'Game Balance' and 'Rule Interaction' hope they don't screw up too badly.

Sadly, this is Game Workshop we are dealing with here and they are far to easy a target for ridicule....

Instead means hits the av12 target once INSTEAD of the unit. Instead is fairly clear.

 Mythra wrote:
Instead means hits the av12 target once INSTEAD of the unit. Instead is fairly clear.

I would ask that you re-read the entire sentence structure of how the projected void shield works, and while on that page, ask yourself how exactly hits are generated.

just because the RAW doesn't make sense to you on how a 50point item operates does not mean that the RAW is incorrect, your infusing your personal envisionment in what a shield is onto a rule that cannot possibly operate as such.

a blast marker/template/beam weapon replaces the normal operations for rolling to hit, nothing else, nothing more, nothing less, the act of placing a template and scattering then counting up the number of model underneath the template is no different that rolling to hit with a non blast/template/beam weapon.

once you have your number of hits the projected rule kicks in and says you resolve these hits (not the exact wording, but it is what it says in layman's terms) against the shield instead.

you have to do it in this order as the void projection rules do not replace the target unit, do not occur in the rolling to hit aspect of the shooting rules and you have no permission to re-asses the number of hits you have scored.

as the blast rules themselves dictate, one shot does not always = one hit, otherwise how would a single shot ever cause more than one wound? you don't suddenly have only ever a single hit on a non-shielded unit, the shield does it's job for the 50pt price tag, it reduces the incoming damage from shots by a minimum of one.