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.

GW`s screw up on these rules is in that final statement;

"[...] A glancing or penetrating hit (or any hit from a Destroyer weapon) scored against a projected void shield causes it to collapse. If all the projected void shields have collapsed, further hits strike the original target instead"

The "further hits" part should have been "further shooting attacks."

So yeah I can see were the voidshield is weaksauce when its covering a big blob of infantry as compared to a tank or two...I guess according to GW the arty shells know when to not airburst or something /rolleyes.

JinxDragon wrote:
Angelic,
When the Void Shield Projection Special Rule 'collapses' there could still be a number of successful Hits waiting be resolved against it, as this special Rule requires sequential Resolution for conflict free results. These hit's do not just vanish into the either simply because the shield did, they still need to be resolved against the Special Rule that changed the normal sequence of events. That Special Rule informs us that any further hit's that are waiting to be resolved are instead directed back to the original target. This is why the word Further is grammatically correct, though the word Remaining would of been more clear to the concept. Should this be wrong then the sentence informing us that keeping track of the original target is important would be pointless.

You are adding language that is not present in order to support your argument that "further" is grammatically correct. That makes your argument completely fallacious. Telling someone what to do in the event that all shields are down isn't pointless. It explains what the effect of a collapsed shield is. One could assume that everyone reading the rules would make a reasonable assumption as to what that effect would be, but isn't that what gets most people to post in YMDC?

It's a horribly written rule. Right up there with the Sky Shield Landing Pad. Until GW addresses these issues, there doesn't really seem to be a correct way. HIWPI, determine number of hits per the unit, apply them to a single shield generator and collapse as many layers as you have glances/pens/D-hits, excess are lost. That way 3 units could take down all of the shields on the table, blasts still have an effect, but don't make them worthless.

Actually I am not adding any language at all, but I am doing some creative application of rules to say the least. It is one of the things I have come custom to doing in Rule as Written debates, when trying to figure out how these badly written rules can work to their clear intention without modifying the rule in any way. Recently I have fallen in love with Page 9 as it does provide a way to resolve a lot of these issues, by forcing us to resolve rules sequentially even when they 'occur at the same time.' By resolving rules sequentially we eliminate quite a few conflicts that occur when two things trigger at the same time, for example conflicts that can occur when multiple 'Hits' trigger the Void Shield Projection Special Rule at the same time.

Angelic wrote:
Telling someone what to do in the event that all shields are down isn't pointless. It explains what the effect of a collapsed shield is.

It is pointless because if you discard any unresolved hits once the shield is down then the "strike the original target" part of the sentence has no meaning. The only way, in that situation, for further hits to happen is for the hits to come from a new unit's shooting attacks, and the original target of the hits that collapsed the void shield would be irrelevant. The only way that the sentence makes any sense is if you resolve hits one at a time until the shields are gone, creating a pool of "further hits" to apply to the original target of those hits.

I think it comes down to how to read the word "attack" in the rule. If attack means hit then Therion is indeed correct. However I would personally lean the other way and say that attack means shot. 1 vindicator shot might well be capable of killing 10 guardsmen, but its still just one "attack", and is transferred to the void shield as one attack (which we are told hits the void shield, so any template business is needless). Ie. I agree with BlackTalos.

That's how I would read it, although I can see the other side.

In terms of how the rules were intended (leaving aside writing) I think it is pretty clear that a blast is only supposed to hit the shield once (or maybe once per unit in the blast), certainly not once per model.

Dast wrote:
which we are told hits the void shield, so any template business is needless

So then how do you determine if the shot hits or misses? How far can it scatter before it misses the void shield entirely? Or do you invent an entirely new method for determining whether or not a target is hit by a blast weapon?

You roll blast as normal and if it hits the unit it instead hits the void shield and you apply against the AV 12 shield. INSTEAD yet again being the key word.

 Mythra wrote:
You roll blast as normal and if it hits the unit it instead hits the void shield and you apply against the AV 12 shield. INSTEAD yet again being the key word.

Except there is no binary "did you hit or not" with blast weapons against normal units. You inflict one hit per model under the blast template. The void shield rules then move those hits to the AV 12 shield, resolving them one at a time until the shield is gone, and then back to the original unit if/when no void shields remain.

 Mythra wrote:
It instead hits the void shield. How can it be clearer. Definition "Instead 1. In the place of something previously mentioned; as a substitute." What does instead mean to you? in its stead.

It gives a clear AV 12 to resolve it against. I think people just dislike void shields and want them weaker. Instead means in place of. You all keep wanting to add an "and" to the wording to hit the shield AND the target below it.

I think they are only worth it in some cases they are awfully expensive for what they do. 340pts min if you want 9 shields. Deep strikers or anything gets with 12 totally negates them too.


Think of it like a transport AV 12 you don't hit the transport and units inside w/ a blast. Does that make blast any weaker vs transports? They give an armor value 12 to hit INSTEAD of the unit. Same as a transport. Except even glancing hits kill a shield.

So how many hits does a blast marker do? What models have you counted to get that number? Where do you pace the blast marker?

 Mythra wrote:
You roll blast as normal and if it hits the unit it instead hits the void shield and you apply against the AV 12 shield. INSTEAD yet again being the key word.

Again, you determine hits on a unit first, then they are intercepted, instead.

You are applying the rule before you determine the number of hits, without a rule letting you do so.

"You determine hits on a unit first, then they are intercepted, instead."

Intercepted -obstruct (someone or something) so as to prevent them from continuing to a destination.

Adding that instead at the end makes no grammatical sense. Take it to any English teacher and they'll scratch their head. How can it be instead if it hit both? I think it fairly clear here get any 3rd party to read that sentence and they'll tell you it makes no sense.

"Except there is no binary "did you hit or not" with blast weapons against normal units. You inflict one hit per model under the blast template. The void shield rules then move those hits to the AV 12 shield, resolving them one at a time until the shield is gone, and then back to the original unit if/when no void shields remain."

Again that isn't instead that is an and you keep want to use. The shields special rule says if the unit is hit INSTEAD hit the shield. There is no and. Again ask a 3rd party. to read it and ask if instead can include what you instead out. It never does in English.

I will give $50 instead of the bike. So when the $50 is gone you come take the bike? Instead removes the original from the equation. It means literally to swap out.

 Mythra wrote:
The shields special rule says if the unit is hit INSTEAD hit the shield.

Yes, but you don't know how many hits you've generated until you count the models under the template. That is the only way to generate hits with a blast weapon, unless you invent your own rules where you do something else to figure out whether the blast hits an imaginary shield.

Instead removes the original from the equation. It means literally to swap out.

Exactly. Count the models under the template to see how many hits you get, then move them to the void shield. Once the void shield is gone the void shield rules move any remaining hits back to the original target that generated them.

Mythra again I ask you how many hits go onto the shield then. Or in other words many models are under the template in your interpretation. How are you counting these models? Where is your rulers support for these answers?

The template in everyone else's interpretation hits a number of times equal to models in the unit(s) under it these hits instead hit the shield not the units. I really don't see how you think this works at all because from what you've stated you can never actually hit the shield.

You don't hit any models if you hit a unit you instead hit an AV 12 shield no need to count anything.

Dast wrote:
I think it comes down to how to read the word "attack" in the rule. If attack means hit then Therion is indeed correct. However I would personally lean the other way and say that attack means shot. 1 vindicator shot might well be capable of killing 10 guardsmen, but its still just one "attack", and is transferred to the void shield as one attack (which we are told hits the void shield, so any template business is needless). Ie. I agree with BlackTalos.

That's how I would read it, although I can see the other side.

In terms of how the rules were intended (leaving aside writing) I think it is pretty clear that a blast is only supposed to hit the shield once (or maybe once per unit in the blast), certainly not once per model.

That is probably the best explanation of it i can see, and the way RAW is to be interpreted. If they had intended anything else, the Rule would read:
"Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead transfers hits to the projected void shield." or
"Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and scores hits on a target within the Void Shield Zone instead transfers hits the projected void shield."

I don't really know how, but it would tell you to use the Hits you have calculated?

The RAW is clearly transferring the *Shooting Attack* to the shield. Does a Vindicator shoot a Heavy 10? The example above of considering it like a transport is false but gives a good representation. Any Template weapon will generate 1 hit per template.

And for all of those that keep arguing "how to you count the hit with the template?" the Rule tells you you have Hit!: The attack "(...) hits the projected void shield." It counts that 1 hit for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes, but you don't know how many hits you've generated until you count the models under the template. That is the only way to generate hits with a blast weapon, unless you invent your own rules where you do something else to figure out whether the blast hits an imaginary shield.
Exactly. Count the models under the template to see how many hits you get, then move them to the void shield. Once the void shield is gone the void shield rules move any remaining hits back to the original target that generated them.

That is completely right: per RAW - You count 25 Hits from your template: Your Shooting attack has Hit! Hurrah!
- Now the Special Rule comes in: INSTEAD Hit the shield with whatever *shooting attack* that was. Not transfer hits or apply special rule to the Hits. Transfer the *shooting attack*
- Shooting attack was from the Vindicator: 1 Blast hits the Shield AV 12. The rule has told you the blast template hit the shield: Resolve the S10 Ap1 Shot against the shield.

It's really as simple as: either the template Hits, or it doesn't. If it does hit, whether 1, 3 or 50 models, if they are in the shield, the attack, the 1 Template Blast shot gets resolved on the shield.

Any Template weapon will generate 1 hit per template.

Sorry but why? If the template transfers to the shield it covers NO models and therefore causes NO hits on the shield.

"If the template transfers to the shield it covers NO models and therefore causes NO hits on the shield."

Either way a blast that hits nothing is not transferred to the shield so I don't say what you are saying here?

Unless your saying transferring to the shield loses the hit? That is why they tell you to resolve the hit vs an AV 12. They had that covered. They gave you a mechanic.

 Mythra wrote:
"If the template transfers to the shield it covers NO models and therefore causes NO hits on the shield."

Either way a blast that hits nothing is not transferred to the shield so I don't say what you are saying here?

Unless your saying transferring to the shield loses the hit? That is why they tell you to resolve the hit vs an AV 12. They had that covered. They gave you a mechanic.

How do you determine if a blast hits?
You place it, and count how many models are underneath.
If you transfer the template, then there's nothing underneath so no hits are scored.
If you work out hits, then transfer those hits, then multiple hits will be score don't the shield.

To say that a blast/template will generate one hit per blast/template on the shield follows no rule at all. It is entirely made up.

Either way a blast that hits nothing is not transferred to the shield so I don't say what you are saying here?

Unless your saying transferring to the shield loses the hit? That is why they tell you to resolve the hit vs an AV 12. They had that covered. They gave you a mechanic.

What hit are you transfering to the shield if you're saying to transfer before determining how many hits the attack causes. How many hits do you cause to the shield from the blast marker. Answer the question. If your answer is 1, what model is under the template that you have counted?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Either way a blast that hits nothing is not transferred to the shield so I don't say what you are saying here?

Unless your saying transferring to the shield loses the hit? That is why they tell you to resolve the hit vs an AV 12. They had that covered. They gave you a mechanic.

What hit are you transfering to the shield if you're saying to transfer before determining how many hits the attack causes. How many hits do you cause to the shield from the blast marker. Answer the question. If your answer is 1, what model is under the template that you have counted?

It is simple again: we are NOT transferring Hits. The Special Rule makes the template Hit. It tells you so. (Hope i don't need to quote again)
What happens when that dice Rolls "HIT" for a template? The Hit is assigned to the void shield. AV12 "vehicle" if you want...But you can't explain things with examples, we have to follow RAW here.

Raw says that whichever weapon you have shot scores a hit on the shield. That step where you place the template and count hits does not happen. The Special Rule does it for you, you only go to the Wounding/Penetration stage.
Why are you asking about hits?

We absolutely are transfering Hits, that is exactly what the rule says.

RAW says every hit on the unit transfers to the Shield; I posted it up last page.

It is simple again: we are NOT transferring Hits. The Special Rule makes the template Hit. It tells you so. (Hope i don't need to quote again)
What happens when that dice Rolls "HIT" for a template? The Hit is assigned to the void shield. AV12 "vehicle" if you want...But you can't explain things with examples, we have to follow RAW here.

I'll ask one more time if you refuse to answer again I'll take that as you conceding.

How many hits does the blast marker cause on the shield? What model(s) have you counted to reach that number?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

That step where you place the template and count hits does not happen.

Then the blast marker causes no hits. Counting the models under the blast marker is the ONLY way a blast marker causes hits. In your interpretation the shields are immune to all blast and template weapons.

 Mythra wrote:
You don't hit any models if you hit a unit you instead hit an AV 12 shield no need to count anything.

So you just flat out ignore the blast rules then?
Cool story

How can this argument go on any further when there are two very different rules/sentences in the digital and the hardback which are both equally valid that create enough ambiguity to prove both arguments right?

Lets look at the two rules in question.

The building upgrade says "Whilst a building has a void shield, any hits scored by shooting attacks against the building, models embarked within it or upon its battlements will instead hit the void shield. A void shield has an Armour Value of 12."

The generator on the other hand says "Each projected void shield has a 12"area of effect (measured from any point on the Void Shield Generator building), known as a Void Shield Zone. Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield."

Both say attacks hitting units/models/buildings/etc in their area of protection, hit the Void Shield instead. If it had claimed that the attacks are resolved against the Void Shield first, that would be different. But they say' instead' meaning they take the place of. If a unit of guard takes 9 hits from a blast while under a void shield the blast then instead hits the void shield. A blast can only generate 1 hit per model and since the guard are no longer being hit since the void shield is up the shield only takes one hit since it is the only thing being hit.

S.K.Ren,
Such an interpenetration still encounters a big problem:
If the hit itself is to be calculated against the shield then the answer will always be zero as Special Rules are not models.

I could formulate some arguments that would better support the idea of the "Hit Results" being reduced to one but they would be long shots at the very best and fall apart in the face of any "time-line" counter. While I could gain some grounds under the fundamental of 'Special Rules break normal sequences anyway,' nothing I can fathom can get around this one little factor: In order to evoke this rule the Hit's must already be generated. Even those more skilled in debate then myself would have difficulty proving that we still have permission to evoke a Special Rule after undoing the event which triggered the Special Rule.

That is the biggest problem with the argument that the Special Rule grants the ability to 'hit a non-model:'
If it does grant this ability it is already too late to use it.

f a unit of guard takes 9 hits from a blast while under a void shield the blast then instead hits the void shield. A blast can only generate 1 hit per model and since the guard are no longer being hit since the void shield is up the shield only takes one hit since it is the only thing being hit

But the void shield is not a model. So if you interpret it this way then NO hits are on the Void Shield. Blast Markers only generate hits from counting the models beneath them. So if you're not counting those 9 guardsmen there is literally nothing to count.

 S.K.Ren wrote:
A blast can only generate 1 hit per model

A void shield is not a model.

You're right! In fact you can't even see it! So normal shooting attacks can't even hit it since you can't shoot something you can't see! [/sarcasm]

The rule clearly says it takes the hit. It doesn't matter if it has no model, it is an AV12 entity that takes the hit in place of anything within it's area of protection. It is still singular and thus only takes one hit from a blast template.

Event 1: Blast hits X models under Void Shield
Event 2: Void Shield takes hit(s) instead for everything underneath; Original unit is no longer being hit
Event 3: Void Shield rule states that it is hit by the attack. Doesn't matter if its a blast at this point, it generates a hit despite not having a model to hit.
Event 4: Resolve the hit.

 S.K.Ren wrote:
The rule clearly says it takes the hit.

Yes, it takes the hit. And then it takes the next hit, and so on until all hits scored by the blast have been moved to the void shield.