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.

It's not a building or vehicle so it's pretty silly to argue it is.
However the void shield generator is not the only void shield in the game. Several apoc units have void shields. Such as big Mek stompas. When I get home I will look up how they word those shields.

But you would think the intentions are that the mechanics of a gauss weapon has a chance to damage a physical object which is why it is able to damage vehicles and buildings and is unable to damage a force field/void shield which is entirely an energy based armour.

 Happyjew wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
OK about Strafing Run. Armourbane mentions "In either case, this special rule has no effect against non-vehicle models." So PVS not being a vehicle does prohibit rerolling the penetrration roll against its AV.

Is the PVS a model? No, therefore it cannot be a non-vehicle model.

Which means it only affects vehicle models. Which means it does nothing.

Hollismason wrote:
Gonna have to explain to me how I can nominate a unit behind a void shiel generator and shoot it with gauss but not get to roll armour penetration with the weapons because the Void Shield Generator shields are not vehicles and not buildings and are in fact in a mythical land of purgatory.

It's an energy shield.
Also there are several versions of this in the apoc book as well on things such as big Mek stompas.

Here is a funny thing. If you start arguing that void shields are actually a vehicle then I guess I'm going to be placing a bunch of 15 point Meks on top of the void shield generator and repairing those shields indefinitely. Giving myself permanent void shields.

Fair enough. Armourbane is out, no cover saves is in.

I find it funny that no-one has as of yet quoted the whole rules for actually rolling armour penetration. Here they are, in full:

Hitting a vehicle is no guarantee that you will actually damage it. Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapons Strength, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.

If the total is less than the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot has no effect.

If the total is equal to the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.

If the total is greater than the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating hit.

Now, here's the bits which allow buildings to be attacked:

BUILDING ARMOUR VALUES
All buildings have an Armour Value listed on their terrain datasheet. If only a single Armour Value is listed, then it is used against all attacks, no matter which facing is hit.

ATTACKING BUILDINGS
When determining if a building can be targeted by a shooting attack or psychic power, charged and fought against in combat, or affected by a special rule, treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise. When attacking a building, roll To Hit and for armour penetration as if it were a vehicle.

So far so good? Cool. Now here's the gauss wording again:

Against vehicles and buildings an Armour Penetration roll of a 6 that does not cause a penetrating hit automatically causes a glancing hit.

Well, let's take a look at the VSG rules then:

Each projected void shield has an Armour Value of 12. 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. At the end of each of the controlling player’s turns, roll a dice for each projected void shield that has collapsed; each roll of 5+ instantly restores one shield.

Hmm, okay, let's see. No hull points, and the rulebook is quite clear that EVERY vehicle has hull points. Therefore, not a vehicle. Does it count as a building? Well, it doesn't explicitly say so, so let's suppose it is a special unique thing called a void shield. Cool So far so good.

Now, let's fire a krak missile at an Ork Boy protected by the void shield bubble. Seems simple enough, right? So, we roll to hit, and suppose we get one. Cool. Right, now let's roll to get through AV12.

Oh. Hang on. How do we actually do that? See, it's not a vehicle, so we don't have any rules to resolve this hit. I mean, it's not a vehicle, right? So, where's our permission to use weapon strength+D6? That's only for hits against vehicles. We're assuming it's not a building, so we can't supplant those rules to let us roll as though it's a vehicle either. Well, let's just ignore that. Okay. Compare facing? Right, well it says it's AV12, but that's not a facing. What facing am I firing at, exactly? It's not a vehicle, right, and it's not a building so I can't use the rule to supplant a single AV for all facings. Okay, so we can neither roll to penetrate nor actually determine what we've hit. Let's just bumble past that too. Let's just pretend we can roll anyway. Right, now, what's a glancing hit? I mean, we aren't using vehicle rules, so we can't use total greater than armour value - that's explicitly in the case that it's a vehicle. We can't use the building rules because, as we said earlier, it's no building. So, we have no idea what the concept of a glancing hit is.

So, if it's neither a vehicle nor building, we can't use the rules for armour penetration as we have:
-no way to roll for penetration
-no way to determine facing, nor a circumventing method as provided on buildings
-no concept of a glancing or penetrating hit


But not all is lost to the mighty void shield! You can still break it with a destroyer hit! Amazing!

But suppose then that at any point you decide this is ridiculous. Well, then you must at some point acknowledge that we are treating the void shield generator as either a vehicle or building, because you need to do so in order to resolve any damage whatsoever from non-Str D weaponry. You can't even begin to resolve damage. If you do that, say, to actually determine what on earth a "roll to penetrate" actually is, then gauss works normally. If you do not, you have no permission to do squat.


So, you have 2 RAW outcomes here:
1) It's neither a vehicle nor building nor model. As such, it follows its own special rules and, as those don't stipulate how to glance or penetrate and the current rules only define that for vehicles and buildings, you may only collapse void shields with Str D weaponry.
2) It's a shield projected from a building and has a single defined armour value. The only things which can do this in the rules are buildings, therefore a void shield counts as a building for the purposes of resolving damage. Therefore gauss works against it.

Pick your poison. Probably the silliest thing on YMDC since the person who tried to argue that 1 Spyder=3 Spyders.

Okay, so let's go with that. Once I've rolled my AP against a void shield, and I get a penetrating hit, do I now roll on the Vehicle Damage Chart? I fired a multi-melta, and rolled a 5+2. Does the Void Shield explode, damaging the model?

Treated as a vehicle and is a vehicle are not the same thing. Yes, you treat the PVS as a vehicle for the sake of AP, because that's where the rules for AP and AV are, but that does not mean that it is a vehicle. Gauss states it work against vehicles and buildings, not models that are treated as vehicles and buildings.

Void shields and power shields both of which are all over apoc units not just in the void shield generator are neither vehicles or buildings.

Arguing they are vehicles or buildings opens up a whole slew of other issues. Such as giving void shields cover saves or invulnerable saves. Allowing repair rolls. There are weapons that automatically stun or cause shaken results on buildings and vehicles, Etc.

None of this is intended and you breaking the game even more once you decide a void shield is considered a separate building or vehicle.

gungo wrote:
Void shields and power shields both of which are all over apoc units not just in the void shield generator are neither vehicles or buildings.

Arguing they are vehicles or buildings opens up a whole slew of other issues. Such as giving void shields cover saves or invulnerable saves. Allowing repair rolls, etc.

None of this is intended and you break the game even more once you decide a void shield is a separate building or vehicle.

Now I've got this image in my head of a Big Mek nailing some scrap metal into the force field. Although, with orks that might make sense.

AnFéasógMór wrote:Okay, so let's go with that. Once I've rolled my AP against a void shield, and I get a penetrating hit, do I now roll on the Vehicle Damage Chart? I fired a multi-melta, and rolled a 5+2. Does the Void Shield explode, damaging the model?

Treated as a vehicle and is a vehicle are not the same thing. Yes, you treat the PVS as a vehicle for the sake of AP, because that's where the rules for AP and AV are, but that does not mean that it is a vehicle. Gauss states it work against vehicles and buildings, not models that are treated as vehicles and buildings.

Do you roll on the vehicle damage chart for buildings? Do you understand the difference between "treated as a vehicle because the rules say to" (a la buildings), "an actual vehicle" and "undefined thing with armour value"? You can't roll to penetrate. Ever. You have absolutely no permission to. Read the exact words:
Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapons Strength
Are you firing at a vehicle? No? Then where are you getting permission to treat it as a vehicle for armour penetration. You have no explicit allowance to, unlike buildings, because you have defined it as some mythical thing outside the rules. If you are rolling for it as though it were a vehicle, then where exactly is gauss failing?

Further, there's this:
comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.
Are you firing at a vehicle? No? Do you have allowance to use a single AV for all facings? No? Then where is the permission to proceed? There is none - these rules are for vehicles and things treated partially as vehicles (like buildings) only. If it's neither treated as a vehicle nor building for armour penetration (because if it was there's no reason gauss wouldn't glance) then how are you resolving this?

Plus this:
If the total is equal to the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.
It's not a vehicle. It's not using the vehicle rules. If it were, there'd be no issue with gauss as, again, you'd be firing at something treated as either a building or a vehicle. So, what on earth defines a "glancing hit" against a void shield?

The entire line of logic you're using to cherry pick the rules allowing you to roll to penetrate also must allow gauss to do the same, or else you can never roll. The interpretation is nonsensical at best.

gungo wrote:Void shields and power shields both of which are all over apoc units not just in the void shield generator are neither vehicles or buildings.

Arguing they are vehicles or buildings opens up a whole slew of other issues. Such as giving void shields cover saves or invulnerable saves. Allowing repair rolls. There are weapons that automatically stun or cause shaken results on buildings and vehicles, Etc.

None of this is intended and you breaking the game even more once you decide a void shield is considered a separate building or vehicle.

No, you're not. You have explicit rules for the void shield as to how to resolve damage. What you don't have is the rules allowing you to ever actually resolve damage without supplanting text which also allows gauss to function. Either it all works, or none of it. And, frankly, I would consider things like granting a shield cover or repairability much less game breaking than never, ever being able to actually resolve damage, assign facing or define meaning to the words literally being used in the VSG rules, aka glancing/penetrating hits.

AnFéasógMór wrote:


Now I've got this image in my head of a Big Mek nailing some scrap metal into the force field. Although, with orks that might make sense.

Nah, the Big Mek would nail a void shield to a void shield and say "Hey dawg, I heard you like void shields. That's why I put a void shield on your void shield so you can void shield while you void shield!"

Like I said before I will look through the apoc book and see what's the wording on the power shields and void shields those units have.

But no one is saying it's broken or impossible to hit a void shield except you. What they are saying is there are other unit types other then vehicles or buildings that can have an armour value.

You are jumping to the conclusion that the void shield is a building or vehicle without any justification.

We are jumping to the conclusion that the void/power shield is another type of unit that uses the same amour penetration rules as a vehicle just like the building type states. This is again without justification.

The reason I go with conclusion number two is because you end up breaking the game with much more unintended consequences and rules abuse when you classify a void shield as a building or vehicle.

The sad part is you are so unsure about your own conclusion that you are completely unable to make a decision on the classification of a void shield as either building or vehicle. Because no where does it state a void shield is either.

 Happyjew wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
OK about Strafing Run. Armourbane mentions "In either case, this special rule has no effect against non-vehicle models." So PVS not being a vehicle does prohibit rerolling the penetrration roll against its AV.

Is the PVS a model? No, therefore it cannot be a non-vehicle model.

I tend to agree with this. The PVS is no more a non-vehicle model than it is a vehicle model. It is a special rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SirDonlad wrote:
kriswall is right (as per usual) and he is probably the finest rules-lawyer on the forum.
if you cant handle what he has to say then you should really put it in an e-mail to GW rather than railing about it to him.

sorry, but there it is.

I also tend to agree with this!

gungo wrote:
Like I said before I will look through the apoc book and see what's the wording on the power shields and void shields those units have.

But no one is saying it's broken or impossible to hit a void shield except you.

I'm not saying you can't hit it, I said you have no permission to ever resolve damage. It's frankly irrelevant what other people are saying if you can't refute what I've just said.

What they are saying is there are other unit types other then vehicles or buildings that can have an armour value.

Name a single one then.

You are jumping to the conclusion that the void shield is a building or vehicle without any justification.

No, I'm using the justification of "the void shield generator rules are completely useless, so you need to treat it as one of the two to actually be able to resolve damage, which is clearly intended". Seems pretty valid to me.

We are jumping to the conclusion that the void/power shield is another type of unit that uses the same amour penetration rules as a vehicle just like the building type states. This is again without justification.

Okay, fine - why? I mean, why allow this and not gauss? It makes no sense to do so, it's just cherry picking rules.

The reason I go with conclusion number two is because you end up breaking the game with much more unintended consequences and rules abuse when you classify a void shield as a building or vehicle.

Name literally one single thing more broken than an almost invincible shield. Conclusion number 2 allows you to use gauss - are you allowing gauss to work against void shields then? If so, why are you even debating this point?

The sad part is you are so unsure about your own conclusion that you are completely unable to make a decision on the classification of a void shield as either building or vehicle. Because no where does it state a void shield is either.

Please show me where I actually made a conclusion. I'd love to see it, because I can't actually read the invisible text on the imaginary page. I gave 2 scenarios, both of which are asinine, because the rules are broken. You can call it sad all you want, but without actually saying why you either are allowed to exactly cherry pick and deny gauss, or why you're allowing armour penetration rolls, it's somewhat of a worthless statement.

Your claiming its invincible its not
We are claiming void shields and power shields use the vehicle armour penetration rules but that does not make it a vehicle.

You can't even make a distinction as to what unit type it is. Because it can't have a type because no model exists. Instead you keep claiming its both a vehcile and building but you have no justification for your premise other then is has an armour value. However even though all vehicles have an armour value everything that has an armour value is not a vehicle.

Void shields and power shields are not vehicles, tanks, flyers, buildings, structures or even a model. It is a special save that USES the armour penetration rules listed in the vehicle section.

Nothing else about vehicles pertains to void or power shields even the results of a glance or penetration do not. It has its own separate rules for resolving those. You can not control contest kill or use any other rule for vehicles or buildings on a void shield save.

This seems like a null and void argument, just because something uses a portion of the vehicle rules does not make it a vehicle... gauss affects vehicles, the void shield is a void shield, not a vehicle. It's a unique thing in the 40K universe that kind of stands alone.

Is it a vehicle? clearly no, therefore Gauss does not affect it.

Eyjio wrote:
I find it funny that no-one has as of yet quoted the whole rules for actually rolling armour penetration. Here they are, in full:

Hitting a vehicle is no guarantee that you will actually damage it. Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapons Strength, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.

If the total is less than the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot has no effect.

If the total is equal to the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.

If the total is greater than the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating hit.

Now, here's the bits which allow buildings to be attacked:

BUILDING ARMOUR VALUES
All buildings have an Armour Value listed on their terrain datasheet. If only a single Armour Value is listed, then it is used against all attacks, no matter which facing is hit.

ATTACKING BUILDINGS
When determining if a building can be targeted by a shooting attack or psychic power, charged and fought against in combat, or affected by a special rule, treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise. When attacking a building, roll To Hit and for armour penetration as if it were a vehicle.

So far so good? Cool. Now here's the gauss wording again:

Against vehicles and buildings an Armour Penetration roll of a 6 that does not cause a penetrating hit automatically causes a glancing hit.

Well, let's take a look at the VSG rules then:

Each projected void shield has an Armour Value of 12. 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. At the end of each of the controlling player’s turns, roll a dice for each projected void shield that has collapsed; each roll of 5+ instantly restores one shield.

Hmm, okay, let's see. No hull points, and the rulebook is quite clear that EVERY vehicle has hull points. Therefore, not a vehicle. Does it count as a building? Well, it doesn't explicitly say so, so let's suppose it is a special unique thing called a void shield. Cool So far so good.

Now, let's fire a krak missile at an Ork Boy protected by the void shield bubble. Seems simple enough, right? So, we roll to hit, and suppose we get one. Cool. Right, now let's roll to get through AV12.

Oh. Hang on. How do we actually do that? See, it's not a vehicle, so we don't have any rules to resolve this hit. I mean, it's not a vehicle, right? So, where's our permission to use weapon strength+D6? That's only for hits against vehicles. We're assuming it's not a building, so we can't supplant those rules to let us roll as though it's a vehicle either. Well, let's just ignore that. Okay. Compare facing? Right, well it says it's AV12, but that's not a facing. What facing am I firing at, exactly? It's not a vehicle, right, and it's not a building so I can't use the rule to supplant a single AV for all facings. Okay, so we can neither roll to penetrate nor actually determine what we've hit. Let's just bumble past that too. Let's just pretend we can roll anyway. Right, now, what's a glancing hit? I mean, we aren't using vehicle rules, so we can't use total greater than armour value - that's explicitly in the case that it's a vehicle. We can't use the building rules because, as we said earlier, it's no building. So, we have no idea what the concept of a glancing hit is.

So, if it's neither a vehicle nor building, we can't use the rules for armour penetration as we have:
-no way to roll for penetration
-no way to determine facing, nor a circumventing method as provided on buildings
-no concept of a glancing or penetrating hit


But not all is lost to the mighty void shield! You can still break it with a destroyer hit! Amazing!

But suppose then that at any point you decide this is ridiculous. Well, then you must at some point acknowledge that we are treating the void shield generator as either a vehicle or building, because you need to do so in order to resolve any damage whatsoever from non-Str D weaponry. You can't even begin to resolve damage. If you do that, say, to actually determine what on earth a "roll to penetrate" actually is, then gauss works normally. If you do not, you have no permission to do squat.


So, you have 2 RAW outcomes here:
1) It's neither a vehicle nor building nor model. As such, it follows its own special rules and, as those don't stipulate how to glance or penetrate and the current rules only define that for vehicles and buildings, you may only collapse void shields with Str D weaponry.
2) It's a shield projected from a building and has a single defined armour value. The only things which can do this in the rules are buildings, therefore a void shield counts as a building for the purposes of resolving damage. Therefore gauss works against it.

Pick your poison. Probably the silliest thing on YMDC since the person who tried to argue that 1 Spyder=3 Spyders.

so your saying that if I roll a 1 on a d6 with a s3 weapon I can argue that I knocked out a PVS because the chart to determine if something is glanced or not requires the thing to be a vehicle as in "if the total is more than the vehicles armor value"

so if the rules for glancing only affect vehicles, as they call out vehicles, but buildings are told to be treated as vehicles.

if a PVS is neither, there are no rules on how to glance them, or rather no rules on how you do not glance them.

Just to throw in a curve ball, think about Grav weapons.
What happens when you fire a grav weapon at a unit in a Void Shield?

Grav works against vehicles, but doesn't work against buildings. Where does that leave void shields vs grav?

-Matt

It's pretty obvious it's broken, so in either case it Will Require House Rules. It's like the HP issue, there is no hp written so the shield itself is immortal or instantly destroyed on placement, so we use 6th edition size comparison rules because there is all there is. right?
If you want to penetrate this thing it will require house rules RAI, get chummy with your local meta and state your cases, it will obviously not be decided universally in this thread.

Eyjio wrote:
I find it funny that no-one has as of yet quoted the whole rules for actually rolling armour penetration. Here they are, in full:

Hitting a vehicle is no guarantee that you will actually damage it. Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapons Strength, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.

If the total is less than the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot has no effect.

If the total is equal to the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.

If the total is greater than the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating hit.

Now, here's the bits which allow buildings to be attacked:

BUILDING ARMOUR VALUES
All buildings have an Armour Value listed on their terrain datasheet. If only a single Armour Value is listed, then it is used against all attacks, no matter which facing is hit.

ATTACKING BUILDINGS
When determining if a building can be targeted by a shooting attack or psychic power, charged and fought against in combat, or affected by a special rule, treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise. When attacking a building, roll To Hit and for armour penetration as if it were a vehicle.

So far so good? Cool. Now here's the gauss wording again:

Against vehicles and buildings an Armour Penetration roll of a 6 that does not cause a penetrating hit automatically causes a glancing hit.

Well, let's take a look at the VSG rules then:

Each projected void shield has an Armour Value of 12. 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. At the end of each of the controlling player’s turns, roll a dice for each projected void shield that has collapsed; each roll of 5+ instantly restores one shield.

Hmm, okay, let's see. No hull points, and the rulebook is quite clear that EVERY vehicle has hull points. Therefore, not a vehicle. Does it count as a building? Well, it doesn't explicitly say so, so let's suppose it is a special unique thing called a void shield. Cool So far so good.

Now, let's fire a krak missile at an Ork Boy protected by the void shield bubble. Seems simple enough, right? So, we roll to hit, and suppose we get one. Cool. Right, now let's roll to get through AV12.

Oh. Hang on. How do we actually do that? See, it's not a vehicle, so we don't have any rules to resolve this hit. I mean, it's not a vehicle, right? So, where's our permission to use weapon strength+D6? That's only for hits against vehicles. We're assuming it's not a building, so we can't supplant those rules to let us roll as though it's a vehicle either. Well, let's just ignore that. Okay. Compare facing? Right, well it says it's AV12, but that's not a facing. What facing am I firing at, exactly? It's not a vehicle, right, and it's not a building so I can't use the rule to supplant a single AV for all facings. Okay, so we can neither roll to penetrate nor actually determine what we've hit. Let's just bumble past that too. Let's just pretend we can roll anyway. Right, now, what's a glancing hit? I mean, we aren't using vehicle rules, so we can't use total greater than armour value - that's explicitly in the case that it's a vehicle. We can't use the building rules because, as we said earlier, it's no building. So, we have no idea what the concept of a glancing hit is.

So, if it's neither a vehicle nor building, we can't use the rules for armour penetration as we have:
-no way to roll for penetration
-no way to determine facing, nor a circumventing method as provided on buildings
-no concept of a glancing or penetrating hit


But not all is lost to the mighty void shield! You can still break it with a destroyer hit! Amazing!

But suppose then that at any point you decide this is ridiculous. Well, then you must at some point acknowledge that we are treating the void shield generator as either a vehicle or building, because you need to do so in order to resolve any damage whatsoever from non-Str D weaponry. You can't even begin to resolve damage. If you do that, say, to actually determine what on earth a "roll to penetrate" actually is, then gauss works normally. If you do not, you have no permission to do squat.


So, you have 2 RAW outcomes here:
1) It's neither a vehicle nor building nor model. As such, it follows its own special rules and, as those don't stipulate how to glance or penetrate and the current rules only define that for vehicles and buildings, you may only collapse void shields with Str D weaponry.
2) It's a shield projected from a building and has a single defined armour value. The only things which can do this in the rules are buildings, therefore a void shield counts as a building for the purposes of resolving damage. Therefore gauss works against it.

Pick your poison. Probably the silliest thing on YMDC since the person who tried to argue that 1 Spyder=3 Spyders.

As Kriswall aptly put:

 Kriswall wrote:
I tend to agree with this. The PVS is no more a non-vehicle model than it is a vehicle model. It is a special rule.

Both RaW outcomes you posted are incorrect. A "Projected Void Shield" does not "follow its own special rules".
That simple statement of yours shows how you are misinterpreting this.

Take a look at the Stronghold Assault book:

Composition: 1 Void Shield Generator.
Terrain Type: Impassable Building (Armour Value 13) with battlements.

Special Rules:
Projected Void Shields: "Rules"

The Void Shield Generator is an armour 13 Building, and we know exactly how to play with those. It also has a Special Rule, which is slightly more tricky to grasp: "Projected Void Shields"

A Special Rule is never an entity. It is a set of instructions you follow to obtain a result.

How do 2 Special Rules (Gauss + Projected Void Shields) interact with each other?
They would both apply to the model unless there is contradiction in the Rules:

What happens when you fire a "Gauss" weapon at a Space marine with the "Projected Void Shields" Special rule? (he is quite close to a building that provides him with this rule)
You resolve "Gauss" on the Space Marine.
You resolve "Projected Void Shields" on the Space marine.
I'm quite sure "Projected Void Shields" is the rule that would have its effect applied first.

Now the great RaW question that the OP started: Can a Special rule "modify" another spacial rule?
Only if the rule is referenced, such as Eternal Warrior modifying the Instant Death Rule.

 Frozocrone wrote:
What about the FAQ that says Blast and Template Weapons roll to penetrate? Should that be taken into consideration?

I've always played it as 'Roll against Armour Penetration' that just seems to be the correct way to play..

Do you penetrate AV or a vehicle?

I'm leaning towards 'Gauss doesn't come into play'.

Just because something uses the rules of a vehicle, that doesn't mean you're rolling to hit against a vehicle. The fact that Gauss specifically says "Against vehicles and buildings.", to me, makes that abundantly clear.

If 'using vehicle rules' would equal 'shooting against a vehicle', Gauss wouldn't include buildings.

 Whacked wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
What about the FAQ that says Blast and Template Weapons roll to penetrate? Should that be taken into consideration?

I've always played it as 'Roll against Armour Penetration' that just seems to be the correct way to play..

Do you penetrate AV or a vehicle?

We know how to perform Armour Penetration Rolls:
"roll a D6 and add the weapon’s Strength, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle"
Resulting in "no effect", "Pen", or "Glance".

The Void shield does not have an "appropriate facing of the vehicle", but it has an AV.
You must perform "Armour Penetration Rolls" in a vacuum (of the "Projected Void Shields" Special Rule)

I'm still struggling to understand how this has gone on for three pages. the PVS is a rule, that uses elements of game mechanics from other sections of the game, but is not a vehicle.

And therefore is not affected by Gauss.

If you want to argue that Gauss affects it, the test is showing a statement, or combination of rules that make it a vehicle. So far that has not been done. What has been demonstrated is that there are many instances within the game where the rules from different sections are mixed and matched to achieve a particular desired game scenario (c.f. the referenced example above, of walkers and close combat).

It is clearly defined where the void shield is (12" from tye generator). So can you ram a void shield? If not, why not? Is it because it is not a vehicle? If so then why is it suddenly counted as a vehicle for gauss, as both use the AV of the target? Would this not be cherry picking which vehicle rules to use?

If yes, how? Do you ram all 3? Just 1? Why? If it's on a vehicle itself, do you ram the shield and the vehicle or just the shield? Why?

Using the vehicle rules for rolling to glance/pen does not make it a vehicle (IMO) as many have stated.

 goblinzz wrote:
I'm still struggling to understand how this has gone on for three pages. the PVS is a rule, that uses elements of game mechanics from other sections of the game, but is not a vehicle.

And therefore is not affected by Gauss.

If you want to argue that Gauss affects it, the test is showing a statement, or combination of rules that make it a vehicle. So far that has not been done. What has been demonstrated is that there are many instances within the game where the rules from different sections are mixed and matched to achieve a particular desired game scenario (c.f. the referenced example above, of walkers and close combat).

I agree 100%. You have two options in this scenario. Option 1 is saying that the rules don't explicitly cover how to make an armour pen roll for a non-vehicle, making the game unplayable. Option 2 is saying the rules don't explicitly cover how to make an armour pen roll for non-vehicles, we fill in the gap and use the vehicle process, but apply it to the AV12 of the PVS instead of the armour facing of a vehicle.

Neither option allows or requires us to count the PVS as a vehicle.

 Kriswall wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:
I'm still struggling to understand how this has gone on for three pages. the PVS is a rule, that uses elements of game mechanics from other sections of the game, but is not a vehicle.

And therefore is not affected by Gauss.

If you want to argue that Gauss affects it, the test is showing a statement, or combination of rules that make it a vehicle. So far that has not been done. What has been demonstrated is that there are many instances within the game where the rules from different sections are mixed and matched to achieve a particular desired game scenario (c.f. the referenced example above, of walkers and close combat).

I agree 100%. You have two options in this scenario. Option 1 is saying that the rules don't explicitly cover how to make an armour pen roll for a non-vehicle, making the game unplayable. Option 2 is saying the rules don't explicitly cover how to make an armour pen roll for non-vehicles, we fill in the gap and use the vehicle process, but apply it to the AV12 of the PVS instead of the armour facing of a vehicle.

Neither option allows or requires us to count the PVS as a vehicle.

Sure if you want to cherry pick rules, your HIWPI works just fine.

Isn't choosing to ignore the fact you could ram it if it was counted as a vehicle cherry picking?

Fragile wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:
I'm still struggling to understand how this has gone on for three pages. the PVS is a rule, that uses elements of game mechanics from other sections of the game, but is not a vehicle.

And therefore is not affected by Gauss.

If you want to argue that Gauss affects it, the test is showing a statement, or combination of rules that make it a vehicle. So far that has not been done. What has been demonstrated is that there are many instances within the game where the rules from different sections are mixed and matched to achieve a particular desired game scenario (c.f. the referenced example above, of walkers and close combat).

I agree 100%. You have two options in this scenario. Option 1 is saying that the rules don't explicitly cover how to make an armour pen roll for a non-vehicle, making the game unplayable. Option 2 is saying the rules don't explicitly cover how to make an armour pen roll for non-vehicles, we fill in the gap and use the vehicle process, but apply it to the AV12 of the PVS instead of the armour facing of a vehicle.

Neither option allows or requires us to count the PVS as a vehicle.

Sure if you want to cherry pick rules, your HIWPI works just fine.

There is no cherry picking rules.
A vehicle is a unit type.
A unit type is a model.
The void shield has no model and thus no unit type.
It therefore cannot be a vehicle.
You can NEVER have a vehicle, building, infsntry, etc that doesn't have a model.

Go look up the rules for unit types. You will explicitly see its a model.
The void shield is a save that uses the vehicles rules for armour penetration. At no point does it have a unit type.
This is why you can not target the void shield to shoot it. You target the unit within the void shield. You roll to hit that model. You resolve the hit versus the void shield or power shield if you are using an apoc unit that has one.

so I just want to point out no one has relied that you do not actually target the void shield for the shots you are targeting the unit under the void shield. and what allows the hit to be allocated to the void shield is the rules for void shields

"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"

Fragile wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:
I'm still struggling to understand how this has gone on for three pages. the PVS is a rule, that uses elements of game mechanics from other sections of the game, but is not a vehicle.

And therefore is not affected by Gauss.

If you want to argue that Gauss affects it, the test is showing a statement, or combination of rules that make it a vehicle. So far that has not been done. What has been demonstrated is that there are many instances within the game where the rules from different sections are mixed and matched to achieve a particular desired game scenario (c.f. the referenced example above, of walkers and close combat).

I agree 100%. You have two options in this scenario. Option 1 is saying that the rules don't explicitly cover how to make an armour pen roll for a non-vehicle, making the game unplayable. Option 2 is saying the rules don't explicitly cover how to make an armour pen roll for non-vehicles, we fill in the gap and use the vehicle process, but apply it to the AV12 of the PVS instead of the armour facing of a vehicle.

Neither option allows or requires us to count the PVS as a vehicle.

Sure if you want to cherry pick rules, your HIWPI works just fine.

To be clear...

Rules as Written - The game comes to a stall as there are no rules telling us how to perform an armour penetration roll against a non-vehicle. Both players wait indefintely for an FAQ from GW. Eventually the shopkeep gets tired of them standing around and asks them to leave. The players, paralyzed by a rules void, stare blankly at him.

HIWPI - I would say that despite not being defined, an armour penetration roll against a non-vehicle, non-model special rule created entity with AV12 is performed by rolling 2D6, adding the Strength of the firing weapon and then comparing that result to the AV of 12. Per the PVS rule, if the result is 12 (glance) or 13+ (pen), the shield shuts down. I would not allow any other rules interactions that require the target to be a vehicle, such as Guass.

I see NO evidence that the rules tell me to treat the PVS as a vehicle. In the absence of ANY rules text telling me to do so, I would have to conclude that treating the PVS as a vehicle for the purposes of Guass is another kind of HIWPI.

As such, this thread has now devolved to he said/she said, or HIWPI/HYWPI. Mod Lock incoming in 3... 2... 1...

To the OP... work this out with your local gaming group. I think most reasonable people will understand how to make an armour pen roll against a non vehicle even when it isn't spelled out. I also think you'll run into a fair number of people who don't agree that a PVS should be treated as a vehicle. YMMV. My gaming group tends to be pretty relaxed when genuine rules conflicts like this come up, but given that this is a permissive ruleset and we have no permission for Guass to work on non-vehicles... I don't think we'd allow it. It's too much of a stretch. Rolling 2D6 and adding Strength to make an armour pen roll against a non-vehicle with AV12 isn't much of a stretch at all.