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.

Was reading the rules for Gauss and for void shields and I want to see if anyone else is interpreting this the same way.

The Gauss rule states that

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

The Void shield rule says that attacks against models inside the void shield originating from outside the void shield instead hit the projected void shield

Now as I see it, as the projected void shield (not the void shield generator) is neither a building or a vehicle the gauss rule cannot cause auto-glances to the projected void shield.

Is everyone in agreement?

Yes.

 Aftersong wrote:
Is everyone in agreement?

Not even slightly

Armour Value (AV) is found under "Vehicle Characteristics".

Rolling to Pen or Glance is found under the rule "Shooting at Vehicles.

If Gauss can't glance it, by that logic nothing can.

Yes, because the Void shield is not a vehicle or a building.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
Is everyone in agreement?

Not even slightly

Armour Value (AV) is found under "Vehicle Characteristics".

Rolling to Pen or Glance is found under the rule "Shooting at Vehicles.

If Gauss can't glance it, by that logic nothing can.

but a building is not a vehicle and it has an AV value so clearly having an AV does not qualify you as a vehicle.

Attacking Buildings:
"treat the building as a vehicle"

Try again.

Only vehicle rules allow for glancing hits.

If it's not damagable by Gauss, it's not damagable by anything.

 Aftersong wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
Is everyone in agreement?

Not even slightly

Armour Value (AV) is found under "Vehicle Characteristics".

Rolling to Pen or Glance is found under the rule "Shooting at Vehicles.

If Gauss can't glance it, by that logic nothing can.

but a building is not a vehicle and it has an AV value so clearly having an AV does not qualify you as a vehicle.

From the Buildings section.

Attacking Buildings wrote:...treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise...

Show me the rule that says Projected void shields are buildings?

 Aftersong wrote:
Show me the rule that says Projected void shields are buildings?

Show they can be damaged by a lascannon, without using the rules for vehicles.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
Show me the rule that says Projected void shields are buildings?

Show they can be damaged by a lascannon, without using the rules for vehicles.

so by your logic a gun emplacement is an infantry model because you can't shoot at it without using the toughness table?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vehicles and buildings have hull points, how many hull points does a projected void shield have?

 Aftersong wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
Show me the rule that says Projected void shields are buildings?

Show they can be damaged by a lascannon, without using the rules for vehicles.

so by your logic a gun emplacement is an infantry model because you can't shoot at it without using the toughness table?

Not at all. Artillery and Monstrous Creatures also have a toughness value.

Have you found any way for Lascannon to roll against the shield yet?

have you figured out how many hull points this voidshield vehicle you are talking about has?

 Aftersong wrote:
have you figured out how many hull points this voidshield vehicle you are talking about has?

Its clearly stated in the void shield rule.

Fragile wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
have you figured out how many hull points this voidshield vehicle you are talking about has?

Its clearly stated in the void shield rule.

Got the rule open in front of me, no mention of it having any hull points. Vehicles and buildings universally have hull points. Void Shields (not void shield generators) do not.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
Show me the rule that says Projected void shields are buildings?

Show they can be damaged by a lascannon, without using the rules for vehicles.

You still have not answered this question.

Having to use vehicle damage rules does not mean it is a vehicle, dreadnoughts use infantry rules to charge into close combat, this does make them infantry.

 Aftersong wrote:
have you figured out how many hull points this voidshield vehicle you are talking about has?

You're missing the point here.

Proving me wrong, will not prove you right. At most you're trying to prove us both wrong, and that gets no one anywhere now does it?

Instead try and prove how you can damage it if it's in no way a vehicle as you claim.
Building aren't vehicles, but there's a rule telling us to treat it as one, therefore we can roll against it's armour.
If a shield is in no way a vehicle, how can we pen or glance it, as that is a vehicle rule?

If we accept that we must use the rule "Shooting at Vehicles" - then why would Gauss not effect it?

Because the gauss rule specifically says it only affects vehicles and buildings, as the shield is neither it cannot be affected.

As the shield is specifically not a vehicle or a building, it cannot EVER be destroyed as we have no rules for firing at something not clarified in the rules.

But since is has AV, perhaps we should use the vehicle rules....

 Aftersong wrote:
Because the gauss rule specifically says it only affects vehicles and buildings, as the shield is neither it cannot be affected.

Then it can't be pen'd by a lascannon, can it? As that involves using the rule "Shooting at Vehicles" which the shield isn't.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Attacking Buildings:
"treat the building as a vehicle"

Try again.

Only vehicle rules allow for glancing hits.

If it's not damagable by Gauss, it's not damagable by anything.

Do you have a similar rule telling you to "treat the projected void shield as a vehicle"? Guass affects vehicles and anything we're told to treat as vehicles. Are we specifically told to treat projected void shields as vehicles? I don't feel like typing out the enitre rules entry for projected void shields, but the answer is no. We're never told to treat them as a vehicle.

My answer is that Guass has no impact on projected void shields.

Then I guess the voidshield is even more powerful than previously thought I have to concede that by RaW it cannot be glanced or penetrated by any weapon as it is neither a vehicle or a building.

If it is neither a vehicle or building there is no way to resolve how to glance a void shield unless treating it as a building/vehicle then as there are no rules for how non vehicles non buildings treat AV one could easily state any roll of anything glances a projected void shield because you will not be able to find a rule to state that any roll does not.

or it is treated as a vehicle/building in how you determine if it is glanced.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
Because the gauss rule specifically says it only affects vehicles and buildings, as the shield is neither it cannot be affected.

Then it can't be pen'd by a lascannon, can it? As that involves using the rule "Shooting at Vehicles" which the shield isn't.

Well then, take your toys and go home. The game is clearly broken and we'll never be able to get past this crisis...

Or...

You declare a target inside the shield and shoot at it with your lascannon. You hit. You are old that instead of hitting the target, you hit the projected void shield. The projected void shield has an AV of 12. How do you roll to wound against things with an AV? Do that. Did you glance or pen? Collapse the shield and move on to the next weapon.

This is pretty straightforward.

Guass doesn't come into play as we aren't hitting a vehicle or hitting something we're told to treat as a vehicle. Guass only works on vehicles.

 Kriswall wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
Because the gauss rule specifically says it only affects vehicles and buildings, as the shield is neither it cannot be affected.

Then it can't be pen'd by a lascannon, can it? As that involves using the rule "Shooting at Vehicles" which the shield isn't.

Well then, take your toys and go home. The game is clearly broken and we'll never be able to get past this crisis...

Or...

You declare a target inside the shield and shoot at it with your lascannon. You hit. You are old that instead of hitting the target, you hit the projected void shield. The projected void shield has an AV of 12. How do you roll to wound against things with an AV? Do that. Did you glance or pen? Collapse the shield and move on to the next weapon.

This is pretty straightforward.

Guass doesn't come into play as we aren't hitting a vehicle or hitting something we're told to treat as a vehicle. Guass only works on vehicles.

Well that's the point, to some extent you MUST treat it as a vehicle or the rules don't work.

So we're cheery-picking. Lets use this rule, but not that one. Then justify the choices.

For you it's not a vehicle, so Gauss isn't justified. For me it's rolling for a pen or glance were we must treat it as a vehicle, so it is justified.

RaW it simply doesn't work, we all see that. So now we just have to debate how to play it. And you'll never have everyone agree on that sadly.

Fragile wrote:
As the shield is specifically not a vehicle or a building, it cannot EVER be destroyed as we have no rules for firing at something not clarified in the rules.

You don't fire at the shield, so this argument is void.

But since is has AV, perhaps we should use the vehicle rules....

Using the vehicle rules for determining armor pen does not make the shield a vehicle.

 grendel083 wrote:


RaW it simply doesn't work, we all see that. So now we just have to debate how to play it. And you'll never have everyone agree on that sadly.

I have to agree here, if you follow the rules you can't harm the shield at all, any treatment or interpretation after that is in fact cherry picking.

 Kriswall wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
Because the gauss rule specifically says it only affects vehicles and buildings, as the shield is neither it cannot be affected.

Then it can't be pen'd by a lascannon, can it? As that involves using the rule "Shooting at Vehicles" which the shield isn't.

Well then, take your toys and go home. The game is clearly broken and we'll never be able to get past this crisis...

Or...

You declare a target inside the shield and shoot at it with your lascannon. You hit. You are old that instead of hitting the target, you hit the projected void shield. The projected void shield has an AV of 12. How do you roll to wound against things with an AV? Do that. Did you glance or pen? Collapse the shield and move on to the next weapon.

This is pretty straightforward.

Guass doesn't come into play as we aren't hitting a vehicle or hitting something we're told to treat as a vehicle. Guass only works on vehicles.

I am in agreement with this version of effect:
Rolling to Pen or rolling To Wound does not define the Type of a model.

Gun emplacement is a good example. It has no Type, but you still roll To Wound.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
Because the gauss rule specifically says it only affects vehicles and buildings, as the shield is neither it cannot be affected.

Then it can't be pen'd by a lascannon, can it? As that involves using the rule "Shooting at Vehicles" which the shield isn't.

Well then, take your toys and go home. The game is clearly broken and we'll never be able to get past this crisis...

Or...

You declare a target inside the shield and shoot at it with your lascannon. You hit. You are old that instead of hitting the target, you hit the projected void shield. The projected void shield has an AV of 12. How do you roll to wound against things with an AV? Do that. Did you glance or pen? Collapse the shield and move on to the next weapon.

This is pretty straightforward.

Guass doesn't come into play as we aren't hitting a vehicle or hitting something we're told to treat as a vehicle. Guass only works on vehicles.

Well that's the point, to some extent you MUST treat it as a vehicle or the rules don't work.

So we're cheery-picking. Lets use this rule, but not that one. Then justify the choices.

For you it's not a vehicle, so Gauss isn't justified. For me it's rolling for a pen or glance were we must treat it as a vehicle, so it is justified.

RaW it simply doesn't work, we all see that. So now we just have to debate how to play it. And you'll never have everyone agree on that sadly.

It's one thing to say "let's use the vehicle armour penetration roles rules as the PVS doesn't explicitly tell us how to resolve a hit against a non-vehicle target with an armour value". It's an entirely different thing to say "let's use ALL the vehicle rules as the PVS doesn't explicitly tell us how to resolve a hit against a non-vehicle target with an armour value".

I'm not cherry-picking. I'm "borrowing" the minimum amount of rules from the vehicle type to resolve the situation. Counting the PVS as a vehicle so that Guass will work against it is going above and beyond what is needed to resolve the hit.

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..