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.

So I gather that RAW is pretty unclear on the subject after searching through but I'm a little unsure on what stance RAI is or HYWPI :s

Would you treat the Void Shield rule as a vehicle for all intents and purposes?

not being a donkey cave intentionally!!!

That being said, is the Void shield a vehicle? or just an AV12 barrier projected by a model on the table?

Kavik_Whitescar wrote:
not being a donkey cave intentionally!!!

That being said, is the Void shield a vehicle? or just an AV12 barrier projected by a model on the table?

It's a special rule

 Frozocrone wrote:
So I gather that RAW is pretty unclear on the subject after searching through but I'm a little unsure on what stance RAI is or HYWPI :s

Would you treat the Void Shield rule as a vehicle for all intents and purposes?

Depends on what the player is shooting at. If they're shooting at the actual building, yes. If they're shooting at a vehicle inside the projection, yes. If they're shooting at a non-vehicle inside the projection, no. RaW, it's not a vehicle ever.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
So I gather that RAW is pretty unclear on the subject after searching through but I'm a little unsure on what stance RAI is or HYWPI :s

Would you treat the Void Shield rule as a vehicle for all intents and purposes?

Depends on what the player is shooting at. If they're shooting at the actual building, yes. If they're shooting at a vehicle inside the projection, yes. If they're shooting at a non-vehicle inside the projection, no. RaW, it's not a vehicle ever.

I'll be playing Tyranids so this confused me. Would you get Tankhunters and Melta, as they can alter the outcome of armour pen.?

Also what about Haywire and Grav, since they have different means of damaging vehicles?

If you don't treat the shield as a vehicle for shooting at it then nothing can ever hurt it.

 FlingitNow wrote:
If you don't treat the shield as a vehicle for shooting at it then nothing can ever hurt it.

How not? You roll against the AV like a typical penetrating or glancing hit. If you fail to glance or pen, the shield stays up. If you pen or glance, the shield goes down. Very straight forward.

How are you rolling for Armour Penetration, when to do so you must be looking at vehicle rules? You are required to treat it as a vehicle for at least this purpose, so why not others?

 Whacked wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
If you don't treat the shield as a vehicle for shooting at it then nothing can ever hurt it.

How not? You roll against the AV like a typical penetrating or glancing hit. If you fail to glance or pen, the shield stays up. If you pen or glance, the shield goes down. Very straight forward.

How do you make an armour pen roll without referencing the shooting at vehicles rules?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Whacked wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
If you don't treat the shield as a vehicle for shooting at it then nothing can ever hurt it.

How not? You roll against the AV like a typical penetrating or glancing hit. If you fail to glance or pen, the shield stays up. If you pen or glance, the shield goes down. Very straight forward.

How do you make an armour pen roll without referencing the shooting at vehicles rules?

So, you are asserting Buildings ARE Vehicles then, correct?

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

 Frozocrone wrote:
So I gather that RAW is pretty unclear on the subject after searching through but I'm a little unsure on what stance RAI is or HYWPI :s

Would you treat the Void Shield rule as a vehicle for all intents and purposes?

Short answer: No, it would not be subject to Special Rules requiring a Hit on a Vehicle. HIWPI.

Special Rules that affect AV penetration though (Haywire, Melta, etc) i see no issue with application....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

"Gauss: (...)Against vehicles and buildings, an Armour Penetration roll of a 6...."

 BlackTalos wrote:
So, you are asserting Buildings ARE Vehicles then, correct?

We're told when attacking buildings:

"When determining if a building can be targeted by a shooting attack or psychic power, charged and fought in close combat, or affected by a special rule, treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise.'

In the case of void shields we're not actually told how to resolve attacks against them, only that the have an armour value and the effect of glancing and penetrating hits.

That said though the only way to ordinarily resolve attacks against an armour value is by it being or being treated as a vehicle, so I would say RAI is clear, while RAW seems to have gone for a bit of a wander...

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
So, you are asserting Buildings ARE Vehicles then, correct?

We're told when attacking buildings:

"When determining if a building can be targeted by a shooting attack or psychic power, charged and fought in close combat, or affected by a special rule, treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise.'

In the case of void shields we're not actually told how to resolve attacks against them, only that the have an armour value and the effect of glancing and penetrating hits.

That said though the only way to ordinarily resolve attacks against an armour value is by it being or being treated as a vehicle, so I would say RAI is clear, while RAW seems to have gone for a bit of a wander...

[EDITED]
I'll leave these relevant rules though:

Gauss: "Against vehicles and buildings, an Armour Penetration roll of a 6...."
Tank Hunter: "failed armour penetration rolls against vehicles"
Armourbane: "In either case, this special rule has no effect against non-vehicle models."
Vector Strike: "Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target’s side armour."

[Edit] Building ARE indeed vehicles for the purpose of "targeted by a shooting attack (...)or affected by a special rule."

 BlackTalos wrote:
Special Rules that affect AV penetration though (Haywire, Melta, etc) i see no issue with application....

Apologies, Haywire is not part of that group: "When a weapon with this special rule hits a vehicle".

I recalled the rule incorrectly. Same for Melta.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frozocrone wrote:
I'll be playing Tyranids so this confused me. Would you get Tankhunters and Melta, as they can alter the outcome of armour pen.?

Also what about Haywire and Grav, since they have different means of damaging vehicles?

Oh and you are playing Tyranids who've decided to pack a Void shield with them?

To be honest, I'm considering doing just that - albeit based off the capillery towers for the generators.

One similar question which is similar enough to ask in the same thread:

When a chaos titan has it's own void shields but also has the daemon rule, it gains a 5+ save. Do I get to make that saving throw against hits on the shields, or only hits on the hull of the titan?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
I'll be playing Tyranids so this confused me. Would you get Tankhunters and Melta, as they can alter the outcome of armour pen.?

Also what about Haywire and Grav, since they have different means of damaging vehicles?

Oh and you are playing Tyranids who've decided to pack a Void shield with them?

uh..yeah, the Hive Mind um...has a psychic network to protect his um...extremely valuable units?

I played it in the tournament as simply rolling to penetrate against AV12. Thankfully, no situations came up where there might have been a rules issue (didn't play the Necron player there) and it was agreed by the Firebase Support Cadre player that it wasn't a vehicle (not that any of my guys were vehicles anyway) so TH didn't work. I was prepared to let Haywire work since it glances and pens differently but didn't play DE (that player brought Chaos instead).

Would that seem fair to you?

 Frozocrone wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
I'll be playing Tyranids so this confused me. Would you get Tankhunters and Melta, as they can alter the outcome of armour pen.?

Also what about Haywire and Grav, since they have different means of damaging vehicles?

Oh and you are playing Tyranids who've decided to pack a Void shield with them?

uh..yeah, the Hive Mind um...has a psychic network to protect his um...extremely valuable units?

I played it in the tournament as simply rolling to penetrate against AV12. Thankfully, no situations came up where there might have been a rules issue (didn't play the Necron player there) and it was agreed by the Firebase Support Cadre player that it wasn't a vehicle (not that any of my guys were vehicles anyway) so TH didn't work. I was prepared to let Haywire work since it glances and pens differently but didn't play DE (that player brought Chaos instead).

Would that seem fair to you?

Nope fair would be to play by the rules. When targetting it with a shooting attack it IS a vehicle unless stated otherwise (which it isn't) or it is immune to all damage (which is a silly interpretation).

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
I'll be playing Tyranids so this confused me. Would you get Tankhunters and Melta, as they can alter the outcome of armour pen.?

Also what about Haywire and Grav, since they have different means of damaging vehicles?

Oh and you are playing Tyranids who've decided to pack a Void shield with them?

uh..yeah, the Hive Mind um...has a psychic network to protect his um...extremely valuable units?

I played it in the tournament as simply rolling to penetrate against AV12. Thankfully, no situations came up where there might have been a rules issue (didn't play the Necron player there) and it was agreed by the Firebase Support Cadre player that it wasn't a vehicle (not that any of my guys were vehicles anyway) so TH didn't work. I was prepared to let Haywire work since it glances and pens differently but didn't play DE (that player brought Chaos instead).

Would that seem fair to you?

Nope fair would be to play by the rules. When targetting it with a shooting attack it IS a vehicle unless stated otherwise (which it isn't) or it is immune to all damage (which is a silly interpretation).

Or it is a Special Rule: "Projected Void Shields" that you have to follow. The rules say you have AV 12, a Hit, and that you need a Glancing or Penetrating Hit.
Hardly a puddle to jump across....

Since when is a Special Rule an entity in the game?

Can i Ram your Void Shield?
Or maybe you could list its Unit Type during your shooting phase?

The underlined in your post above is incorrect. Or provide RaW where you can target Special Rules.....

The "it" Fling is using is presumably the subject, the VSG, which I dont believe you can target directly?

It might not be a puddle to jump, but you can surely see you are making a leap of some form to get there? If you treat it as a vehicle for the purpose of determining Armour Pen, why do you then not be consistent and treat it as a vehicle for other rules that talk about vehicles?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
I'll be playing Tyranids so this confused me. Would you get Tankhunters and Melta, as they can alter the outcome of armour pen.?

Also what about Haywire and Grav, since they have different means of damaging vehicles?

Oh and you are playing Tyranids who've decided to pack a Void shield with them?

uh..yeah, the Hive Mind um...has a psychic network to protect his um...extremely valuable units?

I played it in the tournament as simply rolling to penetrate against AV12. Thankfully, no situations came up where there might have been a rules issue (didn't play the Necron player there) and it was agreed by the Firebase Support Cadre player that it wasn't a vehicle (not that any of my guys were vehicles anyway) so TH didn't work. I was prepared to let Haywire work since it glances and pens differently but didn't play DE (that player brought Chaos instead).

Would that seem fair to you?

Nope fair would be to play by the rules. When targetting it with a shooting attack it IS a vehicle unless stated otherwise (which it isn't) or it is immune to all damage (which is a silly interpretation).

Or it is a Special Rule: "Projected Void Shields" that you have to follow. The rules say you have AV 12, a Hit, and that you need a Glancing or Penetrating Hit.
Hardly a puddle to jump across....

Since when is a Special Rule an entity in the game?

Can i Ram your Void Shield?
Or maybe you could list its Unit Type during your shooting phase?

The underlined in your post above is incorrect. Or provide RaW where you can target Special Rules.....

So how do you roll armour pen against it? Remembering your saying rules that work against vehicles don't work against this special rule. Or are you arbitrarily deciding which vehicle rules to apply and which kit to. If so please state where it is listed which apply.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The "it" Fling is using is presumably the subject, the VSG, which I dont believe you can target directly?

It might not be a puddle to jump, but you can surely see you are making a leap of some form to get there? If you treat it as a vehicle for the purpose of determining Armour Pen, why do you then not be consistent and treat it as a vehicle for other rules that talk about vehicles?

As above clearly denotes, the projected void shield is Hit, the projected void shield has an Armour Value of 12, and a glancing or penetrating hit would collapse the shield.

Exactly so either:

1) we determine how to glance/pen AV12 in the normal manner and Haywire, Gauss, Tank Hunters etc applies.
2) we only use the rules we are given direct permission to use and there is no way to determine if the hit is a glance or pen and the shield is immortal
3) we make up our own rules to determine which armour pen rules apply.

1 & 2 both have validity in RaW though 2 completely breaks the rule (as in makes the thing not work). 3 is houserules. Which are you arguing for?

 FlingitNow wrote:

As above clearly denotes, the projected void shield is Hit, the projected void shield has an Armour Value of 12, and a glancing or penetrating hit would collapse the shield.

Exactly so either:

1) we determine how to glance/pen AV12 in the normal manner and Haywire, Gauss, Tank Hunters etc applies.
2) we only use the rules we are given direct permission to use and there is no way to determine if the hit is a glance or pen and the shield is immortal
3) we make up our own rules to determine which armour pen rules apply.

1 & 2 both have validity in RaW though 2 completely breaks the rule (as in makes the thing not work). 3 is houserules. Which are you arguing for?

Why would Haywire, Gauss, Tank Hunters etc apply to the "normal manner"?

They only apply if the target of the shooting attack is a Vehicle (Building). If your target was a Guardsman, but the shield (AV12) intercepts that hit, have we changed Target?
Is the PVS rule a model?
Is it a Vehicle?


1) we determine how to glance/pen AV12 by reading "Armour Penetration Rolls". Sadly, we're doing it for a Special Rule, not for a Vehicle, so Haywire, Gauss, Tank Hunters etc do not apply.

1) we determine how to glance/pen AV12 by reading "Armour Penetration Rolls". Sadly, we're doing it for a Special Rule, not for a Vehicle, so Haywire, Gauss, Tank Hunters etc do not apply.

That is option 2. So rolling strength+d6 vs AV also doesn't work as that requires a vehicles armour value.

 FlingitNow wrote:

1) we determine how to glance/pen AV12 by reading "Armour Penetration Rolls". Sadly, we're doing it for a Special Rule, not for a Vehicle, so Haywire, Gauss, Tank Hunters etc do not apply.

That is option 2. So rolling strength+d6 vs AV also doesn't work as that requires a vehicles armour value.

It actually requires, specifically, "the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle"

for your interpretation, would you explain what appropriate facing of a Special Rule you are using?

So, let's resume your invented rules:
- Special Rules are models
- Special Rules have the Unit Type: Vehicle
- Special Rules have facings. Would you say 4? Which side are you going to invent as the "front"?
- Special Rules are an independent Unit in the player's army

Or, you simply follow the "Armour Penetration Rolls" Rules while knowing the shield is AV12:

Armour Penetration Rolls
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 weapon’s 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 vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating hit.

I read the above quite simply: A) I have to follow this rule, as asked by the VSG Special Rule
B) the shield is not a Vehicle, nor a model

Armour Penetration Rolls
Hitting is no guarantee that you will actually damage it. Once a hit has been scored, roll a D6 and add the weapon’s Strength, comparing this total with the Armour Value.
• If the total is less than the Armour Value, the shot has no effect.
• If the total is equal to the Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.
• If the total is greater than Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating hit.

I've ignored "vehicle", as the *entity* in question is not a vehicle.

When using Veil of Darkness or skies of Fury, do you not ignore "roll for reserves", or "must start the game in Deep Strike Reserves"? Why? Simply because you must follow the rule while part of it are not relevant to the Unit in question.

[Ed] i'd go as far as saying that this is, as per the Deep Strike example, a matter of conflicting rules: the "Armour Penetration Rolls" requires you to be a vehicle, but the PVS is demonstrably NOT a Vehicle. Which takes precedence?
Advanced PVS rule or the basic Armour Penetration Rolls rule?

Cool so we're ignoring when referencing armour pen rules so Tank Hunters, Haywire etc work.

There is no conflict; to conflict it woudl have to tell you to roll for armour even though it isnt a vehicle, or it is to count as a vehicle for the purpose of armour penetration rolls.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool so we're ignoring when referencing armour pen rules so Tank Hunters, Haywire etc work.

The special rules require that you target a vehicle. Are you targeting a Vehicle?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is no conflict; to conflict it woudl have to tell you to roll for armour even though it isnt a vehicle, or it is to count as a vehicle for the purpose of armour penetration rolls.

Or it could ask for you to obtain an Armour Pen to continue, which it does:
"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."

Simple logic.

The rule says any Glance/Pen Hit scored has an effect. How do you follow a rule that explicitly tells you that you can score a Pen if your argument is that you cannot roll to Pen? (because it's not a vehicle <= Proven by RaW)

The special rules require that you target a vehicle. Are you targeting a Vehicle? 

Well that is what you were saying.

So yes or no to these 2 questions:

1) when rolling armour pen are we counting the AV as a vehicle?
2) when rolling armour pen are we ignoring references to vehicles?

Black - telling you what happens if something occurs is not permission for the action required to generate that occurrence.

Just because it tells you what happens if you score a pen or glance, does not give you a conflict such that you are allowed to roll armour pen for something that isn't a vehicle.
actual logic, I, afraid. You're making an assumptive leap, unsupported in rules.

Old example -4th ed orks gave Ghazzy +2A on the charge instead of the normal +1 from his skull. In 4th he got no bonus attacks at all.