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.

text removed.

Reds8n

 Therion wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:
Because its the way its been played since apoc came out.

Otherwise you'd assume a titan with 9 void shields would lose them all to a single S: D shot. Its intended to work in layers.

A Titan only loses 1 void shield per D shot, unless the same blast hits other models in addition to the Titan. It will be pretty hard unless you truly bunch up everything you got in base to base with your Reaver Titan.

Hits on the unit would not effect the shield in the titan case anyways; So in this case it really is 1 blast, 1 Shield(and a lot of dead models).

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Therion wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:
Because its the way its been played since apoc came out.

Otherwise you'd assume a titan with 9 void shields would lose them all to a single S: D shot. Its intended to work in layers.

A Titan only loses 1 void shield per D shot, unless the same blast hits other models in addition to the Titan. It will be pretty hard unless you truly bunch up everything you got in base to base with your Reaver Titan.

Hits on the unit would not effect the shield in the titan case anyways; So in this case it really is 1 blast, 1 Shield(and a lot of dead models).

My example about the single model had nothing to do with the personal void shields. I only meant that a single model under a blast template results in 1 hit for the attack, and therefore 1 hit on the void shield, as opposed to 10 models under the blast having the potential of collapsing 10 void shields.

The titans have personal Shields, Have since Apoc came out(well, well before that but that is not the point); So when discussing a Titan I assume the personal shield is the one being discussed(You could use other single model units Like most tanks)

But Your clarified Statement is exactly true, A single Baneblade within the Projected Void Shield, hit by a D Blast would only collapse 1 Shield, while a unit of 5 Infantry all caught in the blast would take down the 3 Shields from a single building and still take 2 Rolls on the D weapon damage table.

Angelic wrote:Unless there's some FAQ, isn't it (on average) D3+1 models? You roll on the chart for each hit. Hit's aren't allocated to models, wounds are. You add d3+1 wounds to the wound pool and then allocate. The unit will "Lose D3+1 wounds" per 2-5 and D6+6 per 6. There isn't a rule in 40k like in Fantasy that prevents more wounds being generated than a model has. That's the RAW anyway. I don't know that I agree RAW allows the cascading collapse of multiple shields like you say, but they are fairly worthless vs. Large Blast D weapons if that is the case, i.e. almost all of them.

I know you think you've found some clever loop hole for how D weapons work. But if you want to discuss it start a thread on it. Bare in mind that D weapons don't generate a wound pool as they don't tell you they do. They have their own rules.

Ravenous D wrote:
Nope.

That's not how it works. 1 Blast = 1 shield.

In Apocalypse void shield projections don't exist. Void shields for titans do. Titans are only ever in units of 1 model so a blast can only cause 1 hit on a titan. Thus only 1 hit can be intercepted by the void shields and only 1 shield can be taken down by the blast.

Projected void shields protect multiple units that can each contain multiple models. Thus multiple hits are generated from a single blast weapon. Thus those hits are intercepted by the shields which means multiple shields can be taken down by a single blast.

It really is all there in the rules.

What is more interesting is how Tesla Arc works. Do the arc hits count as coming from outside the shield or from the unit hit? Do hits actually have to get passed the shields to the unit for the Arc effect to take place?

Angelic wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Angelic wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Ah i see why the issue of timing then.

RAW says 9 (+1 dead)

But would you HIWPI at 1 shield per template?

Unless there's some FAQ, isn't it (on average) D3+1 models? You roll on the chart for each hit. Hit's aren't allocated to models, wounds are. You add d3+1 wounds to the wound pool and then allocate. The unit will "Lose D3+1 wounds" per 2-5 and D6+6 per 6. There isn't a rule in 40k like in Fantasy that prevents more wounds being generated than a model has. That's the RAW anyway. I don't know that I agree RAW allows the cascading collapse of multiple shields like you say, but they are fairly worthless vs. Large Blast D weapons if that is the case, i.e. almost all of them.

A) Blast weapons Cause 1 hit per model beneath trhe marker; these are basic rules.

B) That is not at all what D weapons do, they can cause D3+1 Wounds the models hit

A) Never disputed that.

B) Nowhere does it say that. D weapons follow same rules except for rolling to wound. Wounds go into wound pool and are then allocated. D weapons add multiple wounds to the wound pool, never 1. There is no 1 wound result.

Read it again. The wounds from the d6 table do NOT go into the wound pool;like vtb you have no permission to tAke the resultant number of wounds and put them into the wound pool. D3+1 wounds on a 1 wound guardsman kills that one guardsman.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Read it again. The wounds from the d6 table do NOT go into the wound pool;like vtb you have no permission to tAke the resultant number of wounds and put them into the wound pool. D3+1 wounds on a 1 wound guardsman kills that one guardsman.

I thought we were discussing how many shields collapse?
But for wounds this is indeed true: If you roll a 1 on the D table, that guardsman lives. He doesn't get allocated another wound from his pal that got 4 on the D3+1

I believe a blast attack only hits the shield and 1 shield is dropped.

It states the attack INSTEAD hits the void shield. You never hit the unit. You only drop 1 shield.

 Mythra wrote:
I believe a blast attack only hits the shield and 1 shield is dropped.

It states the attack INSTEAD hits the void shield. You never hit the unit. You only drop 1 shield.

Definitely HIWPI, but i can't see the Quoted RAW anywhere and the wording seems Key here.

It clearly states it hits the AV 12 Void INSTEAD of the unit. How do you even get around the instead? Instead and not AND THE UNIT.

Quote the RAW exactly as it is written?
I do believe "Each Hit" is Instead, so even if you have "Instead" you still have "each hit" from the template

(I do not have the Raw with me ATM, please Quote word for word)

 Mythra wrote:
It clearly states it hits the AV 12 Void INSTEAD of the unit. How do you even get around the instead? Instead and not AND THE UNIT.

Mainly by not reading the whole rule, where each HIT instead hits the shield. How many hits is determined by the blast rules, which kicks in before the void shield intercepts them.

 FlingitNow wrote:


I know you think you've found some clever loop hole for how D weapons work. But if you want to discuss it start a thread on it. Bare in mind that D weapons don't generate a wound pool as they don't tell you they do. They have their own rules.

It's a basic rule of the game. They don't have to tell you that they go into the wound pool, they have to tell you they don't. The D weapon rules do not. There are no rules in the game for allocating wounds from shooting not in the wound pool. Models don't take hits. Units suffer a number of hits equal to the number of models under the template. It is only after the number of unsaved wounds has been determined that models are removed per the wound allocation rules. It's not a loophole, it's poor rules writing if that is not what they intended.

On the each hit issue, it's not written that way. It is "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.” The entire attack hits the shield(s), not the unit.

Angelic wrote:
"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.” The entire attack hits the shield(s), not the unit.

So it comes down to how we define "Target" then? if the target is a unit, then it matters not whether it's 1 or 20 models, as the "Hit" of the template is transferred to the shield. As long as "A hit" (IE "A Target") is scored, the shield soaks up instead.

The key here is "Any shooting attack (...) instead hits the projected void shield." Where the rule itself defines the Hit on the shield: The shield is hit by the shooting attack.

Nowhere does the rule specify "Each hit is transferred" but rather "the attack hits" - and scores 1 or 235 hits - and score A hit, from whatever attack you made, on the shield. Now if that attack was a pie plate, it is still 1 Hit, as the rule has specifically told you the shield has suffered a hit from that Shooting attack.

Trying to resume it short: the Rule says *shooting attack* hits shield instead of target, not "transfer hits like this"

JinxDragon wrote:
At this point, the Special Rule would require us to generate new To Hit results or contain some verbiage informing us to return to the To Hit section of the sequence and re-calculate the results. I do not remember seeing such instructions within the Shield Projection Special Rule but the amount of haze my brain has been in of late I wouldn't be surprised if I overlooked a step.

Besides, how would we go about re-calculating the Blast Marker's To Hit Result with the Shield Projection?

This is basically how I would see it: The special rule gives you an "automatic hit" of your weapon, as long as that weapon has hit a target to trigger the Special Rule. You then move onto the Armour penetration.

-Next Post-

And in regards to this definition of the Rule: How would you resolve multiple weapons?

HS Squad with 4 Las Cannons: 4 Hits. Is that 4 shields down if they Pen? Or 1 *Shooting attack* directed at 1 Shield?
Is there another part of the rule that says "if one hit downs the shield, the others go through"?

only blast weapons would disagree with your interpretation of only a single hit being scored as you are explicitly told that blast weapons cause a number of hits = to the number of models under the template once scatter has been determined.

how you could come to the conclusion that a blast weapon of any variety, not just D weapons would operate differently with the inclusion of void shields is another matter.

replace the S D blast with a vindicator S10 ap1 Large blast, it hits the 10 guardsmen and causes 10 'hits'.

those 10 hits are then re-directed towards the shield(s).

once all the shields are down (presuming that the resolution is favourable), any remaining, unresolved hits, are then allocated and resolved normally against the unit.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
in answer to your last 'question' on the presumption that you roll high enough on each shot, resolved sequentially, then that would indeed be 4 shields down.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
only blast weapons would disagree with your interpretation of only a single hit being scored as you are explicitly told that blast weapons cause a number of hits = to the number of models under the template once scatter has been determined.

how you could come to the conclusion that a blast weapon of any variety, not just D weapons would operate differently with the inclusion of void shields is another matter.

replace the S D blast with a vindicator S10 ap1 Large blast, it hits the 10 guardsmen and causes 10 'hits'.

those 10 hits are then re-directed towards the shield(s).

once all the shields are down (presuming that the resolution is favourable), any remaining, unresolved hits, are then allocated and resolved normally against the unit.

in answer to your last 'question' on the presumption that you roll high enough on each shot, resolved sequentially, then that would indeed be 4 shields down.

The Void Shield Special Rule is the one that tells you, explicitly, that your shooting attack Hits the shield. That Vindicator blast? It Hits the shield: S10 ap1 on the shield. Just as you'd place a blast templates on the shield, but you don't have to do that because the SR has already told you it has scored a hit.

once all the shields are down (presuming that the resolution is favourable), any remaining, unresolved hits, are then allocated and resolved normally against the unit.

Now that is the part of the rule that answers the 4 Las canon hits:
If the first hit Penetrates the Shield, the second Hit scores a new *allocated*(as written) Hit on the unit. This Hit is then affected by the Special Rule of the second shield, and now Hits the Second Shield and tries to pen.

The way the Special Rule is written, a shooting attack of 4 Las Cannons essentially Hits up to 8 times, just as if you were shooting 8 different units every time. Though it is probably resolved in 1 roll of 4 dice (if you have 4 shields).

 BlackTalos wrote:
Quote the RAW exactly as it is written?
I do believe "Each Hit" is Instead, so even if you have "Instead" you still have "each hit" from the template

(I do not have the Raw with me ATM, please Quote word for word)

The actual quote:

Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield.

Then the rules for blasts say that the number of hits is determined by the number of models under the blast template. Technically by RAW it works that way, but that's not how it was intended. This feels a lot like the yelling about the mawloc, PK nobz in shoota boy squads, terminators without terminator armour and Eldar jetbikes that aren't eldar jetbikes. RAW isn't always right. This is one of those ones you know people are just being nit picky and butthurt about.

Tone it down a bit please, there are ways to say things without inviting aggression. MT11

Actual Projected Void Shield Quote: "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."

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Tone it down a bit please, there are ways to say things without inviting aggression. MT11

Actual Projected Void Shield Quote: "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."

Rule #1, follow it please. MT11

My copy says:

Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield.


Interesting. *checks for updates* very interesting...

 Ravenous D wrote:
The actual quote:

Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield.

This would not make much sense as attacking a bastion in my own table half would trigger this...

Kommissar Kel wrote:Actual Projected Void Shield Quote: "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."

Still the same as above and the RAW still stands: The shooting attack itself is re-directed and given a Hit if you had hit inside the shield.

Still the same as above and the RAW still stands: The shooting attack itself is re-directed and given a Hit if you had hit inside the shield.

Then blasts do literally nothing to the void shield. Because it is not a model, nor is it a defined number of models. So if the blastmarker is redirected rather than just the hits then the blast marker causes no hits. Is that what you are claiming blast and template weapons never do anything to void shields?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Actual Projected Void Shield Quote: "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."

My version says this also.
Hardback paper version.

Void shield rule, as per hardback:

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. [...]


[...] 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.

Allocating hits to models from a blast weapon, as per hardback BRB (p33, 3rd column, 2nd paragraph):

Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above - the unit suffers one hit for each model with its base fully or partially beneath the blast marker (see diagram).

One the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out,roll To Wound and save as normal. Any unsaved Wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack. (FAQ appendage to LOS would come after this)

Okay? We all on the same page with definitions?

So, I figure the current argument is this: you place the marker over the unit, you decide that it hits the unit X times then you allocate them to the shield instead. This then implies that a "target" of a blast weapon is every single model under the blast, even partially, regardless of where the blast aimed originally, correct? It also implies that although the use of void shield is singular you hit all void shields and continue to allocate despite simultaneously resolving the hits. For the 10 guardsmen, 9 void shield example, this argument is saying you generate 10 "hits" on "targets" which then are resolved thusly: the first 9 hits cannot strike the original target as void shields are in the way. Hence, you allocate the first hit to a "target", instead resolve it against one of the nine shields; next you take the second hit against a different "target" model, which then must be resolved against a different shield of the 8 remaining and so on and so forth until the last hit is allocated to the unit again and wounds the guardsman.

Did we not have a similar debate over the Triarch Stalker large blast when seeing what it would twin link? It seems to me that the real contention is exactly here: 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; which is to say how we define a target. It is, undoubtedly a shooting attack and it is undoubtedly hitting at least one void shield. For the sake of being Devil's Advocate (though I think the current interpretation is correct RAW) I contend this line from page 12 of the BRB:

CHOOSE A TARGET
Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a target for them to shoot at.[Rest omitted as it just talks about checking LOS and range]

LINE OF SIGHT
To target an enemy unit, at least one model must have line of sight (see page 8) to at least one model in the target unit. If no models have line of sight, then a different target must be chosen.

We have "hit our target", but do we now instantly resolve this hit against the shield OR do we calculate how many hits have been done against the models in the target unit before continuing? Likewise, it says further hits will be resolved against the original target - must these be from a different unit entirely, so one unit per shield as you are given no permission to penetrate a different shield when all hits from a unit are resolved simultaneously? Probably not, but clearing these last points really does make the original argument watertight.

Eyjio wrote:
We have "hit our target", but do we now instantly resolve this hit against the shield OR do we calculate how many hits have been done against the models in the target unit before continuing? Likewise, it says further hits will be resolved against the original target - must these be from a different unit entirely, so one unit per shield as you are given no permission to penetrate a different shield when all hits from a unit are resolved simultaneously? Probably not, but clearing these last points really does make the original argument watertight.

I read the RAW to say: Yes, you have scored a hit BUT the *shooting attack* -here, the blast template- hits the void shield. There is no "transferring of hits". All hits of the 1 shooting attack score 1 hit. If you fire 2 templates, that's 2 hits, etc.

FlingitNow wrote:Then blasts do literally nothing to the void shield. Because it is not a model, nor is it a defined number of models. So if the blastmarker is redirected rather than just the hits then the blast marker causes no hits. Is that what you are claiming blast and template weapons never do anything to void shields?

No: The Special Rule specifically gives you the Hit ("instead hits the projected void shield")

Step 1: Hit; Place Template over Models and count up hits; Or simply Hit with any other shooting weapon.
Step 2: Roll to wound/ Penetrate.

I hope we are agreed on these steps?

The Special Rule comes in at Step 1: Any shooting attack (...) instead hits the projected void shield. - This means (to me) that any type of hits, however partial, complete, 10 or 20 hits are Instead replaced by a hit to the shield
You then play Step 2: Whatever weapon you shot now tries to Pen the shield.

If you noticed, between Step 1 and 2 there is no "transferring of hits".





Automatically Appended Next Post:
In a certain way, this Special Rule comes into play before you count up a number of models Hit. The Missile never makes it to the target. The template rolls to scatter but as soon as 1 model is Hit within the target, the Special rule transfers the entire shooting attack to the shield.

That's just what the Rule says: "shooting attack" and "instead". Not "each hit will transfer" or "count hits and instead" or "resolve hits and transfer".

By adding notes:
Any shooting attack (1 Missile/Pulse/Roket) that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits (52 times) a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits (as it would any AV12) the projected void shield.

Is this any clearer?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eyjio wrote:
So, I figure the current argument is this: you place the marker over the unit, you decide that it hits the unit X times then you allocate them to the shield instead(1). This then implies that a "target" of a blast weapon is every single model under the blast, even partially, regardless of where the blast aimed originally, correct?(2) It also implies that although the use of void shield is singular you hit all void shields and continue to allocate despite simultaneously resolving the hits.(3)

This is where I would disagree.
(1) Is indeed correct , but not "them"; the shooting attack (as per the Rule wording)
(2) The target is a unit, under the shield.
(3)This i would disagree with the most. It's a layer of shields. You resolve the shots 1 by 1, in the same way as you would a vehicle. Each shot has a chance to Collapse the shield. If it does, the remaining Hits (of other weapons) are assigned to the target Unit, which then triggers the Rule again if shields remain.

No: The Special Rule specifically gives you the Hit ("instead hits the projected void shield")

Step 1: Hit; Place Template over Models and count up hits; Or simply Hit with any other shooting weapon.
Step 2: Roll to wound/ Penetrate.

I hope we are agreed on these steps?

The Special Rule comes in at Step 1: Any shooting attack (...) instead hits the projected void shield. - This means (to me) that any type of hits, however partial, complete, 10 or 20 hits are Instead replaced by a hit to the shield
You then play Step 2: Whatever weapon you shot now tries to Pen the shield.

If you noticed, between Step 1 and 2 there is no "transferring of hits".





Automatically Appended Next Post:
In a certain way, this Special Rule comes into play before you count up a number of models Hit. The Missile never makes it to the target. The template rolls to scatter but as soon as 1 model is Hit within the target, the Special rule transfers the entire shooting attack to the shield.

That's just what the Rule says: "shooting attack" and "instead". Not "each hit will transfer" or "count hits and instead" or "resolve hits and transfer".

By adding notes:
Any shooting attack (1 Missile/Pulse/Roket) that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits (52 times) a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits (as it would any AV12) the projected void shield.

Is this any clearer?

So how many models does the blast hit in your interpretation. How do you count how many models are under the blast template. Where is this information found.

Because from what you've described the blast does no hits as it is not over any models and simply hits the shield.

BlackTalos, your making up rules, there is nothing in the void shield rules that allow you to decide that the resolution of the number of hits from a blast marker gets superceeded by the void shields interception.

you must first work out the number of hits from the blast as it is part of the blast marker rules, once you have worked out the number of hits the void shields will then start intercepting the hits.

once the shields are down any remaining hits go back to the unit.

 nutty_nutter wrote:


once the shields are down any remaining hits go back to the unit.

That's not what the rule says. It says "...further hits..." Once the first penetration roll is made, the pool of hits is set. Further hits occur at a future time, otherwise they aren't further, they are former (or remaining).

The RAW sounds absolutely terrible. I'll be comping the living daylights out of that one

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.

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.