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.

rigeld2 wrote:
Where in the rule does it modify hits? Where does it even mention hits? The shooting attack is intercepted meaning there should be no difference in how you handle blast vs non-blast. All it does is take the shooting attack and force the resolution to the shield instead of the initial target.

Yeah, exactly: When i force a resolution of a single blast to the shield i count 1 Hit? (this being done after we already resolved the blast rules)

For 1) i do not believe we are breaking RaW for blast, as it is a modification, addition to the hits. I fully agree it is not a model, and that a Blast over the shield would not generate anything, but the rule is another stage after the Blast rules have been applied. In a similar way of how you resolve blast, then wounds, then cover saves: I would say you resolve Blast, then a hit on the shield, then armour pen.
2) I don't think is happening just that way, it's not a return to the hit stage, it's a filter for it, a next stage that the Rule creates. Just like the Rending Special Rule:
Your assault canon has hit 3 Times, including 1 roll of 6. That roll of 6 doesn't force you to re-roll to hit, it just says "that hit is now AP2". A blast scoring 5 Hits does not need to be re-Hit, it just "scores 1 hit"

1) are you counting models underneath the marker to work out hits? If not you are breaking the blast marker rules. Which requires specific permission which simply does not exist in the rules.
2) are you using the number of hits that were scored on the unit. If not you are recalculating the number of hits scored, which breaks the RaW of VSGs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

When i force a resolution of a single blast to the shield i count 1 Hit?

Why? What rules tell you that 1 blast marker does 1 hit on a shield?

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Where in the rule does it modify hits? Where does it even mention hits? The shooting attack is intercepted meaning there should be no difference in how you handle blast vs non-blast. All it does is take the shooting attack and force the resolution to the shield instead of the initial target.

Yeah, exactly: When i force a resolution of a single blast to the shield i count 1 Hit? (this being done after we already resolved the blast rules)

And where are the rules that provide for this? The only rules we have that govern how many hits a blast weapon generates tell us to place a template and count the models. VOID SHIELD IS NOT A MODEL. You have to see your error by now....You have shown no rules that explain why a blast weapon's hit mechanic is being thrown out while every other weapons' hit mechanic is applied. There is literally nothing that says "1 attack = 1 hit" Again, NOTHING. RAW, the only way we can generate hit against the shield is to see how many hits the target unit takes. If we apply those hits generated from the assault weapon, we MUST apply the hits generated from the blast weapon. There is no permission within the rule to be selective on which hits are applied. The way in which a weapon generates hits is not mentioned, and has absolutely nothing to do with the void shield rule. The rule only comes into effect AFTER hits are generated. There is no permission to "go back" or "modify" these hits. They simply hit the shield instead.

As for rending, you are a bit off. rending does not take place on the "to hit" roll. It is on the "to wound" roll. It also does nothing to reduce the number of hit or wounds generated, so I'm not sure how it is even relevant here.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Where in the rule does it modify hits? Where does it even mention hits? The shooting attack is intercepted meaning there should be no difference in how you handle blast vs non-blast. All it does is take the shooting attack and force the resolution to the shield instead of the initial target.

Yeah, exactly: When i force a resolution of a single blast to the shield i count 1 Hit? (this being done after we already resolved the blast rules)

Why 1 Hit? If your Blast weapon caused 3 Hits on the unit, and those hits are transferred over, then 3 hits get transferred over not 1.

The parallel to this is the Assault 3 weapon that makes its shooting attack on a unit within the bubble and scores 3 hits, all 3 hits get transferred.

The rules are really quite clear, when you are making shooting attacks from outside the bubble(as opposed to Melee atttacks, or any other types of attacks such as sweep attacks and Vector Strikes) all hits on the unit instead hit the shield.

It is not the attacks that transfer they are specified because other types of attack do not trigger the shield; It is very much the hits that transfer.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Where in the rule does it modify hits? Where does it even mention hits? The shooting attack is intercepted meaning there should be no difference in how you handle blast vs non-blast. All it does is take the shooting attack and force the resolution to the shield instead of the initial target.

Yeah, exactly: When i force a resolution of a single blast to the shield i count 1 Hit? (this being done after we already resolved the blast rules)

The attack has already generated a number of hits. Where is your permission to recalculate that number?
Why are you forcing the recalculation for blasts but not non-blasts?
Cite rules please.

Your not recalculating anything. Your following the void shield rule. If a unit is hit INSTEAD "and not and" hit an AV 12 shield. INSTEAD means in its stead it doesn't add an and. Your trying to hit 2 things at once and not follow the instead of the rule.

I ask what does instead mean to you?

 Mythra wrote:
I ask what does instead mean to you?

After you hit the unit, the attack, the FULL attack, hits the shield instead of the unit.
Not part of the attack.
Not a made up number of hits.
But the attack.

So instead of hitting the shield 1st your hitting the unit 1st instead? It says after all hits are applied then hit the unit.

It says instead hit the shield then the remaining hits are applied to the unit. You are applying hits to unit instead of the shield then going back and hitting the unit again. How are hitting the unit twice? Nothing lets you do that.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Mythra wrote:
I ask what does instead mean to you?

After you hit the unit, the attack, the FULL attack, hits the shield instead of the unit.
Not part of the attack.
Not a made up number of hits.
But the attack.

The rule is only Instead for hits.

Hits on the unit/building/vehicle instead hit the shield.

This does mean that a Building or vehicle hit by the Template/Marker is only going to instead hit the shield with 1 hit, because the vehicle/building was only hit once.

But a unit hit by a Blast marker/template will have you calculate the number of hits on the unit as normal(as the rule requires the unit to first be hit) and then all those hits instead hit the shield.

In other words it is part of the attack(the hits), which are calculated as normal for the attack.

Mythra: it says you first have to hit the unit, and that those Hits instead hit the shield. You need to first hit the unit

You ignore the instead then. It says to only hit the unit with the remaining hits once the shield is collapsed. That is when you hit the unit. You don't hit the unit and then hit the shield then hit the unit. You INSTEAD hit the shield. No definition of instead means to include. You keep including the unit instead I say hit the shield.

INSTEAD you hit shield and then remaining hits hit the unit. i.e. Heavy 3 - 1 Hit instead hits the shield and then when it is collapsed it you have 2 shots left to hit the unit. Your saying the Heavy 3 the 1st shot hits unit then it goes to the shield? It plain doesn't it instead hits the shield. Instead again is the issue I have.

With your way do you have to wound the unit since you already hit it? Rules for blast says counts wounds. if your hitting the unit 1st are you going to skip that?

How do all keep getting around instead it is like the word is invisible.

Mythra,
The Special Rule contains a trigger that must be met before it can be evoked; the original target has to first be Hit.

Stronhold assault, Projected Void Shields 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.

That is the Void shield rule being discussed.

Lets break it down.

"Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone"

This part is defining what kind of attack and where it is coming from.

"and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone"

This is the trigger, the attack has to hit the unit. It is also telling you where that unit has to be for these rules.

"instead hits the projected void shield."

Tells you what to do with the trigger.

You first hit the unit, those hits than instead hit the shield. Very Plain, very cut and dry rules here. You have not Hit the unit unless you have finished the Simultaneous "To-Hit" procedure.

Full Process: declare the Shooting attack, see that shooting unit is outside the shield and target unit is inside the shield, Make your to hit rolls to see if the unit is hit, those hits instead hit the shield.

 Mythra wrote:
You ignore the instead then. It says to only hit the unit with the remaining hits once the shield is collapsed. That is when you hit the unit. You don't hit the unit and then hit the shield then hit the unit. You INSTEAD hit the shield. No definition of instead means to include. You keep including the unit instead I say hit the shield.

INSTEAD you hit shield and then remaining hits hit the unit. i.e. Heavy 3 - 1 Hit instead hits the shield and then when it is collapsed it you have 2 shots left to hit the unit. Your saying the Heavy 3 the 1st shot hits unit then it goes to the shield? It plain doesn't it instead hits the shield. Instead again is the issue I have.

With your way do you have to wound the unit since you already hit it? Rules for blast says counts wounds. if your hitting the unit 1st are you going to skip that?

How do all keep getting around instead it is like the word is invisible.

1) I make a shooting attack with an assault 20 weapon and score 9 hits on a unit inside the VSP how many hits go on the shield? Why?
2) I make a shooting attack with a blast weapon and score 9 hits on a unit inside the VSP how many hits go on the shield? Why?

Why are you treating them differently please quote rules.

 Mythra wrote:
You ignore the instead then. It says to only hit the unit with the remaining hits once the shield is collapsed. That is when you hit the unit. You don't hit the unit and then hit the shield then hit the unit. You INSTEAD hit the shield. No definition of instead means to include. You keep including the unit instead I say hit the shield.

INSTEAD you hit shield and then remaining hits hit the unit. i.e. Heavy 3 - 1 Hit instead hits the shield and then when it is collapsed it you have 2 shots left to hit the unit. Your saying the Heavy 3 the 1st shot hits unit then it goes to the shield? It plain doesn't it instead hits the shield. Instead again is the issue I have.

With your way do you have to wound the unit since you already hit it? Rules for blast says counts wounds. if your hitting the unit 1st are you going to skip that?

How do all keep getting around instead it is like the word is invisible.

....Mythra....the special rule CANNOT even be triggered if the unit is not hit....hitting the unit is the trigger for the rule, it has to happen.

 FlingitNow wrote:

For 1) i do not believe we are breaking RaW for blast, as it is a modification, addition to the hits. I fully agree it is not a model, and that a Blast over the shield would not generate anything, but the rule is another stage after the Blast rules have been applied. In a similar way of how you resolve blast, then wounds, then cover saves: I would say you resolve Blast, then a hit on the shield, then armour pen.
2) I don't think is happening just that way, it's not a return to the hit stage, it's a filter for it, a next stage that the Rule creates. Just like the Rending Special Rule:
Your assault canon has hit 3 Times, including 1 roll of 6. That roll of 6 doesn't force you to re-roll to hit, it just says "that hit is now AP2". A blast scoring 5 Hits does not need to be re-Hit, it just "scores 1 hit"

1) are you counting models underneath the marker to work out hits? If not you are breaking the blast marker rules. Which requires specific permission which simply does not exist in the rules.
2) are you using the number of hits that were scored on the unit. If not you are recalculating the number of hits scored, which breaks the RaW of VSGs.

1) Yes they are being counted, but then you "move on" to where you just hit the shield (next step)
2) We are not using the number of hits, but "the Fact they hit": Transferring the attack to a 1 on 1 situation.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

When i force a resolution of a single blast to the shield i count 1 Hit?

Why? What rules tell you that 1 blast marker does 1 hit on a shield?

I do think this is the key of the issue: I do indeed "assume" a blast marker does a single hit on a shield because it's 1 shield, not 1 shield per model or other (it's 1 physical building)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Stronhold assault, Projected Void Shields 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.

That is the Void shield rule being discussed.

Lets break it down.

"Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone"

This part is defining what kind of attack and where it is coming from.

"and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone"

This is the trigger, the attack has to hit the unit. It is also telling you where that unit has to be for these rules.

"instead hits the projected void shield." <=Here: What is the subject of the phrase? Hits on the target or "shooting attack?"

Tells you what to do with the trigger.

You first hit the unit, those hits than instead hit the shield (This i disagree with). Very Plain, very cut and dry rules here. You have not Hit the unit unless you have finished the Simultaneous "To-Hit" procedure. Yes, but then comes another step, generated by the Special Rule, where you apply the attack to the shield (as a different, second "To-Hit" procedure)

Full Process: declare the Shooting attack, see that shooting unit is outside the shield and target unit is inside the shield, Make your to hit rolls to see if the unit is hit, <Apply the attack, already Hit, to the Shield> those hits instead hit the shield.

I do think this is the key of the issue: I do indeed "assume" a blast marker does a single hit on a shield because it's 1 shield, not 1 shield per model or other (it's 1 physical building)

This is the crux of the issue with your interpretation. It requires you to assume 1 hit on the shield with literally no rules backing at all. You assume because it is 1 shield it is treated as a unit of one model but we are never told to treat it as such so we can't. There is nothing in the blast marker rules that tell you how many hits a blast marker does on a special rule and nothing in the VSP rules that tell you how many hits a blast marker does. Therefore we must either use the number of hits generated on the unit (as we do for every other type of weapon) or it does no hits. Arbitrarily making up the number 1 is not following RaW it is arbitrarily making up a number of hits.

I really like Kommissar Kel's example of procedure, in a way this is what i see:

Full Process:
-declare the Shooting attack
-see that shooting unit is outside the shield and target unit is inside the shield
- Make your to hit rolls to see if the unit is hit (To-Hit Procedure 01)
- your weapon hits the shield (To-Hit Procedure 02)

To-Hit Procedure 02 is enforced by the Special Rule itself by: "instead hits the projected void shield." It takes the binary result from (To-Hit Procedure 01) and makes you roll Armour Pen with the hits you have in (To-Hit Procedure 02)
So for the example:

1) I make a shooting attack with an assault 20 weapon and score 9 hits on a unit inside the VSP how many hits go on the shield? Why?
2) I make a shooting attack with a blast weapon and score 9 hits on a unit inside the VSP how many hits go on the shield? Why?

To-Hit Procedure 01: 1) 9 Hits from 20 shots - Correct - Binary: Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit (9) Miss Miss Miss Miss Miss Miss Miss Miss Miss Miss Miss (11)
2) 9 Hits from 1 shot - Correct- Binary: Hit
To-Hit Procedure 02: 1) Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit (9) Miss Miss Miss Miss Miss Miss Miss Miss Miss Miss Miss (11) = 9 Roll to pen
2) Hit = 1 Roll to pen

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Stronhold assault, Projected Void Shields 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.

That is the Void shield rule being discussed.

Lets break it down.

"Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone"

This part is defining what kind of attack and where it is coming from.

"and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone"

This is the trigger, the attack has to hit the unit. It is also telling you where that unit has to be for these rules.

"instead hits the projected void shield." <=Here: What is the subject of the phrase? Hits on the target or "shooting attack?"

Tells you what to do with the trigger.

You first hit the unit, those hits than instead hit the shield (This i disagree with). Very Plain, very cut and dry rules here. You have not Hit the unit unless you have finished the Simultaneous "To-Hit" procedure. Yes, but then comes another step, generated by the Special Rule, where you apply the attack to the shield (as a different, second "To-Hit" procedure)

Full Process: declare the Shooting attack, see that shooting unit is outside the shield and target unit is inside the shield, Make your to hit rolls to see if the unit is hit, <Apply the attack, already Hit, to the Shield> those hits instead hit the shield.

These are pretty Funny.

The subject of the phrase is where the Last phrase left off; hits on the target; I already showed that "Shooting Attack" is o0nly there to define what type of attack has the hits moved.

You can disagree all you like, it doesn't make you right.

You have failed to show that the rule has you redo the to hit procedure on the Shield, and I have shown the rule here in this quotation that very clearly says the hits transfer; you just decided that "You disagree".

And your Last Red comment is even more perfect, It is actually correct! Yes you apply the already hit to the shield. If you have 9 Hits, 9 Hits are applied to the shield.

 FlingitNow wrote:
There is nothing in the blast marker rules that tell you how many hits a blast marker does on a special rule and nothing in the VSP rules that tell you how many hits a blast marker does.

Fully agreed.

And that will be just as correct as: there is nothing in the VSP rules telling you to transfer multiple hits.

We have 1 assumption, you have 1 assumption. Both can be made and undoubtedly the main reason we keep going around in circles, and all i can keep trying to do is to say that assuming that a blast generates 1 hit because of experience is preferable, but that is basically what we are down to?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
And your Last Red comment is even more perfect, It is actually correct! Yes you apply the already hit to the shield. If you have 9 Hits, 9 Hits are applied to the shield.

We apply the attack differently though, see the post above with the example.

So let me ask you this: you have a unit(any unit, single vehicle included) within the PVS, I have a unit of 15 lootas outside the PVS shooting at it, I roll for my number of shots getting 3. I then roll my to hits against the unit hitting with all 45 shots. How many hits are resolved against the Void shield? And why?

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.

I do not really want to go back to basic grammar, but:


What instead hits the projected void shield?
"Any shooting attack."
Because: What instead hits the projected void shield?
"hits a target within the Void Shield Zone"
Just can't be right.

(Sorry if this post came across rude, just trying to explain...)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So let me ask you this: you have a unit(any unit, single vehicle included) within the PVS, I have a unit of 15 lootas outside the PVS shooting at it, I roll for my number of shots getting 3. I then roll my to hits against the unit hitting with all 45 shots. How many hits are resolved against the Void shield? And why?

To-Hit Procedure 01: 45 Hits from 45 shots - Binary: Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit (...) Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit (45)

To-Hit Procedure 02: 1) Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit (...) Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit (45) = 45 Roll to pen

Fully agreed.

And that will be just as correct as: there is nothing in the VSP rules telling you to transfer multiple hits.

We have 1 assumption, you have 1 assumption. Both can be made and undoubtedly the main reason we keep going around in circles, and all i can keep trying to do is to say that assuming that a blast generates 1 hit because of experience is preferable, but that is basically what we are down to?

The bolded is also an assumption YOU make as you agree an Assault 20 weapon can cause 20 hits on the shield. We both agree for anything but a blast weapon you generate the hits against the unit as normal and then transfer those hits to the shield. You are claiming that a blast weapon is limited to 1 hit and have no rules back for that. We are simply following the same procedure for any type of attack without inventing any rules or arbitrarily creating numbers of hits.

Imaginary unit shooting: 1 heavy flamer hit 3, two missile launchers, Hit 4 and 2, one plasma cannon, blast scatters over nothing

To-Hit Procedure 01: HF: 3 Hits from 1 shot - Binary: Hit
ML: 6 hits from 2 missiles - Binary: Hit, Hit
PC: No Hits from 1 shot - Binary: Miss


To-Hit Procedure 02: HF: - Binary: Hit -1 Roll to pen
ML: - Binary: Hit, Hit - 2 rolls to pen
PC: - Binary: Miss - No rolls

So 45 hits to the unit from lootas equals 45 hits to the void shield then?

This is your answer?

And that is because they are hits to the unit?

Then 5 hits on the unit from a blast weapon equals 5 hits to the void shield because you follow the same procedure for determining the number of hits oin the void shield.

To hit procedure 1: 5 hits from 1 shot - Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit (5)
To-hit Procedure 2: Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit (5)

How does you to hit procedure 02 work exactly. You just seem to say hit repeatedly until you get to the number of hits you want.

Say a blast hits a unit of 9 guardsmen within a VSP how do we work out how many hits go on the shield? What rules are telling you to do that?

 BlackTalos 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.

I do not really want to go back to basic grammar, but:

Spoiler:

Finding the Subject

Once you determine the verb, ask a wh...? question of the verb. This will locate the subject(s).

For example:
David works hard.
Who "works hard"?=David does=the subject.

What instead hits the projected void shield?
"Any shooting attack."
Because: What instead hits the projected void shield?
"hits a target within the Void Shield Zone"
Just can't be right.

(Sorry if this post came across rude, just trying to explain...)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So let me ask you this: you have a unit(any unit, single vehicle included) within the PVS, I have a unit of 15 lootas outside the PVS shooting at it, I roll for my number of shots getting 3. I then roll my to hits against the unit hitting with all 45 shots. How many hits are resolved against the Void shield? And why?

To-Hit Procedure 01: 45 Hits from 45 shots - Binary: Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit (...) Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit (45)

To-Hit Procedure 02: 1) Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit (...) Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit (45) = 45 Roll to pen

You are failing to understand that the hits are PART OF THE ATTACK. The rule says that the attack INSTEAD hits the shield. The hits from the blast weapon(being part of the said attack) INSTEAD hit the shield. it really is that simple. The rule is clear as day. I'll give you a non-warhammer example.

I decide to build a snowman in the front yard. I put two lumps of coal for eyes on the snowman. I am then instructed to move the snowman to the backyard. As the lumps of coal are now a part of the snowman, they move with it to the back yard.

Here it is again in the warhammer world.

I decide to make a shooting attack at a target. The attack's blast generates 5 hits. I am then told that the attack instead hits the shield. As the 5 hits are part of the attack, they move with it onto the shield. We are not given permission to go back in time before the attack's hits were generated. At the point in time when the shield rule comes into effect, they are already part of the attack and therefore must be transferred with it.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. You all think instead means hitting the unit and then moving the hits over to shield and then hit the unit again.

We think instead means you don't ever hit the unit the rule activates and instead you hit an AV 12 shield.

So can we agree that we disagree? I will say tho if we can get a 3rd party to hold the cash I'd like to make a large wager that I am right. Escrow anyone?

 Mythra wrote:
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. You all think instead means hitting the unit and then moving the hits over to shield and then hit the unit again.

We think instead means you don't ever hit the unit the rule activates and instead you hit an AV 12 shield.

So can we agree that we disagree? I will say tho if we can get a 3rd party to hold the cash I'd like to make a large wager that I am right. Escrow anyone?

So how do you determine if you hit the unit for the rule to take effect?

Or are you saying that you never bother to hit the unit and straight attack the PVS?

If the unit is hit you INSTEAD hit the void shield is what I am saying. You don't hit the unit. hit the shield, and then hit the unit. If the unit then resolve the hit vs an AV 12 Target.

It doesn't drain the void shield to have more units under it.

 Mythra wrote:
If the unit is hit you INSTEAD hit the void shield is what I am saying. You don't hit the unit. hit the shield, and then hit the unit. If the unit then resolve the hit vs an AV 12 Target.

It doesn't drain the void shield to have more units under it.

How do you determine if the unit was hit?

Does it just have to be in range an LOS?

How do you determine how many hits the Shield takes, or the Strength of those hits?