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.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You you want a fluffy or Cinematic imagining it would be that the blast strikes into the shield, overcoming its protective barrier and then still splashing into the unit.

The exact same weapon hitting the exact same 2 shields, 2 with with rhino, 2 with 30 men, but then two VERY different things happen?

This is sidetracking from discussing RaW, but you pay the same amount of points for 2 layers of 9 shield, one has 2 tanks in it, one has 30 men.
Both intercept the hits Completely differently? Just doesn't seem right. Now i know RaI has got nothing to do with RaW, but i might as well say that the results are just not in favour either.
Correct me but about 500Pts for a 9 Layer VSG? How much for a Vindicator? 1 Shot and they're all down. But 9 D weapons shoot to not even get as many kills.

@Nutty: Beam weapons: Heavy 3? 3 Pen rolls. again, as soon as the beam hits anything (5 models) within the shield, it triggers the SR and the shield take a hit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I would add 1.5) in our resolution. When you say "instead resolve that attack from stage 2 onwards against the shield (with a rule allowing hits to subsequently go back to the unit after the shield is down)", i agree but not using Hits from 1), using hits from 1.5 (not using hits on the target unit, but Hits on the shield)

Why are you inserting that step? Do you have a rules basis?

Yes: the VSG special Rule: "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."

Sorry - I don't see the bolded in that rules quote. Could you clarify for me?

Check the red - Attack Hits shield instead of hits target. No transfer. Resolve V shield instead of count V target

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I do believe Blast weapons hits are simultaneous, but looking into the Rules atm and can't seem to find one or the other.

Tallying the hits is, yes. But allocating the wounds do individual units is not.

Shield rule intercepts and returns Hits BEFORE allocating wounds?

Well... Yes. And?

But Hits is simultaneous?

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

In any case, it does create an issue you would not have if the 1 blast takes a shield down or doesn't...?

It doesn't if you follow the rules and don't make assumptions.

Where your assumption is: transferring all hits.

Hits are part of the shooting attack. The shooting attack is transferred. I'm making no assumptions. Your assumption is that hits are recalculated and have cited no rules support.

The shooting attack is transferred. That's not the hits...

The shooting attack is transferred. That's not the hits...

But it is transferred AFTER the number of hits has been calculated for that shooting attack.

So you need to show:

1) Permission to go to the to hit stage and recalculate hits
2) Any rules governing how to calculate hits from blast/template/beam weapons on a shield (as opposed to by counting models caught in their area of effect as each of those weapons require).

This has been going on for what 10 pages now and these two points where made on page 1 or 2 and you've NEVER addressedthem whilst claiming RaW. Your interpretation is not RaW and has no basis in RaW as it breaks literally all the rules involved and requires extra rules on top of that which you have invented to work. So post the rules that answer both the questions above or concede.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The exact same weapon hitting the exact same 2 shields, 2 with with rhino, 2 with 30 men, but then two VERY different things happen?

This is sidetracking from discussing RaW, but you pay the same amount of points for 2 layers of 9 shield, one has 2 tanks in it, one has 30 men.
Both intercept the hits Completely differently? Just doesn't seem right. Now i know RaI has got nothing to do with RaW, but i might as well say that the results are just not in favour either.
Correct me but about 500Pts for a 9 Layer VSG? How much for a Vindicator? 1 Shot and they're all down. But 9 D weapons shoot to not even get as many kills.

Every ranged D weapon I know of has an area of effect that is atleast a large blast so your comparison with a Vindicator is like most of your comparisons ill fitting and incorrect. Yes it is weirdthat the blast weapons do more damage to the shield if they target infantry rather than a tank. But that is the RaW and to me seems most likely the RaI as in a rules abstraction you sometimes get weird results but for simplicity they want all weapons to work the same way (calculate hits against target unit then transfer the process over to the shield).

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I would add 1.5) in our resolution. When you say "instead resolve that attack from stage 2 onwards against the shield (with a rule allowing hits to subsequently go back to the unit after the shield is down)", i agree but not using Hits from 1), using hits from 1.5 (not using hits on the target unit, but Hits on the shield)

Why are you inserting that step? Do you have a rules basis?

Yes: the VSG special Rule: "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."

Sorry - I don't see the bolded in that rules quote. Could you clarify for me?

Check the red - Attack Hits shield instead of hits target. No transfer. Resolve V shield instead of count V target

The rule cannot be triggered until after the unit has been hit. Agreed?
So what happens to the hits generated on the target unit - I'm sure you can cite a rule to explain.

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I do believe Blast weapons hits are simultaneous, but looking into the Rules atm and can't seem to find one or the other.

Tallying the hits is, yes. But allocating the wounds do individual units is not.

Shield rule intercepts and returns Hits BEFORE allocating wounds?

Well... Yes. And?

But Hits is simultaneous?

Hits is how you know you ... hit. So...

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

In any case, it does create an issue you would not have if the 1 blast takes a shield down or doesn't...?

It doesn't if you follow the rules and don't make assumptions.

Where your assumption is: transferring all hits.

Hits are part of the shooting attack. The shooting attack is transferred. I'm making no assumptions. Your assumption is that hits are recalculated and have cited no rules support.

The shooting attack is transferred. That's not the hits...

And yet hits are part of a shooting attack.
Meaning that since hits have been generated you need permission to go back and regenerate them. You haven't shown that permission.
In addition, you're treating blast weapons and non-blast weapons differently of no discernible reason. You're forcing blast weapons to regenerate hits, but not normal weapons nor Tesla.

I think its safe to conclude we're done here. They've admitted they have no RaW that means the blast does 1 hit on the shield (they just assumed it does). We can see there is no permission to recalculate hits so their interpretation breaks the VSP RaW and we know they are not counting models for how many hits the blast does breaking the Blast RaW. This is all fact and has been since page 1. They are either trolling or arguing just for the sake of it now or not reading what we've said. None of which means further argument has any value.

I do believe we can finish here indeed, as no one is ready to give an inch. Some will read the RaW and transfer Hits, and others will read that same Special Rule and resolve their attack against the shield.

Both will keep playing their way until GW actually makes the Rule clearer in a FAQ or other Rule clearing.

Thanks for trying to prove it wrong or breaking RaW but none of those has been done, as much as you can claim so.

beam weapons are not inherently a heavy 3 at all.

p69 BRB under heading BEAM.

please explain how your interpretation works wit ha beam weapon, or more precisely a psychic shooting attack that uses the beam rule.

Some will read the RaW and transfer Hits

No some will transfer the attack after hits have been calculated as per the rules.

and others will read that same Special Rule and resolve their attack against the shield.

You are not simple resolving the attack though. You are going back and recalculating the hits and making rules up out of thin air on how that is done for a blast weapon.

Thanks for trying to prove it wrong or breaking RaW but none of those has been done, as much as you can claim so.

We which have indeed done. Despite you either refusing to read what we've said or being to dumb to understand it or just trolling. I don't know and no longer care which.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
beam weapons are not inherently a heavy 3 at all.

p69 BRB under heading BEAM.

please explain how your interpretation works wit ha beam weapon, or more precisely a psychic shooting attack that uses the beam rule.

The heavy 3 was a simple example of a heavy 3 beam. If we take "Assail" from Telekinesis Discipline, assault 1, then 1 hit on the shield.

Ok, another way of putting it: Because your weapon (any weapon) is hitting the shield, it can only ever generate the number of hits on it's profile when the VSG RaW assigns a hit to the shield:
Assault Cannon - Heavy 4,Rending = 4 Hits max (you can always miss some) on the shield
Vulcan mega-Bolter - Heavy 15 = 15 Hits
Lasgun - Rapid fire = 1 or 2 hits (per range)
Flamer - Assault 1 = 1 Hit
Shellstorm cannon - Salvo 2/4 = 2/4 Hits
Frag Cannon - Assault 2 = 2 Hits

But of course, any additional effect the weapon has: Rending, Sniper, Poisoned, Tesla, Melta etc still applies to the hit on the shield. I'd even say the effects of "Blast" and "Large Blast" affect it, like "Grapple" (Magna-Grapple gun) "Concussive" and "Pinning" All would. (If you can show me their effect on a shield?)

Black - you are claiming RAW, but haven't proven your assertions. Thus, you are not following RAW.

You entire argument seems to be based upon the idea that you can only hit the shield once, as it is only a single " thing". This just ignores, flat out, how you determine if a blast weapon has hit, ignores how you determine the number if hits, and creates a new entity that isn't a model that you are using to generate the number of hits off. In other words you are making rules up left right and centre.

There are. Only so many ways that can be explained.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
beam weapons are not inherently a heavy 3 at all.

p69 BRB under heading BEAM.

please explain how your interpretation works wit ha beam weapon, or more precisely a psychic shooting attack that uses the beam rule.

The heavy 3 was a simple example of a heavy 3 beam. If we take "Assail" from Telekinesis Discipline, assault 1, then 1 hit on the shield.

Ok, another way of putting it: Because your weapon (any weapon) is hitting the shield, it can only ever generate the number of hits on it's profile when the VSG RaW assigns a hit to the shield:
Assault Cannon - Heavy 4,Rending = 4 Hits max (you can always miss some) on the shield
Vulcan mega-Bolter - Heavy 15 = 15 Hits
Lasgun - Rapid fire = 1 or 2 hits (per range)
Flamer - Assault 1 = 1 Hit
Shellstorm cannon - Salvo 2/4 = 2/4 Hits
Frag Cannon - Assault 2 = 2 Hits

But of course, any additional effect the weapon has: Rending, Sniper, Poisoned, Tesla, Melta etc still applies to the hit on the shield. I'd even say the effects of "Blast" and "Large Blast" affect it, like "Grapple" (Magna-Grapple gun) "Concussive" and "Pinning" All would. (If you can show me their effect on a shield?)

all well and good...but only one problem....a void shield is not a model.

how do blast weapons determine the number of hits? by the number of models.

how do beam weapons determine the number of hits? by the number of models.

how do we determine the number of hits for a bolt gun? by the number of BS checks that are successful

what's the difference here? weapons that hit automatically generate the number of hits based on models underneath the area of effect that such a weapon produces.

Void shields do not satisfy those criteria.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Thanks for trying to prove it wrong or breaking RaW but none of those has been done, as much as you can claim so.

We which have indeed done. Despite you either refusing to read what we've said or being to dumb to understand it or just trolling. I don't know and no longer care which.

 FlingitNow wrote:
We can see there is no permission to recalculate hits so their interpretation breaks the VSP RaW and we know they are not counting models for how many hits the blast does breaking the Blast RaW.

I have read your point of "we break RaW" but also told you many times that we do count Blast Hits (Not breaking blast RaW) and take Literal RaW "instead hits the projected void shield" to mean "Hit the shield" (exact same words, no?) (not breaking VSG RaW)

But let's not make this into an "I am right", "you break rules" and "you troll" argument. If you believe you have transmitted your point, i agree you have made good arguments! If you no longer wish to participate, up to you

Given that 10 pages has passed on the matter I think we're pretty much assured all points have been clarified as much as possible.

 BlackTalos wrote:
I do believe we can finish here indeed, as no one is ready to give an inch. Some will read the RaW and transfer Hits, and others will read that same Special Rule and resolve their attack against the shield.

Both will keep playing their way until GW actually makes the Rule clearer in a FAQ or other Rule clearing.

Thanks for trying to prove it wrong or breaking RaW but none of those has been done, as much as you can claim so.

Ignoring pending questions doesn't help you prove your point. Retreating without answering them actually shows you can't admit you were wrong.

Ok, another way of putting it: Because your weapon (any weapon) is hitting the shield, it can only ever generate the number of hits on it's profile when the VSG RaW assigns a hit to the shield:

An assertation you've made repeatedly but with literally no rules backing. Which has been pointed out to you. Where does it say a blast weapon can do 1 hit to a shield. Where does it even imply it?

have read your point of "we break RaW" but also told you many times that we do count Blast Hits (Not breaking blast RaW) and take Literal RaW "instead hits the projected void shield" to mean "Hit the shield" (exact same words, no?) (not breaking VSG RaW)

So the blast hits the shield in your interpretation. How many hits does a blast do when placed over a shield quote what actual rules you've used to get that number 1 you keep claiming.

But let's not make this into an "I am right", "you break rules" and "you troll" argument. If you believe you have transmitted your point, i agree you have made good arguments! If you no longer wish to participate, up to you

This is the response you can expect when you say RAW is this and people point out that that can't possibly be the case to which you say I assume that this part is true with literally no rules backing and therefore the RaW is what I say it is...

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I do believe we can finish here indeed, as no one is ready to give an inch. Some will read the RaW and transfer Hits, and others will read that same Special Rule and resolve their attack against the shield.

Both will keep playing their way until GW actually makes the Rule clearer in a FAQ or other Rule clearing.

Thanks for trying to prove it wrong or breaking RaW but none of those has been done, as much as you can claim so.

Ignoring pending questions doesn't help you prove your point. Retreating without answering them actually shows you can't admit you were wrong.

And this helps the argumentation... how?

Please refrain from useless "finger-pointing" comments...

 FlingitNow wrote:

Ok, another way of putting it: Because your weapon (any weapon) is hitting the shield, it can only ever generate the number of hits on it's profile when the VSG RaW assigns a hit to the shield:

An assertion you've made repeatedly but with literally no rules backing. Which has been pointed out to you. Where does it say a blast weapon can do 1 hit to a shield. Where does it even imply it?

"instead hits the projected void shield." In the RaW, which i keep coming back to with no result. You hit the void shield like you hit any other AV12 Model. Even if there is a lack of "Model" here, its an existing AV12 you Roll to Pen against.

 FlingitNow wrote:

have read your point of "we break RaW" but also told you many times that we do count Blast Hits (Not breaking blast RaW) and take Literal RaW "instead hits the projected void shield" to mean "Hit the shield" (exact same words, no?) (not breaking VSG RaW)

So the blast hits the shield in your interpretation. How many hits does a blast do when placed over a shield quote what actual rules you've used to get that number 1 you keep claiming.

"instead hits the projected void shield." (maybe a pattern here?) I am assigning 1 "HIT" blast weapon onto the shield. Why 1? Because you have just fired 1 Blast weapon. You are resolving the attack of 1 Blast weapon (If it was Heavy 2, Blast: You are resolving the 2 Hits of that blast weapon. Unless one scatters and misses the original Blast resolution )

 FlingitNow wrote:

But let's not make this into an "I am right", "you break rules" and "you troll" argument. If you believe you have transmitted your point, i agree you have made good arguments! If you no longer wish to participate, up to you

This is the response you can expect when you say RAW is this and people point out that that can't possibly be the case to which you say I assume that this part is true with literally no rules backing and therefore the RaW is what I say it is...

I am saying this is simply how I read the RaW, and due to other people actually agreeing with 1 Template = 1 Roll to Pen, i can't be the only one reading it with such certainty of correctiveness?
I would add you are trying to prove that it is wrong in RaW but unless you can quote another RaW which supersedes the VSG Special Rule, then we are simply arguing on how we are all reading this one sentence:

"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."

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I do believe we can finish here indeed, as no one is ready to give an inch. Some will read the RaW and transfer Hits, and others will read that same Special Rule and resolve their attack against the shield.

Both will keep playing their way until GW actually makes the Rule clearer in a FAQ or other Rule clearing.

Thanks for trying to prove it wrong or breaking RaW but none of those has been done, as much as you can claim so.

Ignoring pending questions doesn't help you prove your point. Retreating without answering them actually shows you can't admit you were wrong.

And this helps the argumentation... how?

Please refrain from useless "finger-pointing" comments...

Read it as a request to answer my points. You're failing to do so/ignoring them, which doesn't help your argument.

"instead hits the projected void shield." In the RaW, which i keep coming back to with no result. You hit the void shield like you hit any other AV12 Model. Even if there is a lack of "Model" here, its an existing AV12 you Roll to Pen against.

Correct. That does not, anywhere, say that you recalculate hits - a fact which you've repeatedly asserted you do.

"instead hits the projected void shield." (maybe a pattern here?) I am assigning 1 "HIT" blast weapon onto the shield. Why 1? Because you have just fired 1 Blast weapon. You are resolving the attack of 1 Blast weapon (If it was Heavy 2, Blast: You are resolving the 2 Hits of that blast weapon. Unless one scatters and misses the original Blast resolution )

No, I've hit with a blast weapon 10 times. The attack, instead of hitting the unit 10 times, hits the shield 10 times.
You are attempting to resolve the entire shooting attack on the shield which is not what the rule says.

I am saying this is simply how I read the RaW, and due to other people actually agreeing with 1 Template = 1 Roll to Pen, i can't be the only one reading it with such certainty of correctiveness?

Many people read that Swarms lose 2 bases when hit with an ID blast wound. Look how true that was. The number of people reading it incorrectly means nothing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Black - you are claiming RAW, but haven't proven your assertions. Thus, you are not following RAW.

You entire argument seems to be based upon the idea that you can only hit the shield once, as it is only a single " thing". This just ignores, flat out, how you determine if a blast weapon has hit, ignores how you determine the number if hits, and creates a new entity that isn't a model that you are using to generate the number of hits off. In other words you are making rules up left right and centre.

There are. Only so many ways that can be explained.

In a way, but no:
The special Rule indeed tell you that you hit a "thing" with the shot that had generated hits against a 10-man squad. In the same way that "Feel no pain" Adds an extra 4th step to shooting resolution, after the roll to Save, so does this VSG Special Rule adds a hit on the "thing" which is the Void shield

You have to understand that the shooting resolution is not modified in any way, the blast is played as normal, but we perform something else after this . Before any rolls to wound are made however, and even before any hits (remaining hits) are Re-allocated to the squad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nutty_nutter wrote:

all well and good...but only one problem....a void shield is not a model.

how do blast weapons determine the number of hits? by the number of models.

how do beam weapons determine the number of hits? by the number of models.

how do we determine the number of hits for a bolt gun? by the number of BS checks that are successful

what's the difference here? weapons that hit automatically generate the number of hits based on models underneath the area of effect that such a weapon produces.

Void shields do not satisfy those criteria.

I understand your point: We cannot apply a Template (I know we're saying blasts, but this entire argumentation is applied to Templates-Blast, beam & Flamers-) to a Void shield as it is not an existing model.

But the VSG Rule, as I literally read it to say, takes the hit you have indeed scored by conventional means to:
-You hit target (covered X models)
-You have now hit the shield (To be read: My template has scored A hit on the shield)

If you want it out of the RaW:
"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."
. . . . . . . ./\ Weapon profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /\ Check you scored a hit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./\ your weapon hits the shield


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I do believe we can finish here indeed, as no one is ready to give an inch. Some will read the RaW and transfer Hits, and others will read that same Special Rule and resolve their attack against the shield.

Both will keep playing their way until GW actually makes the Rule clearer in a FAQ or other Rule clearing.

Thanks for trying to prove it wrong or breaking RaW but none of those has been done, as much as you can claim so.

Ignoring pending questions doesn't help you prove your point. Retreating without answering them actually shows you can't admit you were wrong.

And this helps the argumentation... how?

Please refrain from useless "finger-pointing" comments...

Read it as a request to answer my points. You're failing to do so/ignoring them, which doesn't help your argument.

Trying to keep up with all the posts then. But some i don't answer because i have many many times before.

rigeld2 wrote:

"instead hits the projected void shield." In the RaW, which i keep coming back to with no result. You hit the void shield like you hit any other AV12 Model. Even if there is a lack of "Model" here, its an existing AV12 you Roll to Pen against.

Correct. That does not, anywhere, say that you recalculate hits - a fact which you've repeatedly asserted you do.

IF you agree with this statement, how many hits does a Heavy 1, Blast weapon make on "any other AV12 Model"?
[RAI]
If GW intended A singular shield to be hit 30 times because of what is underneath, so would they have considered making Blast weapons score 10 hits on transports (Read=No i doubt it)
[/RAI]

rigeld2 wrote:

"instead hits the projected void shield." (maybe a pattern here?) I am assigning 1 "HIT" blast weapon onto the shield. Why 1? Because you have just fired 1 Blast weapon. You are resolving the attack of 1 Blast weapon (If it was Heavy 2, Blast: You are resolving the 2 Hits of that blast weapon. Unless one scatters and misses the original Blast resolution )

No, I've hit with a blast weapon 10 times. The attack, instead of hitting the unit 10 times, hits the shield 10 times.
You are attempting to resolve the entire shooting attack on the shield which is not what the rule says.

No, exact Raw says: "instead The attack, of hitting the unit 10 times, hits the shield." Very different meaning if you move the word around like you did.

rigeld2 wrote:

I am saying this is simply how I read the RaW, and due to other people actually agreeing with 1 Template = 1 Roll to Pen, i can't be the only one reading it with such certainty of correctiveness?

Many people read that Swarms lose 2 bases when hit with an ID blast wound. Look how true that was. The number of people reading it incorrectly means nothing.

Not familiar with that issue, but if GW releases a FAQ to say "Does blast generate 10 hit? No only 1 per template" I would indeed be quite happy =P

About re-phrasing:
" hitting a target within the Void Shield Zone and originating from outside a Void Shield Zone, any shooting attack instead hits the projected void shield." would mean the exact same thing to me and might help clearing up thoughts?

You hit the void shield like you hit any other AV12 Model. Even if there is a lack of "Model" here, its an existing AV12 you Roll to Pen against.

Underlined is false as your following statement admits. This tells us you are lying. The lack of model is crucial you are never told to treat the shield as a model so RaW you can't. That is fact. How many hits does a blast marker cause on "an existing AV12" and what rules define this.

"instead hits the projected void shield." (maybe a pattern here?) I am assigning 1 "HIT" blast weapon onto the shield. Why 1? Because you have just fired 1 Blast weapon

Where does it state 1 blast weapon = 1 hit. Again rules you have entirely made up. It "instead hits the PVS" does not mean "instead hits the PVS and you recalculate hits and blast weapons do 1 hit per blast". Plus you are not recalculating hits for any other type of attack just putting in an arbitrary 1 shot = 1 hit rule that is literally nowhere in any book. Again this is something that has been pointed out to you but you ignore.

I am saying this is simply how I read the RaW, and due to other people actually agreeing with 1 Template = 1 Roll to Pen, i can't be the only one reading it with such certainty of correctiveness?

But that reading has been proven incorrect by it not stating that 1 template = 1 roll to pen anywhere. We have proven no RaW states the shield takes 1 hit from blast weapons. The fact that you ignore that proof does not mean what you are claiming to be RaW has any validity.

 BlackTalos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Black - you are claiming RAW, but haven't proven your assertions. Thus, you are not following RAW.

You entire argument seems to be based upon the idea that you can only hit the shield once, as it is only a single " thing". This just ignores, flat out, how you determine if a blast weapon has hit, ignores how you determine the number if hits, and creates a new entity that isn't a model that you are using to generate the number of hits off. In other words you are making rules up left right and centre.

There are. Only so many ways that can be explained.

In a way, but no:
The special Rule indeed tell you that you hit a "thing" with the shot that had generated hits against a 10-man squad. In the same way that "Feel no pain" Adds an extra 4th step to shooting resolution, after the roll to Save, so does this VSG Special Rule adds a hit on the "thing" which is the Void shield

You have to understand that the shooting resolution is not modified in any way, the blast is played as normal, but we perform something else after this . Before any rolls to wound are made however, and even before any hits (remaining hits) are Re-allocated to the squad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nutty_nutter wrote:

all well and good...but only one problem....a void shield is not a model.

how do blast weapons determine the number of hits? by the number of models.

how do beam weapons determine the number of hits? by the number of models.

how do we determine the number of hits for a bolt gun? by the number of BS checks that are successful

what's the difference here? weapons that hit automatically generate the number of hits based on models underneath the area of effect that such a weapon produces.

Void shields do not satisfy those criteria.

I understand your point: We cannot apply a Template (I know we're saying blasts, but this entire argumentation is applied to Templates-Blast, beam & Flamers-) to a Void shield as it is not an existing model.

But the VSG Rule, as I literally read it to say, takes the hit you have indeed scored by conventional means to:
-You hit target (covered X models)
-You have now hit the shield (To be read: My template has scored A hit on the shield)

If you want it out of the RaW:
"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."
. . . . . . . ./\ Weapon profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /\ Check you scored a hit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./\ your weapon hits the shield


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I do believe we can finish here indeed, as no one is ready to give an inch. Some will read the RaW and transfer Hits, and others will read that same Special Rule and resolve their attack against the shield.

Both will keep playing their way until GW actually makes the Rule clearer in a FAQ or other Rule clearing.

Thanks for trying to prove it wrong or breaking RaW but none of those has been done, as much as you can claim so.

Ignoring pending questions doesn't help you prove your point. Retreating without answering them actually shows you can't admit you were wrong.

And this helps the argumentation... how?

Please refrain from useless "finger-pointing" comments...

Read it as a request to answer my points. You're failing to do so/ignoring them, which doesn't help your argument.

Trying to keep up with all the posts then. But some i don't answer because i have many many times before.

rigeld2 wrote:

"instead hits the projected void shield." In the RaW, which i keep coming back to with no result. You hit the void shield like you hit any other AV12 Model. Even if there is a lack of "Model" here, its an existing AV12 you Roll to Pen against.

Correct. That does not, anywhere, say that you recalculate hits - a fact which you've repeatedly asserted you do.

IF you agree with this statement, how many hits does a Heavy 1, Blast weapon make on "any other AV12 Model"?
[RAI]
If GW intended A singular shield to be hit 30 times because of what is underneath, so would they have considered making Blast weapons score 10 hits on transports (Read=No i doubt it)
[/RAI]

rigeld2 wrote:

"instead hits the projected void shield." (maybe a pattern here?) I am assigning 1 "HIT" blast weapon onto the shield. Why 1? Because you have just fired 1 Blast weapon. You are resolving the attack of 1 Blast weapon (If it was Heavy 2, Blast: You are resolving the 2 Hits of that blast weapon. Unless one scatters and misses the original Blast resolution )

No, I've hit with a blast weapon 10 times. The attack, instead of hitting the unit 10 times, hits the shield 10 times.
You are attempting to resolve the entire shooting attack on the shield which is not what the rule says.

No, exact Raw says: "instead The attack, of hitting the unit 10 times, hits the shield." Very different meaning if you move the word around like you did.

rigeld2 wrote:

I am saying this is simply how I read the RaW, and due to other people actually agreeing with 1 Template = 1 Roll to Pen, i can't be the only one reading it with such certainty of correctiveness?

Many people read that Swarms lose 2 bases when hit with an ID blast wound. Look how true that was. The number of people reading it incorrectly means nothing.

Not familiar with that issue, but if GW releases a FAQ to say "Does blast generate 10 hit? No only 1 per template" I would indeed be quite happy =P

About re-phrasing:
" hitting a target within the Void Shield Zone and originating from outside a Void Shield Zone, any shooting attack instead hits the projected void shield." would mean the exact same thing to me and might help clearing up thoughts?

Talos, I think you're approaching it from the wrong mental model. You are arguing that the shooting attack is being essentially split across multiple units (the target squad and the shield(s)). This is not the case. The shooting attack is being directed at a single unit that consists of x models + y shields. The VSP rule then essentially tells you that the AV12 shields are always the closests models. For example, lets say you shoot a plasma cannon at a squad of 5 terminators protected by two void shields. The eligible targets in that squad are 5 terminators + 2 shields. You then place your small blast over the terminators and generate 3 hits. You now resolve, per the VSP rules, all hits sequentially against the void shields until they are all collapsed or you have run out of hits. In this case, lets assume you roll a 5, then a 6, then a 2. The first two hits collapse shields and then the last one wounds a terminator, leaving one invulernable save to be taken.

understand your point: We cannot apply a Template (I know we're saying blasts, but this entire argumentation is applied to Templates-Blast, beam & Flamers-) to a Void shield as it is not an existing model

Exactly which is something you are trying to do and results in you having to make up rules.

But the VSG Rule, as I literally read it to say, takes the hit you have indeed scored by conventional means to:
-You hit target (covered X models)
-You have now hit the shield (and covered no models so I make up a rule that it causes 1 hit and tell everyone that is RaW)

FTFY

No, exact Raw says: "instead The attack, of hitting the unit 10 times, hits the shield." Very different meaning if you move the word around like you did

No it has the same meaning because we either apply 10 hits or have no way of determining how many hits are put on the shield. Your made up rules of 1 hit is not RaW.

 FlingitNow wrote:

You hit the void shield like you hit any other AV12 Model. Even if there is a lack of "Model" here, its an existing AV12 you Roll to Pen against.

Underlined is false as your following statement admits. This tells us you are lying. The lack of model is crucial you are never told to treat the shield as a model so RaW you can't. That is fact. How many hits does a blast marker cause on "an existing AV12" and what rules define this.

"instead hits the projected void shield." (maybe a pattern here?) I am assigning 1 "HIT" blast weapon onto the shield. Why 1? Because you have just fired 1 Blast weapon

Where does it state 1 blast weapon = 1 hit. Again rules you have entirely made up. It "instead hits the PVS" does not mean "instead hits the PVS and you recalculate hits and blast weapons do 1 hit per blast". Plus you are not recalculating hits for any other type of attack just putting in an arbitrary 1 shot = 1 hit rule that is literally nowhere in any book. Again this is something that has been pointed out to you but you ignore.

You will notice all the red is singular: 1 shield. Ergo 1 hit for templates

 FlingitNow wrote:

I am saying this is simply how I read the RaW, and due to other people actually agreeing with 1 Template = 1 Roll to Pen, i can't be the only one reading it with such certainty of correctiveness?

But that reading has been proven incorrect by it not stating that 1 template = 1 roll to pen anywhere. We have proven no RaW states the shield takes 1 hit from blast weapons. The fact that you ignore that proof does not mean what you are claiming to be RaW has any validity.

You have not proven the underlined, you have simply insisted the underlined, i'm sorry. We can play pin the tail the other way around since i'm the only one trying to argue our position:

You have not proven you transfer ALL the hits.

The RaW does not state you transfer hits, where is your permission to transfer Hits?

Please prove you transfer all hits when you transfer any shooting attack to a shield, singular.

Now, i'll even go as far as quoting Building RaW for you:

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.

Notice the red part? notice the word ANY? and the "instead hit"?

I have just proved to you that a Blast Weapon which scores X hit on a building with Void Shields will score X hits on the Shield itself. Please provide the same for VSG, but i would wager that you can't

 BlackTalos wrote:
Trying to keep up with all the posts then. But some i don't answer because i have many many times before.

When you run away from the thread without answering posts, it's not because you didn't have time. But I'll drop it as you're not actually leaving the thread.

IF you agree with this statement, how many hits does a Heavy 1, Blast weapon make on "any other AV12 Model"?

Irrelevant question - there are further rules involved.

[RAI]
If GW intended A singular shield to be hit 30 times because of what is underneath, so would they have considered making Blast weapons score 10 hits on transports (Read=No i doubt it)
[/RAI]

Not even close to a comparable situation. At all.

rigeld2 wrote:

"instead hits the projected void shield." (maybe a pattern here?) I am assigning 1 "HIT" blast weapon onto the shield. Why 1? Because you have just fired 1 Blast weapon. You are resolving the attack of 1 Blast weapon (If it was Heavy 2, Blast: You are resolving the 2 Hits of that blast weapon. Unless one scatters and misses the original Blast resolution )

No, I've hit with a blast weapon 10 times. The attack, instead of hitting the unit 10 times, hits the shield 10 times.
You are attempting to resolve the entire shooting attack on the shield which is not what the rule says.

No, exact Raw says: "instead The attack, of hitting the unit 10 times, hits the shield." Very different meaning if you move the word around like you did.

Not really. You have an attack that has hit the unit 10 times. Instead, it hits the shield. You've still failed to prove that those 10 hits disappear. The shooting process has steps - you're attempting to rewind a step and have refused or failed to cite permission to do so. You're also applying your rules inconsistently.

Question: If I shoot a Hive Tyrant with 12 S6 shots at a unit under the shield, hit with 9 and glance on the first roll, how many hits go on to the unit underneath?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
You have not proven the underlined, you have simply insisted the underlined, i'm sorry. We can play pin the tail the other way around since i'm the only one trying to argue our position:

You have not proven you transfer ALL the hits.

The RaW does not state you transfer hits, where is your permission to transfer Hits?

Please prove you transfer all hits when you transfer any shooting attack to a shield, singular.

The hits are made as part of the shooting attack. The shooting attack is transferred. Cite permission to ignore the hits that are part of the shooting attack.

You will notice all the red is singular: 1 shield. Ergo 1 hit for templates

Why what RaW states this?

You have not proven the underlined, you have simply insisted the underlined, i'm sorry. We can play pin the tail the other way around since i'm the only one trying to argue our position:

I have because it is a fact. Cite the RaW that states blast weapons do 1 hit to the shield. You can't because it doesn't exist.

You have not proven you transfer ALL the hits.

The RaW does not state you transfer hits, where is your permission to transfer Hits?

Please prove you transfer all hits when you transfer any shooting attack to a shield, singular.

Now, i'll even go as far as quoting Building RaW for you:

That's pretty easy read the VSP rule:

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

So starting with:

1)Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone

What does this tell us? The special rule has several triggers that:
A) a shooting attack is from outside the VSZ
B) hits a target within the VSZ

Cool so we are agreed on A)? B needs a bit more breaking down. So a shooting attack has a to hit process that generates hits. This is a simultaneous process RaW that we have no specific permission to interrupt. So the trigger is they have generated their hits as normal on the unit as part of their shooting attack and as long as 1 or more hits is generated the rule is triggered.

2) instead hits the projected void shield

So the attack instead hits the shield. No permission is given to recalculate hits or go back generate hits again for the attack. Therefore to continue this rule we must continue resolving the shooting attack against the AV12 shield. The number of hits has already been determined.

There proof that our interpretation breaks no rules and invents no rules. Something you have admitted is not true for your interpretation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also note nothing in the rule tells you to treat blast weapons differently to other weapons. So anyone that says you do is either lying or has not read the rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Therefore to continue this rule we must continue resolving the shooting attack against the AV12 shield. The number of hits has already been determined.

You have made an assumption that you "must continue resolving the shooting attack against the AV12 shield". The RaW states your shooting attack Hits the shield. Not that the number of Hits you've determined transfer.

The word "continue" highlighted above means you are applying your own "re-assign the hits" to the shield without express permission to do so in the Rule. Quote the RaW that allows you to do this please?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Therefore to continue this rule we must continue resolving the shooting attack against the AV12 shield. The number of hits has already been determined.

You have made an assumption that you "must continue resolving the shooting attack against the AV12 shield". The RaW states your shooting attack Hits the shield. Not that the number of Hits you've determined transfer.

The word "continue" highlighted above means you are applying your own "re-assign the hits" to the shield without express permission to do so in the Rule. Quote the RaW that allows you to do this please?

A Shooting attack includes Hits. See page 12.
Now why are you NOT continuing to use the hits generated?
What rule allows that?
What rule allows you to re-calculate?

You have made an assumption that you "must continue resolving the shooting attack against the AV12 shield". The RaW states your shooting attack Hits the shield. Not that the number of Hits you've determined transfer.

If we don't continue the shooting attack we have to either:

A) stop the shooting attack. We have no permission to do so.
B) restart the shooting attack from a different point. We have no permission to do so.

Therefore we must continue the shooting attack. The shooting attack continues by default according to the shooting rules. Part way through the VSP rule is triggered and transfers the shooting attack to the shield. It does not give us permission to stop the shooting attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

BlackTalos wrote:You will notice all the red is singular: 1 shield. Ergo 1 hit for templates

Why what RaW states this?

Also please address this point as you have failed to do so for 10 pages now.

 Therion wrote:
Thanks everyone for the contributions. I think this has been resolved.

Better not bunch up inside your void shields! Might be hard though considering some weapons have 10" (or bigger) blasts

Left over shots from a unit that drops a void shield does not in fact translate to the intially targetted unit no matter how bad some poeple want it to. Other units may freely target the newly exposed unit however.

In the case of a blast, the blast would normally target every model in under the marker. In the case of the void shield it is under the marker and receives a single hit, no model ever receives more than one hit allocated to it by a single weapon. So to assume that a blast marker that would have hit say 5 models will instead inflict 5 hits on a void shield is crazy.

In the case of a blast, the blast would normally target every model in under the marker.

No the blast targets the unit. It simply generates hits by counting the models under the template from each unit that is under the template.

In the case of the void shield it is under the marker and receives a single hit, no model ever receives more than one hit allocated to it by a single weapon.

Void shield is not a model so you clearly haven't read the thread or the rules in question. If you believe that you recalculate the hits the blast does after it has hit the unit by assuming it covers the shield and only the shield then the blast does no hits as there are no models under the template. Though it is impottant to note you have no permission to recalulate the number of hits the shooting attack generates. That is not a good idea if yyou want your argument to have weight. As for the 2nd part say I shoot a unit of 1 model with a punisher cannon (heavy 20) you're telling me that the unit can not take more than 1 hit? Non-sense.

So to assume that a blast marker that would have hit say 5 models will instead inflict 5 hits on a void shield is following the RaW.

FTFY.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
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.

This is all kinds of wrong.

1. You do not work out the number of hits prior to the Void Shield intercepting hits. You declare the unit to be shot at, if a Void Shield is present all shots are resolved against it. IF the shot is a blast the blast is resolved against the shield and the shield alone, nothing in the rule directs you to work out shots at the initial target.

2. All shooting in 40k is simulatneous, period. No matter how many shots are fired at the shield those shots can only affect the shield and that is it. Wound allocation and armour penetration is resolved squentially and may be what you are confusing. To recap if 5 shots are expended to drop 3 shields the remaining 2 do not translate to the initial unit since all of the 5 shots are targeted against the intervened void shield. Further shots, meaning another unit, may target the initial unit.

If it were intended that shots unused in dropping the shield(s) translated to the initial target then the rule would be worded somehting like;

"remaining hits resulting in a glancing or penetrating hit not used to drop the void shield(s) carry over to the initial target."

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
1. You do not work out the number of hits prior to the Void Shield intercepting hits. You declare the unit to be shot at, if a Void Shield is present all shots are resolved against it. IF the shot is a blast the blast is resolved against the shield and the shield alone, nothing in the rule directs you to work out shots at the initial target.

Incorrect. The target unit must be hit first.

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.

Bolded the relevant words.

2. All shooting in 40k is simulatneous, period. No matter how many shots are fired at the shield those shots can only affect the shield and that is it. Wound allocation and armour penetration is resolved squentially and may be what you are confusing. To recap if 5 shots are expended to drop 3 shields the remaining 2 do not translate to the initial unit since all of the 5 shots are targeted against the intervened void shield. Further shots, meaning another unit, may target the initial unit.

That's not what the rule says either.