Void Shield Generators & Blasts & Etc.

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.

**Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert**

FlingitNow wrote:

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.

[Rule #1 - Alpharius]

First, I have a copy of stronghold and probably understand its contents better than you.
Second, I have been playing this game of army guys for 23 years and likely longer than you and many others have been alive. I understand how this game has evolved and play multiple armies and see the game frommultiple perspectives.
Third, your blatant disregard for how the actual game mechanic for how shooting is resolved is astounding. [Rule #1 - Alpharius]
Lastly, you have no clue on how to offer a proper rebuttal in a debate, [Rule #1 - Alpharius]

This is clearly an issue of asserting your opinion as fact for your own benefit. It gets old seeing all the WAAC player come out of the woodwork to exploit rules in some fashion so that their might army of little plastic men can be all powerful. The rules are clear on how void shields work, it isn't even difficult or a gray-area. The fact that it is even brought up here is an indication that some find it to be too powerful. Does this item hurt how effective your Helldrake is perhaps? Not everything in this game benefits everyone, the challenge is to figure out how to get around it. [Rule #1 - Alpharius] [Rule #1 - Alpharius]

**FlingitNow**

This is all kinds of wrong.

Ironic given what follows.

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.

Then the shield makes the unit entirely immortal as you can never draw LoS to hit so not hits would be allocated to it by this interpretation. Likewise blast weapons would never hit as the shield has no physical presence for the blast to land over and is not a model.

Oh dear.

**rigeld2**

Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
First, I have a copy of stronghold and probably understand its contents better than you.

Subjective opinion, cannot be fact.

Second, I have been playing this game of army guys for 23 years and likely longer than you and many others have been alive. I understand how this game has evolved and play multiple armies and see the game frommultiple perspectives.

Subjective, although you aren't older than I am.

Third, your blatant disregard for how the actual game mechanic for how shooting is resolved is astounding.

I removed the personal attack. And what I left is amusing based on your incorrect statement of how the rules work.

Lastly, you have no clue on how to offer a proper rebuttal in a debate, don't take this too hard 80% of the morons on this thread have the same problem.

Yes, because this is the proper way to debate. Classy.

This is clearly an issue of asserting your opinion as fact for your own benefit.

Let me cut you off there. I don't run Void Shields. I don't plan on running Void Shields. I don't expect my opponents to run Void Shields. I have no dog in this fight and insinuating bias is rude at a minimum.

Additionally, many people in this forum debate the rules without a bias. That's what it's here for. If you have actual rule citations to support your arguments, that would be the correct way to debate.

**BlackTalos**

FlingitNow wrote:
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.

But you have not proven how you pass on the hits you generated to the shield. Or is that an assumption on your part because you cannot A) and cannot B)?

**PanzerLeader**

Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
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.

Per the VSG rules, "if all the projected void shields have collapsed, further hits strike the original target instead." We are told explicitly that leftover hits DO roll over.

**BlackTalos**

rigeld2 wrote:
Let me cut you off there. I don't run Void Shields. I don't plan on running Void Shields. I don't expect my opponents to run Void Shields. I have no dog in this fight and insinuating bias is rude at a minimum.

Additionally, many people in this forum debate the rules without a bias. That's what it's here for. If you have actual rule citations to support your arguments, that would be the correct way to debate.

Same here, but i do run Templates, and would love to see them score 30 hits on someone's 500Pts 9 VSG as you guys intend, but i am afraid the Rule for Void Shield Generator was quoted and just does not allow this...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

PanzerLeader wrote:
Per the VSG rules, "if all the projected void shields have collapsed, further hits strike the original target instead." We are told explicitly that leftover hits DO roll over.

I do not think we were conclusive on the term "Further Hits" implying the next shooting attack or Hits left over from other weapons of the same unit. It was in favour of "the other hits from the same Unit DO pass on", but again, not too clear...

**Alpharius**

Rule #1 - Following it is not optional, it is mandatory.

**FlingitNow**

Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert thanks for your reply and note how you have just laced it with attacks and interwebs bluster (I've been playing longer than you've been alive so my opinion is indisputable despite me not having a clue how old you are or how long you've been playing).

You quote gave a whole load of incorrect rules and I pointed out the correct rules. I to have seen the game develop over time I have never used that as a way of justifying my opinion. Heck you didn't even get the points right on the 9 Void Shield Network it is 340 not the 500 you quoted.

I am planning on probably adding void shields to my army and my armies generally don't have a huge amount of large blasts so I'm not seeking an advantage I'm explaining the RaW to some people who clearly don't understand it.

But you have not proven how you pass on the hits you generated to the shield. Or is that an assumption on your part because you cannot A) and cannot B)?

Well actually I have. The VSP rules tell us to move the shooting attack over to the shield after hits are determined. Since we are not told to recalculate or do anything with the number of hits the shooting attack has generated therefore we can't. It is a permissive ruleset. The number of hits stays the same unless you can show permission to change it. See how everything I've written is based on actual rules. And I note you still won't answer my question on what rules you are using to determine how many hits a blast does on a special rule. Which tells me you know that your interpretation is not based on RaW.

**BlackTalos**

FlingitNow wrote:
Well actually I have. The VSP rules tell us to move the shooting attack over to the shield after hits are determined. Since we are not told to recalculate or do anything with the number of hits the shooting attack has generated therefore we can't. It is a permissive ruleset. The number of hits stays the same unless you can show permission to change it. See how everything I've written is based on actual rules. And I note you still won't answer my question on what rules you are using to determine how many hits a blast does on a special rule. Which tells me you know that your interpretation is not based on RaW.

What rule are you basing this on? i see no quotes and references at all? It is indeed a permissive Ruleset and you have not shown me you permission to transfer the Hits.

If you scroll back a few pages of post you will see i have based many times the origin of the VSG hit from the RaW of the VSG. But currently we are looking at you argument and proving your point is still breaking the RaW, or is that not what you were applying to myself for the previous 8 pages of posts?

Please actually give me a quote of the rule which transfers hits? I've actually shown you how to prove it on the building VS rule:

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

And included right there is a quote of RaW, backing up my assertions

**grendel083**

BlackTalos wrote:
Please actually give me a quote of the rule which transfers hits?

Does the VSG transfer the Attack?
Are hits part of a shooting attack? (p12)

Still awaiting a rule quote that lets you discard the hits generated and re-calculate them.
Been waiting many pages for it, and it's pretty essential to your case. No rush.

**nosferatu1001**

Black talons - why are you discarding hits, with no permission to do so? Your RAW is so far utterly lacking

**rigeld2**

BlackTalos wrote:
Please actually give me a quote of the rule which transfers hits?

Why are you ignoring the multiple times I've pointed out that hits are part of the shooting attack, and you transfer the entire shooting attack?
Seriously - filter thread on my posts and you'll see I've pointed it out at least 3 times and you've failed to respond to it.

**extremefreak17**

BlackTalos wrote:
Please actually give me a quote of the rule which transfers hits?

VSG tells us that the ATTACK hits the shield. The WHOLE attack.

As stated above, Pg 12 in the BRB shows us that HITS are PART OF THE SHOOTING ATTACK.

Therefore: attack instead hits the shield = hits generated by that attack instead hit the shield.

A singular item can be made up of multiple components, just like a tree has many leaves, or an apple has many seeds. In our example, the shooting ATTACK is made up of multiple hits. Hits that MUST happen before the VSG rule can come into effect. The rule says to transfer the attack, which would include the hits that said attack HAS ALREADY GENERATED.

Show me any rule that states "hits are not part of a shooting attack" and I will concede.

Myself and others have made this point many times now and you have failed to respond or disprove it.

**doktor_g**

This is better than that mall store... What's it called?

Hot Topic?

Anyway, if a target is hit within the shield... Resolve the hit INSTEAD against the shield. So a blast that would normally scatter off of my poorly placed clumped up mob has no effect. But the second shot of the Hypotheticannon which is S7 Assault 2; blast would hit 4 of my Boyz. BUT the hit is instead resolved against the shield Av 12. My unskilled cheese listed lucky SOB opponent rolls 1d6 (not 4d6). Of course he rolls a 6 causing it to fizzle out. Leaving my Boyz as naked as the day they were born, or hatched, or spored. Or whatever.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orks KFFs are gonna be void shields. I slipped Mr Ward a $20...

**FlingitNow**

What rule are you basing this on? i see no quotes and references at all? It is indeed a permissive Ruleset and you have not shown me you permission to transfer the Hits.

If you scroll back a few pages of post you will see i have based many times the origin of the VSG hit from the RaW of the VSG. But currently we are looking at you argument and proving your point is still breaking the RaW, or is that not what you were applying to myself for the previous 8 pages of posts?

Please actually give me a quote of the rule which transfers hits? I've actually shown you how to prove it on the building VS rule:

Ok I thought it was obvious which rules I was talking about:

"The VSP rules tell us to move the shooting attack over to the shield after hits are determined (SHA pg31). Since we are not told to recalculate or do anything with the number of hits the shooting attack has generated therefore we can't (SHA pg31. It is a permissive ruleset. The number of hits stays the same unless you can show permission to change it (you need permission to change so no rule here as there is no permission). See how everything I've written is based on actual rules."

See how we ask you about specific points and assertations that you make. Note how you ask for proof of something that you already agree happens (transferring of multiple hits from a single shooting attack in for instance the case of an Assault 20 weapon). Note how we just follow the sequence we are told to do. Note how you can't point to a rule we have broken. The shooting attack is transferred after the hits are generated the shooting attack is therefore at that time made up of a set number of hits (BrB pg12) show permission to change that number of hits or concede.

And I note you still won't answer my question on what rules you are using to determine how many hits a blast does on a special rule. Which tells me you know that your interpretation is not based on RaW.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Anyway, if a target is hit within the shield... Resolve the hit INSTEAD against the shield. So a blast that would normally scatter off of my poorly placed clumped up mob has no effect. But the second shot of the Hypotheticannon which is S7 Assault 2; blast would hit 4 of my Boyz. BUT the hit is instead resolved against the shield Av 12. My unskilled cheese listed lucky SOB opponent rolls 1d6 (not 4d6). Of course he rolls a 6 causing it to fizzle out. Leaving my Boyz as naked as the day they were born, or hatched, or spored. Or whatever.

Please read the thread if you're going to contribute. That way you won't waste your or anyone else's time going over ground that is well covered. Everything you've stated here has been proven false so read the actual thread and if you have a point that has not already been debunked then make it.

**doktor_g**

Proven? I dare say you are mistaken sir.

And I have read the thread...

It's ok to be nice online, by the way.

**Ouze**

Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
The rules are clear on how void shields work, it isn't even difficult or a gray-area.

The 10 previous pages call that into question.

**FlingitNow**

Proven? I dare say you are mistaken sir.

I really am not. Just because people don't accept the undeniable proof doesn't stop it from being proven.

And I have read the thread...

It's ok to be nice online, by the way.

Then why didn't you make any arguments or offer rebuttal to the points raised. You just said "LoLz You are all wrong it is this because I say so".

Nothing I said to you was not nice. Its OK to back up your assertations online, by the way.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
The rules are clear on how void shields work, it isn't even difficult or a gray-area.

The 10 previous pages call that into question.

On that he is correct but because the rules don't make perfect real world sense (which is still shocking to some that that would be the case for a dice based abstraction of war in the 41st millennium) people want the rules to be different and are refusing to post rules that support their opinion whilst ignoring the clear proof on how the rules work.

There is a grey area that is on the hits transferring back to the unit. That however is not what we are discussing here.

**Luide**

Ouze wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
The rules are clear on how void shields work, it isn't even difficult or a gray-area.
The 10 previous pages call that into question.

Not really.
YMDC is full of examples where threads go 5+ pages because one side is not willing to budge and keeps repeating arguments that have been shot down 5+ pages ago while not being willing to answer any questions asked from them and other side keeps shooting down those same arguments over and over again. So after first few pages, pages generally have 1-2 posts with actual new content and rest is just same things said over and over again.
This problem is amplified when new people don't actually bother reading the whole thread and make arguments that were rebutted on page 1 or 2...

So length of the thread is no indication of issue being complex or even difficult. Many people want the rules to work certain way, so they interpret the rules to work in such fashion, even though no proper reading of the rules would allow for such interpretation.

As a disclaimer I do have to say that there are some examples where the two contradictionary interpretations of the rules that are both equally valid under RAW.. But those are very rare. And then there's the "Well, it is pretty obvious what they meant. Shame they didn't actually write the rules that way." category which leads to long threads because some people erroneously claim that RAI is RAW and keep repeating the claim in spite of the evidence.

**doktor_g**

BRB: Pg 33 under Blast:
“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).”
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
SA: Pg 84 under Projected Void Shields
“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.”
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
DISCUSSION:
There is one grammatical punctuation mark (an em dash “ – “), and one word (“instead”) that are the keys to the ruling.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From Wikipedia:
An em dash “often demarcates a break of thought or some similar interpolation stronger than the interpolation demarcated by parentheses.”
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From Merriam-Webster Online:

Instead (adv)
1
: as a substitute or equivalent <was going to write but called instead>
2
: as an alternative to something expressed or implied : RATHER <longed instead for a quiet country life>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
THEREFORE:

Combining the rules and the above knowledge, it seems that it would read as follows:

Once the final position of a shooting attack (blast) that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone has been determined, and it hits a target within the Void Shield Zone, the blast hits the projected void shield instead.

**FlingitNow**

Once the final position of a shooting attack (blast) that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone has been determined, and it hits a target within the Void Shield Zone, the blast hits the projected void shield instead.

OK the blast hits the PVS how do you determine how many hits are then caused by that blast? Given that the PVS is not a model.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also using your interpretation how many hits would an assault 20 weapon cause if I hit with every shot. Explain your process for this and why it is different to a blast weapon that covers 20 Orks.

**BlackTalos**

FlingitNow wrote:

"The VSP rules tell us to move the shooting attack over to the shield after hits are determined (SHA pg31). Since we are not told to recalculate or do anything with the number of hits the shooting attack has generated therefore we can't (SHA pg31. It is a permissive ruleset. The number of hits stays the same unless you can show permission to change it (you need permission to change so no rule here as there is no permission). See how everything I've written is based on actual rules."

Everything i write is also based on the actual VSG Rules. But back to your point: The highlighted Red is EXACTLY why you cannot apply those hits to the VS.

Now, Quoting BRB:

BRB p33 wrote: Once the final blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above - the unit suffers one hit for each model with it's base fully or partially beneath the blast marker.

Notice the emphasis again. A shield or 3 layers of shield would remove 3 hits (at minimum). This is breaking Blast Rules RaW: The unit suffers a set number of hits. You cannot reduce this in any way or you are breaking the RaW... This does not happen in our example.

Now show me how your blast weapon can inflict "one hit for each model with it's base fully or partially beneath the blast marker" if you are transferring and intercepting 1 or 2 of them?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

grendel083 wrote:
Still awaiting a rule quote that lets you discard the hits generated and re-calculate them.
Been waiting many pages for it, and it's pretty essential to your case. No rush.

extremefreak17 wrote:Myself and others have made this point many times now and you have failed to respond or disprove it.

FlingitNow wrote:And I note you still won't answer my question on what rules you are using to determine how many hits a blast does on a special rule. Which tells me you know that your interpretation is not based on RaW.

The past 3 pages of thread was me trying to prove how the RaW worked as defined. Then most of you just pointing here and there saying "it breaks RaW", such as we the rule says "the attack Hits the shield", which, if you tell me "this attack hits a tank" i can resolve both in the exact SAME way, but no, this is breaking RaW.

So i have now been showing you that your interpretation breaks RaW. Forget about my arguments, we're on to proving yours "does not break RaW".
Once we have concluded that your version "does not break RaW" we can move back to talking about mine "does not break RaW".

But the past 3 pages kinda show that's all we've been stuck on.

So, applying a relatively more mature approach than "you say mine breaks RaW, so i say (proved) yours breaks RaW", I will apply a clear, well-worked description of how the Rule for Void Shield Generators works in a last and final post i will make as clear as i can in then next hour or so, and then consider this thread ignored until RaW changes in a way that brings us further than bickering over who is right. In form of GW SHA FaQ or other.

**FlingitNow**

Everything i write is also based on the actual VSG Rules. But back to your point: The highlighted Red is EXACTLY why you cannot apply those hits to the VS.

So what hits do you apply and where are you getting rules to calculate those hits?

Notice the emphasis again. A shield or 3 layers of shield would remove 3 hits (at minimum). This is breaking Blast Rules RaW: The unit suffers a set number of hits. You cannot reduce this in any way or you are breaking the RaW... This does not happen in our example.

You are given express permission to reduce the number of hits to zero because the shooting attack (which is made up of hits) is redirected (you then gave permission later to place other hits back on the unit). In your example you also reduce the number of hits to 1 which you then resolve against the shield. You don't have permission to do so. You also still refuse to answer the 3 pertinent questions which have debunked your entire argument which are:

1) How do you calculate the number of hits a blast marker does once you count the marker being over the shield and only the shield?
2) Why aren't you transferring the entire shooting attack including the hits which now make it up.
3) Why are you going back to the to hit process and trying to redo part of it on the shield with no permission to do so.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

The past 3 pages of thread was me trying to prove how the RaW worked as defined. Then most of you just pointing here and there saying "it breaks RaW", such as we the rule says "the attack Hits the shield", which, if you tell me "this attack hits a tank" i can resolve both in the exact SAME way, but no, this is breaking RaW.

The underlined is known to be false we both know that a tank is a model and the shield is not. Do not post intentional lies.

So, applying a relatively more mature approach than "you say mine breaks RaW, so i say (proved) yours breaks RaW",

No we have categorically proven your interpretation breaks RaW. You have said our interpretation breaks RaW but have yet to point to any part of our interpretation that does so.

**doktor_g**

1) How do you calculate the number of hits a blast marker does once you count the marker being over the shield and only the shield?

SA: Page 47:
"Whilst a building has a void shield, any hits scored by shooting attacs against the building, models embarked within it or upon its battlements will instead hit the void shield."

BRB: Page 93
"Units may shoot or charge an occupied building as if it was a vehicle."
=======================================================================================================
2) Why aren't you transferring the entire shooting attack including the hits which now make it up.
Because the blast does not actually hit the unit, it hits the void shield.

=======================================================================================================
3) Why are you going back to the to hit process and trying to redo part of it on the shield with no permission to do so.
Because that's what the rules say to do "instead" of resolving the hit vs the original target.

Nice debating with you flingit. I gotta hit the hay. I learned something new tonight through our discussion and me purusing the rules.
Thanks,
DrG

**Dast**

I disagree Flinginow.

You have not categorically proven anything, i dont think either side has. When the shooting attack is transferred their is no basis to say it brings the number of hits with it, but also no basis to say it doesn't.

I wasn't going to post again, but ahh, it's hard to walk away.

**BlackTalos**

The Shooting Sequence as we all know it, follows the following pattern, to which the SHA VSG Special Rule adds a section:

Phase 1 wrote:Nominate Unit to shoot
(No need to clear)

Phase 2 wrote:Choose a target.
(Fully within the void shield, here)

Phase 3 wrote:Roll to hit.
Roll a D6 for each shot fired. Notice emphasis.
Blast Rule: When firing a blast weapon, models do not Roll To Hit. (lets notice here, as this is a Special Rule a weapon has, that weapon is still a e.g. Heavy 1, so 1 shot, weapon.) Once the final blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above - the unit suffers one hit for each model with it's base fully or partially beneath the blast marker.
We have determined hits for various weapons. This has followed all RaW to hit for ALL weapons.

Phase: VSG Special Rule wrote:First, you will notice how this is a step, a Special Rule step, where things happen according to the Special Rule. Not a "To Hit" stage where Blast Weapons rules count many models. In this step we have a hit portion, a "Roll to pen" portion and an allocation of Hits portion.
The Rule, from SHA:

Spoiler:

A Void Shield Generator has a single projected void shield. It can be upgraded to include additional layers of void shielding.

Each projected void shield has a 12" area of effect (measured from any point on the Void Shield Generator building), known as a Void Shield Zone. 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. If a unit is within 12" of more than one Void Shield Generator, and so within more than one Void Shield Zone when it is hit, randomly determine which of the buildings’ projected void shields is hit.

Each projected void shield has an Armour Value of 12. A glancing or penetrating hit (or any hit from a Destroyer weapon) scored against a projected void shield causes it to collapse. If all the projected void shields have collapsed, further hits strike the original target instead. At the end of each of the controlling player’s turns, roll a dice for each projected void shield that has collapsed; each roll of 5+ instantly restores one shield.

Notice emphasis.
Now, the shots that scored Hits in Phase 3 (" Any shooting attack (...) and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone") INSTEAD Hits the Void Shield.
If 3 Shots hit from an Assault 20 weapons, then 3 shots hit the VS instead.
If 1 Shot hit from a Heavy 1, Blast weapon, then 1 Shot hits the VS instead.
If 2 Shots hit from an Assault 3, Tesla weapon, then 2 Shots hit the VS Instead.
Now, certain Special Rules trigger when a shot Hits a target, such as Rending and Tesla on 6. Right above, I have shown that the attack hits the shields: Those Rules trigger (INCLUDING the Blast Special Rule - but the Special Rule says it right there above:"A Void Shield Generator has a single projected void shield." What can a blast do on a single VS? 1 Hit. If you do not agree because "the VS is not a model", then the Blast Special Rule does not apply, but you still have the 1 shot, in green above, that the VS Special Rule, as Written:"Any shooting attack instead hits the projected void shield" says you have. It does not say "roll to hit again, calculate hits again or transfer hits", but "Instead Hits" - you HAVE a hit, you cannot say "i have 0 hits", its says you have one.
So, the rules that trigger on Hit, such as Tesla, now triggers, and: Tesla adds 2 more hits.

Then, those hits given to you above, move to the next part: "A glancing or penetrating hit (or any hit from a Destroyer weapon) scored against a projected void shield causes it to collapse"
So you resolve the Armour Penetration until all of your shields are down.
Then:
" If all the projected void shields have collapsed, further hits strike the original target instead."
This part discards you extra Tesla Hits, for example, as they are not a "further hit" but originate from 1 hit on the shield. Just as you discard wounds from shots that are out of range when half a unit dies.
Those hits are then INSTEAD hitting the original target, so at this point of the phase, we are left with a number of hits on the target.

Phase 4 wrote:Roll to Wound.
You will have noticed, this is the Wounding Phase. Anything to do with the VSG Rule is now non-existant.
I quote the BRB:"For each shot that Hit, roll again(...)" These shots that hit are what is left of the attack that made through. A Heavy 1, Blast, that interacted with the shield is long gone and forgotten by this stage. As are any other shots that hit the VS, like 3 out of the Assault 5 that all hit, or a Heavy 1, Beam, etc

Now in Phase: VSG Special Rule, apart from Special Rules that trigger (Tesla), we are only ever following RaW: VSG Special Rule.
If you think a Blast Special Rule applies to a shot, apply it, i would like to see what it does to quote:"A Void Shield Generator has a single projected void shield".
I know a Tesla adds 2 hits to a shot that hits the shield. I know Rending gives you and extra D3 to penetrate the shield.

This is my last contribution here and just a description of the RaW and how they are applied. If any questions arise, i will quote the relevant section of this post to reply.
Thank you for any input to clear up this Rule, i have tried to include all aspects in my post. Have fun playing Void Shields, i know i will wait a while before getting implicated.
Kind Regards,
Black Talos

PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talos , for the Forum name, not Talons

**nutty_nutter**

your still insisting that that the Void shield rule allows you to substitute it as a model counts as without being given permission to do to.

a heavy 1 subtype is not = to the number of hits that the weapon can cause, it is the number of times that the weapon fires, there are no rules, that you have shown or exists that categorically state that you can only cause a number of hits = to the number of shots the weapon fires.

the only rule that goes along with that subtype is the number of dice that you roll on the to hit part of the shooting phase.

as a blast weapon doesn't roll to hit and has a special rule that dictates how many times it has hit we use that process to determine that number of hits.

any and all weapons have to have 'hit' the unit before the void shield can intercept them to be 'hit' 'instead'

being hit instead is not = to re-calculating hits, the void shield rule does not state you do so and thus there is no permission for you to do it, the number of hits have already been generated.

the interpretation of multiple hits being transferred does not break any RAW, you saying it reduces the number of hits is false, the number of hits have already been generated, these hits are then resolved. the void shield rule specifically allows these hits to be resolved against it first, any remaining or 'further' hits are resolved on the unit that was targeted.

again you are not providing an answer to the fundamental questions to disprove our position.

where are you given permission to treat a void shield as a model?

(fyi, if you can find the rule then I will concede my support for this argument here as this is the largest hole in your interpretation)

where are you given permission to alter an already determined number of hits? (saying that that they are transferred to single target is not true as the target is never changed, the unit is still the target of the attack)

you are also applying special rules for other shooting attacks differently, like the tesla weapon, note that a tesla weapon increases the number of hits generated on the to hit roll, not afterwards, so in your world they can only ever hit once. in mine they work normally.

**FlingitNow**

1) How do you calculate the number of hits a blast marker does once you count the marker being over the shield and only the shield?

SA: Page 47:
"Whilst a building has a void shield, any hits scored by shooting attacs against the building, models embarked within it or upon its battlements will instead hit the void shield."

BRB: Page 93
"Units may shoot or charge an occupied building as if it was a vehicle."

The shield is not an occupied building (or indeed any type of building). So you still have stated how you calculate the number of hits the blast does to the shield.

Because the blast does not actually hit the unit, it hits the void shield.

But it does hit the unit it must do in order to trigger the PVS special rule.

I disagree Flinginow.

You have not categorically proven anything, i dont think either side has. When the shooting attack is transferred their is no basis to say it brings the number of hits with it, but also no basis to say it doesn't.

I wasn't going to post again, but ahh, it's hard to walk away.

We have proven categorically their method of moving the attack does not generate the 1 hit they claim (it instead generates no hits on the shield). We have proven categorically that their method breaks rules. We have also shown that our method breaks no rules.

**nutty_nutter**

@Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert, you very nearly became the first person I would have put on my ignore list, not only were you rude and obnoxious when coming into this thread but you have made massive errors and accused others of being effectively beneath you in terms of understanding a rule-set that regardless of however long you have been playing is defunct once a new rule-set is released.

for the record I have been playing since 3rd Edition and I took quite a bit of offence from your manner, you also failed to cite any rules which is a big no-no. I would politely ask you to reframe from doing so in the future.

any and all points are valid until proven otherwise, as it stands within this thread the one shot argument is flawed basically from the above points not yet having an answer, ironically if you could provide a rule(s) to answer them they would confirm your interpretation and dissolve ours.

**BlackTalos**

nutty_nutter wrote:

as a blast weapon doesn't roll to hit and has a special rule that dictates how many times it has hit we use that process to determine that number of hits.

BlackTalos wrote:
Phase 3 wrote:Roll to hit.
Roll a D6 for each shot fired. Notice emphasis.
Blast Rule: When firing a blast weapon, models do not Roll To Hit. (lets notice here, as this is a Special Rule a weapon has, that weapon is still a e.g. Heavy 1, so 1 shot, weapon.) Once the final blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above - the unit suffers one hit for each model with it's base fully or partially beneath the blast marker.
We have determined hits for various weapons. This has followed all RaW to hit for ALL weapons.

Phase: VSG Special Rule wrote:First, you will notice how this is a step, a Special Rule step, where things happen according to the Special Rule. Not a "To Hit" stage where Blast Weapons rules count many models. In this step we have a hit portion, a "Roll to pen" portion and an allocation of Hits portion.
Now, the shots that scored Hits in Phase 3 (" Any shooting attack (...) and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone") INSTEAD Hits the Void Shield.

What can a blast do on a single VS? 1 Hit. If you do not agree the because "the VS is not a model", then then Blast Special Rule does not apply, but you still have the 1 shot, in green above that the VS Special Rule, as Written:"Any shooting attack instead hits the projected void shield" says you have.

nutty_nutter wrote:

being hit instead is not = to re-calculating hits, the void shield rule does not state you do so and thus there is no permission for you to do it, the number of hits have already been generated.
where are you given permission to alter an already determined number of hits? (saying that that they are transferred to single target is not true as the target is never changed, the unit is still the target of the attack)

BlackTalos wrote:
Phase: VSG Special Rule wrote:First, you will notice how this is a step, a Special Rule step, where things happen according to the Special Rule. Not a "To Hit" stage where Blast Weapons rules count many models. In this step we have a hit portion, a "Roll to pen" portion and an allocation of Hits portion.
Now, the shots that scored Hits in Phase 3 (" Any shooting attack (...) and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone") INSTEAD Hits the Void Shield.
I have shown the attack hits the shields: Those Rules trigger (INCLUDING the Blast Special Rule - but the Special Rule says it right there above:"A Void Shield Generator has a single projected void shield." What can a blast do on a single VS? 1 Hit. If you do not agree the because "the VS is not a model", then then Blast Special Rule does not apply, but you still have the 1 shot, in green above that the VS Special Rule, as Written:"Any shooting attack instead hits the projected void shield" says you have. It does not say "roll to hit again, calculate hits again or transfer hits", but "Instead Hits" - you HAVE a hit, you cannot say "i have 0 hits", its says you have one.

nutty_nutter wrote:

you are also applying special rules for other shooting attacks differently, like the tesla weapon, note that a tesla weapon increases the number of hits generated on the to hit roll, not afterwards, so in your world they can only ever hit once. in mine they work normally.

BlackTalos wrote:
Phase: VSG Special Rule wrote:If 2 Shots hit from an Assault 3, Tesla weapon, then 2 Shots hit the VS Instead.
Now, certain Special Rules trigger when a shot Hits a target, such as Rending and Tesla on 6.
So, the rules that trigger on Hit, such as Tesla, now triggers, and: Tesla adds 2 more hits.