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.

 BlackTalos wrote:
RaI i think we are all clear on that's for sure. I'm sure GW will put up a FAQ someday saying something like "treat it as a model or transport", but until that day, we are stuck with one line people just read differently, and i guess that all in all it comes down to the grammar of that one Sentence which is clear to me and holds the same meaning to others, but they have long since abandoned the debate.

If you're ever given models, instead give that model to Bob.

If I give you 2 Storm Talons, how many models will you give Bob?

Escalation should just be called "House Rules" at this point

Between this and D weapons haha

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
RaI i think we are all clear on that's for sure. I'm sure GW will put up a FAQ someday saying something like "treat it as a model or transport", but until that day, we are stuck with one line people just read differently, and i guess that all in all it comes down to the grammar of that one Sentence which is clear to me and holds the same meaning to others, but they have long since abandoned the debate.

If you're ever given models, instead give that model to Bob.

If I give you 2 Storm Talons, how many models will you give Bob?

Nope the rule reads:

If you are ever given a Storm Talon box, instead give A Storm Talon to Bob.

If you give me 2 Storm Talon boxes, I'll give bob 2 Storm Talons. What if 1 of my boxes actually contains 3 Storm Talons? still only giving 2 to the guy =)

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
RaI i think we are all clear on that's for sure. I'm sure GW will put up a FAQ someday saying something like "treat it as a model or transport", but until that day, we are stuck with one line people just read differently, and i guess that all in all it comes down to the grammar of that one Sentence which is clear to me and holds the same meaning to others, but they have long since abandoned the debate.

If you're ever given models, instead give that model to Bob.

If I give you 2 Storm Talons, how many models will you give Bob?

Nope the rule reads:

If you are ever given a Storm Talon box, instead give A Storm Talon to Bob.

If you give me 2 Storm Talon boxes, I'll give bob 2 Storm Talons. What if 1 of my boxes actually contains 3 Storm Talons? still only giving 2 to the guy =)

The bolded is not what the rule says - you're inserting a singluar-ness (not really a word) that doesn't exist in the VSG rule.

And you're also changing the question to fit your view - don't do that.

rigeld2 wrote:
And you're also changing the question to fit your view - don't do that.

Yeah, it was that or just not answering the trick question....

Guess i'll just follow your advice, not answering any more questions that are trying to debunk by getting you to say something =P

"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."
No singluar-ness?

Maybe you wanted it to read shooting attackS?

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And you're also changing the question to fit your view - don't do that.

Yeah, it was that or just not answering the trick question....

Guess i'll just follow your advice, not answering any more questions that are trying to debunk by getting you to say something =P

It's not a trick question - it's a question designed to simulate the rule and prove to you that the "hit" being singular in the latter half of the sentence does not mean all results must be singular.
I don't understand how you can't see that you're being inconsistent with the rules - allowing hits from a normal weapon to go through without re-determining them, but hits from a blast must be re-evaluated.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not a trick question - it's a question designed to simulate the rule and prove to you that the "hit" being singular in the latter half of the sentence does not mean all results must be singular.
I don't understand how you can't see that you're being inconsistent with the rules - allowing hits from a normal weapon to go through without re-determining them, but hits from a blast must be re-evaluated.

But that's just it: they all follow the same system. If to you Instead = "re-determining them" then they are all "re-determining them", because they are all "instead".

That "instead" is just what it means: *Hits on a Target* are instead *Hit on the VS*

So you take the hits and turn them into a singular hit. Oh, and one shooting attack can have multiple hits, as proven

You're still making up rules. Concession accepted.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And you're also changing the question to fit your view - don't do that.

Yeah, it was that or just not answering the trick question....

Guess i'll just follow your advice, not answering any more questions that are trying to debunk by getting you to say something =P

"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."
No singluar-ness?

Maybe you wanted it to read shooting attackS?

So a shooting attack is each roll to hit correct?

And blasts and Templates place their markers or template instead of rolling to hit correct?

So each roll to hit that scores a hit instead hits the shield correct?

Blasts and Templates are capable of scoring multiple hits per shooting attacks based on where the Template or marker falls correct?

So each hit determined by the placement of the Marker or template instead hits the Shield.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not a trick question - it's a question designed to simulate the rule and prove to you that the "hit" being singular in the latter half of the sentence does not mean all results must be singular.
I don't understand how you can't see that you're being inconsistent with the rules - allowing hits from a normal weapon to go through without re-determining them, but hits from a blast must be re-evaluated.

But that's just it: they all follow the same system. If to you Instead = "re-determining them" then they are all "re-determining them", because they are all "instead".

That "instead" is just what it means: *Hits on a Target* are instead *Hit on the VS*

Except you've asserted that they do not all follow the same system. One of them (blasts) changes the amount of hits. Other weapons do not.

Given the last, what, six pages are us asking for an actual rule, black failing to provide said rule, and this continuing - maybe call it a day? They cannot follow rules consistently, insist on making rules up, and mangle rules quotes to try to make them say what they want it to say, while still pretending to quote.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And you're also changing the question to fit your view - don't do that.

Yeah, it was that or just not answering the trick question....

Guess i'll just follow your advice, not answering any more questions that are trying to debunk by getting you to say something =P

"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."
No singluar-ness?

Maybe you wanted it to read shooting attackS?

So a shooting attack is each roll to hit correct?
No, it's each shot and Hits that ensue. Shots and their hits
And blasts and Templates place their markers or template instead of rolling to hit correct?
Indeed

So each roll to hit that scores a hit instead hits the shield correct?
Indeed

Blasts and Templates are capable of scoring multiple hits per shooting attacks based on where the Template or marker falls correct?
Multiple hits per shot, yes

So each hit determined by the placement of the Marker or template instead hits the Shield.

No, the shooting attack, containing shots and hits instead hits the shield. 2 words of "Hit", not the exact same "hit".

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not a trick question - it's a question designed to simulate the rule and prove to you that the "hit" being singular in the latter half of the sentence does not mean all results must be singular.
I don't understand how you can't see that you're being inconsistent with the rules - allowing hits from a normal weapon to go through without re-determining them, but hits from a blast must be re-evaluated.

But that's just it: they all follow the same system. If to you Instead = "re-determining them" then they are all "re-determining them", because they are all "instead".

That "instead" is just what it means: *Hits on a Target* are instead *Hit on the VS*

Except you've asserted that they do not all follow the same system. One of them (blasts) changes the amount of hits. Other weapons do not.

Again, stating things i have not said. They DO follow the same system. The one in that long post if you re-read it carefully.

Essentially, what i am applying *in a way*
Not saying this is as Written as it is not, but might clear things up:
"Each shot will hit the shield" is the conclusion reading the RaW.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
and this continuing - maybe call it a day?

I've attempted to several times.
But then one of the attendees comes up with "All you said is wrong, we are right, you prove nothing, EVERYONE will now play 1 Blast = 9 Shields down and 1 kill"

If we were all to admit 50:50 some read it one way some read it another, good! We shall indeed be done! Doubt it though...?

No, RAW there is only one way to read it. You are still making rules up, and breaking the tenets of this forum.

 BlackTalos wrote:
"All you said is wrong, we are right, you prove nothing, EVERYONE will now play 1 Blast = 9 Shields down and 1 kill"

RAW there is only one way to read it: indeed, the way i have just read it - Your shot hits the shield, resolve 1 Pen -

Yes, my shooting attack - ALL OF IT - hits the shield. Ten hits, RAW

Your made up rules are not RAW. Your misquoting a rule is not RAW

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, my shooting attack - ALL OF IT - hits the shield. Ten hits, RAW

Your made up rules are not RAW. Your misquoting a rule is not RAW

You missed when we went over this:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Please define Shooting attack?

My BRB says on p12: Once you have completed steps 1 to 5 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, (...)

Shooting attack: Steps 1 to 5.

Wow - you finally responded to it! Great!
Yes, a shooting attack consists of 5 steps. You complete 3 steps and then move the shooting attack over to the VSG.

You cannot be applying - ALL OF IT - or you would be applying wounds you got on the models onto the VS.
You are applying what you have of it so far:
Shots that have produced hits. Sooooo... 3 shots and 16 Hits.

Then in comes 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."
Not "Your misquoting a rule" but pure RaW.
What does it say? that "3 shots and 16 Hits" INSTEAD Hits the VS. Ergo 3 shots hit the void shield. Why just shots? Because the Rule says you've hit with them, not that you transfer anything!

I will keep saying this untill it is disproved. ALL hits generated by the blast template are part of the SINGLE attack. When a blast template scores mutple hits, it doesn't change into multiple attacks. As we are given that the "attack instead hits the shield" AFTER the attack has generated multiple hits, we must transfer those hits, as they are PART OF THE ATTACK.

No, the SHOOTING ATTACK instead hits

And the shooting attack has 10 hits, so those 10 hits indeed hit the shield.

So, after step three, you instead resolve against the shield. If you don't resolve all the hits generated by the shooting attack, you aren't following the rules.

You "went over it" and still got the rules wrong

RAW ten models under blast means ten hits on the void shield. Anything else -making up on,y one hit, for example - is making up rules

So your answer is still Void Shields make units inside immune to Blast damage?
After all, the Blast Maker rules tell us how to calculate the hit's from those shots, and the method requires a model to calculate against....

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And you're also changing the question to fit your view - don't do that.

Yeah, it was that or just not answering the trick question....

Guess i'll just follow your advice, not answering any more questions that are trying to debunk by getting you to say something =P

"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."
No singluar-ness?

Maybe you wanted it to read shooting attackS?

So a shooting attack is each roll to hit correct?
No, it's each shot and Hits that ensue. Shots and their hits
And blasts and Templates place their markers or template instead of rolling to hit correct?
Indeed

So each roll to hit that scores a hit instead hits the shield correct?
Indeed

Blasts and Templates are capable of scoring multiple hits per shooting attacks based on where the Template or marker falls correct?
Multiple hits per shot, yes

So each hit determined by the placement of the Marker or template instead hits the Shield.

No, the shooting attack, containing shots and hits instead hits the shield. 2 words of "Hit", not the exact same "hit".

So a Heavy 3 Shooting attack that hits the unit with 2 or 3 hits only hits the shield once?

Or does that shooting attack hit with all 3 shots nomatter if 1 or 2 hits were scored against the unit, Since the Shooting attack instead hits the shield?

KK - no, because that would be black talos misapplying the VSG and shooting rules consistently.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
KK - no, because that would be black talos misapplying the VSG and shooting rules consistently.

No I know, i just want him to say it.

He is saying that the attack contains shots, and those shots get transferred if the unit is hit. He is trying to recalculate the hits of Blast/.Template, why wouldn't he recalculate the hits from a Heavy 3 weapon in the exact same manner.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Again, stating things i have not said. They DO follow the same system. The one in that long post if you re-read it carefully.

Essentially, what i am applying *in a way*
Not saying this is as Written as it is not, but might clear things up:
"Each shot will hit the shield" is the conclusion reading the RaW.

So a single shooting attack can only consist of a single shot?
And does that mean an Assault 20 weapon will hit 20 times? Or do you resolve the rolls to-hit and then apply those hits?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
He is saying that the attack contains shots, and those shots get transferred if the unit is hit.

No, that's right indeed the Heavy 3 example contains 3 shots and a number of hits. If the Shot hits, the VSG covers it, when it says "and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone" So if you hit with 2 shots, you have to resolve 2 hits on the shield instead. They could even be Tesla which would then (after they hit the shield) add hits per the Special Rule.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
He is saying that the attack contains shots, and those shots get transferred if the unit is hit.

No, that's right indeed the Heavy 3 example contains 3 shots and a number of hits. If the Shot hits, the VSG covers it, when it says "and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone" So if you hit with 2 shots, you have to resolve 2 hits on the shield instead. They could even be Tesla which would then (after they hit the shield) add hits per the Special Rule.

And a Blast shooting attack contains (for example) one shot that hits 10 times.
Evidence has been shown for permission to count those 10 hits prior to the shooting attack transferring.
It'd be great if you could show a rule that allows you to ignore only hits that Blasts generate.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Again, stating things i have not said. They DO follow the same system. The one in that long post if you re-read it carefully.

Essentially, what i am applying *in a way*
Not saying this is as Written as it is not, but might clear things up:
"Each shot will hit the shield" is the conclusion reading the RaW.

So a single shooting attack can only consist of a single shot?
And does that mean an Assault 20 weapon will hit 20 times? Or do you resolve the rolls to-hit and then apply those hits?

No a shooting attack is from any unit, the entire Unit's shots. Assault 20 is 20 shots, as per rules, so you resolve their to-hit, yes. Then transfer the shots that Hit, to hit the shield instead (still not the same "hit")


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
He is saying that the attack contains shots, and those shots get transferred if the unit is hit.

No, that's right indeed the Heavy 3 example contains 3 shots and a number of hits. If the Shot hits, the VSG covers it, when it says "and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone" So if you hit with 2 shots, you have to resolve 2 hits on the shield instead. They could even be Tesla which would then (after they hit the shield) add hits per the Special Rule.

And a Blast shooting attack contains (for example) one shot that hits 10 times.
Evidence has been shown for permission to count those 10 hits prior to the shooting attack transferring.

Agreed, completely. Then it transfers, and you have the Hit the VSG RaW says you have.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Again, stating things i have not said. They DO follow the same system. The one in that long post if you re-read it carefully.

Essentially, what i am applying *in a way*
Not saying this is as Written as it is not, but might clear things up:
"Each shot will hit the shield" is the conclusion reading the RaW.

So a single shooting attack can only consist of a single shot?
And does that mean an Assault 20 weapon will hit 20 times? Or do you resolve the rolls to-hit and then apply those hits?

No a shooting attack is from any unit, the entire Unit's shots. Assault 20 is 20 shots, as per rules, so you resolve their to-hit, yes. Then transfer the shots that Hit, to hit the shield instead (still not the same "hit")

So you resolve the number of hits prior to moving the shooting attack over to the shield. Correct?
How does a blast weapon determine the number of hits? When does that happen - before or after the shooting attack is moved to the shield?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Agreed, completely. Then it transfers, and you have the Hit the VSG RaW says you have.

Yes - the shooting attack that has hit 10 times transfers, just like a shooting attack that has hit 3 times. I'm glad you finally agree.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Again, stating things i have not said. They DO follow the same system. The one in that long post if you re-read it carefully.

Essentially, what i am applying *in a way*
Not saying this is as Written as it is not, but might clear things up:
"Each shot will hit the shield" is the conclusion reading the RaW.

So a single shooting attack can only consist of a single shot?
And does that mean an Assault 20 weapon will hit 20 times? Or do you resolve the rolls to-hit and then apply those hits?

No a shooting attack is from any unit, the entire Unit's shots. Assault 20 is 20 shots, as per rules, so you resolve their to-hit, yes. Then transfer the shots that Hit, to hit the shield instead (still not the same "hit")

So you resolve the number of hits prior to moving the shooting attack over to the shield. Correct?
How does a blast weapon determine the number of hits? When does that happen - before or after the shooting attack is moved to the shield?

Correct. 1)By placing the template when you hit the target 2)"Instead hits the projected void shield" Hitting the Void Shield. When does counting models under the template? before the shot is moved and scores a hit on the shield.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Agreed, completely. Then it transfers, and you have the Hit the VSG RaW says you have.

Yes - the shooting attack that has hit 10 times transfers, just like a shooting attack that has hit 3 times. I'm glad you finally agree.

Correction - the shooting attack that has hit 10 times transfers the shot, not the 10 hits, just like a shooting attack that has hit 3 times with 3 shots.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Correct. 1)By placing the template when you hit the target 2)"Instead hits the projected void shield" Hitting the Void Shield. When does counting models under the template? before the shot is moved and scores a hit on the shield.

A hit? Why are you limiting it to a single hit again?

Correction - the shooting attack that has hit 10 times transfers the shot, not the 10 hits, just like a shooting attack that has hit 3 times with 3 shots.

Why are you only transferring part of the shooting attack? The 10 hits were generated instead of rolling to hit. You are allowing other weapons that roll to hit to transfer hits, but not ones that do not roll to hit.
Please explain this inconsistency. None of the rules you've cited so far explain it.

Talos you still haven't answered my question ams to how many models does a Void Shield contain. Just a number as requestedI know where the rules are so no need to quote them.