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.

 FlingitNow wrote:

. There are less hits in your attack than models: RaW Broken

No because we are told to transfer the attack (and therefore those hits too) to the shield. You are the one saying we reduce the number of hits not us. Unless you are claiming the unit still suffers the hits as well?

So again you concede because you won't give the answer. So again I ask why continue posting when you've already conceded?

No I was simply applying your method. Correct me if I got it wrong:

Vindicator shot, Large Blast, covers 10 Models. You *transfer* the 10 Hits to your VSG, that has 4 shields. You Pen all 4 shields and re-assign the remaining hits (6) to the Unit.

You now have a Unit, covered by a Large Blast that covers 10 Models, but has 6 Wounds to Roll?

I do think the Blast RaW would disagree there....

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Is the VSG not a Fortification choice for your army? You would apply the SR to the hit on the shield and Pen 3 times, still?

Why is that relevant? The VSG is not involved in the shooting attack, the shields are.

Because you need to know for the "Cluster Fire" Special Rule

You've asserted the VSG is involved before the Cluster Fire rule was brought up - and it's still not relevant as the shield is being hit, not the VSG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

. There are less hits in your attack than models: RaW Broken

No because we are told to transfer the attack (and therefore those hits too) to the shield. You are the one saying we reduce the number of hits not us. Unless you are claiming the unit still suffers the hits as well?

So again you concede because you won't give the answer. So again I ask why continue posting when you've already conceded?

No I was simply applying your method. Correct me if I got it wrong:

Vindicator shot, Large Blast, covers 10 Models. You *transfer* the 10 Hits to your VSG, that has 4 shields. You Pen all 4 shields and re-assign the remaining hits (6) to the Unit.

You now have a Unit, covered by a Large Blast that covers 10 Models, but has 6 Wounds to Roll?

I do think the Blast RaW would disagree there....

It's almost like there were other rules involved that reduced the amount of hits. I wonder what that rule would be...

No I was simply applying your method. Correct me if I got it wrong:

Vindicator shot, Large Blast, covers 10 Models. You *transfer* the 10 Hits to your VSG, that has 4 shields. You Pen all 4 shields and re-assign the remaining hits (6) to the Unit.

You now have a Unit, covered by a Large Blast that covers 10 Models, but has 6 Wounds to Roll?

I do think the Blast RaW would disagree there....

That's not actually my RaW but those 6 hits aren't essentially from the blast. The 10 hits are redirected so 0 hits are on the unit agreed? So you have reduced the number of hits on the unitby either method unless you claim in your nmethod the unit takes 10 hits still?

That some of those hits can later be redirected is irrelevant. The blast RaW had us calculate hits as part of a shooting attack which we did. The VSG RaW made transfer that attack to a void shield where we made our rolls to pen instead of rolls to wound.

Again you refuse to answer a simple question highlighting as I stated originally that you are clearly trolling. You have conceded yet continue to post why?

 FlingitNow wrote:

No I was simply applying your method. Correct me if I got it wrong:

Vindicator shot, Large Blast, covers 10 Models. You *transfer* the 10 Hits to your VSG, that has 4 shields. You Pen all 4 shields and re-assign the remaining hits (6) to the Unit.

You now have a Unit, covered by a Large Blast that covers 10 Models, but has 6 Wounds to Roll?

I do think the Blast RaW would disagree there....

That's not actually my RaW but those 6 hits aren't essentially from the blast. The 10 hits are redirected so 0 hits are on the unit agreed? So you have reduced the number of hits on the unitby either method unless you claim in your nmethod the unit takes 10 hits still?

That some of those hits can later be redirected is irrelevant. The blast RaW had us calculate hits as part of a shooting attack which we did. The VSG RaW made transfer that attack to a void shield where we made our rolls to pen instead of rolls to wound.

While ignoring you last line which is just you breaking Tenet 5 of YMDC, The VSG special rule triggers upon hit, whether you transfer them later or not. When the Special Rule ends, you are at the end of Phase 3 of the Shooting Sequence, therefore all hits remaining by the end of the VSG Special Rule must be valid within the Shooting Phase RaW. Your 6 Hits from a blast covering 10 models is not.

If you are indeed to reference the Method i posted, I can tell you that you are always left with "legal" shots when you come out of the VSG Special Rule. As i showed before: 3 Vindicator Shots on a singular shield gives you one roll to pen, assuming you do, you are left with 2 Large blasts covering 10 models each & scoring 10 hits each as you re-assign the shot. Fully adhering to Shooting RaW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Is the VSG not a Fortification choice for your army? You would apply the SR to the hit on the shield and Pen 3 times, still?

Why is that relevant? The VSG is not involved in the shooting attack, the shields are.

Because you need to know for the "Cluster Fire" Special Rule

You've asserted the VSG is involved before the Cluster Fire rule was brought up - and it's still not relevant as the shield is being hit, not the VSG.

VSG = Fortification, but the Void Shield is part of the VSG. It is indeed an assumption that the VS is classified as a Fortification Special Rule and triggers the 3 shots "at fortifications"

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

. There are less hits in your attack than models: RaW Broken

No because we are told to transfer the attack (and therefore those hits too) to the shield. You are the one saying we reduce the number of hits not us. Unless you are claiming the unit still suffers the hits as well?

So again you concede because you won't give the answer. So again I ask why continue posting when you've already conceded?

No I was simply applying your method. Correct me if I got it wrong:

Vindicator shot, Large Blast, covers 10 Models. You *transfer* the 10 Hits to your VSG, that has 4 shields. You Pen all 4 shields and re-assign the remaining hits (6) to the Unit.

You now have a Unit, covered by a Large Blast that covers 10 Models, but has 6 Wounds to Roll?

I do think the Blast RaW would disagree there....

It's almost like there were other rules involved that reduced the amount of hits. I wonder what that rule would be...

The VSG Special Rule indeed. So you would finish working out the VSG and return to the end of Phase 3 in a configuration which breaks Phase 3 Blast & Large Blast rules?

Why would you return to step 3?
And thanks for admitting you're making assumptions with no rules support.

BlackTalos, I fire an Assault 15 weapon at a unit protected by the shield. I get 10 hits. The first hit takes down the shield. Where do the remaining his go and why?

While ignoring you last line which is just you breaking Tenet 5 of YMDC, The VSG special rule triggers upon hit, whether you transfer them later or not. When the Special Rule ends, you are at the end of Phase 3 of the Shooting Sequence, therefore all hits remaining by the end of the VSG Special Rule must be valid within the Shooting Phase RaW. Your 6 Hits from a blast covering 10 models is not.

So you don't roll to pen against the Void Shield now? So what do you do? If we haven't gone on to step 4 how are you resolving any hit(s) against the shield?

The underlined is not based on rules. I have 10 hits and have started resolving them, that is why (if you believe the 6 hits carry over to the unit RaW) you have less hits when you transfer hits back to the unit, you dont count the models again at that point so no RaW is broken. However your interpretation certainly does break that RaW as you claim you get 1 hit from counting 0 models.

Again given you have admitted now that 2 different parts of your interpretation are based on ruleless assumption and you refuse to admit you know a Void Shield contains no models that proves you know you are not arguing RaW. If you want to argue RaI we can and you may get more support for your method as RaI or as HYWPI, but we have effectively admitted your stance has no basis in RaW so please stop claiming it does.

rigeld2 wrote:
Why would you return to step 3?
And thanks for admitting you're making assumptions with no rules support.

It is indeed an assumption that the VS is classified as a Fortification Special Rule and triggers the 3 shots "at fortifications"

Simply covering the Experimental rules for the R'varna... If you rather i'd not make assumptions we can go back the the VSG Special Rule as written and how to read it correctly? The same phrase with Cats & Olives show the grammar is indeed what is troubling most people reading it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The underlined is not based on rules. I have 10 hits and have started resolving them, that is why (if you believe the 6 hits carry over to the unit RaW) you have less hits when you transfer hits back to the unit, you dont count the models again at that point so no RaW is broken. However your interpretation certainly does break that RaW as you claim you get 1 hit from counting 0 models.

Ok, please tell me which phase, 3 or 4, you are on when " you have less hits when you transfer hits back to the unit"?

Answer carefully, i'll give you hints: Phase 3 is all about Hits, and Phase 4 all about wounding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
You have already reviewed and misapplied them, without even realizing what you where misapplying.

Nothing within the Pulse Sub-munion Rules tells us how many hit's are generated against a Special Rule either. Given that the number of hits generated can be between 1-3 depending on what it hit's this weapon can not resolve through your interpretation of events. The lack of the Special Rule telling us to re-calculate based on the generator being hit, which you keep trying to get us to do, prevents us from knowing how many hits this Special Rule is generating.

I have thought about this overnight, and the only way the Pulse Sub-munition Rules would work in the RaW is if:
We use your assumption that all hits transfer, assign them all to the shield. (applying the Pulse Sub-munition Rules to the squad before transfer)
Pen the number of shields (say 3) with the shots.
Then when the VSG Rule says "further hits strike the original target instead." assume, again, that all hits from that 1 shot are discarded, and "further hits" is the second shot if you Nova charged (or anything else like drone shots etc)
You then end the VSG Special Rule Phase with your other fully legal shots including the second Nova charged shot if you have it.
2 assumption needed for the R'Varna to work properly. Experimental rules FTW. lol

 BlackTalos wrote:
The same phrase with Cats & Olives show the grammar is indeed what is troubling most people reading it.

It's not a comparible phrase. This is why you shouldn't use word games. Cat (noun) is not comparrible with Shooting Attack (verb).
A better example would be a "cat in an olive eating contest, consumes 10lb of olives, transfers to the cheese eating contest to with his record world breaking record intact". They just become rediculous, and should be avoided. It's too easy to come up with a phrase that goes the other way.

Ok, please tell me which phase, 3 or 4, you are on when " you have less hits when you transfer hits back to the unit"?

If the hits transfer back onto the unit after taking the shield down is a completely different arguement. Since the target has changed, the remaining hits should be lost.

But then you have in the rule "further hits strike the original target instead". Is that refering to the remaining hits from the shooting attack, or further hits from another units shooting attack?

Ok, please tell me which phase, 3 or 4, you are on when " you have less hits when you transfer hits back to the unit"?

Answer carefully, i'll give you hints: Phase 3 is all about Hits, and Phase 4 all about wounding.

Given we are rolling to wound/pen that will be step 4 as you state we are not rolling to hit.

Still won't answer the simple question about Void Shields I notice yet more proof you know that the interpretation has no basis in RaW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I have thought about this overnight, and the only way the Pulse Sub-munition Rules would work in the RaW is if:
We use your assumption that all hits transfer, assign them all to the shield. (applying the Pulse Sub-munition Rules to the squad before transfer)
Pen the number of shields (say 3) with the shots.
Then when the VSG Rule says "further hits strike the original target instead." assume, again, that all hits from that 1 shot are discarded, and "further hits" is the second shot if you Nova charged (or anything else like drone shots etc)
You then end the VSG Special Rule Phase with your other fully legal shots including the second Nova charged shot if you have it.
2 assumption needed for the R'Varna to work properly. Experimental rules FTW. lol

Bless. No assumption is required to transfer the hits. You just follow the RaW of transfer coming the shooting attack after the shooting attack has determined how many hits it gets.

Whilst the assumption on the transferring hits back to the unit is also wrong. The assumption you have to make for that is that to wound and armour pen rolls are resolved sequentially. If not you must roll all the to pen rolls from the hits from Both blasts (or all 4 blasts if he's Nova charged) at the same time and have no further hits to transfer back to the unit.

 grendel083 wrote:
with Shooting Attack (verb).

Exactly why we have an issue !! LoL
"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."
Subject & Noun: Shooting Attack
Verb: Hits
Predicate: Hits the void shield.

What is "the shooting attack" doing? It is hitting the void shield.

Constituent: "Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_(linguistics) )

 grendel083 wrote:
If the hits transfer back onto the unit after taking the shield down is a completely different arguement. Since the target has changed, the remaining hits should be lost.

But then you have in the rule "further hits strike the original target instead". Is that refering to the remaining hits from the shooting attack, or further hits from another units shooting attack?

You tell me? i'm asking about your method... Mine is perfectly clear and sorted, you give me any unit with any weapon and any number of shields i can deal with it with no broken RaW on the way (or so you would disagree)
At the very beginning of this thread, people i was agreeing with until i read the RaW said 1 Blast template can take down 9 Shields AND Kill 1 guy. Everyone was agreed on that...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Ok, please tell me which phase, 3 or 4, you are on when " you have less hits when you transfer hits back to the unit"?

Answer carefully, i'll give you hints: Phase 3 is all about Hits, and Phase 4 all about wounding.

Given we are rolling to wound/pen that will be step 4 as you state we are not rolling to hit.

Still won't answer the simple question about Void Shields I notice yet more proof you know that the interpretation has no basis in RaW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I have thought about this overnight, and the only way the Pulse Sub-munition Rules would work in the RaW is if:
We use your assumption that all hits transfer, assign them all to the shield. (applying the Pulse Sub-munition Rules to the squad before transfer)
Pen the number of shields (say 3) with the shots.
Then when the VSG Rule says "further hits strike the original target instead." assume, again, that all hits from that 1 shot are discarded, and "further hits" is the second shot if you Nova charged (or anything else like drone shots etc)
You then end the VSG Special Rule Phase with your other fully legal shots including the second Nova charged shot if you have it.
2 assumption needed for the R'Varna to work properly. Experimental rules FTW. lol

Bless. No assumption is required to transfer the hits. You just follow the RaW of transfer coming the shooting attack after the shooting attack has determined how many hits it gets.

Whilst the assumption on the transferring hits back to the unit is also wrong. The assumption you have to make for that is that to wound and armour pen rolls are resolved sequentially. If not you must roll all the to pen rolls from the hits from Both blasts (or all 4 blasts if he's Nova charged) at the same time and have no further hits to transfer back to the unit.

I believe you are contradicting yourself:
You said:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I have 10 hits and have started resolving them, that is why you have less hits when you transfer hits back to the unit,

then

 FlingitNow wrote:
If not you must roll all the to pen rolls from the hits from Both blasts (or all 4 blasts if he's Nova charged) at the same time and have no further hits to transfer back to the unit.

Ok, rephrase how you work out your hits and what you transfer back please, because it currently does not make sense...
Just how you apply RaW, nothing about how I apply RaW.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
For Blasts, you count up the number of hits on the unit, and begin applying those hits until the shield is dropped, the remainder of the hits go back to the unit.

Quoting back from 1st page and what i'm basing this on.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
If the hits transfer back onto the unit after taking the shield down is a completely different arguement. Since the target has changed, the remaining hits should be lost.

But then you have in the rule "further hits strike the original target instead". Is that refering to the remaining hits from the shooting attack, or further hits from another units shooting attack?

You tell me? i'm asking about your method... Mine is perfectly clear and sorted, you give me any unit with any weapon and any number of shields i can deal with it with no broken RaW on the way (or so you would disagree)

Your method is Raw and not broken? A bold claim, considering you have to invent the magic number 1 from thin air when dealing with blasts. After all it's been proven that 1 shot on 1 target can generate more than 1 hit.

With your method:
A blast hits 10
Becomes 1 hit against a shield and pens it...
... then what?
Does nothing hit the unit? Do those 10 hits reappear? Do 9 hits go against the unit? What does your method do in this case and why?

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Why would you return to step 3?
And thanks for admitting you're making assumptions with no rules support.

It is indeed an assumption that the VS is classified as a Fortification Special Rule and triggers the 3 shots "at fortifications"

Simply covering the Experimental rules for the R'varna... If you rather i'd not make assumptions we can go back the the VSG Special Rule as written and how to read it correctly? The same phrase with Cats & Olives show the grammar is indeed what is troubling most people reading it.

It's great quoting things without context, eh? Yes, your assumption had to do with R'Varna but my question about phase 3 didn't.
Please answer it.

 grendel083 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
If the hits transfer back onto the unit after taking the shield down is a completely different arguement. Since the target has changed, the remaining hits should be lost.

But then you have in the rule "further hits strike the original target instead". Is that refering to the remaining hits from the shooting attack, or further hits from another units shooting attack?

You tell me? i'm asking about your method... Mine is perfectly clear and sorted, you give me any unit with any weapon and any number of shields i can deal with it with no broken RaW on the way (or so you would disagree)

Your method is Raw and not broken? A bold claim, considering you have to invent the magic number 1 from thin air when dealing with blasts. After all it's been proven that 1 shot on 1 target can generate more than 1 hit.

With Special Rules applied, yes. But before that, no.
Count Tesla hit THEN add hits for 6s.
Count Sub-munitions hits THEN make those 2 or 3 depending on what you hit.
Still 1 shot = 1 hit before the THEN.

Unfortunately Blast Rules apply Instead of the "to hit" roll, but what happens when you instead an instead? The roll to hit is "as a substitute or an equivalent:" count models "as a substitute or an equivalent:" hit the shield.
Rocket launcher hits the shield Instead of Blast RaW Instead of "Roll to hit".
If you can show me how you transfer anything from your "Roll to hit" to your Blast Rules,
I will concede you transfer anything from your Blast Rules to your Hit the shield

 grendel083 wrote:
With your method:
A blast hits 10
Becomes 1 hit against a shield and pens it...
... then what?
Does nothing hit the unit? Do those 10 hits reappear? Do 9 hits go against the unit? What does your method do in this case and why?

Well nothing indeed, 1 Roll to Pen takes down the shield or it doesn't.
Or would you insist shooting 1 plasma pistol at the shield can Pen the shield AND hit the target inside?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Why would you return to step 3?
And thanks for admitting you're making assumptions with no rules support.

It is indeed an assumption that the VS is classified as a Fortification Special Rule and triggers the 3 shots "at fortifications"

Simply covering the Experimental rules for the R'varna... If you rather i'd not make assumptions we can go back the the VSG Special Rule as written and how to read it correctly? The same phrase with Cats & Olives show the grammar is indeed what is troubling most people reading it.

It's great quoting things without context, eh? Yes, your assumption had to do with R'Varna but my question about phase 3 didn't.
Please answer it.

You mean the part where "Further hits" as defined by VSG RaW hit the target unit Instead?
Of course that returns you to the end of Phase 3, where you have Hits on a target, possibly blast markers over the target, etc.
With those hits, you then proceed to Phase 4 and wounding.

I covered that in the long post...

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Why would you return to step 3?
And thanks for admitting you're making assumptions with no rules support.

It is indeed an assumption that the VS is classified as a Fortification Special Rule and triggers the 3 shots "at fortifications"

Simply covering the Experimental rules for the R'varna... If you rather i'd not make assumptions we can go back the the VSG Special Rule as written and how to read it correctly? The same phrase with Cats & Olives show the grammar is indeed what is troubling most people reading it.

It's great quoting things without context, eh? Yes, your assumption had to do with R'Varna but my question about phase 3 didn't.
Please answer it.

You mean the part where "Further hits" as defined by VSG RaW hit the target unit Instead?
Of course that returns you to the end of Phase 3, where you have Hits on a target, possibly blast markers over the target, etc.
With those hits, you then proceed to Phase 4 and wounding.

I covered that in the long post...

You "covered" lots of things incorrectly in your long post.
There's no basis for returning to step 3 whatsoever. Hits have been generated, time to wound. You don't have to re-hit.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
If the hits transfer back onto the unit after taking the shield down is a completely different arguement. Since the target has changed, the remaining hits should be lost.

But then you have in the rule "further hits strike the original target instead". Is that refering to the remaining hits from the shooting attack, or further hits from another units shooting attack?

You tell me? i'm asking about your method... Mine is perfectly clear and sorted, you give me any unit with any weapon and any number of shields i can deal with it with no broken RaW on the way (or so you would disagree)

Your method is Raw and not broken? A bold claim, considering you have to invent the magic number 1 from thin air when dealing with blasts. After all it's been proven that 1 shot on 1 target can generate more than 1 hit.

With Special Rules applied, yes. But before that, no.
Count Tesla hit THEN add hits for 6s.
Count Sub-munitions hits THEN make those 2 or 3 depending on what you hit.
Still 1 shot = 1 hit before the THEN.

Unfortunately Blast Rules apply Instead of the "to hit" roll, but what happens when you instead an instead? The roll to hit is "as a substitute or an equivalent:" count models "as a substitute or an equivalent:" hit the shield.
Rocket launcher hits the shield Instead of Blast RaW Instead of "Roll to hit".
If you can show me how you transfer anything from your "Roll to hit" to your Blast Rules,
I will concede you transfer anything from your Blast Rules to your Hit the shield

Yes weapons use Special Rules. That makes no difference, it's how the weapon works. At step 3 when generating hits, a weapon still generates all hits at that step weather it uses a special rule or not. So by the time the shield rule kicks in 3 hits are already generated. You can try and invent extra "special" steps in the proccess if you like, but the rules don't follow that.

And the Instead an Instead works just fine. First you need to hit the unit as per the PVS rule, so follow the rule as per blasts. Multiple hits are generate, step 3 complete. Then transfer the attack (which so far consists of 3 completed steps, and multiple hits).
These transfer just the same as the hits from any other attack.
An Attack with an Assault 20 weapon with 10 hits, transfer the attack. Exact same method. If these attacks transfer along with their hits, then so does a blast. Same method.

Now there is nothing saying to recalulate step 3 when the attack is transfered. Not one thing.
Hits with a blast can only ever be calculated by using the blast marker. There is no other method anywhere in the rules.
So if they are recalculated (with this imaginary rule of yours) then the number of hits is 0. Not 1.
One shot can generate multiple hits, no matter how many times you try to invent steps and "special rules don't count".

And can you please limit the colours you use on your post. Makes it harder to read, and looks like a clown was murdered across your post

 grendel083 wrote:
With your method:
A blast hits 10
Becomes 1 hit against a shield and pens it...
... then what?
Does nothing hit the unit? Do those 10 hits reappear? Do 9 hits go against the unit? What does your method do in this case and why?

Well nothing indeed, 1 Roll to Pen takes down the shield or it doesn't.

So you're saying the original step 3 is completly ignored and recalulated.
And if an Assault 20 weapon is used? 10 hits on the shield, first one pens it. Do 9 transfer back or are they lost?

Or would you insist shooting 1 plasma pistol at the shield can Pen the shield AND hit the target inside?

Nothing I've said even hints at that.

Edit: Another quick question:
How would you personally define "a shooting attack that has hit"?
An answer from others would also be welcome

So, three more pages with no relevant rules quotes, just blatant falsehoods?

Time for a lock. The ACTUAL rules are clear and consistent; what blacktalos has made up less so,

10 hits, regardless of how you get those hits, equals ten hits on the shield. Utterly consistent

rigeld2 wrote:
You "covered" lots of things incorrectly in your long post.
There's no basis for returning to step 3 whatsoever. Hits have been generated, time to wound. You don't have to re-hit.

Does the phrase "Further hits..." not tell you do continue upon the "To-Hit" Phase 3, after you have done a Phase 4 penetration Roll on the shield? Within the same shooting attack?

How can 1 shooting attack (because as many shot and hits we are arguing, still 1 Unit firing) perform a Phase 4 Shield Pen BEFORE a Phase 3 Hit on a unit?
Unless, as i described in the post, we have a "Phase: VSG Rule" that covers: In this step we have a hit portion, a "Roll to pen" portion and an allocation of Hits portion.

Phase 3: To Hit

Phase VSG: -To hit on shield
-Pen on shield
-To hit on unit

Phase 4: Wound Unit

No, you move to step four, and roll to pen. If shield is down, you roll to wound / pen

Still consistent and following real, written rules, not something made I pout of thin air

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You "covered" lots of things incorrectly in your long post.
There's no basis for returning to step 3 whatsoever. Hits have been generated, time to wound. You don't have to re-hit.

Does the phrase "Further hits..." not tell you do continue upon the "To-Hit" Phase 3, after you have done a Phase 4 penetration Roll on the shield? Within the same shooting attack?

How can 1 shooting attack (because as many shot and hits we are arguing, still 1 Unit firing) perform a Phase 4 Shield Pen BEFORE a Phase 3 Hit on a unit?
Unless, as i described in the post, we have a "Phase: VSG Rule" that covers: In this step we have a hit portion, a "Roll to pen" portion and an allocation of Hits portion.

Phase 3: To Hit

Phase VSG: -To hit on shield
-Pen on shield
-To hit on unit

Phase 4: Wound Unit

You're confusing allocation of hits with generating hits. One of those happens in step 4, the other in step 3. I'm sure you're smart enough to figure out which is which.
Roll pen on shield. Shield drops. Roll to wound with the rest of the hits.

ok...I'm getting bored with this constant toing and froing without a definitive answer to key important questions.

so for clarity, 'The Shooting Phase' is the phase which we are discussing, the rules for the shooting phase start on p12 of the BRB.

the first step is to 'nominate unit to shoot', we are all agreed that there are no forthcoming issues and for the purposes we will say that all models within the unit can shoot.

the next step is to 'choose a target', again we will assume that all the pre-requisites are met within these outlines and there is no current debate on these particulars either.

the next step is to 'Roll to Hit'.

here is where BlackTalos' argument starts.

note that within this section it states that there are instances where weapons can fire more than one shot, that no shot 'hits automatically' and also covers things like moving and shooting.

The next step is rolling to wound followed by wound allocation that encompasses taking saves and then removing casualties.

so the whole shooting phase is currently at this point in the rules a 4 step process.

much later in the rules, all the way on p73, the RB tells us how we resolve a shooting attack against a vehicle by rolling armour penetration, this step is a part of the 4th step process and is resolved instead of rolling to wound since vehicles do not have toughness and wound profiles.

please also note that this page also tells us specifically how a blast weapon works when firing at a vehicle...


so back to our current shooting rules,

we now have an updated shooting phase that reads as follows:

choose a unit to shoot
choose a target
roll to hit
roll to wound/roll armour penetration
allocate wounds, take saves, remove casualties/roll vehicle damage

there are no other additional rules within the rulebook.

ok so given that the above is how the rulebook tells us how to resolve attacks, we can now introduce special rules.

special rules as described on p32 have the capacity to bend or break the usual rules, this is referred to as basic vs advanced in warhammer fantasy and is a good way of thinking about special rules in general (my opinion on that last part of the sentence).

first we will look at the blast weapon rules, since this is the weapon that is firing as part of a shooting attack from my unit.

the rules for these start on p6 of the BRB and are again re-confirmed as a special rule on p33

following the above sequence of events, I have selected my unit of 5 tactical marines, one of which has a missile launcher and chosen my target, I am now onto my rolls to hit, this is where the blast special rule steps in for my tactical marine with a missile launcher who is electing to fire a frag missile, the blast special rule states that instead of rolling to hit, I place a template to determine the number of hits that his weapon causes after scattering the template and working out how many models are underneath the template.

the rest of the squad with bolters would roll to hit as normal for non-blast weapons.

we have now completed the roll to hit part of the shooting phase, it would and can really only be here that the void shield projection rules can possibly come into effect, this is not out of any bias I have, but because before this, all the rolls to hit are done simultaneously.

the void shield projection rules are now kicking in so we must look to these for the remainder of the shooting phase.

The void shield projection rules stipulate that a shooting attack that is outside of the area of effect will instead hit the projected shield.

we are told that the shield is classified as being AV12.

we are told that further hits will resolve against the unit if there are no projections remaining.

so, we are now at the final step, we have scored a number of hits and we must now take that number of hits and resolve them, although it is not a vehicle we only have the armour penetration rules to go on to damage the shield and the shield rules themselves tell us what we do should we score a glancing hit or a penetrating hit upon them, therefore it is not too much of a leap of faith that we are to use this method for resolving hits against the shield.

in my given unit, we would take the number of hits that the unit has scored, and note that non of them are able to damage an armour value of 12 (due to the low Strength of a frag missile) and we would roll for armour penetration of each shot knowing that non of them can hurt the shield (usually for expedience, we as players and a bit of free will would skip this as we know that the shots cannot do anything).

now if we replaced the 5 man tactical squad with a 5 man unit of devastators, the devastators are equipped with 2 missile launchers and 2 lascanons.

going through the stages let us presume that the 2 lascanons hit in the roll to hit phase and the missiles both fire frag missiles that cause 4 hits each (totalling 8 hits at S4), this gives the unit 8 hits at S4 and 2 hits at S9.

we go to the step 4 to resolve our hits and the shield steps in to say you hit me instead, I have an armour value so you must use armour penetration rolls to hurt me.

as the shooter, I am permitted to elect the order in which I resolve these hits, I would elect to roll the first lascanon and roll a 2, this is not enough to damage the shield, the second lascanon shot scores a 5, enough to penetrate the shield.

for this example I will use a single shield, although should there have been 2 shields, then the remaining hits would have been taken back to the unit to be intercepted again by the second shield.

the remaining hits or further hits are resolved normally using the allocation and roll to wound parts of step 4 as the shields own rules state that should a shield not be present to hit the unit.


************************************************
for the attention of BlackTalos
************************************************

I realise that you will perceive my example as incorrect, the past 17 pages are a testament to that.

what I am going to ask you to do is the following:

not to use a quote pyramid of previous posts in any response to this.

to give a full phase example of a shooting phase as you see it on a step by step basis.

provide the page references to the rule(s) you are using to back up your assertions like I have done above.

to explain how, in your example a weapon that specifies it requires a model in order to cause any hits can work when not given a model to hit.

to not go down the road of 1 'shot' is the equivalent of 1 hit when p6 tells us and as you have said yourself that this is not an accurate assertion.

and finally, I would like you to note that I am not out to attack you, your theory or anything that you have posted, and that I want you to write it out in a carefully and constructed manner as I have done (or at least attempted to do so).

 grendel083 wrote:
And the Instead an Instead works just fine. First you need to hit the unit as per the PVS rule, so follow the rule as per blasts. Multiple hits are generate, step 3 complete. Then transfer the attack (which so far consists of 3 completed steps, and multiple hits).
These transfer just the same as the hits from any other attack.
An Attack with an Assault 20 weapon with 10 hits, transfer the attack. Exact same method. If these attacks transfer along with their hits, then so does a blast. Same method.

You don't actually do "the Instead an Instead" above. If you did, as the pretty colours showed:
"First you need to hit the unit as per the PVS rule, so follow the rule as per blasts to hit, so follow the rules as per "to-Hit" with a BS to hit"
A Instead B Instead C
I see you doing A Instead B but not Instead C
"First you hit the unit as per the PVS rule, so ignore the rule as per blasts, so ignore the rule as per "To-hit" on BS"
That's an instead of an instead
you do A, while replacing B AND C not just pick the first one?

 grendel083 wrote:
Hits with a blast can only ever be calculated by using the blast marker. There is no other method anywhere in the rules.
So if they are recalculated (with this imaginary rule of yours) then the number of hits is 0. Not 1.

Long Post wrote: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.

 grendel083 wrote:

And if an Assault 20 weapon is used? 10 hits on the shield, first one pens it. Do 9 transfer back or are they lost?

"And if an Assault 20 weapon is used? 10 hits on the shield, first one pens it. Do 9 transfer back or are they lost?"
And if a Heavy 20, Blast weapon is used? 10 hits on the shield, first one pens it. Do 9 transfer back or are they lost?

Both are resolved the same: 1 pens the shield, 9 are left. Applying the same method for all weapons.
To which we apply:" further hits strike the original target instead."

1) 9 Hits from the Assault weapon are left
2) 9 Hits from the Heavy, Blast weapon are left

Case 2) how does a Blast weapon hit per normal rules? Template. Exactly where they were before the SR comes in and hitting all the Same amount of models they did before.
Why would you move any templates?

 grendel083 wrote:
How would you personally define "a shooting attack that has hit"?

A shot with Hits.

Ok, rephrase how you work out your hits and what you transfer back please, because it currently does not make sense...
Just how you apply RaW, nothing about how I apply RaW.

It is my reading of the RaW that you can't transfer hits from the shooting attack back onto the unit as all to wound or pen rolls are simultaneous. However whether or not they are simultaneous is not 100% clear in RaW and the clear RaI is that hits can roll back to the unit so HIWPI is resolve the pen rolls sequentially. Any remaining hits after the shield is down would roll to wound against the unit.

So my reading of the RaW is:

Determine how many hits the shooting attack does
Transfer shooting attack to the shield
Roll to pen with the shooting attack. Destroy shields as appropriate.

As this is literally all the rules tell us to do. I don't know why you think you do something different.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you move to step four, and roll to pen. If shield is down, you roll to wound / pen

Still consistent and following real, written rules, not something made I pout of thin air

Black - still waiting for you to refute this. Given your argument has boiled down to "nu uh you dont get to go back to step 3" , then showin gthat this isnt relevant kinda demolishes your last support...

 nutty_nutter wrote:
ok...I'm getting bored with this constant toing and froing without a definitive answer to key important questions.

so for clarity, 'The Shooting Phase' is the phase which we are discussing, the rules for the shooting phase start on p12 of the BRB.

the first step is to 'nominate unit to shoot', we are all agreed that there are no forthcoming issues and for the purposes we will say that all models within the unit can shoot.

the next step is to 'choose a target', again we will assume that all the pre-requisites are met within these outlines and there is no current debate on these particulars either.

the next step is to 'Roll to Hit'.

here is where BlackTalos' argument starts.

note that within this section it states that there are instances where weapons can fire more than one shot, that no shot 'hits automatically' and also covers things like moving and shooting.

The next step is rolling to wound followed by wound allocation that encompasses taking saves and then removing casualties.

so the whole shooting phase is currently at this point in the rules a 4 step process.

much later in the rules, all the way on p73, the RB tells us how we resolve a shooting attack against a vehicle by rolling armour penetration, this step is a part of the 4th step process and is resolved instead of rolling to wound since vehicles do not have toughness and wound profiles.

please also note that this page also tells us specifically how a blast weapon works when firing at a vehicle...


so back to our current shooting rules,

we now have an updated shooting phase that reads as follows:

choose a unit to shoot
choose a target
roll to hit
roll to wound/roll armour penetration
allocate wounds, take saves, remove casualties/roll vehicle damage

there are no other additional rules within the rulebook.

ok so given that the above is how the rulebook tells us how to resolve attacks, we can now introduce special rules.

special rules as described on p32 have the capacity to bend or break the usual rules, this is referred to as basic vs advanced in warhammer fantasy and is a good way of thinking about special rules in general (my opinion on that last part of the sentence).

first we will look at the blast weapon rules, since this is the weapon that is firing as part of a shooting attack from my unit.

the rules for these start on p6 of the BRB and are again re-confirmed as a special rule on p33

following the above sequence of events, I have selected my unit of 5 tactical marines, one of which has a missile launcher and chosen my target, I am now onto my rolls to hit, this is where the blast special rule steps in for my tactical marine with a missile launcher who is electing to fire a frag missile, the blast special rule states that instead of rolling to hit, I place a template to determine the number of hits that his weapon causes after scattering the template and working out how many models are underneath the template.

the rest of the squad with bolters would roll to hit as normal for non-blast weapons.

we have now completed the roll to hit part of the shooting phase, it would and can really only be here that the void shield projection rules can possibly come into effect, this is not out of any bias I have, but because before this, all the rolls to hit are done simultaneously.

the void shield projection rules are now kicking in so we must look to these for the remainder of the shooting phase.

The void shield projection rules stipulate that a shooting attack that is outside of the area of effect will instead hit the projected shield.

we are told that the shield is classified as being AV12.

we are told that further hits will resolve against the unit if there are no projections remaining.

so, we are now at the final step, we have scored a number of hits and we must now take that number of hits and resolve them, although it is not a vehicle we only have the armour penetration rules to go on to damage the shield and the shield rules themselves tell us what we do should we score a glancing hit or a penetrating hit upon them, therefore it is not too much of a leap of faith that we are to use this method for resolving hits against the shield.

in my given unit, we would take the number of hits that the unit has scored, and note that non of them are able to damage an armour value of 12 (due to the low Strength of a frag missile) and we would roll for armour penetration of each shot knowing that non of them can hurt the shield (usually for expedience, we as players and a bit of free will would skip this as we know that the shots cannot do anything).

now if we replaced the 5 man tactical squad with a 5 man unit of devastators, the devastators are equipped with 2 missile launchers and 2 lascanons.

going through the stages let us presume that the 2 lascanons hit in the roll to hit phase and the missiles both fire frag missiles that cause 4 hits each (totalling 8 hits at S4), this gives the unit 8 hits at S4 and 2 hits at S9.

we go to the step 4 to resolve our hits and the shield steps in to say you hit me instead, I have an armour value so you must use armour penetration rolls to hurt me.

as the shooter, I am permitted to elect the order in which I resolve these hits, I would elect to roll the first lascanon and roll a 2, this is not enough to damage the shield, the second lascanon shot scores a 5, enough to penetrate the shield.

for this example I will use a single shield, although should there have been 2 shields, then the remaining hits would have been taken back to the unit to be intercepted again by the second shield.

the remaining hits or further hits are resolved normally using the allocation and roll to wound parts of step 4 as the shields own rules state that should a shield not be present to hit the unit.


************************************************
for the attention of BlackTalos
************************************************

I realise that you will perceive my example as incorrect, the past 17 pages are a testament to that.

what I am going to ask you to do is the following:

not to use a quote pyramid of previous posts in any response to this.

to give a full phase example of a shooting phase as you see it on a step by step basis.

provide the page references to the rule(s) you are using to back up your assertions like I have done above.

to explain how, in your example a weapon that specifies it requires a model in order to cause any hits can work when not given a model to hit.

to not go down the road of 1 'shot' is the equivalent of 1 hit when p6 tells us and as you have said yourself that this is not an accurate assertion.

and finally, I would like you to note that I am not out to attack you, your theory or anything that you have posted, and that I want you to write it out in a carefully and constructed manner as I have done (or at least attempted to do so).

Ok, as i am also getting bored for the exact same reasons as you, i will reply with finality to this post and consider the matter settled as "in the end, you can read this post as right" or mine as right, whichever side of the argument you are on.

I will agree, that by reading this step by step post, you are reading the RaW and applying them as such and therefore are NOT wrong (I insist on this part).
With your permission, I will copy and amend the post, and hope you understand that I am reading the RaW and applying them as such and therefore in the same situation:
Green is added, Red inappropriate/disregarded.

the first step is to 'nominate unit to shoot', we are all agreed that there are no forthcoming issues and for the purposes we will say that all models within the unit can shoot.

the next step is to 'choose a target', again we will assume that all the pre-requisites are met within these outlines and there is no current debate on these particulars either.

the next step is to 'Roll to Hit'.

here is where BlackTalos' argument starts.

note that within this section it states that there are instances where weapons can fire more than one shot, that no shot 'hits automatically' and also covers things like moving and shooting.

The next step is rolling to wound followed by wound allocation that encompasses taking saves and then removing casualties.

so the whole shooting phase is currently at this point in the rules a 4 step process.

much later in the rules, all the way on p73, the RB tells us how we resolve a shooting attack against a vehicle by rolling armour penetration, this step is a part of the 4th step process and is resolved instead of rolling to wound since vehicles do not have toughness and wound profiles.

please also note that this page also tells us specifically how a blast weapon works when firing at a vehicle...


so back to our current shooting rules,

we now have an updated shooting phase that reads as follows:

choose a unit to shoot
choose a target
roll to hit
roll to wound/roll armour penetration
allocate wounds, take saves, remove casualties/roll vehicle damage

there are no other additional rules within the rulebook.

ok so given that the above is how the rulebook tells us how to resolve attacks, we can now introduce special rules.

special rules as described on p32 have the capacity to bend or break the usual rules (Emphasized), this is referred to as basic vs advanced in warhammer fantasy and is a good way of thinking about special rules in general (my opinion on that last part of the sentence).

first we will look at the blast weapon rules, since this is the weapon that is firing as part of a shooting attack from my unit.

the rules for these start on p6 of the BRB and are again re-confirmed as a special rule on p33

following the above sequence of events, I have selected my unit of 5 tactical marines, one of which has a missile launcher and chosen my target, I am now onto my rolls to hit, this is where the blast special rule steps in for my tactical marine with a missile launcher who is electing to fire a frag missile, the blast special rule states that instead of rolling to hit, I place a template to determine the number of hits that his weapon causes after scattering the template and working out how many models are underneath the template.

the rest of the squad with bolters would roll to hit as normal for non-blast weapons.

The VSG SR kick in here:"Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield."
Now in this phrase: *Subject* instead hits the projected void shield. The Subject of the Phrase is the following constituent: "Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone". This is what is hitting the shield. The 2 words "Hit" are different: one is the hits on the unit (which could be 5 from a blast), the other is the hit on the shield, which can only originate, in Phase 3, from the shot of the weapon.

Because we are currently on a "to-hit" of the shield, this phrase, and Special Rule, is happening within Phase 3.

we have now completed the roll to hit part of the shooting phase, it would and can really only be here that the void shield projection rules can possibly come into effect, this is not out of any bias I have, but because before this, all the rolls to hit are done simultaneously.

the void shield projection rules are now kicking in so we must look to these for the remainder of the shooting phase.

The void shield projection rules stipulate that a shooting attack that is outside of the area of effect will instead hit the projected shield.

we are told that the shield is classified as being AV12.

we are told that further hits will resolve against the unit if there are no projections remaining.

so, we are now at the final step, we have scored a number of hits and we must now take that number of hits and resolve them, although it is not a vehicle we only have the armour penetration rules to go on to damage the shield and the shield rules themselves tell us what we do should we score a glancing hit or a penetrating hit upon them, therefore it is not too much of a leap of faith that we are to use this method for resolving hits against the shield.

in my given unit, we would take the number of hits that the unit has scored, and note that non of them are able to damage an armour value of 12 (due to the low Strength of a frag missile) and we would roll for armour penetration of each shot knowing that non of them can hurt the shield (usually for expedience, we as players and a bit of free will would skip this as we know that the shots cannot do anything).

now if we replaced the 5 man tactical squad with a 5 man unit of devastators, the devastators are equipped with 2 missile launchers and 2 lascanons.

going through the stages let us presume that the 2 lascanons hit in the roll to hit phase, hence hittingthe shield and the missiles both fire frag missiles that cause 4 hits each (totalling 8 hits at S4), this gives the unit 8 hits at S4 and 2 hits at S9 on the target unti

we go to the step 4 to resolve our hits and the shield steps in to say you hit me instead, I have an armour value so you must use armour penetration rolls to hurt me.

Here in step 4, this applies from the VSG: "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."

You will notice that the 2 paragraphs are split: the first, all about hits, will obviously apply in Phase 3, while the second one above, about Pens applies in Phase 4.

as the shooter, I am permitted to elect the order in which I resolve these hits, I would elect to roll the first lascanon and roll a 2, this is not enough to damage the shield, the second lascanon shot scores a 5, enough to penetrate the shield.

for this example I will use a single shield, although should there have been 2 shields, then the remaining hits would have been taken back to the unit to be intercepted again by the second shield.

the remaining hits or further hits are resolved normally using the allocation and roll to wound parts of step 4 as the shields own rules state that should a shield not be present to hit the unit.

I have also marked, in orange, where the word "hit" you have used is the secondary one from the VSG Rule, not the first "Hit" that applies to the unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you move to step four, and roll to pen. If shield is down, you roll to wound / pen

Still consistent and following real, written rules, not something made I pout of thin air

Black - still waiting for you to refute this. Given your argument has boiled down to "nu uh you dont get to go back to step 3" , then showin gthat this isnt relevant kinda demolishes your last support...

No i agree with that quote, personally. and read the amended post above: the Entire VSG actually covers 2 phases, even if i put it in between to keep it clear...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I could probably make it even clearer by making it as simple as possible:
RaW:

"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."

1st Paragraph: building description
2nd Paragraph: Applies to Phase 3 of the Shooting Sequence
3rd Paragraph: Applies to Phase 4 of the Shooting Sequence

Grammar of this phrase: "Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield."

The Subject of the Phrase is the following constituent: "Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone".
Predicate: "Hits the void shield."
Adverb: "Instead"
Adverb: An adverb is a word that changes or qualifies the meaning of a verb(...) - Wikipedia
Verb: "Hits"

Conclusion: The adverb "Instead" is changing the meaning of the verb "hits". It's not the same "hit" as "hits a target" which is a restrictive apposition to the noun "Shooting attack"
That is it.
That is literally why a Heavy 1, Blast does 1 Hit on a VS.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
How would you personally define "a shooting attack that has hit"?

A shot with Hits.

Hmm... That would be a "shot that hits" not a "shooting attack that hits"
A Shooting Attack can consist of many shots.

Would "a unit's shooting that has completed step 3 of the shooting sequence, with target and one or more hits" not be a more accurate definition of a "shooting attack that hits"?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
That's a HUGE logical leap that the second reference to "hits" is a hit generated from a roll to hit.
One that makes your own method fail.
As an assault 20 weapon with 10 hits is the "shooting attack that hits" is now changed to single hit by your own interpretation.
Yet for unknown reasons it doesn't, so you claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"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."

We know it's range so we'll remove that.

[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]

For simplicity we'll call the original target "A" and the shield "B"

[Shooting attack] hits [A] instead hits [B]

Say the shooting attack is an assault cannon that scores 3 hits.

[3 hits from assault cannon] hits [A] instead hits [B]

Or a battle cannon with 5 hits.

[5 hits from battle cannon] hits [A] instead hits [B]

Your idea that "instead" changes the meaning of "hits" is flat out wrong.
The "target" that the "attack hits" is the only thing changed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Conclusion: The adverb "Instead" is changing the meaning of the verb "hits". It's not the same "hit" as "hits a target" which is a restrictive apposition to the noun "Shooting attack"

I'm sorry, what?
The first warning should have been that you went to Wikipedia for definition of adverb.
Why are you using the meaning of "adverb" in place of the meaning of "instead"? That's not how grammar works.

"Instead" is to substitute something previously mentioned. In the context of this sentence a target.

Also a hit from a shooting attack is a noun not a verb.

JinxDragon wrote:
I am not surprised by this turn of events at all, though do agree that it is a little unusual from a narrative point of view. Blast weapons have always been far more efficient at killing groups of individuals then at killing lone models.

Since 3rd edition, probably true. 2nd edition blast weapons often inflicted multiple wounds, and you rolled your save vs the hit, not the individual wound. Taking 2d12 wounds from a multimelter would ruin even a carnifex's day.

 grendel083 wrote:

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

We know it's range so we'll remove that.

[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]

For simplicity we'll call the original target "A" and the shield "B"

[Shooting attack] that hits [A] instead hits [B]

Say the shooting attack is an assault cannon that scores 3 hits.

[3 shots assault cannon] that hits [A] instead hits [B]

Or a battle cannon with 5 hits.

[1 shot from battle cannon] that hits [A x 3] instead hits [B x 1]

Your idea that "instead" changes In the place of something previously mentioned; as a substitute or an equivalent the meaning of "hits" is flat out wrong.
Is it? find me a definition of "Instead" that does not say substitute or replace.
The "target" that the "attack hits" is the only thing changed. Different target, different hits, yes


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Conclusion: The adverb "Instead" is changing the meaning of the verb "hits". It's not the same "hit" as "hits a target" which is a restrictive apposition to the noun "Shooting attack"

I'm sorry, what?
The first warning should have been that you went to Wikipedia for definition of adverb.
oxforddictionaries.com then:a word or phrase that modifies the meaning of an adjective, verb, or other adverb.
Why are you using the meaning of "adverb" in place of the meaning of "instead"? That's not how grammar works.
No i was just defining what an adverb is, as you have clearly proved you do not understand Grammar. Even right here below:

"Instead" is to substitute something previously mentioned. In the context of this sentence a target a shooting attack.

Also a hit from a shooting attack is a noun not a verb.
hit
verb
1.bring one's hand or a tool or weapon into contact with (someone or something) quickly and forcefully.

Corrected

Please just type "define hit" in google for me and concede you just do not understand the grammar here.
I am done here.

No, I think it is clear where the misunderstanding lies, and it isnt with the side is consistent.

10 hits, no matter what, end up as 10 hits on the shield.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Please just type "define hit" in google for me and concede you just do not understand the grammar here.

Your 5min Wikipedia education in grammar is sadly lacking.
"Hit" can be a verb or a noun. Something that a google search as you suggest wouldn't tell you.
This lack of understanding is telling.

I am done here.

This was true 10 pages ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
hit
verb
1.bring one's hand or a tool or weapon into contact with (someone or something) quickly and forcefully.

If you understood grammar correctly, you would have applied this definition to "hit from a shooting attack":

Hit - noun
1.
an instance of striking or being struck.
"few structures can withstand a hit from a speeding car"