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.

**FlingitNow**

BlackTalos wrote:
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.

You think you corrected him but you just highlight how nonsensical your interpretation is. You add in the word that and Grendel's logic holds you then randomly add in the word shot for literally no reason. Look at the underlined section you have just added in the term shots and dropped the hits that the rules were talking about. Why, why do you think the number of shots has ANYTHING to do with this rule?

**DJGietzen**

BlackTalos wrote:
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.

To be clear, I hate this post because I can't tell easily what grendall wrote. It looks like he is talking to himself. Don't ever respond within a quote, ever.

**BlackTalos**

FlingitNow wrote:
You think you corrected him but you just highlight how nonsensical your interpretation is. You add in the word that and Grendel's logic holds you then randomly add in the word shot for literally no reason. Look at the underlined section you have just added in the term shots and dropped the hits that the rules were talking about. Why, why do you think the number of shots has ANYTHING to do with this rule?

We went over how [Shooting attack] = [Shots]+[Hits] where [2] comes from [1].

grendel083 wrote:
"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.
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"

That's why i told you to check it.... It can be an noun OR a verb.
In the 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 Red "hits" is a Verb.

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".
Adverb: "Instead"
Predicate: "Hits the projected void shield."
Verb: "Hits"
Object: "the projected Void Shield"

I hope you understand what the predicate and object are?

If you insist that the second "Hits" is a noun, then we have finally cleared why you are reading it wrong.

**grendel083**

BlackTalos wrote:

We went over how [Shooting attack] = [Shots]+[Hits]

Well this is wrong.
[Shooting attack] = [target]+[Hits]
This would be closer, but still not very accurate. There's no reason for shots to be in there if hits have already been generate.

That's why i told you to check it.... It can be an noun OR a verb.

We both know that's NOT why you told me to check it.

In the 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 Red "hits" is a Verb.

No it isn't. It is the Shooting Attack now hitting the shield instead of the target. It is a noun.

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".
Adverb: "Instead"
Predicate: "Hits the projected void shield."
Verb: "Hits"
Object: "the projected Void Shield"

You've invented a meaning for the second "hits" that the sentence doesn't say.

I hope you understand what the predicate and object are?

I do indeed. And this understanding did not come from 5min on Wikipedia.

If you insist that the second "Hits" is a noun, then we have finally cleared why you are reading it wrong.

One of us is getting it wrong that's for sure. The attack is now hitting the shield instead of the target, that's what it's saying. Your idea that the second "hit" is somehow a hit generated by a successful "To Hit" roll is flat out wrong.

**rigeld2**

BlackTalos wrote:
We went over how [Shooting attack] = [Shots]+[Hits] where [2] comes from [1].

Yes. We went over how every time you say this it's utterly and completely incorrect no matter how many times you repeat it.
Stop
Saying
It.

**FlingitNow**

We went over how [Shooting attack] = [Shots]+[Hits] where [2] comes from [1].

That is just not remotely correct. Again please point to where in the rule shots is referred to or even implied as having a direct impact on the number of hits the shield takes. We know in normal shooting hits are not tied to shots in a 1 for 1 basis as blast weapons prove. So which part of the VSG rules tells us 1 shot = 1 hit.

While your at it give me the number of models a Void Shield contains. I've been asking this question for about 10 pages and your refusal to answer illustrates you know you the interpretation you are claiming is RaW has no basis in the rules. Please stop trolling.

**BlackTalos**

grendel083 wrote:

In the 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 Red "hits" is a Verb.
No it isn't. It is the Shooting Attack now hitting the shield instead of the target. It is a noun.

Is everyone agreed on this?

Like, forget the entire rest of the argument and definition of shooting attack... do you all think this?

**doktor_g**

Although my sentence diagraming is rusty, there are three verbs, I think.
"originates", "hits" and "hits"

I can't believe we are arguing this still lets roll a d6 and talk about other stuff. Hahahah!

**grendel083**

doktor_g wrote:
Although my sentence diagraming is rusty, there are three verbs, I think.

You are indeed rusty

"originates" - yes.
"hits" - depends on the context in which it's used.

**extremefreak17**

BlackTalos wrote:
grendel083 wrote:

In the 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 Red "hits" is a Verb.
No it isn't. It is the Shooting Attack now hitting the shield instead of the target. It is a noun.

Is everyone agreed on this?

Like, forget the entire rest of the argument and definition of shooting attack... do you all think this?

This makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. Your whole argument is based around the fact that blast weapons are 1 "shot." The rule never mentions "shots" NEVER. Only the "attack" itself. At the point when the VSG comes into effect (after hits are calculated) the "attack" consists only of hits. Hits are transferred as they are part of the attack. Shots have nothing to do with the how the VSG rule transferres already generated hits.

Edit: BlackTalos, can you please address this? I have been posting this point for 10+ pages now with no response.

**BlackTalos**

extremefreak17 wrote:
This makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. Your whole argument is based around the fact that blast weapons are 1 "shot." The rule never mentions "shots" NEVER. Only the "attack" itself. At the point when the VSG comes into effect (after hits are calculated) the "attack" consists only of hits. Hits are transferred as they are part of the attack. Shots have nothing to do with the how the VSG rule transferres already generated hits.

Edit: BlackTalos, can you please address this? I have been posting this point for 10+ pages now with no response.

I makes a difference because it means they are 2 different "Hits", but never mind...

To address: "Instead", by me, means "substitute"
Blast RaW: "When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll to Hit. Instead, just pick(...)"

So, by the word "Instead", you substitute the Roll to hit by a view of the template.
So, by the same "Instead", you substitute the template by a hit on the shield.

Do you roll to hit when you hit with Blast? No
Do you hit with Blast when you hit the shield? No

There is one part of the VSG SR HOWEVER, that says "Any shooting attack that (...) hits a target": It is REQUIRED that you hit the target first, which is why you must roll to hit/Blast rules.
If the blast RaW said: "When firing a Blast weapon that hits" you would roll to hit, see if it does, and then count the models below. You would not roll to hit and say "oh that's it, 1 hit!" and disregard the rest of what the blast does. Exact same thing here...

**FlingitNow**

So, by the word "Instead", you substitute the Roll to hit by a view of the template.
So, by the same "Instead", you substitute the template by a hit on the shield.

With an assault 20 weapon you pick up 20 dice and roll to hit. So by your instead (replacing the roll to hit rather than replacing the recipient of the hit like you're told to) you substitute those 20 dice with a hit on the shield...

**BlackTalos**

FlingitNow wrote:
So, by the word "Instead", you substitute the Roll to hit by a view of the template.
So, by the same "Instead", you substitute the template by a hit on the shield.

With an assault 20 weapon you pick up 20 dice and roll to hit. So by your instead (replacing the roll to hit rather than replacing the recipient of the hit like you're told to) you substitute those 20 dice with a hit on the shield...

BRB RaW:
"To determine if the firing model has hit its target, roll a D6 for each shot that is in range.Most models get to fire only one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we'll explain in more detail later." p13
"Number of shots
Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after its type.
For example, a multi-laser is a Heavy weapon that fires three shots each shooting phase, so its type is Heavy 3"

Still substituting "each hit"
or "each template hit" that substituted "each hit"..?

**FlingitNow**

Do you roll to hit when you hit with Blast? Yes by rolling scatter dice and counting models, you just don't make a normal To Hit roll
Do you hit with Blast when you hit the shield? Yes you must HAVE rolled to hit BEFORE the shield is triggered

FTFY

**BlackTalos**

FlingitNow wrote:
replacing the roll to hit rather than replacing the recipient of the hit like you're told to

The instead applies to "the recipient that is hit"
so "the recipient that is hit" instead is "the other recipient that is hit" 2 different recipients with their hits

Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:
Do you roll to hit when you hit with Blast? Yes by rolling scatter dice and counting models, you just don't make a normal To Hit roll
Do you hit with Blast when you hit the shield? Yes you must HAVE rolled to hit BEFORE the shield is triggered

FTFY

No and No...

Rolling scatter is following Blast rules, not

roll a D6 for each shot

second one:

There is one part of the VSG SR HOWEVER, that says "Any shooting attack that (...) hits a target": It is REQUIRED that you hit the target first, which is why you must roll to hit/Blast rules.
If the blast RaW said: "When firing a Blast weapon that hits" you would roll to hit, see if it does, and then count the models below. You would not roll to hit and say "oh that's it, 1 hit!" and disregard the rest of what the blast

Same question, same NO

**FlingitNow**

BlackTalos wrote:
FlingitNow wrote:
So, by the word "Instead", you substitute the Roll to hit by a view of the template.
So, by the same "Instead", you substitute the template by a hit on the shield.

With an assault 20 weapon you pick up 20 dice and roll to hit. So by your instead (replacing the roll to hit rather than replacing the recipient of the hit like you're told to) you substitute those 20 dice with a hit on the shield...

BRB RaW:
"To determine if the firing model has hit its target, roll a D6 for each shot that is in range.Most models get to fire only one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we'll explain in more detail later." p13
"Number of shots
Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after its type.
For example, a multi-laser is a Heavy weapon that fires three shots each shooting phase, so its type is Heavy 3"

Still substituting "each hit"
or "each template hit" that substituted "each hit"..?

None of that is relevant. Because the VSG never calls put shots it calls out shooting attacks. A shooting attack is made up of all the shots and then hits of a units shooting agreed?

So we have to make all our rolls to hit (of various kinds) before knowing if we have hit the target agreed?

If that number is greater than 1 we then transfer the shooting attack over to the shield agreed?

**BlackTalos**

FlingitNow wrote:
Do you roll to hit when you hit with Blast? Yes by rolling scatter dice and counting models, you just don't make a normal To Hit roll
Do you hit with Blast when you hit the shield? Yes you must HAVE rolled to hit BEFORE the shield is triggered

FTFY

That part, in red, means No lol

**FlingitNow**

The instead applies to "the recipient that is hit"
so "the recipient that is hit" instead is "the other recipient that is hit" 2 different recipients with their hits

And those hits will be the same unless you have permission to change them and a method to calculate hits from a blast on a shield?

No and No...

Rolling scatter is following Blast rules, not

It is still rolling to hit just not making a To Hit roll. You're not suggesting hitting the shield replaces rolling to hit are you? The blast to hit roll is instead of making a To Hit roll and therefore is something done before the shield rule kicks in yes?

If the blast RaW said: "When firing a Blast weapon that hits" you would roll to hit, see if it does, and then count the models below.

You are the one who is requiring blast weapons to work this way. You are requiring a roll to hit from blasts that hits and then count models and are replacing the and then count models witha hit on the shield. We are saying instead of rolling to hit you roll scatter and count models this generates how many hits the blast causes on the unit. The PVS rules then kick in and say hit me instead of the unit...

**BlackTalos**

FlingitNow wrote:

None of that is relevant. Because the VSG never calls put shots it calls out shooting attacks. A shooting attack is made up of all the shots and then hits of a units shooting agreed?

Proves my point yes: you "instead" substitute the *hits on target* with *hits on shield*: what does "shooting attack"(made up of all the shots and then hits) that does not include hits include? Shots

FlingitNow wrote:
So we have to make all our rolls to hit (of various kinds) before knowing if we have hit the target agreed?

Indeed, that is a pre-requisite of the VSG SR

FlingitNow wrote:
If that number is greater than 1 we then transfer the shooting attack over to the shield agreed?

We substitute the *hits on target* with *hits on shield* for each shot, yes, because the shooting attack (made up of all the shots and then hits) is transferred yes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:
The instead applies to "the recipient that is hit"
so "the recipient that is hit" instead is "the other recipient that is hit" 2 different recipients with their hits

And those hits will be the same unless you have permission to change them and a method to calculate hits from a blast on a shield?

Those hits are the same as much as those recipients are the same. Is that the case?

FlingitNow wrote:
It is still rolling to hit just not making a To Hit roll. You're not suggesting hitting the shield replaces rolling to hit are you? The blast to hit roll is instead of making a To Hit roll and therefore is something done before the shield rule kicks in yes?

Oh but i am insisting "hitting the shield replaces rolling to hit". Just like the Blast scatter replaces rolling to hit.
Do you roll a D6 to hit before you place the blast marker and scatter?

**FlingitNow**

Oh but i am insisting "hitting the shield replaces rolling to hit".

So you don't roll to hit with an assault 20 weapon now? If the roll to hit is replaced?

**nosferatu1001**

So by the time you have ten hits, why do you then only have one hit? Why have you discarded ten hits for one?

**BlackTalos**

FlingitNow wrote:
Oh but i am insisting "hitting the shield replaces rolling to hit".

So you don't roll to hit with an assault 20 weapon now? If the roll to hit is replaced?

On the shield? No
Before the Special Rule takes effect? Yes

Just like with Blast weapons. I've been telling you all along i do not discriminate Blast/Non Blast...

The "roll to hit" from 1 shot of an assault 20 shots is substituted by a hit on the shield. Same as you do for Blast or Template.
You still need to "Roll to hit" to trigger

Any shooting attack that hits a target within the Void Shield Zone

Just like you need a Blast template (substituting a roll to hit) to trigger it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So by the time you have ten hits, why do you then only have one hit? Why have you discarded ten hits for one?

If your "discarded" is my "substituted" then:
When you place a Blast template and roll to scatter, Why have you discarded 1 hit for 10?
Because the Blast RaW says "instead", just like the VSG RaW does...

**FlingitNow**

On the shield? No
Before the Special Rule takes effect? Yes

Just like with Blast weapons. I've been telling you all along i do not discriminate Blast/Non Blast...

The "roll to hit" from 1 shot of an assault 20 shots is substituted by a hit on the shield. Same as you do for Blast or Template.
You still need to "Roll to hit" to trigger

So we ignore the roll to hit. So I roll 20 dice for my assault 20 weapon and if I get 1 or more hits that's 20 hits on the shield?

Also Tesla doesn't work in your method. I roll to hit get 2 "6"s and 2 "3"s that's 4 shots, 4 hits, since the roll to hit is replaced those 6s go away and that's just 4 hits on the shield rather than the 8 that the rules require.

**nosferatu1001**

Yes, but by the time vsg rule takes effect, the attack has ten hits. Why are you allowed to discard ten hits and mark up, from thin air, just a single hit.

You seem to think "hit" and "to hit" are the same thing. They aren't

You remain wrong.

**FlingitNow**

What do you do with a blast weapon that scatters 10" completely missing that guard squad but instead landing flat bang in the middle of a nearby guard squad causing 10 hits on the unit. How do you resolve that?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
So what I'm asking is in your method do we after hitting the unit with a shot:

1) ignore the to hit roll made (remembering this shot has hit the unit) and replace it with 1 hit
2) count it as if that to hit roll had been made against the shield.

Just a number 1 or 2 will suffice.

**BlackTalos**

FlingitNow wrote:
So we ignore the roll to hit. So I roll 20 dice for my assault 20 weapon and if I get 1 or more hits that's 20 hits on the shield?

No, because now you are grouping all your shots, and it would be like saying "my entire unit shoots 20 assault 10 shots, and 10 Heavy 5, blast shots" and get 1 Hit. No
"Any shooting attack", therefore all your shots (e.g. 20 assault & 10 Heavy) are said "Instead hits the VS": you get 30 hits (assuming each shot "Hits the target" and triggers the VSG SR)
The Phrase "Each shot that hits [Target] instead hits [VS]"
If you have a Heavy 3, Large Blast weapon, that's 3 hits on the shield

FlingitNow wrote:
Also Tesla doesn't work in your method. I roll to hit get 2 "6"s and 2 "3"s that's 4 shots, 4 hits, since the roll to hit is replaced those 6s go away and that's just 4 hits on the shield rather than the 8 that the rules require.

No because each Tesla hit of a 6 triggers a rule.
When you substitute a hit on the target by a hit on the shield, the special rule still applies, just as rending would, just as Blast would - if the shield was a model-

**grendel083**

BlackTalos wrote:
No because each Tesla hit of a 6 triggers a rule.
When you substitute a hit on the target by a hit on the shield, the special rule still applies.

Wrong.
The rule has been used. It happens at step 3 when generating hits.
You now have more hits to pass on to step 4.
You don't pass on 1 hit "and a special rule" you pass on 3 hits.
It's these made up stages that make your method completely wrong.

When the PVS rule kicks in you're dealing with 3 hits, the tesla rule is done with and has no further interaction with the attack.

**BlackTalos**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, but by the time vsg rule takes effect, the attack has ten hits. Why are you allowed to discard ten hits and mark up, from thin air, just a single hit.

Why are you allowed to discard a "to hit" roll and place a Blast Marker to scatter?

FlingitNow wrote:
What do you do with a blast weapon that scatters 10" completely missing that guard squad but instead landing flat bang in the middle of a nearby guard squad causing 10 hits on the unit. How do you resolve that?

Specify: 2 10-man squads inside the shield? or one outside?

FlingitNow wrote:
So what I'm asking is in your method do we after hitting the unit with a shot:

1) ignore the to hit roll made (remembering this shot has hit the unit) and replace it with 1 hit
2) count it as if that to hit roll had been made against the shield.

Just a number 1 or 2 will suffice.

1) is perfectly correct, although i'd replace "ignore" with "substitute"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

grendel083 wrote:
BlackTalos wrote:
No because each Tesla hit of a 6 triggers a rule.
When you substitute a hit on the target by a hit on the shield, the special rule still applies.
Wrong.
The rule has been used. It happens at step 3 when generating hits.
You now have more hits to pass on to step 4.
You don't pass on 1 hit "and a special rule" you pass on 3 hits.
It's these made up stages that make your method completely wrong.

When the PVS rule kicks in you're dealing with 3 hits, the tesla rule is done with and has no further interaction with the attack.

PVS SR applies in Step 3 and Step 4

Tesla will apply 2 hits to your shield hit in Step 3 and you pass them on to step 4 Pens to the shield?
going from Step 3 to step 4 you pass 3 hits, indeed
We're agreeing on this, i don't see the issue?

**grendel083**

Yet not one single rule tells you to "substitute" hits with the magic made up number 1.

**BlackTalos**

And how do you pass on a "hit of 6" to Step 4 with Rending?

You pass on a Hit and a SR, no?