Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BlackTalos wrote:
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?

PVS is between step 3 and 4.
Step 3 must be completed (the unit must have been hit) before the PVS kicks in.
Tesla does not apply after, this rule has done it's part.
It applies solely in step 3 when hits are calculated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

You pass on a Hit and a SR, no?

Does rending apply to a hit?

 grendel083 wrote:
Yet not one single rule tells you to "substitute" hits with the magic made up number 1.

VSG wrote:instead hits the projected void shield.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
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?

PVS is between step 3 and 4.
Step 3 must be completed (the unit must have been hit) before the PVS kicks in.
Tesla does not apply after, this rule has done it's part.
It applies solely in step 3 when hits are calculated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

You pass on a Hit and a SR, no?

Does rending apply to a hit?

Does VGS apply to a hit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Clarification:
Telsa SR applies to hits
VSG SR applies to hits

Either both are resolved before Phase 3 ends, or both continue on after, stay consistent please

 BlackTalos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Yet not one single rule tells you to "substitute" hits with the magic made up number 1.

VSG wrote:instead hits the projected void shield.

What hits the PVS?
The shooting attack.
Any more misquotes?
Because that says nothing about substituting hits or the invented number one.
That says purely the shooting attack hits the shield instead of the original target.

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

You pass on a Hit and a SR, no?

Does rending apply to a hit?

Does VGS apply to a hit?

Dodging the question I see. Let me help.
No.
Rending does not apply to hits.
You do not "pass on a hit with rending".
You pass on a hit.
Rending is part of the weapon profile, and triggers on a wound or pen.

 BlackTalos wrote:

Clarification:
Telsa SR applies to hits
VSG SR applies to hits

Either both are resolved before Phase 3 ends, or both continue on after, stay consistent please

Wrong again.
PVS applies to a unit that has been hit with a shooting attack.
That means step 3 must have been completed.
It applies after step 3 not during.
It does not apply "to hits"

Tesla applies solely during step 3.

Stay consistent please.

 grendel083 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Yet not one single rule tells you to "substitute" hits with the magic made up number 1.

VSG wrote:instead hits the projected void shield.

What hits the PVS?
The shooting attack.
Any more misquotes?
Because that says nothing about substituting hits or the invented number one.
That says purely the shooting attack hits the shield instead of the original target.

And what does "instead" mean? please define...

 grendel083 wrote:

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

You pass on a Hit and a SR, no?

Does rending apply to a hit?

Does VGS apply to a hit?

Dodging the question I see. Let me help.
No.
Rending does not apply to hits.
You do not "pass on a hit with rending".
You pass on a hit.
Rending is part of the weapon profile, and triggers on a wound or pen.

Fully granted, my mistake.

 grendel083 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Clarification:
Telsa SR applies to hits
VSG SR applies to hits

Either both are resolved before Phase 3 ends, or both continue on after, stay consistent please

Wrong again.
PVS applies to a unit that has been hit with a shooting attack.
That means step 3 must have been completed.
It applies after step 3 not during.
It does not apply "to hits"

Tesla applies solely during step 3.

Stay consistent please.

No both rules are the same, they apply after you have scored a hit, but still within Phase 3.

"Tesla applies to a unit that has been hit with the shot.
That means step 3 must have been completed.
It applies after step 3 not during."

Same thing...

 BlackTalos wrote:
And what does "instead" mean? please define...

In pace of something previously mentioned.
In the context of the sentence this refers to the target of a shooting attack.
It most certainly does not refer to the number of hits.

No both rules are the same, they apply after you have scored a hit, but still within Phase 3.

"Tesla applies to a unit that has been hit with the shot.
That means step 3 must have been completed.
It applies after step 3 not during."

Same thing...

No the same at all.
Tesla triggers on a "To Hit" roll

PVS triggers when a Shooting Attack has hit a unit.

Tesla is during Step 3, PVS is after but before step 4.
Until step 3 is completed, you cannot say the unit has been hit.
And bear in mind all to hit dice are simultaneous.

 grendel083 wrote:

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.

Alternatively, if indeed we conclude that Telsa can only apply to the hits on the unit and not to hits on the shield (Hits only ever happen Phase 3), then a single Tesla shot, by RaW, can only indeed hit once. But let's go through it shall we?
Maybe quoting the Tesla RaW would help in this...

Black - so you ignore your continual mistake, which is thinking TO HIT and HIT are the same thing?

You roll to hit, instead roll scatter. This generates a number of hits, and step three is complete. Now, these HIT, not to hit, instead HIt the shield. So at step four you resolve against the shield.

Why this is so difficult to understand I am not sure

 grendel083 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
And what does "instead" mean? please define...

In pace of something previously mentioned.
In the context of the sentence this refers to the target of a shooting attack.
It most certainly does not refer to the number of hits.

I quote VSG RaW and disagree:

and hits a target

The above 4 words refer to "a number of hits" on "a target".
*Instead* comes after that

 grendel083 wrote:

No both rules are the same, they apply after you have scored a hit, but still within Phase 3.

"Tesla applies to a unit that has been hit with the shot.
That means step 3 must have been completed.
It applies after step 3 not during."

Same thing...

No the same at all.
Tesla triggers on a "To Hit" roll

PVS triggers when a Shooting Attack has hit a unit.

Tesla is during Step 3, PVS is after but before step 4.
Until step 3 is completed, you cannot say the unit has been hit.
And bear in mind all to hit dice are simultaneous.

I fully agree: Until step 3 is completed, you cannot say the Void Shield has been hit.
so the Tesla rule transfers as it is a "status" of the shot, within Phase 3.

I'd be happy to say "it doesn't transfer" and Telsa only get 1 Hit on the shield, but it's up for decision...

Tesla Codex: Necrons p82 wrote:For every To Hit roll of a 6, the target suffer 2 additional automatic hits.

The Tesla most certainly does not transfer it as a "status".
During step 3 additional hits are generated.
So once step 3 is complete, you have 3 hits on the target unit, not one.
The shooting attack then transfers to the shield.
The target (shield) now has 3 hits scored against it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You roll to hit, instead roll scatter. This generates a number of hits, and step three is complete. Now, these HIT, not to hit, instead HIt the shield.

So you substitutes HIT(s) on target with HIT on shield? How do you assume they are the same? TO HIT substituted to scatter shows TO HIT and Scatter is different.

That phrase of yours has actually shaken the argument, was just about to agree with you...
However as i say: you replace a D6 To Hit with a scatter. In no way can you assume the D6 and the Scatter are the same thing?
Same for both "Hits".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

Tesla Codex: Necrons p82 wrote:For every To Hit roll of a 6, the target suffer 2 additional automatic hits.

The Tesla most certainly does not transfer it as a "status".
During step 3 additional hits are generated.
So once step 3 is complete, you have 3 hits on the target unit, not one.
The shooting attack then transfers to the shield.
The target (shield) now has 3 hits scored against it.

Okay, well that's the same as Blast then. it applies straight at the moment you roll (apply template), so the Hits substitute to a hit on the shield...

Except the PVS rule never says to substitute hits.
It changes the Target.
The shooting Attack hits the shield instead of the original target.

So you've been arguing for 20 pages without knowing what Tesla says?

Awesome.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Black - so you ignore your continual mistake, which is thinking TO HIT and HIT are the same thing?

You roll to hit, instead roll scatter. This generates a number of hits, and step three is complete. Now, these HIT, not to hit, instead HIt the shield. So at step four you resolve against the shield.

Why this is so difficult to understand I am not sure

When in the "to hit" phase: One of your hands holds a single D6 for "to hit", the other holds 2D6 and a scatter.
When in the VSG: One of your hands holds the 20 Dice (hits) on the unit, the other holds the D6 (Hit) on the VS.

Where does it say the Hits have to be the same / The "to hit" need 2D6 and a scatter for normal weapons.
I am saying both hands are different, due to the Substitution of the word "instead"

rigeld2 wrote:
So you've been arguing for 20 pages without knowing what Tesla says?

Awesome.

To be fair he spend the first 10 not know what a Shooting Attack consisted of.

 grendel083 wrote:
Except the PVS rule never says to substitute hits.
It changes the Target.
The shooting Attack hits the shield instead of the original target.

That is not a straight quote, because if you had, you'd see it changes "the target that was hit": the target and its' hits.

The shooting Attack hits the shield instead of the original target that was hit.
That's in the RaW

rigeld2 wrote:
So you've been arguing for 20 pages without knowing what Tesla says?

Awesome.

I did, but thought the application of it to the VSG SR worked fine... apparently doesn't

 BlackTalos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Except the PVS rule never says to substitute hits.
It changes the Target.
The shooting Attack hits the shield instead of the original target.

That is not a straight quote, because if you had, you'd see it changes "the target that was hit": the target and its' hits.

The shooting Attack hits the shield instead of the original target that was hit.
That's in the RaW

"The target that was hit" as opposed to "the target that was missed".
"Was hit" is an identifier.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Except the PVS rule never says to substitute hits.
It changes the Target.
The shooting Attack hits the shield instead of the original target.

That is not a straight quote, because if you had, you'd see it changes "the target that was hit": the target and its' hits.

The shooting Attack hits the shield instead of the original target that was hit.
That's in the RaW

"The target that was hit" as opposed to "the target that was missed".
"Was hit" is an identifier.

"hits a target within the Void Shield Zone" is an identifier. For the shooting attack that now hits the shield.
"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."
That entire double phrase is an identifier for the shooting attack, and what is substituted by what comes after "instead"

 BlackTalos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Except the PVS rule never says to substitute hits.
It changes the Target.
The shooting Attack hits the shield instead of the original target.

That is not a straight quote, because if you had, you'd see it changes "the target that was hit": the target and its' hits.

The shooting Attack hits the shield instead of the original target that was hit.
That's in the RaW

Yes the target that was hit.

Yet you're applying something it doesn't say:

It hits the shield, instead of the original target that was hit, with new hits.

I'm taking the Shooting Attack (that has hit a target) and applying that same shooting attack to the shield.

Not with new hits. Not with recalculated hits. Not with invented hits.

As the rule tells me too.

Now THAT'S in the RaW.
Your method, is not.

 grendel083 wrote:
I'm taking the Shooting Attack (that has hit a target) and applying that same shooting attack to the shield.
Now THAT'S in the RaW.

So you're taking the shooting attack that hit 50 times and applying that same shooting attack to hit the shield?
I agree.
Your X shots hit 50 times (that's your shooting attack), those X shots hit the shield (that's the same shooting attack).
Can you apply Tesla or Blast SR to those hit? I'm sure you can if you show me the VS is a Model...

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Except the PVS rule never says to substitute hits.
It changes the Target.
The shooting Attack hits the shield instead of the original target.

That is not a straight quote, because if you had, you'd see it changes "the target that was hit": the target and its' hits.

The shooting Attack hits the shield instead of the original target that was hit.
That's in the RaW

"The target that was hit" as opposed to "the target that was missed".
"Was hit" is an identifier.

"hits a target within the Void Shield Zone" is an identifier. For the shooting attack that now hits the shield.
"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."
That entire double phrase is an identifier for the shooting attack, and what is substituted by what comes after "instead"

Exactly correct. You take everything that hit the target and instead hit the shield.
Which is not what you're doing. Your method is taking some things that hit the target and instead hit the shield.
The only thing that is changed is the thing being hit.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
I'm taking the Shooting Attack (that has hit a target) and applying that same shooting attack to the shield.
Now THAT'S in the RaW.

So you're taking the shooting attack that hit 50 times and applying that same shooting attack to hit the shield?
I agree.
Your X shots hit 50 times (that's your shooting attack), those X shots hit the shield (that's the same shooting attack).
Can you apply Tesla or Blast SR to those hit? I'm sure you can if you show me the VS is a Model...

Why would I need to?

The Shooting Attack was at a unit. The hits were generated against a unit.

Not only are your trying to re-calculate step 3 of the process, you now want to re-calculate step 2 !?!

Again without a single rule to support this?

Have you been joking this entire time? Because this new notion would indicate so.
You're done here.

Indeed, the lack of rules trolling has gone on long enough

Blacktalos argument has been thoroughly debunked at every step, and now they seem confused between to hit, and hits, thinking they are the same.

For the benefit of others reading the thread, who may think there is some contention in this - there isn't. The hits on the unit are transferred to the shield. 10 hits on a unit - whether blast, or assault, of tesla - gives you 10 hits on the shield

Anything else isn't supported

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.

This is so wrong, it hurts.The grammar is very clear here. It is not telling you to substitute the blast hit mechanic, it is telling to substitute the target recieving the hits, but after the HITS ARE ALREADY CALCULATED. At the point in which the rules comes into play, the template is already used. There is no permission to go back in time and throw the template away, and exchange its results for the magic number of 1. No where in the rule does it say that the hit mechanic is replaced. It says the "attack (which consists of a number of hits already) instead hits the shield" If you replace the hit mechanic for blast weapons, you must replace the mechanic for EVERY OTHER WEAPON TYPE. There is nothing in the VSG rule that allows us to treat weapon types differently.

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

2D6 + scatter = roll to hit
so yes, you do roll.

You HAVE to hit with a blast weapon before you can even envoke the shield rule, so you are wrong there too.

To sum this up, Roll to hit/blast rules are NOT being substituted. The target is. However, this only takes place AFTER hits are genereated, as you need a hit trigger the VSG rule. No permission given to re-do the hit mechanic. Thus, 10 hits on unit X under the shield becomes 10 hits on the shield. You substitute "unit X" with "the shield." The VSG rule is very clear about this.

Not at all confused, showed you I agreed they're different...

It's gone long enough I agree...
You Make Da Call that 10Hits = 10Hits

I Make Da Call that each Shot = 1 Hit

We agree to disagree.

I'll now let others make their choice and just give up the debate.
Do not read "conceded".

 BlackTalos wrote:
Not at all confused, showed you I agreed they're different...

It's gone long enough I agree...
You Make Da Call that 10Hits = 10Hits

I Make Da Call that each Shot = 1 Hit

We agree to disagree.

I'll now let others make their choice and just give up the debate.
Do not read "conceded".

When your "call" has been proven to not be supported by the rules (as in, the VSG rules do not care about number of shots, ever - you invented that) then it's not an "agree to disagree" - it's your refusal to accept that your interpretation is incorrect.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Not at all confused, showed you I agreed they're different...

It's gone long enough I agree...
You Make Da Call that 10Hits = 10Hits

I Make Da Call that each Shot = 1 Hit

We agree to disagree.

I'll now let others make their choice and just give up the debate.
Do not read "conceded".

Read my post above this. You have ZERO rules support. The basis for your argument has change multiple times, and each time it changes, your reasoning becomes increasingly flawed. If you play each Shot = 1 Hit, you will be CHEATING. The VSG rules says NOTHING about "Shots." Just the "attack," which already consists of hits that you have no permission to throw away. Again, read my post just above.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Not at all confused, showed you I agreed they're different...

It's gone long enough I agree...
You Make Da Call that 10Hits = 10Hits

I Make Da Call that each Shot = 1 Hit

We agree to disagree.

I'll now let others make their choice and just give up the debate.
Do not read "conceded".

When your "call" has been proven to not be supported by the rules (as in, the VSG rules do not care about number of shots, ever - you invented that) then it's not an "agree to disagree" - it's your refusal to accept that your interpretation is incorrect.

In this context, I support rigeld2 on this one.

In a recent thread, I attempted to argue on the plural definition of units in the rulebook. I went back, re-examined the evidence I attempted to present and I do have to admit that rigeld2 was correct.

Sometimes you have to admit your wrong.

 WarOne wrote:
Sometimes you have to admit your wrong.

And there's no shame in that.
Quite the oppersit.
This forum is all about getting the rules right.
To continue to argue for no other reason that to "win an internet arguement" is foolish.
Others looking to the thread for answers could get the wrong idea. And that would be a sad day.

 grendel083 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
Sometimes you have to admit your wrong.

And there's no shame in that.
Quite the oppersit.
This forum is all about getting the rules right.
To continue to argue for no other reason that to "win an internet arguement" is foolish.
Others looking to the thread for answers could get the wrong idea. And that would be a sad day.

So the thread about a Marine Captain climbing into a DevilFish is sorted and everyone agrees? Ok
This thread about 1 Blast = 10 Hits VS is just as sorted then!

In any case, i'm finished arguing...
I read the RaW and made a decision. Just like i decide THIS is pink and not violet. Think i'm wrong? go ahead. If the authority on it decides otherwise i'll have to abide...

 BlackTalos wrote:
Just like i decide THIS is pink and not violet.

This sums up your argument for this thread perfectly.
The colour tag clearly says [ color=violet ]