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.

 grendel083 wrote:
This sums up your argument for this thread perfectly.
The colour tag clearly says [ color=violet ]

Not the same example, of course, but i will argue no longer in any case...

I want to make sure "future readers" know i will be playing by the RaW as I have read it, 1 shot = 1 Hit.

Feel free to disagree but you may not force your interpretation onto mine unfortunately.

 BlackTalos wrote:
1 shot = 1 Hit.

As has been shown many times, this is no, cannot, be true.

Feel free to disagree but you may not force your interpretation onto mine unfortunately.

I've only shown the error of your ways. It's up to you to see them.
There are non so blind as those that will not see.

Not the same example, of course, but i will argue no longer in any case...

I want to make sure "future readers" know i will be playing by the RaW as I have read it, 1 shot = 1 Hit.

Feel free to disagree but you may not force your interpretation onto mine unfortunately.

You want future readers to think that is a valid RaW interpretation even though you know that is not the case. I mean you know your reading has no RaW support or you'd have answered the simple question. You would not have made the frankly bizarre claim that PVS is done instead of rolling to hit whilst also not being instead of rolling to hit...

Just like your pink claim you know what you're saying is false and this post just proves that.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
This sums up your argument for this thread perfectly.
The colour tag clearly says [ color=violet ]

Not the same example, of course, but i will argue no longer in any case...

I want to make sure "future readers" know i will be playing by the RaW as I have read it, 1 shot = 1 Hit.

Feel free to disagree but you may not force your interpretation onto mine unfortunately.

Okay dude...are you trolling? Or do you just neglect to read most of the posts on here? I say this again. The VSG rules cares not how many shots your weapon is when it is triggered! The words "shot" and "shots" are not in the rule! It gives us no additional rules to re-generate hits. If you cant understand these basic concepts, then you are beyond our help and should probably play something like checkers, where the rules are bit less complex. Holy feth just read my posts, or anyone else's for that matter, and say something that isnt making up rules, or "Thats how I read it!"

You are right with that last point, we cant force you to not cheat and play the game by the rules. However, you may find youself short on opponents if you dont.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
This sums up your argument for this thread perfectly.
The colour tag clearly says [ color=violet ]

Not the same example, of course, but i will argue no longer in any case...

I want to make sure "future readers" know i will be playing by the RaW as I have read it, 1 shot = 1 Hit.

Feel free to disagree but you may not force your interpretation onto mine unfortunately.

Yet the RAW doesn't say shot, it says SHOOTING ATTACK. You keep repeating it, presumably hoping we will forget the actual rules in favour of what you have made up.

The hits generated at step three are passed on to the shield. Not your totally made up, out of whole cloth, lie of "1"

You have conceded, as you cannot formulate an argument that actually uses the rules.

Ok, so I logged on today to get clarification on void shields and wondered if there was a thread. I guess I found one. I wanted clarification on whether or not multiple void shields counted as separate AV 12 vehicles, or a vehicle squadron. The book does not clarify this, but REALLY should because if they are three separate "vehicles", then those arguing that the amount of shots from one source is pointless as it only takes down a single shield would be correct in their assumption, however, if it's treated as a "vehicle squadron", then yes, multiple hits from the same source could take down multiple. Looks like the jury is still out.

If the "separate vehicle" thing holds true, void shield generators would be pretty broken, if the other argument is true, they're weak as hell and not worth taking.

it, I'm sticking to my Aegis line...

 tiberius183 wrote:
Ok, so I logged on today to get clarification on void shields and wondered if there was a thread. I guess I found one. I wanted clarification on whether or not multiple void shields counted as separate AV 12 vehicles, or a vehicle squadron. The book does not clarify this, but REALLY should because if they are three separate "vehicles", then those arguing that the amount of shots from one source is pointless as it only takes down a single shield would be correct in their assumption, however, if it's treated as a "vehicle squadron", then yes, multiple hits from the same source could take down multiple. Looks like the jury is still out.

If the "separate vehicle" thing holds true, void shield generators would be pretty broken, if the other argument is true, they're weak as hell and not worth taking.

it, I'm sticking to my Aegis line...

What most seem to think is the RaI is you treat the shields and original target as a vehicle squadron rolling to pen sequentially applying extra hits onto either the next shield or back on the unit as appropriate.

Obviously the issue is the sequential resolution is not RaW despite some insisting it is. But treating the whole thing as a mixed unit seems the best resolution and prevents any part of the PVS rules from being meaningless. Even with that they are pretty powerful when used to your advantage just not an easy win button.

You resolve pen etc sequentially, as the default is sequential. Only when told are things simultaneous

 FlingitNow wrote:

What most seem to think is the RaI is you treat the shields and original target as a vehicle squadron rolling to pen sequentially applying extra hits onto either the next shield or back on the unit as appropriate.

Obviously the issue is the sequential resolution is not RaW despite some insisting it is. But treating the whole thing as a mixed unit seems the best resolution and prevents any part of the PVS rules from being meaningless. Even with that they are pretty powerful when used to your advantage just not an easy win button.

Right. So, 3-layer void shield generators just suck if that is indeed the RaI if a 4-man devastator squad with missile launchers, or a single LRBT shot (ordnance's a REAL in this situation...), can simply take them down if they happen to spot ANY INFANTRY SQUAD. Or worse, if you take the void relay network (triple the cost plus tax), one battle cannon or medusa shot and BOOM! There goes your expensive fortification... Really the only army that would benefit from void shields is armored battle company...

Right. So, 3-layer void shield generators just suck if that is indeed the RaI if a 4-man devastator squad with missile launchers, or a single LRBT shot (ordnance's a REAL in this situation...), can simply take them down if they happen to spot ANY INFANTRY SQUAD. Or worse, if you take the void relay network (triple the cost plus tax), one battle cannon or medusa shot and BOOM! There goes your expensive fortification... Really the only army that would benefit from void shields is armored battle company...

Why would the LRBT auto take them down if they can spot Infantry? Unless you're clustered which is your mistake not an issue with the VSG. Plus who they hell takes them these days? A 4 ML devastator squad (min 130 points) shoots at your army and gets stopped by a 100 point Fortification. On average they strip 1.4167 Shields meaning 3 such units (i.e. All their HS slots) are going to have to shoot to take down for 100 point Fortification for a turn. Run the Network and you're army is probably immune to AI for at least a turn if not 2-3 spread out so blasts never hit more than 3-4 guys and there's nowhere to DS in your bubblr. Then sit Medusas and Manticores in your shield dropping blasts and firing autocannons into your opponents face until all his AT is dead.

They are good if you build a list to maximise their effectiveness. They are not a win button for poor players.

The point I'm trying to make, from my point of view on the argument here, is there's no middle ground with them. One interpretation makes them broken, the other makes them too weak and not worth taking unless you're vehicle-heavy...

No the RaW reading on them makes them fine. Not game breaking not as dump as the likes of Howling Banshees, Khorne Bezerkers, Shielded Missile Drones, Mandrakes etc but not easy win buttons like Riptides, O'Vesastar, Screamerstar etc.

Good but you have to build a list to get the best out of them.

Agreed with FlingItNow,
I do not see why people are protesting that this one 100 point building has a weak spot which prevents it from giving near 100% immunity to incoming shots, particularly when the weapon they are pointing to as 'makes it useless' is Imperial Guard Ordnance weapons designed to level whole blocks. Let us not forget what these weapons where designed to do, they are the equivalent of todays nuclear tipped bunker busters at the very weakest! They are one of the only things that have a chance to do anything against the Armour Value 15 that we are starting to see, so the Narrative idea that one of these can explode against a Void Shield with enough force to force it to collapse completely, and still have enough kinetic force to kill a few of the original target is not so 'insane' as the opponents are trying to push.

Without that shield it would of been a single shot with high enough probability to wipe out a entire squad of terminators with only a slight bit of luck!

The way I look at these shields is simple:-
Blast Markers, particularly anti-heavy vehicle weapons with Blast Markers, is the gamble your face with the Void Shield.

Whenever it comes to building lists there is always something in my mind: How easy would it be for the opponent to counter. This game might not have the best balance when it comes to the idea of 'attack and counter,' but it is clear they have embraced this mentality to some degree. Certain weapons have always been better at taking out standard infantry then taking out Heavy infantry. Certain weapons are better at taking out Heavy Infantry then taking out Vehicles. Certain weapons simply make buildings and vehicles cry, clearly designed to be the go to weapon for your opponent's need to remove certain models from the field. So why complain that certain weapons are better at taking out shields then other weapons?

Just because certain weapons collapse the shield faster then others does not mean the shield has a 'broken over-sight' but it is likely the intent that some weapons will be more effective against them then others because this is the normal. In order to make the shield have more 'tactical consideration' then a 'mandatory choice' for your Army, it has to have a glaring weakness that can be exploited. If it wasn't for this weakness you would have to be an idiot not to take a shield in every list, as it would force your opponents into a position where they have to choose between using their anti-vehicles as intended or using them to do nothing more then expose standard infantry to anti-infantry weapon. Without this weakness it is possible to force your opponent to make a minimal of 9 successful anti-vehicle Results from 9 different weapons, before they can even begin to remove models from the table top. I say 9, because you would be hard pressed to find a better way to spend 300 points then making your army near-immortal.

After all, some armies don't even have 9 anti-tank vehicles weapons in the entire army which makes it impossible to generate 9 Successes in any single turn!

Wow... has anyone here read the actual void shield rules or are you just guessing? This is not open to interpretation its very clear.

Its very simple.... if you are shooting from out of a 12'' radius then the shots hit the shield first at 12'' away from the target. Up, left, right, in front or behind it doesn't matter. Shrapnel, torrent, flames, plasma or the wrath of khan... never make it to multiple targets, hence, they only cause one hit on the shield.

Again, this is a SHIELD and not an ARMOUR SAVE! HUGE difference. I can see here that those that are not using it want some to believe that its actually an Armour Save. If you shoot with a template it can still scatter of the shield and hit absolutely nothing.... hence shield is not affected. This is why you place the template on the generator itself so it wont scatter more than 12''.

If there is a squad that's partially under a template and the blast hits several units under the shield and several out of it. then just like with vehicles whats outside is hit, whats under the shield is not. Instead the shield takes a hit if the roll is high enough.

Read the rule carefully next time.

This is Dakka, nothing is simple.

As much as i completely agree with you that each shot can only hit the shield once, i think we are a minority or at least 50/50 in that interpretation. The rules are not as clear as you think or other players would most surely see it that way too...

In this case the answer is simple: Let's wait for an FAQ or rule change before we decide ;-)

 CveleZT wrote:
Wow... has anyone here read the actual void shield rules or are you just guessing? This is not open to interpretation its very clear.

I'm pretty sure most (if not all) of us have read the rule in question. I'm also fairly certain that after 20 pages it has been posted on here at least once. According to the poll (which I thought was on here, but is in fact a different thread), it is not very clear.

Its very simple.... if you are shooting from out of a 12'' radius then the shots hit the shield first at 12'' away from the target. Up, left, right, in front or behind it doesn't matter. Shrapnel, torrent, flames, plasma or the wrath of khan... never make it to multiple targets, hence, they only cause one hit on the shield.

For someone who thinks no one has read the rules, I'm surprised you mis-referenced it. The rules for Projected Void Shields never mentions "shots", only Shooting Attacks, and hits.

Again, this is a SHIELD and not an ARMOUR SAVE! HUGE difference. I can see here that those that are not using it want some to believe that its actually an Armour Save. If you shoot with a template it can still scatter of the shield and hit absolutely nothing.... hence shield is not affected. This is why you place the template on the generator itself so it wont scatter more than 12''.

No one is saying it is an armour save. Armour saves are clearly defined in the main rule book.

If there is a squad that's partially under a template and the blast hits several units under the shield and several out of it. then just like with vehicles whats outside is hit, whats under the shield is not. Instead the shield takes a hit if the roll is high enough.

If one model is protected by the Shield, the unit is within the Shield (note the rule does not specify wholly within). I wouldn't play it as such, but RAW and all.

Actually that last point about a unit being half under and those under being hit and those not going against the void shield actually gives weight to the notion that the number of hits on the shield must be the number of hits that would have been wrought on the unit.

Of course it is done on a unit by unit basis not models, so it doesn't really help anything either way.

Just sayin'

Certainly some fairly urgent tidy up of this one is needed. Until such time I'll be playing it in the simplest and fairest manner possible.

Happyjew I didnt misquote it... shots = shooting attacks. I felt it was simple enough that anyone would understand what I meant.

Again main and key thing is the 12 inch radius. Since the shot cant get within 12 inches of the VSG it cant cause individual wounds on units beyond that point. So only hits once.

Thats it. One battle cannon shot = one S8 hit on the shield. No more.Unless the template doesn't scatter off it completely... which should be impossible as you can only roll a 12, and the shield is 12''.

 CveleZT wrote:
shots = shooting attacks.

Please prove that statement using actual rules instead of assumptions.

 CveleZT wrote:
Happyjew I didnt misquote it... shots = shooting attacks. I felt it was simple enough that anyone would understand what I meant.

Again main and key thing is the 12 inch radius. Since the shot cant get within 12 inches of the VSG it cant cause individual wounds on units beyond that point. So only hits once.

Thats it. One battle cannon shot = one S8 hit on the shield. No more.Unless the template doesn't scatter off it completely... which should be impossible as you can only roll a 12, and the shield is 12''.

Be prepared for someone to tell you shots =/= shooting attacks

What do you mean by the last sentence ?

I mean that if you place any template in the center of a 12'' radius it will only be able to scatter 12 inches. Since the template itself is 2.5 or 5'' then you will always have a part of it touching the shield. Its impossible for it to scatter off completely.

That relies on you only ever targetting a unit on the battlements of the void shield generator, which would be a pretty rare occurence.

Don't forget too the distance is measured from the edge of the building so the coverage will be more than a R12" circle.

You can safely assume that targets under the void shield will be at all sorts of distances from the edge of the building.

 CveleZT wrote:
Happyjew I didnt misquote it... shots = shooting attacks. I felt it was simple enough that anyone would understand what I meant.

Again main and key thing is the 12 inch radius. Since the shot cant get within 12 inches of the VSG it cant cause individual wounds on units beyond that point. So only hits once.

Thats it. One battle cannon shot = one S8 hit on the shield. No more.Unless the template doesn't scatter off it completely... which should be impossible as you can only roll a 12, and the shield is 12''.

Well given you start by questioning if everyone has read the rules maybe actually reading the rules yourself and what people have said would have been a good start.

How to blast weapons generate hits?
How many models is a void shield?
I have 2 shoiting attacks, one is an assault cannon and scores 4 hits on a unit inside the PVS, the other is a battle cannon 4 hits on a unit inside the PVS, how many hits are tranferred to the shield in each case. If the numbers are different where is your permission to treat the shooting attacks differently?

 CveleZT wrote:
Happyjew I didnt misquote it... shots = shooting attacks. I felt it was simple enough that anyone would understand what I meant

No, you're wrong. One shooting attack (an auto cannon) can have more than one shot (2, in this case).

You launched into a 20 page thread, made up rules while accusing others of not reading the, in short, you were incredibly rude.

 CveleZT wrote:
This is why you place the template on the generator itself so it wont scatter more than 12''.

This is probably very relevant in your discussion guys:

He is targeting the AV13 building that is the Void Shield Generator, which, looking through Stronghold Assault is a completely legal move.
This probably explains a lot of the confusion.

But still it could hit more than just the building, also it could miss entirely. He is treating the PVS as an AV12 model that is a 12" foot print from the building. Which is most certainly isn't according to SHA...

I think that point was lost in amongst a series of others about units half in half out etc.

I also completely agree with the reasoning, as for everyone arguing shots =/= shooting attacks:

Explain what Shooting Attack is composed of before you hit the shield?

When i read the rules it's simple:

Shooting Attack= Each one of your weapons making a number of shots, generating a number of hits.

So
5 weapons,
generating 9 shots,
generating 15 Hits.

Example above: 3 boltguns, 1 Heavy 1 - blast, 1 Assault 5 weapon all at 22" range

The VSG rule then says you hit the shield Instead of the unit(s): Still 5 weapons (no change)
Still 9 shots (no mention of shots - no change)
Hit on shield Instead of hit on unit. This is the important part.

If you hit the shield instead of the unit, certain shots will not generate all the hits they did when they hit the unit. Why?
Because the placement of the template was simply to clear the condition "And hits a target within the VS zone" as opposed to the template scattering off of any unit at all (and not generating a Hit at all).
Once you confirm a hit, you Instead hit the VS, and something like a Battlecannon will have 1 roll to pen/glance the shield.
If you read this thoroughly, you will see that the assault 5 weapon is still rolling 5 pen/glances, and none of this is inconsistent.

If however you would like to argue that all hits are Transfered, please quote the appropriate rule which lets you do so, and if the word Instead is used, i can just see that argument agreeing with the points above.

Thank you Black Talos! That is a very good articulation of why a single blast can only remove 1 Void Shield.