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.

rigeld2 wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Your RaW also doesn't state how many hits are caused and your interpretation forces blasts to do nothing to the shield ever.

A model is a defined thing in the rules what unit type does the shield model have? It must have one to be a model. Or is it simply counted as a model for template and blast weapon hits. If so please quote the rule that says this. Or is it treated as an occupied building (or using the SHA optional rules a claimed building) if so quote the rule that states this.

If you cant provide any of the above then a template placed over the shield does ZERO hits. This is how your interpretation interacts with the blast and template rules.

The rules for void shield make it quite clear that a void shield can be hit by an attack and has an armour value, what more do you need?

we need permission to treat the shield like a model (there isn't any) and since blast weapons are explicitly only ever allowed to cause hits on models (go read p6 of the rulebook) your interpretation falls on it's face with the first hurdle.

Are you suggesting that Void Shields simply can't be hit at all by templates so they have no effect against them ?

Because I'm really not understanding how you can take "if it hits a target, it hits the void shield instead" as not being a specific permission to hit the void shield.

Yes, the void shield is hit.
By the hits in the shooting attack that hit it instead of the target unit. If you require a recalculation, there's no rule allowing blasts or templates to generate any hits on something that isn't a model.

Yes there is, the void shield rules tell you that you can generate a hit on the void shield.
There isn't anything beyond the void shield rules that allows any weapon to generate a hit on something that isn't a model.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Yes there is, the void shield rules tell you that you can generate a hit on the void shield.

No it doesn't.
It says the "shooting attack instead hits the shield"
You never generate a hit against a shield. Not once does the rule say that.
Follow the shooting sequence, the "shooting attack" is what has generated hits, and the target of that shooting attack has just been changed to the shield.
The target is the only thing that is transferred. No rule says to recalculate anything.

 grendel083 wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Yes there is, the void shield rules tell you that you can generate a hit on the void shield.

No it doesn't.
It says the "shooting attack instead hits the shield"
You never generate a hit against a shield. Not once does the rule say that.
Follow the shooting sequence, the "shooting attack" is what has generated hits, and the target of that shooting attack has just been changed to the shield.
The target is the only thing that is transferred. No rule says to recalculate anything.

If you never generate a hit against the shield then how do you score a glancing or penetrating hit against it to make it collapse?
The rule specifically talks about hitting the shield on a number of occasions but never once says anything about things being transferred.

I didn't introduce the notion of recalculating things.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Yes there is, the void shield rules tell you that you can generate a hit on the void shield.

No it doesn't.
It says the "shooting attack instead hits the shield"
You never generate a hit against a shield. Not once does the rule say that.
Follow the shooting sequence, the "shooting attack" is what has generated hits, and the target of that shooting attack has just been changed to the shield.
The target is the only thing that is transferred. No rule says to recalculate anything.

If you never generate a hit against the shield then how do you score a glancing or penetrating hit against it to make it collapse?
The rule specifically talks about hitting the shield on a number of occasions but never once says anything about things being transferred.

It doesn't say hitting the shield. It says the shooting attack hits the shield.

One of the requirements of the shield is that the unit under it had been hit. So the shooting attack must have generated hits before the attack (whole shooting attack) can be transferred. At the stage where the shooting attack is transferred it has already generated hits.

I didn't introduce the notion of recalculating things.

You did, just not directly. The unit has been hit. Hits have been generated. The shooting attack is then transferred.
To use anything other than the number of hits already generated means you are recalculating the number of attacks the shooting attack has caused.

So what rule allows you to recalculate the (already generated) hits?

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Yes there is, the void shield rules tell you that you can generate a hit on the void shield.

No it doesn't.
It says the "shooting attack instead hits the shield"
You never generate a hit against a shield. Not once does the rule say that.
Follow the shooting sequence, the "shooting attack" is what has generated hits, and the target of that shooting attack has just been changed to the shield.
The target is the only thing that is transferred. No rule says to recalculate anything.

If you never generate a hit against the shield then how do you score a glancing or penetrating hit against it to make it collapse?
The rule specifically talks about hitting the shield on a number of occasions but never once says anything about things being transferred.

I didn't introduce the notion of recalculating things.

The other side is arguing that "generating a hit against the shield" is actually re-calculating the hits that were on the target.
However i agree with you:

The VSG Rule never asks you to transfer anything, nor even count how many hits 1 shot of a weapon has inflicted. If you count hits on the target, you are already breaking the VSG SR, as all it asks is a status of YES/NO, has your shooting attack hit the target.

If its a Yes, then you have 1 hit for every shot of your weapon (Shooting attack is Weapon+Shots+Hits, but Hits on target is not "counted" - it is a 0-1 situation).
If it is a NO, like, say your Assault 5 weapon misses 4 times, then those 4 shots are discounted, just like a blast covering nothing would be...

I will expand on this when i have my BrB with me, but Uptopdownunder is right in the way it is read.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:
It doesn't say hitting the shield. It says the shooting attack hits the shield.

I would correct that statement saying "the shooting attack Instead hits the shield", so the component of the shooting attack, minus the hits because the Shooting attack Instead hits the shield

 BlackTalos wrote:
The other side is arguing that "generating a hit against the shield" is actually re-calculating the hits that were on the target.
However i agree with you:

The VSG Rule never asks you to transfer anything, nor even count how many hits 1 shot of a weapon has inflicted. If you count hits on the target, you are already breaking the VSG SR, as all it asks is a status of YES/NO, has your shooting attack hit the target.

If its a Yes, then you have 1 hit for every shot of your weapon (Shooting attack is Weapon+Shots+Hits, but Hits on target is not "counted" - it is a 0-1 situation).
If it is a NO, like, say your Assault 5 weapon misses 4 times, then those 4 shots are discounted, just like a blast covering nothing would be...

I will expand on this when i have my BrB with me, but Uptopdownunder is right in the way it is read.

If it's a Yes/No then 3 hits with an assault cannon will only ever yield 1 hit on a shield.
That interpretation works even worse than the blast multi hit interpretation.

The rule says quite clearly that the shield is hit and makes no mention of anything being transferred.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
It doesn't say hitting the shield. It says the shooting attack hits the shield.

I would correct that statement saying "the shooting attack Instead hits the shield", so the component of the shooting attack, minus the hits because the Shooting attack Instead hits the shield

A shooting attack minus the hits is a failed shooting attack.

Look at the next stage of the shooting sequence.
Rolling to wound ((or in this case armour pen). You need to roll a number of D6 equal to the number of hits scored.
You've just discarded the hits! How many dice do you roll?
By your logic all you now have to go on is the VSG rule "hits the shield instead". Great, so it's hit, but how many times? Without this number you can't complete the next step. Saying 1 is entirely made up, as the rules doesn't ever say that.

 grendel083 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
The other side is arguing that "generating a hit against the shield" is actually re-calculating the hits that were on the target.
However i agree with you:

The VSG Rule never asks you to transfer anything, nor even count how many hits 1 shot of a weapon has inflicted. If you count hits on the target, you are already breaking the VSG SR, as all it asks is a status of YES/NO, has your shooting attack hit the target.

If its a Yes, then you have 1 hit for every shot of your weapon (Shooting attack is Weapon+Shots+Hits, but Hits on target is not "counted" - it is a 0-1 situation).
If it is a NO, like, say your Assault 5 weapon misses 4 times, then those 4 shots are discounted, just like a blast covering nothing would be...

I will expand on this when i have my BrB with me, but Uptopdownunder is right in the way it is read.

If it's a Yes/No then 3 hits with an assault cannon will only ever yield 1 hit on a shield.
That interpretation works even worse than the blast multi hit interpretation.

Why? "If its a Yes, then you have 1 hit for every shot of your weapon" is what was proposed

(I'd contend that it is number of shots that hit that hit the shield instead)

Uptopdownunder wrote:
The rule says quite clearly that the shield is hit and makes no mention of anything being transferred.

The shooting attack instead hits the shield.

Instead means in place of.
Transfer being a shorter way of writing this. Same meaning, less words.

Now how are you recalculating hits please?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Why? "If its a Yes, then you have 1 hit for every shot of your weapon" is what was proposed

(I'd contend that it is number of shots that hit that hit the shield instead)

1 shot does not mean 1 hit.
It is never EVER stated because that is a very very false statement.

I would ask you to provide this rule, but it's been asked many times, on many threads, and it's been well established the rule does not, cannot, exists.

Blasts, templates, tesla all disprove this statement

A single model firing a single weapon with a single shot can generate more than one hit on a single model target.

Transfer and instead have very different meanings.

Transfer means to move from one to another, Instead means in place of.

The difference is crucial, if it said transfer I would agree that the hits are moved from the unit to the shield but it doesn't it says Instead which means the shield is hit and the unit is not.

I am not "Recalculating" because I don't need to.
As Blacktalos said it is simply a yes/no situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

1 shot does not mean 1 hit.
It is never EVER stated because that is a very very false statement.

I never said that, I said the number of shots that hit.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

1 shot does not mean 1 hit.
It is never EVER stated because that is a very very false statement.

I never said that, I said the number of shots that hit.

So a Necron tesla (single shot) hits with a 6 causing 3 hits, can only cause 1 hit because it's 1 shot?

If a blast causes 3 hits on a unit, you're recalculating to 1 hit.
What rule allows this recalculation, and what rule gives the formula that the number of hits is capped at the number of shots?

 grendel083 wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

1 shot does not mean 1 hit.
It is never EVER stated because that is a very very false statement.

I never said that, I said the number of shots that hit.

So a Necron tesla (single shot) hits with a 6 causing 3 hits, can only cause 1 hit because it's 1 shot?

If a blast causes 3 hits on a unit, you're recalculating to 1 hit.
What rule allows this recalculation, and what rule gives the formula that the number of hits is capped at the number of shots?

No because the Necron Telsa hits are not target dependent, regardless of what a tesla hits it gets extra hits when it rolls a 6.

Not so a blast, it depends on what it hits to determine how many times it hits what it hits.
Hitting the shield instead of the unit means that the number of hits is calculated by what it hit, i.e. "A" (one) void shield.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Yes there is, the void shield rules tell you that you can generate a hit on the void shield.
There isn't anything beyond the void shield rules that allows any weapon to generate a hit on something that isn't a model.

Citation required.

rigeld2 wrote:

Citation required.

"A glancing or penetrating hit (or any hit from a Destroyer weapon) scored against a projected void shield causes it to collapse."

Uptopdownunder wrote:
If you never generate a hit against the shield then how do you score a glancing or penetrating hit against it to make it collapse?
The rule specifically talks about hitting the shield on a number of occasions but never once says anything about things being transferred.

If there's no transfer, the shield is invulnerable. We know the shield is not. Therefore the shooting attack must transfer.

I didn't introduce the notion of recalculating things.

You did, you just didn't use that word so you can pretend you didn't.
When you change the number of hits in a shooting attack, you're recalculating them.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
No because the Necron Telsa hits are not target dependent, regardless of what a tesla hits it gets extra hits when it rolls a 6.

Can you please give me the page number for "target dependant hits"?

Not so a blast, it depends on what it hits to determine how many times it hits what it hits.
Hitting the shield instead of the unit means that the number of hits is calculated by what it hit, i.e. "A" (one) void shield.

Hits have already been determined. You're instead using another number without a single rule saying so, discarding those hits.

What rule allows for a max 1 hit per shot? Page number please.

I get where the real world logic is coming from, but it has absolutely no rules support.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Citation required.

"A glancing or penetrating hit (or any hit from a Destroyer weapon) scored against a projected void shield causes it to collapse."

Where, in that sentence, does it say - and I'll quote so you know what I was asking you to cite - "Yes there is, the void shield rules tell you that you can generate a hit on the void shield. "

Again 1 shot means one hit.

If that shot would only cause 1 hit on a vehicle then same applies to a shield with an AV 12. Whats so complicated about that? People here must be willfully ignorant.

SHOTS CANNOT PASS 12'' within the VSG. Hence blast templates only cause 1 hit on AV12 of the shield. Because they hit it only once. Regardless of how many modles are under the template because the flames or whatever never make it to them.

This is not an armor save or a cover save. This is a shield. AKA list a vehicle or building. So if your shot would only cause 1 hit on a vehicle or building it does the same to the shield.

 BlackTalos wrote:
The VSG Rule never asks you to transfer anything, nor even count how many hits 1 shot of a weapon has inflicted. If you count hits on the target, you are already breaking the VSG SR, as all it asks is a status of YES/NO, has your shooting attack hit the target.

Absolutely false and has no basis in rules.

How do you know if you have hit the shield with an Assault Cannon?
How do you know if you have hit the shield with a Battle Cannon?

If you say anything other than "I hit the unit underneath" you need to cite some rules. Please do so. It'd be a nice change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CveleZT wrote:
Again 1 shot means one hit.

Citation required.

If that shot would only cause 1 hit on a vehicle then same applies to a shield with an AV 12. Whats so complicated about that? People here must be willfully ignorant.

We could do without the insults, thanks.

SHOTS CANNOT PASS 12'' within the VSG.

Not at all what the actual rules say.

This is not an armor save or a cover save. This is a shield. AKA list a vehicle or building. So if your shot would only cause 1 hit on a vehicle or building it does the same to the shield.

Citation required.

 CveleZT wrote:
Again 1 shot means one hit.

Said no rule ever.
Can you provide a quote?

I can give examples proving you wrong, but for once it would be nice if someone could quote this (non existent) rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 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.

Lol so anyone that doesnt agree with your made up rules is incredibly rude. Hahahaha Autocannon has 2 shots. Hence 2 shooting attacks. Not one like a template. And they both hit the shield 12 inches away from the generator. You are extremely ignorant but I forgive you.

 CveleZT wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 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.

Lol so anyone that doesnt agree with your made up rules is incredibly rude. Hahahaha Autocannon has 2 shots. Hence 2 shooting attacks. Not one like a template. And they both hit the shield 12 inches away from the generator. You are extremely ignorant but I forgive you.

False.
It's one shooting attack with 2 shots.

Your ignorance will be forgiven when you quote the rule of "1 shot = 1 hit"

 grendel083 wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
Again 1 shot means one hit.

Said no rule ever.
Can you provide a quote?

I can give examples proving you wrong, but for once it would be nice if someone could quote this (non existent) rule.

Yes I can... how many hits does a single template cause on a single building or a vehicle? Come on its not hard. You can use all of your brain power and try to figure this one out. Otherwise it wouldnt have to separate the D weapon clasification. Now go read the rules again instead of inventing them as you go.

 CveleZT wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
Again 1 shot means one hit.

Said no rule ever.
Can you provide a quote?

I can give examples proving you wrong, but for once it would be nice if someone could quote this (non existent) rule.

Yes I can... how many hits does a single template cause on a single building or a vehicle? Come on its not hard. You can use all of your brain power and try to figure this one out. Otherwise it wouldnt have to separate the D weapon clasification. Now go read the rules again instead of inventing them as you go.

Ha! I'll ignore your use of insults instead of actual rules for now.
No rules quote then?

I can give you an example of one shooting attack firing one shot on a single model target causing more than one hit.
This example completely disproves your made up rule.

Before I do however, please follow the rules of this forum and quote the rule you keep going on about.

 CveleZT wrote:

Lol so anyone that doesnt agree with your made up rules is incredibly rude. Hahahaha Autocannon has 2 shots. Hence 2 shooting attacks. Not one like a template. And they both hit the shield 12 inches away from the generator. You are extremely ignorant but I forgive you.

Ah no now that I don't agree with a shooting attack is the entire act of a model firing it is independent of the actual number of shots fired.

Calling people ignorant really doesn't help anyone.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 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? Imagine the shield as a 24inch diameter single model. Thats what 12 inch radius means. Sort of like half a ball on the table.
How many models is a void shield? Answer: 1 the void shield generator.
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? Because in both instances they hit the shield 12 inch away from their target. The autocannon shots are individual and you roll a dice for each one TO HIT, you dont roll 4 scatter dice. Its really not that difficult. Well maybe for some of you here it is.

See inline.

OK we're going a bit loopy now, I'm off to bed. Night all !

 CveleZT wrote:
See inline.

No rules quote? Nothing from the rulebook?

Not a single rule saying "1 shot = 1 hit"?
No page number?

Here's 2 examples showing you're wrong, and no such rule exists.

Example 1: A Necron Immortal armed with a Tesla Carbine shoots a Rhino. Immortal rolls a 6 to hit.
One Shooting Attack.
One shot (assault 1)
One single model target.
Three hits scored.

Example 2: XV107 R’varna Battlesuit with Pulse Submunitions Cannon shoots a Rhino.
One Shooting Attack.
One shot (Heavy 1, large blast)
One single model target.
Three hits scored.

 grendel083 wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
See inline.

No rules quote? Nothing from the rulebook?

Not a single rule saying "1 shot = 1 hit"?
No page number?

Here's 2 examples showing you're wrong, and no such rule exists.

Example 1: A Necron Immortal armed with a Tesla Carbine shoots a Rhino. Immortal rolls a 6 to hit.
One Shooting Attack.
One shot (assault 1)
One single model target.
Three hits scored.

Example 2: XV107 R’varna Battlesuit with Pulse Submunitions Cannon shoots a Rhino.
One Shooting Attack.
One shot (Heavy 1, large blast)
One single model target.
Three hits scored.

Thanks for proving my point. Unless the rule for the weapon states specifically its 1 shot = multiple hits its 1 shot = 1 hit.

GG Im off to work. Have fun trying to find an argument now.