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.

 CveleZT wrote:
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.

Not one of those weapons listed states it overrides your made-up rule.
The reason they don't is because your made-up rule is made-up and doesn't exist.

Since you're so sure this rule exists, why can't you, or anyone else, quote it?
What page is it on?
Anyone?

 CveleZT wrote:
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.

Your statement was that one shooting attack is one shot.
You've failed to prove your statement using rules and he sure as hell didn't prove that for you.

Perhaps you'd like to support your statement with actual rules?

rigeld2 wrote:
Your statement was that one shooting attack is one shot.

Not only that but:

 CveleZT wrote:
Again 1 shot means one hit.

Two very incorrect statements.

Can anyone, anywhere, provide a rules quote for either of those statements? Anyone at all?

They can't , but will instead continue to trot out that made up line every few pages.

The shooting attack has a number of hits associated with it. If you change those number of hits to another number, you need a rule allowing you to do so.

Those supporting this side: cite that EXACT rule allowing you to do that

No more dissembling. No more beating around the bush. That exact rule, or those supporting one shot = one hit need to concede.

Ok, so i will expand on the position where 1 shot = 1 hit. Not really a position, but RaW that we find clear:

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

Now, that phrase contains 2 Requirements:
1) The Shooting attack must originate outside a VSZ.
2) The Shooting attack must hit a target within the VSZ
Once both are met, the Shooting Attack hits the VS. It does not say "transfer hits" or even "transfer shooting attack".

I will use my previous example, modified, of 5 Weapons: 2x Pistol; 2x Assault 10; 1x Heavy 2 Blast.
So 24 Shots. 1 Pistol Hits, Assault hit 4 and 8, Heavy blast hits 2 and 4. All on a target unit.
So: 5 Weapons - 24 Shots - 19 Hits

It states that the shooting attack, having hit the target, Instead hits the void shield.

 grendel083 wrote:
The shooting attack instead hits the shield.

Instead means in place of.

I like that meaning: In place of.
The shooting attack hits the VS in place of the unit. The unit could be a tank, 50 models, a MC.... but this does not matter as the shooting attack hits the shield instead.

So, the Shooting Attack hits the shield. What was contained in our shooting attack? The nominated unit, the target unit, the weapons shot, the number of shots, and the hits.

Nominated unit, unaffected. Target unit, Instead: Void Shield. Weapons shot, same. Number of shots, same. Hits, Instead: Hits on Void Shield.
So each shot that scored a hit (back to 1/0 status) instead scores a hit on the VS. In the example:
Pistol: 1 shot hit, so 1 shot hits the VS, roll to pen
Assault 10: 4 shots and 8 shots hit, so 4 shot and 8 shot hit the VS, roll to pen
Heavy 2: 2 shots hit, so 2 shot hit the VS, roll to pen
And so on for any weapon fired within the shooting attack which if transferred.


Now, further supporting the RaW, is the following parts of SA (p31):

"A Void Shield generator has a single projected Void Shield."
Why specify singularity if the hits are just transferred to the layers, the rest of the rule would have done that...

"within more than one VSZ when it is hit, randomly determine which of the buildings' projected void shields is hit"
Again, singular hit. If a single shot is multiple hits how do you roll to determine which shield takes the 1 hit?


This is the explanation of the RaW with full references to the rules. If you are in on the side of transferring all hits:
Where is the rules support allowing you to transfer multiple hits per shot?
Why did the VSG rule include the entire 1st paragraph of the special rule?
How do you determine the hits of 1 shot on 2 VSZ?

You have no raw. You still. Fail to instead have the shooting attack hit the shield, as you still cannot prove where the hits have gone, and how your blast weapon is able to hit the non model exactly once, when the blast rules do not allow that.

Your continual conflation of shot and shooting attack is amusing, but telling as to why you are confused here.

 BlackTalos wrote:
I will use my previous example, modified, of 5 Weapons: 2x Pistol; 2x Assault 10; 1x Heavy 2 Blast.
So 24 Shots. 1 Pistol Hits, Assault hit 4 and 8, Heavy blast hits 2 and 4. All on a target unit.
So: 5 Weapons - 24 Shots - 19 Hits

So, the Shooting Attack hits the shield. What was contained in our shooting attack? The nominated unit, the target unit, the weapons shot, the number of shots, and the hits.

Nominated unit, unaffected. Target unit, Instead: Void Shield. Weapons shot, same. Number of shots, same. Hits, Instead: Hits on Void Shield.
So each shot that scored a hit (back to 1/0 status) instead scores a hit on the VS. In the example:
Pistol: 1 shot hit, so 1 shot hits the VS, roll to pen
Assault 10: 4 shots and 8 shots hit, so 4 shot and 8 shot hit the VS, roll to pen
Heavy 2: 2 shots hit, so 2 shot hit the VS, roll to pen
And so on for any weapon fired within the shooting attack which if transferred.

I've underlined an assumption without rules support.
And again - you're changing the number of hits (I quoted the original number, and underlined where they changed) and have failed to show a rule allowing this.

"A Void Shield generator has a single projected Void Shield."
Why specify singularity if the hits are just transferred to the layers, the rest of the rule would have done that...

So an assumption that could imply intent? Useless for your argument.

"within more than one VSZ when it is hit, randomly determine which of the buildings' projected void shields is hit"
Again, singular hit. If a single shot is multiple hits how do you roll to determine which shield takes the 1 hit?

You do realize that they have used hit to mean Penetrating/Glancing Hit and also a shooting attack hit, right?
So context should help you figure it out.

Where is the rules support allowing you to transfer multiple hits per shot?

You've quoted them and mangled what they actually mean. When the shooting attack is transferred, the hits go with it. You're recalculating them, refusing to cite allowance to do so.

Why did the VSG rule include the entire 1st paragraph of the special rule?

What - this?

A Void Shield Generator has a single projected void shield. It can be upgraded to include additional layers of void shielding.

So that you know how many shields are there to be penetrated...

How do you determine the hits of 1 shot on 2 VSZ?

As the rule you quoted says - randomly.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have no raw. You still. Fail to instead have the shooting attack hit the shield, as you still cannot prove where the hits have gone, and how your blast weapon is able to hit the non model exactly once, when the blast rules do not allow that.

Your continual conflation of shot and shooting attack is amusing, but telling as to why you are confused here.

p31 of SA: "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 word "Instead" tells you to resolve a hits from the Shooting attack, on the VS, in place of at the original target.
Regardless of what the target is.
Whether it's T3 or T8, 2 models or 24.

Now if you have nothing new to bring to the debate than "wrong wrong wrong", add rules and page support as per Tenet 1a.

This is the explanation of the RaW with full references to the rules. If you are in on the side of transferring all hits:
Where is the rules support allowing you to transfer multiple hits per shot?
Why did the VSG rule include the entire 1st paragraph of the special rule?
How do you determine the hits of 1 shot on 2 VSZ?

 BlackTalos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have no raw. You still. Fail to instead have the shooting attack hit the shield, as you still cannot prove where the hits have gone, and how your blast weapon is able to hit the non model exactly once, when the blast rules do not allow that.

Your continual conflation of shot and shooting attack is amusing, but telling as to why you are confused here.

p31 of SA: "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 word "Instead" tells you to resolve a hits from the Shooting attack, on the VS, in place of at the original target.
Regardless of what the target is.
Whether it's T3 or T8, 2 models or 24.

Yes, resolve the hits that have already been generated.
You are recalculating the number of hits. Per the tenet you quoted, please show allowance to do so.

 BlackTalos wrote:
p31 of SA: "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 shooting attack has hit. That means you've rolled to hit, or used a blast etc... In other words hits have been generated aginst the unit (if they hadn't, then the unit would not have been hit).

So the shooting attack now includes a number of hits.

The shooting attack no longer hits the target, but instead hits the shield.

Now what rule allows you to use any hits other than those already generated? In order to roll to pen you need to use a number of D6 equal to the hits scored. How many hits have been scored? A magical number 1 has no rules support. Simply saying "it's been hit" means nothing unless you know with how many hits. 1? 100? Where is this number coming from?
If you're going to use any hits other than those the shooting attack has already generated, then by what rule are you doing so?

rigeld2 wrote:
I've underlined an assumption without rules support.
And again - you're changing the number of hits (I quoted the original number, and underlined where they changed) and have failed to show a rule allowing this.

Again, p31 of SA, word "Instead"

rigeld2 wrote:

"A Void Shield generator has a single projected Void Shield."
Why specify singularity if the hits are just transferred to the layers, the rest of the rule would have done that...

So an assumption that could imply intent? Useless for your argument.

More of: part of the special rule ignored by your argument.

rigeld2 wrote:

"within more than one VSZ when it is hit, randomly determine which of the buildings' projected void shields is hit"
Again, singular hit. If a single shot is multiple hits how do you roll to determine which shield takes the 1 hit?

You do realize that they have used hit to mean Penetrating/Glancing Hit and also a shooting attack hit, right?
So context should help you figure it out.

Paragraph referring to hits. Only the next one mentions Rolling to Glance/Pen, why bring in irrelevant information?

rigeld2 wrote:

Where is the rules support allowing you to transfer multiple hits per shot?

You've quoted them and mangled what they actually mean. When the shooting attack is transferred, the hits go with it. You're recalculating them, refusing to cite allowance to do so.

Where is the support that "the hits go with it"? You're transferring them, refusing to cite allowance to do so.

rigeld2 wrote:

Why did the VSG rule include the entire 1st paragraph of the special rule?

What - this?

A Void Shield Generator has a single projected void shield. It can be upgraded to include additional layers of void shielding.

So that you know how many shields are there to be penetrated...

That's the reason for the second phrase. Explain the first in your argument?

rigeld2 wrote:

How do you determine the hits of 1 shot on 2 VSZ?

As the rule you quoted says - randomly.

But per shot or per hit? and where is the support for A or B, or even making such a choice?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have no raw. You still. Fail to instead have the shooting attack hit the shield, as you still cannot prove where the hits have gone, and how your blast weapon is able to hit the non model exactly once, when the blast rules do not allow that.

Your continual conflation of shot and shooting attack is amusing, but telling as to why you are confused here.

Even if the other side of this argument was able to prove a target hit under the shield redirects the whole blast towards the shield, it still doesn't even take into account multiple units hit. Or more specifically what if one unit is in the shield and one unit isn't. Their "The shot is resolved against the shield" means a unit outside the shield would get the protection from it if it hit a unit inside as well. This could totally be abused since, from what I gathered reading here, the measurement to the unit is made like anything else, the unit does not have to be wholly inside the shield to get the benefit. Incoming string of void shielded guardsmen all the way across the board.

Well, it's either that, or if it hits 2 units in the shield, it generates 2 hits on the shield. Either way, it isn't a consistent ruling, which means it's probably wrong.

Their position just totally breaks the game. Not from a balance perspective but from a rules perspective.

Going nowhere now it seems, so we're done.