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.

Stormbreed wrote:
Here is a picture for proof on how void shields work.

And there's the picture following the RaW:

Don't you mean RAI with those pictures?

Logically the shield would intercept it before the one shooting attack became a blast.

But RAW would generate hits after scatter then apply those hits to the shield.

Hopefully its faq'd soon as its pretty weak for infantry or clump of stuff you'd actually want to protect from the D

 grendel083 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Here is a picture for proof on how void shields work.

And there's the picture following the RaW:

This is trash, that's not a shield its a chain link fence trying to block a Nuke, gimme a break.

I picture it very differently from a narrative point of view:
The initial shot hits the shield and in that moment the kinetic force from the blast causes it to falter. Being a 40K weapon, it has all sorts of unimaginable killing technicians worked into it that would include things like mono-filament shrapnel, plasma discharge and that is just what we can imagine. In that moment when the shield falters the round does explode, but thanks to the fact the shield has faltered it doesn't keep the rest of the blast out. The expanding ball of plasma and whom knows what else then rains down onto the unit behind the shield anyway, causing a few casualties in doing so.

That doesn't even take into account most anti-armour rounds are designed to explode a second or so after impact.

nuke knight wrote:
Best just ask GW

That's funny.

There are only two responses I've ever received from GW regarding rules. The first one was telling me the customer service email was not for rules inquiries. Fortunately, they gave me the right email address as it's not listed on their site. The second one is a form letter thanking my for the inquiry and lets me know that it's been forwarded to their FAQ team for "possible" inclusion into a FAQ and that no one will get back to me directly.

All very polite..and a complete waste of time. I'd love to have an actual answer on various items even if I couldn't post it here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
I picture it very differently from a narrative point of view:
The initial shot hits the shield and in that moment the kinetic force from the blast causes it to falter. Being a 40K weapon, it has all sorts of unimaginable killing technicians worked into it that would include things like mono-filament shrapnel, plasma discharge and that is just what we can imagine. In that moment when the shield falters the round does explode, but thanks to the fact the shield has faltered it doesn't keep the rest of the blast out. The expanding ball of plasma and whom knows what else then rains down onto the unit behind the shield anyway, causing a few casualties in doing so.

That doesn't even take into account most anti-armour rounds are designed to explode a second or so after impact.

Nice.

Oh that is a nice typo, I think I will keep it in:
All these little people in lab suits and hard hats being scattered out when the round goes off....

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, even Anti-Personal explosives are going down the 'delayed trigger' path. Many modern weapon systems are designed to deliver the grenade or round not towards the target directly, but towards a point above the target. Some do this by having the round simply explode after a period of time, and that period is calculated so it will be above the target when it occurs. Others do it by having the round hit the ground, triggering a small explosive that then propels the grenade upwards before it finally explodes in a ball of shrapnel. Mines have used similar technology for decades now because of one simple fact:

Exploding mid-air has a higher chance of inflicting more casualties.

 BlackTalos wrote:
RaW: SHA, VSG Rule:"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."

1. Any shooting attack that hits a target

2. instead hits the projected void shield.

1) 10 hits.
2) Hit on the shield.

You really struggle with this section, don't you

It does not say "hit", it is "hits". As in, the shooting attack hits the shield. As in, the 10 hits in the shooting attack, calculated at step three , are transferred to the shield

You are recalculating the number of hits, when you have no permission to do so.

black talos wrote:Now please cite exact page and para that allows you to transfer 10 Hits from a Unit to 10 Hits to a Void shield.

The shooting attack has one or more hits associated to it, yet you are cheating AND making up a rule that all hits are transferred.

Page, para or concede

Done. I have transferred the shooting attack, entire, to the shield.

You have created a rule that one hit is generated , when there are ten.

Your concession is accepted. Please do not post further without marking your posts as "hywpi" or "rai", as you cannot present an actual rules based argument.

It's almost a trend.

The only trend is your smug harassment of the guy in every thread

The rule is unclear. Thats why its being asked about repeatedly. You are not the end-all authority on an unclear or poorly worded rule nos

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The only trend is your smug harassment of the guy in every thread

The rule is unclear. Thats why its being asked about repeatedly. You are not the end-all authority on an unclear or poorly worded rule nos

I think your lacking a little context although I can see why you would conclude this.

go and read the 10 page thread and see if you still think its unclear.

I still stand by earlier post in this thread though, but I agree with Nos on this one, you have no permission to reduce the number of hits that blast/beam/template weapons cause down to a singular hit, the 'target' of the attack is still the unit, that does not change, the hits caused by the attack hit the shield and template/blast/beam weapons have to cause hits via models, there is literally no difference between an assault 4 weapon that rolls 4 successful hits on a unit of 4 men and a blast weapon that causes 4 hits on the unit of 4 men.

still this is going to degenerate again and I really can't be bothered getting into it, the RAW is there in black and white for those that actually care to read the rulebook.

Jibes and barbs are no substitute for clear explanation of the rules on either side of the debate. If all one can post is "you are wrong as I have already explained" or "that's just your opinion" then one has nothing further to legitimately contribute and the likelihood of posting something that violates Rule Number One of Dakka Dakka appears to increase. Please keep two things in mind, (1) don't let debate about toy soldiers raise your blood pressure and (2) you are writing not just for the people posting in the thread but mostly for the ones who are silently reading the points and making up their own minds. Therefore, be calm and state your explanation so that it is easily understood. Clear up misunderstandings as they arise without clouding things over by contesting egos. Follow this advice to avoid suspensions and educate readers.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The only trend is your smug harassment of the guy in every thread

The rule is unclear. Thats why its being asked about repeatedly. You are not the end-all authority on an unclear or poorly worded rule nos

Except it isn't unclear.

People have an idea of how shields should "logically" work, and are transferring that opinion to this rule set, and twisting rules to make it say what they think th rule should say.

The rule is simple: determine hits, transfer those hits to the shield. This is 100% consistent for all weapons .

@nutty_nutter:

No I read the other thread in its entirety before it devolved into a pissing match. I agree nos is right.

Edited by Manchu. Please see above. Also, tone arguments are irrelevant. If you have a problem with the way someone posts, please use the yellow triangle in the upper right hand corner of their post to bring it the attention of the staff. Thanks!

And I don't believe the intent of the void shields was to make high model count units weaker against d blasts which most d weapons are then low model count units due to funky blast hit generation. As it stands, high count units aren't worth putting under a shield and will die anyways outside of it

I do not think this is the right place or time to air such concerns though, Private Messaging exist for a reason.

@WrentheFaceless

apologies for my presumption and I do agree with the analysis of the thread.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
RaW: SHA, VSG Rule:"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."

1. Any shooting attack that hits a target

2. instead hits the projected void shield.

1) 10 hits.
2) Hit on the shield.

You really struggle with this section, don't you

It does not say "hit", it is "hits". As in, the shooting attack hits the shield. As in, the 10 hits in the shooting attack, calculated at step three , are transferred to the shield

You are recalculating the number of hits, when you have no permission to do so.

The number of hits is substituted, as per the dictionary definition of what "Instead" means.
I agree: the shooting attack hits the shield. As in, the 1 shot, 10 hits in the shooting attack, calculated at step three, and mentioned as "hits a target within the Void Shield Zone", IS transferred to the shield.

The 10 hits have hit the target. They don't get transferred to the shield (or please quote rules) but substituted by the word "instead" (again, see dictionary) by a hit on the shield.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

black talos wrote:Now please cite exact page and para that allows you to transfer 10 Hits from a Unit to 10 Hits to a Void shield.

The shooting attack has one or more hits associated to it, yet you are cheating AND making up a rule that all hits are transferred.

Page, para or concede

Done. I have transferred the shooting attack, entire, to the shield.

You have created a rule that one hit is generated , when there are ten.

Your concession is accepted. Please do not post further without marking your posts as "hywpi" or "rai", as you cannot present an actual rules based argument.

It's almost a trend.

Where? You have quoted the grand total of Nothing
Page, para or concede
Clear
you have conceded, i put a clear quote right from the SHA book as first line and that line does not have the word "transfer", sorry...

WrentheFaceless wrote:You are not the end-all authority on an unclear or poorly worded rule nos

Argument it correctly and with Rules support, maybe you'll get somewhere...

 Manchu wrote:
Jibes and barbs are no substitute for clear explanation of the rules on either side of the debate. If all one can post is "you are wrong as I have already explained" or "that's just your opinion" then one has nothing further to legitimately contribute and the likelihood of posting something that violates Rule Number One of Dakka Dakka appears to increase. Please keep two things in mind, (1) don't let debate about toy soldiers raise your blood pressure and (2) you are writing not just for the people posting in the thread but mostly for the ones who are silently reading the points and making up their own minds. Therefore, be calm and state your explanation so that it is easily understood. Clear up misunderstandings as they arise without clouding things over by contesting egos. Follow this advice to avoid suspensions and educate readers.

Indeed, I have nothing further to legitimately contribute. The RaW as i read it is clear.
As a note, we had a game today at my local GW. BlackShirt confirmed exactly what 50% of people say here: 10 hits Blast - 10 Hits shield. Explanation: Blasts are still Blasts that deal many hits, shield or not.

Did his breakdown of the rule convince me? Nope, when i read the following phrase, RaW from Void Shields:
"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."
My only conclusion is that the attack hits the shield, just like any attack hits any Rhino, Land Raider, Trukk, Wave Serpent, Monolith or AV12 vehicle that the shield is. 1 armour Pen Roll, regardless of transport capacity or models under the shield.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Here is a picture for proof on how void shields work.

And there's the picture following the RaW:

I bet those templates would have scored about 60 hits each, even Small blasts...
RAI of course

Also, many apologies, i scoured the forum FAQ on how to resize it but failed miserably...

The concept of a shooting attack, which may be a single shot weapon, a blast or a beam, etc.. hitting a target is separate from the concept of 'hits' on the target unit.

If you cause one or more hits on models in a unit then the shooting attack has hit, but that doesn't mean there's only one hit total it could be 100 hits on models in the unit and the shooting attack would still be considered 'to have hit the target'.

Black,
In that picture; Those weapons where clearly below Strength 6, they only caused the shield to flicker even after so many hits.

also you cannot apply real life/other sci-fi settings logics and rules to 40k.

you need to forget about your personal concept of what a shield does and is and apply the rules as they are, not apply a concept of our world or starwars' version of how shields work.

I don't get whats so hard to understand here. The hits on units under the shield are transferred to the shield. If 10 men would be hit by a blast, then instead the shield is hit 10 times. The hits are all transferred before any are resolved. If the shield can only survive one hit then the other 9 hits are lost because we have no permission to transfer the hits to anything else, including back to the original unit. Works no different then if you hit a 10 man squad with 15 hits from a weapon 15 hits from a single weapon, if the 10 men die while resolving the 1st 10 hits then the rest are lost.


edit: for clerirty

 DJGietzen wrote:
I don't get whats so hard to understand here. The hits on units under the shield are transferred to the shield. If 10 men would be hit by a blast, then instead the shield is hit 10 times. The hits are all transferred before any are resolved. If the shield can only survive one hit then the other 9 hits are lost because we have no permission to transfer the hits to anything else, including back to the original unit. Works no different then if you hit a 10 man squad with 15 hits from a weapon, if the 10 men die while resolving the 1st 10 hits then the rest are lost.

it isn't that it is difficult to understand, it is that people want a shield to act how they envision a shield working.

as such this leads to a 1 shot = one hit scenario but the rules do not back that assertion up (at least not without inventing steps in a shooting phase or back tracking without permission).

needless to say that this is just going to go in circles again

Black talos - indeed I quoted the rule, as others have quoted it. You are just ignoring the shooting rules and substituting in your own version of the rules. Clearly not RAW.

The shooting attack has 10 hits. Instead the shooting attack, which has ten hits, hits the shield.

You keep pretending it says "hit". It doesn't .

Your argument is refuted,

I see what each side is Saying. The Blast weapon against multi level buildings would be the only Argumeant in favour here I feel. If a blast marker hit the upper level with 1 space marine, yet covers 9 marines on the lower level. Only 1 hit is generated as you can only allocate to a single level. And in the case of the Shield even though the blast covers 10 models underneath the blast marker. it is on a different level And hit a single target only. the Void shield.

However the void shield is not a unit and as such cannot be targetted so we have no rules giving permission to use those from the Blast markers Vs multi level buildings. And instead have to go with RAW.

And in this occasion, You cannot Hit a shield without first targeting a unit that is underneath it. And as per the rules of the 40k rule book. The blast would in fact hit 10 models. And so those 10 hits are then taken on shield.

We all have to get out of the mind set of the phisical word when we read these rules.

As above. The rules are clear and consistent. It is only when making up rules -that you recalculate the number of hits at step 3- and don't therefore resolve the shooting attack against the shield, but something else made up, that you get into inconsistencies

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Black talos - indeed I quoted the rule, as others have quoted it. You are just ignoring the shooting rules and substituting in your own version of the rules. Clearly not RAW.

The shooting attack has 10 hits. Instead the shooting attack, which has ten hits, hits the shield.

You keep pretending it says "hit". It doesn't .

Your argument is refuted,

For the record, it does say "hit". The use of 'hits' in most of the rule is the singular third person form of the 'hit'. But that does not change that all the hits from a single weapon will all be transferred before any are resolved. Its only further hits generated after the those hits are resolved and the shield collapses that do not get transferred.

Can someone clarify something for me then? I am seeing this as a pretty clear case that you take 10 hits on the shield but one thing has me question it:

"If a shooting attack hits soemthing under the shield, then transfer that hit to the shield".

Ok, Im with ya. Here is where I am confused, and please I apologize if this seems like I am missing something but I really am missing something here :

if a shooting ATTACK hits a unit (so ok our attack hits and would have caught 10 guys under the pie plate, Im with it that far), then transfer the hit to the shield.

To me this seems to read as though we transfer the ATTACK to the shield, not the individual hits? IE - vindicator fires and gets a hit on the squad it shoots, don't we then redirect, not the number of hits, but the attack itself? Thereby if you had only a single blast weapon it would indeed get stopped fully by a single shield, but if you had multiple blasts, say a thunderfire cannon, you would have to resolve each blast separately in order to see which shells got stopped and which ones got through?

Maybe Im overthinking this?

 Gideon999 wrote:
Can someone clarify something for me then? I am seeing this as a pretty clear case that you take 10 hits on the shield but one thing has me question it:

"If a shooting attack hits soemthing under the shield, then transfer that hit to the shield".

Ok, Im with ya. Here is where I am confused, and please I apologize if this seems like I am missing something but I really am missing something here :

if a shooting ATTACK hits a unit (so ok our attack hits and would have caught 10 guys under the pie plate, Im with it that far), then transfer the hit to the shield.

To me this seems to read as though we transfer the ATTACK to the shield, not the individual hits? IE - vindicator fires and gets a hit on the squad it shoots, don't we then redirect, not the number of hits, but the attack itself? Thereby if you had only a single blast weapon it would indeed get stopped fully by a single shield, but if you had multiple blasts, say a thunderfire cannon, you would have to resolve each blast separately in order to see which shells got stopped and which ones got through?

Maybe Im overthinking this?

I think you're spot on! I even posted this pic earlier as proof.



However resolving the 10 hits against the shield could also be RAW correct. I'd play it as I've pictured above. We don't have a RAW step to go back in time, but the picture I just posted is a clear RAI.

Proof? In that picture the blast would have hit what 4000 or so times? But the 4000 hits were transferred to the shield/dome. The pic you posted depicts 4000 hits being resolved and all of them failing to collapse the shield.

 Gideon999 wrote:
Can someone clarify something for me then? I am seeing this as a pretty clear case that you take 10 hits on the shield but one thing has me question it:

"If a shooting attack hits soemthing under the shield, then transfer that hit to the shield".

Ok, Im with ya. Here is where I am confused, and please I apologize if this seems like I am missing something but I really am missing something here :

if a shooting ATTACK hits a unit (so ok our attack hits and would have caught 10 guys under the pie plate, Im with it that far), then transfer the hit to the shield.

To me this seems to read as though we transfer the ATTACK to the shield, not the individual hits? IE - vindicator fires and gets a hit on the squad it shoots, don't we then redirect, not the number of hits, but the attack itself? Thereby if you had only a single blast weapon it would indeed get stopped fully by a single shield, but if you had multiple blasts, say a thunderfire cannon, you would have to resolve each blast separately in order to see which shells got stopped and which ones got through?

Maybe Im overthinking this?

But it does not say transfer the attack .. it says transfer the hit.

What did you hit? You hit something under the shield, correct?
Oh, you hit that something with a blast? How many hit(s) did the blast generate? Transfer them to the shield because that's what the rule tells you to do.

I was always under the impression blast templates only hit once. On anything.

You nominate the target.
You place the blast template.
You roll scatter dice to see if it 'hits'. (it either scatters or hits)
<---- this is where the void shield would interrupt and absorb the hit ---->
Once the blast is in its final location, count the models under it. (these are not hits)
You now allocate wounds to X number of models under the template.
Roll X dice to wound.
Models have X dice to save wounds.
Remove casualties.
Leadership rolls.

Does the BRB use the word 'hit' when allocating wounds to models under the template?

To me, hit only refers to the location of where the template scatters.