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.

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


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.

Starting with Pg 6 of the BRB, "To work out the number of hits, you normally need to hold the template over an enemy unit or a particular point on the battlefield,
and then look underneath (or through, if using a transparent template) to see how many models' bases lie partially or
completely underneath. A unit takes a hit for each model that is fully, or even partially, underneath the template"

And Pg 33 "Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above - the unit suffers one hit for each model with its base fully or partially
beneath the blast marker"

If you're not counting the number of models under the template to determine "hits" then how do you know how many wounds to allocate?
You also don't necessarily allocate wounds to the models under the template. You allocate starting with the closest to the firing unit (except for barrage of course), even if they aren't under the template.

So yes, the blast template is used to determine # of hits, it does not in and of itself hit only once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deviantduck wrote:

You roll scatter dice to see if it 'hits'. (it either scatters or hits)

And this part .. if you roll a Hit! on the scatter die that does not indicate hits .. it indicates your blast does not scatter. Notice the way they use the word "Hit!" in the description. And besides, according to Blast and Large Blast "When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit", so clearly the "Hit!" result on a scatter die is not rolling to hit, it is determining scatter/final position of the marker.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deviantduck wrote:

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

No the BRB tells you to use the models under the template to determine the number of hits. Then allocate and resolve wounds as normal (starting from closest model to the firing unit)

You nominate the target.
You place the blast template.
You roll scatter dice to see if it 'hits'. (it either scatters or hits) where the blast template's final location will be.
<---- this is where the void shield would interrupt and absorb the hit ----> If a Hit! is rolled the template does not move but has still technically scattered
Once the blast is in its final location, count the models under it. (these are not hits as per "the unit suffers one hit for each model with its base fully or partially beneath the blast marker")
You now allocate wounds to X number of models under the template. <---- this is where the void shield would interrupt and all X hits are transferred to the shield ---->
Roll X dice to wound penetrate .

DJ - I disagree that excess are lost, as it tells you to resolve against the original target once the shields are down. That can only work from a single attack dropping the shield

It tells you to resolve further hits against the original target. Sense all these hits came from a single shot and are generated at the same exact time they are not further hits. I would would, however, agree that multiple shots from a single weapon, like a heavy 3 weapon, could bring down the shield with out loosing the excess hits because those hits are generated one at a time. Keep in mind I understand all the shooting attacks are technically simultaneous but this is a situation where the mechanics of the game determine if a hit is indeed a 'further hit'.

 Gideon999 wrote:
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?

No, that's exactly how quite a few people read the rule. Other seem to invent a part where you "transfer all the Hits over", but they've never quoted rules for this or shown where the "Transfer" comes from...

And you example is right: A weapon that's Heavy 5, Blast would indeed have 5 attempts at the shield.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
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.

Jumped on that picture like wolves on fresh meat =p
Lucky i clearly said it was RaI - or HIWPI even...
But let's get back to RaW because that's where it actually says, "Hits the shield"

Rorschach9 wrote:
But it does not say transfer the attack .. it says transfer the hit.

Oh, so wrong: "Any shooting attack that (...) instead hits the projected void shield." It says attack. And no word "transfer".

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DJ - I disagree that excess are lost, as it tells you to resolve against the original target once the shields are down. That can only work from a single attack dropping the shield

That would be a clear infraction of Blast Raw: "The unit suffers one hit for each model with its base (...) beneath the blast marker" If you intercept just 1, you now break that statement.
But feel free to use your interpretation, we'll be playing by the Rules ;-)

only your interpretation of a single hit has no rules basis.

as has been said time and again:

1 shot does not = one hit in all instances

a shooting attack comprises of a collection of hits

the void shield rules cannot instigate until you have determined the number of hits for the shooting attack

there is no permission within the void shield rules to re-calculate or revisit the step within the shooting phase rules that calculates the number of hits, as such you must work with what you already have generated.

the target of the attack is always the unit, the use of the word instead, when applied in context, is for the resolution of the attack which is resolved against an AV12 shield instead of whatever was being targeted, the target however remains the unit that was shot at.

true there is no use of the word transfer, but there is also no use of the word intercept either.

please also keep in mind that your interpretation breaks the blast/beam/template rules not mine, mine works fine I have X hits where X is the number of models under the template, I have express permission to resolve those hits against an AV 12 shield and any remaining are to go back on the unit I originally shot at, the blast rules do not require that the number of hits caused has to all be resolved on the targeted unit if another rule interferes, only that a number of hits are generated = to the number of models underneath the template/invisible line.

and yes, of course an irrelevant picture was going to be commented upon when it was being submitted as a basis for a rule that does not function like that, the fact is intended or not, that is not how it works RAW, feel free to house rule it how you like but in a RAW fashion it does not function that way.

also Talos, just because you ignore the people that have shown you the rules, broken it down for you and proven with examples that the hits are the composition of a shooting attack that instead hits the shield does not mean they are making it up, it means you refuse to listen.

but to ensure a complete posting:

p6 and 33 of the BRB concerning blast/template weapons: these cause a number of hits = to the models under the template after scatter, you roll for scatter in lieu of rolling to hit.

p69 beam weapons: these cause a hit = to the number of models underneath the invisible line between 2 points, this has since been FAQ'd to state the line is 1" in width.

p31 Strong Hold Assault: Projected void shields:

this is the crux of the matter, the summery as to do otherwise breaks the rules of the forum:

a shield is considered AV12

a shooting attack originating outside of 12" from the generator on a unit that is within 12" of the generator will hit a shield instead of the targeted unit.

Shooting Phase: BRB p12: 5 step process to a shooting attack: nomination of a unit to shoot, choosing a target, rolling to hit, rolling to wound/rolling to penetrate (added later in the vehicle section on p73/74), allocating wounds & removing casualties/resolving vehicle damage.


conclusion:


the void shield cannot be hit instead until the rolls to hit have been made, it is too late at that point to reduce the number of hits that have been generated by any weapon of any type as they have already been rolled for/calculated, blast/beam/template weapons replace the rolling to hit part with placing a template/scattering a template/drawing an invisible line between two points to work out how many have hit just like an assault 20 weapon rolls 20 dice to see how many out of 20 have hit. the number of hits cannot be effected once they have been resolved and void shields do not allow a recalculation of those hits.

Black talos - still no rules support for not resolving the shooting attack against the blast, but something else instead? Cool story, I'll stick with the rules, you can play the version which makes rules up instead.

This again? uggg. ALL hits must be transfered RAW. # of hits must be determined for the VSG rule tobe activated. Hits are part of the shooting attack. VSG rule says the ATTACK is transfered to the shield. That would be the entire attack, including the hits that have already been generated. Using the blast template for generating a number of hits on a unit is the same thing as rolling a number of dice for an assualt weapon. The rules say nothing of "shots." People keepin getting hung up on the whole "common sense" idea that "1 shot = one hit," which has zero rules support. "Common sense" is not a viable argument in a game that makes no sense to begin with. We have only one way of generating hits for a blast weapon and it must be used. No permission is granted to throw the required hits away, or reduce their number to 1.

am I the only one not the least bit surprised that a tool called a void shield is shielded by the void of terribly misconceptualised rules?

LOL! Yeah I actually bought stronghold assault so I could read the rules directly, and they are STUPID. Standard GW stuff of course. I can now actually see a case where both camps are correct AND wrong (and before anyone leaps to their keyboards to tell me what an awful statement that is, I agree!).

So my friends and I have a HIWPI idea to deal with it instead. We are going to take the blast that "hits" and measure out to where the void shield actually would and resolve the blast there. From a fluff/narrative perspective it just seems silly that a blast that theoretically would have hit 10 guys "over there somewhere" would still hit them if the shell first hit a shield. But it also doesnt make sens that things sitting under that new place shouldnt get hit now.

So we will run the blast like anything that is under the template at the new location, but outside the shield, is hit like normal. The shield will block the blast on the inside location unless enough hits are done to strip all the void layers, at which point units under that part of the template are now hit as well. To see how many hits the shield takes, we use the number of layers (so a 2 layer shield gets hit twice).

Seems a lot more RAI and fun to us for the beer and pretzels games, and for the competitive environment basically just gonna have to only shield single models or just take an Aegis...

So if I have a shooting attack that causes 10 hits on a unit that is within the Void Shield Projection how many times is the void shield hit and what?

You have to treat it like a building or a vehicle with units in it. Hence, 1 shot is equal to 1 hit unless the specific rule for the weapons states otherwise.

Its the same as a vehicle carrying troops on the inside. If you place a template on it, then you don't do as many hits to the vehicle as there are troops inside it. You do only 1 hit regardless of how many models are directly under the template.

Dont think this thread needed a bump as the bigger thread was already locked

I was just answering the last question on this thread. Since it was unanswered. And, as such, my answer should end this debate and thread as well.

Yet your answer is incorrect and lacks any rule support.
Just as it was incorrect in the recently locked thread.

Its only incorrect to those that believe that 1 shot causes 7,233,532 hits like you. Hahahaha go make up your rules somewhere else.

Obviously, just like in a bunker or a vehicle 1 shot causes 1 hit unless the weapon profile states otherwise. Not as many hits as there are inside a vehicle or bunker.

Its obvious this is too complicated for you.

 CveleZT wrote:
Its only incorrect to those that believe that 1 shot causes 7,233,532 hits like you. Hahahaha go make up your rules somewhere else.

Obviously, just like in a bunker or a vehicle 1 shot causes 1 hit unless the weapon profile states otherwise. Not as many hits as there are inside a vehicle or bunker.

Its obvious this is too complicated for you.

Still you use insults instead of any actual rules?

There is no rule anywhere that says 1 shot = 1 hit
Can you supply one?

No rule says to treat the shield as a vehicle with a unit inside.
Can you supply one?

Instead of insults, and digging up old threads just to get the last (incorrect) word in, how about trying to be polite, and actually supply some rules to back up your claims?

Lol watch, I can do that too:

Show me the rule that says all shots = multiple hits

Show me the rule that says dont treat the shield like a bunker

Come on? You are ignoring the 12'' radius of the SHIELD. Its a dome!

What I am saying is correct because thats how it works for those units as well. Since it clearly says shots outside a 12" radius hit the shield instead. Then it implies its a dome. Hence... you are wrong. Which is not an insult. Its a fact.

Give it up because you are just grasping at straws with you arguments. Which are simply like a child crying show me show me show me.

These are the mechanics of the game. Period. You are wrong.

If you don't hit troops inside a vehicle or a bunker then you don't hit them under a shield. Because they give you the rule that there is a 12'' radius. Obviously you are choosing to ignore this very important part of the rule for VSG.

I've given examples showing you are incorrect. Examples showing a single shot can generate multiple hits.

You've made wild statements without ever backing up a single one. Not one.

You failed to provide a rule in the last thread, so you just dig up an old one to paste in more theories without any rule support?

Follow the rules of the forum. Support your claim.

 CveleZT wrote:
Its only incorrect to those that believe that 1 shot causes 7,233,532 hits like you. Hahahaha go make up your rules somewhere else.

Obviously, just like in a bunker or a vehicle 1 shot causes 1 hit unless the weapon profile states otherwise. Not as many hits as there are inside a vehicle or bunker.

Its obvious this is too complicated for you.

Just a few friendly reminders:

 Lorek wrote:
1. Rule #1 is Be Polite! It's easy!
6. No Thread Necromancy. If a thread is more than a month old, leave it alone. If you're really interested in the topic, start a new thread! There are exceptions, like updates to modelling blogs or threads in forums that don't get much traffic, but in general bringing back old threads is simply annoying to the bulk of the posters who have already moved on.

 Lorek wrote:
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

 grendel083 wrote:
I've given examples showing you are incorrect. Examples showing a single shot can generate multiple hits.

You've made wild statements without ever backing up a single one. Not one.

You failed to provide a rule in the last thread, so you just dig up an old one to paste in more theories without any rule support?

Follow the rules of the forum. Support your claim.

LOL I have. You just choose to ignore them. 12 inch radius directly in the VSG rule. Read it again and again and again and again...

Hence treat it like a bunker with an AV12.

Show me the rules I asked you otherwise just concede.

"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"

Honestly sounds to me like it should hit the shield and once instead of the squad ten times. I'm sure if its generated this sort of nonsense there must be more to it than this, but that does look pretty straightforward

That said, CveleZT I don't see any rules support for "treat it like a bunker" or whatever.

 Happyjew wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
Its only incorrect to those that believe that 1 shot causes 7,233,532 hits like you. Hahahaha go make up your rules somewhere else.

Obviously, just like in a bunker or a vehicle 1 shot causes 1 hit unless the weapon profile states otherwise. Not as many hits as there are inside a vehicle or bunker.

Its obvious this is too complicated for you.

Just a few friendly reminders:

 Lorek wrote:
1. Rule #1 is Be Polite! It's easy!
6. No Thread Necromancy. If a thread is more than a month old, leave it alone. If you're really interested in the topic, start a new thread! There are exceptions, like updates to modelling blogs or threads in forums that don't get much traffic, but in general bringing back old threads is simply annoying to the bulk of the posters who have already moved on.

 Lorek wrote:
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

Hahaha so you can say someone is wrong but when someone tells you you are wrong you get offended. Please. Get a life.

I provided my rule its right in the VSG entry. States 12 inch radius. Which means up down left right. Like a dome.

If you dont have the book you should not comment on this thread. As you are not reading the actual rule. I am and am providing you the facts for all my arguments. You just choose to ignore them.

Now instead of asking me to repeat myself how about YOU provide the rule that proves me wrong? Go on please, humor me.

Otherwise you posting this above is simply just sour grapes because you dont have an argument or a rule to back up your claims.

Sounds good?

 CveleZT wrote:
LOL I have. You just choose to ignore them. 12 inch radius directly in the VSG rule. Read it again and again and again and again...

Hence treat it like a bunker with an AV12.

Show me the rules I asked you otherwise just concede.

Concede? Based on wild theories with no rules support at all?
The one and only way I'll concede is if you demonstrate, using rules, that your position is correct. No other way.

And from what your proposing that is an impossibility.

Yes it has a 12" radius. So far the only correct thing in your posts.
Treat it like a bunker? You mean ignore the actual rules and do something not written?

So the shield can be assaulted? Since it's a bunker?
So the shield can be shot? Without targeting another unit? Since it's a bunker?

Oh and I still no rule posted for your "1 shot = 1 hit" theory. Is it because no rule exists?

 Dakkamite wrote:
"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"

Honestly sounds to me like it should hit the shield and once instead of the squad ten times. I'm sure if its generated this sort of nonsense there must be more to it than this, but that does look pretty straightforward

That said, CveleZT I don't see any rules support for "treat it like a bunker" or whatever.

Im only referring to "treat it like a bunker" as to units concealed within it. If you agree that the shield only takes one hit from a template weapon then thats exactly how you treat a bunker or a vehicle.

Nothing else.

Ah I see the problem now. You pick a target, roll to scatter, and then the final location generates 'hits' which get re-allocated to the shield

Frankly that leads to a rather absurd result, but that does seem to be the result that it leads to.

But when did I start caring about RaW anyway?

 grendel083 wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
LOL I have. You just choose to ignore them. 12 inch radius directly in the VSG rule. Read it again and again and again and again...

Hence treat it like a bunker with an AV12.

Show me the rules I asked you otherwise just concede.

Concede? Based on wild theories with no rules support at all?
The one and only way I'll concede is if you demonstrate, using rules, that your position is correct. No other way.

And from what your proposing that is an impossibility.

Yes it has a 12" radius. So far the only correct thing in your posts.
Treat it like a bunker? You mean ignore the actual rules and do something not written?

So the shield can be assaulted? Since it's a bunker?
So the shield can be shot? Without targeting another unit? Since it's a bunker?

Oh and I still no rule posted for your "1 shot = 1 hit" theory. Is it because no rule exists?

Obviously I was referring only to treating it like a bunker to units within its range. But I see again that's WAY to complicated for you.

Here is something simple enough, shield takes only 1 hit from a template weapon unless the profile of the weapon specifically says so. Regardless of how many troops are under it.

Again you haven't shown me the rule that say it takes any more than that. You are just as you say... imagining and inventing rules that don't exist without proving anything to back up your argument.

So as you say show me?

 CveleZT wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 CveleZT wrote:
Its only incorrect to those that believe that 1 shot causes 7,233,532 hits like you. Hahahaha go make up your rules somewhere else.

Obviously, just like in a bunker or a vehicle 1 shot causes 1 hit unless the weapon profile states otherwise. Not as many hits as there are inside a vehicle or bunker.

Its obvious this is too complicated for you.

Just a few friendly reminders:

 Lorek wrote:
1. Rule #1 is Be Polite! It's easy!
6. No Thread Necromancy. If a thread is more than a month old, leave it alone. If you're really interested in the topic, start a new thread! There are exceptions, like updates to modelling blogs or threads in forums that don't get much traffic, but in general bringing back old threads is simply annoying to the bulk of the posters who have already moved on.

 Lorek wrote:
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

Hahaha so you can say someone is wrong but when someone tells you you are wrong you get offended. Please. Get a life.

I provided my rule its right in the VSG entry. States 12 inch radius. Which means up down left right. Like a dome.

If you dont have the book you should not comment on this thread. As you are not reading the actual rule. I am and am providing you the facts for all my arguments. You just choose to ignore them.

Now instead of asking me to repeat myself how about YOU provide the rule that proves me wrong? Go on please, humor me.

Otherwise you posting this above is simply just sour grapes because you dont have an argument or a rule to back up your claims.

Sounds good?

Somebody saying I'm wrong does not bother me. I've been corrected numerous times in this forum, including on things regarding units I use, in the armies I play (rather recently I might add). What annoys me, is:
a) People being impolite. Sure I could click on the yellow triangle of friendliness and alert a mod, but why waste their time? It is possible, the other poster doesn't realize their comment offends. Of course, calling people immature, or saying something is complicated, is not very polite, and the poster should realize this.
b) digging up a thread that is over a month old, shortly after a more recent thread on the exact same topic has been locked.
c) People making claims and refuse to back them up with rules. For example, if someone claims that 1 shot = 1 hit, then when asked for a citation, they should be able to, and willing to give it. If I claimed that models without eyes cannot shoot, and I'm asked for a citation, I can (and will) give it.
d) If I tell someone they are wrong, I will try to show them why they are wrong. Usually the wording of the rule confuses them and clarification is needed. However, I don't ever recall saying to you "You're wrong." You on the other hand have posted multiple times things along the lines of "You're wrong, you haven't read the rule and it is very simple."

You've made claims and when asked to back them up you ignore it. You continually state that poster s have not read the rule. I have. In fact I've read it enough times on these threads I can probably quote it almost verbatim. Probably something along the lines of "Any shooting attacks that originates from outside the shield zone and hits a target within the shield zone instead hits the shield." You are arguing that any weapon that generates multiple hits per shot, instead only generates 1 hit. Where are you getting 1 hit from? Clearly, you are not getting it from the Void Shield rules, because it never mentions shots. It's not the blast rules, as the only way to determine hits with blast weapons is to count the models underneath the marker, and the shield is clearly not a model. So I'm asking for a page number in the BRB that states "1 shot = 1 hit". Please tell me what page number that it is on and I'll not only concede but will apologize to all who said 1 hit with blast weapons.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Ah I see the problem now. You pick a target, roll to scatter, and then the final location generates 'hits' which get re-allocated to the shield

Frankly that leads to a rather absurd result, but that does seem to be the result that it leads to.

But when did I start caring about RaW anyway?

I completely agree. Thats not whats written. It clearly states shots from outside the 12'' radius hit the shield first. The projectile/shot that would cause the template blast would never reach its target as it detonates at a different location hitting the shield first.

Some people here just try to ignore whats clearly written.

 CveleZT wrote:
Obviously I was referring only to treating it like a bunker to units within its range. But I see again that's WAY to complicated for you.

Insults again? Can't come up with a rules based argument, so you still resort to them?

Here is something simple enough, shield takes only 1 hit from a template weapon unless the profile of the weapon specifically says so. Regardless of how many troops are under it.

That's an assumption. Can you quote any rule to back that up?

Again you haven't shown me the rule that say it takes any more than that. You are just as you say... imagining and inventing rules that don't exist without proving anything to back up your argument.

It's your statement. As per the rules of this forum you should back it up.

And you want me to prove a rule doesn't exist? My proof is simple, your lack of being able to supply it. I've asked you, and anyone else to provide the rule. No one can.

I've given examples before showing that 1 shot at a single model target can generate more than 1 hit.
You chose to ignore that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CveleZT wrote:
It clearly states shots from outside the 12'' radius hit the shield first.

No it doesn't. The rule is the unit must be hit, before the shooting attack is transferred. The unit must be hit first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
So I'm asking for a page number in the BRB that states "1 shot = 1 hit". Please tell me what page number that it is on and I'll not only concede but will apologize to all who said 1 hit with blast weapons.

Count me in, I'll even hand write the letter of concession and post it.

How many times has this question been asked? How many threads?
No one has provided the quote, nor made a decent attempt to prove it.