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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
10. Raw and hywpi

Agreed. No different to striking 10 hits against a unit under the protection of a Void Shield

An Even better question is,

If I hit a unit of beasts (Khorne Dogs, for example) 20 times from 4 Blast Templates with the Cluster Fire Special Rule, do I hit the void Shield 40 times at S7, or 20 times at S6?

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Really?

Is that because the rule says that the template instead hits the highest level on the ruin ?

Using the proposed void shield logic it would mean that the numder of hits wrought on the target unit would be applied to the guy on the top and hence on the shield.

Except that's not what the rule says at all. I quoted it and I'll quote it again:

BRB pg.100 wrote:Barrage weapons always strike the highest level that is under the hole in the centre of the marker.

Emphasis mine. Barrage weapons don't always hit the highest level in a Ruin. So again, depending on the highest level of the Ruin that the center hole of the barrage blast marker is over, it could be one hit, five hits, or zero hits in the question you posed. From that the Void Shield would take one hit, five hits, or zero hits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
An Even better question is,

If I hit a unit of beasts (Khorne Dogs, for example) 20 times from 4 Blast Templates with the Cluster Fire Special Rule, do I hit the void Shield 40 times at S7, or 20 times at S6?

Ohhhh, where do I find the "Cluster Fire" Special Rule? I cannot begin to form an answer without knowing that first.

Sure but you nominate the level you fire at because it is a blast weapon and according to blast weapon rules if you hit a different level you "hit that level instead" so using the proposed logic the number of hits are transferred from the original target, if there is no scatter, to the highest level the centrehole is over.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Sure but you nominate the level you fire at because it is a blast weapon and according to blast weapon rules if you hit a different level you "hit that level instead" so using the proposed logic the number of hits are transferred from the original target, if there is no scatter, to the highest level the centrehole is over.

Please go back and read pg. 100 in the BRB. You do not get to "declare which floor you are aiming at" with barrage weapons. You would use the rules for blast weapons per the Barrage rules on pg. 34, however, pg. 100 has more specific rules on how barrage weapons interact when targeting a unit in Ruins. Which I honestly don't feel like quoting for a third time. I cannot make it any more clear to you how barrage and ruins interact.

Perhaps it is you who needs to reread my friend. Barrage weapons also have the blast special rule. Blast weapons nominate the level they are shooting at and if they hit another level they hit that level instead. The only mention of barrage weapons in the ruin rules is that they always "strike" the highest level, what ever that might mean.

Logic says that hitting another level instead means that you hit that level the number of times there are models on that level and all relationship to the original level is gone.

Yet we are asked to accept that when a single void shield is hit instead of the unit it should be hit the number of times you would have hit the original unit had you actually hit it, except you didn't hit it because you hit the shield INSTEAD.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Perhaps it is you who needs to reread my friend. Barrage weapons also have the blast special rule. Blast weapons nominate the level they are shooting at and if they hit another level they hit that level instead. The only mention of barrage weapons in the ruin rules is that they always "strike" the highest level, what ever that might mean.

Logic says that hitting another level instead means that you hit that level the number of times there are models on that level and all relationship to the original level is gone.

Yet we are asked to accept that when a single void shield is hit instead of the unit it should be hit the number of times you would have hit the original unit had you actually hit it, except you didn't hit it because you hit the shield INSTEAD.

Fine, I don't know why I even still try:

BRB pg.100 wrote:Barrage weapons always strike the highest level that is under the hole in the centre of the marker.

I'll break it down. "Barrage weapons" so we know we are specifically talking about barrage weapons here not blast weapons. As I said in my last post, you would be correct that barrage weapons also use the blast weapon rules, however, pg. 100 in the BRB which specifically deals with both blast and barrage weapons and how they interact with ruins is more specific than the general rule of, barrage weapons also use the blast weapon rules from page 34. "always strike" so no picking of levels for barrage weapons because they "always strike". "the highest level that is under the hole in the centre of the marker" see the blast markers? See how they have that tiny hole in the center of them. Well, when you target a unit in a ruin, and put that hole over a model, resolve scatter, then check to see which is the "highest level" that the "centre of the marker" is over. That is the level you then hit with the barrage and any models under the blast marker for that level are hit. I literally cannot break this down any further for you.

You cannot, do not, get to pick the level you target with a barrage weapon. If there weren't specific rules on how barrage weapons work in ruins vs. how blast weapons work in ruins, you would be correct in that you would get to choose the level. Except that there are rules there on how to do this. See the two sections on page 100? One deals with blast weapons exclusively. The other with barrage. We are talking about barrage weapons here. If we weren't meant to follow the barrage weapon rules laid out on page 100 and instead were meant to follow the blast weapon rules on page 100 for barrage weapons, then GW would not have bothered to actually write different rules for barrage weapons and ruins. Yet they did.

The barrage rules say that all rules for blasts apply unless excepted. Nowhere does it say that units on lower levels cannot be targeted, simply that the barrage always "strikes" the top level.

Or do you are you suggesting that we should move beyond what is precisely written and accept stike=hit and if you alway strike something there is an implied exception and that if you hit something instead of what you would have hit originally then the number of hits is determined without reference to what you wanted to hit but didn't?

Perhaps you can then explain why it is that a shot that hits a unit and instead always hits a void shield somehow retains the effects of what would have happened had it hit the unit and not hit the void shield?

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

 CrashCanuck wrote:
Once as the rules say for each shooting attack, if you fire one blast that is one shooting attack.

Except that's not what the rules say.

"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." Pretty sure the rule says each shooting attack, I don't care if you fire a blast, it's still one shooting attack.

Uptopdownunder, please stop this train of argument. You aren't contributing to the discussion at hand by arguing the barrage rules. Please try to stay on topic. Since there is almost a 50/50 split here, I would seriously like to see some legitimate discussion, and would hate for this thread to get locked because it got dragged off on a side tangent. The barrage rules are quite clear.

I have never had a more rude exchange on dakka than when I responded to a similar question.

Void Shields = Nerd Rage.

It just brings out a singular difference in 40k gamers. I think it will probably precipitate WW3.

The only only problem is you have no permission to hit anything more than once. You can't hit a unit then the shield and then the unit. A hit is once. The Void rules gives you permission to hit a 2nd time once the shield is collapsed.

The barrage rules show a clear precedent of shooting attacks being redirected to hit something else due to something other than scatter and illustrate quite clearly the the mechanic of something hitting something else instead.

If you choose to ignore that then locking this thread is the best outcome as the debate is pointless if you choose to ignore similar situations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doktor_g wrote:
I have never had a more rude exchange on dakka than when I responded to a similar question.

Void Shields = Nerd Rage.

It just brings out a singular difference in 40k gamers. I think it will probably precipitate WW3.

I agree with this whole heartedly.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
The barrage rules show a clear precedent of shooting attacks being redirected to hit something else due to something other than scatter and illustrate quite clearly the the mechanic of something hitting something else instead.

If you choose to ignore that then locking this thread is the best outcome as the debate is pointless if you choose to ignore similar situations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doktor_g wrote:
I have never had a more rude exchange on dakka than when I responded to a similar question.

Void Shields = Nerd Rage.

It just brings out a singular difference in 40k gamers. I think it will probably precipitate WW3.

I agree with this whole heartedly.

If you want to use one rule to illustrate another, that's fine. You haven't been doing that. You've been arguing that confusion exists on a separate (unrelated) rule where no such confusion exists. If you can't either find a different way to illustrate your point or understand the correct way that barrage rules work, I'd ask you to kindly stop posting in this thread.

You don't see how one instance of a blast hitting something instead of something else, which you yourself said has a clear resolution, gives a good indication of how to resolve an unclear situation where a blast hits something instead of something else?

 Mythra wrote:
The only only problem is you have no permission to hit anything more than once. You can't hit a unit then the shield and then the unit. A hit is once. The Void rules gives you permission to hit a 2nd time once the shield is collapsed.

The shooting attack hits are instead resolved. So if the shooting attack has ten hits, all ten hits are instead resolved against the shield. Stop presenting a rules argument when you are making up rules instead.

Well I have obviously won b/c once personal attack starts "Making up rules." then I win. This is a close issue if you have to accuse people of making things up then you are only trying to intimidate people and this is very much against YMTC. I can concede this is a very close call and could go either way and for the reasons I have stated I believe you hit the Void once, Thanks and no more personal attacks.

That isn't personal attack, just a fact. The rules , already stated, state you get one HiT per model under the template. You the are told these instead hit the shield. It is making up rules to claim that one shooting attack can only ever generate one hit against the shield, and repeating this untruth is against the tenets of this firum

Ten times. 50% [ 58 ]
Once. 45% [ 52 ]

Wow a world where facts are almost 50/50. It is a fact if I flip a coin it will land heads.

Sigh. Not a raw poll, so don't cite it to support the point it is a fact that ten hits results in ten hits.

The rules were already given, do you disagree? I assume so, since you created a rule out of thin air.

This is very much in debate and not a fact. It is a post about a RAW poll. So stick to topic please. Don't tell people they are making things up. That is not an argument. That is an attack by all definitions of an attack. You are saying I am in make believe land and you are right b/c I am simply making things up. Then you say I shouldn't be allowed to even post on this hot subject b/c drum roll........

"It is making up rules to claim that ONE shooting attack can only ever generate ONE hit against the shield, and repeating this untruth is against the tenets of this firum" -- What ever a firum is. See that is an attack b/c I attacked your poor spelling. Try not to do that and try to ague the rules.

That again is a bully move. You realize you just told me - "You can't post and you are wrong." When this is a debate about raw and can go either way and we are having fun discussing it.

Camp 1 - Blast hits unit count the hits then you instead hit the shield.

Camp 2 - Blast hits unit then instead you place your template over an imaginary AV12 target like the rule states.

Both are valid and both are up for debate so don't tell me I am breaking the rules and don't tell me I am making things up. Post arguments not attacks. Please.

 Mythra wrote:
This is very much in debate and not a fact. It is a post about a RAW poll. So stick to topic please. Don't tell people they are making things up. That is not an argument. That is an attack by all definitions of an attack. You are saying I am in make believe land and you are right b/c I am simply making things up. Then you say I shouldn't be allowed to even post on this hot subject b/c drum roll........

"It is making up rules to claim that ONE shooting attack can only ever generate ONE hit against the shield, and repeating this untruth is against the tenets of this firum" -- What ever a firum is. See that is an attack b/c I attacked your poor spelling. Try not to do that and try to ague the rules.

That again is a bully move. You realize you just told me - "You can't post and you are wrong." When this is a debate about raw and can go either way and we are having fun discussing it.

Camp 1 - Blast hits unit count the hits then you instead hit the shield.

Camp 2 - Blast hits unit then instead you place your template over an imaginary AV12 target like the rule states.

Both are valid and both are up for debate so don't tell me I am breaking the rules and don't tell me I am making things up. Post arguments not attacks. Please.

This.

As if often the case in these forums there is a dogma that has been presupposed and a general refusal to accept counter point argument that challenges that.

 Mythra wrote:
This is very much in debate and not a fact. It is a post about a RAW poll. So stick to topic please.

The poll in this thread is asking how people play it, not RAW.


The results of such a poll have no bearing on what people think the RAW says.

Thanks Insaniak maybe he is right I am in looney land. Well not like he was masking any argument but calling me crazy anyhow.

Ok then my store and everyone I know plays it that it is 1 hit. No one even proposed it be played other wise and that is why it surprises this is so close.

The reason the poll is close is because, I assume, YMDC is full of people that play as close to pure RAW as they can get until it gets so ridiculous that helmeted Marines can't draw line of sight.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The reason the poll is close is because, I assume, YMDC is full of people that play as close to pure RAW as they can get until it gets so ridiculous that helmeted Marines can't draw line of sight.

most likely, although I am still waiting for the response to 'prove that the marine is wearing a helmet to begin with and that what his head is, is not in fact his 'head' and where his eyes are' to that particular stupid argument.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The reason the poll is close is because, I assume, YMDC is full of people that play as close to pure RAW as they can get until it gets so ridiculous that helmeted Marines can't draw line of sight.

Absolutely! I always try and play as close to the rules as possible.
But this rule is a mess.

I can see how they've tried to make this a counter to stupidity that is Str. D weapons (I can't emphasise "hobby ruining utter utter stupidity" enough in reference to Str. D), but it just causes more problems.

If you take the 1 shot = 1 hit approach the shields are just a nightmare. Way to powerful.
If you take the all hits transfer approach then shields become not worth taking.
There's no middle ground, no balance. The rule is a mess.

Scrap voids and Str. D
Then the world becomes a better place.

I too like to play quite close to the rules, but I am capable of realising when the RAW is just too dumb to actually play it that way. I'm all in favour of simply pretending that Void Shields and Strength D weapons don't actually exist, it would go a long way towards making the supplements somewhat reasonably balanced.

 Mythra wrote:
Thanks Insaniak maybe he is right I am in looney land. Well not like he was masking any argument but calling me crazy anyhow.

Ok then my store and everyone I know plays it that it is 1 hit. No one even proposed it be played other wise and that is why it surprises this is so close.

See, you're still making stuff up. I never said you were in looney land, or anything close to it. Just that you made up a rule. Which you did. Don't misrepresent others, as that isn't debate

I never said you couldn't post. Another lie. What I said was that posting as you we're is against the tenets of this forum.

Your claim that one shooting attack results in one hit is false. This is proven.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The reason the poll is close is because, I assume, YMDC is full of people that play as close to pure RAW as they can get until it gets so ridiculous that helmeted Marines can't draw line of sight.

I voted for ten times.

Why? In my opinion voidshields arent as OP that way. They still protect single Models like vehicles just fine but arent as good for protecting infantry. I think thats much better balanced for a 50pt item than being fine for vehicles and crazy good in protecting infantry.

Other than that i wouldnt start a fight over it and would play it how my opponent wants it if necessary.

Grendel083,
Will agree there, the inclusion of D class weapons into 'normal' level play has caused quite a few issues. We shouldn't be surprised that a measure to counter them would also cause just as many issues when it comes to interacting with the 'normal' 40K rules. There are many reasons to simply deny the inclusion of D-weapons into games but I still feel that void shields and shield networks might have a few good redeeming qualities left, it is just a possibility that protecting large horde based Armies is not one of them.

Personally I am still for it generating 10:
I think the loss of the 'balance' that comes with how Blast Markers function against Horde based armies is not justified enough just by the specter of D class weapons.