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.

I searched every way I could think of for this specific instance and got zero results each time. Sorry if this has been asked and I've missed it.

The ion shield says it works against all hits against the shielded facing until the enemies next shooting phase and you adjust the shields facing. It does not work against hits in close combat. I gues the confusion is trying to decide if a vector strike is a shooting attack or a combat attack. As I read it is niether, it just causes hits.

Thanks.

Correct me if I am mis-remembering, but does Vector Strike not inform us that it hit's against side armour?

If so, then this thread would be interesting to you:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/581831.page#6581204

Same problem at the core of it: The shield protects either Right or Left, while the attack simply states 'side...'

Thank you for the reply. You are correct, vector strike is on side armor just as barrage. To keep things moving we decided that hits from barrage and vector would be randomly determined to see which side was hit if the knight was shielded on either side. I'm trying to find out if you can even take the ion save vs the vector hits to begin with.


Thanks again!

From a Rule as Written stance the answer is No:
The Vector Strike hits the target in an 'undisclosed' location, the rule simply informs us to use Side armor as we need a Value to calculate penetration against, so we can not prove that the Ion Shield rule even Triggers. After all the Ion Shield Rule itself requires us to nominate a Facing and then triggers if the nominated Facing is struck by the attack. It is irrelevant that logic would dictate a 50/50 chance of hitting the Facing in question, being analog thinkers we conclude the hit has to be either Left or Right to be a 'Side,' because the rules do not allow for such logical deductions. They need to provide instructions, in black and white, and the lack of this information is what causes these questions. After all, as a perceived Logical Failing we are driven to try and 'correct' it.

From a Rule as Written perspective the lack of instructions notifying us which Side is actually hit prevents us from concluding that the Ion Shield Rule triggers, therefore no Invulnerability Save is granted.
From a Personal View: I am more then willing to let an opponent Roll off, or use some other method to calculate which Facing is actually hit, to see if the Rule triggers.

Please bite that the following is not RAW.

I asked my local store owner/TO about this. He said you use the arc the attacker is in to determine if you get the save. Meaning if a barrage weapon fires in the front arc, despite using side AV, the knight can take a save, of shielding the front.

GW has the tendency to write current rules based on precedents set in previous editions, such as forgeting to note in 6th that they once ruled in 3rd that the top of a vehicle uses Side AV, while underside uses Rear AV. Vector Strikes and Barrages hit "Side AV" because GW forgot to list Top and Under AV facings.

Logically, the attack should be treated as coming from the facing the attacker is on, only using Side AV for determining armor penetration. Per RAW, the Ion Shield doesn't seem to work in this instance.

SJ

Jeffersonian000,
Should we measure before or after they complete the move portion of the Rule?
Why is one better then the other, given that neither have Rule as Written support?

I don't disagree with your post by the way, Game Workshop has use past Rules as a foundation for newer ones. Sometimes doing so without realizing they have removed the previous Rule from past editions to begin with. The whole 'use the Side Armour Value to calculate Top hit' has been shown to me in the past and does seem to be the logical conclusion behind the continued wording used within the newer Rules. While I would personally like to see all sides listed with their own values, I understand this would involve taking the 3rd dimension into account. Even as I jest, I do recognize it is simply easier to ignore the Top and Bottom sides completely via instruction to simply use the side value, instead of informing us how to calculate each face on every model.

Just would be nice if they wrote that into the Rule body; that it hits the 'Top facing' which uses the Side Armour value.

 Happyjew wrote:
Please bite that the following is not RAW.

I asked my local store owner/TO about this. He said you use the arc the attacker is in to determine if you get the save. Meaning if a barrage weapon fires in the front arc, despite using side AV, the knight can take a save, of shielding the front.

That makes sense for blasts, but for barrage you should use the side the hole is on. IMO.

For vector strikes I think a nice house rule could be: draw a line from where the flier started, where it finished and at the first point off intersection with the knight is where it is hit.

Jinx, not sure what you disagreed with in my post. Was it the part where I stated Ion Shields don't seen to work versus a Vector Strike? My reasoning is that while VS is implied to be a CC attack, not a ranged attack, it is neither ranged nor CC; Ion Shields only work versus ranged attacks.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Jinx, not sure what you disagreed with in my post. Was it the part where I stated Ion Shields don't seen to work versus a Vector Strike? My reasoning is that while VS is implied to be a CC attack, not a ranged attack, it is neither ranged nor CC; Ion Shields only work versus ranged attacks.

SJ

Where does it say that ion shield is only against ranged attacks? It says "all hits", then excludes close combat hits. Vector strike does not specify that it is ranged or close combat hits only that it causes hits. I'm not arguing, I just want to be clear.

Jeffersonian000,
It isn't a disagreement with the core of your post, it was simply to highlight a problem that exists when it comes to calculating Vector Strike:
The model has moved from it's starting position, it could even be off the table before the Imperial Knight is 'hit,' and this raises questions concerning how we go about measuring to it.

JinxDragon wrote:
Jeffersonian000,
It isn't a disagreement with the core of your post, it was simply to highlight a problem that exists when it comes to calculating Vector Strike:
The model has moved from it's starting position, it could even be off the table before the Imperial Knight is 'hit,' and this raises questions concerning how we go about measuring to it.

So are you saying Ion Shields can be used against Vector Strikes?

SJ

By the wording in the rules, it would seem any attacks that arnt "ccb" that would hit the side with the ion shield would get the roll. As it stats specifically only "ccb" attacks ignore the shield.

Attacks that dont designate a direction might be an issue...

BUT, if Vector strike is from the facing of the figure using it then id say itd get the save if the shield is positioned correctly.

But... Is vector striking a shooting attack? I tougth the FAQ said something about vector strikes ignoring jink/cover saves as the model doing the attack is to close to avoidw it or something.

 phatonic wrote:
But... Is vector striking a shooting attack? I tougth the FAQ said something about vector strikes ignoring jink/cover saves as the model doing the attack is to close to avoidw it or something.

No where in the rules does it state it has to be a shooting attack, it just says" before any attacks in shooting phase you may reposition the ion shield". Their intentions and word choice might not match up. But what is written is only CCB can ignore the shield

 Atropus wrote:

 phatonic wrote:
But... Is vector striking a shooting attack? I tougth the FAQ said something about vector strikes ignoring jink/cover saves as the model doing the attack is to close to avoidw it or something.

No where in the rules does it state it has to be a shooting attack, it just says" before any attacks in shooting phase you may reposition the ion shield". Their intentions and word choice might not match up. But what is written is only CCB can ignore the shield

But vector strikes are done in movement so if its turn two for instance and the knigth said to have the shield on front last turn for obvious reasons then he cant change it when the vector comes in as its in the movement phase.

Page 43 – Special Rules, Vector Strike.
Change the second paragraph to read “When Swooping, this model may savage its prey. At the end of the Movement Phase, nominate one unengaged enemy unit the model has moved over that turn. This unit may even be an enemy Flyer. That unit takes D3+1 hits, resolved at the model’s unmodified Strength and AP3, using Random Allocation. Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target’s side armour. No cover saves are allowed against these hits.”

 phatonic wrote:

 Atropus wrote:

 phatonic wrote:
But... Is vector striking a shooting attack? I tougth the FAQ said something about vector strikes ignoring jink/cover saves as the model doing the attack is to close to avoidw it or something.

No where in the rules does it state it has to be a shooting attack, it just says" before any attacks in shooting phase you may reposition the ion shield". Their intentions and word choice might not match up. But what is written is only CCB can ignore the shield

But vector strikes are done in movement so if its turn two for instance and the knigth said to have the shield on front last turn for obvious reasons then he cant change it when the vector comes in as its in the movement phase.

Page 43 – Special Rules, Vector Strike.
Change the second paragraph to read “When Swooping, this model may savage its prey. At the end of the Movement Phase, nominate one unengaged enemy unit the model has moved over that turn. This unit may even be an enemy Flyer. That unit takes D3+1 hits, resolved at the model’s unmodified Strength and AP3, using Random Allocation. Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target’s side armour. No cover saves are allowed against these hits.”

I see what your getting at, and it brings us back to the "what direction does the vector strike come from?".The ion shield is ALWAYS on, even from the moment the knight touch's the table you have to choose a side.Most likely you are going to be able to direct it towards an area that isnt affected by the shield.

Funny thing this was brougth up in the white dwarf that came on thursday... But they didnt bother telling how they resolved it.. Worst batrep " evah "

The ion shield isn't a cover save, and the quotes from the vector strikes says no cover saves. So IMO the knight would get the ion shield roll since it's an invul save.

Also whatever direction the vector strike hits the knight would be facing used to determine if the shield went off or not. The vector strike only rolls against the "side armor" for numerical purposes since most models have higher armor in the front. They don't literally mean the strike is hitting the actual side...because the arcs still have to be used when necessary, and because the knight has this invul save on a certain arc it's necessary.

No you don't get free strikes from vector strike just because you use side armor value to determine what you need to roll as a glance or pen, if the target had front shields on...start finding arcs.

They do not as Vector Strike is resolved against "side armour" and you cannot put the shield on "side armour".

Jeffersonian000,
Why would I be stating that the Ion Shield could be used, as per Rule as Written, against Vector Strikes when I have clearly pointed out why it does not?
My post in response to you was designed to highlighting a flaw in your logical resolution of this 'problem:' The position of the model carrying out the Vector Strike can sometimes be unknown.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
They do not as Vector Strike is resolved against "side armour" and you cannot put the shield on "side armour".

and i quote. " The choices are: Front, Left side,right side,or rear" that is straight from the rules for the knight. So that would be false.

 Atropus wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
They do not as Vector Strike is resolved against "side armour" and you cannot put the shield on "side armour".

and i quote. " The choices are: Front, Left side,right side,or rear" that is straight from the rules for the knight. So that would be false.

Not really.

If you choose "right side" and the vector strike hits "side armour", can it be saved? It hasn't hit the "right side" according to the VS rules.

 Atropus wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
They do not as Vector Strike is resolved against "side armour" and you cannot put the shield on "side armour".

and i quote. " The choices are: Front, Left side,right side,or rear" that is straight from the rules for the knight. So that would be false.

None of those are "side armour", though a couple of them do use the side armour value.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Atropus wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
They do not as Vector Strike is resolved against "side armour" and you cannot put the shield on "side armour".

and i quote. " The choices are: Front, Left side,right side,or rear" that is straight from the rules for the knight. So that would be false.

Not really.

If you choose "right side" and the vector strike hits "side armour", can it be saved? It hasn't hit the "right side" according to the VS rules.

I'm not arguing that. He stated that you can't choose side armor as a choice, you can just not both sides.

Which means you can't, you can choose "left side armour", you can choose "right side armour", but you can't choose "side armour".

You guys read way to much into things. Right side and left side have the same armor value, and is considered side armor regardless of the fact GW specifically makes you choose which side. This goes back to facing and arcs.

GW isn't going to specify in the wording on the vector strike rule as far as which side (left or right) the strike hits because 99% of the models it doesn't "matter" which side it hits because again...side armor values are always the same value.

Check the knights armor profile and you will see that it only has 3 sides front, side, and rear. Both sides being the same value and not specifically called left side armor or right side armor.

You guys are getting silly now and lots of reaching to say they don't get a save. The knight gets it's invul save if the vector strike initially crosses over the facing with the shield up. Meaning if the knight has front shield and the vector crosses his front arc first he will get the save. The damage is calculated versus the side armor value. If the right side shield is up and the strike comes from the left arc, no save. If it comes from the right side and the right shield is up, yes gets a save.

Kal-El wrote:
Check the knights armor profile and you will see that it only has 3 sides front, side, and rear. Both sides being the same value and not specifically called left side armor or right side armor.

True, only 3 sides, but the shield has to choose from 4. "Side armour" is too vague to know if that's covered by "left side shield".

You guys are getting silly now and lots of reaching to say they don't get a save. The knight gets it's invul save if the vector strike initially crosses over the facing with the shield up.

Is this your house rule, or do you have a page number or rule quote where this is written?

I don't see how one can argue raw that the Ion shield is useful against Vector strikes.

The codex says "against all hits on that facing". The vector strike never applies hits on a facing, but rather simply uses the side armour for penetration rolls. The strike is NOT on a facing.

JinxDragon wrote:
From a Rule as Written stance the answer is No:
The Vector Strike hits the target in an 'undisclosed' location, the rule simply informs us to use Side armor as we need a Value to calculate penetration against, so we can not prove that the Ion Shield rule even Triggers. After all the Ion Shield Rule itself requires us to nominate a Facing and then triggers if the nominated Facing is struck by the attack. It is irrelevant that logic would dictate a 50/50 chance of hitting the Facing in question, being analog thinkers we conclude the hit has to be either Left or Right to be a 'Side,' because the rules do not allow for such logical deductions. They need to provide instructions, in black and white, and the lack of this information is what causes these questions. After all, as a perceived Logical Failing we are driven to try and 'correct' it.

From a Rule as Written perspective the lack of instructions notifying us which Side is actually hit prevents us from concluding that the Ion Shield Rule triggers, therefore no Invulnerability Save is granted.
From a Personal View: I am more then willing to let an opponent Roll off, or use some other method to calculate which Facing is actually hit, to see if the Rule triggers.

I believe you are incorrect about the vector strike target an "undisclosed" location. The rule does not say "calculate the hits against the side armour" it specifically states "these hits are resolved against the target's side armour."

This is exactly the same for shooting a vehicle.
"Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from."
aka "resolving" works the same way for shooting and vector striking. The shooting attacks "target" whatever side that they are facing and the vector strikes "target" the side armour.


There is still debate on the issue of the invuln being on one side and not the other with vector strikes. There's not RAW to settle this