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.

Correct, you resolve the hits against the target's "side armour", is "side armour" a valid facing to place the shield?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Correct, you resolve the hits against the target's "side armour", is "side armour" a valid facing to place the shield?

Strictly speaking, "Side armor" is group/zone of 2 opposing facings, so any attack resolved against "Side Armor" is actually hitting both sides of the target vehicle at the same time. So if the Ion Shield is on the "left side" of the IK, and a shot is resolved against "Side Armor" is it hitting both the left side and the right side at the same time, meaning it has to be hitting the ION shield. I can't find anything to disprove this.

 deviantduck wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Correct, you resolve the hits against the target's "side armour", is "side armour" a valid facing to place the shield?

Strictly speaking, "Side armor" is group/zone of 2 opposing facings, so any attack resolved against "Side Armor" is actually hitting both sides of the target vehicle at the same time. So if the Ion Shield is on the "left side" of the IK, and a shot is resolved against "Side Armor" is it hitting both the left side and the right side at the same time, meaning it has to be hitting the ION shield. I can't find anything to disprove this.

Not really. Saying that the hit is resolved against the Side Armor is not the same as saying the hit strikes either the "right" or "left" side. When the rulebook says it's hit against the "Side Armor" what it means is "Side Armor value". It doesn't literally mean that the hit strikes the left or the right side of the vehicle.

The Barrage (and vector strike) use Side Armor values in order to approximate an imaginary "Top" armor value for vehicles. The spirit of the rule isn't to say that the vehicle has literally been hit in the side by a Barrage or a Vector Strike. It is to say that the vehicle has been struck on the roof, and the roof of the vehicle is the same as its side armor value. This same philosophy is applied to the Vector Strike rule.

I would say that either:

a) The shield takes effect depending on the direction of origin for the vector strike (since it is not a close combat attack).

or

b) The attack doesn't hit any location that is protected by the shield, and/or is treated like a close combat attack, therefore the shield does not apply.

Personally, I'd lean towards option b, but I can see both sides.

I would be willing to entertain a few other house rules if we are going to put them forth, lets put them as C1/2, A1/2/3 or D as well:

A1 - Disallow Vector Strikes if the model is off the table, as much as we ignore it that is a problem from a Rule as Written perspective
A2 - Allow Vector Strikes if the model is off the table and use point it left the table for reference, closing the loophole being created from vanilla A
A3 - Use the point it started the movement phase at, showing the side being 'impacted' as it flies over, as some people feel this is more cinematographic

C1 - Determine a facing at Random, in the same spirit as Random Allocation and simply use the Side Armor for penetration calculations
C2 - As above, but limit to just the two sides because they are the only ones legally able to provide that Value

D - Bring back the 'Top' from past editions and allow that to be nominated, specifically designed to protect against Special Rule that create these sort of debates.

I would say the Ion Shield does not protect against Vector Strikes. It hits the top, which just counts as the side armor. The top is not a facing on which the Knight may choose to use its Ion Shield. This is the same for Barrage IMO.

Don't you place the shield after opponent movement but before shooting? Seems to me the shield is nowhere for the vector strikes.

 Lobukia wrote:
Don't you place the shield after opponent movement but before shooting? Seems to me the shield is nowhere for the vector strikes.

No, deployment and each enemy shooting phase. Lasts until the next enemy shooting phase. So it's active at all times it's on the board.

Unless you hold it in reserves, in which case it will be down until your opponent's next shooting phase.

Well regardless, it was set for the vector strike... so even on a side, you'll know where it is and just and VS on the other... anyone who argues they get it on both will get turned down by most reasonable TOs.

We know that VS don't hit on any particular facing; the rule mechanics are trying to simulate an attack from above. When hitting non vehicle models even the ones in the centre of a blob can be hit first by random allocation.

However when hitting a vehicle the rules state to resolve against side armour. In my opinion this means use the side armour AV. There is absolutely no rules support to say the hit is actually directed towards any particular facing (I.e. left, right, front, rear) and no rules support to determine which facing is hit (e.g. rolling off to determine left, right, front, rear etc.) Without this it is impossible to conclude that the ion shield will trigger and the invulnerable save cannot be therefore be taken in accordance with RAW.

I also don't see any RAW interpretation that allows the shield to trigger.

The shield triggers against attacks from a specific facing. Vector Strike has no specific facing.

 necronian wrote:
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!

I wouldn't play it like this, if I'm honest.

I would resolve barrage hit from the centre of the blast to an armor facing, it would still roll for pen against side armor but would only take a shield save when that facing is hit.

If you believe vector strike is a shooting attack (not a CC attack that takes place in the shooting phase) then I would suggest you treat it like getting hit from the final or initial position of the unit. I'd be more inclined to say final as that is how you'd resolve what direction you'd remove models from if the attack were to strike a group of units.

But, I would argue that a vector strike is a CC attack and resolve it like a sweep attack in the shooting phase.

I.E: My sweep attacks may hit against your side armor, but still resolve against rear armor. If you have your shield on your side armor then you get a save.

Naturally I'd make this fully known to my opponent before playing him or until it's FAQed.

Vector Strikes are neither shooting or close combat attacks, they are Vector Strikes.
Also they happen in the movement phase.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Vector Strikes are neither shooting or close combat attacks, they are Vector Strikes.
Also they happen in the movement phase.

If your post was directed at me, I've never used vector strike so didn't know that it happened at the movement phase. However, my original post did say quite flatly that my own version of playing this scenario out is not to flip a coin but resolve yourself what side the vector strike has hit.

You could cheese it and deny the person their ion shield but given that there's obviously no rule to cover it, I believe it's up to the players to decide what's fair until it's FAQed.

I think the fairest option in the case of barrage is to trace LOS from the centre of the blast to the nearest facing and that's the side it hit but still resolves against side armor. I'd do the same for vector strike tracing LOS from its final position to a facing. You can play however you want, but until there's concrete rules for these scenarios I believe this is the fairest option.

sonicaucie wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Vector Strikes are neither shooting or close combat attacks, they are Vector Strikes.
Also they happen in the movement phase.

If your post was directed at me, I've never used vector strike so didn't know that it happened at the movement phase. However, my original post did say quite flatly that my own version of playing this scenario out is not to flip a coin but resolve yourself what side the vector strike has hit.

You could cheese it and deny the person their ion shield but given that there's obviously no rule to cover it, I believe it's up to the players to decide what's fair until it's FAQed.

I think the fairest option in the case of barrage is to trace LOS from the centre of the blast to the nearest facing and that's the side it hit but still resolves against side armor. I'd do the same for vector strike tracing LOS from its final position to a facing. You can play however you want, but until there's concrete rules for these scenarios I believe this is the fairest option.

There is only one problem with use the ending point for VS. What happens if the model flew off the table when performing said VS?

 Happyjew wrote:


There is only one problem with use the ending point for VS. What happens if the model flew off the table when performing said VS?

I've wondered the same thing about a flyer dropping bombs.

You should remove models from a unit after a bombing run from the final position of the bomber, but what happens if it flies off the table? Random allocation?

Sweeping attacks use random allocation and precision strikes; but vector strikes and bombs do not. If you vector striked a unit of enemies, I would assume you take the closest model off the table. However, if it flies off the board, how do you resolve wound allocation?

Not sure on bombs, but VS uses random allocation.

shouldn't the direction be from on top? The attack requires I pass over the model thus locationally it isn't coming from "right" "left" "rear" or "front" arcs. Also if an opponents said they should get the save because they are protected by the ion shield on the right side....I would just tell them that my heldrake the smart mechanized daemon that it is saw his weak left, rear, and front spot as he passed over >.>

That's the problem. While there used to be, there no longer is a "top" or "bottom" meaning things that are resolved against side armour go wonky when dealing with the Ion shield.

Now of course rumors do point to a new edition, where they might bring back top and bottom "facings" and this will be settled.

Less likely, GW will release an FAQ clarifying it.

Here's the RAW logical argument:

P1. The Ion Shield rules require you to pick a specific arc (front, left side, right side or rear) and only hits on that arc benefit from the shield.

P2. Vector Strike causes hits on the vehicle's 'side armour', not a specific arc.

C1. Therefore, as Ion Shields require a specific side arc be picked and Vector Strike attacks are not identified as coming from a specific side arc, an Ion Shield save cannot be taken against Vector Strike attacks.


Then we have the 'fluff' arguments as well:

1) GW has described in the past using 'side armor' to represent the 'top armor' of the vehicle, which only makes logical sense given Vector Strikes would most likely hit the top of a vehicle's armor. Given that Ion Shields only protect the Knight from attacks coming from a very specific direction, it only makes sense that they wouldn't protect from attacks hitting the top of the vehicle, whether that is from Barrage or Vector Strikes.

2) If you had to describe what a Vector Strike is closer to being: a shooting or close combat attack, it is undoubtably closer to being a close combat attack (as it uses the model's Strength). Given that Ion Shields do not protect against close combat attacks, from a fluff perspective yet again it makes sense that the Shield does not protect against Vector Strikes.


So seriously, why is this an argument? The RAW is clear and the fluff/background is even clear. I don't get why anyone thinks that Ion Shields *should* work in this case?

Yakface, while all that is true, it does not answer how we resolve Barrage weapons, which are shooting attacks that are resolved on the side armour. If the Knight has its Ion shield in the front and the blast scatters in front of the Knight and hits, would the Knight get a save?

 Happyjew wrote:
Yakface, while all that is true, it does not answer how we resolve Barrage weapons, which are shooting attacks that are resolved on the side armour. If the Knight has its Ion shield in the front and the blast scatters in front of the Knight and hits, would the Knight get a save?

That is certainly a legitimate question that at least has two fairly valid arguments that could be made (unlike with Vector Strike, which is absolutely clear).


1) One interpretation is that a Barrage weapon still hits a certain facing (depending on where the center of the blast marker lands), so even though it is resolved against the 'side armor' of the vehicle, if that center of the blast is hitting the declared arc for the Ion Shield, then you'd get the save.

2) The other interpretation is that Barrage weapons only count as hitting a vehicle's 'side armor' and not any specific arc (left or right) no matter where the blast lands, and therefore the shield does nothing against Barrage weapons.


Given that both interpretations are pretty much equally valid, I'd default back to the fluff…which again clearly describes that the Ion Shield is only able to protect the Knight against attacks coming from a very specific angle. Barrage weapons hitting the 'side armor' is clearly representing the blast striking the top of the vehicle's armor, which again makes perfect sense that the Ion Shield would do nothing against.

So IMHO, it is still a no-brainer…the RAW may be a complete wash, but once you factor in the descriptions of what barrage weapons are doing and how the Ion Shield works, one choice makes a whole hell of a lot more sense.

 Happyjew wrote:
Yakface, while all that is true, it does not answer how we resolve Barrage weapons, which are shooting attacks that are resolved on the side armour. If the Knight has its Ion shield in the front and the blast scatters in front of the Knight and hits, would the Knight get a save?

I think for barrage the save is based on the direction of the model as hits are done to the side armor but nothing changes the fact that the direction of the shot is from anywhere but from the model. This is true because the sentence prior to "hits against vehicles are always resolved against their side armor." begins with "To determine whether a unit wounded by a barrage weapon is allowed a cover save..." thus nulls the rest of the sentence since this is not a cover save or a unit that can be wounded.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Vector Strikes are neither shooting or close combat attacks, they are Vector Strikes.
Also they happen in the movement phase.

Just need to point out this is wrong, everything is Shooting or CC, there is 0 support for "Other wound resolutions"

 BlackTalos wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Vector Strikes are neither shooting or close combat attacks, they are Vector Strikes.
Also they happen in the movement phase.

Just need to point out this is wrong, everything is Shooting or CC, there is 0 support for "Other wound resolutions"

Everything is Shooting or Close combat?

What's a Ram then?

 grendel083 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Vector Strikes are neither shooting or close combat attacks, they are Vector Strikes.
Also they happen in the movement phase.

Just need to point out this is wrong, everything is Shooting or CC, there is 0 support for "Other wound resolutions"

Everything is Shooting or Close combat?

What's a Ram then?

What is Soul Blaze?

"Special type of tank shock"

It is a self-contained ruling allowing you to roll a penetration and it's result. It does not need to follow p12 or 20 at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Vector Strikes are neither shooting or close combat attacks, they are Vector Strikes.
Also they happen in the movement phase.

Just need to point out this is wrong, everything is Shooting or CC, there is 0 support for "Other wound resolutions"

Everything is Shooting or Close combat?

What's a Ram then?

What is Soul Blaze?

I'll even add a more "out of phase attack": Soul Blaze.
It's a shooting attack, as the rule even specifies "no cover saves". Why would they say no cover saves if it's one of those weird (non-existent) Non-shooting, non-CC attacks? surely those just hit and wound and ignore cover and... etc (per no page of the rulebook)

 BlackTalos wrote:
"Special type of tank shock"

It is a self-contained ruling allowing you to roll a penetration and it's result. It does not need to follow p12 or 20 at all.

A Ram with a Death Rolla? You'll need those pages then...

If the Death Rolla needs those then it will be shooting or CC, but i do not know it's rule so cannot answer that.

How do you resolve a hit > wound > remove from play without one of those pages?

 BlackTalos wrote:
If the Death Rolla needs those then it will be shooting or CC, but i do not know it's rule so cannot answer that.

How do you resolve a hit > wound > remove from play without one of those pages?

Just because a rule uses part of the Shooting rules, why must it be a shooting attack?

Close combat uses some of the shooting rules. Does that make close combat shooting attacks?

A Ram with a Death Rolla is neither.