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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
And yet, the Ion shield only protects one of those, yes?

Sure. Of course, that does not matter though as you have an attack being resolved on the side with the shield and as such get a save against it.

Yet you also do not get a save against it. As I said before, Schrödinger's Armour.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
And yet, the Ion shield only protects one of those, yes?

Sure. Of course, that does not matter though as you have an attack being resolved on the side with the shield and as such get a save against it.

Yet you also do not get a save against it. As I said before, Schrödinger's Armour.

Except you do because it demonstrably does get resolved against the side that the shield is on. You have a save available, this is demonstrably true. Nothing says you do not get a save against it, the other side simply lacks a save value.

We get a save from the left and there is no listed save value from the right, so we are allowed to take the best save available (p. 19), since it is available to one of the facings where damage is being resolved against.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
And yet, the Ion shield only protects one of those, yes?

Sure. Of course, that does not matter though as you have an attack being resolved on the side with the shield and as such get a save against it.

Unless it's resolved on the side without the shield and you don't.

 don_mondo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
And yet, the Ion shield only protects one of those, yes?

Sure. Of course, that does not matter though as you have an attack being resolved on the side with the shield and as such get a save against it.

Unless it's resolved on the side without the shield and you don't.

But it is not resolved on the side without the shield.

It is resolved on Side armor (This includes left and right side) so it is resolved on a side where the shield is.

And also on the side where the shield is not..............

So which takes precedence?

DR, do you know what the difference is between the definite and indefinite article?
Well it's more or less the issue at play here. It's resolved against the side armour but not a specific side which would possibly allow a save.


So again, if you have the shield on your left side armour and you are told to resolve it on the side armour, where do you derive permission to make a save?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
And yet, the Ion shield only protects one of those, yes?

Sure. Of course, that does not matter though as you have an attack being resolved on the side with the shield and as such get a save against it.

Unless it's resolved on the side without the shield and you don't.

But it is not resolved on the side without the shield.

It is resolved on Side armor (This includes left and right side) so it is resolved on a side where the shield is.

The hit is resolved against the Side Armor VALUE. The word "value" should be spelled out in the RAW but it isn't.

However, even if it is, a hit against "Side Armor" does not, in the context of 40k rules, mean the same thing as "hit against right model facing" or "hit against left model facing", which is what you are trying to argue.

So no. RAW you don't get a save vs the Vector Strike. The vector strike hits your side armor. But it does not hit either the left or right model facing.

 don_mondo wrote:
And also on the side where the shield is not..............

So which takes precedence?

Page 19 does.

"a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Murrdox wrote:
The hit is resolved against the Side Armor VALUE. The word "value" should be spelled out in the RAW but it isn't.

However, even if it is, a hit against "Side Armor" does not, in the context of 40k rules, mean the same thing as "hit against right model facing" or "hit against left model facing", which is what you are trying to argue.

So no. RAW you don't get a save vs the Vector Strike. The vector strike hits your side armor. But it does not hit either the left or right model facing.

Left side facing, and right side facing are both Side armor as noted on page 73.

"Armour Values for individual vehicles often vary between its front, side and rear facings." Side Facing = Side armor value as noted in this passage from Page 73.

So yes RAW the vehicle gets the save.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
DR, do you know what the difference is between the definite and indefinite article?
Well it's more or less the issue at play here. It's resolved against the side armour but not a specific side which would possibly allow a save.


So again, if you have the shield on your left side armour and you are told to resolve it on the side armour, where do you derive permission to make a save?

It is resolved against side armor.

What does the side armor cover?

Page 73 tells us that the side armor is both the Left and right side armor.

Permission comes from VS being resolved against a facing that has the shield active. It is resolved against side armor, this includes left and right side armor as noted on page 73.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Murrdox wrote:
The hit is resolved against the Side Armor VALUE. The word "value" should be spelled out in the RAW but it isn't.

However, even if it is, a hit against "Side Armor" does not, in the context of 40k rules, mean the same thing as "hit against right model facing" or "hit against left model facing", which is what you are trying to argue.

So no. RAW you don't get a save vs the Vector Strike. The vector strike hits your side armor. But it does not hit either the left or right model facing.

Left side facing, and right side facing are both Side armor as noted on page 73.

"Armour Values for individual vehicles often vary between its front, side and rear facings." Side Facing = Side armor value as noted in this passage from Page 73.

So yes RAW the vehicle gets the save.

If you want to go that direction then, you should be able to tell me which armor facing I hit when Vector striking without even looking at any models.

Okay so there's your situation. I execute a Vector Strike on you. I hit your Side Armor. Now, using the rules, tell me which facing of your model I have hit.

You are resolving the VS against Both Facings, Left side armor and Right side armor as per the rules on page 70 and 73.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You are resolving the VS against Both Facings, Left side armor and Right side armor as per the rules on page 70 and 73.

\

Neither of those rules tell you to treat a hit against a "Side Armor" value as if it had hit both facings of the model.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You are resolving the VS against Both Facings, Left side armor and Right side armor as per the rules on page 70 and 73.

So you roll to pen twice per VS hit?

"Vehicles have separate Armour Values to represent the protection on their front (F), sides (S) and rear (R). Armour Values typically range from 10 to 14, depending on which side of the vehicle is being attacked," (70)

Sides = Left and Right side. Page 73, the diagram on how to determine what facing your in, confirms that Left and Right side are both Side armor.

Therefore if you resolve against Side armor, you look at P.70 and 73 and that confirms that side armor is both left and right side armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You are resolving the VS against Both Facings, Left side armor and Right side armor as per the rules on page 70 and 73.

So you roll to pen twice per VS hit?

You only hit the vehicle once, as per VS (Well D3+1 hits but you know that already).

DR, it's weak to say that a side must be the side I have a shield on and not the other side that I don't. Especially when you have no evidence other than poor logical leaps. You have still to show that "side armour" is a specific side.

All I'm seeing from your repeated statements are that: "A side has side armour, hence side armour designates a specific side."

Can you show why the shielded side is hit in your model and not the other side?

liturgies of blood wrote:DR, it's weak to say that a side must be the side I have a shield on and not the other side that I don't. Especially when you have no evidence other than poor logical leaps. You have still to show that "side armour" is a specific side.

All I'm seeing from your repeated statements are that: "A side has side armour, hence side armour designates a specific side."

Can you show why the shielded side is hit in your model and not the other side?

DeathReaper wrote:You are resolving the VS against Both Facings, Left side armor and Right side armor as per the rules on page 70 and 73.

He literally said you hit both sides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You are resolving the VS against Both Facings, Left side armor and Right side armor as per the rules on page 70 and 73.

So you roll to pen twice per VS hit?

You only hit the vehicle once, as per VS (Well D3+1 hits but you know that already).

But you've said you are resolving VS against [i]both/i] facings. Your word, not mine.
To resolve something against both facings, you must attempt to pen both facings.

Rigeld that's why I said it was weak.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Vehicles have separate Armour Values to represent the protection on their front (F), sides (S) and rear (R). Armour Values typically range from 10 to 14, depending on which side of the vehicle is being attacked," (70)

Sides = Left and Right side. Page 73, the diagram on how to determine what facing your in, confirms that Left and Right side are both Side armor.

Therefore if you resolve against Side armor, you look at P.70 and 73 and that confirms that side armor is both left and right side armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You are resolving the VS against Both Facings, Left side armor and Right side armor as per the rules on page 70 and 73.

So you roll to pen twice per VS hit?

You only hit the vehicle once, as per VS (Well D3+1 hits but you know that already).

You can't seriously be arguing that. If your interpretation was correct, then ANY hit to the side armor of the vehicle would hit BOTH sides simultaneously, and you'd be making TWO penetration rolls for every side armor hit! Your logic would go:

A) I hit the a side facing of the vehicle.
B) Page 73 says that the left side of the vehicle is equal to the "Sides" armor value.
C) "Sides" armor value is equal to both left and right facing.
D) I resolve my lascannon shot against both facings.

Even if you are correct, and you DO hit both facings, the BEST situation that you have argued yourself into is that now your Knight suffers TWICE as many hits because you'd roll to penetrate both armor facings?

Side Armor does NOT equal Model Facing.

Model Facing CAN equal Side Armor. The equation does not work in both directions like you are trying to argue.

All poodles are dogs, not all dogs are poodles.

The ion shield gives the Knight an invulnerable save against all hits on one particular facing (front, left, right, rear).

None of the VS rules state that its hits impact upon any particular facing, but merely that we use the side armour for the purpose of resolving armour penetration rolls.

Therefore, the ion shield invulnerable save cannot be taken for VS hits regardless of the vehicle facing upon which the ion shield is positioned.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
DR, it's weak to say that a side must be the side I have a shield on and not the other side that I don't. Especially when you have no evidence other than poor logical leaps. You have still to show that "side armour" is a specific side.

I have never claimed that Side armor was a specific side...

I have said Side armor is both sides though, because the rule book says it is as per P.73

All I'm seeing from your repeated statements are that: "A side has side armour, hence side armour designates a specific side."

Can you show why the shielded side is hit in your model and not the other side?

They are both hit as VS hits Side armor.

Side armor is the left and right sides of the vehicle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

You only hit the vehicle once, as per VS (Well D3+1 hits but you know that already).

But you've said you are resolving VS against [i]both/i] facings. Your word, not mine.
To resolve something against both facings, you must attempt to pen both facings.

You have resolved it vs both sides by using the Side armor value. but you only resolve it once per hit as the side armor has a single armor value.

There are not two different values for Side armor, just one. Therefore if you attempt to hit side armor you hit that specific value for the sides of the vehicle. You hit both sides with a VS if you hit twice you try to pen twice.

I declare Left side for the shield. Your Vanquished is in my side arc on the ride side of my Knight. You fire, hit, and pen.

Do I get my shield save? Why or why not?

Where in the rules/faq does it say Vector Strike wounds are allocated randomly?

Marshall Ragnar wrote:
Where in the rules/faq does it say Vector Strike wounds are allocated randomly?

BRB Errata/FAQ. One of the first couple of pages in the Errata section.

rigeld2 wrote:
I declare Left side for the shield. Your Vanquished is in my side arc on the ride side of my Knight. You fire, hit, and pen.

Do I get my shield save? Why or why not?

You do not because in that case you are only hitting the right side (and you were not hitting 'side armor', you hit Right side armor). and the shield is not on the right side it is on the left side.

If it simply hit Side armor, like barrage, you would get the shield because you use the best save available.

Please stop saying that page 73 defines the side armour characteristic as being made up of the left and right side facings, that is a blatant lie.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Please stop saying that page 73 defines the side armour characteristic as being made up of the left and right side facings, that is a blatant lie.

It is not a lie, but I didn't only tag page 73.

I used Page 73 and page 70 to show the relevant quotes. As long as a person understands basic English they can put this all together.

Page 70 " Vehicles have separate Armour Values to represent the protection on their front (F), sides (S) and rear (R)" (BRB 70) Note: Sides = left side and right side as proven by page 70 and 73...

Check out the diagram on vehicle armor facing on page 73. This shows that Side armor is on the Left and Right side of that tank. The text reads: " Armour Values for individual vehicles often vary between its front, side and rear facings."(73)

And finally "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from. To see what facing a shot is corning from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle" (73) Doing this creates a right side armor and a left side armor.

Linguistically if you are in the vehicles right side armor, you will hit the right side armor. That is just how the English Language works.

It does count against the side armor value not a particular side. Now the special shield thingy only covers one side and not the other.
So you only get half of the save.
half of 4 is 2.
so you get a a save of 2
you then rub a pumpkin pie onto your chest
and take a nap.

That's about all the rules that I've read have to say on the subject.

Honestly, I don't believe that RAW has a lot to say on the subject. Chalk it up to rules writers for a unit not realizing that it has an effect on how other rules work.

Edit: I forgot to include that you also cover your entire face with red lipstick. Whew! got that in before someone corrected me.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Please stop saying that page 73 defines the side armour characteristic as being made up of the left and right side facings, that is a blatant lie.

It is not a lie, but I didn't only tag page 73.

I used Page 73 and page 70 to show the relevant quotes. As long as a person understands basic English they can put this all together.

Page 70 " Vehicles have separate Armour Values to represent the protection on their front (F), sides (S) and rear (R)" (BRB 70) Note: Sides = left side and right side as proven by page 70 and 73...

Check out the diagram on vehicle armor facing on page 73. This shows that Side armor is on the Left and Right side of that tank. The text reads: " Armour Values for individual vehicles often vary between its front, side and rear facings."(73)

And finally "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from. To see what facing a shot is corning from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle" (73) Doing this creates a right side armor and a left side armor.

Linguistically if you are in the vehicles right side armor, you will hit the right side armor. That is just how the English Language works.

All of this is actually correct, hitting a left or right side facing does mean you are resolving the attack against the side armour characteristic. Nowhere does it say the opposite is true. This is the affirming the consequent logical fallacy:
If X then Y
Y
Therefore X
In which X is left or right side facing and Y is side armour characteristic.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
All of this is actually correct, hitting a left or right side facing does mean you are resolving the attack against the side armour characteristic.

This you have correct.

Nowhere does it say the opposite is true. This is the affirming the consequent logical fallacy:
If X then Y
Y
Therefore X
In which X is left or right side facing and Y is side armour characteristic.

Not sure what you are getting at here...

Any attack that hits side armor, must hit both sides as we are not told they hit left or right, simply side armor.

Side armor is made up of two facings, left and right...

I'm saying that even though hitting a side facing means you resolve against the side armour value, resolving against the side armour value doesn't mean you hit a side facing and that you are using an invalid argument form.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm saying that even though hitting a side facing means you resolve against the side armour value, resolving against the side armour value doesn't mean you hit a side facing and that you are using an invalid argument form.

Except VS hits side armor, it doesn't just resolve against Side Armor, it actually causes hits on Side Armor..

Side armor consists of Left side and Right side, so that is what you hit with VS.