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.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The top side doesn't actually exist in the rules, correct, but that is the side the Vector Striking model moves over, and is represented by resolving Vector Strike against the Side AV value.

I know, but this is a unique circumstance enacted by a couple of dingbats who crammed something into a rule supplement because they thought it was cool and never thought of how it would work with all the other rules involved.

G-dubs, because you know...narrative.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Left side is a part of side armor in the same way that all apples are fruit, but not all fruit is apples.

All Left side armor is side armor but not all side armor is left side armor.

Doesn't this directly contradict your position on the Knight's invulnerable save?

Not at all.

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
What are the actual words used? That is very important.

Here is what the IK codex says:

From the IK codex:

"...the Imperial Knight player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight’s ion shield is covering. The choices are: front, left side, right side or rear. The Knight has a 4+ invulnerable save against all hits on that facing until the start of your opponent’s next Shooting phase." (154.5 in the Digital Codex)

So no references to "left side armor" just references to front, left side, right side and rear in regards to a facing. There is no such thing as "left side armor" nor "right side armor" listed in the rules. The designation "left" and "right" are merely adjectives added by players for ease. The terms port and starboard or sinister and dexter could also be used.

So these terms only exist in the minds of the players (you) not in any official capacity of the rules. To argue otherwise is foolish.

No these terms do not only exist in the minds of players...

To be more clear it really should read "left side armor value"

Page 73 equates facing with its armor value.

"As such, vehicles have different Armour Values) representing the thickness of their armour.[sic] Armour Values for individual vehicles often vary between its front, side and rear facings." (BRB 73)

...

You'll have to explain the logic behind that one, given that one argument is "if I put the shield on the left side I get to use it against vector strike because side armour always includes the left side" and the other is "not all side armour is left side armour".

 PrinceRaven wrote:
...

You'll have to explain the logic behind that one, given that one argument is "if I put the shield on the left side I get to use it against vector strike because side armour always includes the left side" and the other is "not all side armour is left side armour".

Because you have hit Side armor yes?

Since Side armor is made up of left side armor value and right side armor value, you have hit a side where the shield is positioned and as such get to take the best save available.

So you have a 4+ Invuln and a - for saves, and as such you get to take the best one, in this case the 4+ Invuln.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
...

You'll have to explain the logic behind that one, given that one argument is "if I put the shield on the left side I get to use it against vector strike because side armour always includes the left side" and the other is "not all side armour is left side armour".

Because you have hit Side armor yes?

Since Side armor is made up of left side armor value and right side armor value, you have hit a side where the shield is positioned and as such get to take the best save available.

So you have a 4+ Invuln and a - for saves, and as such you get to take the best one, in this case the 4+ Invuln.

Vector Strike doesn't "hit side armour", but I'll play along...

Ok, now since resolving against side armour automatically means you've hit both side facings for some reason, why doesn't hitting the right side, meaning you resolve your attack against side armour, make you hit the left facing?

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
...

You'll have to explain the logic behind that one, given that one argument is "if I put the shield on the left side I get to use it against vector strike because side armour always includes the left side" and the other is "not all side armour is left side armour".

Because you have hit Side armor yes?

Since Side armor is made up of left side armor value and right side armor value, you have hit a side where the shield is positioned and as such get to take the best save available.

So you have a 4+ Invuln and a - for saves, and as such you get to take the best one, in this case the 4+ Invuln.

Vector Strike doesn't "hit side armour", but I'll play along...

Yes it does. VS clearly hits side armor...

"...That unit takes D3+1 hits, resolved at the model's unmodified Strength and AP 3. Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target's side armour." (43)

Ok, now since resolving against side armour automatically means you've hit both side facings for some reason, why doesn't hitting the right side, meaning you resolve your attack against side armour, make you hit the left facing?

Because you are not hitting side armor you are hitting right side armor. Subtle but important difference.

A shot in the right side facing will hit right side armor.

VS simply hits side armor and not left or right side specifically, just side, thus both left and right are included in side armor.

All left side armor is side armor but not all side armor is left side armor.

"The unit takes d3+1 hits" What is hit? The unit.
"Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target's side armour" - which AV are they resolved against? Side armour.

Once again, you're claiming characteristics and facings are the same thing without rules to back it up.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"The unit takes d3+1 hits" What is hit? The unit.
"Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target's side armour" - which AV are they resolved against? Side armour.

Once again, you're claiming characteristics and facings are the same thing without rules to back it up.

Having read through the debate, it suddenly puts me in the camps of "We must use random allocation then" ?

As the hits are not "defined" onto the facing, but use the AV for armour Pen, then it isn't "a hit on side armour", but "a hit with random allocation (from the FAQ), using Side AV". P73 then says: "comparing this total with the AV of the appropriate facing of the vehicle" - in this case forced to use Side AV, and as to picking which side: FAQ Random allocation.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
We also know that left side armor doesn't exist - again, per your statement.

When did I say this?

left side armor exists, but it is not specifically called left or right in the BRB, it is in the IK book though.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Page 73 shows that Left side and Right side both use Side armor values.

Care to explain the rest?

 BlackTalos wrote:
Having read through the debate, it suddenly puts me in the camps of "We must use random allocation then" ?

As the hits are not "defined" onto the facing, but use the AV for armour Pen, then it isn't "a hit on side armour", but "a hit with random allocation (from the FAQ), using Side AV". P73 then says: "comparing this total with the AV of the appropriate facing of the vehicle" - in this case forced to use Side AV, and as to picking which side: FAQ Random allocation.

You're misquoting the rules here. Random allocation is used to determine which models take the wounds in a multi-model unit. Not to determine which direction a hit comes from or which facing on a vehicle it hits. Doing so is essentially making up rules. There's no need to randomly allocate wounds on a one model unit.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Having read through the debate, it suddenly puts me in the camps of "We must use random allocation then" ?

As the hits are not "defined" onto the facing, but use the AV for armour Pen, then it isn't "a hit on side armour", but "a hit with random allocation (from the FAQ), using Side AV". P73 then says: "comparing this total with the AV of the appropriate facing of the vehicle" - in this case forced to use Side AV, and as to picking which side: FAQ Random allocation.

You're misquoting the rules here. Random allocation is used to determine which models take the wounds in a multi-model unit. Not to determine which direction a hit comes from or which facing on a vehicle it hits. Doing so is essentially making up rules. There's no need to randomly allocate wounds on a one model unit.

If that is the case, then how do you interpret the last few pages of "there is no Side facing for Vector Strike" ?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Having read through the debate, it suddenly puts me in the camps of "We must use random allocation then" ?

As the hits are not "defined" onto the facing, but use the AV for armour Pen, then it isn't "a hit on side armour", but "a hit with random allocation (from the FAQ), using Side AV". P73 then says: "comparing this total with the AV of the appropriate facing of the vehicle" - in this case forced to use Side AV, and as to picking which side: FAQ Random allocation.

You're misquoting the rules here. Random allocation is used to determine which models take the wounds in a multi-model unit. Not to determine which direction a hit comes from or which facing on a vehicle it hits. Doing so is essentially making up rules. There's no need to randomly allocate wounds on a one model unit.

If that is the case, then how do you interpret the last few pages of "there is no Side facing for Vector Strike" ?

I've stated this previously, but for your benefit the RAW do not define VS hits as coming from any particular direction or as hitting any particular vehicle facing. There are also no RAW stating that we need to determine which facing is hit, or how to do so. All we are told is that side armour is used to resolve the hits I.e. armour penetration rolls.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

I've stated this previously, but for your benefit the RAW do not define VS hits as coming from any particular direction or as hitting any particular vehicle facing. There are also no RAW stating that we need to determine which facing is hit, or how to do so. All we are told is that side armour is used to resolve the hits I.e. armour penetration rolls.

I agree it is currently undefined, but as RaW goes, we are told that Vector Strike uses Random allocation when determining Hits. As the Rules for Glance/Pens states "appropriate facing", this means that a facing must be "Chosen", either by rules, or in this case: randomly.

Occam's would agree here too...

Random Allocation is for Wounds, not hits, and applies once the number of wounds has been determined.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Random Allocation is for Wounds, not hits, and applies once the number of wounds has been determined.

Random allocation is probably the best and only way to accurately depict what is going on. Two reasons. There is no option for "top" to place the shield. There is no way to determine how much of this "top" is covered by the shield.

It's almost as if these were written without considering vector strike rules.

DR, are you honestly saying that a term exists and is an irrefutable rule and is the gospel truth, when there is absolutely no instance of the term in any rule book. Did the port/starboard, sinister/dexter examples have no meaning to you.

Maybe there is no option for top on the shield because 10'000+ years ago the designers of the Knights never considered the possibility of Heldrakes, Hive Crones and Daemon Princes threatening them, or even existing.

I know, not a rules argument, but neither is Idolator's.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Maybe there is no option for top on the shield because 10'000+ years ago the designers of the Knights never considered the possibility of Heldrakes, Hive Crones and Daemon Princes threatening them, or even existing.

I know, not a rules argument, but neither is Idolator's.

I'll accept that.

In truth, though, this hasn't really been a rules argument for a while. It more closely resembles something I saw at a zoo once, involving primates and feces.

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Random Allocation is for Wounds, not hits, and applies once the number of wounds has been determined.

Random allocation is probably the best and only way to accurately depict what is going on. Two reasons. There is no option for "top" to place the shield. There is no way to determine how much of this "top" is covered by the shield.

It's almost as if these were written without considering vector strike rules.

I think you're getting confused between Random Allocation as actually defined in the RAW and random allocation as a general concept for a HIWPI scenario.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Random Allocation is for Wounds, not hits, and applies once the number of wounds has been determined.

Random allocation is probably the best and only way to accurately depict what is going on. Two reasons. There is no option for "top" to place the shield. There is no way to determine how much of this "top" is covered by the shield.

It's almost as if these were written without considering vector strike rules.

I think you're getting confused between Random Allocation as actually defined in the RAW and random allocation as a general concept for a HIWPI scenario.

No, I know how those rules work. I've been quite clear that I don't think that RAW can apply. There's no confusion, on my part.

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Random Allocation is for Wounds, not hits, and applies once the number of wounds has been determined.

Random allocation is probably the best and only way to accurately depict what is going on. Two reasons. There is no option for "top" to place the shield. There is no way to determine how much of this "top" is covered by the shield.

It's almost as if these were written without considering vector strike rules.

I think you're getting confused between Random Allocation as actually defined in the RAW and random allocation as a general concept for a HIWPI scenario.

No, I know how those rules work. I've been quite clear that I don't think that RAW can apply. There's no confusion, on my part.

You're claiming RAW don't apply in this instance? That's an interesting position to take in a rules based discussion.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
We also know that left side armor doesn't exist - again, per your statement.

When did I say this?

left side armor exists, but it is not specifically called left or right in the BRB, it is in the IK book though.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Page 73 shows that Left side and Right side both use Side armor values.

Care to explain the rest?

That does not say "that left side armor doesn't exist - again, per your statement."

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Random Allocation is for Wounds, not hits, and applies once the number of wounds has been determined.

Random allocation is probably the best and only way to accurately depict what is going on. Two reasons. There is no option for "top" to place the shield. There is no way to determine how much of this "top" is covered by the shield.

It's almost as if these were written without considering vector strike rules.

I think you're getting confused between Random Allocation as actually defined in the RAW and random allocation as a general concept for a HIWPI scenario.

No, I know how those rules work. I've been quite clear that I don't think that RAW can apply. There's no confusion, on my part.

You're claiming RAW don't apply in this instance? That's an interesting position to take in a rules based discussion.

No, as I said, I don't think that the rules were properly written to cover this instance. I've been upfront about that from the very beginning. I'm still discussing the rules. There are many, many instances where rules contradict or don't work as written. This happens to be one of those times. Discussing that you believe that using the RAW is an untenable situation is exactly what these forums are for. It is You Make Da Call. I made a call.

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Random Allocation is for Wounds, not hits, and applies once the number of wounds has been determined.

Random allocation is probably the best and only way to accurately depict what is going on. Two reasons. There is no option for "top" to place the shield. There is no way to determine how much of this "top" is covered by the shield.

It's almost as if these were written without considering vector strike rules.

I think you're getting confused between Random Allocation as actually defined in the RAW and random allocation as a general concept for a HIWPI scenario.

No, I know how those rules work. I've been quite clear that I don't think that RAW can apply. There's no confusion, on my part.

You're claiming RAW don't apply in this instance? That's an interesting position to take in a rules based discussion.

No, as I said, I don't think that the rules were properly written to cover this instance. I've been upfront about that from the very beginning. I'm still discussing the rules. There are many, many instances where rules contradict or don't work as written. This happens to be one of those times. Discussing that you believe that using the RAW is an untenable situation is exactly what these forums are for. It is You Make Da Call. I made a call.

I'll concede that there should be some clarification on the issue from GW (like a lot of things) but I don't agree that the RAW don't work in this instance. In any event they're all we have to go on at the moment unless you take the house rule route.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
We also know that left side armor doesn't exist - again, per your statement.

When did I say this?

left side armor exists, but it is not specifically called left or right in the BRB, it is in the IK book though.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Page 73 shows that Left side and Right side both use Side armor values.

Care to explain the rest?

That does not say "that left side armor doesn't exist - again, per your statement."

I apologize.
Please cite the rule supplying left side armor.
And please address the rest of the example.

I have, Left side armor comes from the definition in the IK codex. coupled with pages 70 and 73 of the BRB.

 Tonberry7 wrote:


I'll concede that there should be some clarification on the issue from GW (like a lot of things) but I don't agree that the RAW don't work in this instance. In any event they're all we have to go on at the moment unless you take the house rule route.

Ignoring the fact that half of the side armor in this instance has a special rule would be a house rule. Ignoring the fact that the rules don't allow you to definitively declare which side is hit would be a house rule. Either way you go, you as a player have to decide which rules to ignore. The rules don't tell you what to do when the armor values of opposing sides are of a different value either!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have, Left side armor comes from the definition in the IK codex. coupled with pages 70 and 73 of the BRB.

Where neither of the books ever use the term "left side armor".

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have, Left side armor comes from the definition in the IK codex. coupled with pages 70 and 73 of the BRB.

The BRB never talks about left side armor.

Still declining to address the point I was trying to make?

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:


I'll concede that there should be some clarification on the issue from GW (like a lot of things) but I don't agree that the RAW don't work in this instance. In any event they're all we have to go on at the moment unless you take the house rule route.

Ignoring the fact that half of the side armor in this instance has a special rule would be a house rule

Actually it's the one of the side facings of the vehicle that has the special rule, not the side armour AV. I'm not ignoring this either, I'm following the rules for VS which don't define that the hits come from any particular direction or that a particular facing is hit.

 Idolator wrote:
Ignoring the fact that the rules don't allow you to definitively declare which side is hit would be a house rule.

As above, I'm not ignoring this but acknowledging it. If you can't define which facing is hit you can't therefore apply a special rule associated with one of those facings.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:


I'll concede that there should be some clarification on the issue from GW (like a lot of things) but I don't agree that the RAW don't work in this instance. In any event they're all we have to go on at the moment unless you take the house rule route.

Ignoring the fact that half of the side armor in this instance has a special rule would be a house rule

Actually it's the one of the side facings of the vehicle that has the special rule, not the side armour AV. I'm not ignoring this either, I'm following the rules for VS which don't define that the hits come from any particular direction or that a particular facing is hit.

 Idolator wrote:
Ignoring the fact that the rules don't allow you to definitively declare which side is hit would be a house rule.

As above, I'm not ignoring this but acknowledging it. If you can't define which facing is hit you can't therefore apply a special rule associated with one of those facings.

So when the rulebook says: "comparing this total with the AV of the appropriate facing of the vehicle", and requires "A facing" and not just using a number, you ignore this and just continue with resolving the Glance/Pen roll?
I agree that there is no answer, but not that RaW tells you how to resolve it.
As previously said, the path with the least assumptions is that of Random Allocation, and have quoted RaW to accompany that statement. The Random allocation might apply to Wounds and not hit, but it is there to figure out "who takes the wound", correct? Which translates to "who takes the Glance" - ie. "who within the 2 available facings, will take the Glance" to which you then move to the next step- Armour/Invun Saves.

Most obviously from this, each Wound is Allocated Randomly: Each Glance/Pen is allocated randomly, you don't roll once for all 4 Pens.

 BlackTalos wrote:
So when the rulebook says: "comparing this total with the AV of the appropriate facing of the vehicle", and requires "A facing" and not just using a number, you ignore this and just continue with resolving the Glance/Pen roll?

What part of "resolve against side armour" don't you understand?