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 have a novel approach ... since vector strike can only hit side armour and the Knight has right side and left side armour it can not be hit by VS.

 Idolator wrote:

Honestly, I would use the placement of the center hole in relation to the model hit. If it happened to hit dead center, I would randomly determine. Due to all the same reasons that I have previously mentioned.

My point too :-/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
(I have a novel approach ... since vector strike can only hit side armour and the Knight has right side and left side armour it can not be hit by VS.

That sounds a lot like the model with no eyes that can't shoot... :p

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

Honestly, I would use the placement of the center hole in relation to the model hit. If it happened to hit dead center, I would randomly determine. Due to all the same reasons that I have previously mentioned.

My point too :-/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
(I have a novel approach ... since vector strike can only hit side armour and the Knight has right side and left side armour it can not be hit by VS.

That sounds a lot like the model with no eyes that can't shoot... :p

Oh, I agree, but if one of the guys I played with refused to allow an shot at the invuln save I would prove, in the Knights codex and the BRB, that there is no 'Side' armour. Only left side and right side, and therefore his VS would have no effect on my knight. With the group I play with this would not be a problem.

 BlackTalos wrote:
I would disagree on this, VS is a shooting attack, because they even FAQed it to "ignore cover saves".

That is the most ridiculous thing I've read today. Ignoring cover saves does not make something a shooting attack, otherwise the following are also shooting attacks:
- Close combat attacks
- Perils of the Warp
- Dangerous terrain checks
- Grounding checks
- Toxic Miasma
- Terror from the Deep
- Razorwing Nests
- Carnivorous Jungles
- Industrial Ooze
- Gets Hot
- Warp Storm table results
- Failed nova reactor tests

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I would disagree on this, VS is a shooting attack, because they even FAQed it to "ignore cover saves".

- Gets Hot

Well... this IS sort of a shooting attack. Just in an unfortunate direction.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

coredump wrote:
Some of you are stuck because you believe the VS must effect a *facing*... but that is not in the rules at all.

This. Referring to the vehicle facing section on p73 of the BRB is irrelevant as this is addressing shooting attacks. "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from."

VS is not a shooting attack. It does not come from a particular direction. It does not hit a facing. You cannot therefore take an inv save specifically associated with any particular facing.

Random Allocation is also completely irrelevant with regard to VS against a knight on its own. Random Allocation is used to determine which models are allocated wounds from a VS within a multi-model unit once the number of wounds has been resolved. There is no need to randomly allocate wounds within a single model unit.

I would disagree on this, VS is a shooting attack, because they even FAQed it to "ignore cover saves".

You are claiming that VS is a shooting attack because it ignores cover saves. This is an incorrect assumption on your part. VS are not even resolved in the shooting phase.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Random allocation is not determining who is hit, please read it correctly.

I never claimed that Random Allocation had anything to do with determining who is hit; my whole point was that it doesn't. Please read my point correctly. It determines which models are closest to an attacking unit for the purposes of wound allocation, or "can also occur if the position of the attacker is unclear"

 BlackTalos wrote:

randomly determine which model is treated as being the closest

Is the exact rule. In the case of a single model with 2 different facings, it helps to pick which is closest.

It doesn't help because the rules don't allow you to do so. If you randomly allocate the facing a VS is hitting, you are making up rules.

 BlackTalos wrote:
"Treated as" for the purpose of the Vector Strike makes everything quite clear. And Vector Strike is told to use Random Allocation.

If you wish to apply Random Allocation correctly to a single model unit that is fine, however you will get the same result every time i.e. that single model making up the unit is treated as the closest for the purpose of wound allocation. It still doesn't let you determine which vehicle facing is hit.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
More simply put: The Special Rule Ion shield that the Knight has requires all shooting attacks to define a Facing they are hitting.

No, it doesn't. You've made this up. The Ion Shield rule gives an invulnerable save to one specific facing of a Knight. p73 of the BRB requires for shooting attacks, to determine which facing a shot is coming from. And VS is not a shooting attack.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Vector Strike specifies it hits and uses Side armour, but does not specify a side. I does use Random Allocation, however.

Correct. It also does not specify front or rear facing either. And Random Allocation demonstrably serves no purpose in this case as there is only one model to allocate wounds to.

 BlackTalos wrote:
The method with the less assumptions is to assume Random Allocation wording "which model is treated as being the closest" applies here and is used.

In any case, any way of resolving this debate will make assumptions, and I would follow Occam's Razor at this stage.

Again, if you want to use Random Allocation to establish which model is the closest, you're going to get the same result every single time. It's the big Knight on its own that just took a VS. The method of resolving a VS against that Knight with least assumptions is to use the RAW, which involves no assumption whatsoever.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I would disagree on this, VS is a shooting attack, because they even FAQed it to "ignore cover saves".

That is the most ridiculous thing I've read today. Ignoring cover saves does not make something a shooting attack, otherwise the following are also shooting attacks:
- Close combat attacks
- Perils of the Warp
- Dangerous terrain checks
- Grounding checks
- Toxic Miasma
- Terror from the Deep
- Razorwing Nests
- Carnivorous Jungles
- Industrial Ooze
- Gets Hot
- Warp Storm table results
- Failed nova reactor tests

- Close combat attacks - have a specific section of the rulebook for you to follow in order to move from Hits, to Removing casualties.
The entire rest of your list requires you to either follow p 20 and Close combat, or p12 and is indeed a Shooting Attack

I will not discuss this further as it is a metaphysical question that just cannot be decided on the forums.
Original discussion: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/586270.page#6665801

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
The method with the less assumptions is to assume Random Allocation wording "which model is treated as being the closest" applies here and is used.

In any case, any way of resolving this debate will make assumptions, and I would follow Occam's Razor at this stage.

Again, if you want to use Random Allocation to establish which model is the closest, you're going to get the same result every single time. It's the big Knight on its own that just took a VS. The method of resolving a VS against that Knight with least assumptions is to use the RAW, which involves no assumption whatsoever.

By using Random allocation, you can find out which "side" of the model is closest. And what is even your "use the RaW"? i have just been talking about how the RaW work. And anything else will involve assumption.

By RaW, Vector Strike is a Hit on the vehicle side armour.
By RaW, the Imperial knight has got an invulnerable save that cannot be used against Close combat attacks.

If you can prove to me, with RaW support, that the Vector Strike Special Rule is a Close combat attack, then i will concede.

Until that happens however, we are stuck at a position where we have Hits, affecting side armour, and an invulnerable save on a specific Side armour (Left or Right) an absolutely no RaW to solve this issue.

 BlackTalos wrote:

By using Random allocation, you can find out which "side" of the model is closest. And what is even your "use the RaW"? i have just been talking about how the RaW work. And anything else will involve assumption.

BlackTalos, I don't know how many people have to tell you this in how many different ways.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS USING RANDOM ALLOCATION TO DETERMINE WHAT FACING OF A VEHICLE YOU HIT. There is never any mention in the rulebook of "randomly" determining which facing of a vehicle has been hit either in shooting or close combat, or otherwise.

RANDOM ALLOCATION IS ONLY EVER USED TO DETERMINE WHAT MODEL HAS EITHER BEEN HIT OR WOUNDED. You'd be better off arguing that the random roll for "Weapon Destroyed" results somehow applies to Knight Model facing.

You can certainly house-rule it when Vector Striking a Knight if you absolutely cannot live with the fact that "Side Armor" in the Vector Strike rule is meant to invoke the imaginary "Top" armor value of a vehicle. If in your mind a Vector Strike absolutely must hit either the left or the right side, go ahead, roll a dice for it in your game. But there is absolutely no precedence in RAW for this to be the case.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I would disagree on this, VS is a shooting attack, because they even FAQed it to "ignore cover saves".

That is the most ridiculous thing I've read today. Ignoring cover saves does not make something a shooting attack, otherwise the following are also shooting attacks:
- Close combat attacks
- Perils of the Warp
- Dangerous terrain checks
- Grounding checks
- Toxic Miasma
- Terror from the Deep
- Razorwing Nests
- Carnivorous Jungles
- Industrial Ooze
- Gets Hot
- Warp Storm table results
- Failed nova reactor tests

- Close combat attacks - have a specific section of the rulebook for you to follow in order to move from Hits, to Removing casualties.
The entire rest of your list requires you to either follow p 20 and Close combat, or p12 and is indeed a Shooting Attack

No, the entire list, including close combat, requires me to follow the rules on pages 15-19. These rules apply to every wound in the game, not just shooting attacks, being found in the Shooting Phase section does not change that only shooting attacks are shooting attacks.

 BlackTalos wrote:
By using Random allocation, you can find out which "side" of the model is closest. And what is even your "use the RaW"? i have just been talking about how the RaW work. And anything else will involve assumption.

No, you can't use Random Allocation to find out which facing of a vehicle is hit. This has been demonstrated to you time and time again. If you make any sort of roll to determine a facing that is hit by a VS, this is you making up a rule. "Using the RAW" is using the rules that are actually written down in the BRB etc. to resolve the VS attack.

 BlackTalos wrote:
By RaW, Vector Strike is a Hit on the vehicle side armour.
By RaW, the Imperial knight has got an invulnerable save that cannot be used against Close combat attacks.

No, you're deliberately altering the rules here. VS results in hits on the target unit (the Knight in this case). It does not hit either side facing (or front or rear facing for that matter). The Armour Penetration rolls for those hits are then resolved using the Side Armour Characteristic for the Knight.

 BlackTalos wrote:
If you can prove to me, with RaW support, that the Vector Strike Special Rule is a Close combat attack, then i will concede.

Until that happens however, we are stuck at a position where we have Hits, affecting side armour, and an invulnerable save on a specific Side armour (Left or Right) an absolutely no RaW to solve this issue.

In fact it is only you that is stuck. This is because you refuse to accept that VS does not hit a particular facing of a Knight as per the RAW. Your assumption and insistence that it does hit a facing has led to you making up rules to determine which facing, and you have even discounted front and rear facings as a possible outcomes for your invented rule.

You appear to be justifying these assumptions by making yet another assumption, namely that because VS is not a CC attack then it must be a shooting attack. This is incorrect, as nowhere is VS defined as a shooting attack, it does not take place in the shooting phase, and as has been pointed out to you there are numerous instances of things that can cause wounds without being from either a shooting or CC attack. Even if VS was a shooting attack Random Allocation would still not apply, and this would then require you to make even more assumptions to decide which direction the VS attack was coming from.

As said, i will not return to discussing how all attack are Shooting attacks apart from Close combat attacks that have their own rule set.

But your insistence that VS does not hit a Facing is false. The RaW on page 73 has 3 types of facing, one of which covers 2 sides:it is not mentioned by the BrB but is included in the Imperial Knight Codex, and is therefore RaW.

The following is all rules quotes and therefore further denial will be assumed originating from your own opinions and thoughts:

IK Codex:

"which facing (...) The choices are: front, left side, right side or rear."

4 facings exist, by RaW.

"Armour Penetration Rolls: Once a hit has been scored on a Vehicle, (...), comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the Vehicle."

When you roll an AP roll, you use the AV of the appropriate facing.

VS:

"Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target’s side armour."

Please explain to me how you resolve a S x AP 3 hit? Because i do believe you follow p73 and "Armour Penetration Rolls"

Because so far, it seems like you are using "Vector Strike Penetration Roll" that just picks your side AV, uses that, and is nowhere to be found in the Rules...

The "Armour Value of the appropriate facing" has already been given in the Vector Strike rules, it is the side AV. They had to state this because Vector Strike does not hit a facing.

It hits no facing but is resolved against side armor.
There is no appropriate facing to compare your armor pen result to.

It's a good thing you compare your armour pen result to an armour value instead of a facing, or we'd be in a pickle.

Exactly.

 BlackTalos wrote:
As said, i will not return to discussing how all attack are Shooting attacks apart from Close combat attacks that have their own rule set.

But your insistence that VS does not hit a Facing is false. The RaW on page 73 has 3 types of facing, one of which covers 2 sides:it is not mentioned by the BrB but is included in the Imperial Knight Codex, and is therefore RaW.

VS does not hit a facing as the attack does not come from a defined direction. The wording in the BRB and FAQ makes this quite clear. It does not state anywhere in the IK codex that this is the case as you are now claiming.

 BlackTalos wrote:
The following is all rules quotes and therefore further denial will be assumed originating from your own opinions and thoughts:

IK Codex:

"which facing (...) The choices are: front, left side, right side or rear."

4 facings exist, by RaW.

I am happy that you now wish to confine your argument to actual rules despite your first point. I have never denied that an IK Ion Shield covers one of four facings.

 BlackTalos wrote:

"Armour Penetration Rolls: Once a hit has been scored on a Vehicle, (...), comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the Vehicle."

When you roll an AP roll, you use the AV of the appropriate facing.

I am not denying this rule. However as VS is not a shooting attack, does not come from a particular direction, and therefore does not hit a particular facing, we are specifically and explicitly told to use the Side Armour AV to resolve the hits, i.e. for the AP rolls (p43, BRB).

 BlackTalos wrote:
VS:

"Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target’s side armour."

Yes, that's the VS rule I'm referring to. You've even quoted it. I am not denying this rule.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Please explain to me how you resolve a S x AP 3 hit? Because i do believe you follow p73 and "Armour Penetration Rolls"

Because so far, it seems like you are using "Vector Strike Penetration Roll" that just picks your side AV, uses that, and is nowhere to be found in the Rules...

Is this not a repetition of your second point? I also believe you follow the rules in the "Armour Penetration Rolls" section to resolve the hits. I am not denying this. The only thing that you are overlooking is that instead of using the AV of the appropriate facing as stated in this section (because there isn't an appropriate facing for VS) the VS USR specifically and explicitly tells us to use the Side Armour AV to resolve the hits.

rigeld2 wrote:
It hits no facing but is resolved against side armor.
There is no appropriate facing to compare your armor pen result to.

Precedence of p76 and: "Armour Penetration is worked out in the same way as for shooting (...). In close combat, however, all hits are resolved against the vehicle's rear armour,"

Would indicate that the wording "resolved against AV" means you still have a hit on a facing (Rear in CC and Side in VS and Barrage)

Barrage is a shooting attack that uses the same "rule" as Vector Strike, you would therefore argue that the Knight gets no Inv save from this shooting attack?
If you say that there is no appropriate facing to compare your armor pen result to, then are you not breaking the "comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the Vehicle" Rule?

Most of the argument here is based on that one line, which i believe says you must have a hit on one of the existing facings...
Vector Strike and Barrage only specify which is the "appropriate facing", they do not ignore the rules for Armour Penetration.

By ignoring Facings, you are ignoring that line of RaW.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Precedence of p76 and: "Armour Penetration is worked out in the same way as for shooting (...). In close combat, however, all hits are resolved against the vehicle's rear armour,"

Would indicate that the wording "resolved against AV" means you still have a hit on a facing (Rear in CC and Side in VS and Barrage)

That quote doesn't even mention facings, so I don't understand how you're getting that you've hit a facing.

Barrage is a shooting attack that uses the same "rule" as Vector Strike, you would therefore argue that the Knight gets no Inv save from this shooting attack?

Yes.

If you say that there is no appropriate facing to compare your armor pen result to, then are you not breaking the "comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the Vehicle" Rule?

No, because the armour value is given by the Vector Strike rule as side armour. You don't compare against facings, you compare against Armour value. I'm confused as to how you would even compare against a facing, does a 13 glance the word "front"?

Vector Strike and Barrage only specify which is the "appropriate facing", they do not ignore the rules for Armour Penetration.

Vector Strike and Barrage shots are resolved against side armour; side armour is an armour value, not a facing; left is a facing.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It hits no facing but is resolved against side armor.
There is no appropriate facing to compare your armor pen result to.

Precedence of p76 and: "Armour Penetration is worked out in the same way as for shooting (...). In close combat, however, all hits are resolved against the vehicle's rear armour,"

Would indicate that the wording "resolved against AV" means you still have a hit on a facing (Rear in CC and Side in VS and Barrage)

So a model punching a Baneblade from the front reaches all the way around and hits the rear?
Or the hit is simply resolved against the rear armor because a) that's what the rules say and b) it's in CC so there are nooks and crannies that are more vulnerable and easier to target up close.

Barrage is a shooting attack that uses the same "rule" as Vector Strike, you would therefore argue that the Knight gets no Inv save from this shooting attack?
If you say that there is no appropriate facing to compare your armor pen result to, then are you not breaking the "comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the Vehicle" Rule?

There is no appropriate facing. Without the instruction to resolve against side AV in both Barrage and VS cases, they'd be in resolvable.

By ignoring Facings, you are ignoring that line of RaW.

Not at all. There simply is no appropriate facing.

I still personally believe, reading RaW, that when you resolve hits on vehicles, it must involve a facing, from "comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the Vehicle".

Seeing that the general consensus seems to be that you ignore that rule because "appropriate facing" does not exist in some cases, i will concede and agree that RaW (or that one line) is ignored here.

Let's wait until the 24th see if this is cleared up =)

Because there is no appropriate facing for VS, they wrote a specific instruction into the USR to tell us how to resolve the attack, I.e. use the Side Armour AV.

For VS attacks this essentially supercedes that line in the BRB I.e. using the AV for the appropriate facing. So in the case of VS yes, this line basically doesn't apply.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
RAW: Vector Strike hits "side armour", the shield cannot be placed on "side armour", the Knight doesn't get the save
RAI: Hitting side armour represent the FMC/Heldrake striking the top of the vehicle, the shield cannot be placed on top, the Knight doesn't get the save

Incorrect. As an owner of both models, ie, chaos knights, I'll do my best to chime in my 2 cents.
At the beginning of each opponent shooting phase, when the heldrake vectors, the owning player of the knight chooses a direction for his shield to protect.
Now because the heldrakes vector hits a random side the drakes owner rolls off to see which side is attacked. 1-3 left 4-6 right. This is the gamble of the knight vs drake.

Spaz431 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
RAW: Vector Strike hits "side armour", the shield cannot be placed on "side armour", the Knight doesn't get the save
RAI: Hitting side armour represent the FMC/Heldrake striking the top of the vehicle, the shield cannot be placed on top, the Knight doesn't get the save

Incorrect. As an owner of both models, ie, chaos knights, I'll do my best to chime in my 2 cents.
At the beginning of each opponent shooting phase, when the heldrake vectors, the owning player of the knight chooses a direction for his shield to protect.
Now because the heldrakes vector hits a random side the drakes owner rolls off to see which side is attacked. 1-3 left 4-6 right. This is the gamble of the knight vs drake.

I'd like to not immediately dismiss your argument as completely unsupported by the rules, so could you find a rule that supports your argument? Particularly the underlined.

Spaz431 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
RAW: Vector Strike hits "side armour", the shield cannot be placed on "side armour", the Knight doesn't get the save
RAI: Hitting side armour represent the FMC/Heldrake striking the top of the vehicle, the shield cannot be placed on top, the Knight doesn't get the save

Incorrect. As an owner of both models, ie, chaos knights, I'll do my best to chime in my 2 cents.
At the beginning of each opponent shooting phase, when the heldrake vectors, the owning player of the knight chooses a direction for his shield to protect.
Now because the heldrakes vector hits a random side the drakes owner rolls off to see which side is attacked. 1-3 left 4-6 right. This is the gamble of the knight vs drake.

Heldrakes Vector Strike in the movement phase, not shooting phase.
Please cite rules support for your statement - as far as I can tell you've made up that randomization.

Spaz431 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
RAW: Vector Strike hits "side armour", the shield cannot be placed on "side armour", the Knight doesn't get the save
RAI: Hitting side armour represent the FMC/Heldrake striking the top of the vehicle, the shield cannot be placed on top, the Knight doesn't get the save

Incorrect. As an owner of both models, ie, chaos knights, I'll do my best to chime in my 2 cents.
At the beginning of each opponent shooting phase, when the heldrake vectors, the owning player of the knight chooses a direction for his shield to protect.
Now because the heldrakes vector hits a random side the drakes owner rolls off to see which side is attacked. 1-3 left 4-6 right. This is the gamble of the knight vs drake.

Thats a logical HIWPI, but lacks rule support.

Also HIWPI, and i'm not going to repeat my RaW position, but I agree

*don't hit me* *don't hit me* lol

Next you are going to claim that Mawloc's Terror From the Deep can also be blocked by the shield.