Projected void shields cannot be auto glanced by Gauss?

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.

**Kriswall**

Frozocrone wrote:
What about the FAQ that says Blast and Template Weapons roll to penetrate? Should that be taken into consideration?

I've always played it as 'Roll against Armour Penetration' that just seems to be the correct way to play..

It's clearly the correct way to play.

This thread is really just a couple of people who really want Guass to work against PVS's despite them not being vehicles. They are using the fact that the rules for making armour pen rolls are in the vehicle section to say we either have to consider the PVS to be a vehicle for ALL purposes or for NO purposes. If we consider the PVS a vehicle for NO purposes, the rules break since we aren't told how to do an armour pen roll. If we consider it a vehicle for ALL purposes, the rules also break. How many hull points does it have? When it collapses, does it become difficult/dangerous terrain? Can I assault the PVS? Can I tank shock it? If it's a vehicle, how do I move through it? Etc, etc.

The most reasonable solution is to consider it a vehicle for SOME purposes... namely the purpose of explaining how to make an armour pen roll when a hit resolves against it. That's the only reason we ever need to consider it a vehicle. Guass would no more work against it than the Necron power that allows you to take control of vehicles.

**Fragile**

rigeld2 wrote:
Fragile wrote:
As the shield is specifically not a vehicle or a building, it cannot EVER be destroyed as we have no rules for firing at something not clarified in the rules.

You don't fire at the shield, so this argument is void.

But since is has AV, perhaps we should use the vehicle rules....

Using the vehicle rules for determining armor pen does not make the shield a vehicle.

So prove how to penetrate the AV of the Shield without using Vehicle rules.. We are all waiting.

**BlackTalos**

Kriswall wrote:
Frozocrone wrote:
What about the FAQ that says Blast and Template Weapons roll to penetrate? Should that be taken into consideration?

I've always played it as 'Roll against Armour Penetration' that just seems to be the correct way to play..

It's clearly the correct way to play.

This thread is really just a couple of people who really want Guass to work against PVS's despite them not being vehicles. They are using the fact that the rules for making armour pen rolls are in the vehicle section to say we either have to consider the PVS to be a vehicle for ALL purposes or for NO purposes. If we consider the PVS a vehicle for NO purposes, the rules break since we aren't told how to do an armour pen roll. If we consider it a vehicle for ALL purposes, the rules also break. How many hull points does it have? When it collapses, does it become difficult/dangerous terrain? Can I assault the PVS? Can I tank shock it? If it's a vehicle, how do I move through it? Etc, etc.

The most reasonable solution is to consider it a vehicle for SOME purposes... namely the purpose of explaining how to make an armour pen roll when a hit resolves against it. That's the only reason we ever need to consider it a vehicle. Guass would no more work against it than the Necron power that allows you to take control of vehicles.

I disagree, the Void shield is never considered anything. It uses the rules for Penetrating/Glancing Hits, but it is a self-contained rule.
You start with a Hit(s) (on the target Unit).
You follow the Void Shield USR.
You end up with a result: Collapsed / Not collapsed.

Start again with the next shot, or continue shooting normally if there are no shields left.

**Fragile**

Kriswall wrote:
Frozocrone wrote:
What about the FAQ that says Blast and Template Weapons roll to penetrate? Should that be taken into consideration?

I've always played it as 'Roll against Armour Penetration' that just seems to be the correct way to play..

It's clearly the correct way to play.

This thread is really just a couple of people who really want Guass to work against PVS's despite them not being vehicles.

Its clearly a couple people who want to cherry pick the rules to avoid Gauss.

The most reasonable solution is to consider it a vehicle for SOME purposes... namely the purpose of explaining how to make an armour pen roll when a hit resolves against it. That's the only reason we ever need to consider it a vehicle. .

Blatant cherry picking.

**rigeld2**

Fragile wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Fragile wrote:
As the shield is specifically not a vehicle or a building, it cannot EVER be destroyed as we have no rules for firing at something not clarified in the rules.

You don't fire at the shield, so this argument is void.

But since is has AV, perhaps we should use the vehicle rules....

Using the vehicle rules for determining armor pen does not make the shield a vehicle.

So prove how to penetrate the AV of the Shield without using Vehicle rules.. We are all waiting.

I use the vehicle rules to determine armor penetration.

That does not mean the shield is a vehicle.

**Frozocrone**

Fair enough - I'll probably play it as Gauss CAN Glance a Void Shield or whatever a Tournament organizes but shall gracefully bow out as I don't really have enough knowledge to decide

link for FAQ if anyone wants it

**Fragile**

rigeld2 wrote:
Fragile wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Fragile wrote:
As the shield is specifically not a vehicle or a building, it cannot EVER be destroyed as we have no rules for firing at something not clarified in the rules.

You don't fire at the shield, so this argument is void.

But since is has AV, perhaps we should use the vehicle rules....

Using the vehicle rules for determining armor pen does not make the shield a vehicle.

So prove how to penetrate the AV of the Shield without using Vehicle rules.. We are all waiting.

I use the vehicle rules to determine armor penetration.

That does not mean the shield is a vehicle.

Why do you use the Vehicle rules. Prove RAW how you do so.

If the total is less than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot has no effect.
• If the total is equal to the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.
• If the total is greater than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating
hit.

Note the key word Vehicle in every line. VS are not vehicles. Where are you getting permission to use the vehicle rules for something clearly not a vehicle to resolve the shots.

**BlackTalos**

From an old discussion, spent some time writing this so might as well be used:
Shooting Sequence (from 6th, but just add "choose weapon"):

BlackTalos wrote:

Phase 1 wrote:Nominate Unit to shoot
(No need to clear)

Phase 2 wrote:Choose a target.
(Fully within the void shield, here)

Phase 3 wrote:Roll to hit.
Roll a D6 for each shot fired

Phase: VSG Special Rule wrote:First, you will notice how this is a step, a Special Rule step, where things happen according to the Special Rule. Not a "To Hit" stage where Blast Weapons rules count many models. In this step we have a hit portion, a "Roll to pen" portion and an allocation of Hits portion.
The Rule, from SHA:

Spoiler:

A Void Shield Generator has a single projected void shield. It can be upgraded to include additional layers of void shielding.

Each projected void shield has a 12" area of effect (measured from any point on the Void Shield Generator building), known as a Void Shield Zone. Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield. If a unit is within 12" of more than one Void Shield Generator, and so within more than one Void Shield Zone when it is hit, randomly determine which of the buildings’ projected void shields is hit.

Each projected void shield has an Armour Value of 12. A glancing or penetrating hit (or any hit from a Destroyer weapon) scored against a projected void shield causes it to collapse. If all the projected void shields have collapsed, further hits strike the original target instead. At the end of each of the controlling player’s turns, roll a dice for each projected void shield that has collapsed; each roll of 5+ instantly restores one shield.

Now, the shots that scored Hits in Phase 3 (" Any shooting attack (...) and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone") INSTEAD Hits the Void Shield.

Now, certain Special Rules trigger when a shot Hits a target, such as Rending and Tesla on 6. Right above, I have shown that the attack hits the shields: Those Rules trigger.
So, the rules that trigger on Hit, such as Tesla, now triggers, and: Tesla adds 2 more hits.

Then, those hits given to you above, move to the next part: "A glancing or penetrating hit (or any hit from a Destroyer weapon) scored against a projected void shield causes it to collapse"
So you resolve the Armour Penetration until all of your shields are down.
Then:
" If all the projected void shields have collapsed, further hits strike the original target instead."
This part discards you extra Tesla Hits, for example, as they are not a "further hit" but originate from 1 hit on the shield. Just as you discard wounds from shots that are out of range when half a unit dies.
Those hits are then INSTEAD hitting the original target, so at this point of the phase, we are left with a number of hits on the target.

Phase 4 wrote:Roll to Wound.
You will have noticed, this is the Wounding Phase. Anything to do with the VSG Rule is now non-existant.
I quote the BRB:"For each shot that Hit, roll again(...)" These shots that hit are what is left of the attack that made through. A Heavy 1, Blast, that interacted with the shield is long gone and forgotten by this stage. As are any other shots that hit the VS, like 3 out of the Assault 5 that all hit, or a Heavy 1, Beam, etc

**rigeld2**

Fragile wrote:
Why do you use the Vehicle rules. Prove RAW how you do so.

If the total is less than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot has no effect.
• If the total is equal to the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.
• If the total is greater than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating
hit.

Note the key word Vehicle in every line. VS are not vehicles. Where are you getting permission to use the vehicle rules for something clearly not a vehicle to resolve the shots.

The fact that it has an Armor Value and there's a hit to resolve. It seems like you're insisting it is either 100% nonfunctional or you treat the PVS 100% like a vehicle and there's no in between.

That's a false dichotomy.

**grendel083**

rigeld2 wrote:
Fragile wrote:
Why do you use the Vehicle rules. Prove RAW how you do so.

If the total is less than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot has no effect.
• If the total is equal to the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.
• If the total is greater than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating
hit.

Note the key word Vehicle in every line. VS are not vehicles. Where are you getting permission to use the vehicle rules for something clearly not a vehicle to resolve the shots.

The fact that it has an Armor Value and there's a hit to resolve. It seems like you're insisting it is either 100% nonfunctional or you treat the PVS 100% like a vehicle and there's no in between.

That's a false dichotomy.

That's the problem, agreeing on the "in between", as the RaW doesn't work.
It now becomes a HIWPI debate, and you'll never get everone to agree to the same answer.

**Hollismason**

Gonna have to explain to me how I can nominate a unit behind a void shiel generator and shoot it with gauss but not get to roll armour penetration with the weapons because the Void Shield Generator shields are not vehicles and not buildings and are in fact in a mythical land of purgatory.

**Fragile**

rigeld2 wrote:
Fragile wrote:
Why do you use the Vehicle rules. Prove RAW how you do so.

If the total is less than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot has no effect.
• If the total is equal to the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.
• If the total is greater than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating
hit.

Note the key word Vehicle in every line. VS are not vehicles. Where are you getting permission to use the vehicle rules for something clearly not a vehicle to resolve the shots.

The fact that it has an Armor Value and there's a hit to resolve. It seems like you're insisting it is either 100% nonfunctional or you treat the PVS 100% like a vehicle and there's no in between.

That's a false dichotomy.

I have pointed out its broken. The easy fix is that you treat anything with AV as a vehicle and follow those rules. Others are claiming you pick the rules you want to resolve. You have yet to show how to resolve it in any way other than treating it as a vehicle.

**rigeld2**

Fragile wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Fragile wrote:
Why do you use the Vehicle rules. Prove RAW how you do so.

If the total is less than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot has no effect.
• If the total is equal to the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.
• If the total is greater than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating
hit.

Note the key word Vehicle in every line. VS are not vehicles. Where are you getting permission to use the vehicle rules for something clearly not a vehicle to resolve the shots.

The fact that it has an Armor Value and there's a hit to resolve. It seems like you're insisting it is either 100% nonfunctional or you treat the PVS 100% like a vehicle and there's no in between.

That's a false dichotomy.

I have pointed out its broken. The easy fix is that you treat anything with AV as a vehicle and follow those rules. Others are claiming you pick the rules you want to resolve. You have yet to show how to resolve it in any way other than treating it as a vehicle.

No, the easy fix is to make an armor penetration roll against AV 12 (the PVS's AV). That has literally nothing to do with treating it as a vehicle.

The easiest fix is to take your quote above and replace "vehicle" with "Projected Void Shield". That requires those changes and nothing more. Doing more than that changes things like Tank Hunters, Guass, and other rules that interact with vehicles and/or buildings.

Why not treat it as a building? That's more likely based on the fact that it's coming from a building, not a vehicle. But you've asserted it can only be vehicle.

**Kaela_Mensha_Khaine**

rigeld2 wrote:
Fragile wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Fragile wrote:
Why do you use the Vehicle rules. Prove RAW how you do so.

If the total is less than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot has no effect.
• If the total is equal to the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.
• If the total is greater than the vehicle’s Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating
hit.

Note the key word Vehicle in every line. VS are not vehicles. Where are you getting permission to use the vehicle rules for something clearly not a vehicle to resolve the shots.

The fact that it has an Armor Value and there's a hit to resolve. It seems like you're insisting it is either 100% nonfunctional or you treat the PVS 100% like a vehicle and there's no in between.

That's a false dichotomy.

I have pointed out its broken. The easy fix is that you treat anything with AV as a vehicle and follow those rules. Others are claiming you pick the rules you want to resolve. You have yet to show how to resolve it in any way other than treating it as a vehicle.

No, the easy fix is to make an armor penetration roll against AV 12 (the PVS's AV). That has literally nothing to do with treating it as a vehicle.

The easiest fix is to take your quote above and replace "vehicle" with "Projected Void Shield". That requires those changes and nothing more. Doing more than that changes things like Tank Hunters, Guass, and other rules that interact with vehicles and/or buildings.

Why not treat it as a building? That's more likely based on the fact that it's coming from a building, not a vehicle. But you've asserted it can only be vehicle.

OK lets treat it as a building, then as the building rules dictate we treat it like a vehicle.

**rigeld2**

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:
OK lets treat it as a building, then as the building rules dictate we treat it like a vehicle.

Why are you treating it like anything?
It's far simpler rules-wise to just replace "vehicle" with "PVS" like I said.

And are you saying that Tank Hunter works on buildings?

**Kaela_Mensha_Khaine**

rigeld2 wrote:
Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:
OK lets treat it as a building, then as the building rules dictate we treat it like a vehicle.

Why are you treating it like anything?
It's far simpler rules-wise to just replace "vehicle" with "PVS" like I said.

And are you saying that Tank Hunter works on buildings?

Don't have my rule book atm, but as buildings are treated like vehicles when being shot at I would hazard a guess and say yes Tank hunter works on buildings.

And for being simpler rules-wise for "PVS" instead of "Vehicle" it's not because as others have pointed out there are no rules for what to do when shooting at a non-vehicle that have an AV value. Or do you want to replace everywhere in the BRB that says "Vehicle" and replace it with "PVS"? or just specific locations in the BRB? If the first then they pretty much become interchangeable and I don't see why I can't replace vehicle in the gauss special rule with pvs and if the second then you are cherry picking rules for your benefit.

**SirDonlad**

kriswall is right (as per usual) and he is probably the finest rules-lawyer on the forum.
if you cant handle what he has to say then you should really put it in an e-mail to GW rather than railing about it to him.

sorry, but there it is.

**rigeld2**

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:
OK lets treat it as a building, then as the building rules dictate we treat it like a vehicle.

Why are you treating it like anything?
It's far simpler rules-wise to just replace "vehicle" with "PVS" like I said.

And are you saying that Tank Hunter works on buildings?

Don't have my rule book atm, but as buildings are treated like vehicles when being shot at I would hazard a guess and say yes Tank hunter works on buildings.

And for being simpler rules-wise for "PVS" instead of "Vehicle" it's not because as others have pointed out there are no rules for what to do when shooting at a non-vehicle that have an AV value.

Sure there are. You have a hit vs AV you must resolve. How do you resolve hits against AV?

I don't see why I can't replace vehicle in the gauss special rule [ith pvs

Because nothing in the guass special rule implies it works against a PVS.

and if the second then you are cherry picking rules for your benefit.

Incorrect. I'm doing the literal bare minimum for the rule to function. Treating the PVS as a vehicle is doing significantly more than the bare minimum.

**AnFéasógMór**

Clearly I'm missing something in this thread. How is the, admittedly correct, assertion that shots against a void shield are resolved using the vehicle rules for armor penetration in any way relevant to whether or not Gauss can glance void shields? The rules for Gauss weapons specifically discuss roll AP against buildings and vehicles. That's it, not any model that uses vehicle rules for AP, not any model that is "treated as a vehicle" (which would make buildings redundant in this rule). Buildings and vehicles, that's what it says.

**rigeld2**

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Clearly I'm missing something in this thread. How is the, admittedly correct, assertion that shots against a void shield are resolved using the vehicle rules for armor penetration in any way relevant to whether or not Gauss can glance void shields? The rules for Gauss weapons specifically discuss roll AP against buildings and vehicles. That's it, not any model that uses vehicle rules for AP, not any model that is "treated as a vehicle" (which would make buildings redundant in this rule). Buildings and vehicles, that's what it says.

Anything that's "treated as" something else, is that something for pretty much all purposes (in whatever manner they're treated as - buildings are vehicles as far as shooting them is concerned).

The "and buildings" portion of the rule is redundant, but it clarifies it for people who don't make that connection.

**copper.talos**

According to the logic that PVS should not be treated as vehicles, this is a quick list I assembled with all the things the PVS would be completely immune to:

haywire
lance
melta
ordnance
rending
tank hunters

And PVS cannot use cover saves

and those are just from the BRB. Does anyone think that PVS should provide an immunity against all these special rules?

edit: HoW and destroyer weapons out. Ordnance in. Armourbane out, strafing run out, cover saves not allowed

**rigeld2**

copper.talos wrote:
According to the logic that PVS should not be treated as vehicles, this is a quick list I assembled with all the things the PVS would be completely immune to:

armourbane
destroyer weapons
hammer of wrath
haywire
lance
melta
rending
strafing run
tank hunters

and those are just from the BRB. Does anyone think that PVS should provide an immunity against all these special rules?

PVS explicitly calls out D weapons.
HoW still deals a hit that must be resolved.
otherwise, sure - why not?

**copper.talos**

Sure, HoW and D weapons are out. Ordnance is in.

**Kriswall**

copper.talos wrote:
According to the logic that PVS should not be treated as vehicles, this is a quick list I assembled with all the things the PVS would be completely immune to:

armourbane
destroyer weapons
hammer of wrath
haywire
lance
melta
rending
strafing run
tank hunters

and those are just from the BRB. Does anyone think that PVS should provide an immunity against all these special rules?

If these things are worded such that they work against vehicles only, then no, I would not expect them to work against a non-vehicle. I don't currently have the time to go through each and validate the wording.

**AnFéasógMór**

copper.talos wrote:
According to the logic that PVS should not be treated as vehicles, this is a quick list I assembled with all the things the PVS would be completely immune to:

armourbane
haywire
lance
melta
ordnance
rending
strafing run
tank hunters

and those are just from the BRB. Does anyone think that PVS should provide an immunity against all these special rules?

edit: HoW and destroyer weapons out. Ordnance in.

Yes

**Happyjew**

When resolving a hit against a PVS, you roll for armour penetration, correct?

If so, then Armourbane still works.

Lance wouldn't matter as PVS is already AV12.

Strafing Run deals with rolling to hit, which is before you hit a PVS.

**copper.talos**

All these rules work only on vehicles. PVS not using vehicle rules gives immunity to all of the above.

**Happyjew**

copper.talos wrote:
All these rules work only on vehicles. PVS not using vehicle rules gives immunity to all of the above.

Armourbane does not only work on vehicles.

Armourbane deals with armour penetration rolls, however, it has no effect on non-vehicle models. Do you make armour penetration rolls against PVS? Yes. Is it a non-vehicle model? No. Therefore Armourbane works.

Strafing Run gives the model +1 BS when firing at certain targets. Do you target a PVS? No. You targeted a unit and the hit(s) transfer to the PVS. As such, Strafing Run doesn't apply.

**copper.talos**

OK about Strafing Run. Armourbane mentions "In either case, this special rule has no effect against non-vehicle models." So PVS not being a vehicle does prohibit rerolling the penetrration roll against its AV.

**Happyjew**

copper.talos wrote:
OK about Strafing Run. Armourbane mentions "In either case, this special rule has no effect against non-vehicle models." So PVS not being a vehicle does prohibit rerolling the penetrration roll against its AV.

Is the PVS a model? No, therefore it cannot be a non-vehicle model.