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.

That is correct and can happen within the same shooting attack from a single unit.

Is there any basis to compare this to shooting a the different facing of a vehicle? I believe in that case, models firing in the side armour are resolved separately from those firing in the front armour (if the side and front are different)

So would the 1 model inside the VSG fire at the intended target and the models from outside would be resolved at the shield?

Otherwise I would say the "whole" unit is considered inside the shield if 1 model is. I say this only because a hypothetical third unit (outside the VSG) would consider Unit 2 (our original firing unit) to be inside the VSG for purposes of being targeted.

------
Interesting scenario: A unit has 1 model within the VS, the rest are outside 12". That 1 model has a Plasma gun and for some odd reason you want the plasma gun to fire first. Gets Hot! kills that 1 model. Now the rest of the unit is outside the VS for resolving their shots. Is that right? Sounds right to me.

Fragile wrote:
That is correct and can happen within the same shooting attack from a single unit.

Not quite. Shooting Attack origin is the use of the term, not if the shooting unit is within range.

Case in point, if only one model in a shooting unit is within in Rapid Fire range of the rest of the weapons of the unit, do all the models fire 2 shots or one?

Yet, so long as the front model stays within full range of any models of the target unit, the Wounds those guns can still be applied, even if he did not shoot.

Units and models can be separate things for all sorts of ranges... like most weapons shooting(1 model in range of your 6 tac marines with bolters means that the unit is within range of those 6 bolters, a 7th tac marine that is not within range cannot fire. After all 6 bolters fire only that 1 model in the target unit can be killed, the rest are out of range)

So we are back to: is the model or the unit making the shooting attack.

If it is the model; then only the models within the zone ignore the zone protection.

If it is the unit; then a single model within the zone means all shots ignore the protection, and half the special rules and wargear in the game do not work.

If a single blast hitS 6 models under a vold shield, is the shield hit once or six times ?

This is what I argue over all the time.

 Dakkafang Dreggrim wrote:
If a single blast hitS 6 models under a vold shield, is the shield hit once or six times ?

This is what I argue over all the time.

From Stronghold Assault FAQ, December 2015:

ERRATA
Page 31 – Projected Void Shields:
Add the following to the end of this rule:
‘If a weapon uses a template or blast marker and it hits
one or more units protected by a Void Shield Zone,
ignore the number of hits it would normally cause to the
unit(s) and instead roll to penetrate the void shield once
using the weapon’s normal rules and profile for each
template or blast marker that hits.’

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So we are back to: is the model or the unit making the shooting attack.

If it is the model; then only the models within the zone ignore the zone protection.

If it is the unit; then a single model within the zone means all shots ignore the protection.....

I agree that these are the only two options and believe the first option is (more) correct, RaW, due to the way that shooting attacks are executed. For ease of play, however, I am getting the sense that making the unit/zone interaction 'simple' leads to less confusion/annoyance overall. I'm fine playing it the second way.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Units and models can be separate things for all sorts of ranges... like most weapons shooting(1 model in range of your 6 tac marines with bolters means that the unit is within range of those 6 bolters, a 7th tac marine that is not within range cannot fire. After all 6 bolters fire only that 1 model in the target unit can be killed, the rest are out of range)

So we are back to: is the model or the unit making the shooting attack.

If it is the model; then only the models within the zone ignore the zone protection.

If it is the unit; then a single model within the zone means all shots ignore the protection, and half the special rules and wargear in the game do not work.

Note use of the plural, "shooting attacks".




Subsets of units make shooting attacks.

Each subset is a model/weapon combination.

So if a unit has a choice of 1 shooting weapon or elects to have the whole unit choose to fire just that shooting weapon then you have 1 shooting attack.

If a unit has 2 models equipped with flamers and 4 models equipped with bolters you have 2 shooting attacks. Split fire, etc. can also factor in and provide additional shooting attacks.

Not all of the models need to fire in a shooting attack but once the shooting attack of a model/weapon combination has been made by some number less than the total number of models in that model/weapon combination then you cannot return to that model/weapon combination for the models that did not participate. The shooting attack of that model/weapon combination has been expended.



So an astute player that has one model inside the VSG bubble can elect to make the shooting attack with just that model in order to avoid the shooting attack being "outside" the VSG.

However, the shooting attack of that particular model/weapon combination will have been expended completely (except for Split Fire, tc.) and you cannot return to shooting the rest of that model/weapon combination from the position outside the VSG. That's the cost choosing to make the shooting attack be comprised of just the model or models not outside the VSG.

Second and third spoiler tags never use the term "shooting attack" nor "shooting attacks".

I also find your distinction of plurality in this case funny since I believe you were one of the people arguing that the "canoptek spyder" in the harvest formation indicated model instead of unit while ignoring the grammatical number.

So after reading that you select a unit to make its shooting attacks; you start declaring each weapon selected is a subset of "the unit's shooting attacks"(before we get to making any of them, we have just selected the weapon we are firing from the unit). This still makes all of those special rules I mentioned earlier useless outside of maybe a unit of only that model making a shooting attack with that weapon.

Models make individual shooting attacks with individual weapons.

Units decide to make some shooting attacks.

An individual model is were the individual shooting attack originates. This is because a unit within 24" of a tac squad(1 model to 1 model) can only have that 1 bolter make a shooting attack against it. Or more to the point: a warlocks unit with a single singing spear, that is out of range, cannot benefit from fleshbane.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

I also find your distinction of plurality in this case funny since I believe you were one of the people arguing that the "canoptek spyder" in the harvest formation indicated model instead of unit while ignoring the grammatical number.

Formations specify units so Canoptek Harvest is [a unit of] 1 Canoptek Spyder. You can add additional Spyders because the permission to do so is on the ALE and the Formation lists no restrictions.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Second and third spoiler tags never use the term "shooting attack" nor "shooting attacks".

We infer from context, since there is no BRB definition. We need to sort out what 'shooting attack' can plausibly mean and discard implausible definitions.

Consider what I have proposed so far an attempt at a plausible definition of terms.

Can you clarify exactly what makes my proposed definition implausible?



How everything comes together is not altogether clear. The BRB seems to contradict itself.

Here a shooting attack is singular and refers to the collective of attacks made by the unit.






Here a unit can make shooting attacks [plural] in the basic rule sense.






Here shooting attack refers possibly to a model's individual shooting attack.



However, the term shooting attack here could instead refer to a collective shooting attack that the model is participating in.



And in fact the only sense of 'shooting attack' that seems to make sense of all of its uses is to consider it as always the collective meaning. A model makes a shooting attack as part of a collective shooting attack.


So I think the only plausible definitions are:

a unit makes a shooting attack per unit . . .



. . . or a unit makes possibly several shooting attacks per subset of models/weapons.