Voidshield networks/generators

[Threejacks]

Ive been following this discussion over at Dakka Dakka about how these things work against blast weapons for the past few days and was wondering how Ordo is going to be calling these rules conflicts for club stuff.

 

There seems to be two camps on the topic one being those that think a blast template that hits a unit under the VS counts up hits on the number of models under the template then applies them one at a time to the shield to see if the shield gets knocked out.The other camp is of the thought that if a blast plate hits a unit under the shield then the whole plate counts as one hit against the shield regardless of how many models are under the plate.

 

Now im more with the latter camp mainly because with the former ruling voidshields are practically worthless if you place a large blob of infantry under one and a voidshield is one big shield not an individual shield above each unit under it..or is it?

 

 

Maybe some of you rules gurus can lend a more clear interpretation to this?

[WestRider]

The former is how it reads to me. I think the problem is that the Rules for them were just copypastaed from the Rules for Titan Void Shields, where Blasts can never generate more than one Hit per Blast. No idea which the actual intent was.

[Guest]

Now im more with the latter camp mainly because with the former ruling voidshields are practically worthless if you place a large blob of infantry under one and a voidshield is one big shield not an individual shield above each unit under it..or is it?

I think intent is to resolve it as one big vehicle that stands in the way of the shots, resolving any shot into the area of effect as if they had hit a single vehicle with AV12. It is vague.

 

Here's how I suggest running it:

 

Present two choices to the opponent and let them pick:

 

1: As above, AV12 "structure" must be destroyed prior to being able to hit individual models or units in the AoE. Cover saves are not permited for the AV12 force field, as it's a giant bubble of energy.

 

2: Give the void shields cover saves as if the targeted model was taking the damage (So, use TLOS, if 25% concealed, grant cover save against the strike to AV12). Cover can be denied as normal. AoE invulnerable saves should be allowed too (Like the shyshield, Portable Force Field Generator and so forth).

 

I think #1 is intended, but if they argue that shots into the shield hit lots of infantry with blasts, then it seems that the force field is more of a plastic coating for models, rather than a force field that goes overhead. If this is the case, then the force shield should still get coversaves, as it would be obscured by normal terrain. It is effectively a vehicle, though, so even area terrain requires 25% concealment.

 

I will note that with either version, it does still ignore small arms fire from most armies.

-Pax

[InfestedKerrigan]

[AbusePuppy]

Although a strict RAW of the Fields leans towards the "generates multiple hits" interpretation, that seems rather counterintuitive to me. Generating a single hit seems to cleave more closely to how it "should" work. Similarly, since the hit is resolve on the Void Shield- NOT on the unit in question- the Shield should not benefit from any saves or special rules that the unit possesses, and as a fictional entity the Shield can't get 25% coverage to claim a cover save in any case.

[JamesBeadle]

Here is an example of a rules interaction that seems implied to me. The idea that the shield takes x number of hits is ridiculous. Some folks are absurd legalists who spit at the spirit of the game by trying to split hairs.

[InfestedKerrigan]

Well, hair does have the Swarm USR and is vulnerable to Flamers.

[Gorgosaurusrex]

 

I will now be using Stegadons with Shield Generators as my Void Shield Generators. They look like AV13, right?

 

As for the rules argument, I think it's absurd to assign multiple hits to the shield from a single blast.

[Guest]

I will now be using Stegadons with Shield Generators as my Void Shield Generators. They look like AV13, right?

Do it! Will be awesome.

-Pax

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

I see you point infested but not all large blasts are generated by shot spiting up into multiple shells. For example your battle cannon russ shell is high explosive and upon impact has an expanding aoe.

 

I can see it going both ways, but fall in the camp of a single hit. It seems counteritutive that more models under the shield weakens the shield.

 

I always like the idea that the core rules change to:

small blast hitting a mc or vehicle produce d3 hits at blasts full str and ap.

Large blast hitting a mc or vehicle produce d6 hits at blasts full str and ap.

 

Or small blast unchanged, large d3, and large ordance d6. Or random hits from artillery when hitting large targets such as vehicles and mcs.

 

To op I believe it should be just one hit.

 

What if it has multple layers, a hit to each one???

[fluger]

Here is an example of a rules interaction that seems implied to me. The idea that the shield takes x number of hits is ridiculous. Some folks are absurd legalists who spit at the spirit of the game by trying to split hairs.

 

I think it should take x number of hits.  Not because I'm beholden to rules lawyering, but because I think that makes the most sense. 

 

My fluff justification, and one that I think is solid, is that the blast area stresses a shield out more than a single point because it is over a wider area.  Therefore a blast of enough strength to say, blow up 3 tanks in one shot (demolisher cannon) should probably have enough force to cause a shield to collapse 3 or more times.  

 

My rules justification is that I think that that is how it is worded.

 

My logical justification is that a shield generator is only, what, 50 pts?  What do you want for 50 points?  

[generalripphook]

I would say one hit, as the shield would interact with the blast before the models are hit.

[fluger]

 

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.

That's the rule as written in SA.  

 

I think the single hit can be interpreted from that, I also think that the multi-hit can be interpreted from that.  

[JamesBeadle]

I could be wrong Fluger, but about the only way I see the latter interpretation is in a self serving manner when someone is playing against a void shield using player and is trying to nerf him using the rules. I had enough of that back in the day when I played Star Fleet Battles. If I had someone use that approach with me and insist on it I'd let him, and then probably avoid playing him evermore after that.

 

In any game you have the rules, and you have the spirit of the rules, that is true in any legal dealing. (Not that I think I am really telling you something new here, just explaining why I feel that way.) The rules are to facillitate play for both players with a cooperative attitude. I don't even think this deserves a D6 roll to determine the correct interpretation.

[Threejacks]

"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"

 

..Throwin that up there again for my interpretation.

 

It states "shooting attack" now I know the BRB doesn't have a specific definition of shooting attack but isint it safe to assume that it means when a unit fires a salvo,missle,weapon round etc..that is a shooting attack?.So weapons that are "Assualt 3" actually fire 3 shooting attacks when they shoot right?.

 

So why does a blast marker even get to the multiple hits part of its resolution when,as a "Shooting attack" it was redirected to the void shield instead?

[fluger]

In any game you have the rules, and you have the spirit of the rules, that is true in any legal dealing. 

IMO, the spirit of this rule is to get more than one hit with this.  As RCNjack is saying (though I don't think this is his argument) weapons with multiple shots get to try multiple times, I don't see the disconnect here between that and the blast markers.  

[WestRider]

"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"

 

..Throwin that up there again for my interpretation.

 

It states "shooting attack" now I know the BRB doesn't have a specific definition of shooting attack but isint it safe to assume that it means when a unit fires a salvo,missle,weapon round etc..that is a shooting attack?.So weapons that are "Assualt 3" actually fire 3 shooting attacks when they shoot right?.

 

So why does a blast marker even get to the multiple hits part of its resolution when,as a "Shooting attack" it was redirected to the void shield instead?

There's actually some language in the Wound Allocation section on Pg. 15 (the bits about emptying the Wound Pool) that makes a pretty strong argument that "shooting attack" actually refers to an entire Unit's shooting.

 

Furthermore, to know whether or not a Blast actually "hits a target within the Void Shield Zone", you have to place it and scatter it, which often generates multiple hits. In any other situation, you would apply every Hit generated to the Void Shield until it collapses, and no exception is made for Blasts or Templates.

 

Just to be clear, I would be fine playing with either interpretation. I'm just laying out what I see the rules that are actually written in the book are saying.

[JamesBeadle]

IMO, the spirit of this rule is to get more than one hit with this.  As RCNjack is saying (though I don't think this is his argument) weapons with multiple shots get to try multiple times, I don't see the disconnect here between that and the blast markers

 

I don't see it. Its one shell that is exploding Fluger, and the only reason it does multiple hits is because of that explosion. The void shield prevents it from reaching those targets. An assault cannon, sure it fires three separate rounds. A missile is a missle though. It seems kinda plain to me. /shrug

[fluger]

I don't see it. Its one shell that is exploding Fluger, and the only reason it does multiple hits is because of that explosion. The void shield prevents it from reaching those targets. An assault cannon, sure it fires three separate rounds. A missile is a missle though. It seems kinda plain to me. /shrug

Why wouldn't it explode on contact, then the force knocks it offline and the residual blast hits the people in cover?  

 

Also, I think WestRider hit the nail on the head in terms of how shooting attacks are resolved.  Technically, all the shots from one unit to another unit would be part of one shooting attack, therefore it would be all or nothing.  Meaning, that an autocannon that fires and hits the target unit twice would only get to resolve those shots against the shield in your version, not getting a chance to break through on the first and then resolving the wound on the unit with the second.  

[JamesBeadle]

Why wouldn't it explode on contact, then the force knocks it offline and the residual blast hits the people in cover?  

 

Also, I think WestRider hit the nail on the head in terms of how shooting attacks are resolved.  Technically, all the shots from one unit to another unit would be part of one shooting attack, therefore it would be all or nothing.  Meaning, that an autocannon that fires and hits the target unit twice would only get to resolve those shots against the shield in your version, not getting a chance to break through on the first and then resolving the wound on the unit with the second.  

 

I guess that works if the void shields are tissue paper, like a big soap bubble. The blast is one event, not 3-7, the shield blocks that event. The argument I am hearing is one of rules interactions, essentially you are saying that a blast template is X number of indivdual shots fired by Y unit. I can see the argument from the assault cannon perspective as the damage it is doing is by volume not like indvidual HE or AP shells, but that is thousands of little events that plays out in three shots, either way the game mechnic can't quite capture it. I think the bottom line is that from a competative play aspect I can see your argument. However from a spirit of the game standpoint I still think I have it right. I see it as an abuse, but it doesn't follow that it is by nessesity being abused just because that is my viewpoint. /shrug

[fluger]

However from a spirit of the game standpoint I still think I have it right. I see it as an abuse, but it doesn't follow that it is by nessesity being abused just because that is my viewpoint. /shrug

 

That's why RAI arguments are futile, because *I* think that by the spirit of the game *I* have it right.  There is no winner here.  I think the wording is incredibly vague for this instance, and therefore it would come down to personal feelings.  

 

Also, back to fluff rationales, there are plenty of blast weapons in modern arsenals (heck, even in older ones) in which things explode at a distance to target and not on impact.  

[JamesBeadle]

That's why RAI arguments are futile, because *I* think that by the spirit of the game *I* have it right.  There is no winner here.  I think the wording is incredibly vague for this instance, and therefore it would come down to personal feelings.  

 

Also, back to fluff rationales, there are plenty of blast weapons in modern arsenals (heck, even in older ones) in which things explode at a distance to target and not on impact.  

 

Yep, both these points are true. Thinking about it from your perspective a little more, I can see where you are coming from. I jumped the gun on my initial assessment, falling into the self made trap of assuming evil in the other guy. Bad thing to do. I appreciate the new viewpoint.

[fluger]

THE INTERNET IS SAVED!

[JamesBeadle]

THE INTERNET IS SAVED!

 

Not yet, but I'm sure it will exist in the new heaven and earth. ;)