doc Posted February 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 I understand perfectly how rules with area effects work.... No, I was trying to give you an analogy since you weren't understanding the way that some effects work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 once more... "hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield" targets outside the shield don't get the benefit, as they are not WITHIN the shield. You're confusing models and units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc Posted February 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 The 40k rule book actually makes a definitive difference between with in and completely with in this edition. With no errata to strong hold assault we are left with one model in range equals unit in range and protected. hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield again, bolded for emphasis.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 I understand perfectly how rules with area effects work....That may be true but your aren't applying the understanding to this debate. You are letting your emotional response to the tactic cloud your understanding of the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 once more... "hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield" targets outside the shield don't get the benefit, as they are not WITHIN the shield. I don't see a problem here. A unit of Orks that has one model within 12" of the void shield and 29 others away from it becomes the TARGET of a shooting attack. The unit is within the Void Shield Zone so therefore it gets the benefit. As vonvilkee points out, the BRB makes a distinction between within and wholly within now. Divorced of the fluff, I don't see how this doesn't adhere to the rules as they stand and it really isn't any kind of legal gymnastics either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Essentially, one does not target individual models when shooting. One targets UNITS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc Posted February 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 You're confusing models and units. I'm not talking models or units - the rule does not state that... it talks about TARGETS. Again, you are using rules incorrectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVilkee Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Also cover is model by model, I think the big problem here is a 6th ed book without errata, and applying as much raw as possible. Also as a To i get this interpretation. As the void shield is likely to be key to the army list creation and a person reads it as is and makes this big plan, errata it to not protect that way and you seriously damage every game for that person. If you rule the way itc does it only matters to target priority of they are hiding that much use some tank busting first. Guns are resolved one at a time so tank busy the shield then use anti infantry weapons works. I see the ITC ruling as more playable those that read it are ready while those that aren't that serious and miss the minutia aren't as caught out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc Posted February 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 its about where it HITS, the TARGET it HITS. If this is within the Void "zone" you get to use the shield, if not, you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 But the unit that was the target is in the void zone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Targets isn't a valid target. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 To be clear, for the points that the thing costs, and GW's rulings and rules changes on the KFF and Power Generator from the Dark Angels, I see that, logically, the void shield should only effect MODELS within 12", but that's not what it states. I think it's a perfectly reasonable errata to change it to act that way, but I really don't think the RAW as construed is really ambiguous (but, of course, you don't think so either, and have a different ruling, so it MUST be ambiguous!). Also, if we want to talk about reasonable and points, we should change the wave serpent shield to only fire once a game. That's an errata I'd sign off on in a heartbeat. Then again, cheese is in the eye of the beholder. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 I agree completely with Flugers post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottshoemaker Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 I agree with Pretre's agreement with fluger. The Target is a unit, not a model. The void shield wording is a bit janky, but that's the rules as written. Back to the original point the ITC FAQ made a ruling regarding this manner for ITC. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 I think the reason it was brought up is that BAO and now OrdoO use ITC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Also cover is model by model, I think the big problem here is a 6th ed book without errata, and applying as much raw as possible. It didn't make any more sense in 6th. The current void shield generator rules are some of the most poorly written rules with some of the largest potential to create rules conflicts. Working on Promethium Relay Pipes myself, despite still no GW based indication on how small/large they are to be represented as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts