News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: void shields vs melta  (Read 1320 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline magenb

  • Aspect Warrior
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2162
  • Country: au
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
void shields vs melta
« on: April 4, 2015, 12:13:53 AM »
Given void shields have a radius, do you take the melta half range rule from the model with the shield or the distance to the shield? Alternatively can you target the shield directly?

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Re: void shields vs melta
« Reply #1 on: April 4, 2015, 12:46:08 AM »
This is a question that I don't believe has an explicit answer. So instead, I'll try to explain why I'd resolve it the way I do, and hope it passes the "It makes sense" test, while attempting to stay within the mechanics of the rules.


If I shot an Autocannon at an Ork unit within a Void Shield, I'd measure range to the target unit, roll to hit, and then replace my attempts to deal damage to the unit with attempting to apply damage to the Void Shield. So instead of rolling against an Ork's toughness, I'd roll against the VS's AV. Measurements are still made to the Ork unit, and I can't attack the VS directly. I must substitute what I'm trying to damage after ranges have been measured, and to-hit rolls have been made.

Soooo.... since the distances have already been measured to your target [Orks] I think you'd need to be within 6" of the Orks at the time you fired to be able to benefit from the Melta rule against the Void Shield. The radius of protection for the Void Shield isn't your target, the infantry are. So while it would make sense to me, to have the Melta rule kick in if you're within 6" of the radius of protection [That's where the shot would hit the barrier, after all.] the game rules do not seem to be written with that in mind. You instead substitute a damage roll against a Shield instead of the target, even though you had to "target" the unit, not the shield.

If I was the judge at a tournament, and I wouldn't be, that's how I'd rule it to abide by my interpretation of how the mechanics of the rules are resolved. A substituted effect, at the moment damage is to be assigned. Since that occurs after distance to target has been determined, you'd need to have been within 6" of the Orks to benefit from the Melta rule.

EDIT: Upon rereading the rules, I'm going to flip-flop. The substitution occurs when the "hit" is generated. Instead of hitting the targeted unit, the hit resolves against "the projected void shield". Said shield is said to have an area of effect a specified distance away from the building. The Melta rule checks distance after the hit is generated, but before the penetration roll is made. As soon as the hit is generated against the Orks, the hit is transferred to the Projected Void Shield. Melta rule then checks distance before the pen roll is made, and you'd check distance to the closest point, presumably, just like a vehicle. At that point, if you're within Melta range, you should get to roll the extra die.

EDIT, AGAIN: Nothing specifies that melta checks after the hit is generated. That's something I put in after re-reading to make the resolution against the shield make sense. Since the only time that distance to target is checked during the sequence to make a ranged attack occurs before rolls to hit...

[Check range to target unit. Roll to hit. Replace effect on target unit with... Roll to damage VS's AV. Take saves / FNP. Resolve damage.]

I'm going to stick with the initial response. You check range to your target, roll to hit, roll to damage against AV [using the initial checked range], take saves, resolve the damage. Hypothetically, if LOS would be partially blocked to the Void shield by other terrain / models then it should get a cover save. Or maybe the shield should get a cover save if the Orks would have gotten one, due to intervening models, for example. By the sweet Emperor, I should have come back to this in the morning. That's the plan... just hold off on harsh judgment until the morning when I've got a clearer mind to puzzle through this.
« Last Edit: April 4, 2015, 01:37:57 AM by Spectral Arbor »

Offline magenb

  • Aspect Warrior
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2162
  • Country: au
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: void shields vs melta
« Reply #2 on: April 4, 2015, 02:28:30 AM »
Hmm the melta rule seems to kick in at rolling to penetrate.

Reading the void shield generator rules you have to be less than 12" to avoid hitting it.

So I guess if you are exactly 12" away the melts rule would kick in?



Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Re: void shields vs melta
« Reply #3 on: April 4, 2015, 03:04:55 PM »
Hmmm, I think I may have misunderstood the question from the get-go.

There is the Void Shield Generator Building, VSG for short, the Projected Void Shield, PVS for short, protects units / buildings within radius, and there are units within the radius of protection, IE Orks.

If you target the VSG Building, while the firing unit is within the radius of protection, you wouldn't need to worry about the PVS, as you'd be inside it. If you're within 12", to benefit from the melta rule, then you're inside the radius, so no substitution occurs.

If you're firing a Knight's Melta Cannon, from 20" away from the VSG Building, then what should happen is...

Measure range to building [20"], place template, scatter. We'll assume a "hit". Determine that the range is outside of "half" for Melta Purposes. Replace effect on targeted unit with an attack resolved against the PVS, using single d6 for Pen, as the range was determined to be beyond half. Assuming a Glance or Pen, This is mostly conjecture determine whether or not the field would be at least 25% obscured by terrain, to see if it gets a cover save. For example, there may be ruins split by the radius of protection, which would block LOS to the newly "targeted" PVS. This is conjecture, as the PVS has no "Facing" to resolve against, be it front, rear, or side. Since the check for LOS being obscured occurs after penetration rolls are made, I feel it is reasonable to now consider the Field the target, for LOS / Cover save purposes. We've substituted what's being damaged already, so makes sense to continue using the PVS for the remainder of resolution? If the cover save passes, the shield remains in place. If the save fails, the shield is depleted per the rules for PVS.

If the Knight's Melta Cannon was within 16" when it fired, and you scored a "Hit", I'd say you'd get to benefit from the Melta rule against the PVS, as at the moment of range check for melta, you'd be within half range.

Blech... I'd be sure to run that by your opponents before a game. The sensible thing would be to use the melta rule if you're within half range of the PVS, regardless of distance to initial target, but I don't believe that follows the mechanics of the game. It would be an RAI ruling, albeit one that makes sense and would probably have popular support if a poll was taken. :D

Offline Grizzlykin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 846
  • Country: fr
  • Run little eldar, run! ... And KILL THEM ALL !
  • Armies: Eldars, Tau, Necrons
Re: void shields vs melta
« Reply #4 on: April 4, 2015, 06:08:11 PM »
Well i don't know much how the games work but i would concider this. The void shield as far as i understand is a shield generated from a building taking the hit in place of what is inside right? Then i would say the melta range to hit by the unit distance as your guy's may not know there is a void shield here so they fire at the squad/tank/whatever, but the melta rules range is checked regarding the shield distance from the shooter, i mean it's ashield so it will absorb the hit. What make that melta need half range to do more dammage? Let's be realistic  for a second, it's surely because from further away the projectile, what ever it might be, will loose in strenght. So if the shield that interceps the shot is within melta range i think it would make sense to apply the melta rules.

What wlukd happen if the unit firkng is half on in and half outthe shield would they all fire at the shield or the squad or deliver fire concidering where they stand?
The Grizzly's Arvandor Craftworld!

Quote from: Cavalier
ALL HAIL THE TORNADO! The legend is REBORN.

Quote from: Alienscar
The forum member so nice that even when he is MIA he still gets two votes for being the nicest member

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Re: void shields vs melta
« Reply #5 on: April 4, 2015, 06:47:51 PM »
The interpretation I presented attempted to follow the mechanics of the game... not what makes sense in the "real" world.

So yes, I agree that it makes sense that the void shield would be hit at a range that would hypothetically be closer to the firer than the targeted unit. Going through the "game steps" of resolving an attack, however, I don't see that as being the case for how "the game" would resolve the issue. I wouldn't have a problem with it, in person, I'm just presenting what a rules lawyer might say, and possibly get away with, at a tournament.

7th edition is basically house-rule heaven so, as always, people are free to play how they want.

Offline Grizzlykin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 846
  • Country: fr
  • Run little eldar, run! ... And KILL THEM ALL !
  • Armies: Eldars, Tau, Necrons
Re: void shields vs melta
« Reply #6 on: April 5, 2015, 04:05:43 AM »
I never tried to deny your approach please excuse me if it sounded like it :/ was trying to make an other approach. But now that i think about it the number of things not game rrealitic in this game is just ridiculous that approach was wrong from the very beginning
The Grizzly's Arvandor Craftworld!

Quote from: Cavalier
ALL HAIL THE TORNADO! The legend is REBORN.

Quote from: Alienscar
The forum member so nice that even when he is MIA he still gets two votes for being the nicest member

 


Powered by EzPortal