Barrage vs Imperial Knight Ion Shield & Vehicle Cover.

[JMichael]

My Imperial Knight will be facing an Astra Militarum Basilisk soon and this question came up.
Please, provide ref and page #'s with your answers. A simple 'that's not how' or 'no' doesn't help.

First off, Barrage (p160), second Bullet Point.
To determine if a unit wounded gets a cover save...assume the shot is coming from the center of the blast marker.
Hits vs vehicles are resolved vs side armor.

So, the whole 'shot coming from the center' is against wounds only. And since vehicles aren't' wounded this would suggest that Vehicles still get a cover save if they side facing the firer is behind cover, correct?
Just because it is resolved vs side armor doesn't mean the hit is coming from the side.

So then the Imperial Knight's Ion shield states (codex: IK p62 and 63) that you choose which way the shield is facing (Front, Left, Right, Rear)and it gets a 4+ invuln against all hits on that facing. (not 'from' that facing, but 'on' it).

I still think that the Knight's Ion shield would work if facing Front. The hit is on the Front facing (assuming the firer is directly ahead), though resolves against the side armor value.

What do you think?

[Charon]

We count the shot still as coming from the center of the marker but resolve it against the side.
RAW you would have to roll which side is hit (left/right) but I guess RAI would be the center of the marker is considered the firing unit (instead of the actual unit) as you count cover and wound allocation from there too.

[JMichael]

We count the shot still as coming from the center of the marker but resolve it against the side.
RAW you would have to roll which side is hit (left/right) but I guess RAI would be the center of the marker is considered the firing unit (instead of the actual unit) as you count cover and wound allocation from there too.

My point based on RAW is that you only count the shot/cover from the center if it Wounds. Since no wounds to vehicles, it ignores the 'comes from the center' sentences and thus vehicles would get cover from Barrage weapons for any intervening cover.

The Ion Shield wording doesn't' help as it does state hits ON that facing not hits FROM that facing.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, I'm not trying to start a fight!
This is just something I notice while studying up my my AM opponent's army.
Personally I would not allow cover (interpreting the shot coming from the sky), but would allow the Ion shield if it is facing the firer. The shots aren't actually coming vertical, but more likely at an arc.

[hyudun]

Yeah, I don't think there's clean answer to come to here as the core issue is that left-and-right sides are not distinguished for armor value, but ARE distinguished for the Ion Shield.

I think the most reasonable conclusion if trying to go by RAW is if the ion shield was positioned to any side, to roll off for whether or not it intercepts the shot as Charon suggests for RAW.

From an RAI perspective, I believe resolving the shot against side armor value from barrage weapons is supposed to represent hitting the top of the vehicle, which would not be as heavily armored as the front, nor as weakly as the rear. Following "real-life logic", I'd say that if the center of the barrage was directly over the Knight, then no Ion Shield save period. If it is not directly on it, then you determine applicability of the Ion Shield based on the side the center of the blast ended up on. Barrage is supposed to represent a short so arc'ed that it comes nearly at a 90' angle since it can go over the tallest buildings or can be shot from space. The Shield is clearly meant to be perpendicular to the ground, for the most part.

Those said, I'd personally play by option 1 (roll off to see which side counts as being hit) in an effort to introduce the least amount of rule adjustments and stick to the intended balance of rules, rather than the intended simulation of real-life (but also because I hate arguing on RAI)..

[Mr.Pickelz]

Why not just use the Center Hole on the template as the marker, and which ever side (left or right or the Knight) it lands on, that is used for determining if you get an ion shield save, since the center hole of the template is used for LOS. (Line of Sight) So, it seems logical to me that the shot lands where the center hole of the template is and that would determine the initial hit. (since you can't take multiple hits from a single blast template)

In the case where the center is over both left and right sides of the Knight, look at where the majority of the center hole is and use that for determining sides. If a Direct hit then you would get the save, or roll-off to see which side it hits, stating first which side is "1,2,3" and "4,5,6".

Edit: it should say, If the Direct Hit has the template centered where half the center hole is on either side equally

[Charistoph]

Why not just use the Center Hole on the template as the marker, and which ever side (left or right or the Knight) it lands on, that is used for determining if you get an ion shield save, since the center hole of the template is used for LOS. (Line of Sight) So, it seems logical to me that the shot lands where the center hole of the template is and that would determine the initial hit. (since you can't take multiple hits from a single blast template)

In the case where the center is over both left and right sides of the Knight, look at where the majority of the center hole is and use that for determining sides. If a Direct hit then you would get the save, or roll-off to see which side it hits, stating first which side is "1,2,3" and "4,5,6".

Edit: it should say, If the Direct Hit has the template centered where half the center hole is on either side equally

Agreed. This is the simplest and easiest answer to go with for the Barrage vs the Ion Shield question.

[JMichael]

I really wish the Ion shield wording just said 'facing attack is coming from' rather than facing hit.

Do you then also not allow a cover save for vehicles that are obscured?
Makes RAI sense, but again the RAW would allow a cover save for vehicles.

[hyudun]

Do you then also not allow a cover save for vehicles that are obscured?

Just found this passage:

"If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing hit, a penetrating hit, or is otherwise hit by an enemy shooting attack that inflicts damage upon it (such as being hit by a weapon with the Graviton special rule), it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound" (emphasis mine) (Vehicles -> Vehicles in the Shooting Phase -> Vehicles and Cover – Obscured Targets)

This would imply that "To determine whether a unit wounded by a Barrage weapon is allowed a cover save...always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model" should also be read as "To determine whether a unit having damage inflicted upon it from an enemy shooting attack is allowed a cover save..."

That neatly resolves what happens when the center of the blast marker is NOT on the vehicle, but part of the marker is.

I think if the blast center IS over the vehicle, then we literally interpret it as being fried from directly above the vehicle, in which case no cover save unless the center hits a floor/roof above it, in which case we get into that whole blasts & multi-level buildings mess since GW somehow took out and forgot to rewrite the rules for that situation entirely from 6th edition.

No changes to Ion Shield discussion from that passage, I think.

[JMichael]

Just found this passage:

"If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing hit, a penetrating hit, or is otherwise hit by an enemy shooting attack that inflicts damage upon it (such as being hit by a weapon with the Graviton special rule), it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound" (emphasis mine) (Vehicles -> Vehicles in the Shooting Phase -> Vehicles and Cover – Obscured Targets)

This would imply that "To determine whether a unit wounded by a Barrage weapon is allowed a cover save...always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model" should also be read as "To determine whether a unit having damage inflicted upon it from an enemy shooting attack is allowed a cover save..."

That neatly resolves what happens when the center of the blast marker is NOT on the vehicle, but part of the marker is.

I think if the blast center IS over the vehicle, then we literally interpret it as being fried from directly above the vehicle, in which case no cover save unless the center hits a floor/roof above it, in which case we get into that whole blasts & multi-level buildings mess since GW somehow took out and forgot to rewrite the rules for that situation entirely from 6th edition.

No changes to Ion Shield discussion from that passage, I think.

Awesome, than you!

[hyudun]

BTW, I retract my statement that the passage in my previous post does not affect the Ion Shield discussion.

I think it adds a very strong RAI argument that all saves dependent on direction of the firing unit should be resolved the same way vs barrage weapons - i.e. resolve as if direction comes from center of blast template; no save if directly on model.

Not saying that it completely clears the issue up, though - if anything, it further confounds it. I'm actually personally partial to the RAI interpretation now - I consider it a cleaner rule design, requiring fewer overall exceptions.

[John Bower]

The whole reason they say 'side armour' is it's not the side actually but the top. If you read it properly you see they even suggest that the top armour is the same thickness as the sides. So a direct hit will likely not get the save at all even if the shield is on 'the side'. It's very much a directed shield; only giving you the save to that particular direction. They could've been extra over this and said the top is equal to the rear which is more realistic; but then everyone would have complained that vehicles were completely useless and not bought them (bad for business).

I'd say no save from a direct hit. Save from a 'near hit' if the shield is there. So a barrage for example where the hole is close and the template touches your knight on for eg the left side and you have the shield on the left; save, but if your shield is on the right; no save and a direct hit is on the top so again no save. It's also the fairest system as it does give people a chance to take these monsters down.

[Haighus]

Maybe a "top" option is also needed for the Ion shield, which protects against direct hits from bombs and barrages? Could be an interesting thing to try. I doubt it would get used very often, but if your knight is out of LOS, then it would be useful then.

[jeffersonian000]

People are looking at this the wrong way. A barrage versus a vehicle has us use the side armor value, not the side armor facing. If the shot comes in from the front, you would use side AV instead of front AV. The measure from the center of blast clause only effects cover, not armor or invul saves. As such, when a barrage hits a Knight, the hit comes from the facing of the artillery, allowing the use of the Ion Shield if the Shield is covering that facing. Regardless of facing hit, pen is versus the Knight's side AV.

Example: Basilisk shoots at a Knight Errant, the Knight is facing the Basilisk and has its Ion Shield on the front arc. The barrage scatters over the Knight's rear arc. Because the shot came from the facing with the Ion Shield, the Knight gets to use its 4++ save on any glances or pens; because its a barrage, side AV is used for the pen roll instead of the front (where the shot came from) or the rear (where the shot landed). If the shot was AP2 or better, and the Knight was mostly obscured by a reinforced ruin and still Shrouded from the previous Psychic phase (a potential 3+ cover save), cover would still be measured from the center of blast, and therefore not be available due to the barrage's final position after scatter.

Hopefully that clears things up a bit.

SJ

[hyudun]

People are looking at this the wrong way. A barrage versus a vehicle has us use the side armor value, not the side armor facing. If the shot comes in from the front, you would use side AV instead of front AV. The measure from the center of blast clause only effects cover, not armor or invul saves. As such, when a barrage hits a Knight, the hit comes from the facing of the artillery, allowing the use of the Ion Shield if the Shield is covering that facing. Regardless of facing hit, pen is versus the Knight's side AV.

I think this is a better RAW interpretation than the random roll off to see if the "side it hit" was the side covered by the Ion Shield. We just need to view Vehicle Facing and Armour Vales and two separate things. Ion Shield does indeed say "facing" vs. Barrage, which says "armor". However, a clear definition of either and the exact relationship between the two is not explicitly defined in the rules (i.e. they appear to be used somewhat interchangeably).

Also, it's a little weird when Orbital Bombardments called in by a model from the shield's side is intercepted by the shield vs. one called in by a model that isn't facing the shield. 40k for ya...

[DWest]

Also, it's a little weird when Orbital Bombardments called in by a model from the shield's side is intercepted by the shield vs. one called in by a model that isn't facing the shield. 40k for ya...
I always saw that as more of a "battlefield awareness" thing-- the Knight pilot goes "huh, Mr. Bigshot Astartes isn't fleeing for cover like the rest of them . . . he's just standing there, like he's waiting for something-- shield! now! *BOOM*"

[hyudun]

I always saw that as more of a "battlefield awareness" thing-- the Knight pilot goes "huh, Mr. Bigshot Astartes isn't fleeing for cover like the rest of them . . . he's just standing there, like he's waiting for something-- shield! now! *BOOM*"

That works if you imagine the shield as something that's re-positionable to the top of the knight. I imagine it as something that stays perpendicular to the ground, projected "forwards" a few yards/however far to clear the movement of it's legs, with the projection mechanisms able to swivel side-to-side, but not up or down; therefore it's unable to protect from any attacks from directly above (you rely on air/space superiority for that). Then again, I haven't read nearly enough fluff on Knights and could easily be wrong.

[John Bower]

People are looking at this the wrong way. A barrage versus a vehicle has us use the side armor value, not the side armor facing. If the shot comes in from the front, you would use side AV instead of front AV. The measure from the center of blast clause only effects cover, not armor or invul saves. As such, when a barrage hits a Knight, the hit comes from the facing of the artillery, allowing the use of the Ion Shield if the Shield is covering that facing. Regardless of facing hit, pen is versus the Knight's side AV.

Example: Basilisk shoots at a Knight Errant, the Knight is facing the Basilisk and has its Ion Shield on the front arc. The barrage scatters over the Knight's rear arc. Because the shot came from the facing with the Ion Shield, the Knight gets to use its 4++ save on any glances or pens; because its a barrage, side AV is used for the pen roll instead of the front (where the shot came from) or the rear (where the shot landed). If the shot was AP2 or better, and the Knight was mostly obscured by a reinforced ruin and still Shrouded from the previous Psychic phase (a potential 3+ cover save), cover would still be measured from the center of blast, and therefore not be available due to the barrage's final position after scatter.

Hopefully that clears things up a bit.

SJ


This is about the best explanation I've seen yet. Qudos mate.

[Lord Krungharr]

While not a bad way to view it, that is not the only way to view it. RAW is very unclear, though RAI strongly suggests that the shot against a vehicle is coming from the center of the blast hole, as it's in the same paragraph immediately after the wound allocation bit. So determining from which of the Knight's sides the shot is coming should be pretty clear. RAI the shell is coming from above and then detonating, that's why with wounds it's from the center of the hole; and that's why I would say the shot originates against vehicles from the hole, using the side armor for penetration values.

[John Bower]

Yes we've ascertained that penetration is using side armour values; the point is the shield itself and therefore the saving throw; for which part I agree with jeffersonian; I think he puts it very eloquently and gives a good reason as to why we say that's where it came from; if it misses and the Knight is not under the centre hole then yes you would say the direction is from that but... It would take a complete idiot to design the ion shields to just be a panel size and shape; think the old WoTW fighting machines where it went over the top and I think the ion shield would be similar; not right over like that as it only covers the front or side; but I do think it would be designed to absorb top down shots from the same facing. And that is what jeffersonian is more or less saying.

[hyudun]

It would take a complete idiot to design the ion shields to just be a panel size and shape


lol, you probably didn't mean it as such, but my gut reaction is that you're calling me an idiot for how I imagine the shield works.

So purely to appease my personal emotional reaction to your accusation: 1. I imagine a curved surface - like a contact lens; not a panel. 2. it's not so much about someone designing it to NOT cover the top, but the physical limitation of such a device. Since it's a powered field, it must be projected. Assuming it's being projected from a single point, as the cheapest way of implementing such a thing would likely be, if it only goes 22.5 degrees side-to-side, it'll only go 22.5 degrees up-and-down as well, so therefore unable to cover the direct top of whatever you're covering. Not saying that's exactly how it must work; just defending my honor here :)

[John Bower]

lol, you probably didn't mean it as such, but my gut reaction is that you're calling me an idiot for how I imagine the shield works.

So purely to appease my personal emotional reaction to your accusation: 1. I imagine a curved surface - like a contact lens; not a panel. 2. it's not so much about someone designing it to NOT cover the top, but the physical limitation of such a device. Since it's a powered field, it must be projected. Assuming it's being projected from a single point, as the cheapest way of implementing such a thing would likely be, if it only goes 22.5 degrees side-to-side, it'll only go 22.5 degrees up-and-down as well, so therefore unable to cover the direct top of whatever you're covering. Not saying that's exactly how it must work; just defending my honor here :)

Defo not calling you an idiot mate; I think you got my point actually. I meant surely anyone that designed the shield would have enough savvy to at least put a little bit to cover the top of the Walker it's protecting not just literally one side (or the front). Mind you that said they were dumb enough to not cover the back. :)

[DWest]

Keep in mind, the ion shield generators are actually on the top of the Knight; they're the golf-ball-in-a-bracket looking things on either side of the cockpit. So if anything, they should be least protected against a, shall we say, "ungentlemanly" shot from below.

[SnakeChisler]

Knight declares side of shield facing before shooting begins

Barrage weapon is placed over Knight, cover saves are taken from the center of the hole so therefore ion shield saves will be as well. Unless the hole actually misses I can't see how your getting an ion shield save? In terms of armor pen it says use the side value if its a direct hit what it doesn't say is it hits the side.

If the blast goes over the Knight and center's past him but clips the back armor you take the back armor value and can take a shield save if you've got the shield at the back.

Barrage rules are pretty well written I can't see how you can claim an ion shield save from facing the vehicle that fired it when everything else to do with barrage such as cover, look out and wound allocation take it from the center of the hole?

[Gleipnir]

Ion shields provide their saves to attacks coming from one of the arcs the shields are assigned to but does not provide an option to angle said shields to the top or bottom , in the case of barrage or other airborne or subterranean attacks the damage is coming from the top or bottom facing and then resolved against the side armor value(in previous editions the top and bottom armor values were set the same as the rear armor value).

My own group gives no saves to barrage attacks that hit, while those that scatter receive an Ion shield save if the center hole of the barrage falls within the facing the shield is protecting presuming that while the attack is coming from above it was not a direct hit and the shield acted to deflect some of the indirect blast coming from that facing where the attack landed. since only attacks that scatter and are resolved from the facing of the center of the blast ever have a direction they can be applied from for the ion shields to ever take into account.

[jeffersonian000]

Ion shields provide their saves to attacks coming from one of the arcs the shields are assigned to but does not provide an option to angle said shields to the top or bottom , in the case of barrage or other airborne or subterranean attacks the damage is coming from the top or bottom facing and then resolved against the side armor value(in previous editions the top and bottom armor values were set the same as the rear armor value).

My own group gives no saves to barrage attacks that hit, while those that scatter receive an Ion shield save if the center hole of the barrage falls within the facing the shield is protecting presuming that while the attack is coming from above it was not a direct hit and the shield acted to deflect some of the indirect blast coming from that facing where the attack landed. since only attacks that scatter and are resolved from the facing of the center of the blast ever have a direction they can be applied from for the ion shields to ever take into account.
Interesting house rule, but the justification is flawed. A ranged attack always comes from the direction of the attacker, which is how facings are determined. In the case of Barrage, cover saves and only cover saves are measured from the center of the blast marker. If the Knight is not making a cover save, and the shot originates from the facing with the Ion Shield, RAW tells us the Knight gets its Invul save. The only effect Barrage has on a vehicle is that Side AV is used instead of the facing the attack is coming from.

SJ

[JMichael]

While we do tend to look directly down onto the Blast marker when placing it, one should also remember that (though not necessarily RAW) shots are actually fired in an arc. While even modern artillery is capable of an extreme arc in order to pass over cover/terrain that also increases the round's travel time and makes hitting a moving target very, very difficult.
Logically it makes perfect sense to me that the Ion Shield would extend upwards to at least the height of the Knight if not a little above it. Certainly protection from barrage weapons and also aircraft would have been taken into consideration by the original engineers/designers.

[JMichael]

I made some images with my Knight and the way I imagine the Ion shield to work. If it is this shape, that would still make for hits vs side Armor value, but assuming the Ion Shield is facing the same direction as the firer you would still get the Ion shield save.
112291123011231
11232

[John Bower]

I made some images with my Knight and the way I imagine the Ion shield to work. If it is this shape, that would still make for hits vs side Armor value, but assuming the Ion Shield is facing the same direction as the firer you would still get the Ion shield save.
112291123011231
11232

Yep, just how I imagine it; so for a direct hit you should get the save from the firer but for the hole being to the side or rear you would have to have the shield facing that way.

[SnakeChisler]

I think your really stretching it trying to get a save here, I re-read the Barrage rules and its just straight down takes the side armor value.

If your saying top is covered by front or side what about Aircraft? do they get rear shield coz they passed over you in a bombing run or are you claiming the front for that as well coz they started the run in front of you.

At this point you have to say that unless you have a specific rule which ignores the way Barrage field effects work then you don't get a save from the front given that the shot effectively comes from the hole not what fired it.

[JMichael]

I think your really stretching it trying to get a save here, I re-read the Barrage rules and its just straight down takes the side armor value.

If your saying top is covered by front or side what about Aircraft? do they get rear shield coz they passed over you in a bombing run or are you claiming the front for that as well coz they started the run in front of you.

At this point you have to say that unless you have a specific rule which ignores the way Barrage field effects work then you don't get a save from the front given that the shot effectively comes from the hole not what fired it.

Certainly the wording in the rulebook could be better, or at least a simple FAQ.
But for Barrage, you consider the shot coming from the center ONLY for determining cover saves. And that vs vehicles the shots are always resolved against the side armor.

But the Ion Shield wording doesn't help as it states you get the Shied save on eh Facing that is hit. It would be more clear if it said the facing where the shot is coming from.

Bombs are different, and you would get the save depending on where the blast marker hits.

[Gleipnir]

Interesting house rule, but the justification is flawed. A ranged attack always comes from the direction of the attacker, which is how facings are determined. In the case of Barrage, cover saves and only cover saves are measured from the center of the blast marker. If the Knight is not making a cover save, and the shot originates from the facing with the Ion Shield, RAW tells us the Knight gets its Invul save. The only effect Barrage has on a vehicle is that Side AV is used instead of the facing the attack is coming from.

SJ

The center hole is not only used for determining cover saves but also is used to determine Wound allocation closest to the center of Barrage attacks which in itself implies that the source of the impact and damage radiates from the center of the blast maker, unlike standard Blast attacks which yes use the directional source of the attack.

- - - Updated - - -


While we do tend to look directly down onto the Blast marker when placing it, one should also remember that (though not necessarily RAW) shots are actually fired in an arc. While even modern artillery is capable of an extreme arc in order to pass over cover/terrain that also increases the round's travel time and makes hitting a moving target very, very difficult.
Logically it makes perfect sense to me that the Ion Shield would extend upwards to at least the height of the Knight if not a little above it. Certainly protection from barrage weapons and also aircraft would have been taken into consideration by the original engineers/designers.

The fact that an Imperial Knights shields might be vulnerable to aerial or indirect fire is entirely feasible, and absent a rule that offers protections to either a top or bottom arc RAW you would ignore the shields for those attacks unless you choose to house rule it in some way.

- - - Updated - - -


Certainly the wording in the rulebook could be better, or at least a simple FAQ.
But for Barrage, you consider the shot coming from the center ONLY for determining cover saves. And that vs vehicles the shots are always resolved against the side armor.

But the Ion Shield wording doesn't help as it states you get the Shied save on eh Facing that is hit. It would be more clear if it said the facing where the shot is coming from.

Bombs are different, and you would get the save depending on where the blast marker hits.

As I said earlier the source of Barrage damage is the center of the blast marker as far as wound allocation is concerned, and for vehicles its applied to the top or bottom in the case of burrowing attacks, which shares the same armor value as the side armor value.

[JMichael]

As I said earlier the source of Barrage damage is the center of the blast marker as far as wound allocation is concerned, and for vehicles its applied to the top or bottom in the case of burrowing attacks, which shares the same armor value as the side armor value.

Oh, right I forgot about that thanks.

The only facings are Front, Side (left/right), and Rear and although we see the top it is not actually a 'facing'.
So no matter what, all attacks must be Front, Side, or Rear. Just like a Flyer shooting at a Rhino where the top is the only visible (or in fire arc) part, the shot is still from the facing (Front, Side, Rear) the Flyer is in.

The Ion Shield offers a save on the Facing that is hit regardless of where the shot originates from and thus it must cover part of the top and bottom as it covers the entire facing.

If the Blast template is not placed on the exact center (which is doesn't have to be) then that certainly makes it a lot easier. To me this only really comes up if the Blast Template is centered over the center of the Knight and thus over all 4 Facings.

I guess after reading all of this, I feel the best way to resolve it is just like if the center of the blast marker is directly over 2 facings (say Side and Front). If that were the case I think we may all agree a die roll to see which armor facing the shot is resolved against.
So in the case of the center hole being directly over the center, then it is covering 4 facings and we would roll to see which of the 4 is actually hit. Then if the facing your Ion Shield is on is hit you get the save.

[SnakeChisler]

No I don't think a die roll is in order at all, the rule on barrage is pretty clear

Last example calling down bombardment Master of the Fleet Grey Knight, SM Captain whatever under your interpretation if your ion shield is facing the model that called in the bombardment you'd get a save.

The knight doesn't have an exception to barrage effects you'd need an FAQ to say it has, as pointed out with bombs its from the hole

[JMichael]

No I don't think a die roll is in order at all, the rule on barrage is pretty clear

Last example calling down bombardment Master of the Fleet Grey Knight, SM Captain whatever under your interpretation if your ion shield is facing the model that called in the bombardment you'd get a save.

The knight doesn't have an exception to barrage effects you'd need an FAQ to say it has, as pointed out with bombs its from the hole

I don't think facing of the firer has anything to do with it because of the way Ion Shield is worded. You get the Ion Shield save on hits on that facing hit. Not 'from' that facing.
So if you position the shield to your Front you only get the 4+ on any shots that HIT the front. So as I see it, if a barrage is fired the within your rear facing, but is placed or scatters onto the front facing, they you get the Ion Shield save because it is the Front facing that is hit.

[SnakeChisler]

If the central hole scatters off the model you get whatever side the blast happens to take out, as long as the hole is completely over the base of the model it counts as hitting the top (side armor value no ion save at all).

Barrage, Bombs Vector strike Fleet Ordnance etc.. just come down vertically takes side armor value on vehicles etc.. If your wanting it to work your way you really do need an FAQ

[John Bower]

I don't think facing of the firer has anything to do with it because of the way Ion Shield is worded. You get the Ion Shield save on hits on that facing hit. Not 'from' that facing.
So if you position the shield to your Front you only get the 4+ on any shots that HIT the front. So as I see it, if a barrage is fired the within your rear facing, but is placed or scatters onto the front facing, they you get the Ion Shield save because it is the Front facing that is hit.

Just read that since you mention and yes; under that wording I'm inclined to agree, No save unless the 'hit' is on that facing regardless of the firer's direction. It does make them somewhat easier to put down.

[Gleipnir]

Barrage weapons or attacks that are resolved the same as Barrage weapons where wounds are applied from the middle first, RAW do not "hit" any facing at all, they either hit or do not hit and then apply their damage to the side armor value.

Any decision to apply those attacks differently is at best a house rule, for the sake of clarification.

[JMichael]

If the central hole scatters off the model you get whatever side the blast happens to take out, as long as the hole is completely over the base of the model it counts as hitting the top (side armor value no ion save at all).

Barrage, Bombs Vector strike Fleet Ordnance etc.. just come down vertically takes side armor value on vehicles etc.. If your wanting it to work your way you really do need an FAQ

There is no 'Top' facing on any vehicle. Only Front/Rear/Side. Even though the Barrage rule states it is resolved against the side armor, it is still not the side facing.
You still actually hit the facing where the hole ends up. If the hole is directly over the left shoulder, then you hit the Left Facing and would get the Ion Shield save if it was indeed positioned to Left Side.
Also the base doesn't matter as it's a vehicle and if the blast scatters so that part of it only covers the base but not the actual model, then no hit.