I can vaguely see it working 'as is' to be honest, a gutsy princeps and his crew aren't going to be phased by void shields dropping down (knowing full well that they can regenerate them), but when the hull of their titans begins to violently shake about and the groans of metal under strain can be heard... then I could see the panic setting in and blast markers being relevant

_________________
Web Designer / Developer type | erinfreeman.co.uk
Harass me on twitter!

I like and agree with this way of thought.

If you gave BM's for losing void shields it would be much easier to break a warlord titan while it still had shields in hand..and that feels wrong to me.

+1

Having carefully considered my position, I concur with the previous posters.

I think this is fine, both conceptually with respect to the fluff and in game terms - i.e. otherwise it'd be too easy to break a Warlord. And that is why I think of them as "free saves". If you make your (0+) save, you don't get a blast marker. Once you run out of free saves and bits start dropping off the hull, you get blast markers. What I think is not quite right is the interaction with Disrupt.
a) I think it can go either way as to whether disrupt weapons should place blast markers if they hit void shields - you're not taking damage, but I'm not sure it's materially different enough from having disrupt weaponry bounce off the armour once your shields are gone. To me it's borderline.
b) In my world, disrupt weapons would not place blast markers if they were saved by holofields, especially if they were not placed when hitting void shields. If I make my holofield "save", it means you didn't hit me, you just think you did. Plus, why should it be even easier to break a Warlock with Disrupt than a Warlord, beyond the difference in DC?

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

I agree with Kyrt's world (Option b) there from a fluff POV as well as the rules actually saying: "Hits that are saved by the holofield do not generate blast markers". Is a disrupt hit still a hit? Then it doesn't generate BMs when saved by the holofileds according to the rules.

After discussions with the rest of the EUK committee - as far as we're concerned for EUK events disrupt hits on holofields do not cause BMs

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Out of curiosity, what is the rationale for that decision? I don't really see any wiggle room in the RAW.

It's how we're always played it. Changing now would cause confusion and possibly not be remembered correctly when next asked at a tournament.

Reading the rules If grot's don't generate BM's from disrupt then I see no reason why holofield saves would either.

The no disrupt BM's for holofield saves works for me because of how the holofield is supposed to work fluff wise, as well as the RAW.
For me, if a save is made by the holofield roll then the attack has missed where the Titan was and hit where the Titan wanted you to think it was.

Wow. Saved hit = no BM is the normal saving throw rule. It never once occurred to me that describing the basic mechanic with different terminology would be interpreted as a special rule.

I get it, but that seems crazy counter-intuitive to me.

So, if a Holofield v Disrupt save failed, but the RA succeeded, you would place the Disrupt BM because it was the armor that saved instead of the field, right?

Yes, if the RA made the save you would (should) I guess....but in truth I doubt that many have actually remembered to do it in the heat of battle!