Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Tau vehicles can get the cheapo insta cover upgrade, are there any ways to negate besides getting in the 12" range? Would hydra shells have an effect?

Any houserules for negating it?

MODQUISITION ON:
Gentlemen, I am going to mod this as a test for the tenets template to see how that would function as a rules.

All posts after Page 4 (its to that point now) will be modded accordingly.

OP if you desire that hits not occur, please PM and I'll remove this and leave alone.

It might help if you, ya know, used names and things. I assume you are talking about the Disruption Pod, and yes, anything that Ignores Cover Saves will ignore it. Hydras do not however, as they only ignore one specific type of Cover Save, which is not the one the Disruption Pod Gives.

Try moving closer than 12". I hear Meltaguns work well.

Ranged weapons that ignore cover are really your only option if you're not within 12". Tau vs Tau could take care of it with a few markerlights, but you don't strike me as a Tau player.

Ridcully wrote:Ranged weapons that ignore cover are really your only option if you're not within 12". Tau vs Tau could take care of it with a few markerlights, but you don't strike me as a Tau player.

True, but you need to waste 3 Markerlight hits (4 if you want the BS5) to do anything, which could be better utilised. Easier to just Deep Strike a Fusion Blaster Suit behind it and giggle.

A unit of pathfinders will often have more than enough markerlights on a target at some point in the game (i'd prefer it if they all had target locks). I'd be happy shooting at a tank with a 6+ cover save, and broadsides rarely need their BS modified to get their shots off.

But deepstriking fusion suits within 12" is a good way of destroying the vehicle, and with the pathfish marker beacon your chances are increased even more.

Does an Orbital bombardment void disruption pods, as a barrage the shot counts as having come from the centre of the template which would be within the 12" but the firer can be anywhere. I can see the argument on both sides but I side with no cover save, whats the general consensus?

The Strange Dude wrote:Does an Orbital bombardment void disruption pods, as a barrage the shot counts as having come from the centre of the template which would be within the 12" but the firer can be anywhere. I can see the argument on both sides but I side with no cover save, whats the general consensus?

That is a tricky one. Obscured says the vehicle gets a 4+ Cover save. The Pod says only if its from 12" away or more. Barrage says "To determine if a unit wounded by a barrage weapon is allowed a cover save, always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the marker, instead of from the firing model." One might assume that includes range as well and I believe this is actually the case, but it is a pretty flimsy argument until I can be arsed digging out my rulebook to double check for other things that might affect it.

I'm pretty sure there's something written about treating the orbital bombardment is a ranged weapon being fired from the model, isn't there? If the model calling the bombardment is more than 12" away, the cover save stands.

Found one such quote. Not sure how universally used this wording is. I don't own any space marine codexes.

""calling down an orbital bombardment otherwise counts as firing a ranged weapon and uses the following profile"

Regardless of where the shot comes from, i think the weapon would always be considered more than 12" away unless the model itself is physically within 12".

Aye, it counts as firing a Ranged weapon, but the Barrage Rules (being More Specific) state that to determine if they get cover or not, count as if it came from the hole, not the firer.

The codex says weapon.

Ridcully wrote:The codex says weapon.

The codex actually says:

This ability can be used once per game in his Shooting phase, providing that the Chapter Master did not move in the preceding Movement phase (though he may later assault if the controlling player wishes). Calling down an orbital bombardment otherwise counts as firing a ranged weapon and uses the following profile:

So it is treated as any other Barrage Weapon. And that one I DID get the codex out for, I'm good, but not mad enough to commit it to memory

Double post

Sorry, i should have been more specific. The Tau codex says weapon. I don't have a SM codex.



Edit: watching both my avatars is oddly hypnotic.

Yeah, but you have to consider all the rules. It says that if a weapon is more than 12" away, it counts as obscured, so will get a cover save. Barrage says that when determining if something can get a cover save at all, count the weapon as if it were fired from the centre hole, not from where the firer is.

Like I said, it's flaky, as it is not clear if you include range in that.

Just to be clear before the bandwaggon comes a hatin':
I am not sure which one is correct, either one could possibly be correct.

It doesn't say the weapon changes location, it says to determine cover as if the shot were coming from the centre of the blast. As there is a weapon, and it's more than 12" away, that's all we have to go on.

This could be extremely relevant when playing artillery-heavy armies against Tau. If Basilisk/Colossus/Griffon shells would actually deny Tau vehicles their cover saves, it would be worth a try to eliminate Tau tanks by precise artillery bombardment.

Therefore, I'm interested in the answers and arguments to this question.

From my point of view, it is really a tricky one, because it is hard to determine how far barrage rules override Tau disruption pod rules.



A bit off topic: Barrage weaponry and its ability to hit the target from above is an interesting topic, anyway. Wave serpents, for example, have an energy field that is able to reduce the energy of incoming shots. It works on front an side armour. Now, barrage weapons hit the top of the vehicle and, to reflect this, count as having hit the side armour. Now, from my point of view I'd say the WS gets its energy field protection against, for example, the incoming basilisk shell, but maybe it would be able to contest this.

Witzkatz wrote:A bit off topic: Barrage weaponry and its ability to hit the target from above is an interesting topic, anyway. Wave serpents, for example, have an energy field that is able to reduce the energy of incoming shots. It works on front an side armour. Now, barrage weapons hit the top of the vehicle and, to reflect this, count as having hit the side armour. Now, from my point of view I'd say the WS gets its energy field protection against, for example, the incoming basilisk shell, but maybe it would be able to contest this.

This is a no Brainer. It counts as hitting the Side Armour, the Side Armour is Protected by the field, the Field Works. End. If it scattered behind (hole off but clipping the rear) it would hit the rear at half strength and not get the field.

Yeah, while writing this it occured to me that it is rather clear, so we agree on that.

Now, about the disruption pod / barrage question: It is said to determine the possibility of cover saves by assuming the shot came from the center of the template.

Now, this is usually viewed in a two-dimensional way...most people place the template directly over the model. 40k is a three-dimensional game, so I just thought: Do you need to hold the template directly over the model? Or could you hold it directly above it...but 13" above it? If cover saves are determined from the center of the template, you could probably claim a cover save from that.

Be advised: Take this with a grain of salt. I don't have the rulebooks with me right now, only wanted to jostle the train of thought here.

Witzkatz wrote:Now, this is usually viewed in a two-dimensional way...most people place the template directly over the model. 40k is a three-dimensional game, so I just thought: Do you need to hold the template directly over the model? Or could you hold it directly above it...but 13" above it? If cover saves are determined from the center of the template, you could probably claim a cover save from that.

This is actually a very good point and a good point against the "Ignore Cover Save" Reading.

You see where the shot "lands", as per blast rules, not where it hovers. I feel stupid even responding to the 'good point' though.

This is really interesting. Now it would be useful to know what the rules say exactly about the placement of the template when firing a barrage weapon. If it just says "above the model", then it seems flexible enough to let the shooting player decide in which heigth he places the template...with all following consequences.

Could someone with a rulebook near check this? Thanks!

When firing an ordnance barrage weapon the rulebook states:

they cause Pinning tests, and their targets work out their cover save as if the shot came from the center of the blast marker.

However the codex overrides the main rulebook and the disruption pod states:

A disruption pod throws out distorting images in both visual and magnetic spectra, making it hard to target at range. Weapons firing from more than 12" distant count the vehicle as an Obscured Target.

Now we have to look at Obscured Target:

If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise
in the Codex.

No cover save is allowed in a barrage because it comes from the center hole. So unless the center hole is more than 12" away you are denied obscured status. If you think of barrage you are not firing at a model but instead at an area and hoping that you manage to hit something in that general area. Even if you see tons of different images of a devilfish and you fire tons of shots in that general direction you should manage to hit something at least.

Ridcully wrote:You see where the shot "lands", as per blast rules, not where it hovers. I feel stupid even responding to the 'good point' though.

Oh shush you, I am just trying to not get Banned for being mean I know damn well you cannot do that but I was just trying to be nice damnit!

@rogueeyes: While your reasoning is sound, I would ask that you refrain from dragging fluff arguments into this, as it just makes things all the more complicated and bitter.

@Rogueeyes: You could have been in favour of the opposite in your last paragraph, siting the fact that it says 'weapon' in the codex, and your entire post would have still made sense. The barrage rules are for directional purposes, and do not negate a vehicles status of being obscured by the location of the firing weapon just as they don't negate the cover of a fast skimmer moving flat out.

@Gwar!: I didn't realize you were being sarcastic. I don't think he knew either.

I have to admit I failed to see the sarcasm

However, I will now watch and see which arguments turn up for which side.

True I could have been in favor for the opposite. Normal ordnance weapons would not get this however since it does not state anything about the center hole - this is only for ordnance barrage weapons. That is why I choose to support the barrage weapons negating the cover save while a normal ordnance weapon would not negate the cover save against the disruption pod.

IMO, when fluff makes sense to the argument it should be used especially if it is stated in the text.

I would rather vote in favour of "disruption pods work against barrage" at the moment, because, while barrage fire ignores directional cover that partially blocks LOS, it does not negate the cover save that is granted by cover terrain. So, we have a case where barrage does not negate cover and while, of course, disruption pods don't generate "cover terrain", they aren't directional cover, either. This seems a bit like a grey area to me.


Were there rules discussions before about warlock-embolden and barrage weapons? Was there a decision if this cover save is negated by barrage weapons?

Ridcully wrote:@Gwar!: I didn't realize you were being sarcastic. I don't think he knew either.

Witzkatz wrote:I have to admit I failed to see the sarcasm

However, I will now watch and see which arguments turn up for which side.

I was actually not being sarcastic for once, just nice, but fine, I'll be a Sarcastic mean git if you want!

rogueeyes wrote:IMO, when fluff makes sense to the argument it should be used especially if it is stated in the text.

I am afraid that your opinion is incorrect when it comes to rules discussions. By Fluff Space Marines should have a 2+ Save rolled on 3D6 and S11.

@Rogue: I don't understand why you're talking about ordnance weapons at all, let alone ordnance barrage. All the rules you require are listed in barrage, the barrage characteristics of ordnance barrage are taken directly from there.

Fluff has no impact on the game rules. If they did, tau weapons could suck entire crews out of their tank through a small hole made with a penetrating hit.

Witzkatz wrote:Were there rules discussions before about warlock-embolden and barrage weapons? Was there a decision if this cover save is negated by barrage weapons?

The difference is Conceal (The power you are thinking of) Just gives the whole unit a 5+ Cover save period, so no matter where the barrage lands, they still have the 5+, much like Models in Area terrain will still have a cover save if hit by a barrage (as long as the Barrage doesn't also ignore cover, but now we are wondering off topic a bit). The Disruption Pod specifically asks for it to be 12" away or more, which is why the barrage comes into play.