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.

Ah, granted, there's a difference. Well, so much for a precedent.

Why can't you have two cover saves?

The Tau item states you get cover if the firing model is over 12"

Barrage state you get cover if there is cover in between you and the marker.

Neither conflicts with the other.

It says the 'firing weapon' which is of course more than 12" away. The barrage rule is for directional purposes only, as opposed to tracing LoS from the firer. LoS isn't part of the disruption pod rules, only the location of the firing weapon.

Which is what we are trying to find out. Does barrages' "always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the marker, instead of from the firing model" count the range as well?

But the disruption pods only care about the firing model I thought? So what barrage does is irrelevant in that instance?

nosferatu1001 wrote:But the disruption pods only care about the firing model I thought? So what barrage does is irrelevant in that instance?

Disruption pods say they only give the cover save if it is fired from 12" away, Barrage says to determine cover saves measure from the Centre hole instead of the firer.

Of course it could be read that since the weapon was fired from >12" away, it counts as Obscured (4+ Cover Save) in any situation.

Now I am not 100% sure. Damn you Doubt!

It actually says firing weapon, not where it's fired from. Cover is determined by LOS, and there's nothing in the exception that indicates determining cover is anything but a directional change. I don't think we can assume it comes with ranges.

I think it comes down to whether the barrage rule "determine cover from center of template" is dominant enough in its meaning to include "yeah, that practically means it is fired from there". Hard to find RAW for this, I think.

As far as I can see, a way of arguing "specific trumps general" in favour of working disruption pods is not in order either, because the disruption pods paragraph does not seem to address barrage weapons by any means.

Aye, difficult.

Gwar! is wrong.

The barrage rule applies when a unit is wounded. When a vehicle's armor is penetrated, the rules say nothing about measuring from the center of the marker. Therefore the vehicle still gets cover.

For fluff purposes, we can assume that the larger concealment needed to give vehicles obscured status has a chance of protecting against even barrage weapons (such as by interfering in the arc of fire).

I feel bad for starting this argument now as the only Tau player I've played is with me on the no obscurement from barrage. Saying that I'm interested to see how the disscussion turns out.

Granted, the cover paragraph probably is meant to be for infantry. This puts me more and more in the direction of non-working disruption pods...

...except for one case maybe:

If a barrage shell misses a vehicle shortly, lands behind it, explodes there...then a hit at half strength is assumed to hit the next armour facing. And, while I don't have the rules here right now, I'm quite confident the wording there would support my idea that in this case disruption pods do not work. Could somebody look that up? My idea is that in this case the vehicle is not hit by the main attack carried out by the attacker, but by a secondary effect that has its origin very close to the vehicle.

I'm afraid not. The blast rules merely say you roll for penetration on the armour facing the centre of the marker. There isn't wording that could be bent in such a way as to suggest the firing weapon has changed location. The only way to play it would be to go by the distance to the firing weapon as per codex rules. But yes, it does appear that the 'unit wounded' cover bit would not apply to vehicles as such.

The Strange Dude wrote:I feel bad for starting this argument now as the only Tau player I've played is with me on the no obscurement from barrage. Saying that I'm interested to see how the disscussion turns out.

It's not the first time it's come up.

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. Remember that models in area terrain get their cover save regardless of the direction the shot is coming from.

Area terrain still provides cover but the Disruption Pod does not since the shot would be less than 12" away (coming from the center of the blast).

@Ridcully: Instead of looking at Barrage weapons on page 32 I was looking at Ordnance Barrage under Vehicle Weapons on pg 58. The rules are not the same it seems. However, Ordnance Barrage and Barrage weapons have the same problem. Although they are similar they are not the same.

@Gwar: I only believe fluff arguments can be used when written beside rules in the rule book. Fluff that is written to justify things does not justify the rule but you must use all sentences in the rule book for complete understanding of the rule at hand. I'm sorry if you thought I was trying to make an argument based on fluff. I should have used IMO for that part.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ajfirecracker:
To see if a unit takes a wound is only stated for Barrage weapons. Ordnance barrages would negate the cover save still. Under vehicle weapons, ordnance barrage weapons it states to see if a target gets a cover save. It states nothing at all about wounds.

Barrage
To determine if a unit wounded by a barrage weapon is allowed a cover save

Ordnance Barrage
and their targets work out their cover save as if the shot came from the centre of the blast marker.

According to your argument ajfirecracker only Ordnance Barrage weapons would deny cover saves while normal barrage weapons would allow cover saves based on vehicles having no wounds.

I'm not saying I agree with this - I'm just saying that this is a logical extension of your argument.

ajfirecracker wrote:Gwar! is wrong.

Firstly, I am wrong for saying it could be either one? Wow, So much for trying to be nice then.

The barrage rule applies when a unit is wounded.

So, you are claiming that it only applies to wounds, so vehicle get Cover saves as if it were a normal weapon then?

Gwar! wrote:

ajfirecracker wrote:Gwar! is wrong.

Firstly, I am wrong for saying it could be either one? Wow, So much for trying to be nice then.

The barrage rule applies when a unit is wounded.

So, you are claiming that it only applies to wounds, so vehicle get Cover saves as if it were a normal weapon then?

ajfirecracker wrote:For fluff purposes, we can assume that the larger concealment needed to give vehicles obscured status has a chance of protecting against even barrage weapons (such as by interfering in the arc of fire).

And apparently the fluff proves it.
Now the rules, on the other hand. . . not so much.

The main issue I have with granting the cover from (ordnance) barrage is the "their tagets work out their cover save as if the shot came from the centre of the blast marker"/always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the marker, instead of from the fireing model". That does not seem vague to me. They are meant to deny cover unless the target is inside area terrain.

Which disruptions pods are not causing. They cause the vehicle to be obscured, which is specifically a 4+ cover even in the open.

The wounding thing is funny, combat resolution counts any roll on the damge table as a "wound", but I doubt that is enough.

Gwar! wrote:Firstly, I am wrong for saying it could be either one? Wow, So much for trying to be nice then.

Sorry, I thought you were only toning down your language to avoid the ban you suddenly seem afraid of.

But yes, I do believe that it only applies to wounds in the case of normal barrage weapons.

As for ordnance barrage, I think that the "came from" language could be interpreted to mean either: came from the direction of, or originated at.
I'm inclined to think originated at, meaning that ordnance barrage would deny cover in this instance, but regular barrage would not.
(assuming that this thread has got the language correct for ordnance barrage weapons)

Ordnance Barrage pg 58: "their tagets work out their cover save as if the shot came from the centre of the blast marker"
Barrage pg 32: "always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the marker, instead of from the firing model".

I am not certain the distinction you are trying to make in those lines.

So the shot comes from the blast? That's fine, as Tau Disruption pods talk about the firing model.

The firing model is more than 12" away? You're getting a cover save [barring other rules....] and you may *in addition* get a cover save if there is terrain between you and the blast.

"Weapons firing at the vehicle from more than 12" distant count the vehicle as an obscured target"

That is what the quote, and I am, apparently, still missing something - as "Model" or "Firing model" is not used.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So the shot comes from the blast? That's fine, as Tau Disruption pods talk about the firing model.

The firing model is more than 12" away? You're getting a cover save [barring other rules....] and you may *in addition* get a cover save if there is terrain between you and the blast.

Yeah, I am actually starting to think this is the case now

That is funny, I am now inclined lean the other way.

hehe

You count the hole for purposes of determining where the shot came from when determining cover saves, no?

Obscured is a cover save. Why would you not use that when determining THIS cover save, but try to use it for the rest?
The vehicle is not in area terrain, the only exception given to this, and in fact, I am not sure that would even help given the vehicle rules for cover.

I am thinking because the Disruption pod Specifically says "If the Weapon is more than 12"" rather than the Actual Shot.

I am still not sure however, it certainly is ambiguous and could be read both ways, do you not agree kirsanth?

kirsanth wrote:"Weapons firing at the vehicle from more than 12" distant count the vehicle as an obscured target"

That is what the quote, and I am, apparently, still missing something - as "Model" or "Firing model" is not used.

My reading of the situation: If the originating 'weapon' is more than 12" away, that's when the cover save applies. The template just works out the effect.

So, your earthshaker (or whatever) blast might be 'worked out from the centre hole', but the cannon itself (weapon) is more than 12" away. The blast is not the weapon.

This will have nothing to do with the rules per se but it might help to visualize this situation.

Barrage weaopns aren't fired so much as launched.

Because they are launched high into the air there are innaccurate. This is represtented by drift meaning, they come down where they come down.

Barrage shells do not do much damage in and of them selves but rather it is the detonator firing off the warhead upon impact that does the majority of damage.

Even though it works against my interests I would have to say that if a blast lands close enough to do damage to a vehicle or on target then the DP doesn't come into play. This is because the weapon isn't technically fired until it lands.


Rules wording may or may not support my argument but I would play it this way because it makes sense to do so.

unistoo wrote:

kirsanth wrote:"Weapons firing at the vehicle from more than 12" distant count the vehicle as an obscured target"

That is what the quote, and I am, apparently, still missing something - as "Model" or "Firing model" is not used.

My reading of the situation: If the originating 'weapon' is more than 12" away, that's when the cover save applies. The template just works out the effect.

So, your earthshaker (or whatever) blast might be 'worked out from the centre hole', but the cannon itself (weapon) is more than 12" away. The blast is not the weapon.

While this is true, you have to remember Barrage says when working out cover saves (which the Disruption Pod Gives) to count the weapon as being where the Hole is, which I suppose is part of the confusion. I am kind of leaning to Specific Codex Rule > Specific BRB Rule, but I really honestly think it can swing both ways (no pun intended).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

focusedfire wrote:This will have nothing to do with the rules per se but it might help to visualize this situation.

Barrage weaopns aren't fired so much as launched.

Because they are launched high into the air there are innaccurate. This is represtented by drift meaning, they come down where they come down.

Barrage shells do not do much damage in and of them selves but rather it is the detonator firing off the warhead upon impact that does the majority of damage.

Even though it works against my interests I would have to say that if a blast lands close enough to do damage to a vehicle or on target then the DP doesn't come into play. This is because the weapon isn't technically fired until it lands.


Rules wording may or may not support my argument but I would play it this way because it makes sense to do so.

No more fluff arguments

It could go either way, although I daresay that specific in this case seems to disallow the save.

As I read it, the (ordnance) barrage is more specific, as disruption pods simply refer to "weapons", the rules for (ordnance) barrage weapons are more specific, and over-ride a fair number of rules regarding cover.

More reading.

Gwar! wrote:While this is true, you have to remember Barrage says when working out cover saves (which the Disruption Pod Gives) to count the weapon as being where the Hole is, which I suppose is part of the confusion. I am kind of leaning to Specific Codex Rule > Specific BRB Rule, but I really honestly think it can swing both ways (no pun intended).

I just checked the wordiing under Barrage:

"always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the marker"

It uses the word 'shot' whereas the the Tau book uses the word 'weapon' - this is why I wanted to make the distinction, I just got the nomenclature wrong

Let me rephrase: the 'shot' is treated as being wherever the hole is, but the 'weapon' is still a dot on the horizon

FULL DISCLAIMER DEPT: Yes, I play Tau (as seen in my sig) but have yet to field an army using the latest 'dex. Weird, huh?

OK Gwar,

First line under barrage, "Certain weapons launch their Shells high into the air so that they plunge down upon their target,".

Next we go to the third paragraph where it says,"All barrage weapons use bkast markers and consequently use the rules for blast weapons, with the following exceptions.".

Immediately following this the first bullet point states, "To determine if a unit wounded by a barrage is allowed a cover save, always assume the shot is coming from the center of the marker, instead of coming from the firing model. Remember that models in area terrain get their cover save regardless of direction the shot is coming from".

The Tau DP does not have any wording about conveying area terrain.

By Raw, the DP protected vehicle would get no cover save unless you want to argue the wording of wounding a vehicle.

Does this help?

After re-reading the ordnance barrage weapons, I think that no barrage weapon gets to count as being closer than it really is (bar some unit-specific special rule).

The comment about targets working out their cover saves is merely one of the listed ways that ordnance barrage weapons are "just like normal barrages".
The rule for normal barrages says that when you wound a unit the units works out cover from the blast. You can't wound vehicles, so the rules concerning the hole of the template don't ever come into play for tau vehicles.

Furthermore, the text of the normal barrage rule supports the interpretation that the hole-as-origin is important only for determining direction: Remember that models in area terrain get their cover save regardless of the direction the shot is coming from.

The 'regardless of direction' phrase seems to indicate that the item changed by the rule is the direction of the origin, not the distance. There may be hints of RaI in this argument, so I think the above reasoning (wounds) should be sufficient for a strict RaW interpretation of an allowed cover save, especially for normal barrages.

focusedfire wrote:OK Gwar,

First line under barrage, "Certain weapons launch their Shells high into the air so that they plunge down upon their target,".

Next we go to the third paragraph where it says,"All barrage weapons use bkast markers and consequently use the rules for blast weapons, with the following exceptions.".

Immediately following this the first bullet point states, "To determine if a unit wounded by a barrage is allowed a cover save, always assume the shot is coming from the center of the marker, instead of coming from the firing model. Remember that models in area terrain get their cover save regardless of direction the shot is coming from".

The Tau DP does not have any wording about conveying area terrain.

By Raw, the DP protected vehicle would get no cover save unless you want to argue the wording of wounding a vehicle.

Does this help?

If you want to argue that, then by your logic Smoke launcher Protected vehicles do not get protected from barrage either. Just because it mentions area terrain does not then mean that only area terrain gives cover against barrage. As has been stated, the Disruption Pod does indeed state "Weapon" not "Shot", which would indicate that if the actual weapon is more than 12" away, it gets the save regardless of barrage or not. However, Like I said, it is wobbly.

Smoke launchers are actually in my examples of not getting cover, so that is not a stretch for me.

Weapons firing at the vehicle form more than 12" away

You always get the save if the weapon firing is more than 12" away. It doesn't matter if it is barrage or ordnance barrage. You still get the cover because the weapon fired is more than 12" away. The shot however comes from the center of the blast marker.

I think most of us are in agreement now.

Is the weapon within 12"? No? Then the DP effect takes affect...

I would invite everyone to read the smoke launchers rules. There is some wonderfully vague terminology used.
The rule could be taken to mean that DP actually work under the same rules as the smoke grenades with the same restrictions.

"their tagets work out their cover save as if the shot came from the centre of the blast marker"

How is that vague?

kirsanth wrote:"their tagets work out their cover save as if the shot came from the centre of the blast marker"

How is that vague?

He is talking about the Smoke Launcher rules I think.

Ok. . .
Then, how is that confusing relating to disruption pods?

Because it states what are Smoke grenades and that the alien vehicles have advanced tech that do the same thing. Then it gives the rules and limitations for use of smoke grenades leaving one of those wonderful GW implications that the alien tech follows the same rules.

The Tau disruption pod is not a smoke launcher. Sure you might think it is similar but it does not follow those rules at all. The only thing that is the same is it makes the vehicle obscured which gives a 4+ cover save. Disruption pods are used throughout the game - not just one turn like smoke launchers are. Also, smoke launchers prevent firing whereas the disruption pod does not.

If someone fires a barrage weapon at a vehicle that used smoke they would get a 4+ cover save. If someone fires a weapon within 12" of vehicle with a disruption pod they do not get the cover save.

focusedfire wrote:Because it states what are Smoke grenades and that the alien vehicles have advanced tech that do the same thing. Then it gives the rules and limitations for use of smoke grenades leaving one of those wonderful GW implications that the alien tech follows the same rules.

Errrm... So? Smoke Launchers say the vehicle counts as Obscured. DP say they count as obscured IF THE WEAPON WAS >12" AWAY. What we are trying to work out is if Barrage allows the Measurement for the "Weapon" to be from the hole or not.

If the DP are to use the Smoke Launcher rules then it would be a once per game and would have to be declared.

I'm not arguing this is the case but that there is the "Implication" of such. I have a feeling that DP will become more of a smoke launcher in the next Tau dex.

focusedfire wrote:If the DP are to use the Smoke Launcher rules then it would be a once per game and would have to be declared.

I'm not arguing this is the case but that there is the "Implication" of such. I have a feeling that DP will become more of a smoke launcher in the next Tau dex.

No, there is no such Implication. You are just making things up now.

Let's not get into the next Tau Codex. The proposed rules forum has way too much on that.

"Smoke Launchers"

"Some vehicles have small lauchers mounted onto them that carry smoke canisters(or a more sophistacated equivalent in the case of some alien vehicles).These are used to temporarily hide the vehicle behind concealing coulds of smoke-especially useful for when moving out into the open."

-Skip two paragraghs-

"It is worth pointing out that some armies might use different versions of smoke launchers, which have slightly different rules. As normal the rules in the Codex takes precedence."


This leaves one of those implications that DPs are a type of smoke launcher. If this is so then the Tau rules do indeed take precendence but only where it states that they are different than the BRB. There is nothing in the Tau book about the DP being always on or about not having to declare that it is being used.

Now I admit that this is only one of those notorious implications but it is there none the less.

Don't be sad Gwar, there is new food for the discussion.

focusedfire wrote:Don't be sad Gwar, there is new food for the discussion.

What part of "Disruption Pod" is similar to "Smoke Launcher". Please, explain that one. DP != SL. Live with it.

Is the Tau an alien vehicle and does the DP serve as a more sophisticated version in its application?

focusedfire wrote:Is the Tau an alien vehicle and does the DP serve as a more sophisticated version in its application?

DP does not in any way shape or form say that they are smoke launchers. What the rule in the BRB is for is for other versions of wargear called Smoke Launchers and NOTHING ELSE.

So . . . "their targets work out their cover save as if the shot came from the centre of the blast marker"

How can that still hit and be outside of 12"?

DP are cover saves, no?

Correct, it is a Cover save. However, DP says "Weapon" not "Shot", which is the Crux of the Argument I think.

Nowhere does it say the alien versions are called Smoke launchers it says equivalents.
Entries 1 & 2 http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/equivalent
Entry 2)b)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equivalent
Entry 1)http://define.com/equivalent
http://www.answers.com/topic/equivalent
Then the synonyms http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/Equivalent

focusedfire wrote:Nowhere does it say the alien versions are called SL it says equivalents.
Entries 1 & 2 http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/equivalent
Entry 2)b)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equivalent
Entry 1)http://define.com/equivalent
http://www.answers.com/topic/equivalent
Then the synonyms http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/Equivalent

Sir you are in breach of Rule #6 of the Rules of YMTC:

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

As such I have reported your post.

Ok... I think I understand now.

I don't get it, but I understand the issue better.

But what else would the weapon do - its not CC?

Anyway. . .thanks!

kirsanth wrote:Ok... I think I understand now.

I don't get it, but I understand the issue better.

But what else would the weapon do - its not CC?

Anyway. . .thanks!

I don't know, but it is argued that the distance of the Weapon is what matters as DP says weapon, not shot. Just another example of GW's utter lack of ability to write I suppose.

@Gwar-I apologize, I thought you were obviously and incorrectly ignoring/ misrepresenting the word equivalent.

If this has offended you of violated the rules then I apologize.

focusedfire wrote:If this has offended you I apologize.

I accept your applogy.
However, I have to say to you that your assertion that a DP is in any way equivalent to a Smoke Launcher is utterly barmy. It is a Different name with a different effect.

It was GW's use of the word equivalent that is my problem. They both provide coversaves for vehicles, are wargear, and are used for the same tactical purpose.

I will offer to agree to disagree on the meaning and intended use here.

Also please to note that my primary army is Tau and I feel that the DP does not and should not come into play in this instance. IMO, RAW and RAI support this but then this is purely imo. Please to continue and I will read closely.

So, Gwar, in your mind it turns on "weapon" v. "shot"? What about abilities that are not weapons (psyker powers, Orbital Strikes, etc.)? Are they immune to the rule entirely?

jmurph wrote:So, Gwar, in your mind it turns on "weapon" v. "shot"? What about abilities that are not weapons (psyker powers, Orbital Strikes, etc.)? Are they immune to the rule entirely?

That is a very good point. However, Most of those count as Shooting attacks of some sort, so I would guess that one could argue that you measure from the model. However, it could also be that because the Tau Codex is just so poorly written, that attacks that are not from weapons do indeed ignore the Disruption Pod!

I just want to point out that I am not actually 100% sure, and that both views can be well argued and supported which is why I have refrained from taking 1 side in this debate so far

BGB p.50 wrote:Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon...

Codex: Space Marines p.52 wrote:Calling down an orbital bombardment otherwise counts as firing a ranged weapon...

Codex: Witch Hunters p.37 & Codex Daemonhunters p. 31 wrote:Ordnance Barrage: All orbital strikes count as ordnance barrages for the purposes of inflicting pinning tests.

Hopefully those answer your questions as to how to determine things. None of the above affect disruption pods. Of course, on the other hand, there's always the new guard codex to screw everything up:

Codex: Imperial Guard p.31 wrote:Artillery Bombardment: This is treated as a shooting attack made by the Master of Ordnance...

Looks like it doesn't count as a weapon, so disruption pods won't defend against it.

Thank you Kitzz for bothering to look up quotes. Looks like Guard have the edge it seems

If we're going to get picky, then the exarch crack shot has no effect on the cover save of a unit in area terrain. Shots from the exarch don't grant cover, but for cover purposes we're explicitly told to treat the shot as coming from the centre of the hole instead of the exarch. If the shot came from the exarch, then likewise disruption pods affect shots from where they actually come from.

Glad to see Gwar has leant more in the direction i was thinking though.

Ridcully wrote:Glad to see Gwar has leant more in the direction i was thinking though.

Actually sir, I lean to the left

Well that was well worth an edit...

Truth be told, i'd be inclined to take my disruption pod save from any ranged attack, be it specified as weapon or attack, as long as it was over 12" away.

Just to be nitpicky (it is YMDC after all )...

Kitzz wrote:

BGB p.50 wrote:Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon...

Codex: Space Marines p.52 wrote:Calling down an orbital bombardment otherwise counts as firing a ranged weapon...

So does counts as firing a ranged weapon count as a weapon? Because you measure from the "weapon".

Codex: Witch Hunters p.37 & Codex Daemonhunters p. 31 wrote:Ordnance Barrage: All orbital strikes count as ordnance barrages for the purposes of inflicting pinning tests.

Still not a weapon.... Just an ordnance barrage for pinning. Yes?

FWIW I don't know the answer and suspect it is genuinely vague due to GW's failure to use terms consistently.

jmurph wrote:So does counts as firing a ranged weapon count as a weapon? Because you measure from the "weapon".

Yes, you do, but only when firing vehicles, and I daresay there are no vehicles with psychic attacks or orbital bombardment capability. Btw, we are distinguishing shots from weapons here, so the answer to your question might be no depending upon what you meant.

jmurph wrote:

Codex: Witch Hunters p.37 & Codex Daemonhunters p. 31 wrote:Ordnance Barrage: All orbital strikes count as ordnance barrages for the purposes of inflicting pinning tests.

Still not a weapon.... Just an ordnance barrage for pinning. Yes?

My point with that quotation was to show that ordnance barrages from inquisitorial armies do not ignore cover in the first place, they only matter for the purposes of pinning tests.

ridcully wrote:If we're going to get picky, then the exarch crack shot has no effect on the cover save of a unit in area terrain. Shots from the exarch don't grant cover, but for cover purposes we're explicitly told to treat the shot as coming from the centre of the hole instead of the exarch. If the shot came from the exarch, then likewise disruption pods affect shots from where they actually come from.

Crack shot is also a fire dragon exarch power, so they don't necessarily involve barrages. But yes, I think that you hit the nail on the head, crack shot is not as useful for dark reaper tempest launchers.

Just want to chime in here.

I'm leaning with the fact that by a strict raw definition, the DP does give the cover save. The firing weapon was more than 12" away, and that's really all I think that matters. Psychic powers though are not fired from weapons and mayhaps bypass the DP just on a wording technicality.

But I think that most level headed players would agree to either a roll-off or concede the point.

If you press me to venture into the more nebulous realm of how I think these things should be played, I think I'm going to lean with Ridcully and say that I'd agree that the DP grants a cover save from all attacks originating/fired from more than 12" away. While not exactly supported by rules, I think it would break the game to be played otherwise.

Kitzz wrote:

ridcully wrote:If we're going to get picky, then the exarch crack shot has no effect on the cover save of a unit in area terrain. Shots from the exarch don't grant cover, but for cover purposes we're explicitly told to treat the shot as coming from the centre of the hole instead of the exarch. If the shot came from the exarch, then likewise disruption pods affect shots from where they actually come from.

Crack shot is also a fire dragon exarch power, so they don't necessarily involve barrages. But yes, I think that you hit the nail on the head, crack shot is not as useful for dark reaper tempest launchers.

Not as useful? It has absolutely no use outside of rerolls when we overanalyze the barrage cover paragraph as much people have been. It's obviously supposed to negate their cover saves though, even with the barrage wording. I say follow the barrage "from the centre" rule as no more than for directional LoS cover purposes, which is what it's for. I very much doubt they intended it to be an entirely different mechanic beyond what we can assertain with a glance.

An genuinely interesting question and I've missed most of it!


- Obscured is a status granted by certain conditions or wargear. It can be granted by a number of sources.
- When firing a barrage weapon you use the position of the template to determine if the target is granted a cover save from terrain ETA instead of by line of sight from firer. Any special covers saves that the target may have already qualified for are not negated by this.
- Smoke launchers automatically grant you obscured status when they are triggererd - the vehicle using them will continue to get have that obscured status regardless of where a barrage template might land because they are granted that status by the wargear. They may or may not get an obscured save from the barrage weapon depending on it's position and terrain but they still have the original obscured status from the smoke launchers.
- Disruption pod is similar although the cover save has a condition, that the firing weapon be 12" away. That condition is fulfilled at the point the target is selected so the vehicle now gets a 4+ cover save, where the barrage lands does not affect that. Again, they may also be considered obscured from the shot depending on position and terrain but that original obscured status is not taken away.

Greetings,

I am going to use this thread as a test thread for modding of the tenet to see how they work in real life. After this point, please have posts abide by the tenets. Please report if threads violate such tenets to a reasonable person standard (aka be reasonable and don't deluge me)
As noted, if the OP desires thaqt this not be a test thread I'll remove this.
***************************************************************
These are some of the basic tenets of You Make Da Call. Some of them clarify the Dakka Rules and some of them are guidelines to ensure relatively smooth rules discussions. If you find someone going against these tenets, feel free to refer them to this post. The Moderation Staff will also use these as moderation guidelines in this forum.

Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give a basis for a statement; without this, there can be no debate.

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

4. 4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations. FRAZZLED NOTE: YOU CAN DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THE IMAPCT ON SPORTSMANSHIP, BUT PLEASE SEPARATE THE DISCUSSION SPECIFICALLY IN A NEW PARAGRAPH IN YOUR POST AND IDENTIFY AS SUCH.

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

A Few Definitions
For those who haven't seen these terms before.

Rules As Written - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations.

How You Would Play It - This refers to taking small liberties with the rules to smooth out the odd or counterintuitive situations listed above.

Frazzled - I think you scared them off.

Scott-S6 wrote:Frazzled - I think you scared them off.

Not really. The issue was sorted beforehand. By Sorted I mean that there are two viewpoints that are equally valid but mutually exclusive and as such require pre game clarification until such time that GW get off their arses and write good rules or I raise the £65,000,000 I need to buy all of GW's stock

Wow I didn't actually know people thought this was an issue? I've been playing my Tau as though they don't get a cover save. Quite annoying, but thats how I've been playing it.

Our (irrelevant) fluff justification goes like this:
Disruption pods make a big hazy area where you can't exactly make out the target.
Most weapons fire in a straight line and may just pass through the smoke/disrupted image and completely miss.
However barrage weapons are actually aimed to hit the GROUND, rather than an actual target - in this case you see a big ball of smoke and lob a shell into the middle- you're bound to hit something.

Trasvi wrote:Our (irrelevant) fluff justification goes like this:
Disruption pods make a big hazy area where you can't exactly make out the target.
Most weapons fire in a straight line and may just pass through the smoke/disrupted image and completely miss.
However barrage weapons are actually aimed to hit the GROUND, rather than an actual target - in this case you see a big ball of smoke and lob a shell into the middle- you're bound to hit something.

The opposite and equally irrelevant fluff angle is that these barrage weapons are directed by an observer/gunner and where he chooses to the direct the fire is influenced by how the disruption pod affects what he sees. He can easily call it in on the wrong location such that a "hit" is in the wrong place.

So the way I'd be tempted to try to play it would be to have the disruption pod affect the scatter dice roll. That way the blast still hits somewhere, possibly still right on the target, but the chance of a "hit" is reduced by half.

Good on you Trasvi for showing great sportsmanship and taking the interpretation that is least advantageous tou yourself. Too often people argue for advantage at the expense of other players. Were I to play Tau, which I would not due to my personal dislike of the models and fluff, I would not take the save. But if playing against Tau, I would be fine with them taking the save. Which is not as sporting as it sounds, since my AT is melta or CC and tends to get close :-)

Gwar! wrote: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.

Nowhere in any fluff does it say space marines have a 2+ save nor have a STR 11, you are using the 'domino effect' or 'slippery slope' to circumvent the idea that fluff 'can' be used to help explain raw when raw doesn't explain itself.

The reality of it is, this is YMDC. When a rule doesn't explain itself, or needs clarification people come here for help. We can explain what the rules say until we are blue in the face, but if there is a problem with the application of said rule, we need to help (not hurt) the process of 'making the call'.

Please don't misunderstand me, I do believe that we need to rely on RaW as much as humanly possible. I am also a firm believer that we are capable of intuition and making a general concesus when RaW fails.

I make no intention to call you out with my quote, it just appears you use this 'slippery slope' tactic, when it isn't relevant.

Hope no offense is taken

I ask you read the newly Published rules of YMDC. This thread is clearly a RaW thread, not a "How would you play it" thread. Thus fluff arguments are not welcome.

Thank you for missing the point of my post.

I will read the New YMDC rules

By RAW, the barrage cover argument doesn't apply to a vehicle, in such a way as to possibly negate the disruption pods, by the conditional mention of wounding a squad. Not that i agree this necessarily means barrage weapons determine cover as any other weapon aiming at vehiles, by using TLOS from the firer, but RAW i think that's what we're left with. Ordnance barrage words it very slightly differently, possibly allowing for use against vehicles, but again by RAW we're supposed to measure from the 'weapon'.

Doesn't mean RAW is necessarily correct. As mentioned, by RAW the crack shot cover save effect is wasted on a barrage weapon, and i think everyone would agree that's not RAI.

SHINEY NEW PARAGRAPH: Give your opponents the benefit of the doubt, unless of course you're the tau player. That's fair, unless of course you're not the tau player.

By RaW, if the weapon is more than 12" away then the cover is given by the rules of the disruption pod.

Tau Codex wrote:Weapons firing at the vehicle from more than 12" distant count the vehicle as an Obscured Target.

The only problem becomes what is defined as a weapon. Codex over rules rulebook. Barrage weapon is fired from more than 12" away but lands 1" away. Shot is resolved against the armor it hits up against at half strength.

If however a hammerhead tank without a disruption pod was behind a building granting it 50% covered status and the obscured status and a barrage was fired at it landing behind the tank with nothing between the tank and the blast then you would resolve cover coming from the center of the blast - thus negating the cover save. If the tank had a disruption pod and the shot same shot was fired the cover save would be granted because the weapon was fired from more than 12" away.

Doesn't barrage not ignore cover terrain ; IE you are in woods get a cover save vs barrage versus you were behind the woods.


I dunno if that woould come into play though.


Something I brought up was according to the RAW as I read it ; a 5 man pirahna squad w/ just 3 disruption pods will give the whole unit cover because more than 50% of it is obscured.


It saves like ten points!!!

Hollismason wrote:Doesn't barrage not ignore cover terrain ; IE you are in woods get a cover save vs barrage versus you were behind the woods.


I dunno if that woould come into play though.


Something I brought up was according to the RAW as I read it ; a 5 man pirahna squad w/ just 3 disruption pods will give the whole unit cover because more than 50% of it is obscured.


It saves like ten points!!!

Vehicles cannot benefit from Area Terrain, the 50% Obscure rule takes precedence. And yes, Only 50% of Piranahs need to have them