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.

k so here's what happend

pedro, orbital bombardment onto a hammer head.
"i get cover you more then 12" away"
"it counts as being fired from the center of the blast"
"but your more then 12" away..."

so how does this work? pedro counts as shooting, but the shot counts as being fired from the center.

i say no cover save but the local guy that works there doesn't like gw rules or me so didn't even look at the book.

(also last time i posted a rules question i got flamed to all hell, i'm not stupid but the 40k radio forum is down or i'd ask it there)

Center of blast is used to determine which armour-facing is hit.
The shot is still fired from 12+ inches away.
Coversave applies IMO.

Normally the presence of a coversave is determined by whether terrain is in between the firing model and the hit model.
In the case of Disruption Pod (I believe thats the one, isn't it?) the requirement is whether the shot is coming from 12+ inches away.
Which I believe it was.

pg. 58

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

yes its spelled wrong in the rule book. they put centre lol, at least in the little book.

and the 'centre' of the blast is within 12"

orbital bombardment:

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

however if i fire it at a unit sitting behind a building they get a cover save from cause pedro's on the other side, it ignores it because cover saves are taken from the center of the blast.

yes he 'fired it' but covers taken from the center of the blast, and the center of the blast is within 12"

You might be right.
It is late here, so I just gave it a shot. Maybe I missed.

wash-away wrote:pg. 58

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

yes its spelled wrong in the rule book. they put centre lol, at least in the little book.

and the 'centre' of the blast is within 12"

Ok, firstly, learn English, not that mangled version you speak over there. Then come back and tell us it is spelt wrong. (Protip: It isn't).

Secondly, the Disruption pod is very clear. "Weapons fired from more than 12" distant...". Normal Cover saves are worked out from the centre of the Blast Marker, but the weapon was still fired from >12" away, so he gets the cover save granted by the wargear.

Gwar! wrote:

wash-away wrote:pg. 58

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

yes its spelled wrong in the rule book. they put centre lol, at least in the little book.

and the 'centre' of the blast is within 12"

Ok, firstly, learn English, not that mangled version you speak over there. Then come back and tell us it is spelt wrong. (Protip: It isn't).

Secondly, the Disruption pod is very clear. "Weapons fired from more than 12" distant...". Normal Cover saves are worked out from the centre of the Blast Marker, but the weapon was still fired from >12" away, so he gets the cover save granted by the wargear.

good to know dakka dakka rules question flaming is still around.

and the ordanance rule says very clear that the vehicle takes cover saves are resolved from the center of the blast. and the center of the blast is within 12"

it says that saves are taken no matter where the gun is, from the center of the blast. it does not say you can take saves from the gun if its so far away from the firer.

cover saves can only be taken from the center of the blast.

wash-away wrote:

good to know dakka dakka rules question flaming is still around.

and the ordanance rule says very clear that the vehicle takes cover saves are resolved from the center of the blast. and the center of the blast is within 12"

it says that saves are taken no matter where the gun is, from the center of the blast. it does not say you can take saves from the gun if its so far away from the firer.

cover saves can only be taken from the center of the blast.

You wouldn't get FLAMED if you didn't ASK for it by saying that centre is spelled wrong ,not capitalizing your sentences, and arguing clear rules. As GWAR said, the disruption pod wargear specifically states that "weapons fired at the vehicle from more than 12" distant count the vehicle as an Obscured Target." (Pg 30 Tau Codex)
In the rulebook, it says that "if a piece of wargear confers to the vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save," (Pg 62 BGB).
In the Space Marine Codex is says "Calling down an Orbital Bombardment otherwise counts as firing a ranged weapon," (Pg 52 SM Codex).
So to summarize, if the Chapter Master uses his orbital bombardment on a vehicle with disruption pods from more than 12" away, the vehicle gets a 4+ cover save due to being obscured.

wash-away wrote:i'm so sorry that i'm not an educated European prick, feth dakka.

Ah, my mistake. I did not realise capitalisation and punctuation were European exclusive traits.

I offer my sincere apologies.

The weapon was fired from ORBIT, which to me would be more than 12" away.

Seriously, people, was all that hysteria over spelling really necessary? First and only warning for this thread: play nice.


For the actual topic:

Gwar! wrote:Secondly, the Disruption pod is very clear. "Weapons fired from more than 12" distant...". Normal Cover saves are worked out from the centre of the Blast Marker, but the weapon was still fired from >12" away, so he gets the cover save granted by the wargear.

I have to disagree.

The Disruption pod works on weapons fired from more than 12" away, as you say.
But the rules for Barrage weapons say that to determine whether the target get's a cover save, you assume that the shot is coming from the centre of the marker.

So it doesn't matter how far away the shot actually came from. You treat the shot as coming from the centre of the marker... which is less than 12" away. The disruption pod therefore won't work on Barrage weapons.

insaniak wrote:Seriously, people, was all that hysteria over spelling really necessary? First and only warning for this thread: play nice.


For the actual topic:

Gwar! wrote:Secondly, the Disruption pod is very clear. "Weapons fired from more than 12" distant...". Normal Cover saves are worked out from the centre of the Blast Marker, but the weapon was still fired from >12" away, so he gets the cover save granted by the wargear.

I have to disagree.

The Disruption pod works on weapons fired from more than 12" away, as you say.
But the rules for Barrage weapons say that to determine whether the target get's a cover save, you assume that the shot is coming from the centre of the marker.

So it doesn't matter how far away the shot actually came from. You treat the shot as coming from the centre of the marker... which is less than 12" away. The disruption pod therefore won't work on Barrage weapons.

You treat the shot only for the Purposes of Cover. The Disruption pod does not grant cover, it grants obscured status, which in turn grants the cover save.

As already stated: "weapons fired at the vehicle from more than 12" distant count the vehicle as an Obscured Target." In the rulebook, it says that "if a piece of wargear confers to the vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save,".

So, even though you determine cover from the centre of the Blast marker, you still fired the weapon from >12", so the vehicle is Obscured, and has a 4+ cover save, even if in the open.

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:Seriously, people, was all that hysteria over spelling really necessary? First and only warning for this thread: play nice.


For the actual topic:

Gwar! wrote:Secondly, the Disruption pod is very clear. "Weapons fired from more than 12" distant...". Normal Cover saves are worked out from the centre of the Blast Marker, but the weapon was still fired from >12" away, so he gets the cover save granted by the wargear.

I have to disagree.

The Disruption pod works on weapons fired from more than 12" away, as you say.
But the rules for Barrage weapons say that to determine whether the target get's a cover save, you assume that the shot is coming from the centre of the marker.

So it doesn't matter how far away the shot actually came from. You treat the shot as coming from the centre of the marker... which is less than 12" away. The disruption pod therefore won't work on Barrage weapons.

You treat the shot only for the Purposes of Cover. The Disruption pod does not grant cover, it grants obscured status, which in turn grants the cover save.

As already stated: "weapons fired at the vehicle from more than 12" distant count the vehicle as an Obscured Target." In the rulebook, it says that "if a piece of wargear confers to the vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save,".

So, even though you determine cover from the centre of the Blast marker, you still fired the weapon from >12", so the vehicle is Obscured, and has a 4+ cover save, even if in the open.

in the end it results in a cover save, so follows the rules for ordnance barrage.

OB takes cover saves from the middle of the blast marker. so yes you get your cover save from me being 12> away, you 'obscured' so 4+ cover. however OB says you treat cover from the middle of the blast template.

and yes its fired from orbit fluff wise, so its got a huge lazer that hits the area no matter how fuzzy you look.

and i'm so glad that a rules question can result in personal attacks and national prejudice. glad to see dakka dakka is still the same flame whore site that resulted in me leaving before.

wash-away wrote:in the end it results in a cover save, so follows the rules for ordnance barrage.

And as I have pointed out, even when you do follow the rules for Ordnance Barrage, you still get the Obscured Status, which gives you a 4+ cover save no matter where cover is determined from.

The model itself isn't technically shooting is he? Sorry I am unfamiliar with calling orbital strikes but isn't he just calling one down? I can't really see the tiny Pedro model shooting a large blast template out of his mouth... but I dunno the RaW for that so you will have to enlighten me.

Just imagine that the disruption pod is screwing with Pedro's targeting, so there is a 50% chance that he is calling up the wrong coordinates.

Pedro is picking the spot that the laser/missile/piano is coming down on, so it is subject to a miss chance.

Gwar! wrote:You treat the shot only for the Purposes of Cover.

Not quite. You treat the shot as coming from the marker for the purposes of determining whether or not the model gets a cover save... not just determining whether or not it is in cover.

The Disruption pod does not grant cover, it grants obscured status, which in turn grants the cover save.

That's the point. The pod is allowing the vehicle to take a cover save. So, the Barrage rule kicks in, and says: Hey, someone's trying to take a cover save here! Where's the shot coming from? Oh, the centre of the vehicle's roof... no cover there... so for the purposes of this shot, the vehicle isn't actually obscured after all.

The original shot grants obscured status, due to being more than 12" away. But when you come to actually taking the cover save, the shot is only coming from the centre of the marker. The original obscured result is ignored, because you're considering the centre of the marker as the origin of the shot instead.

So, even though you determine cover from the centre of the Blast marker, you still fired the weapon from >12", so the vehicle is Obscured, and has a 4+ cover save, even if in the open.

Again, you're not determining cover. You're determining whether or not a cover save can be taken. And for the purposes of determining that, the shot isn't coming from 12" away. It's coming from the centre of the marker.

The piece of wargear in question has nothing to do with the cover save the Ordnance Barrage rule is talking about. They are simply exclusive topics.

In term's of range & arguing that the shot is coming from within 12" of the Fish in question; Well.. I argue that the shot is actually illegal based on that information as the shot could well have originated within 1" of the hull which would surely be illegal. Makes no sense, neither does the premise of this thread in the same context.

insaniak wrote:

The Disruption pod does not grant cover, it grants obscured status, which in turn grants the cover save.

That's the point. The pod is allowing the vehicle to take a cover save. So, the Barrage rule kicks in, and says: Hey, someone's trying to take a cover save here! Where's the shot coming from? Oh, the centre of the vehicle's roof... no cover there... so for the purposes of this shot, the vehicle isn't actually obscured after all.

The original shot grants obscured status, due to being more than 12" away. But when you come to actually taking the cover save, the shot is only coming from the centre of the marker. The original obscured result is ignored, because you're considering the centre of the marker as the origin of the shot instead.

But the weapon that fired it is still over 12" away, even if you are considering the origin of the shot to be the center of the blast marker and that is what the Disruption pod deals with, the location of the weapon which is the subject of the shooting. So long as the weapon is outside of that 12" range, regardless of rules that treat the shot as this or that, the Disruption Pod will trigger.

insaniak wrote:That's the point. The pod is allowing the vehicle to take a cover save. So, the Barrage rule kicks in, and says: Hey, someone's trying to take a cover save here! Where's the shot coming from? Oh, the centre of the vehicle's roof... no cover there... so for the purposes of this shot, the vehicle isn't actually obscured after all.

The original shot grants obscured status, due to being more than 12" away. But when you come to actually taking the cover save, the shot is only coming from the centre of the marker. The original obscured result is ignored, because you're considering the centre of the marker as the origin of the shot instead.

exactly, you don't get to take saves as normal against this gun,

you shoot,
war gear on tank activates,
orbital barrage rule activates,
you don't get cover because OB says cover is taken from the center of the blast marker.

orbital barrage rules, cover can only be taken as decided from the center of the blast and its not outside 12"

Except the Disruption Pod only counts where the WEAPON fired - *neither* rule overrides the other, they are in fact complimentary.

So it would be possible to recieve two cover saves (one from the wargear, one through being obscured by terrain, for example) however not receiving one of the saves does not deny the other.

Why doesn't anybody just FAQ this? Anyways I gotta agree with nosferatu1001 and kuro_khan. While yes the column of death is being shot from directly above the fish, it is Pedro who must A.) spot the fish B.) Determine WHERE exactly it is on the battlefield and then C.) correctly relay the coordinates to the battle barge so they know WHERE to fire. the Disruption Pods on the Fish would not screw with the shot itself, but would screw with Pedro's PERCEPTION of where the Fish is and there for possibly cause him to give improper coordinates causing the shot to miss. I'm sure what I just said will be picked apart but seems pretty airtight to me.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the Disruption Pod only counts where the WEAPON fired

...which, because Orbital Bombardment is a Barrage weapon, is considered to be the centre of the marker...


But it would appear that this is one of those discussions that's just going to keep going around in circles, and I don't think I care enough to make myself dizzy.

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the Disruption Pod only counts where the WEAPON fired

...which, because Orbital Bombardment is a Barrage weapon, is considered to be the centre of the marker...

But that is not what barrage does. Barrage works out Cover from the Blast Marker Centre, you do not work out where it is fired from the Centre.

Alright, so the two arguments are:
a) You get a cover save because the firing of the weapon is from outside the magic 12" bubble.
b) You do not get a cover save because the damage from the weapon is on the vehicle itself (centre of the blast marker).

Looking over the barrage BRB rules it states that '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 the firing model'. Uh oh. The wording here is 'wounded', disruption pods allow the vehicle to take cover saves against glancing and penetrating 'hits' (brb 62).

RAW: You get a cover save, but only because the wording specifies 'wounds' over 'glancing and/or penetrating hits'.

RAI: You might get a cover save because the guy calling down the strike can't see you? Or maybe you don't because the barrage ignores cover saves on infantry and would most likely have been meant to ignore vehicle obscured saves too.

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the Disruption Pod only counts where the WEAPON fired

...which, because Orbital Bombardment is a Barrage weapon, is considered to be the centre of the marker...


But it would appear that this is one of those discussions that's just going to keep going around in circles, and I don't think I care enough to make myself dizzy.

No, that is where the shot *lands*, the *weapon*, which is what is specified by DP, is still fired from >12" away (assuming the firing model is of course...) and therefore cover is granted.

DP cares about the *weapon*
Barrage talks about the *shot*

the two are not the same.

If you fire a orbital onto a rhino that just popped smoke, does it get a cover save??

wash-away wrote:and i'm so glad that a rules question can result in personal attacks and national prejudice. glad to see dakka dakka is still the same flame whore site that resulted in me leaving before.

I really don't think it is fair that you blame Dakkadakka for the behavior of a few people who live here. Where I don't feel it was particularly mature for people to have jumped on you for not knowing the alternate spellings of "center." You pretty much provoked it by going back and fighting with them, which is equally immature. You can point the finger at Dakkadakka if you want, but it really boils down to... it takes two to fight, so if you don't wanna get into flame wars with people... then don't participate.

thesuperiorninja wrote:Why doesn't anybody just FAQ this? Anyways I gotta agree with nosferatu1001 and kuro_khan. While yes the column of death is being shot from directly above the fish, it is Pedro who must A.) spot the fish B.) Determine WHERE exactly it is on the battlefield and then C.) correctly relay the coordinates to the battle barge so they know WHERE to fire. the Disruption Pods on the Fish would not screw with the shot itself, but would screw with Pedro's PERCEPTION of where the Fish is and there for possibly cause him to give improper coordinates causing the shot to miss. I'm sure what I just said will be picked apart but seems pretty airtight to me.

Real world interpretations are not acceptable in a rules debate. If you want to start arguing that 40k works this way or that because that's how it would make sense in the real world... there are going to be a lot more issues with this game than just this specific rule.

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the Disruption Pod only counts where the WEAPON fired

...which, because Orbital Bombardment is a Barrage weapon, is considered to be the centre of the marker...


But it would appear that this is one of those discussions that's just going to keep going around in circles, and I don't think I care enough to make myself dizzy.

I agree with Insaniak. We essentially have found ourselves dealing with the same poorly written obscured rules that cause a problem with the KFF debate. However in this particular issue, it seems pretty clear that if you get cover from shots from over a foot away... and for the purposes of barrage, you measure from the center of the blast for working out cover... you wouldn't get cover from a blast who's center wasn't at least 12" away.

Lt Lathrop wrote:I agree with Insaniak. We essentially have found ourselves dealing with the same poorly written obscured rules that cause a problem with the KFF debate. However in this particular issue, it seems pretty clear that if you get cover from shots from over a foot away... and for the purposes of barrage, you measure from the center of the blast for working out cover... you wouldn't get cover from a blast who's center wasn't at least 12" away.

The rules aren't poorly written at all.
"Weapons fired from more than 12" distant..."
If the fired weapon is more than 12" away, you get a save. It doesn't matter if the shot comes from space or burrows underground and then comes at you from point blank under your foot, if the weapon that fired is 12" away then you get cover.
The weapon is all that matters, not the shot.

Slackermagee wrote:Alright, so the two arguments are:
a) You get a cover save because the firing of the weapon is from outside the magic 12" bubble.
b) You do not get a cover save because the damage from the weapon is on the vehicle itself (centre of the blast marker).

Looking over the barrage BRB rules it states that '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 the firing model'. Uh oh. The wording here is 'wounded', disruption pods allow the vehicle to take cover saves against glancing and penetrating 'hits' (brb 62).

RAW: You get a cover save, but only because the wording specifies 'wounds' over 'glancing and/or penetrating hits'.

RAI: You might get a cover save because the guy calling down the strike can't see you? Or maybe you don't because the barrage ignores cover saves on infantry and would most likely have been meant to ignore vehicle obscured saves too.

i dont know where your reading from but pg 58 of the BRB,

"...and their targets work out their cover save as if the shot came from the center of the blast marker." it says nothing about wounds or glancing or penetrating hits.

you do not get cover from pedro pointing at you anymore then i get cover from your marker lights. wich with all the arguments i've heard makes just as much sense. tree's make it harder for you to marker light me don't they?

but as said before, this is going to just go around.

Page 32 for the wounding thing.

Regardless: stupid RAW argument. Do you get to fire the bombardment at a hazy target in the distance and (assuming it lands on target) ignore the haze or do you miss completely due to the haze and it lands off target (on a successful cover save)? 4+ if this happens to you in game I'd say.