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.

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.