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.

Yes, and the rule for Disruption Pod asks you to determine if the range between the Firing Unit and the unit are more than X" apart

So, if the Firing Unit has not changed, why are you saying you can ignore the pod when the pod does not care about " the shot", just the firing unit?

Because in this case the BRB tells you to. I will rely on the BRB instead of you, thanks very much...

"To determine weather a unit wounded by a Barrage weapon is allowed a cover save, and when determining Wound allocation, always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model."

Look at the underlined.

We are determining cover saves, aka if one is allowed, when we take the disruption pods into account.

Beast wrote:
Because in this case the BRB tells you to. I will rely on the BRB instead of you, thanks very much...

Only for two reasons:
1. Wound Allocation - does not matter in this situation.
2. Determining Cover Saves: This is where people seem to get hung up. There are 2 parts of determining cover saves - determining the base cover save (which is based on the firing models relative position to the target or if the target is in area terrain) and modifying the base cover. Determining whether or not the target unit gets Stealth or Shrouded (either from Disruption Pods or Night Fight) is done in the choose a target/measure range part of making a Shooting Attack. Once this has been determined, the target has the special rule for the remainder of that shooting attack. Barrage only affects the first part (base cover save).

Agree DR... The quote you, I and others provided is pretty definitive. Glad it is resolved. Phew...

Beast wrote:
Because in this case the BRB tells you to. I will rely on the BRB instead of you, thanks very much...

So, page and paragrpah, or will you continue to make unbacked assertions?

You are told to use the distance between the Firing Unit and the target unit to determine if Disruption Pods have any effect. Why are you using "shot" intead of "firing unit"? Hint: neither the Tau Empire codex nor the BRB tells you to do this.

Page and paragraph, or concede

It's been quoted for you multiple times, with page number, Nos. I'm not gonna bother to do it again. I do not concede to your assertion but I am done with this thread... Cheers

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Codex (or Codex modified by FAQ, in this case) >BRB when it comes to determining a ruling? So if this is true, then Disruption Pods would grant their special rule to the vehicle even when being shot by a Barrage weapon since the Codex's special rule (Disruption Pod conferring stealth when being shot by a unit outside of 12" would trump the general BRB for Barrage weapons.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Disruption pods say “A vehicle with a disruption pod has the Shrouded special rule against any weapons firing from more than 12" away.” 40k FaQ

The weapon is fired from the center of the marker, therefore the vehicle does not gain shrouded.

No, the weapon is fired from the model/tank carrying the barrage blast, the shot is counted as comming from the center of the hole; and only for purposes of wound allocation and LOS cover arguments.

xiahoufig wrote:
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Codex (or Codex modified by FAQ, in this case) >BRB when it comes to determining a ruling? So if this is true, then Disruption Pods would grant their special rule to the vehicle even when being shot by a Barrage weapon since the Codex's special rule (Disruption Pod conferring stealth when being shot by a unit outside of 12" would trump the general BRB for Barrage weapons.

Only when there is a conflict (hence the reason the Night Scythe had to be reworded). In this case, a target gets a special rule if the firing unit is a certain distance away. Once you go to resolve wounds and saves then the barrage rules kick in. at this time the target already has the special rule and there is no permission to reevaluate that rule.

I don't read it that way, but I can see why you do. In order to "always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker", it necessitates that you likewise assume that, for barrage purposes vis-a-vis cover saves, the basic rules for firing weapons is modified. This is obviously an exception to the basic rules. Of course the actual weapon is elsewhere on the board, but for the purposes of barrage (and only barrage), the actual rules tell you to make this exception. This is not in conflict with the Codex so there is no rules precedence involved. If you were talking about any other blast marker (non-barrage), or any other ranged shot coming from >12" away, I completely agree with you, 100%. But barrgae has a pretty clearly-worded exception (as I read it)...

Beast wrote:
It's been quoted for you multiple times, with page number, Nos. I'm not gonna bother to do it again. I do not concede to your assertion but I am done with this thread... Cheers

And it's been quoted multiple times that determining range and LOS are different things and range is not changed with barrage, only LOS.

If, when you come to allocate a Wound, the target model's body
(as defined on page 8) is at least 25% obscured from the point
of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model
receive a cover save."

Barrage ONLY changes the point of view of the firer, NOT the range.

Not sure what you are referring to? I haven't said anything about range (other than the 12" Dis Pod range requirement) and the fact that no large blast marker has a radius >12"... Can you clarify which post of mine you are referring to where I made a range assertion?

Edit- And IIRC barrage weapons do not need a LOS so that part of the rule could be irrelevant even with many barrage shots...

Beast wrote:
Not sure what you are referring to? I haven't said anything about range (other than the 12" Dis Pod range requirement) and the fact that no large blast marker has a radius >12"... Can you clarify which post of mine you are referring to where I made a range assertion?

Range of firer to target has been the entire basis of this thread...to assume the range of the firer to the target is changed via Barrage *is* asserting range reference.

Yeah and that is my point and the BRB's point. The shot is ALWAYS assumed to have come from the center of the large blast marker. In order for a large blast marker to have an effect on a unit, it will by definition be within the Dis Pod's 12" bubble... So the range of the shot becomes irrelevant because the marker has to actually touch the Dis Pod unit (and no blast marker has a radius of >12"... I (wrongly) assumed everyone would know that is the "range" involved here... Sorry.

Beast wrote:
Yeah and that is my point and the BRB's point. The shot is ALWAYS assumed to have come from the center of the large blast marker. In order for a large blast marker to have an effect on a unit, it will by definition be within the Dis Pod's 12" bubble... So the range of the shot becomes irrelevant because the marker has to actually touch the Dis Pod unit (and no blast marker has a radius of >12"... I (wrongly) assumed everyone could figure that out for themselves... Sorry.

No, the point of view is change, you are asserting the range is changed. When you look at the rule for determining cover saves, which I posted a few posts back, you use LOS from the firer to the target to determine cover. Barrage changes LOS to determine cover, it DOES NOT change range from firing unit to target unit.

The range of the shot is never irrelevant, to assume otherwise is incorrect.

Again I will say it, even in the rules for artillery units do they separate out LOS and Range even with a mention of barrage weapons.

Kevin, I do see your point, but (as I read the barrage vis-a-vis cover exception), if the shot always is assumed to have come from the center of wherever the blast marker lands, then the other "normal" rules that it makes exception to, are... well... excepted. Dang... I got drawn back into this one again when I said I was done with it... Must... walk... away... now... :-)
Again, I can see your pov, but I just don't think it is the RAW... Here is the rule I'm referencing again...

"To determine whether a unit wounded by a Barrage weapon is allowed a cover save, and when determining Wound allocation, always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model."

I bolded the part which tells us to ignore the position of the firing model... This is a key point and clearly defines the exception in this case... So you can see this DOES in fact change the range (and also LOS) from the firing model/unit... It is now always measured from the center of the blast marker.

Lets make this more confusing.....

*Lets assume the shrouding is given to the Hammerhead*

The player put the hammerhead in a ruin which gives it 4+ save(since it is 25% covered). Now...with shroud it gives the Hammerhead a 2+ cover save.

If a barrage weapon is used on that Hammerhead, would it negate the 2+ cover save, leaving it only with a 5+?

Hazard30 wrote:
Lets make this more confusing.....

*Lets assume the shrouding is given to the Hammerhead*

The player put the hammerhead in a ruin which gives it 4+ save(since it is 25% covered). Now...with shroud it gives the Hammerhead a 2+ cover save.

If a barrage weapon is used on that Hammerhead, would it negate the 2+ cover save, leaving it only with a 5+?

Doesn't really make it anymore confusing

It inarguably gets the save from the ruins.

The question is, do you think that using the center of the blast to determine cover includes using it to determine if the unit gets a USR that effects cover. That really sums up the crux of the argument I think.

EDIT: Incidentally, if you do think you measure range from the hole to determine if a unit gets a USR that effects cover, it does mean that a unit with defensive grenades will have stealth.

Let me throw something else at you in regards to this. (Mind you, both sides have very good points, both RAI and RAW) Night Fighting does not allow you to target a unit outside of 30". However, you have a Barrage weapon with a range greater than that. Are you allowed to fire that weapon during Night Fighting? If yes, then D-Pods don't grant their bnous. If No, then D-Pods do grant their bonus regardless of where the shot is coming from.

To add: If the barrage weapon is allowed to fire, is the rest of the unit allowed to fire despite being out of Night Fight range?

It's 36", but no you can't fire (Target) anything at a unit that is farther than 36" away during nightfighting.

Beast wrote:
It's been quoted for you multiple times, with page number, Nos. I'm not gonna bother to do it again. I do not concede to your assertion but I am done with this thread... Cheers

Ah, so you have no rules argument? Good to know

Shot != Firing Unit. If you disagree, page and para will suffice. Or concede.

Beast wrote:
Kevin, I do see your point, but (as I read the barrage vis-a-vis cover exception), if the shot always is assumed to have come from the center of wherever the blast marker lands, then the other "normal" rules that it makes exception to, are... well... excepted. Dang... I got drawn back into this one again when I said I was done with it... Must... walk... away... now... :-)
Again, I can see your pov, but I just don't think it is the RAW... Here is the rule I'm referencing again...

"To determine whether a unit wounded by a Barrage weapon is allowed a cover save, and when determining Wound allocation, always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model."

I bolded the part which tells us to ignore the position of the firing model... This is a key point and clearly defines the exception in this case... So you can see this DOES in fact change the range (and also LOS) from the firing model/unit... It is now always measured from the center of the blast marker.

Look through the section on determining cover saves in the rulebook and point out to me where range has anything at all to do with determining cover...It doesn't.

If there was such a thing as Melta Barrage weapon, would you say that this weapon is always going to get the Melta bonus if the barrage lands on its target since the range is now measured from the center of the hole? Of course not, because RANGE has nothing to do with allocating wounds or resolving cover.

So again, Disruptions Pods simply give a special rule to the Hammerhead...the special rule happens to be shrouding, but it could be anything else. It could be a 5+ invulnerable save, or it could be +1 Armor Value, etc, etc, etc. What the special rule is irrelevant, the point is that if the firing unit is more than 12" away from the vehicle, then the disruption pods grant the special rule. Using the center of the blast for determining cover and allocating wounds does nothing to change that fact.

So if the special rule provided by Disruption Pods was a 5+ Invulnerable save if the enemy is more than 12" away, would you be claiming that the vehicle wouldn't get the 5+ invulnerable save from a barrage weapon, and if so, by what basis? And if you think the vehicle would still get the Invulnerable save in this case, why would you want to treat this special rule any differently from Shrouding?

I didn't want to get into this....but...and I am a Tau man and this is shooting myself in the foot...

Sine the Barrage rules states that for determining cover and wound allocation:

always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker,instead of from the firing model.

The DPs do not work. All the talk about a model having a special rule is wrong - because the special rule is only gained IF it meets the qualifications. There is no 'phasing' that determines that the model has the rule before the barrage effect kicks in, Since the DPs look to how far they are from the firing model, and according to the barrage rule - the firer is the center hole....no shrouded

Now, people who try to say there is no rules basis: please find in the statement for disruption pods or barrage where DPs can ignor the barrage rules for determining if the vehicle gets cover, or in the barrage rule where it says that it doesn't count for vehicles with DPs (specifically or generically).

And Yakface - yes - regardless of the rule - I would say that the vehicle would not gain whatever the effect was.

As for the discussion as a whole - I am really hoping that GW words the new DPs better...

 Amaraxis wrote:
I didn't want to get into this....but...and I am a Tau man and this is shooting myself in the foot...

Sine the Barrage rules states that for determining cover and wound allocation:

always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker,instead of from the firing model.

The DPs do not work. All the talk about a model having a special rule is wrong - because the special rule is only gained IF it meets the qualifications. There is no 'phasing' that determines that the model has the rule before the barrage effect kicks in, Since the DPs look to how far they are from the firing model, and according to the barrage rule - the firer is the center hole....no shrouded

Now, people who try to say there is no rules basis: please find in the statement for disruption pods or barrage where DPs can ignor the barrage rules for determining if the vehicle gets cover, or in the barrage rule where it says that it doesn't count for vehicles with DPs (specifically or generically).

And Yakface - yes - regardless of the rule - I would say that the vehicle would not gain whatever the effect was.

As for the discussion as a whole - I am really hoping that GW words the new DPs better...

Please stop misquoting the barrage rules (you're not the first one to do this in this thread in order to prove an incorrect point).

If the barrage rules actually said what you wrote there in their entirety you would be correct, but the rules don't actually say that. They say that the shot counts as coming from the center of the blast for two specific reasons and ONLY those reasons.

"To determine weather a unit wounded by a Barrage weapon is allowed a cover save, and when determining Wound allocation, always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model."


The ONLY time a barrage shot is considered to come from the center of the blast is for determining whether a unit is allowed a cover save and when determining wound allocation. THAT IS IT. It has nothing to do with 'phasing', it has to do with the barrage rules stating only two specific cases where the shot counts as coming from the center of the blast. In ALL OTHER (unspecified) CIRCUMSTANCES, the shot, by definition must still be considered as coming from the firing unit.


So again, let's play make believe. Let's say the rule says that the model gets +1 to its Armor Value when the firing unit is more than 12" away. Under what logical basis would you claim that the barrage weapon rules deny the target being hit from getting its +1 AV from this shot?

You cannot make this argument with any logical backing. It is impossible (but please do try).


Once you accept that fact, then please remember that Disruption Pods to do not provide a cover save. They simply give the vehicle a SPECIAL RULE. The fact that the special rule happens to give the vehicle a cover save is completely and totally irrelevant, because if you accept and understand the idea above (that the barrage weapon rules do not affect the range of a shot), then it cannot be logically argued that the vehicle loses its Shrouding rule because of the barrage rules.


So please, if someone is going to continue making the counter-argument, you need to address how somehow the barrage rules affect the range of the firing unit to its target. If you cannot make a logical argument that supports that point, then you have to admit that your position is wrong.

Likewise, D-pods don't tell you to measure from the 'source of the shot', it tells your to measure from yourself to the firing model and apply the stealth rule if the distance exceeded 12.

I do agree that barrage does not ignore night fighting cover saves or disruption pods, as you treat the shot as coming from the center of the blast marker but the weapon is not coming from the center of the blast marker.

You would still need to measure range from the firing weapon (I know most cases the range is a lot but still), the firing unit is still the firing unit full stop there is nothing there to say any different the shot and firing unit is different you are allowed to treat one differently to the other which is different to 'normal' weapons.

If the shot and firing unit was always coming from the center of the blast you would never need to measure for range and the range would be unlimited.

At first, I thought it would ignore the dp... But after reading the brb and the thread, I changed my mind. Even though the SHOT comes from the center of the blast marker, the firing unit certainly stays where it is, and it is the firing model and not the shot that matters.

 yakface wrote:

 Amaraxis wrote:
I didn't want to get into this....but...and I am a Tau man and this is shooting myself in the foot...

Sine the Barrage rules states that for determining cover and wound allocation:

always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker,instead of from the firing model.

The DPs do not work. All the talk about a model having a special rule is wrong - because the special rule is only gained IF it meets the qualifications. There is no 'phasing' that determines that the model has the rule before the barrage effect kicks in, Since the DPs look to how far they are from the firing model, and according to the barrage rule - the firer is the center hole....no shrouded

Now, people who try to say there is no rules basis: please find in the statement for disruption pods or barrage where DPs can ignor the barrage rules for determining if the vehicle gets cover, or in the barrage rule where it says that it doesn't count for vehicles with DPs (specifically or generically).

And Yakface - yes - regardless of the rule - I would say that the vehicle would not gain whatever the effect was.

As for the discussion as a whole - I am really hoping that GW words the new DPs better...

Please stop misquoting the barrage rules (you're not the first one to do this in this thread in order to prove an incorrect point).

If the barrage rules actually said what you wrote there in their entirety you would be correct, but the rules don't actually say that. They say that the shot counts as coming from the center of the blast for two specific reasons and ONLY those reasons.

"To determine weather a unit wounded by a Barrage weapon is allowed a cover save, and when determining Wound allocation, always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model."

The ONLY time a barrage shot is considered to come from the center of the blast is for determining whether a unit is allowed a cover save and when determining wound allocation. THAT IS IT. It has nothing to do with 'phasing', it has to do with the barrage rules stating only two specific cases where the shot counts as coming from the center of the blast. In ALL OTHER (unspecified) CIRCUMSTANCES, the shot, by definition must still be considered as coming from the firing unit.

So again, let's play make believe. Let's say the rule says that the model gets +1 to its Armor Value when the firing unit is more than 12" away. Under what logical basis would you claim that the barrage weapon rules deny the target being hit from getting its +1 AV from this shot?

You cannot make this argument with any logical backing. It is impossible (but please do try).

Once you accept that fact, then please remember that Disruption Pods to do not provide a cover save. They simply give the vehicle a SPECIAL RULE. The fact that the special rule happens to give the vehicle a cover save is completely and totally irrelevant, because if you accept and understand the idea above (that the barrage weapon rules do not affect the range of a shot), then it cannot be logically argued that the vehicle loses its Shrouding rule because of the barrage rules.

So please, if someone is going to continue making the counter-argument, you need to address how somehow the barrage rules affect the range of the firing unit to its target. If you cannot make a logical argument that supports that point, then you have to admit that your position is wrong.

Ok, so tell me what kind of cover save that DPs effect gives you then? Oh, wait - it is a COVER SAVE!!!! You tell everyone else to make a logical argument - but I have not seen you make one based on the rules as written. There is no other case. There is no other effects. The SPECIFIC case is that Barrage ignores cover - Stealth gives cover. You even keep stating it yourself - that barrage measures from the center when determining cover....

The problem is that you are not providing any points to say otherwise - you just tell people that they cannot make a logical argument.

Oh - and has for your example - barrage does not count the armor value from the center of the blast - it hits side. Since the rules state that the marrage FM is measured from the center for the other stuff only - yes - you would get the +1 AV. You CANNOT compare apples to Tau -> The rules do not mention anything referring to what AV modifiers are drawn from the center of the blast.

 Amaraxis wrote:
The SPECIFIC case is that Barrage ignores cover

No it doesn't.

And Shrouded is not a cover save. It's a Special Rule that modifies/grants cover saves.

Cover Saves do not stack with other cover saves, Shrouded does. So already it does not follow the rules for cover saves. This is because it is not a cover save. It's a Special Rule.