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.

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