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.

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