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.

This was a very interesting thread about the granting of a special rule (Shrouded) to a target hit by a Barrage weapon.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/479040.page

A similar situation arises when Night Fighting is in effect, although the condition under which a target gains the special rule is worded differently.

Resolving, the target's cover save in either situation depends on whether you are an Eager or Lazy evaluator...

The Eager evaluator says,

a) The target satisfies the conditions to grant the special rule, give it Shrouded (we're not currently evaluating cover save, so Barrage is irrelevant)
b) Resolving the wound, does the target have a cover save?
=> Yes, it has Shrouded
=> +2

The Lazy evaluator says (waiting until the last possible minute to work things out),

1) Resolving the wound, does the target have a cover save?
=> Does it have Shrouded?
=> Maybe - how does he get Shrouded?
=> Range to target? According to Barrage rules, shots are resolved as if the weapon is fired from the centre of the Blast (we're working out cover now)
=> No Shrouded
=> No cover save

I've been struggling with this and I can't find anything definitive that says whether we are supposed to be Lazy or Eager. But let me throw out an apparent anomaly if Eager is the correct way to go:

A Disruptor Pod (Barrage) weapon fires under Night Fighting at a target 15" away. Eager evaluation gives the target Shrouded (Pod) AND Stealth (Night Fighting), for a +3 cover save. Now move the target out to 30", the target now has Shrouded only (can't stack a special rule twice) for a +2 cover save. Move further away and your cover save gets worse

Of course, if you assessed the cover save Lazily, you wouldn't get any cover save in either situation, but at least it would be consistent

So, are we Lazy or Eager?

Ignoring Disruptor pods for the moment (as I think both sides have presented all relevant arguments in the other thread), Night Fighting clearly states that you determine if a unit has Stealth/Shrouded based on the firing unit. So if a unit is 35" away from the target unit, the target unit has Shrouded. barrage would not come into effect at all.

But yes, a unit that has Shrouded has a worse cover save the further they are.

HIWPI, if a unit has Shrouded already, then up to 36" it has the Stealth special rule. However, this has not yet come up.

Bad form replying to myself I know, but I just thought of another wierd situation.

Night Fighting, and you target a unit 25" away, but scatters and hits a unit 23" away. This is just pointing out that you sometimes don't even know who you target is going to be when you fire a Barrage weapon, never mind work out what special rules they might have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:
Ignoring Disruptor pods for the moment (as I think both sides have presented all relevant arguments in the other thread), Night Fighting clearly states that you determine if a unit has Stealth/Shrouded based on the firing unit. So if a unit is 35" away from the target unit, the target unit has Shrouded. barrage would not come into effect at all.

But yes, a unit that has Shrouded has a worse cover save the further they are.

HIWPI, if a unit has Shrouded already, then up to 36" it has the Stealth special rule. However, this has not yet come up.

Which takes the Eager approach - not saying this is wrong, but I'm wondering where the rules say it is right.

In the case of barrage and night fighting it come down to original distance fired, not scatter. Night fighting does not explicitly state that you cannot barrage an area outside of 36", treated as though they have no LoS and seeing as the night fighting rules are written to specific ranges the target unit does not get any benefit. Making it technically more accurate outside of 36" than if you barrage a unit within and out of LoS. Though on the other hand it only states that the unit is completely hidden in darkness, not out of LoS. Also does not state that its not an eligible target if its more than 36" away.

Its a tough one, I'd play it as 36" or more gets shrouded but no LoS beyond 36".

EDIT:
However, in the case of does the unit get shrouded for being 25-36" away from the firer? Yes, does the non-vehicle unit benefit from the rule? Only if it gets a cover save from the center of the blast marker, USR or other rule (Gone to ground etc). Does a vehicle count as being in cover and get the benefit of shrouded? If the vehicle is 25% or more covered from the direction of the firer or has a USR, item of wargear or rule that grants it a cover save then yes.

Pg 124. If a shooting attack scatters, the distance from the firing unit to the original target is used to determine what effect Night Fighting has.

Fragile wrote:
Pg 124. If a shooting attack scatters, the distance from the firing unit to the original target is used to determine what effect Night Fighting has.

And what about the original question? Any opinions there?

Fragile wrote:
Pg 124. If a shooting attack scatters, the distance from the firing unit to the original target is used to determine what effect Night Fighting has.

That's a good point. So the wierdness I claim for scattering closer is in fact not wierd at all. Thanks for setting me straight on this one. The question about what is the target's cover save is still a valid one though, isn't it?

Im not really sure what the question is. There is so much fluff in the OP. The distance determines the USR of Shrouded/Stealth. The Disruption pod grants Shrouded. Figure out your cover save bonus and apply it to the shot.

Unless the barrage weapon Ignores Cover, then you get your normal night fighting cover save based on the above USRs and any cover save you would get from the center of the blast marker.

No problems, you are in what I've called the Eager camp. Work out the USRs that apply early.

I know it doesn't have to make sense, but if this eagerness to apply USRs is the right way to go, how come in my example above with the Night Fighting Pod Disruptor, you get a +3 cover save if you're 12-24" away, but only +2 is you're further out? (Fragile, I'm not asking you personally to answer this - but if someone can make sense of it for that would be nice).

I guess that's why I'm starting to lean towards being a Lazy person; the context that applies at the time you resolve cover determines your USRs. You can extend this principle to other parts of the combat process too (hit, wound, etc). Most of the time it doesn't make a blind bit of difference, but for Barrage, cover, and wound allocation it does.

Snapshot wrote:
Eager

a) The target satisfies the conditions to grant the special rule, give it Shrouded (we're not currently evaluating cover save, so Barrage is irrelevant)
b) Resolving the wound, does the target have a cover save?
=> Yes, it has Shrouded
=> +2

This is RAW.

The Lazy evaluator says (waiting until the last possible minute to work things out),

1) Resolving the wound, does the target have a cover save?
=> Does it have Shrouded?
=> Maybe - how does he get Shrouded?
=> Range to target? According to Barrage rules, shots are resolved as if the weapon is fired from the centre of the Blast (we're working out cover now)
=> No Shrouded
=> No cover save

The bold part has no bearing on whether a unit has Shrouded and it is incorrect in the context your trying to use it. This part at best would be a house rule.

Fragile wrote:

Snapshot wrote:
Eager

a) The target satisfies the conditions to grant the special rule, give it Shrouded (we're not currently evaluating cover save, so Barrage is irrelevant)
b) Resolving the wound, does the target have a cover save?
=> Yes, it has Shrouded
=> +2

This is RAW.

The Lazy evaluator says (waiting until the last possible minute to work things out),

1) Resolving the wound, does the target have a cover save?
=> Does it have Shrouded?
=> Maybe - how does he get Shrouded?
=> Range to target? According to Barrage rules, shots are resolved as if the weapon is fired from the centre of the Blast (we're working out cover now)
=> No Shrouded
=> No cover save

The bold part has no bearing on whether a unit has Shrouded and it is incorrect in the context your trying to use it. This part at best would be a house rule.

So how do we rationalise the +3 vs +2 cover save for the Disruptor Pod used in Night Fighting (worse save the further away you are). I guess we can just shrug our shoulders, but something smells wrong to me.

Justifying the +3, +2 has no bearing on your Lazy example. Yes, that case and I think there is another just like it, is an example of where the rule for stacking cover saves does not work in a way that makes logical sense. The only way you can actually work it out "logically" is if Shrouded stacks with Shrouded"


However, declaring that you "resolve" the shot from the center of the Blast Marker is straight against RAW/RAI. The center hole is use for 2 specific reasons, determining a cover save, and determining closest model for wound allocation. The shot still comes from the firing unit. The firing unit still has to check for LOS and measure distance. That distance is used to determine if a model gains a USR. That USR can then modify/determine what the cover save against that shot.

Most other cover save objects were changed to give a "+" to cover, like camo cloaks, rather than stealth / shrouded, presumably so they interact well with nightfighting. Disruption pods are an oddity in this.

I stopped comenting on the other post becasue it got too rediculous.

I'll give it a shot here to see if reason prevails.

Barrage weapons shot is considered to come from the center of the blast marker(not the firing model) to determine cover and wounding (which also means for penetrating/glancing)

Since the shot cannot possibly ever be more than 2 1/2 inches away from the unit/vehicle hit, the unit would not get the benefit of shrouded or stealth from night fight.

The 36" rule for night fight states the shooting unit cannot pick a target that is more than 36" away. (Not that it doesn't have line of sight to the unit.)

It is rediculous to think that a shot comes from the center of the blast for all circumstances unless the unit is considered a vehicle. The vehicle designation doesn't change the nature of the weapon. That is rules lawyering at it's worst.

There are so many examples that I could use to show how broken this method of thinking is, that I would need weeks to list them all.

Seriously what would be the reason to treat it differently when firing at a walker rather than a monstous creature?? I'm really asking here. It's ususally the best way to uncover a disengenuine argument.

We all know what is intended, how the weapon works and how it is supposed to be played.

 Idolator wrote:
I stopped comenting on the other post becasue it got too rediculous.

I'll give it a shot here to see if reason prevails.

Barrage weapons shot is considered to come from the center of the blast marker(not the firing model) to determine cover and wounding (which also means for penetrating/glancing)

Since the shot cannot possibly ever be more than 2 1/2 inches away from the unit/vehicle hit, the unit would not get the benefit of shrouded or stealth from night fight.

The distance from the center of the marker to the target hit is irrelevant for determining Shrouded or Stealth. The shooting unit cannot pick a target more than 36" away - such units are completely hidden in the darkness Units between 24" and 35" inches away are treated as having the Shrouded special rule. Units between 12" and up to 24" away are instead treated as having the Stealth special rule.

This distance is measured from the Firing Unit to the Target Unit. If a unit is found to be 30" away, it gains the Shrouded rule, which gives it a cover save. When the shot is resolved and hits a target, you check from the center of the hole to the target to determine what the cover save is. It could be area terrain, a ruin, etc...., or even nothing. Then you apply the Shrouded rule which either modifies a cover save, or gives you a cover save. You will have at least a 5+ cover save from Shrouded simply from Night Fighting.

The 36" rule for night fight states the shooting unit cannot pick a target that is more than 36" away. (Not that it doesn't have line of sight to the unit.)

It is rediculous to think that a shot comes from the center of the blast for all circumstances unless the unit is considered a vehicle. The vehicle designation doesn't change the nature of the weapon. That is rules lawyering at it's worst.

There are so many examples that I could use to show how broken this method of thinking is, that I would need weeks to list them all.

Seriously what would be the reason to treat it differently when firing at a walker rather than a monstous creature?? I'm really asking here. It's ususally the best way to uncover a disengenuine argument.

We all know what is intended, how the weapon works and how it is supposed to be played.

A vehicle does not change anything with the barrage / night fighting unless it has a special rule.

RE: Snapshot

I remember the first time I read the night fighting rules I misread it as they get stealth and if they were further away they got both stealth and shrouded. And that made sense to me because stealth gave them a cover save or improved it always and shrouded improved it further. But after I reread it, I was thinking its better to be closer because you could be in the open and still be covered in some darkness. But if you were further away you stood out like a sore thumb unless you were behind something. Bit odd.

RE: Idolator
The nature of the weapon is not being changed, its interaction with the unit its being used on is being expressed differently. I explained this in the other thread. The rules for blast markers have changed, they no longer half S and use the the center hole as the direction for vehicles any more. This is a two fold change in the interaction, not one. All blast markers now use the full S of the weapon even if the center hole is not touching the hull. Also they only ever hit the side armour of the vehicles.

Why? because now you can never hit the rear or front and no longer half the S there is no point counting the blast from the center hole. Its actually much more effective this way as the weapon hits more often and always uses its full S against the side armour, rather than potentially using a significantly reduced S against the front. Its a stream line that, like alot of rules in 6th, have a snag. When it comes to cover saves, the direction of the firer is used rather than the blasts center hole.

The obvious reason you treat a MC and walker differently is one has a Toughness and Wounds characteristic while the other has an Armour Value and Hull points. The mechanics for inflicting damage on both of these models is different at its base. One rolls S Vs T on a table and the other rolls S+D6 to defeat the AV. One is allowed a save to prevent a W while the other has a HP lost and, if you rolled over the AV, an additional roll on a damage table. These are sounding like different mechanics for the way all weapons treat each model and yet you question when its presented to you that blast marker barrage weapons handle these two differently? Sure its different to what we are use to but so is a lot of 6th. It plays well and conveys the damage dealt to a vehicle well, always hitting the side armour is an age old mechanic for the top or underbelly of vehicles. That's what a barrage weapon does to vehicles in 6th, always hits the top...at full S no matter where the blast lands.

I was totally thinking about a different issue when I was trying to remember the Night fighting rules, my bad. Well guess that means guard can't barrage blind on night fighting any more. Not to sad to see that go.

I thought it says to only resolve closest model from the centre of the Barrage, not everything?

 Idolator wrote:
I stopped comenting on the other post becasue it got too rediculous.

I'll give it a shot here to see if reason prevails.

Barrage weapons shot is considered to come from the center of the blast marker(not the firing model) to determine cover and wounding (which also means for penetrating/glancing)

Since the shot cannot possibly ever be more than 2 1/2 inches away from the unit/vehicle hit, the unit would not get the benefit of shrouded or stealth from night fight.

[snipped stuff]

The use of blast markers is a game mechanic to determine how effective a weapon is. As with all other weapons in the game, the number of dice you roll or markers you place doesn't necessarily match up to the actual number of shots fired by a weapon and therefore a single blast marker need not represent a single shell, but could also be a barrage of smaller shells. This is most clearly protrayed by the fact that casualties from blast templates do not necessarily have to come from under the template itself.

The stealth and shrouded rules are designed to imply a reduced likelihood of a unit's firing being effective that turn. Even if you have a barrage weapon you still need to work out where your enemy is so you can range the shot properly, with the implication being that its harder to do that at night or if the enemy is somehow concealed from sight.

My opinion is that you get the cover bonuses for stealth and shrouded against barrage weapons, regardless of where they come from, as they are meant to represent a lower general effectiveness of a firing unit, rather than acting on a definitive indicator of where a particular shell lands.

 Flinty wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
I stopped comenting on the other post becasue it got too rediculous.

I'll give it a shot here to see if reason prevails.

Barrage weapons shot is considered to come from the center of the blast marker(not the firing model) to determine cover and wounding (which also means for penetrating/glancing)

Since the shot cannot possibly ever be more than 2 1/2 inches away from the unit/vehicle hit, the unit would not get the benefit of shrouded or stealth from night fight.

[snipped stuff]

The use of blast markers is a game mechanic to determine how effective a weapon is. As with all other weapons in the game, the number of dice you roll or markers you place doesn't necessarily match up to the actual number of shots fired by a weapon and therefore a single blast marker need not represent a single shell, but could also be a barrage of smaller shells. This is most clearly protrayed by the fact that casualties from blast templates do not necessarily have to come from under the template itself.

The stealth and shrouded rules are designed to imply a reduced likelihood of a unit's firing being effective that turn. Even if you have a barrage weapon you still need to work out where your enemy is so you can range the shot properly, with the implication being that its harder to do that at night or if the enemy is somehow concealed from sight.

My opinion is that you get the cover bonuses for stealth and shrouded against barrage weapons, regardless of where they come from, as they are meant to represent a lower general effectiveness of a firing unit, rather than acting on a definitive indicator of where a particular shell lands.

Flinty,

I can't fault your logic at all, and I agree that the intent in Night Fighting is to reduce the effectiveness of shooting attacks at longer range. It's a nice elegant solution actually. The problems crop up around the edges, and that's why I've been wondering if our application of the rules might not be correct. The Disruptor Pod example is one such corner case. Probably the thing to do is to just live with the anomalies.

Another anomaly that gets on my goat is LOS in Night Fighting. I have no LOS to a target (at say 30"), so I fire indirect with my Barrage weapon, and the target still gets Shrouded? The effectiveness of my shooting is already being reduced by not being able to use my BS to reduce scatter range, and the target also gets Shrouded? Exactly the same situation in daytime and they don't get Shrouded. Bizarre, but I guess we just have to live with it.

Assume the shot is coming from the center of the blast marker, not the firing unit.

That's all. The shot is coming from the center of the template, not the firing unit. Nuff said. That is the beauty of the barrage weapon and what makes them so dangerous.

You've invented a nerf.

And about vehicles, if the shot is not calculated from the center of the blast marker. What cover save would a vehicle in the open, but whose rear armor is clotted with troops, get if the blast template centers about 2" behind the vehicle and barely touches the vehicle.

By your interpretaion, it would get none, and neither would the troops.

Also, by your interpretation, What if a vehicle and some troops are out of LoS behind a ruin, but otherwise completely out in the open, are hit by a barrage weapon? According to what you say, the vehicle would get a 2+ cover save (4+ for the ruin and 2+ bonus for not having an armor facing in view) and the troops would get no cover.

That is why the rule is to be treated the same, the way that it is intended.

 Idolator wrote:
Assume the shot is coming from the center of the blast marker, not the firing unit.

That's all. The shot is coming from the center of the template, not the firing unit. Nuff said. That is the beauty of the barrage weapon and what makes them so dangerous.

You've invented a nerf.

I actually tend to agree with you, but the balance of opinion is that the way the rules are written, we've gotta give targets Shrouded. Not saying I like it, or agree with it, but I can see the argument for why it should be played as written.

And about vehicles, if the shot is not calculated from the center of the blast marker. What cover save would a vehicle in the open, but whose rear armor is clotted with troops, get if the blast template centers about 2" behind the vehicle and barely touches the vehicle.

By your interpretaion, it would get none, and neither would the troops.

Also, by your interpretation, What if a vehicle and some troops are out of LoS behind a ruin, but otherwise completely out in the open, are hit by a barrage weapon? According to what you say, the vehicle would get a 2+ cover save (4+ for the ruin and 2+ bonus for not having an armor facing in view) and the troops would get no cover.

That is why the rule is to be treated the same, the way that it is intended.

I don't think I've ever said anything about vehicles, so I assume this comment is directed at other posters.

 Idolator wrote:
Assume the shot is coming from the center of the blast marker, not the firing unit.

That's all. The shot is coming from the center of the template, not the firing unit. Nuff said. That is the beauty of the barrage weapon and what makes them so dangerous.

You've invented a nerf.

Nope, for the purposes of 2 specific items it comes from the centre. Night fighting requires you to measuer the distance to the firing unit, and absolutely nothing in the barrage rules overrides this.

Far from inventing a nerf, you are breaking the rules to gain an advantage

 Idolator wrote:
Assume the shot is coming from the center of the blast marker, not the firing unit.

That's all. The shot is coming from the center of the template, not the firing unit. Nuff said. That is the beauty of the barrage weapon and what makes them so dangerous.

You've invented a nerf.

And about vehicles, if the shot is not calculated from the center of the blast marker. What cover save would a vehicle in the open, but whose rear armor is clotted with troops, get if the blast template centers about 2" behind the vehicle and barely touches the vehicle.

By your interpretaion, it would get none, and neither would the troops.

Also, by your interpretation, What if a vehicle and some troops are out of LoS behind a ruin, but otherwise completely out in the open, are hit by a barrage weapon? According to what you say, the vehicle would get a 2+ cover save (4+ for the ruin and 2+ bonus for not having an armor facing in view) and the troops would get no cover.

That is why the rule is to be treated the same, the way that it is intended.

Look man, I agree it makes way more sense to play it from the center of the marker, but if I was gonna do that then I'd play it the way 5th handles it with facing, half strength if the hole is not on the hull, all of it. Seeing as 6th always applies the full strength to the side armour so long as a part of the blast touched any of the hull I'm sticking to how its written. This means vehicles get more cover than infantry in particular instances then so be it. You gotta take the good with the crazy in 40k some times.

I invented nothing, I read the rules and that's what they said. Your the one who insists that wounding and Armour penetration are the same thing. If they wanted them to be the same or even always treated the same they would have given vehicles toughness values.

 Idolator wrote:
Assume the shot is coming from the center of the blast marker, not the firing unit.

That's all. The shot is coming from the center of the template, not the firing unit. Nuff said. That is the beauty of the barrage weapon and what makes them so dangerous.

You've invented a nerf.

And about vehicles, if the shot is not calculated from the center of the blast marker. What cover save would a vehicle in the open, but whose rear armor is clotted with troops, get if the blast template centers about 2" behind the vehicle and barely touches the vehicle.

The shot would go through the troops granting a cover save 5+ to the vehicle. Add in stealth / shrouded

By your interpretaion, it would get none, and neither would the troops.

Also, by your interpretation, What if a vehicle and some troops are out of LoS behind a ruin, but otherwise completely out in the open, are hit by a barrage weapon? According to what you say, the vehicle would get a 2+ cover save (4+ for the ruin and 2+ bonus for not having an armor facing in view) and the troops would get no cover.

That is why the rule is to be treated the same, the way that it is intended.

The ruin would not grant a cover save in this case. Nor does the facing of the vehicle matter.

Seems page 36 answers this quite clearly. If the shot is coming from the center of the blast marker, as was stated earlier, you are only 2 1/2 inches away using the large marker.

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.
Hits against vehiclesare always resolved against their side armour.

Would help if you didnt ignore the first part, which states for what you use the centre of the marker for

Night fighting tells you to use firing unit, and nothing in barrage overrides this

Right the shot is assumed to be coming from the center of the blast marker, however, with night fighting you don't determine stealth/shrouding from the where the shot comes from, but from the distance from the firing unit.

Guess that "Instead of from the firing model" part has you confused. Ever hear of the term "override". You should look it up. Heck I'll do it for you;

Override - to take precedence over; preempt or supersede: to override any other considerations.

So when the shot comes from the center of the marker instead of the firing unit you "override" the distance from the firing unit and use the distance from the center of the blast marker instead.

Yes, the shot is assumed to come from the blast, not the firing model.

Night Fighting doesn't determine Stealth/Shrouded on a model by model basis, it's a unit by unit basis.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Guess that "Instead of from the firing model" part has you confused. Ever hear of the term "override". You should look it up. Heck I'll do it for you;

Override - to take precedence over; preempt or supersede: to override any other considerations.

So when the shot comes from the center of the marker instead of the firing unit you "override" the distance from the firing unit and use the distance from the center of the blast marker instead.

Again, a) stop ignoring the first part of the sentence, and b) try to read the nightfighting rules, which talk about the unit. Again, nothing in the barrage rules overrides the night fighting rules on determining stealth or shrouded