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.

BRB (the big version on pg. 34) says that "Hits against vehicles are always resolved against their side armor." So, according to RAW, even if the center of the blast is behind the vehicle which would make one think it is hitting rear armor, it is resolve against the side armor?

If this is the case, that makes Wave Serpents that much better against anything that is firing as a Barrage weapon (like a Manticore) because the Serpent Shield (if active) will always be able to protect the vehicle...What do you guys think, is there an argument against what the BRB says? I can't find anything in the FAQs and it's pretty counter-intuitive to have Barrage weapons actually landing behind a vehicle hit Side Armor...Also, if you fire a Barrage Weapon indirectly at a vehicle with it's rear facing you and the blast lands in front of it, thereby actually hitting the rear, it is still resolved against Side Armor. Pretty silly IMO.

Yes, a weapon that always hits side armor always hits side armor.

The barrage rule is there because it resolves line of sight much differently to the standard rules. In order to evoke these rules you must follow them to the letter, including any limitations set forth. In this case, it means barrage weapons will always hit side armor regardless of where the shooter is standing, or where the blast hit.

It might not make the most sense, but hell... the blast templates never did!

I find it more laughable that blast template can explode into the rear of a huge mob of guys and suddenly the men at the front keel over dead from it. That individual models no where near the actual site the missile hit are the ones being affected by it while people in the dead center of the zone do not even get their hair blown out of place. Even trying to create a narrative of something along the lines of shrapnel being flung and hitting the front guys doesn't make sense, seeing a blast powerful enough to fling rocks across the field would be more then enough to kill the person who took it right on the chin.

The intent was clear, to prevent explosives from being better at sniping then high-precision rifles, but the results are hilarious.

JinxDragon wrote:
The barrage rule is there because it resolves line of sight much differently to the standard rules. In order to evoke these rules you must follow them to the letter, including any limitations set forth. In this case, it means barrage weapons will always hit side armor regardless of where the shooter is standing, or where the blast hit.

It might not make the most sense, but hell... the blast templates never did!

I find it more laughable that blast template can explode into the rear of a huge mob of guys and suddenly the men at the front keel over dead from it. That individual models no where near the actual site the missile hit are the ones being affected by it while people in the dead center of the zone do not even get their hair blown out of place. Even trying to create a narrative of something along the lines of shrapnel being flung and hitting the front guys doesn't make sense, seeing a blast powerful enough to fling rocks across the field would be more then enough to kill the person who took it right on the chin.

The intent was clear, to prevent explosives from being better at sniping then high-precision rifles, but the results are hilarious.

I thought that area weapons caused wounds from the center of the explosion, independently of who or what shot the weapon

Barrage weapons kill guys closest to the center, as you'd expect.

Blast weapons (which are fired straight at the unit rather than being lobbed) kill guys at the front. Think of the blast marker as not being anything to do with where the shot hit but simply as a method of determining accuracy vs density of target unit.

Incorrect, Noghri, rules for blast templates can be found on page 33 and it is the paragraph above the Multiple Blast section which is important to review.

Once you know how many models are hit by the blast you are told to resolve the attack using all the standard rules for shooting. The normal method of resolving wound allotment can be found on page 15, though I am sure you are comfortable with the normal rules for shooting. This would mean that the model closest to the unit is the one you allot the first wound to, regardless if he was one of the models used to calculate how many hits where generated.

There are a few exceptions, of course, but they do not talk about an alternative method to allot wounds. They are there to grant permission to assign wounds to models that are not in line of sight, out of maximum range, locked in combat or even friendly. Without these exceptions you could have a situation where the blast template scatters into a unit you could not normally wound, or could make the argument that you can not explode your own guys as you are forbidden from inflicting wounds to them.

Further exceptions do exist but they are within their own unique rules. If you have a special rule that states to allot the wounds in a different method, only then can you actually do so. For example, the ability to measure from the center of the blast comes from the barrage rule and the blast needs to also be barrage before you measure in such a method.

Personally I would like it if all template weapons resolved each hit separately to each model being hit instead of a unit as a whole as it does fit the narrative better.

Nope, not even if the rear is facing your barrage weapon.

JinxDragon wrote:
Incorrect........For example, the ability to measure from the center of the blast comes from the barrage rule and the blast needs to also be barrage before you measure in such a method.

This was a thread about barrage so I would assume you were talking about barrage. Making it not at all incorrect.

I was answering Noghri, whom stated:

 noghri wrote:

I thought that area weapons caused wounds from the center of the explosion, independently of who or what shot the weapon

They where also responding to a post of mine. That post was pointing out that blast templates already do strange things which do not fit narrative, so the side armor with barrage based blast templates was not even the most strangest odd rule to be found concerning them. Given the context they where responding to, as well as the words used in their post, I felt I needed to address a possible misconception. It is incorrect to state that area weapons, which could easily be read to mean all blast weapons, measure from the center of the blast template when only template weapons with special rules do so.

If I confused the matter by bringing up the unusual nature of standard blast templates, then I do apologize.

JinxDragon wrote:
Incorrect, rules for blast templates can be found on page 33 and it is the paragraph above the Multiple Blast section which is important to review.

I'm afraid not. See the barrage rules on P34. "when determining wound allocation, always assume that the shot is coming from the center of the blast marker"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
I was answering Noghri

I think you could have made it clearer which post you were responding to.

Fair enough, I could of made it a little more clear. I will go back to that post in order to add his name, that should hopefully make it more clear that my post was in response to his. That way people can more easily see that I was not talking about barrage weapons in general, but addressing the possible misconception his post was bringing up in relation to standard blast templates.

To the OP:
I think the narrative is that it is supposed to represent the shell hitting the top armour of the vehicle.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
To the OP:
I think the narrative is that it is supposed to represent the shell hitting the top armour of the vehicle.

I've read that somewhere too, I think. Which is clearly insane, since that's EXACTLY where you want to hit a tank. It is less built to take a direct hit on top than it is to take one in the rear.

I think it's more a game thing, really. saying it hits in the rear makes it incredibly powerful in sweeping away tanks, so they don't do that, and it also makes it very easy in regards to arguments on what facing is hit. Specifically if the marker's hole is on top of the tank... if it was like shooting as usual, which facing are you hitting when the blast comes from the center of the tank?

Barrage weapons aren't even supposed to be good at killing tanks anyway. Historically they wouldn't do much against them unless in case of direct hits on the top of a tank.

But yeah, Barrage weapons hit the side armour always.

Yes, always hits side armor. Think about it this way, even if you could see the rear of the tank, the barrage attack would still come down on top of the tank. It seems GW has a convention of using the side armor value for 'top' armor and the rear armor value for 'bottom' armor.

 Purifier wrote:

I've read that somewhere too, I think. Which is clearly insane, since that's EXACTLY where you want to hit a tank. It is less built to take a direct hit on top than it is to take one in the rear.

Because your knowledge of how aliens build tanks in the 41st millennium is totally comprehensive?