Bomb Squgs: "AP - 0" or "AP - ?"

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.

**Arctik_Firangi**

Bomb squigs aren't really shooting weapons, as they don't 'roll ot hit' or have a standard profile. But they are deployed in the shooting phase. They cause a S8 hit, but does it have an AP value? This of course modifies the vehicle damage roll.

They are not described as grenades, nor are they used in the same fashion or phase. The LRB says nothing about weapons with unspecified AP values (IIRC).

I've not encountered this in gameplay, I was just curious myself. What does Dakka think? 'AP - 0' or a more enigmatic idea of 'AP - ?' that doesn't modify the damage roll?

I err more towards 'AP - ?', because it seems RAI, and RAW has little to go off.

**Gwar!**

Unless its specified as a shooting attack, it doesnt have an ap (no mod to roll) rather than ap - (-1 to roll). If the rules said S8 AP- then yes its AP-, but if it just has S8, then its S8 with No AP (which is subtly different)

Just because its done in the shooting phase doesnt automatically make it a shooting attack.

Think of it logically. The Bomb Squig rules say it is S8. Does it say it's "S8 AP-"? Nope, so its S8 with no ap value (not an AP value of -, which is a specific value with specific rules)

To muddy the waters with RaI, why would it have a minus to the damage roll? Their whole task is to blow up tanks!

**Arctik_Firangi**

So we agree. After reading the section on AP, 'AP -' or (AP 0 as I was putting it, that may have been a bit confusing) does seem to be described as just a quality a weapon can have, and never necessarily does.

**Gwar!**

That is correct. This is the reason why (for example) meltabombs do NOT get +1 or -1 on the damage table, as they are not AP1, not AP- but have No AP

**Razerous**

But but.. if you strap a melta bomb to a bomb squig.. think of the power!

**AffliKtion**

Rocket bomb squigs could have some penetrating power :-p.

I agree with your guys' interpretation as well.

**MagickalMemories**

"AP-" is the same as having no AP.

Additionally, unless GW wanted the Bomb Squigs to get a bonus on the chart, there would be no reason to give them an AP, as a bomb squig will only ever target a vehicle. The only AP that matters against a vehicle is AP1, and even THEN, it only matters if you manage to glance or pen the vehicle.

Eric

**Eight Ball**

MagickalMemories wrote:The only AP that matters against a vehicle is AP1, and even THEN, it only matters if you manage to glance or pen the vehicle.

Actually, no...there is a -1 modifier for "Hit by 'AP-' weapon", which is probably the reason that the OP wants to know if it is AP-

**AffliKtion**

Which is exactly why AP- != No AP.

So fatboy avatar wouldn't be correct in saying that AP- and no AP are the same.

**Orkeosaurus**

Yep.

Same as a ramming attack, or close combat attack, or grenade.

Unless something specifically says that it has "AP -", it doesn't.

**MagickalMemories**

Eight Ball wrote:
MagickalMemories wrote:The only AP that matters against a vehicle is AP1, and even THEN, it only matters if you manage to glance or pen the vehicle.

Actually, no...there is a -1 modifier for "Hit by 'AP-' weapon", which is probably the reason that the OP wants to know if it is AP-

I'll own that.
I honestly thought you were wrong.
I looked it up.
I was... wrong, that is.

I have overlooked that rule since I started playing. I'm glad I saw this discussion.

Eric

**MagickalMemories**

AffliKtion wrote:Which is exactly why AP- != No AP.

So fatboy avatar wouldn't be correct in saying that AP- and no AP are the same.

It's "Chunk," not "fatboy." : )

...For shooting at tanks, there is a definite difference (I owned that error, per the above post).

Eric

**AffliKtion**

lmao, chunk, how could I forget!