Power weapons ignore armor.
But why don't they have any beneficial rules when attacking vehicles?

Against vehicles, power weapons have the same effect as cc weapons.
Power weapons can scythe through the super-dense armor of terminators and astartes, but against the weak, rusted armor of an ork truck, there's still usually only a 1 in 6 chance of glancing (@ S4)

I propose that power weapons, power fists, power klaws, force weapons, and lightning claws are given an AP 1 characteristic (or some form of cc equivilant), that way, when they do glance/pen. they will inflict much more grevious dammage.

Just my oppinion.

I think it'd be good. Power fists might not need it, but power weapons definitely need some sort of bonus over "punch with fist" vs tanks.

ph34r wrote:Power fists might not need quote]
They defiantely don't need it, but I figure, if a power sword should get ap1, then a power fist, which is more expensive (in most if not all circumstances) should get it too.

lordrevege wrote:Power weapons don't consider how thick armor is.
They Ignore it.
They slice it like butter.

-BUZZ- Wrong!

Power weapons make it easier to push through armor, they don't do the work itself. But the pure fact of the matter is Power Weapons have not done any additional damage to vehicles since essentially for as long as 40k has been around (in it's current form). So if GW thought Power Weapons made super duper quick work of vehicle armor, which is much thicker than infantry armor, then they would have suggested as much at some point long ago. But they didn't! The fluff doesn't support it either, so why would they because a bunch of angry Space Marine ninnies want it? Well they very well might since Space Marines are the flag-ship army. But AP1 Power Weapons would only benefit Space Marines really... so I shall stay with "no."

Or, well make Power Weapons +5-10pts more than they currently are. I mean, you are getting a whole new set of possibilities. Also, make tanks 20% cheaper, because this will only make them less effective.

Skinnattittar wrote:Power weapons make it easier to push through armor, they don't do the work itself. But the pure fact of the matter is Power Weapons have not done any additional damage to vehicles since essentially for as long as 40k has been around (in it's current form). So if GW thought Power Weapons made super duper quick work of vehicle armor, which is much thicker than infantry armor, then they would have suggested as much at some point long ago. But they didn't! The fluff doesn't support it either, so why would they because a bunch of angry Space Marine ninnies want it? Well they very well might since Space Marines are the flag-ship army. But AP1 Power Weapons would only benefit Space Marines really... so I shall stay with "no."

Or, well make Power Weapons +5-10pts more than they currently are. I mean, you are getting a whole new set of possibilities. Also, make tanks 20% cheaper, because this will only make them less effective.

It's not like giving PWs AP1 would be a large boost at all. No points costs would need to change. All it means is that out of all the punches, one of them would be marginally better. In fact, it would probably still be worse than a krak grenade. There would be no imbalance.

ph34r wrote:It's not like giving PWs AP1 would be a large boost at all. No points costs would need to change. All it means is that out of all the punches, one of them would be marginally better. In fact, it would probably still be worse than a krak grenade. There would be no imbalance.

I have to disagree greatly. Before, the best result a Space Marine could get is Immobilized or Weapon Destroyed. With AP1 they can Wreck the vehicle and more likely get Immobilized and Weapon Destroyed results. They would be -1 below a full pen!

Skinnattittar wrote: I have to disagree greatly. Before, the best result a Space Marine could get is Immobilized or Weapon Destroyed. With AP1 they can Wreck the vehicle and more likely get Immobilized and Weapon Destroyed results. They would be -1 below a full pen!

I would rebut the previous point, but many of my arguments are already stated and redundancy is a petpeeve of mine.

If you are having all of your tanks constantly getting melee'd by things with powerweapons then perhaps it's not the game that would be broken... but your playstyle.

Giving PWs AP1 would not be gamebreaking/changing, it would just incourage people to NOT let their tanks get melee'd as often (which I believe is not the worst of outcomes...)

Conversely, if powerweapons were giving +1 on the table for AP1 and non-powerweapons received -1 for being AP- this would be a gamechanging sideeffect that would greatly increase the potential of most vehicles vs Melee combat, as a overwhelming majority of MEQ attacks would be suffering the -1 as opposed to the one or so models who would benefit from the +1, meaning that in a 10 man squad, 27 attacks would get -1 on the table wherein 3 would get +1...

That aside, more on the point of WHY a powerweapon SHOULD get the AP1 again falls under the general understanding on how powerweapons work.

If you believe they are melting the armor (or at least superheating it) to make it easier to strike through, they you would have to admit that the same technology would infact have a stronger impact on non-armored metals (say, the navigation system of a rhino, or the fuel intake of a Leman Russ, which according to fluff will run on any combustable substance) even if just coming into near contact (which a penetrating hit, and even glancing hit for the most part would allow the weapon to do) with the system. (Thus the +1).

If you believe they use powerfields or something of the similar orgin, then again the same philosophy as above would apply, as if you were infact weakening the armor of the vehicles internal systems then just standard operation of said vehicle would most likely end up in the complete breakdown of all vital components. As a piston slamming against a weakend frame would most like tear the engine apart from the inside so should a weapon get a +1 on the Vehicle table (meaning 2/3 chance you will at least immobilize most vehicles with a penetrating hit of this fashion)

Using the two examples givin..

A rhino would mostcertainly be more effected by a powerweapon then that of a normal weapon, especailly when the reasoning above is applied, picture hitting the tread at the treadpoints, the powerweapons heat/energy field (depending on your definition of "powerweapon") would most certainly be more likely to dislodge such machinery then that of a pistol butt...

Now for the Ork Truck, there are two sides of this coin...

On one side, if the orks were in a world in which they followed normal laws of physics and machinery, then the powerweapon would most CERTAINLY be more damaging to their vehicles, as they are composed almost entirely of sheets of metal-plating that would be strongly vulnerable to such technology. Unfortunately (or comically, depending on your point of view) we should all know that the Psychic nature of the Ork race is such that it machineries construction is as much a mystery as the very weapons they fire from their hips, and as such it would be right to assume that no level of technology is composed in such a way to deal with this ever-changing variable of Orkiness that is how their vehicles operate. (As such, I would love to see orks with their own Vehicle table... aww hell, I would love to see orks with their own BGB, they are quite the interesting race.)

But that's just one Archon's out look on it all...

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:If you are having all of your tanks constantly getting melee'd by things with powerweapons then perhaps it's not the game that would be broken... but your playstyle.

Giving PWs AP1 would not be gamebreaking/changing, it would just incourage people to NOT let their tanks get melee'd as often (which I believe is not the worst of outcomes...)

This is a straw man argument if I ever saw one.

In 40k, tanks get assaulted more than occasionally. With the sheer volume of Outflanking, Deep Striking, Drop Podding, Fast Moving, etc... units, it is inevitable. Another point being that PW AP1 means tanks have to be even MORE cautious, nerfing them slightly! Is it game changing? No, probably not, but it does need to be considered. Why buy frag or krak grenades if buying a PW will do for my purposes of anti-armor AND let me cut up regular infantry more easily?

Simply accusing the "victim" is not only bad form, in this case it is stupid. We're not taking about a simple task keeping enemy units away from Armor, considering how extremely easy it is for them to get there these days.

But that's avoiding the fluff issue.... the fact of the matter is, PW have never been described as being AP1 (or AP2 for that matter, but that is effectively what they are) or able to cut up tanks like so much soft cheese. Never in modern 40k History have PW even recieved any sort of bonus against vehicles or modification of strength (I am going to discount Rogue Trader and 2nd Edition, as they were completely different animals to the current edition, and were written in 1993, before many players these days were even born!). So what fluff support does AP1 PW have? "They are sometimes described as cutting easily through armor." Well that is a weak point, to say the least, and there is also a lot of fluff that shows that a Power Weapon does not simply phase through armor with little effort, point being that you still use the model's Strength to determine Wounds and Penetration, rather than a set Strength. So maybe PW have an easier time getting through, but it is still very dependent on the user, or they don't have an easy enough time to warrant +1 on the VDC, like they haven't had in at least twelve years (maybe longer, I don't remember what they did explicitly in 1993 or 1987).

perhaps the meat of it is that while a power weapon would cause more damage to a vehicle then a chainsword there is no good way of representing it in the present game mechanics and should therefore be dropped

Skinnattittar wrote:

In 40k, tanks get assaulted more than occasionally. With the sheer volume of Outflanking, Deep Striking, Drop Podding, Fast Moving, etc... units, it is inevitable. Another point being that PW AP1 means tanks have to be even MORE cautious, nerfing them slightly! Is it game changing? No, probably not, but it does need to be considered. Why buy frag or krak grenades if buying a PW will do for my purposes of anti-armor AND let me cut up regular infantry more easily?

Skinnattittar wrote:This is a straw man argument if I ever saw one.

First off, name 5 units that need to BUY Frag/Krak...

Secondly, no it is not inevitable...

For Deepstriking and Drop Podding units:

They cannot assault you on the turn they drop, assuming they drop within 1 inch of your tank (wow thats lucky...) you can still move 12 inches away from them per turn, thus rendering you unassaultable unless the unit has fleet (in which case, they probably cannot take powerweapons, as I don't know any deepstriking models with Fleet and Powerweapons outside of an Archon and some Chaos Daemons/Nid Monsters)

For outflanking units:

Pretty much same as above with the execption of more of a pool of things that MAY be able to assault you with powerweapons, but once again, they are few. And while an outflanking unit is able to assault the turn it comes in, this is assuming that #1; they successfully rolled for their board edge and #2 you happened to be <12inches away from said board edge with the unit in question. Again, this is a tactical user error. If you know your enemy can out flank you, properly deploy and move to deal with the situation.

For "Fast Moving" units:

Well this depends on if by "fast moving" you mean models with Fleet, Beasts/Calvary, Jumppacks/bikes, or Fast Vehicles.

If Fast Vehicles, then very similar to deepstrike where the models will most likely not be able to assault you after disembarking, very few vehicles as transports actually allow this, let alone fast vehicles, and there is only 1 instance of a fast vehicle moving flat out that can disembark and that is a Valk/Vendetta, in which case you still have the "Deep Strike" USR preventing assaults not to mention the fact that they are Str 3 anyway...

If You mean actual model speed (fleet, Beasts, Jumppacks etc) then again this comes to tactics. Fast things are getting typically 18inch potential assaults, with the best being 24 inches (example, archon on skyboard with drugs, according to FAQ this works) If you are so concerned with being assaulted by models of this type, kill them BEFORE they get to you, most armies (if not all) will only get 3-6 of these units anyway, and with the fact they are typically high in point cost, they are probably not the bulk of your enemies force, so this should not be too much of an issue.

It is not "Extremely easy" to get into melee with armor these days, I have played(or played with) such armies as Tau, IG, SMs, SWs, CSM, CD, Orks, Necrons, DE, Eldar and even Nids and only the Nids had a "somewhat easy" job of meleeing armor... hell when I play my CSM I have yet to have my armor get punched by ANYTHING (Barring my Defilers, but the are supposed to be melee last time I checked) if anything, its MUCH harder now then it was back when you could Sweeping Advance into another Melee (which, the omission of this ability in 5th REALLY hurt my old DE tactica). So, I would really appreciate some solid examples of consistant "extremely easy" armor assault situations (And starting with "My friends Trigon drifted right next to my chimera!" doesn't really count...) amongst the many diverse armies in 40k to backup alot of your claims...

It seems to me that your defense is more centered on improbably "what if"s instead of counterdata against the claims that justify the AP1 argument, with the exception being "They never were before" which, lets be honest, if the case was that PWs were AP1 in the past, they would most likely remain the same to this day, and thus the discussion would be irrelavant.

It would also be very much appreciated if you would be so kind as to address the other 91% of my previous post (you only took 58 words out of 607) if you are going to completely invalidate my points... (unless you are saying the other points of the arguement are justified and valid and only the "Playstyle" point was a "straw man arguement"

----- EDIT -----

Grey Templar wrote:perhaps the meat of it is that while a power weapon would cause more damage to a vehicle then a chainsword there is no good way of representing it in the present game mechanics and should therefore be dropped

no

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:First off, name 5 units that need to BUY Frag/Krak...

I can do better than that:

Chaos Dæmons:
Herald of Nurgle (Frag and Defensive)

Dæmonhunters:
Inquisitor Lords (Frag and Krak)
Grey Knights Heros (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitors (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitorial Stormtroopers (Krak)

Dark Eldar:
Archon (Plasma and Haywire)
Archite (Plasma and Haywire)
Dracon (Plasma and Haywire)
Drachite (Plasma and Haywire)
Hæmonculi (Plasma and Haywire)
Wyches (Plasma and Haywire)
Sybarites (Plasma and Haywire)

Imperial Guard:
CCS (Krak)
Heavy Weapons Squads (Krak)

Orks:
Nobs (Stikkbombs)
'Ard Boyz (Stikkbombs)
Boyz (Stikkbombs)

Black Templars:
Castellans (Frag and Krak)
Marshals (Frag and Krak)
Reclusiarch (Frag and Krak)
Master of Sanctity (Frag and Krak)
Techmarine (Frag and Krak)
Sword Brethren (Frag and Krak)
Crusader Squads (Frag and Krak)

T'au Empire:
Ethereal (EMP)
Fire Warrior (EMP and Photon)
Pathfinders (EMP and Photon)

Witch Hunters:
Inquisitor Lord (Frag and Krak)
Canoness (Frag and Krak)
Palatine (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitor (Frag and Krak)
Celestians (Frag and Krak)
Battle Sisters (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitorial Stormtroopers (Krak)
Adeptus Arbites (Krak)
Dominions (Frag and Krak)
Retributors (Frag and Krak)

Gwar! wrote:I can do better than that:

Chaos Dæmons:
Herald of Nurgle (Frag and Defensive) Has nothing to do with AP1 argument

Dæmonhunters:
Inquisitor Lords (Frag and Krak)
Grey Knights Heros (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitors (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitorial Stormtroopers (Krak) Cannot take powerweapons

Dark Eldar:
Archon (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag
Archite (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag
Dracon (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag
Drachite (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag
Hæmonculi (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag
Wyches (Plasma and Haywire ) function very differently then Frag Cannot take powerweapons
Sybarites (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag

Imperial Guard:
CCS (Krak)
Heavy Weapons Squads (Krak) Cannot take powerweapons

Orks:
Nobs (Stikkbombs)
'Ard Boyz (Stikkbombs)
Boyz (Stikkbombs) Cannot take powerweapons

Black Templars:
Castellans (Frag and Krak)
Marshals (Frag and Krak)
Reclusiarch (Frag and Krak)
Master of Sanctity (Frag and Krak)
Techmarine (Frag and Krak)
Sword Brethren (Frag and Krak)
Crusader Squads (Frag and Krak)

T'au Empire:
Ethereal (EMP) function very differently then Frag Cannot take powerweapons
Fire Warrior (EMP and Photon) function very differently then Frag Cannot take powerweapons
Pathfinders (EMP and Photon) function very differently then Frag Cannot take powerweapons

Witch Hunters:
Inquisitor Lord (Frag and Krak)
Canoness (Frag and Krak)
Palatine (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitor (Frag and Krak)
Celestians (Frag and Krak)
Battle Sisters (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitorial Stormtroopers (Krak) Cannot take powerweapons
Adeptus Arbites (Krak)
Dominions (Frag and Krak)
Retributors (Frag and Krak)

not to mention a majority of these selections are Str 3, and as such will be using the Krak instead of the powerweapon anyway (as Str 3 does not even glance av10). Powerfists are another story. Either way, Frag grenades would be useful even if Powerweapons got +4 on vehicle as Frag grenades have nothing to do with Vehicle armor (they let you strike at normal init when charging thru cover) Defensive grenades remove the extra attack from charging, only krak would take a hit and even then, only a SLIGHT one, if both the AP1 and AP- changes were taken, the reason for buying these special grenades would be for the other 9(or whatever number you may be bringing) members of the squad who DON'T have powerweapon attacks.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I can do better than that:

Chaos Dæmons:
Herald of Nurgle (Frag and Defensive) Has nothing to do with AP1 argument

Dæmonhunters:
Inquisitor Lords (Frag and Krak)
Grey Knights Heros (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitors (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitorial Stormtroopers (Krak) Cannot take powerweapons

Dark Eldar:
Archon (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag
Archite (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag
Dracon (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag
Drachite (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag
Hæmonculi (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag
Wyches (Plasma and Haywire ) function very differently then Frag Cannot take powerweapons
Sybarites (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag

Imperial Guard:
CCS (Krak)
Heavy Weapons Squads (Krak) Cannot take powerweapons

Orks:
Nobs (Stikkbombs)
'Ard Boyz (Stikkbombs)
Boyz (Stikkbombs) Cannot take powerweapons

Black Templars:
Castellans (Frag and Krak)
Marshals (Frag and Krak)
Reclusiarch (Frag and Krak)
Master of Sanctity (Frag and Krak)
Techmarine (Frag and Krak)
Sword Brethren (Frag and Krak)
Crusader Squads (Frag and Krak)

T'au Empire:
Ethereal (EMP) function very differently then Frag Cannot take powerweapons
Fire Warrior (EMP and Photon) function very differently then Frag Cannot take powerweapons
Pathfinders (EMP and Photon) function very differently then Frag Cannot take powerweapons

Witch Hunters:
Inquisitor Lord (Frag and Krak)
Canoness (Frag and Krak)
Palatine (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitor (Frag and Krak)
Celestians (Frag and Krak)
Battle Sisters (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitorial Stormtroopers (Krak) Cannot take powerweapons
Adeptus Arbites (Krak)
Dominions (Frag and Krak)
Retributors (Frag and Krak)

not to mention a majority of these selections are Str 3, and as such will be using the Krak instead of the powerweapon anyway (as Str 3 does not even glance av10). Powerfists are another story. Either way, Frag grenades would be useful even if Powerweapons got +4 on vehicle as Frag grenades have nothing to do with Vehicle armor (they let you strike at normal init when charging thru cover) Defensive grenades remove the extra attack from charging, only krak would take a hit and even then, only a SLIGHT one, if both the AP1 and AP- changes were taken, the reason for buying these special grenades would be for the other 9(or whatever number you may be bringing) members of the squad who DON'T have powerweapon attacks.

Sorry, but you are completely wrong. First of all, Plasma Grenades are EXACTLY the same as Frags, in every way. Secondly, Frag Grenades can be used against vehicles for a S4 hit, similar to a Krak Grenade, and have done since 4th edition. Defensive Grenades can also be used this way (though IIRC this is a 5th edition change).

I humbly request you get your facts together before making any more incorrect claims.

Gwar! wrote:
Sorry, but you are completely wrong. First of all, Plasma Grenades are EXACTLY the same as Frags, in every way. Secondly, Frag Grenades can be used against vehicles for a S4 hit, similar to a Krak Grenade, and have done since 4th edition.

I did mistype, what I meant to say was "Function very different then KRAK" in reference to Haywire grenades etc.

Very busy day at work today.

As far as Frag giving s4 attack, why would you ever use Frag if you had Krak (str6)?

Also if Frag give Str4 hits on vehicles and Plasma are specific to the Assaulting through cover rule then wouldn't plasma grendades and frag grenades not be "EXACTLY" the same thing?

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Also if Frag give Str4 hits on vehicles and Plasma are specific to the Assaulting through cover rule then wouldn't plasma grendades and frag grenades not be "EXACTLY" the same thing?

I Admit a mistype. I was supposed to say "Assault Grenades" allow you to attack vehicles at S4.

Gwar! wrote:First of all, Plasma Grenades are EXACTLY the same as Frags, in every way. Secondly, Frag Grenades can be used against vehicles for a S4 hit, similar to a Krak Grenade, and have done since 4th edition. Defensive Grenades can also be used this way (though IIRC this is a 5th edition change).

I humbly request you get your facts together before making any more incorrect claims.

Actually, plasma grenades were strength 5 in Fourth Edition. Defensive grenades (Photon), were strength 4 versus vehicles.

I humbly request you get your facts together before making any more incorrect claims.

Defiler wrote:

Gwar! wrote:First of all, Plasma Grenades are EXACTLY the same as Frags, in every way. Secondly, Frag Grenades can be used against vehicles for a S4 hit, similar to a Krak Grenade, and have done since 4th edition. Defensive Grenades can also be used this way (though IIRC this is a 5th edition change).

I humbly request you get your facts together before making any more incorrect claims.

Actually, plasma grenades were strength 5 in Fourth Edition. Defensive grenades (Photon), were strength 4 versus vehicles.

I humbly request you get your facts together before making any more incorrect claims.

In a rare defense of me for Gwar!, I would say he was talking about Plasma Grenades in THE CURRENT edition, and then Frag Grenades being used in a similar way as Krak Grenades during 4th Edition (in 3rd, Frag Grenades could not be used against vehicles as they are now).

Defiler wrote:

Gwar! wrote:First of all, Plasma Grenades are EXACTLY the same as Frags, in every way. Secondly, Frag Grenades can be used against vehicles for a S4 hit, similar to a Krak Grenade, and have done since 4th edition. Defensive Grenades can also be used this way (though IIRC this is a 5th edition change).

I humbly request you get your facts together before making any more incorrect claims.

Actually, plasma grenades were strength 5 in Fourth Edition. Defensive grenades (Photon), were strength 4 versus vehicles.

I humbly request you get your facts together before making any more incorrect claims.

Errm, considering I was talking about Plasma Grenades in 5th edition, it would in fact be YOU who is incorrect.

For purposes of game mechanics, I think will will remind people how vehicles work compared to regular (infantry) armor in an assault:

Infantry:
The Roll to Hit -- The Roll to Wound -- Armor Save (from 6+ to 2+ or 2++ to 6++)

Armor:
The Roll to Hit (sometimes) -- The Roll to Penetrate (often with massive Strength Modifiers against the vehicles weakest AV) -- Armo.... wait a minute! Vehicles don't get an armor save! Or an Invulnerable Save!

Well, looking at that, vehicles seem to have a major disadvantage. If we are to make fluff insinuation about Vehicle Armor and Infantry Armor, it would seem Vehicles have no armor at all.... since they don't get any form of armor save.... huh.... that still doesn't say that PW should get AP1, or +1 to Pen. But if it is any consolation, the vehicle still doesn't get its Armor Save.

Vehicles get assaulted, some of them have to get really close to the enemy and potentially assaulted (transports, assault vehicles like the Hellhound, etc...). Other vehicles have to get really close to the enemy to attack (the Punisher for instance has only a 24" range on their main cannon). So to avoid assaults, they have to always be backing up their maximum distance (staying between 12" and 30" from the enemy, as some units have ridiculous assault ranges), which means they will never fire.... or I have to spend a ton of points crowding units around my vehicles, which is sort of a waste, and it still doesn't actually protect them from a good assaulter, remembering you can't shoot through assaults, which would still make them useless....

Skinnattittar wrote:Or an Invulnerable Save!

Bjorn Does! Shame it doesn't work though

Gwar! wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:Or an Invulnerable Save!

Bjorn Does! Shame it doesn't work though

Fine. With a single exception that I JUST learned of from an obscure, if oddly popular among Furry Fans, Codex that has recently been revived and I have not bothered reading yet.

Gwar! wrote:

Defiler wrote:

Gwar! wrote:First of all, Plasma Grenades are EXACTLY the same as Frags, in every way. Secondly, Frag Grenades can be used against vehicles for a S4 hit, similar to a Krak Grenade, and have done since 4th edition. Defensive Grenades can also be used this way (though IIRC this is a 5th edition change).

I humbly request you get your facts together before making any more incorrect claims.

Actually, plasma grenades were strength 5 in Fourth Edition. Defensive grenades (Photon), were strength 4 versus vehicles.

I humbly request you get your facts together before making any more incorrect claims.

Errm, considering I was talking about Plasma Grenades in 5th edition, it would in fact be YOU who is incorrect.

You stated plasma grenades are identical to frag grenades, and then said that frags have been same the same since 4th edition - implying so have plasma grenades.

Defiler wrote:You stated plasma grenades are identical to frag grenades, and then said that frags have been same the same since 4th edition - implying so have plasma grenades.

No, I was implying that Plasma are Identical to Frags in 5th (which they are) and that FRAG grenades (aka Not Plasma Grenades) have been S4 vs vehicles since 4th edition.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

For "Fast Moving" units:

Well this depends on if by "fast moving" you mean models with Fleet, Beasts/Calvary, Jumppacks/bikes, or Fast Vehicles.

If Fast Vehicles, then very similar to deepstrike where the models will most likely not be able to assault you after disembarking, very few vehicles as transports actually allow this, let alone fast vehicles, and there is only 1 instance of a fast vehicle moving flat out that can disembark and that is a Valk/Vendetta, in which case you still have the "Deep Strike" USR preventing assaults not to mention the fact that they are Str 3 anyway...

If You mean actual model speed (fleet, Beasts, Jumppacks etc) then again this comes to tactics. Fast things are getting typically 18inch potential assaults, with the best being 24 inches (example, archon on skyboard with drugs, according to FAQ this works) If you are so concerned with being assaulted by models of this type, kill them BEFORE they get to you, most armies (if not all) will only get 3-6 of these units anyway, and with the fact they are typically high in point cost, they are probably not the bulk of your enemies force, so this should not be too much of an issue.

It is not "Extremely easy" to get into melee with armor these days, I have played(or played with) such armies as Tau, IG, SMs, SWs, CSM, CD, Orks, Necrons, DE, Eldar and even Nids and only the Nids had a "somewhat easy" job of meleeing armor... hell when I play my CSM I have yet to have my armor get punched by ANYTHING (Barring my Defilers, but the are supposed to be melee last time I checked) if anything, its MUCH harder now then it was back when you could Sweeping Advance into another Melee (which, the omission of this ability in 5th REALLY hurt my old DE tactica). So, I would really appreciate some solid examples of consistant "extremely easy" armor assault situations (And starting with "My friends Trigon drifted right next to my chimera!" doesn't really count...) amongst the many diverse armies in 40k to backup alot of your claims...

Guh, what?

As an Ork player, let me tell you, YES, it IS in fact extremely easy to get into assault with vehicles. Let's go over some options!

1. Something, anything, in a Trukk. With Ghazghkull in the army, you have an assault range of 13" move + 2" disembark + 6" Waagh! + 6" Charge = 27". You can take a maximum of 9 such units, of which 3-5 are Nobz mobs including several PKs, which tear vehicles to bits. All of the units include at least one PK.

2. Snikrot and a Kommando mob. You get to pick where you come in, you get a 6" move, a 6" Waagh! (with Ghazghkull), and a 6" assault, giving you a maximum charge range of 18", and a minimum of 13" if you don't have Ghazzy, in which range you can inflict a gak-ton of S4 hits and 6 S6 attacks which re-roll misses. Good luck keeping all your tanks 18" away from any board edge. . .

Anecdote; against mech Space Wolves, Snikrot routinely comes in on the back edge and tears things up for a couple of turns. In one game recently he broke open the transports of both of my opponents Long Fang squads, as well as killing various miscellaneous infantry and generally raising Cain.

3. Nobz or MANZ in Battlewagons. Same assault range as the Trukk, and I can also stick a Deff Rolla on it for even more vehicle-crushing fun. Plus in this case the mob that just leapt forward 27" to kick you in the teeth is dropping anywhere from 4-40 S9 attacks on you, which will eat most vehicles for breakfast.

Anecdote; in a recent game against mech IG, a squad of MANZ destroyed a Valkyrie (and contents), a Chimera (and the command squad inside), and a Hydra in melee. This despite the BW they were riding being immobilized turn 2.

4. Regular bog-standard footslogger mobs. They're not fast, but good luck avoiding them. A Green Tide if fully capable of getting into melee with your tanks, quite possibly on turn 2, simply by denying you the ability to go anywhere. 6 30-strong mobs puts a literal wall of models across the entirety of a standard-size table.


While I can't speak for other armies, Orks have absolutely no problem getting into melee with vehicles, or killing them once they've gotten there.

Hi all.
Having read through several posts , I would like to pass comment.
40k is NOT an acurate simulation of any sort of known warfare.
It is an abstract game ,where loads of cool concepts are mixed together to result in a fun game for ages 11 and up.

As the game play is based purley on subjective narative.NO changes should be made based purley on the narrative, WITHOUT serious concideration,(plenty of playtesting ,) to the determine the ALL the resulting changes in game play.

The fact the 40k dev team have changed so little in the rules set over the last decade is evidence of the extreem care they take.(Because of the holistic and unstable nature of the 40k rules.)

And if GW devs wanted powerweapons to be effective vs all targets , I am sure they would have done something before now.

Discussing the abilities of not yet understood technology on unquantified armour types is a bit pointless.IMO.

(IF 40k was simulating a known type of warfare , then we could map weapon effects on armour types to real world analoges and be confident in any changes, WITHOUT having to rely on extensive playtesting to validate decisions.)

TTFN
Lanrak.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
Guh, what?

As an Ork player, let me tell you, YES, it IS in fact extremely easy to get into assault with vehicles. Let's go over some options!

1. Something, anything, in a Trukk. With Ghazghkull in the army, you have an assault range of 13" move + 2" disembark + 6" Waagh! + 6" Charge = 27". You can take a maximum of 9 such units, of which 3-5 are Nobz mobs including several PKs, which tear vehicles to bits. All of the units include at least one PK.

Would the AP1 really matter for the vehicle at that point?

BeRzErKeR wrote:
2. Snikrot and a Kommando mob. You get to pick where you come in, you get a 6" move, a 6" Waagh! (with Ghazghkull), and a 6" assault, giving you a maximum charge range of 18", and a minimum of 13" if you don't have Ghazzy, in which range you can inflict a gak-ton of S4 hits and 6 S6 attacks which re-roll misses. Good luck keeping all your tanks 18" away from any board edge. . .

Anecdote; against mech Space Wolves, Snikrot routinely comes in on the back edge and tears things up for a couple of turns. In one game recently he broke open the transports of both of my opponents Long Fang squads, as well as killing various miscellaneous infantry and generally raising Cain.

Those have powerweapons? Also, it is kinda easy to be "18 inches" away from the board edge on (min)turn 2. The fact that your opponent still had longfangs in transports on turn 2 (min) leads me to believe there is a bit of Tin-foil-hattage going on here...

BeRzErKeR wrote:
3. Nobz or MANZ in Battlewagons. Same assault range as the Trukk, and I can also stick a Deff Rolla on it for even more vehicle-crushing fun. Plus in this case the mob that just leapt forward 27" to kick you in the teeth is dropping anywhere from 4-40 S9 attacks on you, which will eat most vehicles for breakfast.

Anecdote; in a recent game against mech IG, a squad of MANZ destroyed a Valkyrie (and contents), a Chimera (and the command squad inside), and a Hydra in melee. This despite the BW they were riding being immobilized turn 2.

Again, with 40Str 9 attacks, much like the first example, the AP1 would not really change the outcome of this scenario for the vehicle in question.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
4. Regular bog-standard footslogger mobs. They're not fast, but good luck avoiding them. A Green Tide if fully capable of getting into melee with your tanks, quite possibly on turn 2, simply by denying you the ability to go anywhere. 6 30-strong mobs puts a literal wall of models across the entirety of a standard-size table.

Thats why 40k has this concept of deployment zones. That 180man boyz mob starts really dwindleing when you start dropping battle cannons left and right. Also, 174 of those boys wont have powerweapons...

BeRzErKeR wrote:
While I can't speak for other armies, Orks have absolutely no problem getting into melee with vehicles, or killing them once they've gotten there.

And in the examples you gave, it really wouldnt matter if AP1 for the powerweapons or not because as you already stated, that vehicle is dead anyway. That being said, it isnt nearly as easy as you say... the 2 of the examples require a special character to function, one of them is costing you all of your points in a standard 1500 (assuming you take the nobs etc), and the other relys on alot of "perfection". Now, I've seen similar lucky situations with my Dark Eldar, hell I remember chain punching the hell out of some tanks with my Archon under the old SA rules... even still all the mech armies in my circle wouldn't say that melee is "over powered" because in all honesty, that would be like Rock calling Paper overpowered... Melee is a great way to kill vehicles (outside of melta) and giving AP1 to powerweapons would just mean for less mundane melta lists and more tactics for avoiding melee combat if you are a Leman Russ Commander. But by no means is the game currently (nor would it become as such with the change) a game that allows the assaulting of tanks an Easy task...

For more specific addressing...

@Skin
The roll to wound on a Vehicle would be the Table...

And saying that on hits that would normally cause a wound to a model (S=T 4) the "save" gets a -2 and is more like a toughness test taken by the wounder that has a varity of results.

I would say vehicles have it much better at the moment. You cannot Doubletough/BreakMorale a vehicle.

@Lanrak
We are discussing the logical implications of why powerweapons should/should not be granted AP1 modifier for the vehicle weapon table, not if they have in the past rule editions of 40k. One of the means of justification would be fluff based (as GW does like to reflect to their fluff for a bit of the rules, thus having it. <See the Explination for why Necrons Fall back in Codex:Necron&gt as well as using game terms to discuss why they should be allowed. This involves alot of theoretical debate and is not necessarily meant to reflect the opinions of the developers. While I respect your opinion that such debates are pointless, please respect my opinion that making a post in a thread about theoretical debates stating that theoretical debates are pointless, is a bit pointless.


-DAR

What about power weapons (swords, axes, mauls, etc.) allowing the user to add 1 D3 to his strength when rolling for AP? That way, they aren't as good as power fists (which double strength) but still allow an added ease of carving through vehicle armor.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:@Lanrak
We are discussing the logical implications of why powerweapons should/should not be granted AP1 modifier for the vehicle weapon table, not if they have in the past rule editions of 40k. One of the means of justification would be fluff based (as GW does like to reflect to their fluff for a bit of the rules, thus having it. <See the Explination for why Necrons Fall back in Codex:Necron&gt as well as using game terms to discuss why they should be allowed. This involves alot of theoretical debate and is not necessarily meant to reflect the opinions of the developers. While I respect your opinion that such debates are pointless, please respect my opinion that making a post in a thread about theoretical debates stating that theoretical debates are pointless, is a bit pointless.

Well that is what just about everyone is telling you, Daemon-Archon Ren. There is no historical or even direct fluff support that Power Weapons would deal extra perceivable damages to vehicles as you are trying to suggest. Why? They just haven't and there is no reason to consider otherwise! Yes, Power Weapons can shear through infantry type armor which effectively negates its effect in game, however a Power Weapon is not an uber weapon that just shreds all types of armor like butter, as you keep trying to imply but continue to fail to support (other than just repeatedly saying the same heavily disputed and vague thing). Obviously, as fluff and history have carried, is that Power Weapons are just not noticeably effective enough against vehicle armor to warrant AP1 or additional strength effects (as suggested by Fallanir).

Skinnattittar wrote:
Yes, Power Weapons can shear through infantry type armor which effectively negates its effect in game, however a Power Weapon is not an uber weapon that just shreds all types of armor like butter, as you keep trying to imply but continue to fail to support (other than just repeatedly saying the same heavily disputed and vague thing). Obviously, as fluff and history have carried, is that Power Weapons are just not noticeably effective enough against vehicle armor to warrant AP1 or additional strength effects (as suggested by Fallanir).

And this is where I MUST disagree. Terminator armor is made out of the same material (plasteel, etc) as that which the more Heavily armored vehicles are composed of. Infact terminators, and even spacemarine standard power armor, wear stronger materials then even most normal vehicles (wraithbone, standard steel <orkz>, material used on Raiders, and MANY other vehicles, including IG standard issue) to say that the powerweapon would not have the same effect that it has on the armor a terminator wears that it would on a rhino (when they are both of the same composition) seems to show that all vehicle armor has some magic "unobtainum" weaved into it that negates the powerweapons core ability.

Now while it may be warrented to lay claim that powerweapons could only have an AP value of , apon further rule wordings, due to the USR "Rending" powerweapons having an AP of 2 would be a redundancy error in the Rending claims. As Rending states that ~"on a 6 The attack ignores armor saves of any kind and has an AP of 2" one can easy decipher that the handle of "Ignores armor saves" does not necessarily equate to "Has an AP of 2" or else the second part of the rule would be redundant. So on specific ruling terms, my claims for Powerweapons having an AP1 stem from the specific ruling on Rending.

Also from Rending does the fluff based logic originate. A rending weapon can be assumed to have an AP of 2 because when it is most potent (6 on the roll to wound/pen) it is able to wound any mortal being and is more capable at piercing most any armor, even if just barely piercing the stronger armor of a Crisis Battle suit or Tactical Dreadnaught suit. Powerweapons however, need not rely on the strength of their blow to negate the armor, thus it is easily implied that the force of the weapon is not what is being magnified by a standard powerweapon but the means in which it is "piercing" the armor (either by energy field, heat, or other matter-disruption technique). As far as I have read, when a powerweapon is given a fluff based description, take the Dark Eldar Punisher, powerweapons are known to function with these energy-field-esqe characteristics. To assume that said fields would have no further effect on the internals of a vehicle system is to me, blind ignorance, especially when compared side by side to a weapon of equal strength without the field, and even more so the the effect of a bare fist!

Is that more what you were looking for?

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Is that more what you were looking for?

Yes, now I can address your issues!

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:And this is where I MUST disagree. Terminator armor is made out of the same material (plasteel, etc) as that which the more Heavily armored vehicles are composed of. Infact terminators, and even spacemarine standard power armor, wear stronger materials then even most normal vehicles (wraithbone, standard steel <orkz>, material used on Raiders, and MANY other vehicles, including IG standard issue) to say that the powerweapon would not have the same effect that it has on the armor a terminator wears that it would on a rhino (when they are both of the same composition) seems to show that all vehicle armor has some magic "unobtainum" weaved into it that negates the powerweapons core ability.

So if I have a sheet of 404 steel foil it has the same armor value as 404 steel bar stock? Just because it is the same material does not mean it has the same thickness.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Now while it may be warrented to lay claim that powerweapons could only have an AP value of , apon further rule wordings, due to the USR "Rending" powerweapons having an AP of 2 would be a redundancy error in the Rending claims. As Rending states that ~"on a 6 The attack ignores armor saves of any kind and has an AP of 2" one can easy decipher that the handle of "Ignores armor saves" does not necessarily equate to "Has an AP of 2" or else the second part of the rule would be redundant. So on specific ruling terms, my claims for Powerweapons having an AP1 stem from the specific ruling on Rending.

Rending is a rule for both melee and ranged weapons. Since ranged weapons are not as polar as CCW, they would have an AP value instead (even if AP2 negates all regular Armor Saves), which is why it is specified. Considering the intent is probably that Rending CCW are effectively PW when they get their required 6 would suggest to me that PW are probably the same way, and AP2.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Also from Rending does the fluff based logic originate. A rending weapon can be assumed to have an AP of 2 because when it is most potent (6 on the roll to wound/pen) it is able to wound any mortal being and is more capable at piercing most any armor, even if just barely piercing the stronger armor of a Crisis Battle suit or Tactical Dreadnaught suit. Powerweapons however, need not rely on the strength of their blow to negate the armor, thus it is easily implied that the force of the weapon is not what is being magnified by a standard powerweapon but the means in which it is "piercing" the armor (either by energy field, heat, or other matter-disruption technique). As far as I have read, when a powerweapon is given a fluff based description, take the Dark Eldar Punisher, powerweapons are known to function with these energy-field-esqe characteristics. To assume that said fields would have no further effect on the internals of a vehicle system is to me, blind ignorance, especially when compared side by side to a weapon of equal strength without the field, and even more so the the effect of a bare fist!

Rending originated mostly from weapons that put out a ridiculous number of rounds, a ridiculously accurate round (such as snipers), or a wholly crushing blow, so instead they ignore armor by just pummeling it with so many shots, get around it by hitting a chink, or crush it with force of power! But there are a plethora of reasons as well, since Rending is a USR, and has no specific description as you might imply (I think certain weapons which used electricity or other energies avoided armor altogether in past examples). It is not blind ignorance (or arrogance, which would have been the better word in this case) to ignore something which has never been stated by official sources. To be ignorant or arrogant of something it first has to exist, so that it may either be unknown or ignored. Since Power Weapons (in general) are not described as having some sort of "spalling" effect on vehicles, so specially described weapons would need specially described effects.

Just because something is described as having "crackling energy," does not mean it is bursting with electrical might, ready to lash out and fry nearby combatants! Energy is energy, a very generic and scientific term for something with held power/work. So don't make assumptions of an unknown weapons effects just because it sounds intimidating.

Skinnattittar wrote:
So if I have a sheet of 404 steel foil it has the same armor value as 404 steel bar stock? Just because it is the same material does not mean it has the same thickness.

If the object in question (power-weapon) is designed to disrupt the material composition at a molecular level the thickness, nor armor value, do not matter.

Skinnattittar wrote:
Rending is a rule for both melee and ranged weapons. Since ranged weapons are not as polar as CCW, they would have an AP value instead (even if AP2 negates all regular Armor Saves), which is why it is specified. Considering the intent is probably that Rending CCW are effectively PW when they get their required 6 would suggest to me that PW are probably the same way, and AP2.

Skinnattittar wrote:
Rending originated mostly from weapons that put out a ridiculous number of rounds, a ridiculously accurate round (such as snipers), or a wholly crushing blow, so instead they ignore armor by just pummeling it with so many shots, get around it by hitting a chink, or crush it with force of power!

Thanks?

Skinnattittar wrote:
It is not blind ignorance (or arrogance, which would have been the better word in this case) to ignore something which has never been stated by official sources. To be ignorant or arrogant of something it first has to exist, so that it may either be unknown or ignored. Since Power Weapons (in general) are not described as having some sort of "spalling" effect on vehicles, so specially described weapons would need specially described effects.

Actually, blind ignorance fits perfectally, as the blind refers to those that are not ignorant and merely "pretend" to be by ignoring examples in the codice and rulebooks of various editions they own (which, I assume you do own these books, lest not you be blindly stating "facts") ignorance being to those that simply do not know of such examples as they did not have certain rulebooks.

It was either 4th edition or 3rd edition that had the section on powerweapons that read;

Power weapons :
Power weapons, by comparison to regular weapons, utilise focused energy fields to increase the deadliness of the weapon. The weapon uses a generator, either in its hilt or an external backpack, to sheathe its striking surfaces in a disruptive energy field allowing it to cut through most known forms of matter. Such a weapon can carve through armor and stone with as much resistance as empty air; typically only other energy fields can safely counter the effects of a power weapon. Power weapon technology is limited and all examples are crafted individually by skilled artisans; commonly in the form of a sword, axe, or hammer, but sometimes in a more exotic form such as a whip. Even without the power field active the weapon will be of highest quality and potent in the hands of a skilled fighter

Armor is armor, be it on your back, or on your tank. I bolded the parts that are mainly important.

Skinnattittar wrote:
Just because something is described as having "crackling energy," does not mean it is bursting with electrical might, ready to lash out and fry nearby combatants! Energy is energy, a very generic and scientific term for something with held power/work. So don't make assumptions of an unknown weapons effects just because it sounds intimidating.

My "assumptions" were based off of material presented by the company that writes the rules for said "unknown weapons". I would love to see an example in the fluff that specifies a powersword not being more effective against a vehicle, cause from the omnibus and Horus Heresy books, every instance of a Powerweapon vs Vehicle has described the sword the way I have been defending here, not once does it say "Oh, the field from that powersword magically didn't work on the rhino".

Oh! I see. So my acetylene torch should cut through 5" of 404 steel just as easily as it would through 404 steel foil. I get it, thickness has nothing to do with the ease to which something is cut. Or! A better example: Plasma cutter. Yes, not all Power Weapons are plasma based (if any), but a plasma cutter (a real world device) can cut through most metals with ease (I have actually "scribbled" with a plasma cutter and it cut clean through the sheet steel at a pretty good pace). But any plasma cutter can not cut through any thickness of metal. The thicker the metal, the more powerful a cutter you need. The one I used had a power station about the size of a large cooler and used three-phase power and a high-output air compressor. It could only cut through steel up to half-inch, and once you got thicker than 15-16 gauge (about 1/16") you had to go slower and slower to cut.

The flamboyant description aside (if you have quoted it so well, why don't you know which edition it is from?), in that edition did Power Weapons deal extra damage to vehicles? I would say if it didn't then it is safe to assume that they do not have as much effect on vehicles.

The 40k novels, while a good source of reference, are not entirely "cannon" when it comes to how the 40k Universe actually is, and that the history of Power Weapons NOT doing any extra damage is of far greater weight than what a single series may or may not have said. I have not read all of the Horus Heresy, on Horus Rising and Mechanicus (I do not recommend that one though), so I don't know if it ever mentions a Power Sword striking a vehicle and then that vehicle becomes destroyed, either killing all the crew or disabling all the systems with a single swipe of the blade, but I have never read anything like that in my time.

Oh, a quick question: on rolls of 6, rending weapons count as AP2 against infantry and get an additional D6 against vehicle armor? I always thought it was AP1 against infantry (not that that makes much of a difference though) and an additional D3 against vehicle armor?

Fallanir wrote:Oh, a quick question: on rolls of 6, rending weapons count as AP2 against infantry and get an additional D6 against vehicle armor? I always thought it was AP1 against infantry (not that that makes much of a difference though) and an additional D3 against vehicle armor?

No, it is just AP2 and +D3 on rolls to pen.

Skinnattittar wrote:Oh! I see. So my acetylene torch should cut through 5" of 404 steel just as easily as it would through 404 steel foil. I get it, thickness has nothing to do with the ease to which something is cut. Or! A better example: Plasma cutter. Yes, not all Power Weapons are plasma based (if any), but a plasma cutter (a real world device) can cut through most metals with ease (I have actually "scribbled" with a plasma cutter and it cut clean through the sheet steel at a pretty good pace). But any plasma cutter can not cut through any thickness of metal. The thicker the metal, the more powerful a cutter you need. The one I used had a power station about the size of a large cooler and used three-phase power and a high-output air compressor. It could only cut through steel up to half-inch, and once you got thicker than 15-16 gauge (about 1/16") you had to go slower and slower to cut.

Actually, you are wrong here. Plasma cutters work by creating an arc of "plasma" based on superheating gasses propelled by the device in conjunction with an electrical arc, this process not only melts the metal but also casts it aside thus creating the appearence of "disintegrating" the metal. The ability of the device to increase the length of that arc relies more on the technology driving the cutter (in higher end models, the pilot arc's length) then merely the size of the powerstation. And even still, if you had the technology to create a 270degree plasma arc (the typical melee weapon with a "plasma charge") that could function without initial contact or a pilot arc, then you will more then likely be able to cut through any thickness of metal with as much ease as a modern age torch can cut through the hood of a car...

But that aside, comparing real world technology to technology in a supposed age of over forty-thousand years from now is a bit far-fetched. Which actually seems to show where you stem your points from... Yes, in todays world, the thickness of armor effects how difficult it is to penetrate (as seen with a Kevlar Bodyarmor suit vs merely wrapping yourself with standard Fibreoptic wires ((Which have kevlar in them)) ) however, when you start talking about technology far in the future that has such descriptors as "Can carve through armor and stone with as much resistance as empty air" then it is very justifiable to assume that such technology would also be advantageous against a vehicle vs a standard weapon (or fist).

Skinnattittar wrote:
The flamboyant description aside (if you have quoted it so well, why don't you know which edition it is from?), in that edition did Power Weapons deal extra damage to vehicles? I would say if it didn't then it is safe to assume that they do not have as much effect on vehicles.

Once again, the argument of "I'm right because I'm right" doesn't hold much water. I'm at work right now, and I will have to go through my old books when I get the free time but thinking harder about it, I actually think it was in both (if not identical then similar)

Also, even if the rules did not allow for Powerweapons to have an advantage against vehicles, that does not invalidate the logical reasonings in which Powerweapons SHOULD/COULD (Not "DO") have and advantage over vehicles (which is what this whole debate is about). I dare you to claim that EVERY rule in ANY GW BGB is entirely logical...

Skinnattittar wrote:
The 40k novels, while a good source of reference, are not entirely "cannon" when it comes to how the 40k Universe actually is, and that the history of Power Weapons NOT doing any extra damage is of far greater weight than what a single series may or may not have said. I have not read all of the Horus Heresy, on Horus Rising and Mechanicus (I do not recommend that one though), so I don't know if it ever mentions a Power Sword striking a vehicle and then that vehicle becomes destroyed, either killing all the crew or disabling all the systems with a single swipe of the blade, but I have never read anything like that in my time.

In fluff you are completely wrong. Every instance in which a character with a powerweapon (take EVERY encounter that Eisenhorn had with a vehicle) that I have read have shown that powerweapon being VASTLY superior to the standard weapon on said armor. Either by means of cleaving the tank completely in half, specifically noting that the energy field scrambled the engine, or marking that by merely bouncing off the side of the hull of a predator the weapons disruptive energies fused the side sponson shut, rendering the weapon useless.... I have yet to read an example of a powerweapon being ignored by a vehicle, yet countless are the instances where mere chainswords and bare fists negated by the armor of such 'impenetrable forces' of a Chimera. Fluff completly contradicts the argument of Powerweapons =/= special against vehicles, and they are entirely "Cannon" for how the 40k Universe actually is, it is the Rules of the Warhammer 40000 boardgame that are not 100% cannon with the fluff (Thus spacemarines not being gods)

The "History of powerweapons NOT doing any extra damage" extends to five different books, while that of them doing more extends to almost the entirety of the Black Library, including this gem which I think might help allow you to understand where the arguments in favor of AP1 to powerweapons stem from, (tho just about any other book in the catalogue should already do that)

Fallanir wrote:Oh, a quick question: on rolls of 6, rending weapons count as AP2 against infantry and get an additional D6 against vehicle armor? I always thought it was AP1 against infantry (not that that makes much of a difference though) and an additional D3 against vehicle armor?

No. It's AP2 vs Infantry and D3 vs Armour.

@ Daemon-Archon Ren : The point of the plasma cutter example was to show that even a device that can cut (with a form of energy) a material with ease, is still very dependent on the thickness of the material (or equally so, the power of the device). It does not matter if you are cutting the material via heat, shock, shear, or even molecular breakdown, the thickness of the material depends on how quickly or easily you will cut through it.

Power weapons ARE imaginary. But being that they are imaginary, that would mean their abilities are dependent on the "imaginer." If we consider that this is a GW imaginary world, we would have to at some level accept what they say on certain subjects. Surely, GW's rules are not always perfectly logical (if at all ever) or even mechanically practical, I can more than accept that. However, GW has had a long standing system for Power Weapons. They have not changed much at all in the past twelve years!

We are not arguing over how vehicles work, or infantry moves, or the logical methods of shooting and assaulting. Those things have changed, in some cases a lot, in every edition of 40k. However, Power Weapons have not! They have stayed, not only fundamentally the same, but practically the same. As a matter of fact, just by calling it off my head, since 3rd Edition, Power Weapons have not changed at all! Especially in regards to how they effect vehicles.

So to simply start stating, "well obviously Power Weapons are AP1. GW has just gotten that completely wrong for over a decade and has never addressed it, or shown interest in changing it." That, is arrogance.

As for fluff references, I can not actually remember the last time I read about anyone dicing up a vehicle with a power sword like so much butter.... Except for a titan battle and some large servitors, I don't think Eisenhorn OR Ravenor have fought vehicles in their books.... I think Gaunt has diced up some armor plating, but I don't recall him attacking a vehicle with his power sword.... I don't recall any power weapon on vehicle action in Horus Rising either, or Mechanicus.... I am not saying I would trust any of those books, as GW has said/implied on many occasions that the books (and fluff in general) are not considered explicitly cannon for 40k. So I would take everything with a grain of salt.

Now, before I hear "so you think they write that stuff just for fun?!! If you can't trust the books, then trust nothing!" No, I am not saying that. The books are meant to entertain and be interesting. Now as humorous as it would be for the protagonist to run up to a Chaos Rhino, swing out, and have their Power Weapon make no effect, it would also be rather anti-climatic. It is just a basic literary device of "bad-assery" to have a character bash apart a formidable antagonist as a war machine! Suspension of dis-belief, I say noting the irony.

Skinnattittar wrote: It does not matter if you are cutting the material via heat, shock, shear, or even molecular breakdown, the thickness of the material depends on how quickly or easily you will cut through it.

Power weapons ARE imaginary. But being that they are imaginary, that would mean their abilities are dependent on the "imaginer."

GW is the Imaginer

so let me go ahead and give you some direct quotes... From the most recent edition

Power weapons
A power weapon is sheathed in the lethal haze of a
disruptive energy field, which eats through armour,
flesh and bone with ease. Models wounded in close
combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power
weapon are not allowed armour saves.

Showing that the imaginer would be inclined to agree that Powerweapons would be able to eat though armor with ease.... Says nothing about thickness... btw while we are on this page.

Rending weapons
If a model armed with a rending close combat weapon
rolls a 6 on any of his rolls to wound in close combat,
the opponent automatically suffers a wound, regardless
of its Toughness. These wounds count as wounds from
a power weapon. Against vehicles, an armour
penetration roll of 6 allows a further D3 to be rolled,
with the result added to the total score.

vs

RENDING
In the right circumstances, rending weapons have a
chance of piercing any armour with a hail of shots,
pinpoint accuracy or diamond-hard ammunition.
Any roll to wound of 6 with a rending weapon
automatically causes a wound, regardless of the target’s
Toughness, and counts as AP2. Against vehicles, an
armour penetration roll of 6 allows a further D3

Seeing as how GW went out of their way to make Rending Melee different from Rending Ranged would imply that Rending melee are NOT AP2. Rending ranged are NOT powerweapons as they do not ignore armor saves of any kind where in the Melee rending SPECIFICALLY states that it is a powerweapon. The lack of continuity leaves much to be considered.

Skinnattittar wrote:
If we consider that this is a GW imaginary world, we would have to at some level accept what they say on certain subjects. Surely, GW's rules are not always perfectly logical (if at all ever) or even mechanically practical, I can more than accept that. However, GW has had a long standing system for Power Weapons. They have not changed much at all in the past twelve years!

We are not arguing over how vehicles work, or infantry moves, or the logical methods of shooting and assaulting. Those things have changed, in some cases a lot, in every edition of 40k. However, Power Weapons have not! They have stayed, not only fundamentally the same, but practically the same. As a matter of fact, just by calling it off my head, since 3rd Edition, Power Weapons have not changed at all! Especially in regards to how they effect vehicles.


So to simply start stating, "well obviously Power Weapons are AP1. GW has just gotten that completely wrong for over a decade and has never addressed it, or shown interest in changing it." That, is arrogance.

Actually, it is the point of the discussion. GW is contradicting themselves and they have been for over a decade, I will make that claim (as it seems you have as well). Not changing in twelve years is not really all that much of a big deal, all and all the major changes to this game in the past 12 years is the vehicle damage table, running, and losing the ability to Sweeping advance into another melee. (other then true LOS and the allies system). You yourself say that GW makes illogical rules (hell take for example the fact that a lasconnon shot can hit a guardsman (thus piercing its armor with a huge laserbeam) yet has a 1 in 6 chances of not even hurting that guardsman... ) the point is that the fact that Powerweapons are not currently AP1 (or at least share the benefits of AP1 weaponry vs vehicles) is illogical and there is more then enough justification, even in the rulebooks that have yet to state otherwise, to warrant this PROPOSED RULE (hmm, curious that this forum has that SAME NAME).

The counterpoint that "GW has not made this a rule in the past" in a Proposed Rules forum is just plain stupid. Seeing as how it is your last ditch counterpoint, I respectfully ask for more proper justification as to why the proposed rule would NOT make sense nor be warrented with reasons other then "It isnt a rule yet and has never been" (because honestly, if it was already a rule, what would the point of the proposal). You bring up thickness as your only real argument, the general concensus is that Thickness is not an issue for a powerweapon (both in fluff and in rulebooks). If you cannot come up with anything else then you really have no ground to stand on.

Skinnattittar wrote:
As for fluff references, I can not actually remember the last time I read about anyone dicing up a vehicle with a power sword like so much butter.... Except for a titan battle and some large servitors, I don't think Eisenhorn OR Ravenor have fought vehicles in their books.... I think Gaunt has diced up some armor plating, but I don't recall him attacking a vehicle with his power sword.... I don't recall any power weapon on vehicle action in Horus Rising either, or Mechanicus.... I am not saying I would trust any of those books, as GW has said/implied on many occasions that the books (and fluff in general) are not considered explicitly cannon for 40k. So I would take everything with a grain of salt.

Now, before I hear "so you think they write that stuff just for fun?!! If you can't trust the books, then trust nothing!" No, I am not saying that. The books are meant to entertain and be interesting. Now as humorous as it would be for the protagonist to run up to a Chaos Rhino, swing out, and have their Power Weapon make no effect, it would also be rather anti-climatic. It is just a basic literary device of "bad-assery" to have a character bash apart a formidable antagonist as a war machine! Suspension of dis-belief, I say noting the irony.

So the fluff was made to entertain and therefor is not cannon with the fluff...

Sounds very Tinfoil-hat-esque to me...

@ Daemon-Archon Ren : Regardless of what fluff there is that describes a Power Sword cutting through armor more easily than non-Power Weapons, GW has not made power weapons any stronger than the user in twelve years. So why change it now?

Reasons I have heard so far:

(a) Because they are described as being able to cut through armor more easily in the fluff.

(b) Because I want it

(c) Because I want it

(d) Because I want it

(e) Because I want it

(f) Because I want it

(g) Because I want it

(h) Because I want it

(i) Because I want it

(j) Because I want it

(k) Because I want it

(l) Because I want it

(m) Because I want it

(n) Because I want it

Reasons why not:

(o) Although it is described at being able to better cut through armor, by GWs lack of NOT improving PW for at least the past twelve years, they aren't more powerful enough to justify a boost.

(p) It would cause an imbalance in the game that is not needed.

Skinnattittar wrote:@ Daemon-Archon Ren : Regardless of what fluff there is that describes a Power Sword cutting through armor more easily than non-Power Weapons, GW has not made power weapons any stronger than the user in twelve years. So why change it now?

...

Reasons why not:

(o) Although it is described at being able to better cut through armor, by GWs lack of NOT improving PW for at least the past twelve years, they aren't more powerful enough to justify a boost.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
The counterpoint that "GW has not made this a rule in the past" in a Proposed Rules forum is just plain stupid. Seeing as how it is your last ditch counterpoint, I respectfully ask for more proper justification as to why the proposed rule would NOT make sense nor be warrented with reasons other then "It isnt a rule yet and has never been" (because honestly, if it was already a rule, what would the point of the proposal). You bring up thickness as your only real argument, the general concensus is that Thickness is not an issue for a powerweapon (both in fluff and in rulebooks). If you cannot come up with anything else then you really have no ground to stand on.

(p) It would cause an imbalance in the game that is not needed.

Imbalance? No more so then the removal of Sweeping Advances into subsequent melee assualts caused...

Also, the "Because I want it" x 13 is borderline spam, its unjustified, and it sounds like nothing more then the desperate cries of someone at the bottom of the barrel in terms of legitmate counterpoints.

This is not so much a "Proposed Rule" as it is a discussion about how Power Weapons are not properly represented as being God-sticks, which is essentially all that you have argued, Daemon-Archon Ren.

I posted "Because I want it" many times because just about every claim that Power Weapons are described as being God-sticks boils away to simply that; grasping at straws.

Sweeping Advances make sense fluff-wise, but they proved to be ridiculously powerful to the point that uber-assault units could clear a table unless confronted by another uber-assault unit. Anyone reasonable who remembers those times should be able to tell you it was a horrible game mechanic that was essentially 100% cheese.

Giving Power Weapons the ability to more easily destroy or neuter tanks is highly inappropriate. It is not as if tanks are tough to make useless lumps out of. So something that is not supported by fluff or particularly wanted by players seems to be a completely unneeded change.

Just because it is in Proposed Rules, does not mean past track records from GW are inappropriate. You continually mis-quote GW saying that they have been fluff-supporting Power Weapon God-sticks, I have been pointing out that they have not by your own logic of using GW fluff-to-table. If you can use GW quotes, so can I, don't be a hypocrite or condescending. Not every idea that looks like a good one turns out to be a good one.

In other news; I think my baking soda has gone flat. My pancakes won't rise....

Skinnattittar wrote:This is not so much a "Proposed Rule" as it is a discussion about how Power Weapons are not properly represented as being God-sticks, which is essentially all that you have argued, Daemon-Archon Ren.

Forum Index >> 40K Proposed Rules. But that's just me...

Skinnattittar wrote:
I posted "Because I want it" many times because just about every claim that Power Weapons are described as being God-sticks boils away to simply that; grasping at straws.

Not if you have read any of the fluff outside of the first few pages of the 5th edition rulebook... (Or even any of the Descriptions of powerweapons in ANY of the rulebooks period)

Skinnattittar wrote:
Sweeping Advances make sense fluff-wise, but they proved to be ridiculously powerful to the point that uber-assault units could clear a table unless confronted by another uber-assault unit. Anyone reasonable who remembers those times should be able to tell you it was a horrible game mechanic that was essentially 100% cheese.

Giving Power Weapons the ability to more easily destroy or neuter tanks is highly inappropriate. It is not as if tanks are tough to make useless lumps out of. So something that is not supported by fluff or particularly wanted by players seems to be a completely unneeded change.

So you are essencially saying that SAs were fluff accurate but overpowered so they were removed from the game...

Giving powerweapons +1 on the table would be "highly inappropriate" (which is a MAJOR stretch, +1 on the table is a >12%(Depending on str-vs-AV and # of hits scored) probably increase, >12% is not "Highly inappropriate" and as such was not included in previous versions of the game so therefor it is not fluff based (you still have yet to provide any fluff mentioning powerweapons failing/doing equal to normal weapons to vehicles btw)

Skinnattittar wrote:
You continually mis-quote GW saying that they have been fluff-supporting Power Weapon God-sticks, I have been pointing out that they have not by your own logic of using GW fluff-to-table. If you can use GW quotes, so can I, don't be a hypocrite or condescending. Not every idea that looks like a good one turns out to be a good one.

Actually, I'm quoting GW fluff to support how GW fluff states how powerweapons work in fluff.

You are "quoting" (actually its more like interpreting, as there has never been a line of text in a GW rule book that has ever said "Powerweapons don't effect Vehicle Armor in the same way as Infantry armor" to quote) GWs past RULEBOOKS to explain how powerweapons work in fluff

You also 'misquoted' fluff specifically in your example of Gaunt never using his powersword on a vehicle when the are many examples in his first omnibus alone (The Founding) including such specific ones as his powersword cutting through the barrel of a chaos predator like butter (I'll try and find you the exact page number when I get home later tonight). You also 'misquote' when you say that powerweapons

aren't like Light Sabers that some people think they are.

when it specifically states that the weapons that Eisenhorns most resembles that of a Lightsaber, in that it has no physical weapon to core its "Powerweapon" portion yet slices through both armor and bone alike with the ease of rainwater on a tissue.

So please, give example of me misquoting fluff... especially in relation to powerweapons NOT being 'god-sticks'...

It sounds more to me like your reasons for why it shouldn't be changed are less "Fluff based" and more "Because it would nerf my Guard Army harder" based...

I did NOT say Sweeping Advances were fluff accurate at all. I specifically said "they made sense" fluff-wise. They were extremely over powered and broke the game, that is why they were removed. Getting rid of Sweeping Advances also makes sense fluff-wise. In general, assaults are not fluff accurate. I do not care what kind of sword you have or how skilled you are at close combat. When I flip the switch from semi to auto, you are not going to get very close to me in the open, medium range, or even in combat that occurs more than a few meters away. The best you could do is get me inside a building or very thick under-brush. Otherwise, even a Lasgun would be a formidable weapon to just about any close-combat specialist. So why not represent that in the game? Well, good luck making a KISS system based on fire and maneuver, and do you know how many people would leave 40k?

Well, I would not so much say you are "mis-quoting" as you are "mis-interpretting then selectively quoting" 40k. Slicing through body armor and material softer than vehicle armor (remember, rockcrete is tougher than stone, but by volume is not tougher than most other 40k materials). You are taking the results of one situation and applying them to a totally different situation. By that I mean carapace armor is relatively thin compared to the hull of a tank.

You might be quoting GW fluff, but you are not understanding its context. You can select particular passages and phrases and ignore what obviously opposes your point of view. By that I mean, GW has not changed PW in twelve years and the fluff on power weapons has not changed for longer. I would think that those two things have a correlation. This isn't the differences between 1st Edition Guard and 5th Edition Guard, with such a massive difference in just about everything but a core. We are talking about something that has been pretty much the most constant rules and fluff correlation in 40k's history!

So until you come up with something that actually shows Power Weapons should change, other than "because I want it" or "look at how well I can mis-interpret stuff," I'm done arguing the same thing with you. It's like watching blather chaff bouncing off the wall of logic.... you don't even have the volume or substance to cause erosion over time!

Skinnattittar wrote:I did NOT say Sweeping Advances were fluff accurate at all. I specifically said "they made sense" fluff-wise... Getting rid of Sweeping Advances also makes sense fluff-wise.

So now your are arguing with yourself? (Does that also depend on what my definition of the word 'is' is?)

Skinnattittar wrote:
In general, assaults are not fluff accurate. I do not care what kind of sword you have or how skilled you are at close combat. When I flip the switch from semi to auto, you are not going to get very close to me in the open, medium range, or even in combat that occurs more than a few meters away. The best you could do is get me inside a building or very thick under-brush.

Have you even read the fluff? Hell, even outside of Black Library publications, almost every game-art picture shows two armies (Typically Imperium/Non-Imperium) within several feet of eachother on a battlefield...

Skinnattittar wrote:
Otherwise, even a Lasgun would be a formidable weapon to just about any close-combat specialist. So why not represent that in the game? Well, good luck making a KISS system based on fire and maneuver, and do you know how many people would leave 40k?

In which BGB does it not say that the 'butt's of weapons like Lasguns or Bolters are not used as Close Combat weapons?

Skinnattittar wrote:
Well, I would not so much say you are "mis-quoting" as you are "mis-interpretting then selectively quoting" 40k. Slicing through body armor and material softer than vehicle armor (remember, rockcrete is tougher than stone, but by volume is not tougher than most other 40k materials). You are taking the results of one situation and applying them to a totally different situation. By that I mean carapace armor is relatively thin compared to the hull of a tank.

But powerweapons do not only pierce Carapace armor, actually, they pierce Tactical Dreadnaught armor which is composed of of MUCH stronger materials then that of a Chimera and typically thicker then even that of Dark Eldar boats and Ork trucks...

Skinnattittar wrote:
You might be quoting GW fluff, but you are not understanding its context. You can select particular passages and phrases and ignore what obviously opposes your point of view. By that I mean, GW has not changed PW in twelve years and the fluff on power weapons has not changed for longer. I would think that those two things have a correlation. This isn't the differences between 1st Edition Guard and 5th Edition Guard, with such a massive difference in just about everything but a core. We are talking about something that has been pretty much the most constant rules and fluff correlation in 40k's history!

Actually, I am saying ALL GW fluff that involves powerweapons against Vehicle armor show the Powerweapon favoring that of a normal CCW. It would be you who would be finding specific examples of those that do not (which even that, you have failed to do)

And while GW has not changed the way POWERWEAPONS have worked in the past 12 years, they have changed the way AP1 works (no longer autopen) the vehicle table works quite recently (their used to be 2 tables... remember?).

Skinnattittar wrote:
So until you come up with something that actually shows Power Weapons should change, other than "because I want it" or "look at how well I can mis-interpret stuff," I'm done arguing the same thing with you. It's like watching blather chaff bouncing off the wall of logic.... you don't even have the volume or substance to cause erosion over time!

As stated above, with the 5TH EDITION change to both the way the vehicle table works, and how AP1 no longer auto pens, powerweapons should receive the +1 to the table as rhe effect now would be far less game changing then it would have been in the older editions of Warhammer 40k due to the fact that it is more consistant with the fluff of the warhammer 40k universe and the more restrictive rules of Warhammer 40k 5th edition to melee do call the need for a counterbalance rules change (ie Powerweapons counting as AP1) which is further justified by already substantial point cost of a powerweapon and the current trend of vehicles gaining the benefit of a reduction of point costs for improved abilities/rules.

How about that?

Hi Deamon -Archon Ren.
As GW has deemed it necissary to employ a completley seperate system for vehicle armour, to other units armour resolution.
I can only assume this was done to make some weapons very effective vs NON vehicles, yet have no benifit vs vehicles.
Eg Power weapon totaly ignore personal armour , yet have no benifit vs vehicles.

Other wise continuation of the armour save and toughness to cover vehicles , or the AV- Str system to cover other units would have been used.
Why else would they employ such a complicated set of systems , instead of just one simple one?

You personaly want to give power weapons a boost vs vehicles, because you think it is a good thing, fair enough,you are entitled to your opinion.
However, as most people agree to use the opinions of the 40k dev team , dont expect anyone to agree with your opinion ,'.... just because...'.
'House rule' it with your friends if they are agreeable .

Happy gaming
Lanrak.

So until you come up with something that actually shows Power Weapons should change, other than "because I want it" or "look at how well I can mis-interpret stuff," I'm done arguing the same thing with you. It's like watching blather chaff bouncing off the wall of logic.... you don't even have the volume or substance to cause erosion over time!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:Hi Deamon -Archon Ren.
As GW has deemed it necissary to employ a completley seperate system for vehicle armour, to other units armour resolution.
I can only assume this was done to make some weapons very effective vs NON vehicles, yet have no benifit vs vehicles.
Eg Power weapon totaly ignore personal armour , yet have no benifit vs vehicles.

Other wise continuation of the armour save and toughness to cover vehicles , or the AV- Str system to cover other units would have been used.
Why else would they employ such a complicated set of systems , instead of just one simple one?

You personaly want to give power weapons a boost vs vehicles, because you think it is a good thing, fair enough,you are entitled to your opinion.
However, as most people agree to use the opinions of the 40k dev team , dont expect anyone to agree with your opinion ,'.... just because...'.
'House rule' it with your friends if they are agreeable .

Becareful Lanrak. I concur with your interpretation, and have said as much several times. However... personal comments edited out by the mgmt. Please argue the argument, don't make it about the person you're arguing with, even if you do it in a friendly and playful way that reflects the situation and the culture of gaming. Some of us moderators have no sense of humor and hate you all.

Edited again. Do not undo a Moderator's work.

@Skin

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
with the 5TH EDITION change to both the way the vehicle table works, and how AP1 no longer auto pens, powerweapons should receive the +1 to the table as rhe effect now would be far less game changing then it would have been in the older editions of Warhammer 40k due to the fact that it is more consistant with the fluff of the warhammer 40k universe and the more restrictive rules of Warhammer 40k 5th edition to melee do call the need for a counterbalance rules change (ie Powerweapons counting as AP1) which is further justified by already substantial point cost of a powerweapon and the current trend of vehicles gaining the benefit of a reduction of point costs for improved abilities/rules.

How about that?

Ironic that your metaphor involved a "wall of logic" when it is clear that you yourself aren't using any...

Lanrak wrote:
You personaly want to give power weapons a boost vs vehicles, because you think it is a good thing, fair enough,you are entitled to your opinion.
However, as most people agree to use the opinions of the 40k dev team , dont expect anyone to agree with your opinion ,'.... just because...'.
'House rule' it with your friends if they are agreeable .

Do I personally want to give it the buff? Hell no! Of my lists, I have far less av14 then anyone else... hell as DE I would effectively be getting Pen'd with Str4 and ultra penned with Powerfists/Hammers/Chainfists (o god chain fists would be nasty...) but this isnt about ME. Unlike SOMEPEOPLE (who will remain nameless) I don't only apply balance towards my own personal situation... I apply it FAIRLY. The reason's aren't "Just because". They have been reflected apon time and time again, 5th edition rebalence move, the way that based on fluff Powerweapons should be functioning as AP1, etc (if you really want the full list I can give it to you). There are quite a bit more reasons then "Because I said so" (unless you are just reading Skin's posts...), especially in favor of them getting AP1 as opposed to them not getting AP1 (so far the only reasons why not are "Because you want them too" and "Because my leman russes already get pounded in melee" as well as an extremely flawed argument about thickness... but anyone who has read the fluff on 40k should know that Thickness is represented more by AV then it is material composition and should have nothing to do with a blow that already penetrates/glances it's armor...) so I will defend such a proposed rule (especially the logic behind said rule, even if not transitioned to game terms) and I would appreciate if you at least took the time to read them before jumping to such narrowminded accusations...

Now as far as "The opinions of the Dev Teams" and "Completely different system"

Point 1: the system is because wounding a person and breaking a car are two totally differnt things... it doesn't take a Socratic debate to solve that one...

Point 2: The entire reason for a 'proposed rule' section of a forum based on a game would be contesting the "opinions" of the Dev teams, so again I restate... "We are discussing the logical implications of why powerweapons should/should not be granted AP1 modifier for the vehicle weapon table, not if they have in the past rule editions of 40k. One of the means of justification would be fluff based (as GW does like to reflect to their fluff for a bit of the rules, thus having it. <See the Explination for why Necrons Fall back in Codex:Necron&gt as well as using game terms to discuss why they should be allowed. This involves alot of theoretical debate and is not necessarily meant to reflect the opinions of the developers. While I respect your opinion that such debates are pointless, please respect my opinion that making a post in a thread about theoretical debates stating that theoretical debates are pointless, is a bit pointless" The point of this forum is the point of this discussion, invalidating the reason for debate would invalidate the need of a forum of this type completely... in which case this discussion would have never came up...>

Hi Daemon-Archon Ren.
As an aside, all the other game systems I use , use one simple system for determining damage on ALL units.

40k rule set is based purley on the opinion of the developers , as it is just a load of cool ideas bundled together to make a fun game for ages 11 and up.
And as such , the background is used very loosly as a guidline for the game play.BUT rules often HAVE to be modified to reduce the imballance in game play.

In no way shape or form, is 40k any sort of simulation of real world military conflict.

In historical games sometimes the eye witness testomiony is unreliable,exagerated and biased.(In the same way 40k fluff is often exagerated.)
However it is possible to use impirical evidence to correct this.

As 40k has no impirical evidence, it relies on opinions of the developers and playtesters to correct the 'exagerations' in the fluff.
Unfortunatley , making an existing element of 40k better or worse in isolation ,is just a subjective opinion.

Most things posted on this forum is 'opinion swapping' with others.
And are posted for people concideration to be included in 'house rules', or 'alternative rule sets' if they like them.

If you said that the power weapon was the equivelent of a Panzerfaust,(HEAT warhead) and you could give me the HRA equivelent thickness of the armour of all 40k vehicles , then we could define the effects on the vehicles, (along with other weapons types,) impiracaly.(From known values.)

But as 40k does not even scale the power of the hit to the result on the target vehicle ...its just a game for ages 11 and up...

By all means play the rules modification you sugest with your gaming buddies.
And anyone who agrees with you may adopt them too.
But those who do not share your opinion will not .

Trying to convice someone to change thier opinion without impirical evidence to back up your argument , is a waste of time.
(This was the point I was trying to make.)


TTFN
Lanrak.

Why so much hostility in this thread?

Please keep the discussion on point and limit your arguments to the subject itself, and NOT the actual users.

Otherwise...

Maybe instead of making them AP1, just give Power Weapon/Fist/etc. +1 against Glancing Hits.

If you score a pen hit due to Furious Charge or some other +STR bonus against Rear10 vehicles, the current damage table is adequate. Boosting pens by +1 shouldn't be that common.

However, a majority of the time the best a STR4 guy can do against a vehicle is glance it. Lots of shaking and no boom unless previously banged on. We like the boom. A 1 out of 6 chance seems reasonable for how Power Weapons are described. Fists may not need this bump.

Shas'O Dorian wrote:AP 1 I'm not too fond of. However I could see it as "adding 1 or 2 (pending play testing) to rolls to penetrate vehicle armor."

I like that idea. AP1 is just too much. Only the most powerful weapons get AP1. A power weapon is more akin to a lascannon in that its powerful enough to ignore infantry armor, and even possibly damage a tank, but it probably won't destroy it. I could imagine a power weapon cutting through a tank tread or poking a hole in it's engine, but it wouldn't destroy the systems the crew uses to operate it or ignite the fuel in the tank and cause it to explode, so it would make sense that they would add to the roll to penetrate (perhaps +D3?) but still count as AP- (-2 on vehicle damage table).

1337m45747r0y wrote:...would add to the roll to penetrate (perhaps +D3?) but still count as AP- (-2 on vehicle damage table).

That.... actually.... isn't a terrible idea. While the AP-, on face value, violently flies in the face of what a Power Weapon is, working within the rules it works nicely. However, for a -2 on the VDT, you are thinking of a Glancing Hit, which is not entirely objectionable. It allows Power Weapons to more greatly reflect their ability to do damage to the lighter exterior bits, such as drive mechanisms (treads, tires, axles, etc...) and weapons (barrels, scopes, and what-not), while not being vehicle destroyers. So....

Power Weapons: Do +D3 for Armor Penetration, but may only count as Glancing Hits.

The only problem are units with high Strength characteristics which are supposed to be able to destroy vehicles. So while an interesting idea for S5 and below characters, S6 and up would suffer against their fluff.

well this throws off using a chainblade to cut through tank armour, only after you punch it. (which would break the blade but w.e.)

I like the +D3, it's like rending.

what about rending power weapons.

they would be D6+2D3

That makes sense, except it would essentially be 2D6. Rending on a chainfist (or similar weapon) would be 2D6+D3, which is frankly kinda terrifying.

Actually, D6+2D3 is better than 2D6. The lowest you can get on 2D6 is 2, the lowest you can get on D6+2D3 is 3. Either way, it's a crappy idea because now you're using Melta Weapons! Just with a lower Strength.


@ Solon : Are you really quoting yourself to mock my intentionally ironic signature? Man, that's levels of irony I can't begin to give a crap about! Also, if you are making up a quote from yourself, you don't need to [box] any part of it. Using [ ] (I forget the name for it) means you are changing the words someone used, but are saying the same thing.

For instance, Gwar! did not explicitly say "Skinnattittar is right." He said, quoting me and to me, "You are right." As a matter of fact, that was when he still had all those wingdangdoodles in his signature singing his own praises about how correct he was... So I started mine with his quote after defeating him in intellectual combat. However I pre-warned people by beginning with:
Just because anyone agrees with anyone, doesn't mean they are correct (even me!). Beware the thin line between what is "Correct" and what is "Popular."

Just, you know, FYI....

Sorry for the delay, I was out of the country for a while just got back... First off......

Lanrak wrote:

40k rule set is based purley on the opinion of the developers , as it is just a load of cool ideas bundled together to make a fun game for ages 11 and up.
And as such , the background is used very loosly as a guidline for the game play.BUT rules often HAVE to be modified to reduce the imballance in game play.

Age 11 is just the minimum age for the most basic of rules, I don't see 11-15 year olds saving up their bank and buying 10k pt armies or attending Games Day or other tournies. While the most casual of game settings (and most basic) is designed for younger players, it is my "empirical evidence" that the competitive gamer tends to be of a more "advanced aged" (nice way of saying 'old') and when discussing proposed rules for game balencing purposes, it should be safe to assume that the oversimplification of some of the rules (that is intended for the younger audience) is not to be applied. (Remember, at face "opinion" of the Devs, in 5th edition the Dark Eldar codex contains 0 units, as it contains no unit types)

Lanrak wrote:
In no way shape or form, is 40k any sort of simulation of real world military conflict.

No one is saying it is?

Lanrak wrote:
In historical games sometimes the eye witness testomiony is unreliable,exagerated and biased.(In the same way 40k fluff is often exagerated.)
However it is possible to use impirical evidence to correct this.

As 40k has no impirical evidence, it relies on opinions of the developers and playtesters to correct the 'exagerations' in the fluff.
Unfortunatley , making an existing element of 40k better or worse in isolation ,is just a subjective opinion.

...

Trying to convice someone to change thier opinion without impirical evidence to back up your argument , is a waste of time.
(This was the point I was trying to make.)

by quoting the authors direct works? It isnt empirical evidence to say "In The Founding the first Omnibus in the Gaunt's Ghosts series, Gaunt uses his powersword to slice through the barrel of a chaos predator with incredible ease". This is not contestable, it is written fact. Empirical evicence is not even required to prove fact or logic (which is being debated here, if you defacto to the initial argument of 'there is no logic behind AP1 powerweapons' ). I have never observed or experienced Menstruation (I am a Male) yet I know it exist, I have heard about it, I have read about it, but I have never personall experienced it. Does this mean it is not factual or logical to believe menstruation exists? I have no empirical evidence... Do you see my point?

But that being said, there actually IS empirical evidence to back up the 'opinion' that powerweapons should count as AP1. Warhammer 40k is a fictional world, and as with all worlds of fiction; the laws, fact, and setting are determined by the writers of the fictional world. In Tolken's Lord of the Rings, Frodo was a hobbit, that is FACT in the LOTR world, yet in our world, hobbits do not exist, so by your logic... Frodo is not a Hobbit? In Azeroth, The Dark Portal is an interdimensional doorway from one world to another. Interdimensional doorways have no emperical evidence (according to your standards) in our world and as such do not exist, so The Dark Portal does not exist in Azeroth.

Fortunately, the logic of the rest of the world is such that an author is allowed to bend the rules of our real world (thus "Fantasy, Fiction, and Science Fiction) and it is in that Author's works that a set of laws/rules/etc can be gathered (If any do exist). The authors works, in relation to the warhammer 40000 universe are in the forms of Black Libruary Publications, or that of the descriptional/narrative sections of the BGB and Codices alike. It is in my "observations" of these writing, and my "experience" reading these books that I draw my conclusion that Powerweapons function in the same manner that all weapons with the current ruling of AP1 function, or at least far more similar to weapons with AP1 then those with AP2. (as much as people say "Well lazkanonz are godz 2!" the fluff actually does not support that as much as you would think... there are far more examples of armor stopping lascannons in fluff then Powerweapons (especially Chainfists)

Fluff aside, it is also my observations and experience that melee as a whole has suffered dramatic changes in 5th Edition rule sets and the changes to the Vehicle Damage table do call for a counterbalance in favor of melee assaults. For example... for the past 4 editions of Warhammer 40k, a powersword(or any str4 attack) has had the ability to destroy AV10 in 1 attack, since 5th edition it is IMPOSSIBLE to destroy AV10 with Str4 in 1 hit without any modifiers (Open-topped being the only one currently possible). Because the rules for AP1 have changed from allowing a hit that would normally cause a Glancing hit to causing a penetrating hit (with the new system, from +2 on the Table to +1) to +1 on the table, AP1 is the most suitable change to give to powerweapons to allow assaults that would once destroy a vehicle to atleast retain a maximum of 30% of their old effectiveness (for the average squad)

Lanrak wrote:
If you said that the power weapon was the equivelent of a Panzerfaust,(HEAT warhead) and you could give me the HRA equivelent thickness of the armour of all 40k vehicles , then we could define the effects on the vehicles, (along with other weapons types,) impiracaly.(From known values.)

No, not real world, can't use real world explinations.

Lanrak wrote:
But as 40k does not even scale the power of the hit to the result on the target vehicle ...its just a game for ages 11 and up...

AP1 = +1 on Damage Table

Open Topper = +1 on Damage table

AP - = -1 on Damage Table

Glancing Hits = -2 on the table.

Str 9 (higher power) weapons have a better chance to glance or penetrate a vehicles armor (Scaling the hit result before tables, the above scales it afterwards)

Again, while age 11 is the minimum age for w40k, it is not necessarily the INTENDED age. Remember, many older models had topless women, take the Dark Eldar Codex... any parent who would willing let their child read that book is probably not the most fit parent (since it constantly glorifies torture and rape) Dawn of War (computer game based on 40k Fluff) is rated... M for Mature. Mark of Chaos (based on fantasy) is the same. Most of the Black Library publications are intended for a mature audience as well, from the novels to the novelty books (The Imperial Infantrymans Uplifting Primer - Damocles Gulf Edition glorifies shooting your own comrade in the back for about 90% of rule violations, where as if I ever saw a 12 year old with Liber Chaotica in their hands I would call Child Services)

To oversimplify all rules questions, or even 40k itself, simply becuase it has an 11+ sticker on the box for AOBR is very short-sighted. The game is far more complex then that of something only designed for 12 year olds, if not, then the majority of players would merely be 12 year olds, as older(sorry, those more "advanced in age") players would go to more complex wargames instead of knowing their gamesdays would be full of prepubescent kids whining about why space marines arent shooting farther then tau, or why Monters can kill their LRBTs with fists (oh wait... swap 'kids' with imperium players and thats what you.... ) that is why we have this forum to begin with....

Speaking of which.....

Lanrak wrote:
By all means play the rules modification you sugest with your gaming buddies.
And anyone who agrees with you may adopt them too.
But those who do not share your opinion will not .

Trying to convice someone to change thier opinion without impirical evidence to back up your argument , is a waste of time.
(This was the point I was trying to make.)

40K Proposed Rules
Want to discuss how a current 40K rule could be improved? Also the place to discuss 40K rules of your own and GW experimental 40K rules

Again, what you call a waste of time, the many on these boards call "The point of this forum".

Also, as stated before, I do have empirical evidence... you are probably mixing up terminology as well as philosophy of applying the scientific method to theological debate... which doesn't work in any school. Thus theoretical debate as opposed to scientific....


That being said...

Counting powerweapons(All melee) as AP- and only allowing glances would be TERRIBLE. It would nerf the HELL out of ALL powerweapons...

That means it would get -3 on the table... meaing you have a 1 and 6 chance of doing ANYTHING to MOST vehicles (1 and 3 vs open topped) and you would have to kill every weapon, AND immobilise the vehicle and you would NEVER cause an "explodes" result... Even with just the glance (not AP -) you would never be able to cause an explodes.... if this change were to be implimented, the only counterbalence I could see to keep things even would give every assualt oriented model an extra wound/AV point and Eternal Warrior (or 4+ invul for walkers with AV, Bjorn would get a 3+).

I actually like Wildstorm's idea... as getting +1 on Pens should/would not be too common, alternatively, counting all hits with a powerweapon as only CAPABLE of causing pens (aka, old AP1 rules) with no bonus to the roll to Pen(unless chainfist) or the Table (other then Open Topped) would also be a more "balencing" method, however, as far as fluff logic... not much there... as it would be saying "The Fluff behind AP1 and Powerweapons is consistant but their rules are very different"

Hope that provides some insight?
-DAR