The question's in the title!

I do not personally know, but from previous discussion it seems that RAW it is not a melta weapon and so would get the 2D6 Armor Penetration vs. an Achilles Land Raider or Storm Raven. Someone mentioned it might have been clarified in the old Necron FAQ which was taken down, dealing with the prior rules for the Monolith.

Thoughts?

I had a thread that touched on this issue here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/404417.page#3454361.

And I think the concensus was that since melta bombs don't have the 'melta' rule, there is no immunity to it.

That's a great thread, very thorough... thanks!

8 + 2d6 is what the BRB says is it's "AP" vs. vehicles.

Meaning to me you're not rolling an "extra" dice. What you're rolling is how it functions.

to continue from the previous discussion...

italiaplaya wrote:

The functionally is not the same. You guys are just getting caught up with the name similarity.

It's acts like a dog, it looks like a dog, it's taken for the same reasons a dog is, it's called a dog, but it's not a dog. That's the issue we've run into here.

RAW yes, it's not a melta-weapon and would get double-penetration, however, in most cases, people will simply consider it a dog, or in this case, play it as a melta-weapon, because, while the RAW may be technically correct, it's counter-intuitive and is something most people would have to have pointed out to them specifically by a clever reader, most wouldn't naturally come to the conclusion that a Meltabomb is not actually a meltaweapon.

Vaktathi wrote:to continue from the previous discussion...

italiaplaya wrote:

The functionally is not the same. You guys are just getting caught up with the name similarity.

It's acts like a dog, it looks like a dog, it's taken for the same reasons a dog is, it's called a dog, but it's not a dog. That's the issue we've run into here.

RAW yes, it's not a melta-weapon and would get double-penetration, however, in most cases, people will simply consider it a dog, or in this case, play it as a melta-weapon, because, while the RAW may be technically correct, it's counter-intuitive and is something most people would have to have pointed out to them specifically by a clever reader, most wouldn't naturally come to the conclusion that a Meltabomb is not actually a meltaweapon.

Almost as mind blowing as not being able to issue orders to the troops you share a ride with! Sorry to thread jack!

alarmingrick wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:to continue from the previous discussion...

italiaplaya wrote:

The functionally is not the same. You guys are just getting caught up with the name similarity.

It's acts like a dog, it looks like a dog, it's taken for the same reasons a dog is, it's called a dog, but it's not a dog. That's the issue we've run into here.

RAW yes, it's not a melta-weapon and would get double-penetration, however, in most cases, people will simply consider it a dog, or in this case, play it as a melta-weapon, because, while the RAW may be technically correct, it's counter-intuitive and is something most people would have to have pointed out to them specifically by a clever reader, most wouldn't naturally come to the conclusion that a Meltabomb is not actually a meltaweapon.

Almost as mind blowing as not being able to issue orders to the troops you share a ride with! Sorry to thread jack!

sort of, except there's a specific rule explicitly stating that you cannot issue orders to troops in transports, weird, but very flatly and plainly stated, whereas with meltabombs, they have the name, but instead of having the melta rule they just have a defined AP that happens to be exactly the same as that provided by the melta rules. So in all respects they function identically and are named similarly.

Actually melta bombs don't have an AP value. This isn't the same as AP - .

Now with that said I remember the other discussion and the big point was that it is not a shooting attack. In either case a melta bomb does not have the "melta" special rule. It simply does S8 plus 2d6 points of damage to a vehicle.

Akroma06 wrote:Actually melta bombs don't have an AP value. This isn't the same as AP - .

Per the BRB:
"Against vehicles, grenades have the following armor penetration

Melta Bombs 8 + 2d6"

Looks like an AP value to me?

Vaktathi wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:to continue from the previous discussion...

italiaplaya wrote:

The functionally is not the same. You guys are just getting caught up with the name similarity.

It's acts like a dog, it looks like a dog, it's taken for the same reasons a dog is, it's called a dog, but it's not a dog. That's the issue we've run into here.

RAW yes, it's not a melta-weapon and would get double-penetration, however, in most cases, people will simply consider it a dog, or in this case, play it as a melta-weapon, because, while the RAW may be technically correct, it's counter-intuitive and is something most people would have to have pointed out to them specifically by a clever reader, most wouldn't naturally come to the conclusion that a Meltabomb is not actually a meltaweapon.

Almost as mind blowing as not being able to issue orders to the troops you share a ride with! Sorry to thread jack!

sort of, except there's a specific rule explicitly stating that you cannot issue orders to troops in transports, weird, but very flatly and plainly stated, whereas with meltabombs, they have the name, but instead of having the melta rule they just have a defined AP that happens to be exactly the same as that provided by the melta rules. So in all respects they function identically and are named similarly.

But they arn't. The rule is pretty clear. Meltabombs are Str.8 plus 2D6. Meltaguns are Str.8 BUT you may get another D6 within half range. Again, they dont function the same.

2d6 as apposed to gaining an additional D6.

italiaplaya wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:to continue from the previous discussion...

italiaplaya wrote:

The functionally is not the same. You guys are just getting caught up with the name similarity.

It's acts like a dog, it looks like a dog, it's taken for the same reasons a dog is, it's called a dog, but it's not a dog. That's the issue we've run into here.

RAW yes, it's not a melta-weapon and would get double-penetration, however, in most cases, people will simply consider it a dog, or in this case, play it as a melta-weapon, because, while the RAW may be technically correct, it's counter-intuitive and is something most people would have to have pointed out to them specifically by a clever reader, most wouldn't naturally come to the conclusion that a Meltabomb is not actually a meltaweapon.

Almost as mind blowing as not being able to issue orders to the troops you share a ride with! Sorry to thread jack!

sort of, except there's a specific rule explicitly stating that you cannot issue orders to troops in transports, weird, but very flatly and plainly stated, whereas with meltabombs, they have the name, but instead of having the melta rule they just have a defined AP that happens to be exactly the same as that provided by the melta rules. So in all respects they function identically and are named similarly.

But they arn't. The rule is pretty clear. Meltabombs are Str.8 plus 2D6. Meltaguns are Str.8 BUT you may get another D6 within half range. Again, they dont function the same.

Having 2d6 as apposed to gaining an additional D6 is different.

Just so everyone is clear, i wasn't trying to link the 2 issues. Just seems like another silly thing that always pops up in the Magical world of 40k.
And i also feel the Melta bomb stays 2d6 vs. the Stormraven and ALR.

alarmingrick wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:Actually melta bombs don't have an AP value. This isn't the same as AP - .

Per the BRB:
"Against vehicles, grenades have the following armor penetration

Melta Bombs 8 + 2d6"

Looks like an AP value to me?

Not to me.
AP means Armour Piercing and relates to models with an armour save.
Armour penetration is used to compare against models with AV.

kirsanth wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:Actually melta bombs don't have an AP value. This isn't the same as AP - .

Per the BRB:
"Against vehicles, grenades have the following armor penetration

Melta Bombs 8 + 2d6"

Looks like an AP value to me?

Not to me.
AP means Armour Piercing and relates to models with an armour save.
Armour penetration is used to compare against models with AV.

oops, my bad! i had it my head Akroma06 was saying Armor penetration.
too much or not enough coffee! . I completely agree about the Armor piercing!

Akroma06 wrote:Now with that said I remember the other discussion and the big point was that it is not a shooting attack. In either case a melta bomb does not have the "melta" special rule. It simply does S8 plus 2d6 points of damage to a vehicle.

The shooting attack only matters to the Storm Raven, not the Achilles, right? So for the Achilles, the key point is that it doesn't have the "melta" special rule (your second point).

The Eldritch Lance isn't a Lance weapon, because it doesn't have the lance special rule. I Don't think there are any other Lance weapons in the game that have "Lance" in the name, but aren't lance weapons either.

Same Vein as Melta bomb, if you ask me. Shares the name, not the special rule.

italiaplaya wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:to continue from the previous discussion...

italiaplaya wrote:

The functionally is not the same. You guys are just getting caught up with the name similarity.

It's acts like a dog, it looks like a dog, it's taken for the same reasons a dog is, it's called a dog, but it's not a dog. That's the issue we've run into here.

RAW yes, it's not a melta-weapon and would get double-penetration, however, in most cases, people will simply consider it a dog, or in this case, play it as a melta-weapon, because, while the RAW may be technically correct, it's counter-intuitive and is something most people would have to have pointed out to them specifically by a clever reader, most wouldn't naturally come to the conclusion that a Meltabomb is not actually a meltaweapon.

Almost as mind blowing as not being able to issue orders to the troops you share a ride with! Sorry to thread jack!

sort of, except there's a specific rule explicitly stating that you cannot issue orders to troops in transports, weird, but very flatly and plainly stated, whereas with meltabombs, they have the name, but instead of having the melta rule they just have a defined AP that happens to be exactly the same as that provided by the melta rules. So in all respects they function identically and are named similarly.

But they arn't. The rule is pretty clear. Meltabombs are Str.8 plus 2D6. Meltaguns are Str.8 BUT you may get another D6 within half range. Again, they dont function the same.

2d6 as apposed to gaining an additional D6.

Close enough that people consider them identical, and technically, you're within 6" to use a meltabomb


It's enough of an issue that most people wouldn't naturally reach the conclusion that melta-bombs wouldn't be counted as melta-weaponry without intentionally looking for that distinction (or even have the mindset to do so which, to be honest, is limited to a small fraction of the playerbase), and that attempting to argue that a vehicle that is immune to the meltagun double penetrations somehow interacts differently with another weapon that's also called a melta weapon utilizing a similar mechanic will likely not garner much in the way of good will.

It's one of those things that yes, while strictly correct by RAW, isn't necessarily the logical conclusion one would come to consistently given a normal person's reasonable reading of the rules without having a very strict RAW interpretation mindset present that isn't in most other games or most players minds, and GAP is something that isn't widely adhered to outside of a relatively small proportion of the playerbase.

Hell, even I once knew this fact and had forgotten about it since I haven't seen it played that way in years.


It's a lot like the area terrain rules, where an area forest only gives a cover save to units behind it if they are actually between two elements of terrain (e.g. trees) as opposed to simply on the other side of it. 99% of the time people just play it as if you're on the other side, you get a cover save.

Sasori wrote:The Eldritch Lance isn't a Lance weapon, because it doesn't have the lance special rule. I Don't think there are any other Lance weapons in the game that have "Lance" in the name, but aren't lance weapons either.

Same Vein as Melta bomb, if you ask me. Shares the name, not the special rule.

Lance is a fairly generic weapon name however all things considered, Melta is not. A weapon being called a Lance wouldn't necessarily imply it has the Lance quality given that it is actually a type of weapon as well just as not all Ordnance weapons are not also Blast weapons, whereas the word Melta implies a special quality by its very nature. The Meltabomb has a non-standard armor penetration just as a Meltagun does, whereas the Eldritch Lance has no special penetration to mix up. Hence the increased confusion.

Yes RiTides, but I was referencing the other thread that was about the storm raven. Correct again it does not have the melta rule it simply has a strength of 8 and rolls 2d6 points of damage to a vehicles AV. It's a double whammy on the Storm Raven and one instance on the Achilles that lets them roll both D6. Now the old living metal rule...lets just say thats one of the two reasons I'm glad it's different now.

It's ok alarmingrick we all have an oops moment. I could have described what I meant a little better.

alarmingrick wrote:8 + 2d6 is what the BRB says is it's "AP" vs. vehicles.

Meaning to me you're not rolling an "extra" dice. What you're rolling is how it functions.

Normal Armor Penetration is Strength +1D6

anything more than 1D6 is an extra die for Penetration.

That is just how the base rules work.

DeathReaper wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:8 + 2d6 is what the BRB says is it's "AP" vs. vehicles.

Meaning to me you're not rolling an "extra" dice. What you're rolling is how it functions.

Normal Armor Penetration is Strength +1D6

anything more than 1D6 is an extra die for Penetration.

That is just how the base rules work.

No, extra to me would mean since i was with in 6", i could roll and extra dice for my melta gun.


"Normal Armor Penetration" for Melta Bombs are 2 d6, period. it's part of it's statline.

The Base rules for Armor Penetration Disagree with you Alar.

Normal penetration is Str + 1D6, anything more than 1D6, by definition would be extra.

Death Reaper and Kirsanth are correct.

The rules here are completely black and white.

A Meltabomb is no more a Melta weapon than an Eldritch Lance is a Lance weapon, or a Heavy Flamer is a Heavy weapon. The name is irrelevant. The rules (in this case, at least) are quite clear.

Just for a little fun about the "looks like" argument: If it looks like a dog and it sounds like a dog it isn't necessarily a dog. It could be a wolf or a coyote or it could be a dog.

DeathReaper wrote:The Base rules for Armor Penetration Disagree with you Alar.

Normal penetration is Str + 1D6, anything more than 1D6, by definition would be extra.

Thanks, Deat.

Mannahnin wrote:Death Reaper and Kirsanth are correct.

The rules here are completely black and white.

A Meltabomb is no more a Melta weapon than an Eldritch Lance is a Lance weapon, or a Heavy Flamer is a Heavy weapon. The name is irrelevant. The rules (in this case, at least) are quite clear.

Well, they are what they are, but clear isn't what I'd call them. I won't argue that in this case yes the meltabombs will still get their double-pen as RAW and in any sort of formal tournament judgement that would be the technically correct ruling, but the way most people would interpret it GAP is different, at least in my experience, and I think anywhere outside a high level tournament where there there is a RAW mindset (lets be honest here, there is a real difference between how the average person on a street would read a rule and interpret/consider it to be and how someone with a RAW mindset would, it's something that takes development/training to develop that mindset in this game and you don't see such things quite as often in many other game systems) it is likely to be contentious.

The shtick about Heavy flamers not being Heavy and Eldritch Lance not being Lance don't necessarily apply here, as explained earlier, they are broad/vague terms used to describe either a differentiation from a more typical weapon or in the case of the word Lance has a weaponry/military connotation outside the specific 40k rules and can even be a Verb, whereas Melta is a very specific terminology unique to Warhammer 40,000 used purely to describe microwave/fusion heat weapons with extraordinary armor penetration capabilities making the distinction *far* more specific and thus harder to distinguish when it comes to rules like this.

If nothing else, it feels wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Just for a little fun about the "looks like" argument: If it looks like a dog and it sounds like a dog it isn't necessarily a dog. It could be a wolf or a coyote or it could be a dog.

Which are all subsets of Canids (sharing much the same behaviors, diets, breeding abilities, etc), in effect, they'd all be subsets of "melta" weapons.

Which are all subsets of Canids (sharing much the same behaviors, diets, breeding abilities, etc), in effect, they'd all be subsets of "melta" weapons.

Reminds me of the old Kingdom, phila, class, family, group, species breakdowns.

If you go back high enough, everything can be a weapon

On the flip side, for modern equivilents, when people see Mushroom cloud, we sorta think "Oh GAWD it's a nuke!"

Several pieces of military hardware can make substantial sized mushroom cloud like explosions which all function VERY differently and can be easily confused by some poorly trained PDF or munitorium adept (who probably named the equipment)

Using modern day military equipment as an analogy, You got the MOAB - "mother of all bombs!" (rather Massive Ordinance Air Blast bomb) - purely conventional explosive bomb just very very large but people honestly thought it was a nuke and some reported it as such when it was used in the recent wars.

Fission bomb - a la Hiroshima and Nagasaki (nuclear fission of splitting a heavy atomic substance into smaller components) (also most likely to be used in some sort of "dirty bomb")

Fusion bomb - never used in war so far but order of magnitude stronger than the fission bombs but can still be called a "nuke" since it does change things at the atomic level by combining lighter elements into a heavier element. Also called H-bomb. Similar but obviously different process than the above "nuke."

Neutron bomb - much less boom and small cloud but kills people via massive nuclear radiation damage. Would leave buildings and infrastructure intact but kill all the people

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also there is real world evidence that different effects happen at different ranges. A conventional stick of TNT will barely scratch tank armor when it explodes either on it or close to it. Mold the same stick into a cone and line it with some cheap copper sheet, now it becomes a shaped charge however, and now it can penetrate the armor.

But wait, shaped charges only work at certain distances, you have the round explode too far and it doesn't penetrate well at all. (which is why you see wierd things like chains and wire fences around tanks and tank turrets). Works best when it's nearly directly on top of the armor.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can probably expand this out to the melta bomb which may have very different internals to begin with but just so happen to be named by soldiers since it "melts tanks"

or that the effect was the same but just very different effects if can be attached vs fired at an object like how shaped charges work.

Edited for speeeeeling errorsz

But they don't work the same.

A Melta gun is fired at a tank and gets more dice at close range.

A Melta bomb is placed carefully by the operator and is always at the same range: zero.


On the other hand they probably use the same mechanism and ferromantic immunity as it is described would probably work on meltabombs but it isn't written that way.

Meh.

DeathReaper wrote:The Base rules for Armor Penetration Disagree with you Alar.

Normal penetration is Str + 1D6, anything more than 1D6, by definition would be extra.

I disagree. There are two different definitions going on here. One is that Armour Penetration is a constant Str. + 1D6, no matter what the circumstance. Anything added to that is 'extra'. While I would normally agree with this, if you look at the actual rules for Armour Penetration, it says:

"Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapon's strength to it, comparing the total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle."

So what strength is a grenade? If I am to follow the Armour Penetration guidelines to the letter (as you're suggesting) and the 2D6 is actually the normal D6 + the extra D6, then where is the Strength value of the weapon?

The answer is there is none. The grenades don't have "strength" value. They have a fixed Armour Penetration value. That fixed Armour Penetration value for a meltabomb is 8+2D6. 8 + 1D6 is not the meltabomb's normal AP and 1D6 is added to it.

Armour Penetration for a meltabomb = (8 + 2D6), not (8+1D6) + 1D6.

You've been saying that 'normal' Armour Penetration is Str. + 1D6, but there is no such thing as "normal armour penetration". That is something that you made up. But even if there were, Grenades have their very own section detailing how they penetrate armour, so I would hardly call those "normal". There is a section labeled 'Armour Penetration' that tells you how to figure out if your ranged weapon defeated the armour of a particular facing, but there is no definition for "armour penetration". Armour Penetration is defined by how the armour itself is penetrated, not by an equation. It is a means to a result, not a steadfast definition. If you were to say, "Armour Penetration is normally a result of Str. + 1D6." then you'd be correct. But this is not a 'normal' situation. This is a situation for a weapon that needs specific rules to tell you how to penetrate armour with it.

Page 60 Armor Penetration tells us what is the 'normal' Armour Penetration. Roll a D6 and Add the weapons Strength to it.

It is not something I made up, unless you did not read P.60, then it appears as if I have made that up.

P.60 has the normal rule for Armor Pen.

They have a Str value.

For a Melta bomb the Str is 8

For a Krak grenade the Str is 6.

That is how every weapon is listed, Str + 1D6

So 8+2D6 = Strength 8 with an additional Die for Armor Pen.

It is really that simple if you understand how Armor Pen works.

DeathReaper wrote:Page 60 Armor Penetration tells us what is the 'normal' Armour Penetration. Roll a D6 and Add the weapons Strength to it.

It is not something I made up, unless you did not read P.60, then it appears as if I have made that up.

P.60 has the normal rule for Armor Pen.

They have a Str value.

For a Melta bomb the Str is 8

For a Krak grenade the Str is 6.

That is how every weapon is listed, Str + 1D6

So 8+2D6 = Strength 8 with an additional Die for Armor Pen.

It is really that simple if you understand how Armor Pen works.

Right. But a melta bomb isn't a shooting attack.

DeathReaper wrote:*snip*

Actually, it never says that the grenade's strength is 8. It says that the Armour Penetration is 8 + 2D6. It never even mentions the strength of the grenade. You can infer (with probable cause) that the grenade's strength is 8, but grenades don't have strength values. You seem to think that Armour Penetration is always Str. + 1D6. I am trying to explain how others see it, in that "Armour Penetration" is not a set equation (Str. + 1D6), but instead a defintion of how a weapon penetrates an armour facing. Normally, weapons have an armour penetration of Str. + 1D6. In some abnormal cases, a weapon may have an armour penetration of Str. + 1D6, +1D6 (chainfists, monstrous creatures). In the case of meltabombs, the armour penetration is (8+2D6), not Str.8 + 1D6, +1D6. There is no 'extra' die, because this is not a 'normal' case of armour penetration.

But, I'm not going to argue with you, since it's fairly pointless. We've both been here long enough to know that you don't really come here to discuss, but rather say what you believe to be right, then repeat it until others agree or give up.

puma713 wrote:But, I'm not going to argue with you, since it's fairly pointless. We've both been here long enough to know that you don't really come here to discuss, but rather say what you believe to be right, then repeat it until others agree or give up.

In the spirit of the above:
And instead of spending half an hour re-typing what puma713 said, i'll say i gree with his comments.

Vaktathi wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Death Reaper and Kirsanth are correct.

The rules here are completely black and white.

A Meltabomb is no more a Melta weapon than an Eldritch Lance is a Lance weapon, or a Heavy Flamer is a Heavy weapon. The name is irrelevant. The rules (in this case, at least) are quite clear.

The shtick about Heavy flamers not being Heavy and Eldritch Lance not being Lance don't necessarily apply here, as explained earlier, they are broad/vague terms used to describe either a differentiation from a more typical weapon or in the case of the word Lance has a weaponry/military connotation outside the specific 40k rules and can even be a Verb, whereas Melta is a very specific terminology unique to Warhammer 40,000 used purely to describe microwave/fusion heat weapons with extraordinary armor penetration capabilities making the distinction *far* more specific and thus harder to distinguish when it comes to rules like this.

In game rules, there are frequently defined terms which have specific meanings in the context of those rules. If you show a guy off the street a flamer template and a blast marker, and ask him if they're both templates, he'd probably say yes. But in the context of the 5th edition 40k rules he'd be wrong. Only the teardrop-shaped one is a "template'.

"Heavy", "Lance", and "Melta" are all specific terms with game-defined meanings, when given in a weapon's rules. All of these words are also used in the names of various weapons, which do not necessarily have those rules.

puma713 wrote:But, I'm not going to argue with you, since it's fairly pointless. We've both been here long enough to know that you don't really come here to discuss, but rather say what you believe to be right, then repeat it until others agree or give up.

The above is not true.

Please do not make statements of this kind.

Thanks
-DR

The issue that comes up with the melta-bomb does in the end boil down to its name and the fact it is the only 'melta' object that acts the way it does.

Melta grants an extra D6 of armour penetration within half range. A grenade, when applied to a vehicle is at point blank range, thus, always within half range. At the time of 3rd edition, before all these Melta-negating shenanigans came into being there was no need to go any further into details. Since grenades cannot be thrown or used offensively there was no situation where this came about. Now if grenades could be thrown and used offensively I'd full expect there to be a proper ruling on this.

With regards to the Eldritch Lance comparisons? No. Lance may be a special rule for a weapon but it's also a common name for a long and pointy stick, as well as a verb for piercing something. At one point Imperial Guard rough riders had hunting lances, which did not have the 'Lance' special rule.

A Lance is a generic term. Not quite the same as 'Melta'.

And with regards to the Heavy Flamer comparison? Rather than harping the word 'Heavy' you'd be best looking at the word 'Flamer' which no one disagrees that it is.

I think this is going to remain vague. It's a rule that was originally written in a time where these circumstances simply did not exist and was carried over as again, these circumstances did not exist. The best bet is to simply email FW for a clarification.

RAW may technically state it's not a melta weapon - but the name alone gives it away. This is almost sounding like the old Terminator Armour arguements - where people were stating Terminators did not have an invulnerable save as their wargear did not specifically list them having Terminator armour. Technically RAW would have supported that and had them in the right. Their opponent and the side of a heavy book would have said otherwise for such semantics.

RiTides, maybe you should add a poll? The RAW seems to be clear on this one and its pretty much a how would you play it thread for which polls help in determining the prevalent view.

Added a poll, although having seen the evidence I'm convinced that the RAW is clear as well... I might have played it differently if it had come up previously, but now I don't see the other possibility being fair given all the other examples of weapons with names not matching their rules.

Tell you what, I'll give up the extra D6 from the melta bomb against the storm raven, if you let me count it as AP1 against everything (for +1 to damage rolls).

If you want to treat it as a melta, make it AP1 like all the other melta weapons (Now I'll feel like an arse when somebody posts the non-AP1 melta weapon that I don't know aout).

-Matt

As said, the RAW is clear. However, this does very much hark back to the Terminators without Terminator Armour debate. Simply put it's a situation that's come up because the rules and wargear it concerns have never had to come up against it before. I'd not be suprised if Melta was thrown on it in 6th edition, especially if melta-negating protection starts becoming more common.

And with regards to making it count as AP1? Er...why?

I see where you're coming from but the primary reason for the AP system had to do with shooting. Shots with AP X ignore saves of X, Y and Z. As grenades couldn't be used offensively at range there was no need to assign then an AP value. As they can't be used on Infantry, Bikes etc. in combat there is no need to state what negates what save.

It's basically a legacy rule that's clung on for two editions since it came into being and with the increasing amounts of Anti-type equipment I'd fully expect to see tweaks with 6th edition.

But AP1 gets you a buff on the damage table that Melta Bombs don't get.

I guess the extra D6 makes up for that.

HawaiiMatt wrote:Tell you what, I'll give up the extra D6 from the melta bomb against the storm raven, if you let me count it as AP1 against everything (for +1 to damage rolls).

If you want to treat it as a melta, make it AP1 like all the other melta weapons (Now I'll feel like an arse when somebody posts the non-AP1 melta weapon that I don't know aout).

-Matt

No deal (not sure who you were referring to, if anyone). I'll just play it RAW as I've been convinced that it's quite clear. Poll is currently 75% / 25% in favor of that interpretation, as well.

The clever question is "Does it grant +1 to armour damage table".

Joey wrote:The clever question is "Does it grant +1 to armour damage table".

No - it doesn't have an AP (armour piercing) value, just like it doesn't have a strength value. All a Meltabomb is an Armour Penetration of (8+2D6). That is its sole function.

It has a Str value, and that value is 8.

To say otherwise is to ignore the context of the armor pen rules.

DeathReaper wrote:It has a Str value, and that value is 8.

To say otherwise is to ignore the context of the armor pen rules.

It has no Strength value at all.

To say otherwise is to ignore what a Strength value is defined as.

It does, however, have an Armor Penetration value, as defined under 'Grenades' in the BRB. That value, which has nothing to do with Strength values in any way, is 8 + 2d6.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:It has a Str value, and that value is 8.

To say otherwise is to ignore the context of the armor pen rules.

It has no Strength value at all.

To say otherwise is to ignore what a Strength value is defined as.

It does, however, have an Armor Penetration value, as defined under 'Grenades' in the BRB. That value, which has nothing to do with Strength values in any way, is 8 + 2d6.

this is 100% correct.

This arguament should have stopped at "Do melta bombs have the melta special rule?" NO. They do not.

BarBoBot wrote:
This arguament should have stopped at "Do melta bombs have the melta special rule?" NO. They do not.

Agreed. Unfortunately, those kooky brits who make the game have played fast and loose with the nomenclature and this is one result. Melta bombs are no more "melta" than assault cannons are "assault" or heavy flamers are "heavy" or IG rough rider lances have "lance". There is plenty of precedent in 40k for names of items having nothing to do with the exactly same worded rules. I've seen some people insinuating that its RAW but unsportsmanlike and not RAI; that's simply not the case here.

The basic rule for weapons is Str value +1D6 for Pen.

the Str Value is a number, and the D6 gets added to it, to determine the final Armor Pen score.

when listed it looks like this for a Meltagun 8+1D6 (8+2D6 if at half range or less)

This is just how weapons are listed Str value first, then Armor Pen dice.

Grenades have a Str value, 8 for melta bombs, 6 for Krak grenades.

They listed them under having an armor Pen value of 8+2D6 for clarity, because you can not use grenades to wound anything other than vehicles.

DeathReaper wrote:The basic rule for weapons is Str value +1D6 for Pen.

the Str Value is a number, and the D6 gets added to it, to determine the final Armor Pen score.

when listed it looks like this for a Meltagun 8+1D6 (8+2D6 if at half range or less)

This is just how weapons are listed Str value first, then Armor Pen dice.

With you so far. Everything is supported by the rules. "Normal" Armour Penetration rules for weapons are Strength + 1D6. Sometimes, they have abnormal rules, like Str. + 1D6 + 1D6, or +1D3.

DeathReaper wrote:
Grenades have a Str value, 8 for melta bombs, 6 for Krak grenades.

No, grenades do not have a Strength value. They have an armour penetration value. That is it. Just like a Chainfist's armour penetration value is (Str (*2) + 1D6) + 1D6, a Meltabomb's armour penetration value is (8+2D6). It has nothing to do with Strength. You are drawing a correlation between a 'normal' armour penetration value and one that is very specifically defined.

As I've said ad nauseum - Armour penetration is not a static equation like Str. + 1D6, it is simply a rule that tells you how a weapon (or attack) penetrates an armour facing. Normally, it is the strength of the weapon + 1D6. Not always, as you're implying.

I did not say it was always. I said it was The basic rule for weapons.

Which means that it is what all weapons use as a base calculation barring additional rules.

DeathReaper wrote:I did not say it was always. I said it was The basic rule for weapons.

Which means that it is what all weapons use as a base calculation barring additional rules.

Yes. This is exactly correct.

But the grenade rules are not an 'additional' rule. They are a replacement rule. They're what grenades use instead of the normal calculation, because they have no Strength value.

alarmingrick wrote:Right. But a melta bomb isn't a shooting attack.

It works the same for CC attacks with a normal CCW, or Power Fist or Thunder Hammer as well.

It does not directly say that the Str 8 on a Meltabomb is its str. It does not have to, with the way the Armor Pen rules are.

you add a D6 (Or 2 or 4 depending on the special rules) to a set value. The set value is the weapon or models Strength.

That is just how Armor pen works. Str + Dice = score that you compare with the Vehicles AV.

Nothing has any value or statistic unless it says that it does. Infantry don't have an Armor Value; close-combat weapons don't have a Range value; grenades don't have a Strength value. They have an Armor Penetration value, which is GIVEN, not calculated.

You cannot 'derive' a Strength value from a given Armor Penetration value. If some special weapon somewhere had no listed Strength but said 'This weapon has an Armor Penetration value of 10+2d6' then that weapon would have NO STRENGTH, and would thus be unable to damage anything that wasn't a vehicle.

If you skip over the basic Armor Pen rules, then you are correct berzerker.

I'm not skipping over anything; I am simply not applying those rules which don't apply. The 'normal' Armor Penetration rules don't apply to grenades. Grenades don't have a Strength value; if they calculated Armor Penetration via the normal rules, they would all have an Armor Penetration value of 0+1d6.

But instead, they use their own special rule which defines the Armor Penetration value for each type of grenade. This contradicts the general rule; since it is more specific, it takes precedence and overrides the normal rule. The normal Armor Penetration rules are, therefore, irrelevant. Only the Grenade rule matters.

BeRzErKeR wrote:I'm not skipping over anything; I am simply not applying those rules which don't apply. The 'normal' Armor Penetration rules don't apply to grenades. Grenades don't have a Strength value; if they calculated Armor Penetration via the normal rules, they would all have an Armor Penetration value of 0+1d6.

But instead, they use their own special rule which defines the Armor Penetration value for each type of grenade. This contradicts the general rule; since it is more specific, it takes precedence and overrides the normal rule. The normal Armor Penetration rules are, therefore, irrelevant. Only the Grenade rule matters.

This.

BeRzErKeR wrote:I'm not skipping over anything; I am simply not applying those rules which don't apply. The 'normal' Armor Penetration rules don't apply to grenades. Grenades don't have a Strength value; if they calculated Armor Penetration via the normal rules, they would all have an Armor Penetration value of 0+1d6.

But instead, they use their own special rule which defines the Armor Penetration value for each type of grenade. This contradicts the general rule; since it is more specific, it takes precedence and overrides the normal rule. The normal Armor Penetration rules are, therefore, irrelevant. Only the Grenade rule matters.

Not only that, but you can tell that Grenades don't rely on normal armour penetration rules because if you removed the armour penetration rules from the rulebook, you'd still know how to penetrate a vehicle with a grenade. You would not with any other weapon. If you remove the precedent for something and are left with a value that didn't rely on the precedent anyway, then the precedent is moot.

The basic Armor Pen rules show how armor Pen works.

Str +(Howevermany D6 you are allowed to roll)

The Str is a static value you add to the D6.

That sounds Exactly like the grenades.

Take a Relic Blade and a Krak Grenade, listed in a random order.

One uses this formula: 6 +1D6 for Armor Penetration against a vehicle.

The other uses this formula: 6 +1D6 for Armor Penetration against a vehicle.

The grenade above has a Str of 6, just like the relic blade, only difference is you can not wound non vehicles with a grenade. That is why they do not explicitly say that the grenade has a Str of 6. it would confuse Noobs.

DeathReaper wrote:The basic Armor Pen rules show how armor Pen works.

Str +(Howevermany D6 you are allowed to roll)

The Str is a static value you add to the D6.

That sounds Exactly like the grenades.

Take a Relic Blade and a Krak Grenade, listed in a random order.

One uses this formula: 6 +1D6 for Armor Penetration against a vehicle.

The other uses this formula: 6 +1D6 for Armor Penetration against a vehicle.

So far you're correct. Both the grenade and the weapon have a constant, plus a variable, which taken together determine the Armour Penetration.

But in the case of a grenade that constant IS NOT STRENGTH.

DeathReaper wrote:

The grenade above has a Str of 6, just like the relic blade, only difference is you can not wound non vehicles with a grenade. That is why they do not explicitly say that the grenade has a Str of 6. it would confuse Noobs.

No. The grenade has no Strength at all. That number '6' is ONLY a part of its Armour Penetration calculation, with no other effect or indeed existence within the rules. A Space Marine armed with a Relic Blade has a Strength of 6; he then adds 1d6 for Armor Penetration, according to the standard Armor Penetration rules. A Space Marine attacking a vehicle with a krak grenade does not apply his Strength AT ALL. He simply takes a number, which in this case is 6, and adds a number of d6s, which in this case is 1, to determine the Armour Penetration value of his grenade attack, according to the specific rules governing the Armour Penetration of grenades. Strength does not enter into the calculation in any way, shape, or form.

The equations x + z = y and the equations q - f = y might have the same answer, but that does NOT mean that they are the same equations, and it does NOT mean that x and q are the same value.

BeRzErKeR wrote: A Space Marine attacking a vehicle with a krak grenade does not apply his Strength AT ALL.

Right he uses the Strength of the grenade +1D6.

But we are Off topic, and the OP has his answer.

Thank you for your views on the matter Puma, and Berzerker. It was an interesting look on the other side of things.

BeRzErKeR wrote: No. The grenade has no Strength at all. That number '6' is ONLY a part of its Armour Penetration calculation, with no other effect or indeed existence within the rules. A Space Marine armed with a Relic Blade has a Strength of 6; he then adds 1d6 for Armor Penetration, according to the standard Armor Penetration rules. A Space Marine attacking a vehicle with a krak grenade does not apply his Strength AT ALL. He simply takes a number, which in this case is 6, and adds a number of d6s, which in this case is 1, to determine the Armour Penetration value of his grenade attack, according to the specific rules governing the Armour Penetration of grenades. Strength does not enter into the calculation in any way, shape, or form.

I don't see how this is an arguement. What BeRzErKeR stated makes the most sense to me. What am i not getting?
I see Deat's point of view, but they are apples and oranges. The "basic Armor Pen rules" are clear, agreed. but the MB
isn't a ranged OR CC attack. it uses the Grenade rules outlined by BeRzErKeR.

Edit:
I don't mean to drag this OT, but in the name of education and learning, i think it'd be okay.

warboss wrote: Melta bombs are no more "melta" than assault cannons are "assault" or heavy flamers are "heavy" or IG rough rider lances have "lance".

And once more, we are harping on the 'heavy' aspect of the heavy flamer rather than the 'flamer' aspect. All well and good to badger away at comparisons based on names but when the comparison is about the weapon's type then please, stick to the type. No one has said the flamer is not a flame weapon.

Hand Flamer
Flamer
Heavy Flamer
Flamebomb.

As I've already said, at the moment RAW states - no, the melta bomb is not a melta weapon. However the rules that have contributed to this LR Achilles related mess haven't really come about until this edition- there was no real previous issues and as such the grenade rules have remained largely unchanged since 3rd edition because of it. In addition the 'Melta' USR came about -after- the grenade rules. We're not likely to see a solid position beyond RAW until someone either emails FW with this query or until the way in which grenades can be used changes.

And for the other debate - do grenades have a Strength value? Er....they do. The number is the strength. But the only time this ever came apparant was in the 4th edition Space Marine codex - Tyrannic War Veterans (page 50) and their rule about using Krak Grenades as a close combat weapon. When they did this it hit on a 6+ (3+ against Preferred enemy) and did a single S6 hit that ignored armour saves.

Long story short - we're still having a debate about legacy rules that are coming to 3 editions old now.

DarkStarSabre wrote:And for the other debate - do grenades have a Strength value? Er....they do. The number is the strength.

Except that there are no actual rules to support that.

Scott-S6 wrote:

DarkStarSabre wrote:And for the other debate - do grenades have a Strength value? Er....they do. The number is the strength.

Except that there are no actual rules to support that.

It's somewhat ambiguous. It's not explicitly labeled a strength, but neither do the grenade rules say "this attack does not have a strength value." The paragraph titled "Armor penetration in close combat", just to the left of the grenade table on the same page (p.63) tells us that close combat attacks against vehicles use "D6 + the strength of the attacker", and no exception seems to be made for grenades. The fixed values in the grenade table aren't labeled strength, but I don't think the lack of a label there is necessarily conclusive, given that the rules on the same page have already defined what it (as far as Occam's Razor is concerned) is.

As DarkStarSabre has pointed out, the Tyrannic War Veterans' special rule for using grenades against big bugs is another piece of evidence, albeit one from an obsolute codex.

So, those arguing it has no STR value... against a monolith (and the old living metal) they'd only get 1d6 to pen - because the rule stated STR+1d6 and they have no STR?

Mannahnin wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

DarkStarSabre wrote:And for the other debate - do grenades have a Strength value? Er....they do. The number is the strength.

Except that there are no actual rules to support that.

It's somewhat ambiguous. It's not explicitly labeled a strength, but neither do the grenade rules say "this attack does not have a strength value." The paragraph titled "Armor penetration in close combat", just to the left of the grenade table on the same page (p.63) tells us that close combat attacks against vehicles use "D6 + the strength of the attacker", and no exception seems to be made for grenades. The fixed values in the grenade table aren't labeled strength, but I don't think the lack of a label there is necessarily conclusive, given that the rules on the same page have already defined what it (as far as Occam's Razor is concerned) is.

As DarkStarSabre has pointed out, the Tyrannic War Veterans' special rule for using grenades against big bugs is another piece of evidence, albeit one from an obsolute codex.

Yep. To my knowledge that's the only case of grenades being used offensively since 3rd edition here and as such the only case where a 'Strength' would be needed to purposes of wounding compared to toughness. There are rules, they're just from an old codex and pretty much the only case where a Strength value was required.

Plus, as Mannahnin pointed out, the Armour Penetration in close combat paragraph expands on it as well. In the case of a grenade you substitute your attacks for the grenade, using its strength as it were.

Still, the old Tyrannic War Veterans were a bit useless considering the only thing they were every likely to hit were Tyranids...and the ease of getting T7 on the most common MC they'd come across meant they either had a single attack that would hit on a 3, wound on a 5 and ignore armour or could have three times as many attacks, wounding on a 6 rather than a 5 though not ignoring armour.

Mannahnin wrote:
It's somewhat ambiguous. It's not explicitly labeled a strength, but neither do the grenade rules say "this attack does not have a strength value." The paragraph titled "Armor penetration in close combat", just to the left of the grenade table on the same page (p.63) tells us that close combat attacks against vehicles use "D6 + the strength of the attacker", and no exception seems to be made for grenades. The fixed values in the grenade table aren't labeled strength, but I don't think the lack of a label there is necessarily conclusive, given that the rules on the same page have already defined what it (as far as Occam's Razor is concerned) is.

As DarkStarSabre has pointed out, the Tyrannic War Veterans' special rule for using grenades against big bugs is another piece of evidence, albeit one from an obsolute codex.

It doesn't have to say 'This attack does not have a Strength', because nothing has a statistic unless the rules say it does. Infantry don't have an Armour Value, even though there's nothing in the rules that explicitly says they don't. Close-combat weapons don't have an AP value, even though there's nothing in the rules that explicitly says they don't. Grenades don't have a Strength, even though there's nothing in the rules that explicitly says they don't.

Read the Tyrannic War Veteran rules again. It doesn't say they strike at 'the strength of the grenade, 6'; it just says 'any hits are resolved at Strength 6'. That doesn't say anything about the grenade, any more than a Space Marine with a Relic Blade striking at Strength 6 means the Relic Blade 'has' a Strength of 6. The Relic Blade doesn't have any Strength of its own at all; it adds 2 to the strength of the model wielding it, which in this case adds up to 6. Models and ranged weapons have Strength; CC weapons and grenades do NOT. No Strength is defined for them, therefore they do not have it, any more than Infantry have an AV.

So with that interpretation, how did you play meltabombs against the old monolith? Since the armor pen was only allowed to be str+1d6, and there's no str on them... you only rolled a d6?

rigeld2 wrote:So with that interpretation, how did you play meltabombs against the old monolith? Since the armor pen was only allowed to be str+1d6, and there's no str on them... you only rolled a d6?

'Grenades don't have a Strength' and 'Grenades have a Strength of 0' aren't the same thing. Grenades don't use the normal Armor Penetration rules, they use their own calculation, which is unrelated. 'Strength + 1d6" for them isn't '0 + 1d6', it's 'Undefined + 1d6', and you can't add Undefined to anything. That being so the old Living Metal rule didn't interact with grenades at all, in much the same way as the LRC rule doesn't, and you just rolled the value on the table.

If someone insisted that according to the Living Metal rule grenades couldn't use their own table, then you STILL didn't roll a d6; instead the game broke and you couldn't continue, because you were required to use a value that didn't exist. I reached that point once, actually, when I was using a friend's SM army against Necrons and the other player insisted I could only roll a d6; we 4+'d it, I won, and rolled 8+2d6. Didn't penetrate anyway, though.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:It's somewhat ambiguous. It's not explicitly labeled a strength, but neither do the grenade rules say "this attack does not have a strength value." The paragraph titled "Armor penetration in close combat", just to the left of the grenade table on the same page (p.63) tells us that close combat attacks against vehicles use "D6 + the strength of the attacker", and no exception seems to be made for grenades. The fixed values in the grenade table aren't labeled strength, but I don't think the lack of a label there is necessarily conclusive, given that the rules on the same page have already defined what it (as far as Occam's Razor is concerned) is.

It doesn't have to say 'This attack does not have a Strength', because nothing has a statistic unless the rules say it does. Infantry don't have an Armour Value, even though there's nothing in the rules that explicitly says they don't. Close-combat weapons don't have an AP value, even though there's nothing in the rules that explicitly says they don't. Grenades don't have a Strength, even though there's nothing in the rules that explicitly says they don't.

Except the paragraph on the same page which I referenced. Which tells us that penetration rolls against vehicles use the strength of the attacker +D6. So we have a general rule telling us that's how it works, and the grenade rules do not include an explicit exception to that. At most they might be interpreted as making an implicit exception, but I think Occam's Razor steers us the other way.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:As DarkStarSabre has pointed out, the Tyrannic War Veterans' special rule for using grenades against big bugs is another piece of evidence, albeit one from an obsolute codex.

Read the Tyrannic War Veteran rules again. It doesn't say they strike at 'the strength of the grenade, 6'; it just says 'any hits are resolved at Strength 6'. That doesn't say anything about the grenade, any more than a Space Marine with a Relic Blade striking at Strength 6 means the Relic Blade 'has' a Strength of 6. The Relic Blade doesn't have any Strength of its own at all; it adds 2 to the strength of the model wielding it, which in this case adds up to 6. Models and ranged weapons have Strength; CC weapons and grenades do NOT. No Strength is defined for them, therefore they do not have it, any more than Infantry have an AV.

I disagree, on the basis above. Also, as long as we're bringing in old rules to help give additional perspective, I just checked my 3rd ed rulebook and it explicitly defined Meltabombs as S8 and Krak as S6. Not sure where my 4th ed book is, at the moment.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So with that interpretation, how did you play meltabombs against the old monolith? Since the armor pen was only allowed to be str+1d6, and there's no str on them... you only rolled a d6?

'Grenades don't have a Strength' and 'Grenades have a Strength of 0' aren't the same thing. Grenades don't use the normal Armor Penetration rules, they use their own calculation, which is unrelated. 'Strength + 1d6" for them isn't '0 + 1d6', it's 'Undefined + 1d6', and you can't add Undefined to anything. That being so the old Living Metal rule didn't interact with grenades at all, in much the same way as the LRC rule doesn't, and you just rolled the value on the table.

If someone insisted that according to the Living Metal rule grenades couldn't use their own table, then you STILL didn't roll a d6; instead the game broke and you couldn't continue, because you were required to use a value that didn't exist. I reached that point once, actually, when I was using a friend's SM army against Necrons and the other player insisted I could only roll a d6; we 4+'d it, I won, and rolled 8+2d6. Didn't penetrate anyway, though.

I disagree, and my interpretation has the benefit of being perfectly compatible with the old Living Metal rules. Meltabombs got 8+1D6, as the Monolith rules specified that you always got S+1D6 and never any more (except for Ordnance, which still got 2d6 and choose the higher, as it was an explicit exception).

just a random (which has been mentioned earlier but i thought i'd post it again)

i whole heartedly agree that melta bombs are not a melta weapon, dont get the +1 on the damage table and dont get an extra d6 for damage (until you are allowed to embark enemy vehicles for the half range )


so i put forward this argument....

if grenades have a strength...... using the rules state why the strength of a melta bomb is not 8+2d6 and i should be rolling 8+2d6 plus a d6 for armour pen.

the reason that doesnt work is becuase they dont have a strength, they have a rondom number (2d6) plus 8 for penetration (penetration, NOT strength)


not sure how this argument has lasted so long...




* just thought of another one - the thunderhawks rules say that it is immune to melta weapons AND melta bombs
(food for thought )

Mannahnin wrote:

Except the paragraph on the same page which I referenced. Which tells us that penetration rolls against vehicles use the strength of the attacker +D6. So we have a general rule telling us that's how it works, and the grenade rules do not include an explicit exception to that. At most they might be interpreted as making an implicit exception, but I think Occam's Razor steers us the other way.

And if you removed the 'general' rules about Str. + 1D6, you'd still know how to penetrate a vehicle with a grenade. The grenade rules do not rely on the 'normal' armour penetration to work, that is why they are an exception to the rule. They do not need the rule to function.

Mannahnin wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:As DarkStarSabre has pointed out, the Tyrannic War Veterans' special rule for using grenades against big bugs is another piece of evidence, albeit one from an obsolute codex.

Read the Tyrannic War Veteran rules again. It doesn't say they strike at 'the strength of the grenade, 6'; it just says 'any hits are resolved at Strength 6'. That doesn't say anything about the grenade, any more than a Space Marine with a Relic Blade striking at Strength 6 means the Relic Blade 'has' a Strength of 6. The Relic Blade doesn't have any Strength of its own at all; it adds 2 to the strength of the model wielding it, which in this case adds up to 6. Models and ranged weapons have Strength; CC weapons and grenades do NOT. No Strength is defined for them, therefore they do not have it, any more than Infantry have an AV.

I disagree, on the basis above. Also, as long as we're bringing in old rules to help give additional perspective, I just checked my 3rd ed rulebook and it explicitly defined Meltabombs as S8 and Krak as S6. Not sure where my 4th ed book is, at the moment.

I think that bringing up old rules, even for perspective, can muddy the issue. What if we were to discuss how 4th Edition Rending applies to the rules now?

I miss Gwar.

Grenades don't have a strength value because grenades aren't weapons. I'll let that one go out there for a moment. Read the first page under the Weapons chapter. Especially the bit about all weapons having a profile similar to the one below the one given for a boltgun. Grenades don't have that. They're not weapons and don't have a strength value. Compare that to melee weapons. Melee weapons do not have a strength value either. They modify the strength of the wielder, if they do at all. Grenades are a special effect.

daedalus wrote:I miss Gwar.

Grenades don't have a strength value because grenades aren't weapons. I'll let that one go out there for a moment. Read the first page under the Weapons chapter. Especially the bit about all weapons having a profile similar to the one below the one given for a boltgun. Grenades don't have that. They're not weapons and don't have a strength value. Compare that to melee weapons. Melee weapons do not have a strength value either. They modify the strength of the wielder, if they do at all. Grenades are a special effect.

So they got 0+1d6 against monoliths then? (Yes, I know Living Metal doesn't do that anymore)

Cool.

rigeld2 wrote:
So they got 0+1d6 against monoliths then? (Yes, I know Living Metal doesn't do that anymore)

Cool.

BeRzErKeR wrote: 'Grenades don't have a Strength' and 'Grenades have a Strength of 0' aren't the same thing. Grenades don't use the normal Armor Penetration rules, they use their own calculation, which is unrelated. 'Strength + 1d6" for them isn't '0 + 1d6', it's 'Undefined + 1d6', and you can't add Undefined to anything. That being so the old Living Metal rule didn't interact with grenades at all, in much the same way as the LRC rule doesn't, and you just rolled the value on the table.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So they got 0+1d6 against monoliths then? (Yes, I know Living Metal doesn't do that anymore)

Cool.

BeRzErKeR wrote: 'Grenades don't have a Strength' and 'Grenades have a Strength of 0' aren't the same thing. Grenades don't use the normal Armor Penetration rules, they use their own calculation, which is unrelated. 'Strength + 1d6" for them isn't '0 + 1d6', it's 'Undefined + 1d6', and you can't add Undefined to anything. That being so the old Living Metal rule didn't interact with grenades at all, in much the same way as the LRC rule doesn't, and you just rolled the value on the table.

It's interesting you say that. Considering grenades have an Armor Penetration value of X+Xd6, and the Armor Penetration rules are what tell you Str+1d6 (normally) and how to glance...

I don't have a copy of the old Living Metal rule in front of me - why do you say it didn't interact with grenades at all?

Grenades do indeed have an AP in the format X + Xd6, and weapons with a Strength also penetrate armor using an equation in the form X + Xd6. However, just because two things end up looking the same does not make them the same. As grenades have no Strength value given, this cannot be the same equation. Nothing tells us they're the same, nothing tells us that grenades have a Strength value or what it might be, and in the 40k ruleset nothing exists unless it's defined.

The old Living Metal rule said that no weapon ever got more than Strength + 1d6 for Armor Penetration. If you apply the rule strictly to grenades, the game breaks; their strength is undefined, so you can never calculate what their AP should be (since, as I said, Undefined and 0 are not the same thing). But fortunately grenades use this entirely different calculation that doesn't include a Strength value, and Living Metal said nothing about it.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Grenades do indeed have an AP in the format X + Xd6, and weapons with a Strength also penetrate armor using an equation in the form X + Xd6. However, just because two things end up looking the same does not make them the same. As grenades have no Strength value given, this cannot be the same equation. Nothing tells us they're the same, nothing tells us that grenades have a Strength value or what it might be, and in the 40k ruleset nothing exists unless it's defined.

Armor Penetration is defined as Str+1d6.
Armor Penetration for grenades is defined as (meltabombs) 8+2d6.

I wonder why you say this cannot be the same equation. To me, the only inference you can make is that the static value is the STR of the weapon. If you're calling grenades not a weapon, there's LOTS of other things that break.

The old Living Metal rule said that no weapon ever got more than Strength + 1d6 for Armor Penetration. If you apply the rule strictly to grenades, the game breaks; their strength is undefined, so you can never calculate what their AP should be (since, as I said, Undefined and 0 are not the same thing). But fortunately grenades use this entirely different calculation that doesn't include a Strength value, and Living Metal said nothing about it.

So you played that grenades ignored Living Metal completely?

rigeld2 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:Grenades do indeed have an AP in the format X + Xd6, and weapons with a Strength also penetrate armor using an equation in the form X + Xd6. However, just because two things end up looking the same does not make them the same. As grenades have no Strength value given, this cannot be the same equation. Nothing tells us they're the same, nothing tells us that grenades have a Strength value or what it might be, and in the 40k ruleset nothing exists unless it's defined.

Armor Penetration is defined as Str+1d6.
Armor Penetration for grenades is defined as (meltabombs) 8+2d6.

I wonder why you say this cannot be the same equation. To me, the only inference you can make is that the static value is the STR of the weapon. If you're calling grenades not a weapon, there's LOTS of other things that break.

But you can't even make THAT inference. There's no indication that Strength exists for grenades, let alone that it's 8; you;re not allowed to infer the existence of a value where the rules don't tell you one exists. And no, grenades aren't weapons; they're wargear which allow you to make a special attack against vehicles, and some of which confer benefits in assault. What breaks?

rigeld2 wrote:

The old Living Metal rule said that no weapon ever got more than Strength + 1d6 for Armor Penetration. If you apply the rule strictly to grenades, the game breaks; their strength is undefined, so you can never calculate what their AP should be (since, as I said, Undefined and 0 are not the same thing). But fortunately grenades use this entirely different calculation that doesn't include a Strength value, and Living Metal said nothing about it.

So you played that grenades ignored Living Metal completely?

I didn't play against the old Necrons very often, and mostly when I did it was with Orks, who don't have meltabombs anyway. The one time I did play against Necrons as SM we rolled it off, and I won. But yes, that's how I argued it; the Living Metal rule restricted weapons which calculated AP based on their Strength, and grenades don't.

mrspadge wrote:
if grenades have a strength...... using the rules state why the strength of a melta bomb is not 8+2d6 and i should be rolling 8+2d6 plus a d6 for armour pen.

Because the nature of the 'Melta' rule is that the extra D6 kicks in under half range and ever since 3rd edition there has been no way to actually use meltabombs at anything but point-blank range, making the inclusion of such a rule redundant as the more recent 'Melta' ignoring vehicles haven't come in til this edition? Hell, if there were rules for throwing meltabombs and grenades (as in 2nd edition, RT and even in Dark Heresy and Inquisitor...) then this would have been properly accounted for.

not sure how this argument has lasted so long...

Because it's not much of an argument? It's a situation that's come about when 'legacy' rules from 3rd edition have met more modern rules to be perfectly honest and as such it's not really been accounted for.

* just thought of another one - the thunderhawks rules say that it is immune to melta weapons AND melta bombs
(food for thought )

Which imples that melta is melta to a degree and the extra clarification was probably slapped on Thunderhawks to avoid just this situation. Not our fault that they got lazy with the Achiles and couldn't be asked putting in those extra words because they expected us to apply common sense to it.

BeRzErKeR wrote:But you can't even make THAT inference. There's no indication that Strength exists for grenades, let alone that it's 8; you;re not allowed to infer the existence of a value where the rules don't tell you one exists. And no, grenades aren't weapons; they're wargear which allow you to make a special attack against vehicles, and some of which confer benefits in assault. What breaks?

I remembered a rule wrong, so nevermind. I'll leave it at I disagree and shake hands.

Fair enough; that's what roll-offs are for!

Nevermind, I won't continue the conversation since it seems we've reached a gentlemanly understanding.

Nooooo!!! Keep arguing, it's what all good dakka-ites do.

Happyjew wrote:Nooooo!!! Keep arguing, it's what all good dakka-ites do.

No. The good ones debate.

just a rondom thought for the "they are weapons" crowd.....

do i get to add my strength to them?

they are used in melee and as so many have tried to claim, melta bombs use the normal penetration rules...

this would mean i have for example, a space marine sergeant strapping a melta bomb to a tank...


my strength is defined as 4
my armour penetration is defined as 8+2d6

so do i essentially have 4+8+2d6 (glancing a land raider on snake eyes makes melta bombs quite nice )


*OR*

do grenades have their own rules for penetrating vehicles and not have any special rules implied or otherwise unless stated?

when melta bombs become AP1 (as per every melta weapon i can think of) and gain a benefit from the melta rule i'll agree but as it stands i see no reason to assume they are melta weapons...


they've been brought up already but:

heavy flamers are assault weapons
the eldritch lance is not a lance weapon
the blood lance is not a lance weapon

i'm sure there are more, cant think of any right now, but having the name of a rule does not in any way confer said rule to the model/weapon

mrspadge wrote:heavy flamers are assault weapons

But is it a flamer though, right?

This is the debate. The type. If Flame weapons had special rules (as they did in 2nd edition) and we had a Flamebomb and a situation came up where the Flamebomb's special rule could be applied/negated/etc....we'd be asking the same exact questions. Don't get too caught up in the Heavy Flamer arguement. That's never been an issue. Heavy is a category, Flamer is a type if you want to look at it that way. Given that all Flamer types operate as Assault weapons we're pretty much fine as is.

I love when folks pull this up without actually considering the relevance.

As for the Blood Lance? Will have to look when I get home. Tend to leave 40k stuff at home as of late.

DarkStarSabre wrote:

mrspadge wrote:heavy flamers are assault weapons

But is it a flamer though, right?

This is the debate. The type. If Flame weapons had special rules (as they did in 2nd edition) and we had a Flamebomb and a situation came up where the Flamebomb's special rule could be applied/negated/etc....we'd be asking the same exact questions. Don't get too caught up in the Heavy Flamer arguement. That's never been an issue. Heavy is a category, Flamer is a type if you want to look at it that way. Given that all Flamer types operate as Assault weapons we're pretty much fine as is.

I love when folks pull this up without actually considering the relevance.

As for the Blood Lance? Will have to look when I get home. Tend to leave 40k stuff at home as of late.

no. a flamer is not a "flamer weapon" its a template weapon

and flamer has no bearing on the rules whatsoever (much like the melta rule on melta bombs) but the heavy rule certainly does. thankfully the heavy flamer has the assault RULE and the heavy NAME so there is no confusion (much like the MELTA bomb)

so :

I love when folks pull this up without actually considering the relevance.

Way to miss the point again.

I even stated that the FLAMER currently had no special rules. But in 2nd edition...Flame weapons had special rules. It involved things burning. Using a template or not didn't matter a damn as the rules related to the weapon rather than the method it used to determine what was hit or not.

In fact, other such things that came out after the main rules went as far as specifying whether or not similar rules applied to them. The fact that it used a template mattered not one bit.

As I've said, for probably the fifth or sixth time now.

What we're dealing with is a case of 'legacy' rules having been carried across a number of editions and encountering a situation that's never really been there before, thus showing a flaw of sorts with the way those particular rules function.

As there is currently no way to use grenades or meltabombs at range the arguments relating to strength, AP and types pretty much matter for squat. Quickest way to resolve this debacle would be to email Forge World and just ask.

But since some of us clearly aren't reading and insist on trying to use my own quotes against me, skipping the entirely relevant section to try and support themselves...

*Clears throat*

You know, that big bit you quoted?

Clever girl!

One more thing...

Regarding the Blood Lance psychic power?

Read page 63 of the Blood Angels codex again and come back.

I'd say that 'any enemy unit in the lance's path suffers a single Strength 8, AP1 hit with the 'lance' type' is pretty much a Lance weapon, eh?

I voted "yes", but I put that vote in from a "How would you play it" perspective. I call meltabombs melta weapons based on fluff. But, if my opponent was a strict RAW player, I'd have no problems at all with calling them not melta weapons.


Also, heavy flamers are definitely flamers. It matters for things like the Avatar, who is immune to flame weapons.

Think about it with modern terms.

You have a shaped-charge rocket. Your buddy has a shaped-charged bomb.

Your enemy is immune to shaped-charge rockets.

Could the bomb still work?

(P.S. bomb != rocket)

Bomb does not equal rocket.

Rockets and bombs both equal explosive devices.

Much more of the mass of a rocket is given over to propulsion and flight than a bomb's.

An RPG7 and an RBD shaped charge are both shaped charges but the one you place by hand had more than ten times the destructive capacity.

That's the right answer, r-o-r.

I was giving an example of why the meltabomb may work against stuff immune to the meltagun even assuming they operate around the same principle.

BTW the (!=) symbol is Boolean logic for not-equal... so we're agreed.