Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This came up in a local tourney, and left me completely gobsmacked, as I seem to have been playing this edition completely wrong when it comes to assaulting a vehicle.

If anyone/thing assaults a vehicle, even if it pens, it will suffer a -1 to the damage role, due to not having an AP value. Now hth weapons cannot have an ap value, but it states under vehicle assault is treated exactly like shooting. i.e. penalty as described!!!

I was in serious wtf mode....


can anyone enlighten me as to whether this is wrong or correct? I couldnt find anything in the rule book to disprove this...it seems wrong that a str10 Fex can only blow up a tank on a 6....:(

Wrong. It is treated as an AP between 2 & 6. It gets no penalty for having AP "-" and no bonus for AP 1

Or to put it another way, it is treated as not having an AP value. This is distinct from having any AP value, including "-" or any number.

To Clarify

From damage chart on page 61 BGB:

"Hit by 'AP-' weapon -1"

Since Close combat attacks have no AP they cannot be 'AP-'

OK, now thats exactly as I thought it went, but I cannot find any verbage in the book that would lead us to think CC has an 'arbritary' AP value that is noncommital. It states, combat is treated exactly as shooting, and attacks that do not have an AP...i.e. "AP-" suffer -1 to their damage roll. CC has nothing that gives it an AP value, therefore is "-"....if you can so me a quote or an FAQ or something that would be great, but i couldnt find anything that supports what you state...despite it being common sense

Re read my post. the exact wording is "'AP-' weapon" Since close combat weapons have no AP value they cannot be 'AP-'

In terms of computer code a CCW would have no variable for AP where as the value for an AP- weapon would be null/void, but would still exist.

Whoever said that has a fundamental lack of understanding of the rules (and that's being polite) :p

CC attacks are NOT AP -, they have No AP, which is very, very different.

HiveFleet wrote:...and attacks that do not have an AP...i.e. "AP-" suffer -1 to their damage roll.

Not having an AP is not the same as having 'AP-'

The rule in question actually says:

Rulebook, page 61 wrote:Penetrating and Glancing hits inflicted by a weapon shown as 'AP-' suffer a modifier of -1 to the roll on the Vehicle Damage Table.

Note that it specifically says shown as 'AP-'

Close Combat weapons, whilst not having an AP, are not shown as having 'AP-' in their rules. Therefore the 'AP-' rule for vehicle damage does not apply to them.

HiveFleet wrote: It states, combat is treated exactly as shooting, and attacks that do not have an AP...i.e. "AP-" suffer -1 to their damage roll. CC has nothing that gives it an AP value, therefore is "-"

No, it is nonexistant. Not having an ap value is not the same as having a listed ap value of '-'.

ah i see, so "AP-" is by definition, a VALUE of sorts. I was operating under the assumtion that "-" was a negative via a lack of info, not a specific value in itself. I can see what you are talking about now. Amazingly, despite knowing that ruling was wrong, I just couldnt articulate what i was trying to say except, thats "preposterous BS" and so forth, and proceeded to hold my breath until i got what i wanted

HiveFleet wrote:Amazingly, despite knowing that ruling was wrong, I just couldnt articulate what i was trying to say

This is one of my favorite parts about YMDC.
Especially when I know it is me misreading/misunderstanding/missing something.