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.

Daemon-Archon Ren I kinda disagree with you on some points.

Melta weaponry = Weaponry firing extremely over heated rounds designed to melt armor.

Power weaponry = Weaponry charged with intense energy designed to melt armor...

That doesn't mean Melta weaponry = Power weaponry.

They are both designed to melt armour but are definitely not the same. By this logic Power weapons should get 2D6 on penetration rolls. Most of AP2 weapons are made to breach through heavy armour but are not AP1 and don't give the same bonuses.

Why would a chainfist not deserve AP1 but a Meltagun does (Chainfist costs much more and doesnt have 6inch <12 inch for multimelta> range)?

Plasma gun costs the same as plasma pistol.
Fusion pistol (which is a melta pistol) costs 10. Melta gun costs 10 (For SW it's freaking FIVE). Should melta pistol be S10 lance because it is has lower range?
Melta has 1 shot a turn. Chainfist can have much more attacks. It's is VERY hard to compare a shooting and CC weapon.

Point cost is not an excuse to give them AP1. Maybe it's the cost that should be changed (melta, or CF) not the AP value.

I am not saying that power weapons (especially power fists / chanfists) shouldn't be AP1. I definitely think normal weapons should count as AP-. The same goes to melta bombs +1.
Just this logic doesn't get to me.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Thank you for reading this thread

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Melta weaponry = Weaponry firing extremely over heated rounds designed to melt armor.
Power weaponry = Weaponry charged with intense energy designed to melt armor...

I'm guessing you mean this statement? That's a fluff issue. Last time I heard, "power weapon" was not a catching name for "melta weapon" used in close combat. Just because their description is similar, in fact I think you even mis-quoted, but I have seen so many different explanations on how power weapons work (as there are dozens of different kinds of power weapons in the fluff), that it is possible they have been described as such, does not mean they are doing the same thing or in fact go about it in the same way. Secondly, are you really quoting yourself as the proof source of information? Okay! My turn!

"Power weapons are made of limp noodles that the vast majority of races in the galaxy find horribly abhorent. Once smacked with one, they will often leave the battlefield in disgust. This has no effect on vehicles however, as vehicles LOVE spaghetti."

"Melta weapons operate by kindly asking vehicles to go away. Enemy vehicles are too polite to refuse a kind suggestion, and gladly leave, or at least stop to ponder the question."



EDIT: Disgust instead of discuss..... silly word complete!

Skinnattittar wrote:

"Power weapons are made of limp noodles that the vast majority of races in the galaxy find horribly abhorent. Once smacked with one, they will often leave the battlefield in disgust. This has no effecto n vehicles however, as vehicles LOVE spaghetti."

"Melta weapons operate by kindly asking vehicles to go away. Enemy vehicles are too polite to refuse a kind suggestion, and gladly leave, or at least stop to ponder the question."

HAHAHAHA
This guy knows his fluff

lordrevege wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:"Power weapons are made of limp noodles that the vast majority of races in the galaxy find horribly abhorent. Once smacked with one, they will often leave the battlefield in disgust. This has no effecto n vehicles however, as vehicles LOVE spaghetti."

"Melta weapons operate by kindly asking vehicles to go away. Enemy vehicles are too polite to refuse a kind suggestion, and gladly leave, or at least stop to ponder the question."

HAHAHAHA
This guy knows his fluff

I try to

Macok wrote:That doesn't mean Melta weaponry = Power weaponry.

They are both designed to melt armour but are definitely not the same. By this logic Power weapons should get 2D6 on penetration rolls. Most of AP2 weapons are made to breach through heavy armour but are not AP1 and don't give the same bonuses.

You kinda answer your own question here. And reinforced my point. They both recieve AP1 due to the fact that they are designed to melt armor (from your statement "they are both designed to melt armor") BUT the "Are definitely not the same" in the sense of the Melta weaponry is BETTER then the powerweapon at the initial impact then the powerweapon, and therefor is more likely to actually penetrate the vehicle.(thus the 2d6 where the powerweapon gets 1)

Macok wrote:
Plasma gun costs the same as plasma pistol.
Fusion pistol (which is a melta pistol) costs 10. Melta gun costs 10 (For SW it's freaking FIVE). Should melta pistol be S10 lance because it is has lower range?
Melta has 1 shot a turn. Chainfist can have much more attacks. It's is VERY hard to compare a shooting and CC weapon.

Point cost is not an excuse to give them AP1. Maybe it's the cost that should be changed (melta, or CF) not the AP value.

Conflicting points unfortunately. The Chainfist = Melta gun metaphor was used to validate the excuse of AP1 in a world where normal Powerweapons are granted the benefit of +1 on table (due to being AP1). Thus it being incorperated into the repsonse to the point of "Power weapons deserve AP1 but Powerfist/Chainfist do not".

As for Skin's response...

Meltaweaponry is designed to melt weapons from the inside (at a submolocular level basically transforming the atoms of the armor into a microscopically ignited promethium ooze, to put it simply). So based on fluff, if a melta shot hits a target, it WILL ALWAYS penetrate the armor and should ALMOST ALWAYS deal considerable damage.

This is not the case, so even if you did use proper fluff (pardon me for assuming that Dakkites actually already knew the Warhammer 40k fluff and as such would not need it to be sited). But then again, every knows if Board Game translated to True Fluff anyone not playing Space Marines would be wasting their time (see Codex: Movie Marines).

So then I guess what it all boils down to is what you consider the reasoning for "AP1 Weapons receiving +1 on the Vehicle damage table". I always figured, based on the weapons that have AP1, it was justified by "If the weapon DOES penetrate, due to it's design it will deal more damage to the internal systems of the vehicle" which is where Powerweapons getting the +1 makes sense to me, unless you are under the impression that sticking a power sword and a chain sword into the hull of a Chimera will have the EXACT SAME CHANCE of causing damage. (In which case, please justify again why Powerweapons are better at piercing armor of a unit, lets say Terminators <Which share the same armor as what is used to build rhinos> then normal weapons...)

It sounds to me more like the people who are denying the +1 to vehicle table to powerweapons are using the justification of "Because they don't" as opposed to those in favor who are offering examples and explinations as opposed to condescension and petty insults.... but that's just me.

@ Daemon-Archon Ren : Your argument, once all the fat, dribble, and unsubstantiated data is rendered out, is still "I want Power Weapons to have +1 on the VDC because I want to believe they are the same as melta weapons." However you still have failed to produce supporting evidence that besides a brief description, supplied only by yourself which I disagree with from my understanding of the two weapons systems, that melta and power weapons do the same sort of damage.

For example: If I set a bar of butter in the hood of my car, it will melt. If I take an acetylene torch to a bar of butter, it too would melt. However the sun will not melt through the hood of my car, but the acetylene torch certainly will. Same end effect, totally different causes.

Power weapons should be likeap3 not ap1

Why not a simple +1 to the Armour Pen Roll so long as they have no other bonus to armour penetration or the models strength?
So Normal CCW Roll S+D6, Power Weapons and Lightning Claws Roll S+1+D6, Power Fists Still roll S+D6 (as it augments the users Strength), as do Thunder Hammers and Chainfists still roll their "pretty much guaranteed a Pen against anything except a Land Raider and Monolith" S+2D6.

Is there some grave imbalance in the game that this overall idea is intended to correct?

@ Daemon-Archon Ren : Your argument, once all the fat, dribble, and unsubstantiated data is rendered out, is still "I want Power Weapons to have +1 on the VDC because I want to believe they are the same as melta weapons." However you still have failed to produce supporting evidence that besides a brief description, supplied only by yourself which I disagree with from my understanding of the two weapons systems, that melta and power weapons do the same sort of damage.

Exactly my thoughts.

Why not a simple +1 to the Armour Pen Roll so long as they have no other bonus to armour penetration or the models strength?

I was also thinking that this makes more sense.
AP1 means that the armour isn't going to be breached easier - just that when it's breached there will be bigger damages.

Conflicting points unfortunately.

I don't see any conflict with the part I quoted earlier.
The Power Weapon AP1 => ChainFist AP1 part I kinda disagree because I don't think PW = AP1.

I disagree with pw being AP 1. Some power weapons might be able to cut through human flesh or unleash electrical charges that can instantly kill an enemy. These powers couldn't do much against a vehicle though.

bellumdominus wrote:I disagree with pw being AP 1. Some power weapons might be able to cut through human flesh or unleash electrical charges that can instantly kill an enemy. These powers couldn't do much against a vehicle though.

But that's not what power weapons do. They chop through armor.

They chop though armour, so why have a bonus to damage? They should have a bonus to penetration.

Gwar! wrote:They chop though armour, so why have a bonus to damage? They should have a bonus to penetration.

Yes, they should!

If I were in charge of making 40k rules, only Power Weapons/Fists, Chainfists, Grenades, and Monstrous creatures would be able to hurt a tank in close combat. Regular CCW would not be able to damage armor (seriously, punching a tank on the nose will somehow effect the crew?). So being a Power Weapon would be the minimum requirement, and that would be it's bonus.

However, depending on what method I choose, PW would also add to the user's strength (to additionally show the beneficial effects of the weapon), which would carry over into assaulting vehicles, but only against the armor facing that is actually being assaulted.

Skinnattittar wrote:Regular CCW would not be able to damage armor (seriously, punching a tank on the nose will somehow effect the crew?).

Don't forget Close Combat is an Abstraction. Against a Vehicle CC is things like Shooting Through Vision Slits or literally climbing into the tank to rough up the poor sods inside it.

Gwar! wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:Regular CCW would not be able to damage armor (seriously, punching a tank on the nose will somehow effect the crew?).

Don't forget Close Combat is an Abstraction. Against a Vehicle CC is things like Shooting Through Vision Slits or literally climbing into the tank to rough up the poor sods inside it.

I never really believed that and found it a poor excuse. If you ever get a chance to check out a tank, you'll notice the hatches can all lock up from the inside, and all the "vision slits" are armored periscopes and what not. While I can't disagree that infantry crawling over a tank (even with no grenades) can do some sort of mild damage, I don't think the current system properly represents this at all.

In all honesty, I am slowly phasing my heaviest vehicles off my lists. Basically, even the mighty Russ is a paper tiger in a normal battle. I would rather have another thirty Guardsmen or fifty Conscripts.

Skinnattittar wrote:@ Daemon-Archon Ren : Your argument, once all the fat, dribble, and unsubstantiated data is rendered out, is still "I want Power Weapons to have +1 on the VDC because I want to believe they are the same as melta weapons." However you still have failed to produce supporting evidence that besides a brief description, supplied only by yourself which I disagree with from my understanding of the two weapons systems, that melta and power weapons do the same sort of damage.

For example: If I set a bar of butter in the hood of my car, it will melt. If I take an acetylene torch to a bar of butter, it too would melt. However the sun will not melt through the hood of my car, but the acetylene torch certainly will. Same end effect, totally different causes.

If the rays of the sun were as such that they were designed to disintegrate the hood of your car by merely coming close to contact, they yes, the sun will melt through the hood of your car.

The +1 on the table, to me anyway, is representing the weapons ability to deal more substantial damage to the integral parts of the vehicle's systems AFTER penetrating (Or even glancing) the armor of said vehicle.

I believe that a power-weapon should get +1 on the table because I personally believe that the same field of energy designed to weaken the structural bonds of the composition of the metal of armor would also be able to cause more significant damge to the interior systems of the vehicle (if not much more so then that of the armor integrity).

To put it simply, with the Power-sword/chain sword analogy.

Power-sword sticking in hull of rhino

Chain-sword sticking in hull of rhino

The power-sword will deal more damage as the energy field around said weapon (which is currently in the hull) is also scrambling the interior systems of the rhino.

This would also apply to glancing as since the weapon is coming into direct contact with the outer hull of the vehicle, the field of the weapon would also be likely coming into contact with those same vital control systems, and as such, would also be more likely to disrupt them then the mere blow of a chain-sword.


Rebuttal?

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Rebuttal?

Sure! I call pu tuhs on you!

I never like simply stating something is wrong, but when someone simply states something is correct, or that something is the way it is because they say so, with no real support, it is very difficult to find proof against it. For instance, I can not prove that Bigfoot does not exist because of a lack of evidence that it does.

I have not read of a powersword simply cleaving effortlessly through the armor of a vehicle. I have always read of a power weapons being driven through a vehicle by the wielder. Is it described as being easier for the attacker? Yes. Is it described as destroying the vehicle? No.

Even as you just said, the sword jams into the armor and can do damage to the internal working. This does not mean that it will jam in and cause the vehicle to be wrecked, killing all the crew or disabling every weapon. That is why we have the vehicle damage chart (VDC). So the power weapon my jam through, and strike the engine, causing vehicle to be Immobilized, or strike a gunner or leading system, disabling that weapon, causing a Weapon Destroyed result. Or maybe it startles the driver or a gunner.... who for some reason jumps around inside getting in everyone else's way, causing a Vehicle Stunned/Shaken result. But the odds of a power weapon causing a "Wreaked" result? So improbable that even GW decided not to give Power Weapons AP1 or a bonus against vehicles.

Kilkrazy wrote:Is there some grave imbalance in the game that this overall idea is intended to correct?

No. Not exactly.
But fluffwise: a power weapon should be able to do more dammage to a vehicle than a ccw

Gamewise: If I pay extra points for a power weapon, I think it should have some effect against vehicles.

But, my arguement could be very easily countered by the fact that fists/klaws are excellent for taking down vehicles, and if I want some anti-vehcile capabilities, I should spend the extra points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bellumdominus wrote:I disagree with pw being AP 1. Some power weapons might be able to cut through human flesh or unleash electrical charges that can instantly kill an enemy. These powers couldn't do much against a vehicle though.

So, using fluff to back your oppinion up, you're saying that a power weapon should be able to crush a terminator (who's armor is often described as being as strong as a light vehicle's), but wouldn't do anything to a rusty old ork truk, made from spare parts and rusty metal sheets?

lordrevege wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bellumdominus wrote:I disagree with pw being AP 1. Some power weapons might be able to cut through human flesh or unleash electrical charges that can instantly kill an enemy. These powers couldn't do much against a vehicle though.

So, using fluff to back your oppinion up, you're saying that a power weapon should be able to crush a terminator (who's armor is often described as being as strong as a light vehicle's), but wouldn't do anything to a rusty old ork truk, made from spare parts and rusty metal sheets?

Well, fluff-wise, if you chop through a Terminator's armour, you are going to hit the Space Marine inside. There is nothing inside that armour but Space Marine.

However, if you hit an Ork Trukk with a power sword, most of the time you won't actually hit anything important. Your power sword might shear through the rusty metal sheets with terrifying efficiency, but if you just lop off a random gubbin stuck on the side, you still won't hurt the trukk.

Similarly, if you jam your powersword into a Rhino right to the hilt, odds are that you won't hit anything vital.

lordrevege wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is there some grave imbalance in the game that this overall idea is intended to correct?

No. Not exactly.
But fluffwise: a power weapon should be able to do more dammage to a vehicle than a ccw
Gamewise: If I pay extra points for a power weapon, I think it should have some effect against vehicles.

No. Not exactly.

And by that I mean not at all! When you buy a Power Weapon you should be getting exactly what you paid for: A weapon that ignores Armor Saves. Not a weapon that allows you to destroy vehicles. I'm pretty sure it has been this way since.... 1998? Maybe earlier, I forget if they did +D in 2nd Edition. So for the last twelve years....

Fluffwise, PW do more damage to armor. But so do Lasguns compared to sticks. Doesn't mean a Lasgun should penetrate armor any better.

lordrevege wrote:But, my arguement could be very easily countered by the fact that fists/klaws are excellent for taking down vehicles, and if I want some anti-vehcile capabilities, I should spend the extra points.

bellumdominus wrote:I disagree with pw being AP 1. Some power weapons might be able to cut through human flesh or unleash electrical charges that can instantly kill an enemy. These powers couldn't do much against a vehicle though.

So, using fluff to back your oppinion up, you're saying that a power weapon should be able to crush a terminator (who's armor is often described as being as strong as a light vehicle's), but wouldn't do anything to a rusty old ork truk, made from spare parts and rusty metal sheets?

The game isn't perfect. Ork trucks are far tougher than they really should be considering what they are made out of. But that aside, I bet when you take a PW to an Ork Truk you would do all sorts of damage to the material. But whether or not you hit something vital..... well with a hammer I can incapacitate a vehicle in a few seconds. I don't need a magical sword to help me. Heck! Pop the hood I'll cause your engine to explode if you turn the engine over! No tools required!

But what would make Ork Truks more realistic wouldn't make a Valkyrie more realistic, which actually can stay well over your head and out of reach of your Power Sword. But making a general rule for that would make Tau vehicles more appreciable.... I think the vehicle rules in general is the thing to change. Then maybe we can start talking about what effects Power Weapons would have.

For instance, without grenades and/or a Thunder-Hammer/Chain-Fist, the only results Close Combat can effect on a vehicle are Weapon Destroyed and Immobilized. Without a Power Weapon of some sort, no effect can be made at all! Sorry, but punching a Leman Russ on the front hull should not scare the turret gunner enough to forget how to fire the cannon. A Space Marine kicking a track shouldn't cause the thing to throw a stud and immobilize itself. But that's my opinion.

Power Weapons as AP1 is a terrible idea imo. Tacticl dreadnought armor is not the same as Dreadnought or leman Russ armor. Just because a sword can slice through a heavily armored infantry unit, does not mean it would slice through armor 4 or 5 times as thick (fluffwise OR otherwise...). Also, power weapons Arm pen ability is dependent on the attackers strength. An IG Commander wielding a power sword or fist is not going to pack the same punch as a SM Captain.

I do not agree with AP1 for Power weapons. Power Weapons are designed to kill infantry. Terminator armor may be made of the 'same stuff' as a tank, but a tank has much *more* of it. Case in point, you can shoot a terminator with a hundred bolters and pretty much guarantee that it's a dead termie.

You can shoot those same hundred bolters at an AV 11 Rhino's front for 7 turns and you'll have done no damage.

Your standard power weapon probably isn't even long enough to go much past the armor plating on a vehicle.

Power weapons should get +1 Strength vs. vehicles or something to that effect. AP 1 for them doesn't really make sense, since melta bombs don't have it and regular CC attacks don't get -1.

Kroot Loops wrote:I do not agree with AP1 for Power weapons. Power Weapons are designed to kill infantry. Terminator armor may be made of the 'same stuff' as a tank, but a tank has much *more* of it. Case in point, you can shoot a terminator with a hundred bolters and pretty much guarantee that it's a dead termie.

You can shoot those same hundred bolters at an AV 11 Rhino's front for 7 turns and you'll have done no damage.

Your standard power weapon probably isn't even long enough to go much past the armor plating on a vehicle.

Your standard fist isn't long enough to get past armor either is it? There really is no good argument for why a weapon that is explicitly better at tearing through armor than fists should not retain that effectiveness when there is not a person inside the armor. Armor piercing is armor piercing. Power swords should have some bonus to match the fluff.

ph34r wrote:

Kroot Loops wrote:I do not agree with AP1 for Power weapons. Power Weapons are designed to kill infantry. Terminator armor may be made of the 'same stuff' as a tank, but a tank has much *more* of it. Case in point, you can shoot a terminator with a hundred bolters and pretty much guarantee that it's a dead termie.

You can shoot those same hundred bolters at an AV 11 Rhino's front for 7 turns and you'll have done no damage.

Your standard power weapon probably isn't even long enough to go much past the armor plating on a vehicle.

Your standard fist isn't long enough to get past armor either is it? There really is no good argument for why a weapon that is explicitly better at tearing through armor than fists should not retain that effectiveness when there is not a person inside the armor. Armor piercing is armor piercing. Power swords should have some bonus to match the fluff.

You are assuming that people agree that a power fist makes sense. Personally I can't even figure out how a power fist tears up a tank to begin with! I mean, have you ever approached a battle tank? They aren't exactly the best things to grab onto.... I guess your could grab the tracks and pull them apart, or mangle the weapon mounts and barrels, or perhaps tear off an access hatch and mangle the person inside, but that would actually take a bit of doing, just getting on top of a tank isn't like climbing onto a Honda Civic....

@ Fetterkey : I would agree with you if the Vehicle system was more complex. But as it is now, vehicles are paper tigers! We keep talking about realism but are we forgetting about playability? I mean, it is not like vehicles are difficult at all to render numb for a turn or even wrecked. All you have to do is hit and match their armor for a turn or two and you will immediately assure they have been rendered unable to make their points back. The only exception to this are transports, but all except the Land Raider are mildly armored.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

dumplingman wrote:
Sisters of battle do not have S 4. Repentia which are joke have s6 chain fists so they roll 2D6 for ap and sister's characters cannot take power fists they get the eviscorator instead. But again the point isn't comparing powerfists its power weapons. If any model in the army actually had a power weapon it would be str 3.

What other Witchhunter sqaud is intended for CC?

Repentia are intended for a nice paintjob and a place on your shelf. They're too expensive, too fragile, hard to control and unable to ride a transport - a total waste of the Elite slot they'd take up. Same goes for Arcoflagellants except you also have to cripple a shooty squad by attaching a priest to it in order to unlock them. They DO have S4 power weapons and would benefit from the change, but they're still crappy.

Seraphim on the other hand are excellent for finishing off weaker enemies in CC, especially when you add in Faith which the poor Repentia can't use.

As for AP1 to power weapons... no. They don't need it - they're intended for cutting up people in armor, not chopping tanks in half.

Skinnattittar wrote:You are assuming that people agree that a power fist makes sense. Personally I can't even figure out how a power fist tears up a tank to begin with! I mean, have you ever approached a battle tank? They aren't exactly the best things to grab onto.... I guess your could grab the tracks and pull them apart, or mangle the weapon mounts and barrels, or perhaps tear off an access hatch and mangle the person inside, but that would actually take a bit of doing, just getting on top of a tank isn't like climbing onto a Honda Civic....

@ Fetterkey : I would agree with you if the Vehicle system was more complex. But as it is now, vehicles are paper tigers! We keep talking about realism but are we forgetting about playability? I mean, it is not like vehicles are difficult at all to render numb for a turn or even wrecked. All you have to do is hit and match their armor for a turn or two and you will immediately assure they have been rendered unable to make their points back. The only exception to this are transports, but all except the Land Raider are mildly armored.

I meant fist as in a marine punching a rhino to death. It is only logical that a marine with a sword designed to cut through armor would be more effective than a marine punching a rhino with his fists.

IggyEssEmManlyMan wrote:Power Weapons as AP1 is a terrible idea imo. Tacticl dreadnought armor is not the same as Dreadnought or leman Russ armor. Just because a sword can slice through a heavily armored infantry unit, does not mean it would slice through armor 4 or 5 times as thick (fluffwise OR otherwise...). Also, power weapons Arm pen ability is dependent on the attackers strength. An IG Commander wielding a power sword or fist is not going to pack the same punch as a SM Captain.

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

And ya, of course a power weapon will do more damage in the hands of an astartes compared to a human.
I fail to see what point you are making.
Power weapons are power weapons, no matter who holds them.
They'd still get the ability to slice armor, no matter who held them. The IG commander would suffer for being less points, while the extra strength of the astartes would help him penetrate the armor


Automatically Appended Next Post: