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.

It's not that hard...AP has no bearing on attacks in CC...just like cover saves have no bearing on CC. You don't say something has a cover save of 0 or - or 7 in CC because the mechanic itself is of no consequence, just like AP.

All I'm saying is that people want to give it an AP. I gave it an AP. Just because it's a PW doesn't mean it takes out vehicles.

Elitest Jerk wrote:I still say to make peoples mind right.

CCW - AP7
Power - AP7 ignores armour saves.

So, then the new table becomes this:

Normal weapons: AP 7 [everything with an armour save gets it, no bonus/penalty against vehicles]
Power/chain whatever: AP 2 [no armour saves allowed, no bonus/penalty against vehicles]
Some new thing: AP 1 [no armour saves allowed, bonus for damage]

Homer

Elitest Jerk wrote:All I'm saying is that people want to give it an AP.

And all that everyone else is saying is that AP doesn't apply to close combat weapons. There is absolutely no need to give them one.

If you want to work out some sort of system for AP in CC for your own use, then you should probably continue that in Proposed Rules as it doesn't have any bearing on the actual game.

Homer S wrote:

Elitest Jerk wrote:I still say to make peoples mind right.

CCW - AP7
Power - AP7 ignores armour saves.

So, then the new table becomes this:

Normal weapons: AP 7 [everything with an armour save gets it, no bonus/penalty against vehicles]
Power/chain whatever: AP 2 [no armour saves allowed, no bonus/penalty against vehicles]
Some new thing: AP 1 [no armour saves allowed, bonus for damage]

Homer

It is irrelevant. You can't say power weapons are AP2 because it is only a matter of time before GW bring out a model with a 1+ armour save. What you are trying to do is akin to giving infantry an armour value of 1- completely unnecessary.

We are just talking at this point. Nothing we say on this subject really means anything because CCW have no AP.

Now to some of you saying Power = AP2.

What is the basis of this thinking? Feel no Pain? Best armour save for models? Power simply ignores armour saves.

Now on to vehicles. Yes a power sword goes through a marine like butter but that doesn't mean you get to cut vehicle in half.

So really no CCW should ever have a +1 to the damage table.

AP is a shooting characteristic. As in it applies to ranged weapons. Just look at the discussion about FnP for a good argument about AP and such.

close combat weapons don't really need an AP for vehicles because they default to rear armor. I know it's not the exact same thing but with a big honkin' power sword against a bigger and even more honkin' tank you're not looking to pierce armor, you're looking for a gas tank or exhaust vent or something to make with the stabby goodness.

Also AP in regular close combat would blow. There's already enough light armored horde armies that get nuked on the way across the board, let them have something going in their favor if they live to get there.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Homer S wrote:Wouldn't it simplify the mechanics if CC weapons had AP values for assaulting? Save a lot on which special rules to use. Just thinking out loud here...

Normal weapons: AP -
Power whatever: AP 2
Fusion/melta/chain- whatever: AP 1

Homer

No, because under your system normal CC weapons have a -1 damage chart penalty.

How often do you expect someone to get a penetrating hit on a vehicle with a butter knife?

Compel wrote:Something that can tend to catch out people is, this also means that melta bombs don't get a +1 to their roll on the damage table.

EXACTLY! Certain Weapons, like Melta Bombs and Chainfists, are DESIGNED TO PENETRATE ARMOUR IN CLOSE COMABT. I'm saying, FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARMOUR PENETRATION ONLY That these and other similar weapons/wargear should be treated as AP1

Elitest Jerk wrote:All I'm saying is that people want to give it an AP. I gave it an AP. Just because it's a PW doesn't mean it takes out vehicles.

I'm Not saying give them an AP Value, I'm saying make them count as having an AP Value for the purposes of armour penetration when assaulting VEHICLES ONLY

Elitest Jerk wrote:We are just talking at this point. Nothing we say on this subject really means anything because CCW have no AP.

Now to some of you saying Power = AP2.

What is the basis of this thinking? Feel no Pain? Best armour save for models? Power simply ignores armour saves.

Now on to vehicles. Yes a power sword goes through a marine like butter but that doesn't mean you get to cut vehicle in half.

So really no CCW should ever have a +1 to the damage table.

There are plenty of Close combat weapons that should be treated as if they are AP1 for the purposes of armour penetration (armour penetration, in this case, against vehicles only) Melta bombs, Chainfists. I am not saying give them an AP Value, I am saying treat them as if they were AP1 when assaulting vehicles. (Only for the purposes of getting +1 on the damage table). I'm not saying that they would actually be AP1, just get the +1 to the damage chart.

Soup and a roll wrote:

Homer S wrote:

Elitest Jerk wrote:I still say to make peoples mind right.

CCW - AP7
Power - AP7 ignores armour saves.

So, then the new table becomes this:

Normal weapons: AP 7 [everything with an armour save gets it, no bonus/penalty against vehicles]
Power/chain whatever: AP 2 [no armour saves allowed, no bonus/penalty against vehicles]
Some new thing: AP 1 [no armour saves allowed, bonus for damage]

Homer

It is irrelevant. You can't say power weapons are AP2 because it is only a matter of time before GW bring out a model with a 1+ armour save. What you are trying to do is akin to giving infantry an armour value of 1- completely unnecessary.

I believe there are situations where an armour save can be improved to be better than 2+, and there are several situations where a cover save can go to 1+ (simplest example is a unit with Stealth USR who's gone to ground/been pinned behind a fortification).

Page 24: Maximum save. Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their saves by +1 or +2. However, no save (armour, cover, or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. A roll of 1 always fail.

Chainfists and melta bombs roll 2d6+S for armor pen. That's what classifies them as anti-tank. The +1 from AP1 would be nice but not really necessary I think.

Giving the a +1 on the damage chart would also increase the cost of these weapons because it is adding another characteristic. The fact that they are good at penetrating armor is denoted by the 2d6 + S armor penetration roll. Just because they are good at penetrating armor doesn't always mean that they penetrate in the more devaastating areas, just that they penetrate more often.

Ap is a statistic associated with weapon statlines. These weapons have independant ranges, strength, AP, and their own special rules.

CC weapons have no statlines, as their stats are Dependant upon the model using them. Now, sometimes this is less so on some models and some weapons than others (EX, old relic blades), but they still do not have statlines. Because they have no statline they have no AP value.

This does not mean that they are AP - weapons however. AP is a weapon statline feature, and since they do not have a weapon statline, they cannot be AP -.


To address the power weapons getting +1 to damage chart idea: It won't matter anyway. Very few models that can even get glances reliably have "just" power weapons. Normally, they have MC attack, rending, high strength values, or something else to give them an edge on tanks. Those units that do come with "just" power weapons also usually have the option to upgrade into something useful for knocking over tanks as well, like power fists and other upgrades. Giving power weapons +1 to damage chart would give some fool the idea that they should not take an embedded powerfist in their assault marine squad, because they think that their decrease from 1/4 to 1/50 chance to actually kill a tank in melee is worth the 15 points.

Also, all anti-vehicle weapons are usually based in power weapons, as they normally ignore armor saves. Giving them +1 to the damager chart would invalidate abilities like tank hunter, meltaguns, and seismic hammers.

Compel wrote:Something that can tend to catch out people is, this also means that melta bombs don't get a +1 to their roll on the damage table.

come on would you wanna strap somthing to a tank only to have the whole thin explode right on top of you lol it not having a +1 makes sense cause it is a shaped charge which usually cause little outside damage but a ton of internal damage

Elitest Jerk wrote:I still say to make peoples mind right.

CCW - AP7
Power - AP7 ignores armour saves.

That way of thinking doesn't help me at all. I don't understand what is so difficult about accepting that weapons used in assault have no AP value. It has already been explained that AP '-' is different than not having an AP value defined. AP is simply not a game mechanic used in assault. A power weapon is not an AP 2 or 1 weapon, it is a wargear that allows your opponent no armor save and can give you an extra attack.

Yes, that does mean a melta bomb does not get +1 on the chart. The 'melta' designation has nothing at all to do with AP, it means you roll two dice for penetration. Most melta shooting weapons are AP 1, true enough, but being 'melta' does not make an assault attack AP 1 because 1. Melta does not automatically mean AP 1 and 2. Most importantly, AP has no meaning in assault.

Do I personally think that melta bombs should get a +1 in order to be consistent with melta shooting weapons? Yes, but that isn't what the rules say right now, and therefore suggestions of the sort belong in proposed rules.

Bishop99 wrote:

Compel wrote:Something that can tend to catch out people is, this also means that melta bombs don't get a +1 to their roll on the damage table.

come on would you wanna strap somthing to a tank only to have the whole thin explode right on top of you lol it not having a +1 makes sense cause it is a shaped charge which usually cause little outside damage but a ton of internal damage

Have you ever seen a shaped Charge? Shaped Charges (and we are dealing with FUSION BASED shaped charges here) tend to treat armour like it was butter.

Grignard wrote:

Elitest Jerk wrote:I still say to make peoples mind right.

CCW - AP7
Power - AP7 ignores armour saves.

That way of thinking doesn't help me at all. I don't understand what is so difficult about accepting that weapons used in assault have no AP value. It has already been explained that AP '-' is different than not having an AP value defined. AP is simply not a game mechanic used in assault. A power weapon is not an AP 2 or 1 weapon, it is a wargear that allows your opponent no armor save and can give you an extra attack.

Yes, that does mean a melta bomb does not get +1 on the chart. The 'melta' designation has nothing at all to do with AP, it means you roll two dice for penetration. Most melta shooting weapons are AP 1, true enough, but being 'melta' does not make an assault attack AP 1 because 1. Melta does not automatically mean AP 1 and 2. Most importantly, AP has no meaning in assault.

Do I personally think that melta bombs should get a +1 in order to be consistent with melta shooting weapons? Yes, but that isn't what the rules say right now, and therefore suggestions of the sort belong in proposed rules.

It simply makes more sense that a melta bomb should do either more or just as much damage to a vehicle as a melta gun. Considering that (for chaos space marines, anyways) a melta gun is 10 pts/model and melta bombs are 5pts/model. Lets compare:

BOTH:
1 Shot only
8+2D6 ARP potential.

BOMBS:
P-Attacks agains rear armour.
P-Automatic hit against Immobilised/Stationary Tragets
P-5pts/model cheaper
C-Only hits on a 4+ against anything moving at combat speed, 6 against anything moving faster
C-No Ranged Capabillities
C-Not AP1
C-Worthless against infantry/MCs

GUN:
P-12" Range
P-6" Range rolld 2D6
P/C-Hits based on BS
P-AP1
P-Can also be used against enemy infantry/MCs
C-5pts/model more
C-Hits armour facing firer

Gee... for only a 5pt difference, you get alot more bang for your buck with the melta gun. If Melta Bombs were AP1, then they would be more usefull, right now, they are overshadowed by Meltaguns.

NostrilOfTerror wrote:
It simply makes more sense that a melta bomb should do either more or just as much damage to a vehicle as a melta gun. Considering that (for chaos space marines, anyways) a melta gun is 10 pts/model and melta bombs are 5pts/model. Lets compare:

Gee... for only a 5pt difference, you get alot more bang for your buck with the melta gun. If Melta Bombs were AP1, then they would be more usefull, right now, they are overshadowed by Meltaguns.

That's fantastic, but it has nothing to do with playing by the actual rules.
Go hype your idea on the proposed rules forum or something, repeatedly posting it here when people are trying to explain how the game actually works really isn't helping anyone.

NostrilOfTerror wrote:
It simply makes more sense that a melta bomb should do either more or just as much damage to a vehicle as a melta gun. Considering that (for chaos space marines, anyways) a melta gun is 10 pts/model and melta bombs are 5pts/model. Lets compare:

+++ SNIP +++

Gee... for only a 5pt difference, you get alot more bang for your buck with the melta gun. If Melta Bombs were AP1, then they would be more usefull, right now, they are overshadowed by Meltaguns.

Your list misses a few important cons for meltaguns, mostly centered around vehicle cover saves and the fact that they're useless when locked in combat with walkers. Saying that melta bombs and meltaguns should have such similar effects is like trying to imply you'd use a pipe wrench and a monkey wrench on the same project. They're different for a reason, and this conversation only serves to confuse the reality of the rules here. I invite you to take it to proposed rules and we can have a more thourough discussion of it there.

Elitest Jerk wrote:I still say to make peoples mind right.

CCW - AP7
Power - AP7 ignores armour saves.

Or to make people's minds really right, you could simply educate them of the subtile difference between the two rather than inventing seemingly benign rules. See, here's the problem with your train of thought. Lets say your "way of thinking" catches and that becomes public opinion of how the matter should be thought of. Now lets say that Dark Eldar are released and they've nerfed the Grotesques such that they only ignore weapons that have no AP or AP-, with the intention of making them immune to CCWs and (very) small arms fire. Unlikely, but it could happen. But now you've convinced yourself and others that CCWs are this magical AP7, because they damage vehicles without a -1 to penetrate, so they must ignore the special FNP that the unit has. See the problem now?

NostrilOfTerror wrote:

Bishop99 wrote:

Compel wrote:Something that can tend to catch out people is, this also means that melta bombs don't get a +1 to their roll on the damage table.

come on would you wanna strap somthing to a tank only to have the whole thin explode right on top of you lol it not having a +1 makes sense cause it is a shaped charge which usually cause little outside damage but a ton of internal damage

Have you ever seen a shaped Charge? Shaped Charges (and we are dealing with FUSION BASED shaped charges here) tend to treat armour like it was butter.

Grignard wrote:

Elitest Jerk wrote:I still say to make peoples mind right.

CCW - AP7
Power - AP7 ignores armour saves.

That way of thinking doesn't help me at all. I don't understand what is so difficult about accepting that weapons used in assault have no AP value. It has already been explained that AP '-' is different than not having an AP value defined. AP is simply not a game mechanic used in assault. A power weapon is not an AP 2 or 1 weapon, it is a wargear that allows your opponent no armor save and can give you an extra attack.

Yes, that does mean a melta bomb does not get +1 on the chart. The 'melta' designation has nothing at all to do with AP, it means you roll two dice for penetration. Most melta shooting weapons are AP 1, true enough, but being 'melta' does not make an assault attack AP 1 because 1. Melta does not automatically mean AP 1 and 2. Most importantly, AP has no meaning in assault.

Do I personally think that melta bombs should get a +1 in order to be consistent with melta shooting weapons? Yes, but that isn't what the rules say right now, and therefore suggestions of the sort belong in proposed rules.

It simply makes more sense that a melta bomb should do either more or just as much damage to a vehicle as a melta gun. Considering that (for chaos space marines, anyways) a melta gun is 10 pts/model and melta bombs are 5pts/model. Lets compare:

BOTH:
1 Shot only
8+2D6 ARP potential.

BOMBS:
P-Attacks agains rear armour.
P-Automatic hit against Immobilised/Stationary Tragets
P-5pts/model cheaper
C-Only hits on a 4+ against anything moving at combat speed, 6 against anything moving faster
C-No Ranged Capabillities
C-Not AP1
C-Worthless against infantry/MCs

GUN:
P-12" Range
P-6" Range rolld 2D6
P/C-Hits based on BS
P-AP1
P-Can also be used against enemy infantry/MCs
C-5pts/model more
C-Hits armour facing firer

Gee... for only a 5pt difference, you get alot more bang for your buck with the melta gun. If Melta Bombs were AP1, then they would be more usefull, right now, they are overshadowed by Meltaguns.

Yes i have seen a shaped charge of an RPG 7 when it hits a tank it only leave a small hole but everything inside would have been dead

NostrilOfTerror wrote:
Have you ever seen a shaped Charge? Shaped Charges (and we are dealing with FUSION BASED shaped charges here) tend to treat armour like it was butter.

That makes good sense from a verisimilitude standpoint, but it isn't a rule. I completely agree with you that melta bombs should have the same effect as melta weapons because they do have the same effect in the game universe. I think the easiest way to represent that would be to keep things how they are except give melta bombs a +1 to the chart *as if* they were an AP 1 weapon ( again, no such thing as a AP1 grenade, so no need to specify *shooting* weapon. A lot of people will probably disagree, but I'd go so far as to speculate that was the intent of the game design, but got overlooked.

This is a proposed rule and would be a great discussion over there. As is, it does not make sense to talk about power weapons/grenades/fists or anything else in assault as it relates to AP, because AP is not a game mechanic used in assault.

NostrilOfTerror wrote:

It simply makes more sense that a melta bomb should do either more or just as much damage to a vehicle as a melta gun. Considering that (for chaos space marines, anyways) a melta gun is 10 pts/model and melta bombs are 5pts/model. Lets compare:

BOTH:
1 Shot only
8+2D6 ARP potential.

BOMBS:
P-Attacks agains rear armour.
P-Automatic hit against Immobilised/Stationary Tragets
P-5pts/model cheaper
C-Only hits on a 4+ against anything moving at combat speed, 6 against anything moving faster
C-No Ranged Capabillities
C-Not AP1
C-Worthless against infantry/MCs

GUN:
P-12" Range
P-6" Range rolld 2D6
P/C-Hits based on BS
P-AP1
P-Can also be used against enemy infantry/MCs
C-5pts/model more
C-Hits armour facing firer

Gee... for only a 5pt difference, you get alot more bang for your buck with the melta gun. If Melta Bombs were AP1, then they would be more usefull, right now, they are overshadowed by Meltaguns.

It doesn't make sense at all that a melta bomb should do the same damage as a melta gun because a melta gun is AP1 while a melta bomb has no AP by definition ( being a grenade) and therefore it makes perfect sense under the rules that it doesn't get the +1 on the chart that the melta gun with AP 1 gets because it is not a melta gun but a melta bomb, which cannot have an AP stat.

If that sounds circular, it is, because the rule is the way it is, and therefore makes sense, because a melta gun is *defined* as AP1 which means you add +1 to the damage chart roll, which cannot happen with melta bombs because melta bombs by *definition* cannot have any AP value.

As far as game mechanics, your argument about effectiveness for points cost is irrelevant because you're comparing two unlike things. They aren't used in the same game phase. I think you're better off arguing that you *should* get +1 with the melta bombs in the *proposed* rule forum because of fluff.

You can argue all day how it doesn't make "sense" that a melta bomb doesn't do as much damage as a melta gun, but that doesn't change how the rule reads.