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.

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.