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.

So, let's reopen the discussion about Power Weapons vs vehicles.

List of ideas off then top of my head
+1 to Armour Pen
+1 to Armour Pen on a Glancing hit only (i.e. Glances become Pens)
+1 to Armour Pen on a roll of 6 to pen (i.e. crappy rending)

Ideas, feedback?

Gwar! wrote:+1 to Armour Pen

This is probably a little too overpowered. When you consider that Power Fists are also power weapons, their destructive potential leaps from a 90% chance to a 99% chance of destroying the target. Perhaps if the exception was made for wargear that was only a power weapon with no additional rules, it would make it a little more even.

+1 to Armour Pen on a Glancing hit only (i.e. Glances become Pens)

I like the idea of this one. It allows a certain amount of random chance that would go with the power weapon, but ensures that if it works, it works well.

+1 to Armour Pen on a roll of 6 to pen (i.e. crappy rending)

This could work. I think if all power weapons (including power fists, relic blades, etc) gained the bonuses, this would make it fair without being overly powerful. Of course, it also would rarely happen, and just wouldn't be worth it most of the time.

I think if power weapons were given the Rending rule in close combat against vehicles it would be more helpful, and more in line, as power weapons are basically rending that rend if it wounds.

What if you were to use the same rules as a seismic hammer from an Iron Clad dreadnought, add 1 to your roll on the vehicle damage chart.

what if they had similar rules to disruption fields where a 6 is always a glance with a power weapon?

Kevin949 wrote:what if they had similar rules to disruption fields where a 6 is always a glance with a power weapon?

Most vehicles have a rear AV of 10, and most power weapon users are St 4, so this wouldn't make that much of a difference in most circumstances. The problem comes with St3 units like IG and Eldar, who are incapable of defeating any armour.

Personally, I think power weapons work alright now, since the change to melee attacks now hitting the rear armour. The problem comes with troops that can't ever damage a vehicle, even the flimsiest AV10 vehicle like an ork trukk. I'd be interested in a rule that allowed for a chance to defeat really low tech armour regardless of weapon strength.

Perhaps AV10 open topped means a 6 always inflicts a glance - albeit without the std +1 for open topped. Power weapons could keep the +1 in that circumstance.

....because there are so many AV10 open topped vehicles.

the_ferrett wrote:....because there are so many AV10 open topped vehicles.

When you consider rear armour...

A lot of the time, power weapons just need repricing (see C:IG).

now I'm no expert, but I don't see exactly how ''repricing'' a power weapon makes it any better against a vehicle?

my choice would be for +1 on the Vehicle Damage Chart as someone already mentioned [Catyrpelius, maybe? sorry on the name!]
that doesn't seem too over the top, but maybe it is considering how common power weapons can be in certain armies?

however, from the list of choices Gwar! put forth, I'm going to vote for +1 Armour Penetration...seems logical enough?

sebster wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:what if they had similar rules to disruption fields where a 6 is always a glance with a power weapon?

Most vehicles have a rear AV of 10, and most power weapon users are St 4, so this wouldn't make that much of a difference in most circumstances. The problem comes with St3 units like IG and Eldar, who are incapable of defeating any armour.

Personally, I think power weapons work alright now, since the change to melee attacks now hitting the rear armour. The problem comes with troops that can't ever damage a vehicle, even the flimsiest AV10 vehicle like an ork trukk. I'd be interested in a rule that allowed for a chance to defeat really low tech armour regardless of weapon strength.

Perhaps AV10 open topped means a 6 always inflicts a glance - albeit without the std +1 for open topped. Power weapons could keep the +1 in that circumstance.

Walkers.

And all those other pesky not AV10 vehicles.

Don't people still complain about necrons being able to always glance on a 6? *Shrug* Just bringing that up.

So, the thing with power weapons is that they get a "free" half inch or so of penetration through basically anything. This means that they get to punch through regular infantry armor like there's nothing there. However, they still need to land a strong enough blow, or their free penetration won't really help them (thus why power weapons aren't so great on a guardsman).

As such, if you apply this idea, you get to scratch through the first half inch of a vehicle's armor, and then you'd need to rely on brute strength to get through the next 2" or so. As such, +1 to armor pen seems as overpowered as it is unfluffy. Power weapons don't give +1 S against infantry, so they shouldn't against armor.

That said, I could possibly see making them AP1. That way it doesn't interfere with the anti-infantry rules at all, and it would also fit in better with the idea that infantry v. tanks with close combat weapons is cutting off hoses, separating tracks, and stabbing dudes through vision slots, all of which a power weapon would actually help with.

Power weapons have to hit and wound like normal, and only then does its special effect come into play - it should be the same for tanks as it is for infantry.

Kevin949 wrote:Walkers.

And all those other pesky not AV10 vehicles.

Read what I wrote. Then start listing the open topped vehicles with a rear armour other then 10. Good job.

Don't people still complain about necrons being able to always glance on a 6? *Shrug* Just bringing that up.

I'm not sure there's a rule that isn't complained about by at least some portion of the 40K internet community.

sebster wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Walkers.

And all those other pesky not AV10 vehicles.

Read what I wrote. Then start listing the open topped vehicles with a rear armour other then 10. Good job.

Don't people still complain about necrons being able to always glance on a 6? *Shrug* Just bringing that up.

I'm not sure there's a rule that isn't complained about by at least some portion of the 40K internet community.

I don't care about the vehicles that are rear AV10, you already addressed those. I was talking about everything else. Like the exact things I mentioned. Or those str 3 units you mentioned. how interesting. Honestly, do you need to have the smug attitude about it though?

The IG don't need this, they can grab Krak Grenades and they would be better off IMO then any of the suggestions so far, and don't the Eldar have Haywire Grenades?. All this really does is boost the value of the Power Weapons by allowing them to be dual purpose and reduce the value of tank shocking because of the abundance of PWs in lists already. This would lead to everyone playing the same lists because the "choices" become so obvious (this is already becoming a very real issue and it bugs me a little).

Buying krak grenades is rather a waste of money.

If you really think the IG are going to assault tanks then you give Veterans the demolitions abilitys. That's meltabombs.

I like the idea for this power-weapons idea, for IG infantry at least. Although I think for the higher strength users it would be kinda overpowering.

Is this really a discussion about how to make more weapons more effective against vehicles? Yes, I know it is only about Power Weapons specifically, but it is just as much about hurting vehicles more effectively...

My suggestion: In a vehicle Assault, only a Power Weapon (or grenade and other devices specifically for anti-tank duty, i.e.: not chainswords, fists, claws, regular Close Combat Weapons, etc...) may cause Penetrating hits on vehicles and regular CCW may only cause Glancing Hits (grenades and their like still cause what damage they do).

Reason? Well, you got a guy/girl/thing with what may only be a chainsaw/stick/axe/bit-of-string/etc banging on an armored hull, a moving bunker (with only the exception of a few vehicles, like a Trukk). The effects would be minor at best, even if one were to be attacking weak points like sensors, hatches, panels, etc, the damage it minimal. A frag missile should be more able to harm a vehicle than a Space Marine with a chainsword.

If you don't know what I am meaning, ask a friend to get in a beefy truck and drive it around. You take a whatever non-ballistic, non-explosive, relatively easy to carry weapon you like (shovel, sledge, chainsaw, etc...) and you try to destroy the truck, or at least stop it. Meanwhile, your friend gets a shotgun and is allowed to try and run you over.

Admittedly, I have not seen something exactly like this (though I have seen what happens when someone tries to ram a tank with a pick-up truck), I can assume the result would be rather ill for the one not in the vehicle. Compare that weakly protected vehicle (just about every vehicle on the market is skinned in thin steel, easily damaged even with a pocket knife) which will roll about generally unharmed by the foll with the bit of wood or metal, to a vehicle designed to withstand small and medium arms, thrown grenades and non-direct artillery strikes, well there isn't much that can be done.

So, my breakdown:

Power Weapons/Grenades/etc: May cause Penetrating Hits

Non-Power Weapons/Normal CCW/etc: May only cause Glancing Hits

Just make them ap1, gawd.

EagleArk wrote:Just make them ap1, gawd.

The thing is that making them AP 1 would mean that you only get +1 after you've actually managed to make a glancing or penetrating hit, that wouldn't help the IG ones with strength 3.

I'd say that normal power weapons (not Powerfists) should get +1 strength when attacking a vehicle, building on the reason given to why all melee attacks strike at the rear armour, they may hit a vital area, and since it's a power weapon, cuts through whatever little protection there is there. That would make an IG with a PW able of causing a glancing hit, and would make it easier for a S4 model to actually cause any damage.

Kevin949 wrote:I don't care about the vehicles that are rear AV10, you already addressed those. I was talking about everything else. Like the exact things I mentioned. Or those str 3 units you mentioned. how interesting.

Yeah, there are also problems with Walkers. In fact, there are big problems with Walkers in general, in that they’re highly vulnerable in the open, and in combat they’re either doomed (if the other side has a sergeant with a powerfist) but are effectively immune if there’s no powerfist.

Allowing a 6 to glance with a power weapon would is an interesting approach, it’s growing on me. It’s simpler and a wider fix to the issue than my suggestion.

Honestly, do you need to have the smug attitude about it though?

I read a smart alec tone in your posts that, when I reread, was not there. My mistake, sorry.

I guess guard are really the only ones with a problem. Eldar circumvent this issue with witchblades, which are more effecient than even a space marine power fist against vehicles.

I remember watching the DoW 2 opening awhile back, and a howling banshee gets obliterated by a dreadnaut, that makes sense, the banshee is only strength 3, and while I love my power sword ladies to death, they just lack the brute force to bring down a tank even with the enhanced cutting power of their swords.

As has been said above, the power swords don't really help my banshees wound a space marine (they still need a 5+), they just ignor his armor when they do, so why would they make a banshee any more able to force her way into a tank.

Of all the proposals out there I think +1 on the vehicle damage chart is the best. Power weapons don't have any strength modifier against infantry, so they shouldn't against vehicles, but by their nature they should cause more damage to the tank once they score the penetrating or glancing hit.

I'm not worried about how that will effect power fists on rear armor... they should still need 6s to hit... right?

sebster wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:I don't care about the vehicles that are rear AV10, you already addressed those. I was talking about everything else. Like the exact things I mentioned. Or those str 3 units you mentioned. how interesting.

Yeah, there are also problems with Walkers. In fact, there are big problems with Walkers in general, in that they’re highly vulnerable in the open, and in combat they’re either doomed (if the other side has a sergeant with a powerfist) but are effectively immune if there’s no powerfist.

Allowing a 6 to glance with a power weapon would is an interesting approach, it’s growing on me. It’s simpler and a wider fix to the issue than my suggestion.

Honestly, do you need to have the smug attitude about it though?

I read a smart alec tone in your posts that, when I reread, was not there. My mistake, sorry.

Thanks for the apology, truth be told I'm stressed out lately too and probably worded my post harshly when not meant. Sorry if it came across so.

Walkers are my biggest annoyance in cc as a necron player (obviously severely lacking power weapons except on my most expensive and vulnerable unit, and the lord).

I think

Plus 2 STR vs Vehicles. (bonus of two pips on the Pen Dice)

Gives it a nice bonus that will smoke through light armor (AV 10/11) can glance 12, and leaves 13/14 alone.

Why do powerweapons need a boost this is the point of relic blades/frost blades and their equivalent: It makes you character St 5 which is an all round buff. Power Weapons are fine as they are increase their stats and you need to increase the points. There is a reason that a powerfist is more expensive: It is designed to kill/blow things up with relative ease. A power weapon is designed to kill heavy armoured Infantry. If you think there is a comparisson compare the thickness of bosy armour plates to the armour of a main battle tank. It is big.

I like increasing the glance radius on power weapons.
Either that or "glances penetrate".

After thinking about it, I think making PW Glance on a 6 to pen (unless it's actually a pen) the same way necrons do is the best way to boost them.

Makes them a bit more useful on S3 models and not overpowering, since most S4 models have Kraks anyway.

I feel that Power Weapons shouldn't have any effect on vehicles in the game. If you need something to take down tanks, that role is best filled with a power fist.

The current way (PW/INF PF/Tank) works just fine.

jp400 wrote:I feel that Power Weapons shouldn't have any effect on vehicles in the game. If you need something to take down tanks, that role is best filled with a power fist.

The current way (PW/INF PF/Tank) works just fine.

And armies that don't have the luxury of powerfists? Or don't have any weapons that up their strength to be able to harm tanks.

Even for armies with PF, if it's a S3 PF, they are pretty useless.

Kevin949 wrote:

jp400 wrote:I feel that Power Weapons shouldn't have any effect on vehicles in the game. If you need something to take down tanks, that role is best filled with a power fist.

The current way (PW/INF PF/Tank) works just fine.

And armies that don't have the luxury of powerfists? Or don't have any weapons that up their strength to be able to harm tanks.

Armies in 40k have their own way for dealing with tanks... Every army shouldn't have the exact same options. Despite Gw's best efforts, this isn't "CookieCutterHammer 40k" yet.

I don't have a single PF in my guard army. Instead I take Anti tank weapons and I do just fine against Mech. Every army doesn't need a way to deal with vehicles in H2H.. the option would be nice, but isn't required.

jp400 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

jp400 wrote:I feel that Power Weapons shouldn't have any effect on vehicles in the game. If you need something to take down tanks, that role is best filled with a power fist.

The current way (PW/INF PF/Tank) works just fine.

And armies that don't have the luxury of powerfists? Or don't have any weapons that up their strength to be able to harm tanks.

Armies in 40k have their own way for dealing with tanks... Every army shouldn't have the exact same options. Despite Gw's best efforts, this isn't "CookieCutterHammer 40k" yet.

I don't have a single PF in my guard army. Instead I take Anti tank weapons and I do just fine against Mech. Every army doesn't need a way to deal with vehicles in H2H.. the option would be nice, but isn't required.

It's not specifically a way to deal with tanks, it's a way to give power weapons a little more flavor. Well, if the consensus was to go with power weapons glancing on a 6, everyone knows that isn't the most effective way to take out a vehicle and unless that squad is assaulting a dreadnought they are leaving themselves open to getting fired on. It would be a major tactical decision for some armies whether they want to waste their shooting in the hopes a PW or two will stun a vehicle or use a very expensive squad to assault something that probably isn't the bigger threat. Also, this would give more armies a better fighting chance against the monolith. Honestly why not try it out for a match against a friend and see how it does before shooting it down completely.