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.

The question's in the title!

I do not personally know, but from previous discussion it seems that RAW it is not a melta weapon and so would get the 2D6 Armor Penetration vs. an Achilles Land Raider or Storm Raven. Someone mentioned it might have been clarified in the old Necron FAQ which was taken down, dealing with the prior rules for the Monolith.

Thoughts?

I had a thread that touched on this issue here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/404417.page#3454361.

And I think the concensus was that since melta bombs don't have the 'melta' rule, there is no immunity to it.

That's a great thread, very thorough... thanks!

8 + 2d6 is what the BRB says is it's "AP" vs. vehicles.

Meaning to me you're not rolling an "extra" dice. What you're rolling is how it functions.

to continue from the previous discussion...

italiaplaya wrote:

The functionally is not the same. You guys are just getting caught up with the name similarity.

It's acts like a dog, it looks like a dog, it's taken for the same reasons a dog is, it's called a dog, but it's not a dog. That's the issue we've run into here.

RAW yes, it's not a melta-weapon and would get double-penetration, however, in most cases, people will simply consider it a dog, or in this case, play it as a melta-weapon, because, while the RAW may be technically correct, it's counter-intuitive and is something most people would have to have pointed out to them specifically by a clever reader, most wouldn't naturally come to the conclusion that a Meltabomb is not actually a meltaweapon.

Vaktathi wrote:to continue from the previous discussion...

italiaplaya wrote:

The functionally is not the same. You guys are just getting caught up with the name similarity.

It's acts like a dog, it looks like a dog, it's taken for the same reasons a dog is, it's called a dog, but it's not a dog. That's the issue we've run into here.

RAW yes, it's not a melta-weapon and would get double-penetration, however, in most cases, people will simply consider it a dog, or in this case, play it as a melta-weapon, because, while the RAW may be technically correct, it's counter-intuitive and is something most people would have to have pointed out to them specifically by a clever reader, most wouldn't naturally come to the conclusion that a Meltabomb is not actually a meltaweapon.

Almost as mind blowing as not being able to issue orders to the troops you share a ride with! Sorry to thread jack!

alarmingrick wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:to continue from the previous discussion...

italiaplaya wrote:

The functionally is not the same. You guys are just getting caught up with the name similarity.

It's acts like a dog, it looks like a dog, it's taken for the same reasons a dog is, it's called a dog, but it's not a dog. That's the issue we've run into here.

RAW yes, it's not a melta-weapon and would get double-penetration, however, in most cases, people will simply consider it a dog, or in this case, play it as a melta-weapon, because, while the RAW may be technically correct, it's counter-intuitive and is something most people would have to have pointed out to them specifically by a clever reader, most wouldn't naturally come to the conclusion that a Meltabomb is not actually a meltaweapon.

Almost as mind blowing as not being able to issue orders to the troops you share a ride with! Sorry to thread jack!

sort of, except there's a specific rule explicitly stating that you cannot issue orders to troops in transports, weird, but very flatly and plainly stated, whereas with meltabombs, they have the name, but instead of having the melta rule they just have a defined AP that happens to be exactly the same as that provided by the melta rules. So in all respects they function identically and are named similarly.

Actually melta bombs don't have an AP value. This isn't the same as AP - .

Now with that said I remember the other discussion and the big point was that it is not a shooting attack. In either case a melta bomb does not have the "melta" special rule. It simply does S8 plus 2d6 points of damage to a vehicle.

Akroma06 wrote:Actually melta bombs don't have an AP value. This isn't the same as AP - .

Per the BRB:
"Against vehicles, grenades have the following armor penetration

Melta Bombs 8 + 2d6"

Looks like an AP value to me?

Vaktathi wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:to continue from the previous discussion...

italiaplaya wrote:

The functionally is not the same. You guys are just getting caught up with the name similarity.

It's acts like a dog, it looks like a dog, it's taken for the same reasons a dog is, it's called a dog, but it's not a dog. That's the issue we've run into here.

RAW yes, it's not a melta-weapon and would get double-penetration, however, in most cases, people will simply consider it a dog, or in this case, play it as a melta-weapon, because, while the RAW may be technically correct, it's counter-intuitive and is something most people would have to have pointed out to them specifically by a clever reader, most wouldn't naturally come to the conclusion that a Meltabomb is not actually a meltaweapon.

Almost as mind blowing as not being able to issue orders to the troops you share a ride with! Sorry to thread jack!

sort of, except there's a specific rule explicitly stating that you cannot issue orders to troops in transports, weird, but very flatly and plainly stated, whereas with meltabombs, they have the name, but instead of having the melta rule they just have a defined AP that happens to be exactly the same as that provided by the melta rules. So in all respects they function identically and are named similarly.

But they arn't. The rule is pretty clear. Meltabombs are Str.8 plus 2D6. Meltaguns are Str.8 BUT you may get another D6 within half range. Again, they dont function the same.

2d6 as apposed to gaining an additional D6.

italiaplaya wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:to continue from the previous discussion...

italiaplaya wrote:

The functionally is not the same. You guys are just getting caught up with the name similarity.

It's acts like a dog, it looks like a dog, it's taken for the same reasons a dog is, it's called a dog, but it's not a dog. That's the issue we've run into here.

RAW yes, it's not a melta-weapon and would get double-penetration, however, in most cases, people will simply consider it a dog, or in this case, play it as a melta-weapon, because, while the RAW may be technically correct, it's counter-intuitive and is something most people would have to have pointed out to them specifically by a clever reader, most wouldn't naturally come to the conclusion that a Meltabomb is not actually a meltaweapon.

Almost as mind blowing as not being able to issue orders to the troops you share a ride with! Sorry to thread jack!

sort of, except there's a specific rule explicitly stating that you cannot issue orders to troops in transports, weird, but very flatly and plainly stated, whereas with meltabombs, they have the name, but instead of having the melta rule they just have a defined AP that happens to be exactly the same as that provided by the melta rules. So in all respects they function identically and are named similarly.

But they arn't. The rule is pretty clear. Meltabombs are Str.8 plus 2D6. Meltaguns are Str.8 BUT you may get another D6 within half range. Again, they dont function the same.

Having 2d6 as apposed to gaining an additional D6 is different.

Just so everyone is clear, i wasn't trying to link the 2 issues. Just seems like another silly thing that always pops up in the Magical world of 40k.
And i also feel the Melta bomb stays 2d6 vs. the Stormraven and ALR.

alarmingrick wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:Actually melta bombs don't have an AP value. This isn't the same as AP - .

Per the BRB:
"Against vehicles, grenades have the following armor penetration

Melta Bombs 8 + 2d6"

Looks like an AP value to me?

Not to me.
AP means Armour Piercing and relates to models with an armour save.
Armour penetration is used to compare against models with AV.

kirsanth wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:Actually melta bombs don't have an AP value. This isn't the same as AP - .

Per the BRB:
"Against vehicles, grenades have the following armor penetration

Melta Bombs 8 + 2d6"

Looks like an AP value to me?

Not to me.
AP means Armour Piercing and relates to models with an armour save.
Armour penetration is used to compare against models with AV.

oops, my bad! i had it my head Akroma06 was saying Armor penetration.
too much or not enough coffee! . I completely agree about the Armor piercing!

Akroma06 wrote:Now with that said I remember the other discussion and the big point was that it is not a shooting attack. In either case a melta bomb does not have the "melta" special rule. It simply does S8 plus 2d6 points of damage to a vehicle.

The shooting attack only matters to the Storm Raven, not the Achilles, right? So for the Achilles, the key point is that it doesn't have the "melta" special rule (your second point).

The Eldritch Lance isn't a Lance weapon, because it doesn't have the lance special rule. I Don't think there are any other Lance weapons in the game that have "Lance" in the name, but aren't lance weapons either.

Same Vein as Melta bomb, if you ask me. Shares the name, not the special rule.

italiaplaya wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:to continue from the previous discussion...

italiaplaya wrote:

The functionally is not the same. You guys are just getting caught up with the name similarity.

It's acts like a dog, it looks like a dog, it's taken for the same reasons a dog is, it's called a dog, but it's not a dog. That's the issue we've run into here.

RAW yes, it's not a melta-weapon and would get double-penetration, however, in most cases, people will simply consider it a dog, or in this case, play it as a melta-weapon, because, while the RAW may be technically correct, it's counter-intuitive and is something most people would have to have pointed out to them specifically by a clever reader, most wouldn't naturally come to the conclusion that a Meltabomb is not actually a meltaweapon.

Almost as mind blowing as not being able to issue orders to the troops you share a ride with! Sorry to thread jack!

sort of, except there's a specific rule explicitly stating that you cannot issue orders to troops in transports, weird, but very flatly and plainly stated, whereas with meltabombs, they have the name, but instead of having the melta rule they just have a defined AP that happens to be exactly the same as that provided by the melta rules. So in all respects they function identically and are named similarly.

But they arn't. The rule is pretty clear. Meltabombs are Str.8 plus 2D6. Meltaguns are Str.8 BUT you may get another D6 within half range. Again, they dont function the same.

2d6 as apposed to gaining an additional D6.

Close enough that people consider them identical, and technically, you're within 6" to use a meltabomb


It's enough of an issue that most people wouldn't naturally reach the conclusion that melta-bombs wouldn't be counted as melta-weaponry without intentionally looking for that distinction (or even have the mindset to do so which, to be honest, is limited to a small fraction of the playerbase), and that attempting to argue that a vehicle that is immune to the meltagun double penetrations somehow interacts differently with another weapon that's also called a melta weapon utilizing a similar mechanic will likely not garner much in the way of good will.

It's one of those things that yes, while strictly correct by RAW, isn't necessarily the logical conclusion one would come to consistently given a normal person's reasonable reading of the rules without having a very strict RAW interpretation mindset present that isn't in most other games or most players minds, and GAP is something that isn't widely adhered to outside of a relatively small proportion of the playerbase.

Hell, even I once knew this fact and had forgotten about it since I haven't seen it played that way in years.


It's a lot like the area terrain rules, where an area forest only gives a cover save to units behind it if they are actually between two elements of terrain (e.g. trees) as opposed to simply on the other side of it. 99% of the time people just play it as if you're on the other side, you get a cover save.

Sasori wrote:The Eldritch Lance isn't a Lance weapon, because it doesn't have the lance special rule. I Don't think there are any other Lance weapons in the game that have "Lance" in the name, but aren't lance weapons either.

Same Vein as Melta bomb, if you ask me. Shares the name, not the special rule.

Lance is a fairly generic weapon name however all things considered, Melta is not. A weapon being called a Lance wouldn't necessarily imply it has the Lance quality given that it is actually a type of weapon as well just as not all Ordnance weapons are not also Blast weapons, whereas the word Melta implies a special quality by its very nature. The Meltabomb has a non-standard armor penetration just as a Meltagun does, whereas the Eldritch Lance has no special penetration to mix up. Hence the increased confusion.

Yes RiTides, but I was referencing the other thread that was about the storm raven. Correct again it does not have the melta rule it simply has a strength of 8 and rolls 2d6 points of damage to a vehicles AV. It's a double whammy on the Storm Raven and one instance on the Achilles that lets them roll both D6. Now the old living metal rule...lets just say thats one of the two reasons I'm glad it's different now.

It's ok alarmingrick we all have an oops moment. I could have described what I meant a little better.

alarmingrick wrote:8 + 2d6 is what the BRB says is it's "AP" vs. vehicles.

Meaning to me you're not rolling an "extra" dice. What you're rolling is how it functions.

Normal Armor Penetration is Strength +1D6

anything more than 1D6 is an extra die for Penetration.

That is just how the base rules work.

DeathReaper wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:8 + 2d6 is what the BRB says is it's "AP" vs. vehicles.

Meaning to me you're not rolling an "extra" dice. What you're rolling is how it functions.

Normal Armor Penetration is Strength +1D6

anything more than 1D6 is an extra die for Penetration.

That is just how the base rules work.

No, extra to me would mean since i was with in 6", i could roll and extra dice for my melta gun.


"Normal Armor Penetration" for Melta Bombs are 2 d6, period. it's part of it's statline.

The Base rules for Armor Penetration Disagree with you Alar.

Normal penetration is Str + 1D6, anything more than 1D6, by definition would be extra.

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.

Just for a little fun about the "looks like" argument: If it looks like a dog and it sounds like a dog it isn't necessarily a dog. It could be a wolf or a coyote or it could be a dog.

DeathReaper wrote:The Base rules for Armor Penetration Disagree with you Alar.

Normal penetration is Str + 1D6, anything more than 1D6, by definition would be extra.

Thanks, Deat.

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.

Well, they are what they are, but clear isn't what I'd call them. I won't argue that in this case yes the meltabombs will still get their double-pen as RAW and in any sort of formal tournament judgement that would be the technically correct ruling, but the way most people would interpret it GAP is different, at least in my experience, and I think anywhere outside a high level tournament where there there is a RAW mindset (lets be honest here, there is a real difference between how the average person on a street would read a rule and interpret/consider it to be and how someone with a RAW mindset would, it's something that takes development/training to develop that mindset in this game and you don't see such things quite as often in many other game systems) it is likely to be contentious.

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.

If nothing else, it feels wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Just for a little fun about the "looks like" argument: If it looks like a dog and it sounds like a dog it isn't necessarily a dog. It could be a wolf or a coyote or it could be a dog.

Which are all subsets of Canids (sharing much the same behaviors, diets, breeding abilities, etc), in effect, they'd all be subsets of "melta" weapons.

Which are all subsets of Canids (sharing much the same behaviors, diets, breeding abilities, etc), in effect, they'd all be subsets of "melta" weapons.

Reminds me of the old Kingdom, phila, class, family, group, species breakdowns.

If you go back high enough, everything can be a weapon

On the flip side, for modern equivilents, when people see Mushroom cloud, we sorta think "Oh GAWD it's a nuke!"

Several pieces of military hardware can make substantial sized mushroom cloud like explosions which all function VERY differently and can be easily confused by some poorly trained PDF or munitorium adept (who probably named the equipment)

Using modern day military equipment as an analogy, You got the MOAB - "mother of all bombs!" (rather Massive Ordinance Air Blast bomb) - purely conventional explosive bomb just very very large but people honestly thought it was a nuke and some reported it as such when it was used in the recent wars.

Fission bomb - a la Hiroshima and Nagasaki (nuclear fission of splitting a heavy atomic substance into smaller components) (also most likely to be used in some sort of "dirty bomb")

Fusion bomb - never used in war so far but order of magnitude stronger than the fission bombs but can still be called a "nuke" since it does change things at the atomic level by combining lighter elements into a heavier element. Also called H-bomb. Similar but obviously different process than the above "nuke."

Neutron bomb - much less boom and small cloud but kills people via massive nuclear radiation damage. Would leave buildings and infrastructure intact but kill all the people

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also there is real world evidence that different effects happen at different ranges. A conventional stick of TNT will barely scratch tank armor when it explodes either on it or close to it. Mold the same stick into a cone and line it with some cheap copper sheet, now it becomes a shaped charge however, and now it can penetrate the armor.

But wait, shaped charges only work at certain distances, you have the round explode too far and it doesn't penetrate well at all. (which is why you see wierd things like chains and wire fences around tanks and tank turrets). Works best when it's nearly directly on top of the armor.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can probably expand this out to the melta bomb which may have very different internals to begin with but just so happen to be named by soldiers since it "melts tanks"

or that the effect was the same but just very different effects if can be attached vs fired at an object like how shaped charges work.

Edited for speeeeeling errorsz

But they don't work the same.

A Melta gun is fired at a tank and gets more dice at close range.

A Melta bomb is placed carefully by the operator and is always at the same range: zero.


On the other hand they probably use the same mechanism and ferromantic immunity as it is described would probably work on meltabombs but it isn't written that way.

Meh.

DeathReaper wrote:The Base rules for Armor Penetration Disagree with you Alar.

Normal penetration is Str + 1D6, anything more than 1D6, by definition would be extra.

I disagree. There are two different definitions going on here. One is that Armour Penetration is a constant Str. + 1D6, no matter what the circumstance. Anything added to that is 'extra'. While I would normally agree with this, if you look at the actual rules for Armour Penetration, it says:

"Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapon's strength to it, comparing the total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle."

So what strength is a grenade? If I am to follow the Armour Penetration guidelines to the letter (as you're suggesting) and the 2D6 is actually the normal D6 + the extra D6, then where is the Strength value of the weapon?

The answer is there is none. The grenades don't have "strength" value. They have a fixed Armour Penetration value. That fixed Armour Penetration value for a meltabomb is 8+2D6. 8 + 1D6 is not the meltabomb's normal AP and 1D6 is added to it.

Armour Penetration for a meltabomb = (8 + 2D6), not (8+1D6) + 1D6.

You've been saying that 'normal' Armour Penetration is Str. + 1D6, but there is no such thing as "normal armour penetration". That is something that you made up. But even if there were, Grenades have their very own section detailing how they penetrate armour, so I would hardly call those "normal". There is a section labeled 'Armour Penetration' that tells you how to figure out if your ranged weapon defeated the armour of a particular facing, but there is no definition for "armour penetration". Armour Penetration is defined by how the armour itself is penetrated, not by an equation. It is a means to a result, not a steadfast definition. If you were to say, "Armour Penetration is normally a result of Str. + 1D6." then you'd be correct. But this is not a 'normal' situation. This is a situation for a weapon that needs specific rules to tell you how to penetrate armour with it.

Page 60 Armor Penetration tells us what is the 'normal' Armour Penetration. Roll a D6 and Add the weapons Strength to it.

It is not something I made up, unless you did not read P.60, then it appears as if I have made that up.

P.60 has the normal rule for Armor Pen.

They have a Str value.

For a Melta bomb the Str is 8

For a Krak grenade the Str is 6.

That is how every weapon is listed, Str + 1D6

So 8+2D6 = Strength 8 with an additional Die for Armor Pen.

It is really that simple if you understand how Armor Pen works.

DeathReaper wrote:Page 60 Armor Penetration tells us what is the 'normal' Armour Penetration. Roll a D6 and Add the weapons Strength to it.

It is not something I made up, unless you did not read P.60, then it appears as if I have made that up.

P.60 has the normal rule for Armor Pen.

They have a Str value.

For a Melta bomb the Str is 8

For a Krak grenade the Str is 6.

That is how every weapon is listed, Str + 1D6

So 8+2D6 = Strength 8 with an additional Die for Armor Pen.

It is really that simple if you understand how Armor Pen works.

Right. But a melta bomb isn't a shooting attack.

DeathReaper wrote:*snip*

Actually, it never says that the grenade's strength is 8. It says that the Armour Penetration is 8 + 2D6. It never even mentions the strength of the grenade. You can infer (with probable cause) that the grenade's strength is 8, but grenades don't have strength values. You seem to think that Armour Penetration is always Str. + 1D6. I am trying to explain how others see it, in that "Armour Penetration" is not a set equation (Str. + 1D6), but instead a defintion of how a weapon penetrates an armour facing. Normally, weapons have an armour penetration of Str. + 1D6. In some abnormal cases, a weapon may have an armour penetration of Str. + 1D6, +1D6 (chainfists, monstrous creatures). In the case of meltabombs, the armour penetration is (8+2D6), not Str.8 + 1D6, +1D6. There is no 'extra' die, because this is not a 'normal' case of armour penetration.

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.