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.

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

-BUZZ- Wrong!

Power weapons make it easier to push through armor, they don't do the work itself. But the pure fact of the matter is Power Weapons have not done any additional damage to vehicles since essentially for as long as 40k has been around (in it's current form). So if GW thought Power Weapons made super duper quick work of vehicle armor, which is much thicker than infantry armor, then they would have suggested as much at some point long ago. But they didn't! The fluff doesn't support it either, so why would they because a bunch of angry Space Marine ninnies want it? Well they very well might since Space Marines are the flag-ship army. But AP1 Power Weapons would only benefit Space Marines really... so I shall stay with "no."

Or, well make Power Weapons +5-10pts more than they currently are. I mean, you are getting a whole new set of possibilities. Also, make tanks 20% cheaper, because this will only make them less effective.

Skinnattittar wrote:Power weapons make it easier to push through armor, they don't do the work itself. But the pure fact of the matter is Power Weapons have not done any additional damage to vehicles since essentially for as long as 40k has been around (in it's current form). So if GW thought Power Weapons made super duper quick work of vehicle armor, which is much thicker than infantry armor, then they would have suggested as much at some point long ago. But they didn't! The fluff doesn't support it either, so why would they because a bunch of angry Space Marine ninnies want it? Well they very well might since Space Marines are the flag-ship army. But AP1 Power Weapons would only benefit Space Marines really... so I shall stay with "no."

Or, well make Power Weapons +5-10pts more than they currently are. I mean, you are getting a whole new set of possibilities. Also, make tanks 20% cheaper, because this will only make them less effective.

It's not like giving PWs AP1 would be a large boost at all. No points costs would need to change. All it means is that out of all the punches, one of them would be marginally better. In fact, it would probably still be worse than a krak grenade. There would be no imbalance.

ph34r wrote:It's not like giving PWs AP1 would be a large boost at all. No points costs would need to change. All it means is that out of all the punches, one of them would be marginally better. In fact, it would probably still be worse than a krak grenade. There would be no imbalance.

I have to disagree greatly. Before, the best result a Space Marine could get is Immobilized or Weapon Destroyed. With AP1 they can Wreck the vehicle and more likely get Immobilized and Weapon Destroyed results. They would be -1 below a full pen!

Skinnattittar wrote: I have to disagree greatly. Before, the best result a Space Marine could get is Immobilized or Weapon Destroyed. With AP1 they can Wreck the vehicle and more likely get Immobilized and Weapon Destroyed results. They would be -1 below a full pen!

I would rebut the previous point, but many of my arguments are already stated and redundancy is a petpeeve of mine.

If you are having all of your tanks constantly getting melee'd by things with powerweapons then perhaps it's not the game that would be broken... but your playstyle.

Giving PWs AP1 would not be gamebreaking/changing, it would just incourage people to NOT let their tanks get melee'd as often (which I believe is not the worst of outcomes...)

Conversely, if powerweapons were giving +1 on the table for AP1 and non-powerweapons received -1 for being AP- this would be a gamechanging sideeffect that would greatly increase the potential of most vehicles vs Melee combat, as a overwhelming majority of MEQ attacks would be suffering the -1 as opposed to the one or so models who would benefit from the +1, meaning that in a 10 man squad, 27 attacks would get -1 on the table wherein 3 would get +1...

That aside, more on the point of WHY a powerweapon SHOULD get the AP1 again falls under the general understanding on how powerweapons work.

If you believe they are melting the armor (or at least superheating it) to make it easier to strike through, they you would have to admit that the same technology would infact have a stronger impact on non-armored metals (say, the navigation system of a rhino, or the fuel intake of a Leman Russ, which according to fluff will run on any combustable substance) even if just coming into near contact (which a penetrating hit, and even glancing hit for the most part would allow the weapon to do) with the system. (Thus the +1).

If you believe they use powerfields or something of the similar orgin, then again the same philosophy as above would apply, as if you were infact weakening the armor of the vehicles internal systems then just standard operation of said vehicle would most likely end up in the complete breakdown of all vital components. As a piston slamming against a weakend frame would most like tear the engine apart from the inside so should a weapon get a +1 on the Vehicle table (meaning 2/3 chance you will at least immobilize most vehicles with a penetrating hit of this fashion)

Using the two examples givin..

A rhino would mostcertainly be more effected by a powerweapon then that of a normal weapon, especailly when the reasoning above is applied, picture hitting the tread at the treadpoints, the powerweapons heat/energy field (depending on your definition of "powerweapon") would most certainly be more likely to dislodge such machinery then that of a pistol butt...

Now for the Ork Truck, there are two sides of this coin...

On one side, if the orks were in a world in which they followed normal laws of physics and machinery, then the powerweapon would most CERTAINLY be more damaging to their vehicles, as they are composed almost entirely of sheets of metal-plating that would be strongly vulnerable to such technology. Unfortunately (or comically, depending on your point of view) we should all know that the Psychic nature of the Ork race is such that it machineries construction is as much a mystery as the very weapons they fire from their hips, and as such it would be right to assume that no level of technology is composed in such a way to deal with this ever-changing variable of Orkiness that is how their vehicles operate. (As such, I would love to see orks with their own Vehicle table... aww hell, I would love to see orks with their own BGB, they are quite the interesting race.)

But that's just one Archon's out look on it all...

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:If you are having all of your tanks constantly getting melee'd by things with powerweapons then perhaps it's not the game that would be broken... but your playstyle.

Giving PWs AP1 would not be gamebreaking/changing, it would just incourage people to NOT let their tanks get melee'd as often (which I believe is not the worst of outcomes...)

This is a straw man argument if I ever saw one.

In 40k, tanks get assaulted more than occasionally. With the sheer volume of Outflanking, Deep Striking, Drop Podding, Fast Moving, etc... units, it is inevitable. Another point being that PW AP1 means tanks have to be even MORE cautious, nerfing them slightly! Is it game changing? No, probably not, but it does need to be considered. Why buy frag or krak grenades if buying a PW will do for my purposes of anti-armor AND let me cut up regular infantry more easily?

Simply accusing the "victim" is not only bad form, in this case it is stupid. We're not taking about a simple task keeping enemy units away from Armor, considering how extremely easy it is for them to get there these days.

But that's avoiding the fluff issue.... the fact of the matter is, PW have never been described as being AP1 (or AP2 for that matter, but that is effectively what they are) or able to cut up tanks like so much soft cheese. Never in modern 40k History have PW even recieved any sort of bonus against vehicles or modification of strength (I am going to discount Rogue Trader and 2nd Edition, as they were completely different animals to the current edition, and were written in 1993, before many players these days were even born!). So what fluff support does AP1 PW have? "They are sometimes described as cutting easily through armor." Well that is a weak point, to say the least, and there is also a lot of fluff that shows that a Power Weapon does not simply phase through armor with little effort, point being that you still use the model's Strength to determine Wounds and Penetration, rather than a set Strength. So maybe PW have an easier time getting through, but it is still very dependent on the user, or they don't have an easy enough time to warrant +1 on the VDC, like they haven't had in at least twelve years (maybe longer, I don't remember what they did explicitly in 1993 or 1987).

perhaps the meat of it is that while a power weapon would cause more damage to a vehicle then a chainsword there is no good way of representing it in the present game mechanics and should therefore be dropped

Skinnattittar wrote:

In 40k, tanks get assaulted more than occasionally. With the sheer volume of Outflanking, Deep Striking, Drop Podding, Fast Moving, etc... units, it is inevitable. Another point being that PW AP1 means tanks have to be even MORE cautious, nerfing them slightly! Is it game changing? No, probably not, but it does need to be considered. Why buy frag or krak grenades if buying a PW will do for my purposes of anti-armor AND let me cut up regular infantry more easily?

Skinnattittar wrote:This is a straw man argument if I ever saw one.

First off, name 5 units that need to BUY Frag/Krak...

Secondly, no it is not inevitable...

For Deepstriking and Drop Podding units:

They cannot assault you on the turn they drop, assuming they drop within 1 inch of your tank (wow thats lucky...) you can still move 12 inches away from them per turn, thus rendering you unassaultable unless the unit has fleet (in which case, they probably cannot take powerweapons, as I don't know any deepstriking models with Fleet and Powerweapons outside of an Archon and some Chaos Daemons/Nid Monsters)

For outflanking units:

Pretty much same as above with the execption of more of a pool of things that MAY be able to assault you with powerweapons, but once again, they are few. And while an outflanking unit is able to assault the turn it comes in, this is assuming that #1; they successfully rolled for their board edge and #2 you happened to be <12inches away from said board edge with the unit in question. Again, this is a tactical user error. If you know your enemy can out flank you, properly deploy and move to deal with the situation.

For "Fast Moving" units:

Well this depends on if by "fast moving" you mean models with Fleet, Beasts/Calvary, Jumppacks/bikes, or Fast Vehicles.

If Fast Vehicles, then very similar to deepstrike where the models will most likely not be able to assault you after disembarking, very few vehicles as transports actually allow this, let alone fast vehicles, and there is only 1 instance of a fast vehicle moving flat out that can disembark and that is a Valk/Vendetta, in which case you still have the "Deep Strike" USR preventing assaults not to mention the fact that they are Str 3 anyway...

If You mean actual model speed (fleet, Beasts, Jumppacks etc) then again this comes to tactics. Fast things are getting typically 18inch potential assaults, with the best being 24 inches (example, archon on skyboard with drugs, according to FAQ this works) If you are so concerned with being assaulted by models of this type, kill them BEFORE they get to you, most armies (if not all) will only get 3-6 of these units anyway, and with the fact they are typically high in point cost, they are probably not the bulk of your enemies force, so this should not be too much of an issue.

It is not "Extremely easy" to get into melee with armor these days, I have played(or played with) such armies as Tau, IG, SMs, SWs, CSM, CD, Orks, Necrons, DE, Eldar and even Nids and only the Nids had a "somewhat easy" job of meleeing armor... hell when I play my CSM I have yet to have my armor get punched by ANYTHING (Barring my Defilers, but the are supposed to be melee last time I checked) if anything, its MUCH harder now then it was back when you could Sweeping Advance into another Melee (which, the omission of this ability in 5th REALLY hurt my old DE tactica). So, I would really appreciate some solid examples of consistant "extremely easy" armor assault situations (And starting with "My friends Trigon drifted right next to my chimera!" doesn't really count...) amongst the many diverse armies in 40k to backup alot of your claims...

It seems to me that your defense is more centered on improbably "what if"s instead of counterdata against the claims that justify the AP1 argument, with the exception being "They never were before" which, lets be honest, if the case was that PWs were AP1 in the past, they would most likely remain the same to this day, and thus the discussion would be irrelavant.

It would also be very much appreciated if you would be so kind as to address the other 91% of my previous post (you only took 58 words out of 607) if you are going to completely invalidate my points... (unless you are saying the other points of the arguement are justified and valid and only the "Playstyle" point was a "straw man arguement"

----- EDIT -----

Grey Templar wrote:perhaps the meat of it is that while a power weapon would cause more damage to a vehicle then a chainsword there is no good way of representing it in the present game mechanics and should therefore be dropped

no

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:First off, name 5 units that need to BUY Frag/Krak...

I can do better than that:

Chaos Dæmons:
Herald of Nurgle (Frag and Defensive)

Dæmonhunters:
Inquisitor Lords (Frag and Krak)
Grey Knights Heros (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitors (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitorial Stormtroopers (Krak)

Dark Eldar:
Archon (Plasma and Haywire)
Archite (Plasma and Haywire)
Dracon (Plasma and Haywire)
Drachite (Plasma and Haywire)
Hæmonculi (Plasma and Haywire)
Wyches (Plasma and Haywire)
Sybarites (Plasma and Haywire)

Imperial Guard:
CCS (Krak)
Heavy Weapons Squads (Krak)

Orks:
Nobs (Stikkbombs)
'Ard Boyz (Stikkbombs)
Boyz (Stikkbombs)

Black Templars:
Castellans (Frag and Krak)
Marshals (Frag and Krak)
Reclusiarch (Frag and Krak)
Master of Sanctity (Frag and Krak)
Techmarine (Frag and Krak)
Sword Brethren (Frag and Krak)
Crusader Squads (Frag and Krak)

T'au Empire:
Ethereal (EMP)
Fire Warrior (EMP and Photon)
Pathfinders (EMP and Photon)

Witch Hunters:
Inquisitor Lord (Frag and Krak)
Canoness (Frag and Krak)
Palatine (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitor (Frag and Krak)
Celestians (Frag and Krak)
Battle Sisters (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitorial Stormtroopers (Krak)
Adeptus Arbites (Krak)
Dominions (Frag and Krak)
Retributors (Frag and Krak)

Gwar! wrote:I can do better than that:

Chaos Dæmons:
Herald of Nurgle (Frag and Defensive) Has nothing to do with AP1 argument

Dæmonhunters:
Inquisitor Lords (Frag and Krak)
Grey Knights Heros (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitors (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitorial Stormtroopers (Krak) Cannot take powerweapons

Dark Eldar:
Archon (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag
Archite (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag
Dracon (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag
Drachite (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag
Hæmonculi (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag
Wyches (Plasma and Haywire ) function very differently then Frag Cannot take powerweapons
Sybarites (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag

Imperial Guard:
CCS (Krak)
Heavy Weapons Squads (Krak) Cannot take powerweapons

Orks:
Nobs (Stikkbombs)
'Ard Boyz (Stikkbombs)
Boyz (Stikkbombs) Cannot take powerweapons

Black Templars:
Castellans (Frag and Krak)
Marshals (Frag and Krak)
Reclusiarch (Frag and Krak)
Master of Sanctity (Frag and Krak)
Techmarine (Frag and Krak)
Sword Brethren (Frag and Krak)
Crusader Squads (Frag and Krak)

T'au Empire:
Ethereal (EMP) function very differently then Frag Cannot take powerweapons
Fire Warrior (EMP and Photon) function very differently then Frag Cannot take powerweapons
Pathfinders (EMP and Photon) function very differently then Frag Cannot take powerweapons

Witch Hunters:
Inquisitor Lord (Frag and Krak)
Canoness (Frag and Krak)
Palatine (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitor (Frag and Krak)
Celestians (Frag and Krak)
Battle Sisters (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitorial Stormtroopers (Krak) Cannot take powerweapons
Adeptus Arbites (Krak)
Dominions (Frag and Krak)
Retributors (Frag and Krak)

not to mention a majority of these selections are Str 3, and as such will be using the Krak instead of the powerweapon anyway (as Str 3 does not even glance av10). Powerfists are another story. Either way, Frag grenades would be useful even if Powerweapons got +4 on vehicle as Frag grenades have nothing to do with Vehicle armor (they let you strike at normal init when charging thru cover) Defensive grenades remove the extra attack from charging, only krak would take a hit and even then, only a SLIGHT one, if both the AP1 and AP- changes were taken, the reason for buying these special grenades would be for the other 9(or whatever number you may be bringing) members of the squad who DON'T have powerweapon attacks.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I can do better than that:

Chaos Dæmons:
Herald of Nurgle (Frag and Defensive) Has nothing to do with AP1 argument

Dæmonhunters:
Inquisitor Lords (Frag and Krak)
Grey Knights Heros (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitors (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitorial Stormtroopers (Krak) Cannot take powerweapons

Dark Eldar:
Archon (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag
Archite (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag
Dracon (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag
Drachite (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag
Hæmonculi (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag
Wyches (Plasma and Haywire ) function very differently then Frag Cannot take powerweapons
Sybarites (Plasma and Haywire) function very differently then Frag

Imperial Guard:
CCS (Krak)
Heavy Weapons Squads (Krak) Cannot take powerweapons

Orks:
Nobs (Stikkbombs)
'Ard Boyz (Stikkbombs)
Boyz (Stikkbombs) Cannot take powerweapons

Black Templars:
Castellans (Frag and Krak)
Marshals (Frag and Krak)
Reclusiarch (Frag and Krak)
Master of Sanctity (Frag and Krak)
Techmarine (Frag and Krak)
Sword Brethren (Frag and Krak)
Crusader Squads (Frag and Krak)

T'au Empire:
Ethereal (EMP) function very differently then Frag Cannot take powerweapons
Fire Warrior (EMP and Photon) function very differently then Frag Cannot take powerweapons
Pathfinders (EMP and Photon) function very differently then Frag Cannot take powerweapons

Witch Hunters:
Inquisitor Lord (Frag and Krak)
Canoness (Frag and Krak)
Palatine (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitor (Frag and Krak)
Celestians (Frag and Krak)
Battle Sisters (Frag and Krak)
Inquisitorial Stormtroopers (Krak) Cannot take powerweapons
Adeptus Arbites (Krak)
Dominions (Frag and Krak)
Retributors (Frag and Krak)

not to mention a majority of these selections are Str 3, and as such will be using the Krak instead of the powerweapon anyway (as Str 3 does not even glance av10). Powerfists are another story. Either way, Frag grenades would be useful even if Powerweapons got +4 on vehicle as Frag grenades have nothing to do with Vehicle armor (they let you strike at normal init when charging thru cover) Defensive grenades remove the extra attack from charging, only krak would take a hit and even then, only a SLIGHT one, if both the AP1 and AP- changes were taken, the reason for buying these special grenades would be for the other 9(or whatever number you may be bringing) members of the squad who DON'T have powerweapon attacks.

Sorry, but you are completely wrong. First of all, Plasma Grenades are EXACTLY the same as Frags, in every way. Secondly, Frag Grenades can be used against vehicles for a S4 hit, similar to a Krak Grenade, and have done since 4th edition. Defensive Grenades can also be used this way (though IIRC this is a 5th edition change).

I humbly request you get your facts together before making any more incorrect claims.

Gwar! wrote:
Sorry, but you are completely wrong. First of all, Plasma Grenades are EXACTLY the same as Frags, in every way. Secondly, Frag Grenades can be used against vehicles for a S4 hit, similar to a Krak Grenade, and have done since 4th edition.

I did mistype, what I meant to say was "Function very different then KRAK" in reference to Haywire grenades etc.

Very busy day at work today.

As far as Frag giving s4 attack, why would you ever use Frag if you had Krak (str6)?

Also if Frag give Str4 hits on vehicles and Plasma are specific to the Assaulting through cover rule then wouldn't plasma grendades and frag grenades not be "EXACTLY" the same thing?

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Also if Frag give Str4 hits on vehicles and Plasma are specific to the Assaulting through cover rule then wouldn't plasma grendades and frag grenades not be "EXACTLY" the same thing?

I Admit a mistype. I was supposed to say "Assault Grenades" allow you to attack vehicles at S4.

Gwar! wrote:First of all, Plasma Grenades are EXACTLY the same as Frags, in every way. Secondly, Frag Grenades can be used against vehicles for a S4 hit, similar to a Krak Grenade, and have done since 4th edition. Defensive Grenades can also be used this way (though IIRC this is a 5th edition change).

I humbly request you get your facts together before making any more incorrect claims.

Actually, plasma grenades were strength 5 in Fourth Edition. Defensive grenades (Photon), were strength 4 versus vehicles.

I humbly request you get your facts together before making any more incorrect claims.

Defiler wrote:

Gwar! wrote:First of all, Plasma Grenades are EXACTLY the same as Frags, in every way. Secondly, Frag Grenades can be used against vehicles for a S4 hit, similar to a Krak Grenade, and have done since 4th edition. Defensive Grenades can also be used this way (though IIRC this is a 5th edition change).

I humbly request you get your facts together before making any more incorrect claims.

Actually, plasma grenades were strength 5 in Fourth Edition. Defensive grenades (Photon), were strength 4 versus vehicles.

I humbly request you get your facts together before making any more incorrect claims.

In a rare defense of me for Gwar!, I would say he was talking about Plasma Grenades in THE CURRENT edition, and then Frag Grenades being used in a similar way as Krak Grenades during 4th Edition (in 3rd, Frag Grenades could not be used against vehicles as they are now).

Defiler wrote:

Gwar! wrote:First of all, Plasma Grenades are EXACTLY the same as Frags, in every way. Secondly, Frag Grenades can be used against vehicles for a S4 hit, similar to a Krak Grenade, and have done since 4th edition. Defensive Grenades can also be used this way (though IIRC this is a 5th edition change).

I humbly request you get your facts together before making any more incorrect claims.

Actually, plasma grenades were strength 5 in Fourth Edition. Defensive grenades (Photon), were strength 4 versus vehicles.

I humbly request you get your facts together before making any more incorrect claims.

Errm, considering I was talking about Plasma Grenades in 5th edition, it would in fact be YOU who is incorrect.

For purposes of game mechanics, I think will will remind people how vehicles work compared to regular (infantry) armor in an assault:

Infantry:
The Roll to Hit -- The Roll to Wound -- Armor Save (from 6+ to 2+ or 2++ to 6++)

Armor:
The Roll to Hit (sometimes) -- The Roll to Penetrate (often with massive Strength Modifiers against the vehicles weakest AV) -- Armo.... wait a minute! Vehicles don't get an armor save! Or an Invulnerable Save!

Well, looking at that, vehicles seem to have a major disadvantage. If we are to make fluff insinuation about Vehicle Armor and Infantry Armor, it would seem Vehicles have no armor at all.... since they don't get any form of armor save.... huh.... that still doesn't say that PW should get AP1, or +1 to Pen. But if it is any consolation, the vehicle still doesn't get its Armor Save.

Vehicles get assaulted, some of them have to get really close to the enemy and potentially assaulted (transports, assault vehicles like the Hellhound, etc...). Other vehicles have to get really close to the enemy to attack (the Punisher for instance has only a 24" range on their main cannon). So to avoid assaults, they have to always be backing up their maximum distance (staying between 12" and 30" from the enemy, as some units have ridiculous assault ranges), which means they will never fire.... or I have to spend a ton of points crowding units around my vehicles, which is sort of a waste, and it still doesn't actually protect them from a good assaulter, remembering you can't shoot through assaults, which would still make them useless....

Skinnattittar wrote:Or an Invulnerable Save!

Bjorn Does! Shame it doesn't work though

Gwar! wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:Or an Invulnerable Save!

Bjorn Does! Shame it doesn't work though

Fine. With a single exception that I JUST learned of from an obscure, if oddly popular among Furry Fans, Codex that has recently been revived and I have not bothered reading yet.

Gwar! wrote:

Defiler wrote:

Gwar! wrote:First of all, Plasma Grenades are EXACTLY the same as Frags, in every way. Secondly, Frag Grenades can be used against vehicles for a S4 hit, similar to a Krak Grenade, and have done since 4th edition. Defensive Grenades can also be used this way (though IIRC this is a 5th edition change).

I humbly request you get your facts together before making any more incorrect claims.

Actually, plasma grenades were strength 5 in Fourth Edition. Defensive grenades (Photon), were strength 4 versus vehicles.

I humbly request you get your facts together before making any more incorrect claims.

Errm, considering I was talking about Plasma Grenades in 5th edition, it would in fact be YOU who is incorrect.

You stated plasma grenades are identical to frag grenades, and then said that frags have been same the same since 4th edition - implying so have plasma grenades.

Defiler wrote:You stated plasma grenades are identical to frag grenades, and then said that frags have been same the same since 4th edition - implying so have plasma grenades.

No, I was implying that Plasma are Identical to Frags in 5th (which they are) and that FRAG grenades (aka Not Plasma Grenades) have been S4 vs vehicles since 4th edition.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

For "Fast Moving" units:

Well this depends on if by "fast moving" you mean models with Fleet, Beasts/Calvary, Jumppacks/bikes, or Fast Vehicles.

If Fast Vehicles, then very similar to deepstrike where the models will most likely not be able to assault you after disembarking, very few vehicles as transports actually allow this, let alone fast vehicles, and there is only 1 instance of a fast vehicle moving flat out that can disembark and that is a Valk/Vendetta, in which case you still have the "Deep Strike" USR preventing assaults not to mention the fact that they are Str 3 anyway...

If You mean actual model speed (fleet, Beasts, Jumppacks etc) then again this comes to tactics. Fast things are getting typically 18inch potential assaults, with the best being 24 inches (example, archon on skyboard with drugs, according to FAQ this works) If you are so concerned with being assaulted by models of this type, kill them BEFORE they get to you, most armies (if not all) will only get 3-6 of these units anyway, and with the fact they are typically high in point cost, they are probably not the bulk of your enemies force, so this should not be too much of an issue.

It is not "Extremely easy" to get into melee with armor these days, I have played(or played with) such armies as Tau, IG, SMs, SWs, CSM, CD, Orks, Necrons, DE, Eldar and even Nids and only the Nids had a "somewhat easy" job of meleeing armor... hell when I play my CSM I have yet to have my armor get punched by ANYTHING (Barring my Defilers, but the are supposed to be melee last time I checked) if anything, its MUCH harder now then it was back when you could Sweeping Advance into another Melee (which, the omission of this ability in 5th REALLY hurt my old DE tactica). So, I would really appreciate some solid examples of consistant "extremely easy" armor assault situations (And starting with "My friends Trigon drifted right next to my chimera!" doesn't really count...) amongst the many diverse armies in 40k to backup alot of your claims...

Guh, what?

As an Ork player, let me tell you, YES, it IS in fact extremely easy to get into assault with vehicles. Let's go over some options!

1. Something, anything, in a Trukk. With Ghazghkull in the army, you have an assault range of 13" move + 2" disembark + 6" Waagh! + 6" Charge = 27". You can take a maximum of 9 such units, of which 3-5 are Nobz mobs including several PKs, which tear vehicles to bits. All of the units include at least one PK.

2. Snikrot and a Kommando mob. You get to pick where you come in, you get a 6" move, a 6" Waagh! (with Ghazghkull), and a 6" assault, giving you a maximum charge range of 18", and a minimum of 13" if you don't have Ghazzy, in which range you can inflict a gak-ton of S4 hits and 6 S6 attacks which re-roll misses. Good luck keeping all your tanks 18" away from any board edge. . .

Anecdote; against mech Space Wolves, Snikrot routinely comes in on the back edge and tears things up for a couple of turns. In one game recently he broke open the transports of both of my opponents Long Fang squads, as well as killing various miscellaneous infantry and generally raising Cain.

3. Nobz or MANZ in Battlewagons. Same assault range as the Trukk, and I can also stick a Deff Rolla on it for even more vehicle-crushing fun. Plus in this case the mob that just leapt forward 27" to kick you in the teeth is dropping anywhere from 4-40 S9 attacks on you, which will eat most vehicles for breakfast.

Anecdote; in a recent game against mech IG, a squad of MANZ destroyed a Valkyrie (and contents), a Chimera (and the command squad inside), and a Hydra in melee. This despite the BW they were riding being immobilized turn 2.

4. Regular bog-standard footslogger mobs. They're not fast, but good luck avoiding them. A Green Tide if fully capable of getting into melee with your tanks, quite possibly on turn 2, simply by denying you the ability to go anywhere. 6 30-strong mobs puts a literal wall of models across the entirety of a standard-size table.


While I can't speak for other armies, Orks have absolutely no problem getting into melee with vehicles, or killing them once they've gotten there.

Hi all.
Having read through several posts , I would like to pass comment.
40k is NOT an acurate simulation of any sort of known warfare.
It is an abstract game ,where loads of cool concepts are mixed together to result in a fun game for ages 11 and up.

As the game play is based purley on subjective narative.NO changes should be made based purley on the narrative, WITHOUT serious concideration,(plenty of playtesting ,) to the determine the ALL the resulting changes in game play.

The fact the 40k dev team have changed so little in the rules set over the last decade is evidence of the extreem care they take.(Because of the holistic and unstable nature of the 40k rules.)

And if GW devs wanted powerweapons to be effective vs all targets , I am sure they would have done something before now.

Discussing the abilities of not yet understood technology on unquantified armour types is a bit pointless.IMO.

(IF 40k was simulating a known type of warfare , then we could map weapon effects on armour types to real world analoges and be confident in any changes, WITHOUT having to rely on extensive playtesting to validate decisions.)

TTFN
Lanrak.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
Guh, what?

As an Ork player, let me tell you, YES, it IS in fact extremely easy to get into assault with vehicles. Let's go over some options!

1. Something, anything, in a Trukk. With Ghazghkull in the army, you have an assault range of 13" move + 2" disembark + 6" Waagh! + 6" Charge = 27". You can take a maximum of 9 such units, of which 3-5 are Nobz mobs including several PKs, which tear vehicles to bits. All of the units include at least one PK.

Would the AP1 really matter for the vehicle at that point?

BeRzErKeR wrote:
2. Snikrot and a Kommando mob. You get to pick where you come in, you get a 6" move, a 6" Waagh! (with Ghazghkull), and a 6" assault, giving you a maximum charge range of 18", and a minimum of 13" if you don't have Ghazzy, in which range you can inflict a gak-ton of S4 hits and 6 S6 attacks which re-roll misses. Good luck keeping all your tanks 18" away from any board edge. . .

Anecdote; against mech Space Wolves, Snikrot routinely comes in on the back edge and tears things up for a couple of turns. In one game recently he broke open the transports of both of my opponents Long Fang squads, as well as killing various miscellaneous infantry and generally raising Cain.

Those have powerweapons? Also, it is kinda easy to be "18 inches" away from the board edge on (min)turn 2. The fact that your opponent still had longfangs in transports on turn 2 (min) leads me to believe there is a bit of Tin-foil-hattage going on here...

BeRzErKeR wrote:
3. Nobz or MANZ in Battlewagons. Same assault range as the Trukk, and I can also stick a Deff Rolla on it for even more vehicle-crushing fun. Plus in this case the mob that just leapt forward 27" to kick you in the teeth is dropping anywhere from 4-40 S9 attacks on you, which will eat most vehicles for breakfast.

Anecdote; in a recent game against mech IG, a squad of MANZ destroyed a Valkyrie (and contents), a Chimera (and the command squad inside), and a Hydra in melee. This despite the BW they were riding being immobilized turn 2.

Again, with 40Str 9 attacks, much like the first example, the AP1 would not really change the outcome of this scenario for the vehicle in question.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
4. Regular bog-standard footslogger mobs. They're not fast, but good luck avoiding them. A Green Tide if fully capable of getting into melee with your tanks, quite possibly on turn 2, simply by denying you the ability to go anywhere. 6 30-strong mobs puts a literal wall of models across the entirety of a standard-size table.

Thats why 40k has this concept of deployment zones. That 180man boyz mob starts really dwindleing when you start dropping battle cannons left and right. Also, 174 of those boys wont have powerweapons...

BeRzErKeR wrote:
While I can't speak for other armies, Orks have absolutely no problem getting into melee with vehicles, or killing them once they've gotten there.

And in the examples you gave, it really wouldnt matter if AP1 for the powerweapons or not because as you already stated, that vehicle is dead anyway. That being said, it isnt nearly as easy as you say... the 2 of the examples require a special character to function, one of them is costing you all of your points in a standard 1500 (assuming you take the nobs etc), and the other relys on alot of "perfection". Now, I've seen similar lucky situations with my Dark Eldar, hell I remember chain punching the hell out of some tanks with my Archon under the old SA rules... even still all the mech armies in my circle wouldn't say that melee is "over powered" because in all honesty, that would be like Rock calling Paper overpowered... Melee is a great way to kill vehicles (outside of melta) and giving AP1 to powerweapons would just mean for less mundane melta lists and more tactics for avoiding melee combat if you are a Leman Russ Commander. But by no means is the game currently (nor would it become as such with the change) a game that allows the assaulting of tanks an Easy task...

For more specific addressing...

@Skin
The roll to wound on a Vehicle would be the Table...

And saying that on hits that would normally cause a wound to a model (S=T 4) the "save" gets a -2 and is more like a toughness test taken by the wounder that has a varity of results.

I would say vehicles have it much better at the moment. You cannot Doubletough/BreakMorale a vehicle.

@Lanrak
We are discussing the logical implications of why powerweapons should/should not be granted AP1 modifier for the vehicle weapon table, not if they have in the past rule editions of 40k. One of the means of justification would be fluff based (as GW does like to reflect to their fluff for a bit of the rules, thus having it. <See the Explination for why Necrons Fall back in Codex:Necron&gt as well as using game terms to discuss why they should be allowed. This involves alot of theoretical debate and is not necessarily meant to reflect the opinions of the developers. While I respect your opinion that such debates are pointless, please respect my opinion that making a post in a thread about theoretical debates stating that theoretical debates are pointless, is a bit pointless.


-DAR

What about power weapons (swords, axes, mauls, etc.) allowing the user to add 1 D3 to his strength when rolling for AP? That way, they aren't as good as power fists (which double strength) but still allow an added ease of carving through vehicle armor.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:@Lanrak
We are discussing the logical implications of why powerweapons should/should not be granted AP1 modifier for the vehicle weapon table, not if they have in the past rule editions of 40k. One of the means of justification would be fluff based (as GW does like to reflect to their fluff for a bit of the rules, thus having it. <See the Explination for why Necrons Fall back in Codex:Necron&gt as well as using game terms to discuss why they should be allowed. This involves alot of theoretical debate and is not necessarily meant to reflect the opinions of the developers. While I respect your opinion that such debates are pointless, please respect my opinion that making a post in a thread about theoretical debates stating that theoretical debates are pointless, is a bit pointless.

Well that is what just about everyone is telling you, Daemon-Archon Ren. There is no historical or even direct fluff support that Power Weapons would deal extra perceivable damages to vehicles as you are trying to suggest. Why? They just haven't and there is no reason to consider otherwise! Yes, Power Weapons can shear through infantry type armor which effectively negates its effect in game, however a Power Weapon is not an uber weapon that just shreds all types of armor like butter, as you keep trying to imply but continue to fail to support (other than just repeatedly saying the same heavily disputed and vague thing). Obviously, as fluff and history have carried, is that Power Weapons are just not noticeably effective enough against vehicle armor to warrant AP1 or additional strength effects (as suggested by Fallanir).

Skinnattittar wrote:
Yes, Power Weapons can shear through infantry type armor which effectively negates its effect in game, however a Power Weapon is not an uber weapon that just shreds all types of armor like butter, as you keep trying to imply but continue to fail to support (other than just repeatedly saying the same heavily disputed and vague thing). Obviously, as fluff and history have carried, is that Power Weapons are just not noticeably effective enough against vehicle armor to warrant AP1 or additional strength effects (as suggested by Fallanir).

And this is where I MUST disagree. Terminator armor is made out of the same material (plasteel, etc) as that which the more Heavily armored vehicles are composed of. Infact terminators, and even spacemarine standard power armor, wear stronger materials then even most normal vehicles (wraithbone, standard steel <orkz>, material used on Raiders, and MANY other vehicles, including IG standard issue) to say that the powerweapon would not have the same effect that it has on the armor a terminator wears that it would on a rhino (when they are both of the same composition) seems to show that all vehicle armor has some magic "unobtainum" weaved into it that negates the powerweapons core ability.

Now while it may be warrented to lay claim that powerweapons could only have an AP value of , apon further rule wordings, due to the USR "Rending" powerweapons having an AP of 2 would be a redundancy error in the Rending claims. As Rending states that ~"on a 6 The attack ignores armor saves of any kind and has an AP of 2" one can easy decipher that the handle of "Ignores armor saves" does not necessarily equate to "Has an AP of 2" or else the second part of the rule would be redundant. So on specific ruling terms, my claims for Powerweapons having an AP1 stem from the specific ruling on Rending.

Also from Rending does the fluff based logic originate. A rending weapon can be assumed to have an AP of 2 because when it is most potent (6 on the roll to wound/pen) it is able to wound any mortal being and is more capable at piercing most any armor, even if just barely piercing the stronger armor of a Crisis Battle suit or Tactical Dreadnaught suit. Powerweapons however, need not rely on the strength of their blow to negate the armor, thus it is easily implied that the force of the weapon is not what is being magnified by a standard powerweapon but the means in which it is "piercing" the armor (either by energy field, heat, or other matter-disruption technique). As far as I have read, when a powerweapon is given a fluff based description, take the Dark Eldar Punisher, powerweapons are known to function with these energy-field-esqe characteristics. To assume that said fields would have no further effect on the internals of a vehicle system is to me, blind ignorance, especially when compared side by side to a weapon of equal strength without the field, and even more so the the effect of a bare fist!

Is that more what you were looking for?

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Is that more what you were looking for?

Yes, now I can address your issues!

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:And this is where I MUST disagree. Terminator armor is made out of the same material (plasteel, etc) as that which the more Heavily armored vehicles are composed of. Infact terminators, and even spacemarine standard power armor, wear stronger materials then even most normal vehicles (wraithbone, standard steel <orkz>, material used on Raiders, and MANY other vehicles, including IG standard issue) to say that the powerweapon would not have the same effect that it has on the armor a terminator wears that it would on a rhino (when they are both of the same composition) seems to show that all vehicle armor has some magic "unobtainum" weaved into it that negates the powerweapons core ability.

So if I have a sheet of 404 steel foil it has the same armor value as 404 steel bar stock? Just because it is the same material does not mean it has the same thickness.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Now while it may be warrented to lay claim that powerweapons could only have an AP value of , apon further rule wordings, due to the USR "Rending" powerweapons having an AP of 2 would be a redundancy error in the Rending claims. As Rending states that ~"on a 6 The attack ignores armor saves of any kind and has an AP of 2" one can easy decipher that the handle of "Ignores armor saves" does not necessarily equate to "Has an AP of 2" or else the second part of the rule would be redundant. So on specific ruling terms, my claims for Powerweapons having an AP1 stem from the specific ruling on Rending.

Rending is a rule for both melee and ranged weapons. Since ranged weapons are not as polar as CCW, they would have an AP value instead (even if AP2 negates all regular Armor Saves), which is why it is specified. Considering the intent is probably that Rending CCW are effectively PW when they get their required 6 would suggest to me that PW are probably the same way, and AP2.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Also from Rending does the fluff based logic originate. A rending weapon can be assumed to have an AP of 2 because when it is most potent (6 on the roll to wound/pen) it is able to wound any mortal being and is more capable at piercing most any armor, even if just barely piercing the stronger armor of a Crisis Battle suit or Tactical Dreadnaught suit. Powerweapons however, need not rely on the strength of their blow to negate the armor, thus it is easily implied that the force of the weapon is not what is being magnified by a standard powerweapon but the means in which it is "piercing" the armor (either by energy field, heat, or other matter-disruption technique). As far as I have read, when a powerweapon is given a fluff based description, take the Dark Eldar Punisher, powerweapons are known to function with these energy-field-esqe characteristics. To assume that said fields would have no further effect on the internals of a vehicle system is to me, blind ignorance, especially when compared side by side to a weapon of equal strength without the field, and even more so the the effect of a bare fist!

Rending originated mostly from weapons that put out a ridiculous number of rounds, a ridiculously accurate round (such as snipers), or a wholly crushing blow, so instead they ignore armor by just pummeling it with so many shots, get around it by hitting a chink, or crush it with force of power! But there are a plethora of reasons as well, since Rending is a USR, and has no specific description as you might imply (I think certain weapons which used electricity or other energies avoided armor altogether in past examples). It is not blind ignorance (or arrogance, which would have been the better word in this case) to ignore something which has never been stated by official sources. To be ignorant or arrogant of something it first has to exist, so that it may either be unknown or ignored. Since Power Weapons (in general) are not described as having some sort of "spalling" effect on vehicles, so specially described weapons would need specially described effects.

Just because something is described as having "crackling energy," does not mean it is bursting with electrical might, ready to lash out and fry nearby combatants! Energy is energy, a very generic and scientific term for something with held power/work. So don't make assumptions of an unknown weapons effects just because it sounds intimidating.

Skinnattittar wrote:
So if I have a sheet of 404 steel foil it has the same armor value as 404 steel bar stock? Just because it is the same material does not mean it has the same thickness.

If the object in question (power-weapon) is designed to disrupt the material composition at a molecular level the thickness, nor armor value, do not matter.

Skinnattittar wrote:
Rending is a rule for both melee and ranged weapons. Since ranged weapons are not as polar as CCW, they would have an AP value instead (even if AP2 negates all regular Armor Saves), which is why it is specified. Considering the intent is probably that Rending CCW are effectively PW when they get their required 6 would suggest to me that PW are probably the same way, and AP2.

Skinnattittar wrote:
Rending originated mostly from weapons that put out a ridiculous number of rounds, a ridiculously accurate round (such as snipers), or a wholly crushing blow, so instead they ignore armor by just pummeling it with so many shots, get around it by hitting a chink, or crush it with force of power!

Thanks?

Skinnattittar wrote:
It is not blind ignorance (or arrogance, which would have been the better word in this case) to ignore something which has never been stated by official sources. To be ignorant or arrogant of something it first has to exist, so that it may either be unknown or ignored. Since Power Weapons (in general) are not described as having some sort of "spalling" effect on vehicles, so specially described weapons would need specially described effects.

Actually, blind ignorance fits perfectally, as the blind refers to those that are not ignorant and merely "pretend" to be by ignoring examples in the codice and rulebooks of various editions they own (which, I assume you do own these books, lest not you be blindly stating "facts") ignorance being to those that simply do not know of such examples as they did not have certain rulebooks.

It was either 4th edition or 3rd edition that had the section on powerweapons that read;

Power weapons :
Power weapons, by comparison to regular weapons, utilise focused energy fields to increase the deadliness of the weapon. The weapon uses a generator, either in its hilt or an external backpack, to sheathe its striking surfaces in a disruptive energy field allowing it to cut through most known forms of matter. Such a weapon can carve through armor and stone with as much resistance as empty air; typically only other energy fields can safely counter the effects of a power weapon. Power weapon technology is limited and all examples are crafted individually by skilled artisans; commonly in the form of a sword, axe, or hammer, but sometimes in a more exotic form such as a whip. Even without the power field active the weapon will be of highest quality and potent in the hands of a skilled fighter

Armor is armor, be it on your back, or on your tank. I bolded the parts that are mainly important.

Skinnattittar wrote:
Just because something is described as having "crackling energy," does not mean it is bursting with electrical might, ready to lash out and fry nearby combatants! Energy is energy, a very generic and scientific term for something with held power/work. So don't make assumptions of an unknown weapons effects just because it sounds intimidating.

My "assumptions" were based off of material presented by the company that writes the rules for said "unknown weapons". I would love to see an example in the fluff that specifies a powersword not being more effective against a vehicle, cause from the omnibus and Horus Heresy books, every instance of a Powerweapon vs Vehicle has described the sword the way I have been defending here, not once does it say "Oh, the field from that powersword magically didn't work on the rhino".

Oh! I see. So my acetylene torch should cut through 5" of 404 steel just as easily as it would through 404 steel foil. I get it, thickness has nothing to do with the ease to which something is cut. Or! A better example: Plasma cutter. Yes, not all Power Weapons are plasma based (if any), but a plasma cutter (a real world device) can cut through most metals with ease (I have actually "scribbled" with a plasma cutter and it cut clean through the sheet steel at a pretty good pace). But any plasma cutter can not cut through any thickness of metal. The thicker the metal, the more powerful a cutter you need. The one I used had a power station about the size of a large cooler and used three-phase power and a high-output air compressor. It could only cut through steel up to half-inch, and once you got thicker than 15-16 gauge (about 1/16") you had to go slower and slower to cut.

The flamboyant description aside (if you have quoted it so well, why don't you know which edition it is from?), in that edition did Power Weapons deal extra damage to vehicles? I would say if it didn't then it is safe to assume that they do not have as much effect on vehicles.

The 40k novels, while a good source of reference, are not entirely "cannon" when it comes to how the 40k Universe actually is, and that the history of Power Weapons NOT doing any extra damage is of far greater weight than what a single series may or may not have said. I have not read all of the Horus Heresy, on Horus Rising and Mechanicus (I do not recommend that one though), so I don't know if it ever mentions a Power Sword striking a vehicle and then that vehicle becomes destroyed, either killing all the crew or disabling all the systems with a single swipe of the blade, but I have never read anything like that in my time.

Oh, a quick question: on rolls of 6, rending weapons count as AP2 against infantry and get an additional D6 against vehicle armor? I always thought it was AP1 against infantry (not that that makes much of a difference though) and an additional D3 against vehicle armor?