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.

kirsanth wrote:I love that we can argue about why we agree.

I've been playing since '87. This is the one constant.

Akroma06 wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
Listen, all of you, we are talking about a company that declared that the "plasma siphon" works against the vast majority of the Tau armory for fluff descriptions alone, and that ruled that Mandrakes are daemon, because the fluff description merely said there might be something warp-influenced in their ancestry.

So, point of fact, fluff often does equal rules. 40k is not a keyword based game, get that through your heads. All your arguments would be valid if we were talking about Magic The Gathering, but we're not so they're not.

When a description says Daemonprince, it's a daemon. When something says melta _____, it's a melta weapon.

Now, on the other hand, the fact that it does say "shooting" that argument has merits.

No they ruled that way which made the plasma siphon work on tau weaponry RAW. Until then it wasn't. Same with mandrakes. Fluff has nothing...let me say that again...NOTHING to do with rules. Otherwise 10 marines could win a 2000 point game alone. DE would never attack a marine outpost just some civilians. Are those rules? No. A melta bomb does not have the melta special rule. You are claiming it does. Prove it does as per the tenants. I'll wait...

...still waiting...

...You can't because it isn't there. A melta bomb has a flat damage value of 8 + 2d6, that it. It does not have the rule "Melta" anywhere. The name does not count as that is the name not a rule.

Are we having the same conversation? I'm not sure that we were. When people say RAW, they mean only the rules, not any fluff descriptions, which is what those decisionsa re based upon.

But, y'know, thanks for talking down to me like I'm an idiot while you go ahead and make no sense. 'Appreciate it.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
Listen, all of you, we are talking about a company that declared that the "plasma siphon" works against the vast majority of the Tau armory for fluff descriptions alone, and that ruled that Mandrakes are daemon, because the fluff description merely said there might be something warp-influenced in their ancestry.

So, point of fact, fluff often does equal rules. 40k is not a keyword based game, get that through your heads. All your arguments would be valid if we were talking about Magic The Gathering, but we're not so they're not.

When a description says Daemonprince, it's a daemon. When something says melta _____, it's a melta weapon.

Now, on the other hand, the fact that it does say "shooting" that argument has merits.

No they ruled that way which made the plasma siphon work on tau weaponry RAW. Until then it wasn't. Same with mandrakes. Fluff has nothing...let me say that again...NOTHING to do with rules. Otherwise 10 marines could win a 2000 point game alone. DE would never attack a marine outpost just some civilians. Are those rules? No. A melta bomb does not have the melta special rule. You are claiming it does. Prove it does as per the tenants. I'll wait...

...still waiting...

...You can't because it isn't there. A melta bomb has a flat damage value of 8 + 2d6, that it. It does not have the rule "Melta" anywhere. The name does not count as that is the name not a rule.

Are we having the same conversation? I'm not sure that we were. When people say RAW, they mean only the rules, not any fluff descriptions, which is what those decisionsa re based upon.

But, y'know, thanks for talking down to me like I'm an idiot while you go ahead and make no sense. 'Appreciate it.

Ok so I wasn't trying to talk down to you or anything. I'm just thought you were saying that since it is part of the fluff then it is apart of the rules, which its not. My point was even though it is a melta bomb it does not have the melta special rule therefore it ignores the stormraven, well part of the reason, but anyway I didn't mean to talk to you like you were an idiot and if I did my bad.

TLDR;...jk. They're not Melta Weapons thus they get their 2d6.

This is all pretty funny really. At least that's what I'm saying until my stormraven gets blown up with a melta-bomb. Then it'll be hilarious.

I think we can all agree, whether or not melta bombs count as melta, they are not shooting attacks and therefore still get the +2d6 armor penetration. Does this thread still need to be open?

Happyjew wrote:IDoes this thread still need to be open?

Nope.

DeathReaper wrote:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:I'm reasonably sure that if GW ever felt the need to settle this, they would definitely consider MELTA bombs to be MELTA weapons.

Call it a hunch.

They must not have felt the need, since they specify often shooting melta attacks... Does everyone out there believe that the Stormraven has to be utterly invincible?

Wait for the FaQ, or 6th, something tells me they will clarify it (Probably when the Ultramarines get their new Dex)

P.S. the Stormraven is far from invincible, AV 12, and only a 4+ cover? Mine gets wrecked after its first flat out move in 9 games out of 10.

Cool story bro, but nowhere does your account explain why Melta bombs would lose one dice on the armour pen dice roll.

Rephrasing the need for a FAQ 3 times in one thread will not make Melta bombs work on the Stormraven.

You guys all have it wrong. The range for melta bombs is not 0 or undefined, it's base to base. Half of that is base t. So in order for melta bombs to get +2d6 pen they have to be at ethernet range.

How does no one else get this?

WTF is ethernet range? Also base to base is not a numerical value, therefore you can not have half of it. Anyway, there are THREE reasons why meltabombs CAN work on stormravens (8 + 2d6)

1. It is NOT a shooting attack.

2. It does gain an extra d6 for being in half range, so it would lose none anyway.

3. It is not a 'melta' weapon so it can't be affected by ceramite plating.

It was a joke.

Sothas, that is just too funny.

Ok I think something that even I myself have stated has been over stated way too many times, that is this, it is not a shooting attack. No FAQ or Edition change will ever change this unless they decided to make multiple amendments to the rules, the first, instead of a flat armour penetration value of 8+2d6 they would have to change the meltabombs to being a strength 8 weapon with 1d6 and melta rule, next for arguments sake weapon range of 4" with a special rule that allow use in melee against vehicles, and finally removing the reference of shooting from the stormraven.

BTW unlikely any of that will happen.

AchillesFTW wrote:WTF is ethernet range? Also base to base is not a numerical value, therefore you can not have half of it. Anyway, there are THREE reasons why meltabombs CAN work on stormravens (8 + 2d6)

1. It is NOT a shooting attack.

2. It does gain an extra d6 for being in half range, so it would lose none anyway.

3. It is not a 'melta' weapon so it can't be affected by ceramite plating.

You seemed to have dropped your sense of humor on another thread. Perhaps someone found it and put it in the lost and found. I'd check there first.

The only part of this thread I have read is the title, and I alreadym know how it has been going for the last 3 pages.

Ceramite Plates remove the extra D6 for Melta, so 8+1D6
VS
Melta Bombs are not melta, they are grenades with a specific ruling, so they roll 8+2D6.




B is correct. They are not melta, only by name, they do not have the melta rule, and do not have a range to measure half/Melta range. Ceramite armour can not affect them.

My BA playing friend nearly pissed himself when i explained this to him.
I don't know what it is about BA players that make them think they have some entitlement to as much power as they can possibly conceive.

Joey wrote:My BA playing friend nearly pissed himself when i explained this to him.
I don't know what it is about BA players that make them think they have some entitlement to as much power as they can possibly conceive.

Ummm BA player here and I noticed this when I first read the 5th ed 'dex without it needing to be spelled out, though I haven't picked up a Stormraven yet thus I haven't use it yet.

DarknessEternal wrote:I'm reasonably sure that if GW ever felt the need to settle this, they would definitely consider MELTA bombs to be MELTA weapons.

Call it a hunch.

That's cool; but where does that come into play when the Stormraven gets its rule against "shooting" attacks; this being assault I'm not seeing the difference of it being Melta or a squeegee.

stormravens fly 10mph during game play.

not kidding, thats RAW

they are not listed as melta weapons. And the rule only is for against shooting. Considering the GK codex already has vehicles that are psykers, but only when its useful to the GKs so they can't be targeted by anti psyker stuff, I don't see how this is blowing anyone's mind with slowed GK rules.

Dracheous wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:I'm reasonably sure that if GW ever felt the need to settle this, they would definitely consider MELTA bombs to be MELTA weapons.

Call it a hunch.

That's cool; but where does that come into play when the Stormraven gets its rule against "shooting" attacks; this being assault I'm not seeing the difference of it being Melta or a squeegee.

It doesn't. Wouldn't be the first time a ruling came out of nowhere against RAW based on someone's idea of fluff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:stormravens fly 10mph during game play.

not kidding, thats RAW

Citation needed.

Joey wrote:My BA playing friend nearly pissed himself when i explained this to him.
I don't know what it is about BA players that make them think they have some entitlement to as much power as they can possibly conceive.

Umm, I've been playing BAs for a long, long time, and I have never felt any 'entitlements'. Would you kids stop putting labels on people.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Dracheous wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:I'm reasonably sure that if GW ever felt the need to settle this, they would definitely consider MELTA bombs to be MELTA weapons.

Call it a hunch.

That's cool; but where does that come into play when the Stormraven gets its rule against "shooting" attacks; this being assault I'm not seeing the difference of it being Melta or a squeegee.

It doesn't. Wouldn't be the first time a ruling came out of nowhere against RAW based on someone's idea of fluff.

Okay, so because in the past it's occurred that people broke RAW for imaginary fluff; we'll just forgo the wait and assume this is what happens?

The question is how does a rule that over-rides a shooting attacks capability interfere with an assault attack; RAW would be that there is no affect between them because they are differing attacks.

I'd fluff it as this: if you're bad ass enough to jump up and slap a melta bomb onto the cockpit of a Stormraven, your bad ass enough to reach into the pilots throat and fist his rear from the long way; of course RAW has no way of representing this so melta bombs play as normal in assault phase . Fluffy enough .

But seriously though, the rules only say that it is negated in "shooting" phase.

UltraPrime wrote:
Umm, I've been playing BAs for a long, long time, and I have never felt any 'entitlements'. Would you kids stop putting labels on people.

I'm 23. I was merely observing that people attracted to what they perceive as a "cheese" army (i.e. blood angels), tend to assume some sort of divine favour.
Obviously not everyone collects BA because they're a cheese army, I myself was tempted with the fluff and whatnot, but fielding so many units that, going off looks, looked pretty rare, just put me off.
Hell, I remember when Blood Angels were considered the "standard" space marine.

I only read through the first page, apologies if someone on page 2 or 3 said this already: why not treat it the same as people were treating the Monolith? That also had an aversion to melta, or any other weapon that granted additional dice, this has melta in the name and functions the same as a melta weapon, only in close combat. What's the difference? People were up in arms about "extra dice" for the melta bomb in that argument, how is this really any different? I really feel that in regards to the "shooting" portion of the question, this is a RAI vs RAW disagreement. I'm gonna throw my support in on the side of meltabombs don't get 2D6 pen against a stormraven, same as last edition's monolith. Any games at my house will use this, as it makes sense to me. Obviously plenty of you disagree.

The rules specifically state shooting attacks. Melta bombs are not shooting attacks and therefore get the 2d6.

Regardless of whethert it is shooting VS CC attacks, Melta Bombs do not have the MELTA rule, and therefore, RAW the Ceramite Plating can't help. RAI, its the same, otherwise it would state that Melta Bombs had the Melta rule.

Melta Bombs could be considered to have it, IF they had a range to half. B2B could be considered a range of 0", but nothing divided by 2 is 0. 6/2=3. 1/2= 0.5.

0 / 2 = 0. You would always be at half range

Also, as pointed out earlier - the GK FAQ has told us that Fluff CAN = rules, when determining what counts as plasma you ar told to look in the fluff. This means that "melta" isnt needed in the rules for it to count, sadly

All of this doesnt alter that it protects only from shooting attacks, and MB are not used as a shooting attack.

Excepting CC range is not just base to base; it is Base to base or within 2" of a model that is in base to base.

There is no 1/2 of a variable null range.

For the fluff; Meltabombs are NEVER described as melta in the fluff, not Ever.

I already pointed this out: in the BRB Meltabombs are given no Fluff, in the various Codices only they, or Meltaguns are given Fluff descriptions, but both are not given a description in the same codes, or they both never match up, in the 1 instance I can think of where both weapons are given fluff description. Names mean nothing(although Fluff does): Fire dragons are neither "fire", nor "dragons"

nosferatu1001 wrote:0 / 2 = 0. You would always be at half range

Also, as pointed out earlier - the GK FAQ has told us that Fluff CAN = rules, when determining what counts as plasma you ar told to look in the fluff. This means that "melta" isnt needed in the rules for it to count, sadly

All of this doesnt alter that it protects only from shooting attacks, and MB are not used as a shooting attack.

Right fluff CAN = rules, but not always. The only time fluff = rules is when we are told it does, such as in the FAQ. Nowhere does it say that the fluff for melta bombs being or not being melta is a rule, therefore that fluff is not a rule. Melta bombs have to have the melta special rule and they don't.

Note that it is not 0/2 for the range as a close combat attack as they don't have a range. It is simply models in BtB or within 2" of a model in BtB. So if I have a model that is 2" from a model that is in BtB with a stormraven what is the range of my melta bomb? I'm in range so how do I determine half range?

All that said I do still agree that they are not shooting attacks and thus the plating has no effect.