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.

warboss wrote: Melta bombs are no more "melta" than assault cannons are "assault" or heavy flamers are "heavy" or IG rough rider lances have "lance".

And once more, we are harping on the 'heavy' aspect of the heavy flamer rather than the 'flamer' aspect. All well and good to badger away at comparisons based on names but when the comparison is about the weapon's type then please, stick to the type. No one has said the flamer is not a flame weapon.

Hand Flamer
Flamer
Heavy Flamer
Flamebomb.

As I've already said, at the moment RAW states - no, the melta bomb is not a melta weapon. However the rules that have contributed to this LR Achilles related mess haven't really come about until this edition- there was no real previous issues and as such the grenade rules have remained largely unchanged since 3rd edition because of it. In addition the 'Melta' USR came about -after- the grenade rules. We're not likely to see a solid position beyond RAW until someone either emails FW with this query or until the way in which grenades can be used changes.

And for the other debate - do grenades have a Strength value? Er....they do. The number is the strength. But the only time this ever came apparant was in the 4th edition Space Marine codex - Tyrannic War Veterans (page 50) and their rule about using Krak Grenades as a close combat weapon. When they did this it hit on a 6+ (3+ against Preferred enemy) and did a single S6 hit that ignored armour saves.

Long story short - we're still having a debate about legacy rules that are coming to 3 editions old now.

DarkStarSabre wrote:And for the other debate - do grenades have a Strength value? Er....they do. The number is the strength.

Except that there are no actual rules to support that.

Scott-S6 wrote:

DarkStarSabre wrote:And for the other debate - do grenades have a Strength value? Er....they do. The number is the strength.

Except that there are no actual rules to support that.

It's somewhat ambiguous. It's not explicitly labeled a strength, but neither do the grenade rules say "this attack does not have a strength value." The paragraph titled "Armor penetration in close combat", just to the left of the grenade table on the same page (p.63) tells us that close combat attacks against vehicles use "D6 + the strength of the attacker", and no exception seems to be made for grenades. The fixed values in the grenade table aren't labeled strength, but I don't think the lack of a label there is necessarily conclusive, given that the rules on the same page have already defined what it (as far as Occam's Razor is concerned) is.

As DarkStarSabre has pointed out, the Tyrannic War Veterans' special rule for using grenades against big bugs is another piece of evidence, albeit one from an obsolute codex.

So, those arguing it has no STR value... against a monolith (and the old living metal) they'd only get 1d6 to pen - because the rule stated STR+1d6 and they have no STR?

Mannahnin wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

DarkStarSabre wrote:And for the other debate - do grenades have a Strength value? Er....they do. The number is the strength.

Except that there are no actual rules to support that.

It's somewhat ambiguous. It's not explicitly labeled a strength, but neither do the grenade rules say "this attack does not have a strength value." The paragraph titled "Armor penetration in close combat", just to the left of the grenade table on the same page (p.63) tells us that close combat attacks against vehicles use "D6 + the strength of the attacker", and no exception seems to be made for grenades. The fixed values in the grenade table aren't labeled strength, but I don't think the lack of a label there is necessarily conclusive, given that the rules on the same page have already defined what it (as far as Occam's Razor is concerned) is.

As DarkStarSabre has pointed out, the Tyrannic War Veterans' special rule for using grenades against big bugs is another piece of evidence, albeit one from an obsolute codex.

Yep. To my knowledge that's the only case of grenades being used offensively since 3rd edition here and as such the only case where a 'Strength' would be needed to purposes of wounding compared to toughness. There are rules, they're just from an old codex and pretty much the only case where a Strength value was required.

Plus, as Mannahnin pointed out, the Armour Penetration in close combat paragraph expands on it as well. In the case of a grenade you substitute your attacks for the grenade, using its strength as it were.

Still, the old Tyrannic War Veterans were a bit useless considering the only thing they were every likely to hit were Tyranids...and the ease of getting T7 on the most common MC they'd come across meant they either had a single attack that would hit on a 3, wound on a 5 and ignore armour or could have three times as many attacks, wounding on a 6 rather than a 5 though not ignoring armour.

Mannahnin wrote:
It's somewhat ambiguous. It's not explicitly labeled a strength, but neither do the grenade rules say "this attack does not have a strength value." The paragraph titled "Armor penetration in close combat", just to the left of the grenade table on the same page (p.63) tells us that close combat attacks against vehicles use "D6 + the strength of the attacker", and no exception seems to be made for grenades. The fixed values in the grenade table aren't labeled strength, but I don't think the lack of a label there is necessarily conclusive, given that the rules on the same page have already defined what it (as far as Occam's Razor is concerned) is.

As DarkStarSabre has pointed out, the Tyrannic War Veterans' special rule for using grenades against big bugs is another piece of evidence, albeit one from an obsolute codex.

It doesn't have to say 'This attack does not have a Strength', because nothing has a statistic unless the rules say it does. Infantry don't have an Armour Value, even though there's nothing in the rules that explicitly says they don't. Close-combat weapons don't have an AP value, even though there's nothing in the rules that explicitly says they don't. Grenades don't have a Strength, even though there's nothing in the rules that explicitly says they don't.

Read the Tyrannic War Veteran rules again. It doesn't say they strike at 'the strength of the grenade, 6'; it just says 'any hits are resolved at Strength 6'. That doesn't say anything about the grenade, any more than a Space Marine with a Relic Blade striking at Strength 6 means the Relic Blade 'has' a Strength of 6. The Relic Blade doesn't have any Strength of its own at all; it adds 2 to the strength of the model wielding it, which in this case adds up to 6. Models and ranged weapons have Strength; CC weapons and grenades do NOT. No Strength is defined for them, therefore they do not have it, any more than Infantry have an AV.

So with that interpretation, how did you play meltabombs against the old monolith? Since the armor pen was only allowed to be str+1d6, and there's no str on them... you only rolled a d6?

rigeld2 wrote:So with that interpretation, how did you play meltabombs against the old monolith? Since the armor pen was only allowed to be str+1d6, and there's no str on them... you only rolled a d6?

'Grenades don't have a Strength' and 'Grenades have a Strength of 0' aren't the same thing. Grenades don't use the normal Armor Penetration rules, they use their own calculation, which is unrelated. 'Strength + 1d6" for them isn't '0 + 1d6', it's 'Undefined + 1d6', and you can't add Undefined to anything. That being so the old Living Metal rule didn't interact with grenades at all, in much the same way as the LRC rule doesn't, and you just rolled the value on the table.

If someone insisted that according to the Living Metal rule grenades couldn't use their own table, then you STILL didn't roll a d6; instead the game broke and you couldn't continue, because you were required to use a value that didn't exist. I reached that point once, actually, when I was using a friend's SM army against Necrons and the other player insisted I could only roll a d6; we 4+'d it, I won, and rolled 8+2d6. Didn't penetrate anyway, though.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:It's somewhat ambiguous. It's not explicitly labeled a strength, but neither do the grenade rules say "this attack does not have a strength value." The paragraph titled "Armor penetration in close combat", just to the left of the grenade table on the same page (p.63) tells us that close combat attacks against vehicles use "D6 + the strength of the attacker", and no exception seems to be made for grenades. The fixed values in the grenade table aren't labeled strength, but I don't think the lack of a label there is necessarily conclusive, given that the rules on the same page have already defined what it (as far as Occam's Razor is concerned) is.

It doesn't have to say 'This attack does not have a Strength', because nothing has a statistic unless the rules say it does. Infantry don't have an Armour Value, even though there's nothing in the rules that explicitly says they don't. Close-combat weapons don't have an AP value, even though there's nothing in the rules that explicitly says they don't. Grenades don't have a Strength, even though there's nothing in the rules that explicitly says they don't.

Except the paragraph on the same page which I referenced. Which tells us that penetration rolls against vehicles use the strength of the attacker +D6. So we have a general rule telling us that's how it works, and the grenade rules do not include an explicit exception to that. At most they might be interpreted as making an implicit exception, but I think Occam's Razor steers us the other way.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:As DarkStarSabre has pointed out, the Tyrannic War Veterans' special rule for using grenades against big bugs is another piece of evidence, albeit one from an obsolute codex.

Read the Tyrannic War Veteran rules again. It doesn't say they strike at 'the strength of the grenade, 6'; it just says 'any hits are resolved at Strength 6'. That doesn't say anything about the grenade, any more than a Space Marine with a Relic Blade striking at Strength 6 means the Relic Blade 'has' a Strength of 6. The Relic Blade doesn't have any Strength of its own at all; it adds 2 to the strength of the model wielding it, which in this case adds up to 6. Models and ranged weapons have Strength; CC weapons and grenades do NOT. No Strength is defined for them, therefore they do not have it, any more than Infantry have an AV.

I disagree, on the basis above. Also, as long as we're bringing in old rules to help give additional perspective, I just checked my 3rd ed rulebook and it explicitly defined Meltabombs as S8 and Krak as S6. Not sure where my 4th ed book is, at the moment.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So with that interpretation, how did you play meltabombs against the old monolith? Since the armor pen was only allowed to be str+1d6, and there's no str on them... you only rolled a d6?

'Grenades don't have a Strength' and 'Grenades have a Strength of 0' aren't the same thing. Grenades don't use the normal Armor Penetration rules, they use their own calculation, which is unrelated. 'Strength + 1d6" for them isn't '0 + 1d6', it's 'Undefined + 1d6', and you can't add Undefined to anything. That being so the old Living Metal rule didn't interact with grenades at all, in much the same way as the LRC rule doesn't, and you just rolled the value on the table.

If someone insisted that according to the Living Metal rule grenades couldn't use their own table, then you STILL didn't roll a d6; instead the game broke and you couldn't continue, because you were required to use a value that didn't exist. I reached that point once, actually, when I was using a friend's SM army against Necrons and the other player insisted I could only roll a d6; we 4+'d it, I won, and rolled 8+2d6. Didn't penetrate anyway, though.

I disagree, and my interpretation has the benefit of being perfectly compatible with the old Living Metal rules. Meltabombs got 8+1D6, as the Monolith rules specified that you always got S+1D6 and never any more (except for Ordnance, which still got 2d6 and choose the higher, as it was an explicit exception).

just a random (which has been mentioned earlier but i thought i'd post it again)

i whole heartedly agree that melta bombs are not a melta weapon, dont get the +1 on the damage table and dont get an extra d6 for damage (until you are allowed to embark enemy vehicles for the half range )


so i put forward this argument....

if grenades have a strength...... using the rules state why the strength of a melta bomb is not 8+2d6 and i should be rolling 8+2d6 plus a d6 for armour pen.

the reason that doesnt work is becuase they dont have a strength, they have a rondom number (2d6) plus 8 for penetration (penetration, NOT strength)


not sure how this argument has lasted so long...




* just thought of another one - the thunderhawks rules say that it is immune to melta weapons AND melta bombs
(food for thought )

Mannahnin wrote:

Except the paragraph on the same page which I referenced. Which tells us that penetration rolls against vehicles use the strength of the attacker +D6. So we have a general rule telling us that's how it works, and the grenade rules do not include an explicit exception to that. At most they might be interpreted as making an implicit exception, but I think Occam's Razor steers us the other way.

And if you removed the 'general' rules about Str. + 1D6, you'd still know how to penetrate a vehicle with a grenade. The grenade rules do not rely on the 'normal' armour penetration to work, that is why they are an exception to the rule. They do not need the rule to function.

Mannahnin wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:As DarkStarSabre has pointed out, the Tyrannic War Veterans' special rule for using grenades against big bugs is another piece of evidence, albeit one from an obsolute codex.

Read the Tyrannic War Veteran rules again. It doesn't say they strike at 'the strength of the grenade, 6'; it just says 'any hits are resolved at Strength 6'. That doesn't say anything about the grenade, any more than a Space Marine with a Relic Blade striking at Strength 6 means the Relic Blade 'has' a Strength of 6. The Relic Blade doesn't have any Strength of its own at all; it adds 2 to the strength of the model wielding it, which in this case adds up to 6. Models and ranged weapons have Strength; CC weapons and grenades do NOT. No Strength is defined for them, therefore they do not have it, any more than Infantry have an AV.

I disagree, on the basis above. Also, as long as we're bringing in old rules to help give additional perspective, I just checked my 3rd ed rulebook and it explicitly defined Meltabombs as S8 and Krak as S6. Not sure where my 4th ed book is, at the moment.

I think that bringing up old rules, even for perspective, can muddy the issue. What if we were to discuss how 4th Edition Rending applies to the rules now?

I miss Gwar.

Grenades don't have a strength value because grenades aren't weapons. I'll let that one go out there for a moment. Read the first page under the Weapons chapter. Especially the bit about all weapons having a profile similar to the one below the one given for a boltgun. Grenades don't have that. They're not weapons and don't have a strength value. Compare that to melee weapons. Melee weapons do not have a strength value either. They modify the strength of the wielder, if they do at all. Grenades are a special effect.

daedalus wrote:I miss Gwar.

Grenades don't have a strength value because grenades aren't weapons. I'll let that one go out there for a moment. Read the first page under the Weapons chapter. Especially the bit about all weapons having a profile similar to the one below the one given for a boltgun. Grenades don't have that. They're not weapons and don't have a strength value. Compare that to melee weapons. Melee weapons do not have a strength value either. They modify the strength of the wielder, if they do at all. Grenades are a special effect.

So they got 0+1d6 against monoliths then? (Yes, I know Living Metal doesn't do that anymore)

Cool.

rigeld2 wrote:
So they got 0+1d6 against monoliths then? (Yes, I know Living Metal doesn't do that anymore)

Cool.

BeRzErKeR wrote: 'Grenades don't have a Strength' and 'Grenades have a Strength of 0' aren't the same thing. Grenades don't use the normal Armor Penetration rules, they use their own calculation, which is unrelated. 'Strength + 1d6" for them isn't '0 + 1d6', it's 'Undefined + 1d6', and you can't add Undefined to anything. That being so the old Living Metal rule didn't interact with grenades at all, in much the same way as the LRC rule doesn't, and you just rolled the value on the table.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So they got 0+1d6 against monoliths then? (Yes, I know Living Metal doesn't do that anymore)

Cool.

BeRzErKeR wrote: 'Grenades don't have a Strength' and 'Grenades have a Strength of 0' aren't the same thing. Grenades don't use the normal Armor Penetration rules, they use their own calculation, which is unrelated. 'Strength + 1d6" for them isn't '0 + 1d6', it's 'Undefined + 1d6', and you can't add Undefined to anything. That being so the old Living Metal rule didn't interact with grenades at all, in much the same way as the LRC rule doesn't, and you just rolled the value on the table.

It's interesting you say that. Considering grenades have an Armor Penetration value of X+Xd6, and the Armor Penetration rules are what tell you Str+1d6 (normally) and how to glance...

I don't have a copy of the old Living Metal rule in front of me - why do you say it didn't interact with grenades at all?

Grenades do indeed have an AP in the format X + Xd6, and weapons with a Strength also penetrate armor using an equation in the form X + Xd6. However, just because two things end up looking the same does not make them the same. As grenades have no Strength value given, this cannot be the same equation. Nothing tells us they're the same, nothing tells us that grenades have a Strength value or what it might be, and in the 40k ruleset nothing exists unless it's defined.

The old Living Metal rule said that no weapon ever got more than Strength + 1d6 for Armor Penetration. If you apply the rule strictly to grenades, the game breaks; their strength is undefined, so you can never calculate what their AP should be (since, as I said, Undefined and 0 are not the same thing). But fortunately grenades use this entirely different calculation that doesn't include a Strength value, and Living Metal said nothing about it.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Grenades do indeed have an AP in the format X + Xd6, and weapons with a Strength also penetrate armor using an equation in the form X + Xd6. However, just because two things end up looking the same does not make them the same. As grenades have no Strength value given, this cannot be the same equation. Nothing tells us they're the same, nothing tells us that grenades have a Strength value or what it might be, and in the 40k ruleset nothing exists unless it's defined.

Armor Penetration is defined as Str+1d6.
Armor Penetration for grenades is defined as (meltabombs) 8+2d6.

I wonder why you say this cannot be the same equation. To me, the only inference you can make is that the static value is the STR of the weapon. If you're calling grenades not a weapon, there's LOTS of other things that break.

The old Living Metal rule said that no weapon ever got more than Strength + 1d6 for Armor Penetration. If you apply the rule strictly to grenades, the game breaks; their strength is undefined, so you can never calculate what their AP should be (since, as I said, Undefined and 0 are not the same thing). But fortunately grenades use this entirely different calculation that doesn't include a Strength value, and Living Metal said nothing about it.

So you played that grenades ignored Living Metal completely?

rigeld2 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:Grenades do indeed have an AP in the format X + Xd6, and weapons with a Strength also penetrate armor using an equation in the form X + Xd6. However, just because two things end up looking the same does not make them the same. As grenades have no Strength value given, this cannot be the same equation. Nothing tells us they're the same, nothing tells us that grenades have a Strength value or what it might be, and in the 40k ruleset nothing exists unless it's defined.

Armor Penetration is defined as Str+1d6.
Armor Penetration for grenades is defined as (meltabombs) 8+2d6.

I wonder why you say this cannot be the same equation. To me, the only inference you can make is that the static value is the STR of the weapon. If you're calling grenades not a weapon, there's LOTS of other things that break.

But you can't even make THAT inference. There's no indication that Strength exists for grenades, let alone that it's 8; you;re not allowed to infer the existence of a value where the rules don't tell you one exists. And no, grenades aren't weapons; they're wargear which allow you to make a special attack against vehicles, and some of which confer benefits in assault. What breaks?

rigeld2 wrote:

The old Living Metal rule said that no weapon ever got more than Strength + 1d6 for Armor Penetration. If you apply the rule strictly to grenades, the game breaks; their strength is undefined, so you can never calculate what their AP should be (since, as I said, Undefined and 0 are not the same thing). But fortunately grenades use this entirely different calculation that doesn't include a Strength value, and Living Metal said nothing about it.

So you played that grenades ignored Living Metal completely?

I didn't play against the old Necrons very often, and mostly when I did it was with Orks, who don't have meltabombs anyway. The one time I did play against Necrons as SM we rolled it off, and I won. But yes, that's how I argued it; the Living Metal rule restricted weapons which calculated AP based on their Strength, and grenades don't.

mrspadge wrote:
if grenades have a strength...... using the rules state why the strength of a melta bomb is not 8+2d6 and i should be rolling 8+2d6 plus a d6 for armour pen.

Because the nature of the 'Melta' rule is that the extra D6 kicks in under half range and ever since 3rd edition there has been no way to actually use meltabombs at anything but point-blank range, making the inclusion of such a rule redundant as the more recent 'Melta' ignoring vehicles haven't come in til this edition? Hell, if there were rules for throwing meltabombs and grenades (as in 2nd edition, RT and even in Dark Heresy and Inquisitor...) then this would have been properly accounted for.

not sure how this argument has lasted so long...

Because it's not much of an argument? It's a situation that's come about when 'legacy' rules from 3rd edition have met more modern rules to be perfectly honest and as such it's not really been accounted for.

* just thought of another one - the thunderhawks rules say that it is immune to melta weapons AND melta bombs
(food for thought )

Which imples that melta is melta to a degree and the extra clarification was probably slapped on Thunderhawks to avoid just this situation. Not our fault that they got lazy with the Achiles and couldn't be asked putting in those extra words because they expected us to apply common sense to it.

BeRzErKeR wrote:But you can't even make THAT inference. There's no indication that Strength exists for grenades, let alone that it's 8; you;re not allowed to infer the existence of a value where the rules don't tell you one exists. And no, grenades aren't weapons; they're wargear which allow you to make a special attack against vehicles, and some of which confer benefits in assault. What breaks?

I remembered a rule wrong, so nevermind. I'll leave it at I disagree and shake hands.

Fair enough; that's what roll-offs are for!

Nevermind, I won't continue the conversation since it seems we've reached a gentlemanly understanding.

Nooooo!!! Keep arguing, it's what all good dakka-ites do.

Happyjew wrote:Nooooo!!! Keep arguing, it's what all good dakka-ites do.

No. The good ones debate.

just a rondom thought for the "they are weapons" crowd.....

do i get to add my strength to them?

they are used in melee and as so many have tried to claim, melta bombs use the normal penetration rules...

this would mean i have for example, a space marine sergeant strapping a melta bomb to a tank...


my strength is defined as 4
my armour penetration is defined as 8+2d6

so do i essentially have 4+8+2d6 (glancing a land raider on snake eyes makes melta bombs quite nice )


*OR*

do grenades have their own rules for penetrating vehicles and not have any special rules implied or otherwise unless stated?

when melta bombs become AP1 (as per every melta weapon i can think of) and gain a benefit from the melta rule i'll agree but as it stands i see no reason to assume they are melta weapons...


they've been brought up already but:

heavy flamers are assault weapons
the eldritch lance is not a lance weapon
the blood lance is not a lance weapon

i'm sure there are more, cant think of any right now, but having the name of a rule does not in any way confer said rule to the model/weapon

mrspadge wrote:heavy flamers are assault weapons

But is it a flamer though, right?

This is the debate. The type. If Flame weapons had special rules (as they did in 2nd edition) and we had a Flamebomb and a situation came up where the Flamebomb's special rule could be applied/negated/etc....we'd be asking the same exact questions. Don't get too caught up in the Heavy Flamer arguement. That's never been an issue. Heavy is a category, Flamer is a type if you want to look at it that way. Given that all Flamer types operate as Assault weapons we're pretty much fine as is.

I love when folks pull this up without actually considering the relevance.

As for the Blood Lance? Will have to look when I get home. Tend to leave 40k stuff at home as of late.

DarkStarSabre wrote:

mrspadge wrote:heavy flamers are assault weapons

But is it a flamer though, right?

This is the debate. The type. If Flame weapons had special rules (as they did in 2nd edition) and we had a Flamebomb and a situation came up where the Flamebomb's special rule could be applied/negated/etc....we'd be asking the same exact questions. Don't get too caught up in the Heavy Flamer arguement. That's never been an issue. Heavy is a category, Flamer is a type if you want to look at it that way. Given that all Flamer types operate as Assault weapons we're pretty much fine as is.

I love when folks pull this up without actually considering the relevance.

As for the Blood Lance? Will have to look when I get home. Tend to leave 40k stuff at home as of late.

no. a flamer is not a "flamer weapon" its a template weapon

and flamer has no bearing on the rules whatsoever (much like the melta rule on melta bombs) but the heavy rule certainly does. thankfully the heavy flamer has the assault RULE and the heavy NAME so there is no confusion (much like the MELTA bomb)

so :

I love when folks pull this up without actually considering the relevance.

Way to miss the point again.

I even stated that the FLAMER currently had no special rules. But in 2nd edition...Flame weapons had special rules. It involved things burning. Using a template or not didn't matter a damn as the rules related to the weapon rather than the method it used to determine what was hit or not.

In fact, other such things that came out after the main rules went as far as specifying whether or not similar rules applied to them. The fact that it used a template mattered not one bit.

As I've said, for probably the fifth or sixth time now.

What we're dealing with is a case of 'legacy' rules having been carried across a number of editions and encountering a situation that's never really been there before, thus showing a flaw of sorts with the way those particular rules function.

As there is currently no way to use grenades or meltabombs at range the arguments relating to strength, AP and types pretty much matter for squat. Quickest way to resolve this debacle would be to email Forge World and just ask.

But since some of us clearly aren't reading and insist on trying to use my own quotes against me, skipping the entirely relevant section to try and support themselves...

*Clears throat*

You know, that big bit you quoted?

Clever girl!

One more thing...

Regarding the Blood Lance psychic power?

Read page 63 of the Blood Angels codex again and come back.

I'd say that 'any enemy unit in the lance's path suffers a single Strength 8, AP1 hit with the 'lance' type' is pretty much a Lance weapon, eh?

I voted "yes", but I put that vote in from a "How would you play it" perspective. I call meltabombs melta weapons based on fluff. But, if my opponent was a strict RAW player, I'd have no problems at all with calling them not melta weapons.


Also, heavy flamers are definitely flamers. It matters for things like the Avatar, who is immune to flame weapons.

Think about it with modern terms.

You have a shaped-charge rocket. Your buddy has a shaped-charged bomb.

Your enemy is immune to shaped-charge rockets.

Could the bomb still work?

(P.S. bomb != rocket)