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.

I have a question about this rule.
(sorry for my english)

When you read the penetrating hit in the shooting section of vehicle. You can read : "after deducting any Hull point, roll a D6 for each SHOT that penetrated the vehicule's armour and look up the result using the Vehicle Damage Table, ..."

So the term SHOT mean you can only roll on the Vehicle Damage Table when you get shot and not in assault?

I use the ipad rulebook and GW put any link when i need to change page. And when i go to assault section of the vehicle, i don't see anywhere we need to roll on the Damage Table in close combat but i see the pen count as 2 wound in assault result.

Someone can help me?

You roll as normal.

I will have to remember to look at this one when I get home.

On p.78 under "Armour penetration in assault" is says:

"Armour penetration is worked out in the same way as for shooting".

The rules for shooting say that whenever a penetrating hit is scored the vehicle suffers additional damage in the form of rolling on the table for each shot that scored a penetrating hit.

Since we were referred to this spot by the assault rules, it's logical to assume that "each shot" could be substituted with "Each hit"

Furthermore, p.78 under "Assaulting a Vehicle" it says that infantry can wreck a vehicle by shooting through vision slits. So hits in close combat could very well be considered "shots" as well.

The armour penetration and penetrating hit are not the same thing. If you check the after the rule in assault you can see "D6 + the Strength of the attacker" and if you go to see the armour penetration in the shooting section you see

Armour Penetration Roll
Hitting a vehicule is no guarantee that you will actually damage it. Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a d6 and add the weapon's strength, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.

And on the assault result you can see the penetrating hit make to count as 2 wound for the assault result and on the shooting side, the penetrating hit make you roll on the damage table for the shooting result

psykalex wrote:
The armour penetration and penetrating hit are not the same thing. If you check the after the rule in assault you can see "D6 + the Strength of the attacker" and if you go to see the armour penetration in the shooting section you see

Armour Penetration Roll
Hitting a vehicule is no guarantee that you will actually damage it. Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a d6 and add the weapon's strength, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.

And on the assault result you can see the penetrating hit make to count as 2 wound for the assault result and on the shooting side, the penetrating hit make you roll on the damage table for the shooting result

While it's true that this seems to be a slight error in the writing of the rules, I don't think it's the easter egg you're looking for.

Penetrating 'hits' in the assault phase are clearly intended to be resolved in the same manner (i.e. roll on the table as normal) as penetrating 'shots' in the shooting phase. I've never known anyone to play it differently and most players realize this intuitively. I definitely don't think anyone will agree that it's somehow intended to be two rolls on the table for each penetrating hit in close combat (which is what I think you're suggesting?).

Not to be rude, but this seems like it's sailing perilously close to the "Wraithknights don't have eyes so they can't shoot!" type of shenanigans from 6th...

DoW

Edited for grammar.

The inclusion of the parentheses bothers me, simply leaving it as 'Resolve like a shot' would of sufficed....