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.

Fallanir wrote: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?

No, it is just AP2 and +D3 on rolls to pen.

Skinnattittar wrote: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.

Actually, you are wrong here. Plasma cutters work by creating an arc of "plasma" based on superheating gasses propelled by the device in conjunction with an electrical arc, this process not only melts the metal but also casts it aside thus creating the appearence of "disintegrating" the metal. The ability of the device to increase the length of that arc relies more on the technology driving the cutter (in higher end models, the pilot arc's length) then merely the size of the powerstation. And even still, if you had the technology to create a 270degree plasma arc (the typical melee weapon with a "plasma charge") that could function without initial contact or a pilot arc, then you will more then likely be able to cut through any thickness of metal with as much ease as a modern age torch can cut through the hood of a car...

But that aside, comparing real world technology to technology in a supposed age of over forty-thousand years from now is a bit far-fetched. Which actually seems to show where you stem your points from... Yes, in todays world, the thickness of armor effects how difficult it is to penetrate (as seen with a Kevlar Bodyarmor suit vs merely wrapping yourself with standard Fibreoptic wires ((Which have kevlar in them)) ) however, when you start talking about technology far in the future that has such descriptors as "Can carve through armor and stone with as much resistance as empty air" then it is very justifiable to assume that such technology would also be advantageous against a vehicle vs a standard weapon (or fist).

Skinnattittar wrote:
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.

Once again, the argument of "I'm right because I'm right" doesn't hold much water. I'm at work right now, and I will have to go through my old books when I get the free time but thinking harder about it, I actually think it was in both (if not identical then similar)

Also, even if the rules did not allow for Powerweapons to have an advantage against vehicles, that does not invalidate the logical reasonings in which Powerweapons SHOULD/COULD (Not "DO") have and advantage over vehicles (which is what this whole debate is about). I dare you to claim that EVERY rule in ANY GW BGB is entirely logical...

Skinnattittar wrote:
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.

In fluff you are completely wrong. Every instance in which a character with a powerweapon (take EVERY encounter that Eisenhorn had with a vehicle) that I have read have shown that powerweapon being VASTLY superior to the standard weapon on said armor. Either by means of cleaving the tank completely in half, specifically noting that the energy field scrambled the engine, or marking that by merely bouncing off the side of the hull of a predator the weapons disruptive energies fused the side sponson shut, rendering the weapon useless.... I have yet to read an example of a powerweapon being ignored by a vehicle, yet countless are the instances where mere chainswords and bare fists negated by the armor of such 'impenetrable forces' of a Chimera. Fluff completly contradicts the argument of Powerweapons =/= special against vehicles, and they are entirely "Cannon" for how the 40k Universe actually is, it is the Rules of the Warhammer 40000 boardgame that are not 100% cannon with the fluff (Thus spacemarines not being gods)

The "History of powerweapons NOT doing any extra damage" extends to five different books, while that of them doing more extends to almost the entirety of the Black Library, including this gem which I think might help allow you to understand where the arguments in favor of AP1 to powerweapons stem from, (tho just about any other book in the catalogue should already do that)

Fallanir wrote: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?

No. It's AP2 vs Infantry and D3 vs Armour.

@ Daemon-Archon Ren : The point of the plasma cutter example was to show that even a device that can cut (with a form of energy) a material with ease, is still very dependent on the thickness of the material (or equally so, the power of the device). It does not matter if you are cutting the material via heat, shock, shear, or even molecular breakdown, the thickness of the material depends on how quickly or easily you will cut through it.

Power weapons ARE imaginary. But being that they are imaginary, that would mean their abilities are dependent on the "imaginer." If we consider that this is a GW imaginary world, we would have to at some level accept what they say on certain subjects. Surely, GW's rules are not always perfectly logical (if at all ever) or even mechanically practical, I can more than accept that. However, GW has had a long standing system for Power Weapons. They have not changed much at all in the past twelve years!

We are not arguing over how vehicles work, or infantry moves, or the logical methods of shooting and assaulting. Those things have changed, in some cases a lot, in every edition of 40k. However, Power Weapons have not! They have stayed, not only fundamentally the same, but practically the same. As a matter of fact, just by calling it off my head, since 3rd Edition, Power Weapons have not changed at all! Especially in regards to how they effect vehicles.

So to simply start stating, "well obviously Power Weapons are AP1. GW has just gotten that completely wrong for over a decade and has never addressed it, or shown interest in changing it." That, is arrogance.

As for fluff references, I can not actually remember the last time I read about anyone dicing up a vehicle with a power sword like so much butter.... Except for a titan battle and some large servitors, I don't think Eisenhorn OR Ravenor have fought vehicles in their books.... I think Gaunt has diced up some armor plating, but I don't recall him attacking a vehicle with his power sword.... I don't recall any power weapon on vehicle action in Horus Rising either, or Mechanicus.... I am not saying I would trust any of those books, as GW has said/implied on many occasions that the books (and fluff in general) are not considered explicitly cannon for 40k. So I would take everything with a grain of salt.

Now, before I hear "so you think they write that stuff just for fun?!! If you can't trust the books, then trust nothing!" No, I am not saying that. The books are meant to entertain and be interesting. Now as humorous as it would be for the protagonist to run up to a Chaos Rhino, swing out, and have their Power Weapon make no effect, it would also be rather anti-climatic. It is just a basic literary device of "bad-assery" to have a character bash apart a formidable antagonist as a war machine! Suspension of dis-belief, I say noting the irony.

Skinnattittar wrote: It does not matter if you are cutting the material via heat, shock, shear, or even molecular breakdown, the thickness of the material depends on how quickly or easily you will cut through it.

Power weapons ARE imaginary. But being that they are imaginary, that would mean their abilities are dependent on the "imaginer."

GW is the Imaginer

so let me go ahead and give you some direct quotes... From the most recent edition

Power weapons
A power weapon is sheathed in the lethal haze of a
disruptive energy field, which eats through armour,
flesh and bone with ease. Models wounded in close
combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power
weapon are not allowed armour saves.

Showing that the imaginer would be inclined to agree that Powerweapons would be able to eat though armor with ease.... Says nothing about thickness... btw while we are on this page.

Rending weapons
If a model armed with a rending close combat weapon
rolls a 6 on any of his rolls to wound in close combat,
the opponent automatically suffers a wound, regardless
of its Toughness. These wounds count as wounds from
a power weapon. Against vehicles, an armour
penetration roll of 6 allows a further D3 to be rolled,
with the result added to the total score.

vs

RENDING
In the right circumstances, rending weapons have a
chance of piercing any armour with a hail of shots,
pinpoint accuracy or diamond-hard ammunition.
Any roll to wound of 6 with a rending weapon
automatically causes a wound, regardless of the target’s
Toughness, and counts as AP2. Against vehicles, an
armour penetration roll of 6 allows a further D3

Seeing as how GW went out of their way to make Rending Melee different from Rending Ranged would imply that Rending melee are NOT AP2. Rending ranged are NOT powerweapons as they do not ignore armor saves of any kind where in the Melee rending SPECIFICALLY states that it is a powerweapon. The lack of continuity leaves much to be considered.

Skinnattittar wrote:
If we consider that this is a GW imaginary world, we would have to at some level accept what they say on certain subjects. Surely, GW's rules are not always perfectly logical (if at all ever) or even mechanically practical, I can more than accept that. However, GW has had a long standing system for Power Weapons. They have not changed much at all in the past twelve years!

We are not arguing over how vehicles work, or infantry moves, or the logical methods of shooting and assaulting. Those things have changed, in some cases a lot, in every edition of 40k. However, Power Weapons have not! They have stayed, not only fundamentally the same, but practically the same. As a matter of fact, just by calling it off my head, since 3rd Edition, Power Weapons have not changed at all! Especially in regards to how they effect vehicles.


So to simply start stating, "well obviously Power Weapons are AP1. GW has just gotten that completely wrong for over a decade and has never addressed it, or shown interest in changing it." That, is arrogance.

Actually, it is the point of the discussion. GW is contradicting themselves and they have been for over a decade, I will make that claim (as it seems you have as well). Not changing in twelve years is not really all that much of a big deal, all and all the major changes to this game in the past 12 years is the vehicle damage table, running, and losing the ability to Sweeping advance into another melee. (other then true LOS and the allies system). You yourself say that GW makes illogical rules (hell take for example the fact that a lasconnon shot can hit a guardsman (thus piercing its armor with a huge laserbeam) yet has a 1 in 6 chances of not even hurting that guardsman... ) the point is that the fact that Powerweapons are not currently AP1 (or at least share the benefits of AP1 weaponry vs vehicles) is illogical and there is more then enough justification, even in the rulebooks that have yet to state otherwise, to warrant this PROPOSED RULE (hmm, curious that this forum has that SAME NAME).

The counterpoint that "GW has not made this a rule in the past" in a Proposed Rules forum is just plain stupid. Seeing as how it is your last ditch counterpoint, I respectfully ask for more proper justification as to why the proposed rule would NOT make sense nor be warrented with reasons other then "It isnt a rule yet and has never been" (because honestly, if it was already a rule, what would the point of the proposal). You bring up thickness as your only real argument, the general concensus is that Thickness is not an issue for a powerweapon (both in fluff and in rulebooks). If you cannot come up with anything else then you really have no ground to stand on.

Skinnattittar wrote:
As for fluff references, I can not actually remember the last time I read about anyone dicing up a vehicle with a power sword like so much butter.... Except for a titan battle and some large servitors, I don't think Eisenhorn OR Ravenor have fought vehicles in their books.... I think Gaunt has diced up some armor plating, but I don't recall him attacking a vehicle with his power sword.... I don't recall any power weapon on vehicle action in Horus Rising either, or Mechanicus.... I am not saying I would trust any of those books, as GW has said/implied on many occasions that the books (and fluff in general) are not considered explicitly cannon for 40k. So I would take everything with a grain of salt.

Now, before I hear "so you think they write that stuff just for fun?!! If you can't trust the books, then trust nothing!" No, I am not saying that. The books are meant to entertain and be interesting. Now as humorous as it would be for the protagonist to run up to a Chaos Rhino, swing out, and have their Power Weapon make no effect, it would also be rather anti-climatic. It is just a basic literary device of "bad-assery" to have a character bash apart a formidable antagonist as a war machine! Suspension of dis-belief, I say noting the irony.

So the fluff was made to entertain and therefor is not cannon with the fluff...

Sounds very Tinfoil-hat-esque to me...

@ Daemon-Archon Ren : Regardless of what fluff there is that describes a Power Sword cutting through armor more easily than non-Power Weapons, GW has not made power weapons any stronger than the user in twelve years. So why change it now?

Reasons I have heard so far:

(a) Because they are described as being able to cut through armor more easily in the fluff.

(b) Because I want it

(c) Because I want it

(d) Because I want it

(e) Because I want it

(f) Because I want it

(g) Because I want it

(h) Because I want it

(i) Because I want it

(j) Because I want it

(k) Because I want it

(l) Because I want it

(m) Because I want it

(n) Because I want it

Reasons why not:

(o) Although it is described at being able to better cut through armor, by GWs lack of NOT improving PW for at least the past twelve years, they aren't more powerful enough to justify a boost.

(p) It would cause an imbalance in the game that is not needed.

Skinnattittar wrote:@ Daemon-Archon Ren : Regardless of what fluff there is that describes a Power Sword cutting through armor more easily than non-Power Weapons, GW has not made power weapons any stronger than the user in twelve years. So why change it now?

...

Reasons why not:

(o) Although it is described at being able to better cut through armor, by GWs lack of NOT improving PW for at least the past twelve years, they aren't more powerful enough to justify a boost.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
The counterpoint that "GW has not made this a rule in the past" in a Proposed Rules forum is just plain stupid. Seeing as how it is your last ditch counterpoint, I respectfully ask for more proper justification as to why the proposed rule would NOT make sense nor be warrented with reasons other then "It isnt a rule yet and has never been" (because honestly, if it was already a rule, what would the point of the proposal). You bring up thickness as your only real argument, the general concensus is that Thickness is not an issue for a powerweapon (both in fluff and in rulebooks). If you cannot come up with anything else then you really have no ground to stand on.

(p) It would cause an imbalance in the game that is not needed.

Imbalance? No more so then the removal of Sweeping Advances into subsequent melee assualts caused...

Also, the "Because I want it" x 13 is borderline spam, its unjustified, and it sounds like nothing more then the desperate cries of someone at the bottom of the barrel in terms of legitmate counterpoints.

This is not so much a "Proposed Rule" as it is a discussion about how Power Weapons are not properly represented as being God-sticks, which is essentially all that you have argued, Daemon-Archon Ren.

I posted "Because I want it" many times because just about every claim that Power Weapons are described as being God-sticks boils away to simply that; grasping at straws.

Sweeping Advances make sense fluff-wise, but they proved to be ridiculously powerful to the point that uber-assault units could clear a table unless confronted by another uber-assault unit. Anyone reasonable who remembers those times should be able to tell you it was a horrible game mechanic that was essentially 100% cheese.

Giving Power Weapons the ability to more easily destroy or neuter tanks is highly inappropriate. It is not as if tanks are tough to make useless lumps out of. So something that is not supported by fluff or particularly wanted by players seems to be a completely unneeded change.

Just because it is in Proposed Rules, does not mean past track records from GW are inappropriate. You continually mis-quote GW saying that they have been fluff-supporting Power Weapon God-sticks, I have been pointing out that they have not by your own logic of using GW fluff-to-table. If you can use GW quotes, so can I, don't be a hypocrite or condescending. Not every idea that looks like a good one turns out to be a good one.

In other news; I think my baking soda has gone flat. My pancakes won't rise....

Skinnattittar wrote:This is not so much a "Proposed Rule" as it is a discussion about how Power Weapons are not properly represented as being God-sticks, which is essentially all that you have argued, Daemon-Archon Ren.

Forum Index >> 40K Proposed Rules. But that's just me...

Skinnattittar wrote:
I posted "Because I want it" many times because just about every claim that Power Weapons are described as being God-sticks boils away to simply that; grasping at straws.

Not if you have read any of the fluff outside of the first few pages of the 5th edition rulebook... (Or even any of the Descriptions of powerweapons in ANY of the rulebooks period)

Skinnattittar wrote:
Sweeping Advances make sense fluff-wise, but they proved to be ridiculously powerful to the point that uber-assault units could clear a table unless confronted by another uber-assault unit. Anyone reasonable who remembers those times should be able to tell you it was a horrible game mechanic that was essentially 100% cheese.

Giving Power Weapons the ability to more easily destroy or neuter tanks is highly inappropriate. It is not as if tanks are tough to make useless lumps out of. So something that is not supported by fluff or particularly wanted by players seems to be a completely unneeded change.

So you are essencially saying that SAs were fluff accurate but overpowered so they were removed from the game...

Giving powerweapons +1 on the table would be "highly inappropriate" (which is a MAJOR stretch, +1 on the table is a >12%(Depending on str-vs-AV and # of hits scored) probably increase, >12% is not "Highly inappropriate" and as such was not included in previous versions of the game so therefor it is not fluff based (you still have yet to provide any fluff mentioning powerweapons failing/doing equal to normal weapons to vehicles btw)

Skinnattittar wrote:
You continually mis-quote GW saying that they have been fluff-supporting Power Weapon God-sticks, I have been pointing out that they have not by your own logic of using GW fluff-to-table. If you can use GW quotes, so can I, don't be a hypocrite or condescending. Not every idea that looks like a good one turns out to be a good one.

Actually, I'm quoting GW fluff to support how GW fluff states how powerweapons work in fluff.

You are "quoting" (actually its more like interpreting, as there has never been a line of text in a GW rule book that has ever said "Powerweapons don't effect Vehicle Armor in the same way as Infantry armor" to quote) GWs past RULEBOOKS to explain how powerweapons work in fluff

You also 'misquoted' fluff specifically in your example of Gaunt never using his powersword on a vehicle when the are many examples in his first omnibus alone (The Founding) including such specific ones as his powersword cutting through the barrel of a chaos predator like butter (I'll try and find you the exact page number when I get home later tonight). You also 'misquote' when you say that powerweapons

aren't like Light Sabers that some people think they are.

when it specifically states that the weapons that Eisenhorns most resembles that of a Lightsaber, in that it has no physical weapon to core its "Powerweapon" portion yet slices through both armor and bone alike with the ease of rainwater on a tissue.

So please, give example of me misquoting fluff... especially in relation to powerweapons NOT being 'god-sticks'...

It sounds more to me like your reasons for why it shouldn't be changed are less "Fluff based" and more "Because it would nerf my Guard Army harder" based...

I did NOT say Sweeping Advances were fluff accurate at all. I specifically said "they made sense" fluff-wise. They were extremely over powered and broke the game, that is why they were removed. Getting rid of Sweeping Advances also makes sense fluff-wise. In general, assaults are not fluff accurate. I do not care what kind of sword you have or how skilled you are at close combat. When I flip the switch from semi to auto, you are not going to get very close to me in the open, medium range, or even in combat that occurs more than a few meters away. The best you could do is get me inside a building or very thick under-brush. Otherwise, even a Lasgun would be a formidable weapon to just about any close-combat specialist. So why not represent that in the game? Well, good luck making a KISS system based on fire and maneuver, and do you know how many people would leave 40k?

Well, I would not so much say you are "mis-quoting" as you are "mis-interpretting then selectively quoting" 40k. Slicing through body armor and material softer than vehicle armor (remember, rockcrete is tougher than stone, but by volume is not tougher than most other 40k materials). You are taking the results of one situation and applying them to a totally different situation. By that I mean carapace armor is relatively thin compared to the hull of a tank.

You might be quoting GW fluff, but you are not understanding its context. You can select particular passages and phrases and ignore what obviously opposes your point of view. By that I mean, GW has not changed PW in twelve years and the fluff on power weapons has not changed for longer. I would think that those two things have a correlation. This isn't the differences between 1st Edition Guard and 5th Edition Guard, with such a massive difference in just about everything but a core. We are talking about something that has been pretty much the most constant rules and fluff correlation in 40k's history!

So until you come up with something that actually shows Power Weapons should change, other than "because I want it" or "look at how well I can mis-interpret stuff," I'm done arguing the same thing with you. It's like watching blather chaff bouncing off the wall of logic.... you don't even have the volume or substance to cause erosion over time!

Skinnattittar wrote:I did NOT say Sweeping Advances were fluff accurate at all. I specifically said "they made sense" fluff-wise... Getting rid of Sweeping Advances also makes sense fluff-wise.

So now your are arguing with yourself? (Does that also depend on what my definition of the word 'is' is?)

Skinnattittar wrote:
In general, assaults are not fluff accurate. I do not care what kind of sword you have or how skilled you are at close combat. When I flip the switch from semi to auto, you are not going to get very close to me in the open, medium range, or even in combat that occurs more than a few meters away. The best you could do is get me inside a building or very thick under-brush.

Have you even read the fluff? Hell, even outside of Black Library publications, almost every game-art picture shows two armies (Typically Imperium/Non-Imperium) within several feet of eachother on a battlefield...

Skinnattittar wrote:
Otherwise, even a Lasgun would be a formidable weapon to just about any close-combat specialist. So why not represent that in the game? Well, good luck making a KISS system based on fire and maneuver, and do you know how many people would leave 40k?

In which BGB does it not say that the 'butt's of weapons like Lasguns or Bolters are not used as Close Combat weapons?

Skinnattittar wrote:
Well, I would not so much say you are "mis-quoting" as you are "mis-interpretting then selectively quoting" 40k. Slicing through body armor and material softer than vehicle armor (remember, rockcrete is tougher than stone, but by volume is not tougher than most other 40k materials). You are taking the results of one situation and applying them to a totally different situation. By that I mean carapace armor is relatively thin compared to the hull of a tank.

But powerweapons do not only pierce Carapace armor, actually, they pierce Tactical Dreadnaught armor which is composed of of MUCH stronger materials then that of a Chimera and typically thicker then even that of Dark Eldar boats and Ork trucks...

Skinnattittar wrote:
You might be quoting GW fluff, but you are not understanding its context. You can select particular passages and phrases and ignore what obviously opposes your point of view. By that I mean, GW has not changed PW in twelve years and the fluff on power weapons has not changed for longer. I would think that those two things have a correlation. This isn't the differences between 1st Edition Guard and 5th Edition Guard, with such a massive difference in just about everything but a core. We are talking about something that has been pretty much the most constant rules and fluff correlation in 40k's history!

Actually, I am saying ALL GW fluff that involves powerweapons against Vehicle armor show the Powerweapon favoring that of a normal CCW. It would be you who would be finding specific examples of those that do not (which even that, you have failed to do)

And while GW has not changed the way POWERWEAPONS have worked in the past 12 years, they have changed the way AP1 works (no longer autopen) the vehicle table works quite recently (their used to be 2 tables... remember?).

Skinnattittar wrote:
So until you come up with something that actually shows Power Weapons should change, other than "because I want it" or "look at how well I can mis-interpret stuff," I'm done arguing the same thing with you. It's like watching blather chaff bouncing off the wall of logic.... you don't even have the volume or substance to cause erosion over time!

As stated above, with the 5TH EDITION change to both the way the vehicle table works, and how AP1 no longer auto pens, powerweapons should receive the +1 to the table as rhe effect now would be far less game changing then it would have been in the older editions of Warhammer 40k due to the fact that it is more consistant with the fluff of the warhammer 40k universe and the more restrictive rules of Warhammer 40k 5th edition to melee do call the need for a counterbalance rules change (ie Powerweapons counting as AP1) which is further justified by already substantial point cost of a powerweapon and the current trend of vehicles gaining the benefit of a reduction of point costs for improved abilities/rules.

How about that?

Hi Deamon -Archon Ren.
As GW has deemed it necissary to employ a completley seperate system for vehicle armour, to other units armour resolution.
I can only assume this was done to make some weapons very effective vs NON vehicles, yet have no benifit vs vehicles.
Eg Power weapon totaly ignore personal armour , yet have no benifit vs vehicles.

Other wise continuation of the armour save and toughness to cover vehicles , or the AV- Str system to cover other units would have been used.
Why else would they employ such a complicated set of systems , instead of just one simple one?

You personaly want to give power weapons a boost vs vehicles, because you think it is a good thing, fair enough,you are entitled to your opinion.
However, as most people agree to use the opinions of the 40k dev team , dont expect anyone to agree with your opinion ,'.... just because...'.
'House rule' it with your friends if they are agreeable .

Happy gaming
Lanrak.

So until you come up with something that actually shows Power Weapons should change, other than "because I want it" or "look at how well I can mis-interpret stuff," I'm done arguing the same thing with you. It's like watching blather chaff bouncing off the wall of logic.... you don't even have the volume or substance to cause erosion over time!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:Hi Deamon -Archon Ren.
As GW has deemed it necissary to employ a completley seperate system for vehicle armour, to other units armour resolution.
I can only assume this was done to make some weapons very effective vs NON vehicles, yet have no benifit vs vehicles.
Eg Power weapon totaly ignore personal armour , yet have no benifit vs vehicles.

Other wise continuation of the armour save and toughness to cover vehicles , or the AV- Str system to cover other units would have been used.
Why else would they employ such a complicated set of systems , instead of just one simple one?

You personaly want to give power weapons a boost vs vehicles, because you think it is a good thing, fair enough,you are entitled to your opinion.
However, as most people agree to use the opinions of the 40k dev team , dont expect anyone to agree with your opinion ,'.... just because...'.
'House rule' it with your friends if they are agreeable .

Becareful Lanrak. I concur with your interpretation, and have said as much several times. However... personal comments edited out by the mgmt. Please argue the argument, don't make it about the person you're arguing with, even if you do it in a friendly and playful way that reflects the situation and the culture of gaming. Some of us moderators have no sense of humor and hate you all.

Edited again. Do not undo a Moderator's work.

@Skin

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
with the 5TH EDITION change to both the way the vehicle table works, and how AP1 no longer auto pens, powerweapons should receive the +1 to the table as rhe effect now would be far less game changing then it would have been in the older editions of Warhammer 40k due to the fact that it is more consistant with the fluff of the warhammer 40k universe and the more restrictive rules of Warhammer 40k 5th edition to melee do call the need for a counterbalance rules change (ie Powerweapons counting as AP1) which is further justified by already substantial point cost of a powerweapon and the current trend of vehicles gaining the benefit of a reduction of point costs for improved abilities/rules.

How about that?

Ironic that your metaphor involved a "wall of logic" when it is clear that you yourself aren't using any...

Lanrak wrote:
You personaly want to give power weapons a boost vs vehicles, because you think it is a good thing, fair enough,you are entitled to your opinion.
However, as most people agree to use the opinions of the 40k dev team , dont expect anyone to agree with your opinion ,'.... just because...'.
'House rule' it with your friends if they are agreeable .

Do I personally want to give it the buff? Hell no! Of my lists, I have far less av14 then anyone else... hell as DE I would effectively be getting Pen'd with Str4 and ultra penned with Powerfists/Hammers/Chainfists (o god chain fists would be nasty...) but this isnt about ME. Unlike SOMEPEOPLE (who will remain nameless) I don't only apply balance towards my own personal situation... I apply it FAIRLY. The reason's aren't "Just because". They have been reflected apon time and time again, 5th edition rebalence move, the way that based on fluff Powerweapons should be functioning as AP1, etc (if you really want the full list I can give it to you). There are quite a bit more reasons then "Because I said so" (unless you are just reading Skin's posts...), especially in favor of them getting AP1 as opposed to them not getting AP1 (so far the only reasons why not are "Because you want them too" and "Because my leman russes already get pounded in melee" as well as an extremely flawed argument about thickness... but anyone who has read the fluff on 40k should know that Thickness is represented more by AV then it is material composition and should have nothing to do with a blow that already penetrates/glances it's armor...) so I will defend such a proposed rule (especially the logic behind said rule, even if not transitioned to game terms) and I would appreciate if you at least took the time to read them before jumping to such narrowminded accusations...

Now as far as "The opinions of the Dev Teams" and "Completely different system"

Point 1: the system is because wounding a person and breaking a car are two totally differnt things... it doesn't take a Socratic debate to solve that one...

Point 2: The entire reason for a 'proposed rule' section of a forum based on a game would be contesting the "opinions" of the Dev teams, so again I restate... "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" The point of this forum is the point of this discussion, invalidating the reason for debate would invalidate the need of a forum of this type completely... in which case this discussion would have never came up...>

Hi Daemon-Archon Ren.
As an aside, all the other game systems I use , use one simple system for determining damage on ALL units.

40k rule set is based purley on the opinion of the developers , as it is just a load of cool ideas bundled together to make a fun game for ages 11 and up.
And as such , the background is used very loosly as a guidline for the game play.BUT rules often HAVE to be modified to reduce the imballance in game play.

In no way shape or form, is 40k any sort of simulation of real world military conflict.

In historical games sometimes the eye witness testomiony is unreliable,exagerated and biased.(In the same way 40k fluff is often exagerated.)
However it is possible to use impirical evidence to correct this.

As 40k has no impirical evidence, it relies on opinions of the developers and playtesters to correct the 'exagerations' in the fluff.
Unfortunatley , making an existing element of 40k better or worse in isolation ,is just a subjective opinion.

Most things posted on this forum is 'opinion swapping' with others.
And are posted for people concideration to be included in 'house rules', or 'alternative rule sets' if they like them.

If you said that the power weapon was the equivelent of a Panzerfaust,(HEAT warhead) and you could give me the HRA equivelent thickness of the armour of all 40k vehicles , then we could define the effects on the vehicles, (along with other weapons types,) impiracaly.(From known values.)

But as 40k does not even scale the power of the hit to the result on the target vehicle ...its just a game for ages 11 and up...

By all means play the rules modification you sugest with your gaming buddies.
And anyone who agrees with you may adopt them too.
But those who do not share your opinion will not .

Trying to convice someone to change thier opinion without impirical evidence to back up your argument , is a waste of time.
(This was the point I was trying to make.)


TTFN
Lanrak.

Why so much hostility in this thread?

Please keep the discussion on point and limit your arguments to the subject itself, and NOT the actual users.

Otherwise...

Maybe instead of making them AP1, just give Power Weapon/Fist/etc. +1 against Glancing Hits.

If you score a pen hit due to Furious Charge or some other +STR bonus against Rear10 vehicles, the current damage table is adequate. Boosting pens by +1 shouldn't be that common.

However, a majority of the time the best a STR4 guy can do against a vehicle is glance it. Lots of shaking and no boom unless previously banged on. We like the boom. A 1 out of 6 chance seems reasonable for how Power Weapons are described. Fists may not need this bump.

Shas'O Dorian wrote:AP 1 I'm not too fond of. However I could see it as "adding 1 or 2 (pending play testing) to rolls to penetrate vehicle armor."

I like that idea. AP1 is just too much. Only the most powerful weapons get AP1. A power weapon is more akin to a lascannon in that its powerful enough to ignore infantry armor, and even possibly damage a tank, but it probably won't destroy it. I could imagine a power weapon cutting through a tank tread or poking a hole in it's engine, but it wouldn't destroy the systems the crew uses to operate it or ignite the fuel in the tank and cause it to explode, so it would make sense that they would add to the roll to penetrate (perhaps +D3?) but still count as AP- (-2 on vehicle damage table).

1337m45747r0y wrote:...would add to the roll to penetrate (perhaps +D3?) but still count as AP- (-2 on vehicle damage table).

That.... actually.... isn't a terrible idea. While the AP-, on face value, violently flies in the face of what a Power Weapon is, working within the rules it works nicely. However, for a -2 on the VDT, you are thinking of a Glancing Hit, which is not entirely objectionable. It allows Power Weapons to more greatly reflect their ability to do damage to the lighter exterior bits, such as drive mechanisms (treads, tires, axles, etc...) and weapons (barrels, scopes, and what-not), while not being vehicle destroyers. So....

Power Weapons: Do +D3 for Armor Penetration, but may only count as Glancing Hits.

The only problem are units with high Strength characteristics which are supposed to be able to destroy vehicles. So while an interesting idea for S5 and below characters, S6 and up would suffer against their fluff.

well this throws off using a chainblade to cut through tank armour, only after you punch it. (which would break the blade but w.e.)

I like the +D3, it's like rending.

what about rending power weapons.

they would be D6+2D3

That makes sense, except it would essentially be 2D6. Rending on a chainfist (or similar weapon) would be 2D6+D3, which is frankly kinda terrifying.

Actually, D6+2D3 is better than 2D6. The lowest you can get on 2D6 is 2, the lowest you can get on D6+2D3 is 3. Either way, it's a crappy idea because now you're using Melta Weapons! Just with a lower Strength.


@ Solon : Are you really quoting yourself to mock my intentionally ironic signature? Man, that's levels of irony I can't begin to give a crap about! Also, if you are making up a quote from yourself, you don't need to [box] any part of it. Using [ ] (I forget the name for it) means you are changing the words someone used, but are saying the same thing.

For instance, Gwar! did not explicitly say "Skinnattittar is right." He said, quoting me and to me, "You are right." As a matter of fact, that was when he still had all those wingdangdoodles in his signature singing his own praises about how correct he was... So I started mine with his quote after defeating him in intellectual combat. However I pre-warned people by beginning with:
Just because anyone agrees with anyone, doesn't mean they are correct (even me!). Beware the thin line between what is "Correct" and what is "Popular."

Just, you know, FYI....

Sorry for the delay, I was out of the country for a while just got back... First off......

Lanrak wrote:

40k rule set is based purley on the opinion of the developers , as it is just a load of cool ideas bundled together to make a fun game for ages 11 and up.
And as such , the background is used very loosly as a guidline for the game play.BUT rules often HAVE to be modified to reduce the imballance in game play.

Age 11 is just the minimum age for the most basic of rules, I don't see 11-15 year olds saving up their bank and buying 10k pt armies or attending Games Day or other tournies. While the most casual of game settings (and most basic) is designed for younger players, it is my "empirical evidence" that the competitive gamer tends to be of a more "advanced aged" (nice way of saying 'old') and when discussing proposed rules for game balencing purposes, it should be safe to assume that the oversimplification of some of the rules (that is intended for the younger audience) is not to be applied. (Remember, at face "opinion" of the Devs, in 5th edition the Dark Eldar codex contains 0 units, as it contains no unit types)

Lanrak wrote:
In no way shape or form, is 40k any sort of simulation of real world military conflict.

No one is saying it is?

Lanrak wrote:
In historical games sometimes the eye witness testomiony is unreliable,exagerated and biased.(In the same way 40k fluff is often exagerated.)
However it is possible to use impirical evidence to correct this.

As 40k has no impirical evidence, it relies on opinions of the developers and playtesters to correct the 'exagerations' in the fluff.
Unfortunatley , making an existing element of 40k better or worse in isolation ,is just a subjective opinion.

...

Trying to convice someone to change thier opinion without impirical evidence to back up your argument , is a waste of time.
(This was the point I was trying to make.)

by quoting the authors direct works? It isnt empirical evidence to say "In The Founding the first Omnibus in the Gaunt's Ghosts series, Gaunt uses his powersword to slice through the barrel of a chaos predator with incredible ease". This is not contestable, it is written fact. Empirical evicence is not even required to prove fact or logic (which is being debated here, if you defacto to the initial argument of 'there is no logic behind AP1 powerweapons' ). I have never observed or experienced Menstruation (I am a Male) yet I know it exist, I have heard about it, I have read about it, but I have never personall experienced it. Does this mean it is not factual or logical to believe menstruation exists? I have no empirical evidence... Do you see my point?

But that being said, there actually IS empirical evidence to back up the 'opinion' that powerweapons should count as AP1. Warhammer 40k is a fictional world, and as with all worlds of fiction; the laws, fact, and setting are determined by the writers of the fictional world. In Tolken's Lord of the Rings, Frodo was a hobbit, that is FACT in the LOTR world, yet in our world, hobbits do not exist, so by your logic... Frodo is not a Hobbit? In Azeroth, The Dark Portal is an interdimensional doorway from one world to another. Interdimensional doorways have no emperical evidence (according to your standards) in our world and as such do not exist, so The Dark Portal does not exist in Azeroth.

Fortunately, the logic of the rest of the world is such that an author is allowed to bend the rules of our real world (thus "Fantasy, Fiction, and Science Fiction) and it is in that Author's works that a set of laws/rules/etc can be gathered (If any do exist). The authors works, in relation to the warhammer 40000 universe are in the forms of Black Libruary Publications, or that of the descriptional/narrative sections of the BGB and Codices alike. It is in my "observations" of these writing, and my "experience" reading these books that I draw my conclusion that Powerweapons function in the same manner that all weapons with the current ruling of AP1 function, or at least far more similar to weapons with AP1 then those with AP2. (as much as people say "Well lazkanonz are godz 2!" the fluff actually does not support that as much as you would think... there are far more examples of armor stopping lascannons in fluff then Powerweapons (especially Chainfists)

Fluff aside, it is also my observations and experience that melee as a whole has suffered dramatic changes in 5th Edition rule sets and the changes to the Vehicle Damage table do call for a counterbalance in favor of melee assaults. For example... for the past 4 editions of Warhammer 40k, a powersword(or any str4 attack) has had the ability to destroy AV10 in 1 attack, since 5th edition it is IMPOSSIBLE to destroy AV10 with Str4 in 1 hit without any modifiers (Open-topped being the only one currently possible). Because the rules for AP1 have changed from allowing a hit that would normally cause a Glancing hit to causing a penetrating hit (with the new system, from +2 on the Table to +1) to +1 on the table, AP1 is the most suitable change to give to powerweapons to allow assaults that would once destroy a vehicle to atleast retain a maximum of 30% of their old effectiveness (for the average squad)

Lanrak wrote:
If you said that the power weapon was the equivelent of a Panzerfaust,(HEAT warhead) and you could give me the HRA equivelent thickness of the armour of all 40k vehicles , then we could define the effects on the vehicles, (along with other weapons types,) impiracaly.(From known values.)

No, not real world, can't use real world explinations.

Lanrak wrote:
But as 40k does not even scale the power of the hit to the result on the target vehicle ...its just a game for ages 11 and up...

AP1 = +1 on Damage Table

Open Topper = +1 on Damage table

AP - = -1 on Damage Table

Glancing Hits = -2 on the table.

Str 9 (higher power) weapons have a better chance to glance or penetrate a vehicles armor (Scaling the hit result before tables, the above scales it afterwards)

Again, while age 11 is the minimum age for w40k, it is not necessarily the INTENDED age. Remember, many older models had topless women, take the Dark Eldar Codex... any parent who would willing let their child read that book is probably not the most fit parent (since it constantly glorifies torture and rape) Dawn of War (computer game based on 40k Fluff) is rated... M for Mature. Mark of Chaos (based on fantasy) is the same. Most of the Black Library publications are intended for a mature audience as well, from the novels to the novelty books (The Imperial Infantrymans Uplifting Primer - Damocles Gulf Edition glorifies shooting your own comrade in the back for about 90% of rule violations, where as if I ever saw a 12 year old with Liber Chaotica in their hands I would call Child Services)

To oversimplify all rules questions, or even 40k itself, simply becuase it has an 11+ sticker on the box for AOBR is very short-sighted. The game is far more complex then that of something only designed for 12 year olds, if not, then the majority of players would merely be 12 year olds, as older(sorry, those more "advanced in age") players would go to more complex wargames instead of knowing their gamesdays would be full of prepubescent kids whining about why space marines arent shooting farther then tau, or why Monters can kill their LRBTs with fists (oh wait... swap 'kids' with imperium players and thats what you.... ) that is why we have this forum to begin with....

Speaking of which.....

Lanrak wrote:
By all means play the rules modification you sugest with your gaming buddies.
And anyone who agrees with you may adopt them too.
But those who do not share your opinion will not .

Trying to convice someone to change thier opinion without impirical evidence to back up your argument , is a waste of time.
(This was the point I was trying to make.)

40K Proposed Rules
Want to discuss how a current 40K rule could be improved? Also the place to discuss 40K rules of your own and GW experimental 40K rules

Again, what you call a waste of time, the many on these boards call "The point of this forum".

Also, as stated before, I do have empirical evidence... you are probably mixing up terminology as well as philosophy of applying the scientific method to theological debate... which doesn't work in any school. Thus theoretical debate as opposed to scientific....


That being said...

Counting powerweapons(All melee) as AP- and only allowing glances would be TERRIBLE. It would nerf the HELL out of ALL powerweapons...

That means it would get -3 on the table... meaing you have a 1 and 6 chance of doing ANYTHING to MOST vehicles (1 and 3 vs open topped) and you would have to kill every weapon, AND immobilise the vehicle and you would NEVER cause an "explodes" result... Even with just the glance (not AP -) you would never be able to cause an explodes.... if this change were to be implimented, the only counterbalence I could see to keep things even would give every assualt oriented model an extra wound/AV point and Eternal Warrior (or 4+ invul for walkers with AV, Bjorn would get a 3+).

I actually like Wildstorm's idea... as getting +1 on Pens should/would not be too common, alternatively, counting all hits with a powerweapon as only CAPABLE of causing pens (aka, old AP1 rules) with no bonus to the roll to Pen(unless chainfist) or the Table (other then Open Topped) would also be a more "balencing" method, however, as far as fluff logic... not much there... as it would be saying "The Fluff behind AP1 and Powerweapons is consistant but their rules are very different"

Hope that provides some insight?
-DAR