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.

And that doesn't tell you that "no AP value" and "an AP value of '--'" are two different things? You literally just stated that they are exactly that.

Not to divert the argument any more than already, but necron monoliths can deepstrike and fire the particle whip, right?

N.

=_=

Gwar! wrote:

Grakmar wrote:But, Gwar, we're saying that you place the template with the small end touching the Baal Predator's gun. You then move the template so that it covers as many enemy models as you possible.

In this configuration, the template will also be covering the front of the hull of the Baal Predator (as the gun doesn't extend over the hull), but that's ok, because the template isn't actually touching the hull.

So, models hit will be 1) any enemies being covered by the template, 2) any friendlies covered by the template, 3) front armor on the Baal.

Except that the rules explicitly state that you cannot touch friendly models whatsover. Being covered is also being touched by the template...

If being covered is being touched, then is being touched being covered? It must be, because the bases are beveled and you can't touch it unless a part of the base is below it... unless of course you're taking advantage of the fact that models aren't required by the rules to stand on their bases...

It's not even relevant. The rules explicitly state that you cannot touch friendly models whatsover. They certainly do not say that being covered is also being touched by the template. They've used the term 'touching' in the same sentence, where it explicitly requires a part of the template to be touching to the base of the model. If they'd meant something else, they should have used a different word. They didn't, and so it is written.

"These are particularly indiscriminate short-ranged devices..." p. 29

I house rule otherwise, but that's what it says.

Hallowed_Da'Credo wrote:Not to divert the argument any more than already, but necron monoliths can deepstrike and fire the particle whip, right?

There is nice little thread which I can't find now... I think it grew to few pages

There is this thing with more specific rule in brb that overrides the rule in codex (in codex it says he can use it if moves, yet doesn't specify the speed, so rule in brb that disallows shooting if moved more than 6'' is more specific )...

Must say, every time I open YMDC thread about Necrons, I get disappointed more and more... I have just one comment:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Grakmar wrote:But, Gwar, we're saying that you place the template with the small end touching the Baal Predator's gun. You then move the template so that it covers as many enemy models as you possible.

In this configuration, the template will also be covering the front of the hull of the Baal Predator (as the gun doesn't extend over the hull), but that's ok, because the template isn't actually touching the hull.

So, models hit will be 1) any enemies being covered by the template, 2) any friendlies covered by the template, 3) front armor on the Baal.

Except that the rules explicitly state that you cannot touch friendly models whatsover. Being covered is also being touched by the template...

If being covered is being touched, then is being touched being covered? It must be, because the bases are beveled and you can't touch it unless a part of the base is below it... unless of course you're taking advantage of the fact that models aren't required by the rules to stand on their bases...

It's not even relevant. The rules explicitly state that you cannot touch friendly models whatsover. They certainly do not say that being covered is also being touched by the template. They've used the term 'touching' in the same sentence, where it explicitly requires a part of the template to be touching to the base of the model. If they'd meant something else, they should have used a different word. They didn't, and so it is written.

"These are particularly indiscriminate short-ranged devices..." p. 29

I house rule otherwise, but that's what it says.

If a square is a rectangle, aren't all rectangles also squares?

(no)

Unless it has beveled edges...

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Unless it has beveled edges...

In which case it's no longer a square OR a rectangle... it's an octagon.

SaintHazard wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Unless it has beveled edges...

In which case it's no longer a square OR a rectangle... it's an octagon.

I think it's actually a trapezoid.

SaintHazard wrote:And that doesn't tell you that "no AP value" and "an AP value of '--'" are two different things? You literally just stated that they are exactly that.

No. You said that close combat weapons have no AP value. Here is you saying it...

SaintHazzard wrote:Also, SmackCakes, let me go ahead and show you where your "Lasguns have no AP value" argument falls absolutely flat. Close combat attacks have no AP value. Lasguns have an AP value of "--". What's the difference? Weapons with an AP value of "--" are -1 on the vehicle damage table.

But I'm afraid it your argument that falls flat because weapons with an AP value of "-" do not suffer -1 on the vehicle damage table when they are used in close combat. Therefore the difference as you put it, is nothing.

So lets go back and fix your last statement, taking the actual facts into account...

SaintHazzard wrote:Close combat attacks have no AP value. Lasguns have an AP value of "--". What's the difference? Nothing*

Logically if no AP value and an AP value of "-" are the same, then... they are the same. The statement proves itself by way of pure obviousness.

However if you need further proof still... May I direct you (once again) to page 20 of the BRB where it is spelled out in black and white.

Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook wrote:A weapon shown as having "AP-" has no armour piercing value

Those are the exact words from the book no armour piercing value. If you want to argue about this further then I suggest you take it to the 'proposed rules' forum. This board is for actual rules

If you really do care about what is true, and what the rules say then you have to concede this point. If not then I'm just going to assume you are just arguing for the sake of it, to try and save face...

Because people who can't admit they are wrong get so much more respect, right?

I think it's awesome. I had never read it that way.

Then perhaps "no AP value" is not a good way to word it, but it doesn't change the fact that they are two different things. Again, if they were the same thing, and you've essentially said this yourself, CC attacks would always be -1 to the damage table.

So an AP value of "--" is in fact quite different from whatever you want to call what it is that CC attacks have.

Hallowed_Da'Credo wrote:Not to divert the argument any more than already, but necron monoliths can deepstrike and fire the particle whip, right?

Most recent discussion:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/320946.page

SaintHazard wrote:Then perhaps "no AP value" is not a good way to word it, but it doesn't change the fact that they are two different things. Again, if they were the same thing, and you've essentially said this yourself, CC attacks would always be -1 to the damage table.

So an AP value of "--" is in fact quite different from whatever you want to call what it is that CC attacks have.

All that proves is that shooting and close combat attacks are completely different things. Maybe if someone could shoot a chainsword and it didn't get -1 on the vehicle damage table then you might have a point. But as it stands you don't.

An analogy might be 'fax numbers'. If asked on a form for my fax number I might put down N/A (not applicable).

You are trying to argue that N/A is in fact my fax number. But it isn't because I don't have a fax number. Hell I don't even have a fax machine. Try sending a fax to N/A and see if i get it.

"-" just means "no value", the rule book even says exactly that.

Except that "--" and "no value" do NOT mean the same thing exactly in shooting, that's the thing.

For example, purely hypothetically, if a vehicle were embarked in a transport, and the transport Exploded, the embarked vehicle would take a strength 4 hit, as if from a shooting attack, with "no AP value." Not "AP "--". "No AP value."

Does this mean the hit, if it glances or penetrates (somehow), gets a -1 to the damage table?

SaintHazard wrote:Except that "--" and "no value" do NOT mean the same thing exactly in shooting, that's the thing.

For example, purely hypothetically, if a vehicle were embarked in a transport, and the transport Exploded, the embarked vehicle would take a strength 4 hit, as if from a shooting attack, with "no AP value." Not "AP "--". "No AP value."

Does this mean the hit, if it glances or penetrates (somehow), gets a -1 to the damage table?

Actually, Hazard, I would say yes, it does get -1 to damage.

Before this argument, I was in agreement with you. But, page 20 is rather convincing in saying "-" is identical to "no".

But, for all practical purposes, is there an actual situation where a shooting (or counts-as-shooting) attack has "no" AP value that can damage a vehicle?

Or, are you two really arguing about the definition of something that the rules don't care about because they don't matter

Grakmar wrote:But, for all practical purposes, is there an actual situation where a shooting (or counts-as-shooting) attack has "no" AP value that can damage a vehicle?

Or, are you two really arguing about the definition of something that the rules don't care about because they don't matter

Warp spiders.

dayve110 wrote:

Grakmar wrote:But, for all practical purposes, is there an actual situation where a shooting (or counts-as-shooting) attack has "no" AP value that can damage a vehicle?

Or, are you two really arguing about the definition of something that the rules don't care about because they don't matter

Warp spiders.

Warp Spiders's guns have an AP value of "-", they don't have "no AP value"

SmackCakes wrote:

Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook wrote:A weapon shown as having "AP-" has no armour piercing value

...

Warp spiders.

dayve110 wrote:

SmackCakes wrote:

Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook wrote:A weapon shown as having "AP-" has no armour piercing value

...

Warp spiders.

Haha! Ok, you got me there. I was just asking in regards to Hazard's argument (and a common belief among most of us) that "-" is different that "no AP value" because "-" means you get -1 on damage, but "no AP value" doesn't.

There are plenty of weapons with an AP of "-" that can effect vehicles, I'm just wondering if there are any weapons (or other shooting attacks) with "no AP value" that can effect vehicles.

Don't think so.

But then how do we justify close combat attacks not getting -1 on the vehicle damage chart?

Edit: Wait, I just thought of one. Storm Ravens can carry Dreadnoughts, can't they? BA's one of those armies I don't know as well as I wish I did, but I seem to remember something like this.

SaintHazard wrote:
But then how do we justify close combat attacks not getting -1 on the vehicle damage chart?

Hmmm... I'll have to dive into the exact wording of any references to AP during CC and the vehicle damage rules when I get home.

GW didn't happen to think this through and include a sentence saying something like "During a CC attack, ignore any AP values for any and all purposes" did they? Or, maybe in the vehicle damage results use the term "shooting attack" rather than just "attack" in terms of the AP modifiers?


Edit: Wait... vehicles CAN ride in vehicles? In that case, what armor facing is hit if their transport explodes?

I'm working on that now, but let's address the Storm Raven issue. A Storm Raven can carry a Dreadnought, if I'm remembering correctly. So what happens if a Storm Raven explodes with a Dreadnought embarked? The Dreadnought takes a S4 hit with "no AP value," as if from a shooting attack.

Someone got a Blood Angels codex handy? How does it say to deal with that situation? Armor facing hit, result of a "no AP value" hit on the damage table, etc?

Edit: Just checked the FAQ, doesn't say anything. So I assume this information is in the codex somewhere.

One of the two codices I don't have. (The other being Space Wolves)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, so GW likes to be nice and ambiguous regarding the wording in the Assault, Assaulting Vehicles, and Damage Rolls sections of the rulebook. It doesn't specifically tell you to factor in any kind of AP value for close combat weapons, but that's okay because they don't have one. What it does say is this:

Page 61:

"‘AP–’ weapons
While some weapons are especially good at cutting
through heavily armoured targets, others lack the
penetrating power to destroy a vehicle easily.
Penetrating and glancing hits inflicted by a weapon
shown as ‘AP–’ suffer a modifier of -1 to the roll on the
Vehicle Damage table."

Says nothing about differentiating between shooting and CC.

Page 63:

"Armour penetration in close combat
Armour Penetration is worked out in the same way as
for shooting (D6 + the Strength of the attacker). In
close combat, however, all hits are resolved against the
vehicle’s rear armour, to represent the chance of
attacking a vulnerable spot."

Says nothing about AP whatsoever.

Page 42:

"NORMAL CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS
Weapons like chainswords, rifle butts, combat blades,
bayonets, etc., do not confer any particular bonus to
the model using them. Remember that, in close
combat, pistols count as normal close combat weapons
and so the Strength and AP of the pistol are ignored."

Only specifically references pistols.

It's notable that CCWs are never given an AP value of any kind, so it'd be accurate to say they "do not have an AP value."

Whether that can be specifically worded as weapons "with no AP value" in order to force a -1 on the vehicle damage table, though... that seems shady. The words "no AP value" are never explicitly written, as far as I can tell.

This indicates that CC attacks without an AP value are different from shooting attacks with AP value "--".

I've read this entire thread, and I still can't understand how we got from a debate as to whether touching=covering to whether or not AP - equals No AP.

Saldiven wrote:I've read this entire thread, and I still can't understand how we got from a debate as to whether touching=covering to whether or not AP - equals No AP.

Actually, it started with a question about disembarking from a vehicle moving at Cruising speed and firing weapons.

Ok, so here's how I interpret everything. Please chime in if I've missed something.

1) An AP of "-" is the same as saying "no AP value"

2) A close combat attack doesn't have an AP value, which is the same as having a "-" AP value

3) The vehicle damage modifies requires a "weapon shows as 'AP-'" which is distinct from attacks which have "no AP value", and although they are the same thing, the modifier actually requires the weapon to explicitly list an AP of "-"

4) Seriously Blood Angels? Really? Vehicles being transported in vehicles? If I destroy the dread, does the pilot just pop out and it turns out to be Mephiston? Next thing you know, you'll be telling me they can deep strike Land Raiders by throwing them out the backs of planes.

The BA codex says that the dread takes a Str 4 hit to the rear armor. No mention of an AP value at all.

But it has no AP value, which is the same as AP being "--" . . . so that must mean you get -1 on the vehicle damage table. Yeah? Obviously at S4 you're only going to glance on a 6 . . . Thus making it -2 on the damage table. But this means you could immobilise the dread on a 6, or destroy a weapon on a 5.

And if we're going to be 'logical' about this whole flamers hitting friendly models or not. Then I put it to you that surely a bunch of marines and a Dredonaught falling out of the sky would suffer some extra wounds no?

Therefor, follow the rules, not common sense. Baals can't fire their flamers forward. Friendly models are friendly models no matter what day of the week it is. And theorectically an elephant could fly if it's bones were made of Honeycomb and it sprouted wings for ears . . .

Oshova

I like that interpretation. "No AP value" and "AP '--'" are the same thing, but the weapon profile MUST say "AP '--'" in order to get -1 on the vehicle damage chart.

Saying "a weapon shown as having "AP-" has no armour piercing value" is not the same as saying "a weapon having no amour piercing values has AP-" any more than saying "a square is a rectangle" says "a rectangle is a square"

I really don't see why this is continuing. You don't need a storm raven to carry a dread, we already know they can be put inside drop pods. But it doesn't matter because the rules on page 67 of the 40k rule book say that passengers in a vehicle that explodes take a strength 4, AP- hit like a shooting attack.

The rules for pistols in CC say that AP is ignored. Whether you are using an AP1 Infernus Pistol, or an AP- las pistol, or a close combat weapon. It makes no difference. AP is not part of CC attacks. It only counts for shooting type attacks.