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.

If a model with a sniper rifle shoots at a vehicle each to-wound roll of 6 is a rending hit, resolved at AP2. A sniper rifle has S3 against vehicles. "each armour penetration roll of 6 allows a further D3 to be rolled, with the result added to the total." Does that mean that a sniper shot could make a maximum of 6 against a vehicle? Explain please!
Thanks!

3 + 6 + d3, also it's not AP2 for armor pen.

If a sniper rifle hits a vehicle it then rolls for armor pen, if this roll is a 6 you roll a d3 and add that, so your sniper rifle can be anything from S4 (1 on armor pen) to S12 (6 on armor pen +3 on d3)

The AP2 only applies against non-vehicle units, the FAQ separates the AP2 and the d3 on armor rolls

In short, it's 3 (str of weapon) plus d6 for armor pen

If you roll a 6, it's rending, which ignores armor (not ap2, just ignores armor) and then you add a d3 to the armor pen roll (of a 9 in this case)

As such, if you rend with a normal sniper rifle you will get a 10, 11, or a 12.

 juraigamer wrote:
In short, it's 3 (str of weapon) plus d6 for armor pen

If you roll a 6, it's rending, which ignores armor (not ap2, just ignores armor) and then you add a d3 to the armor pen roll (of a 9 in this case)

As such, if you rend with a normal sniper rifle you will get a 10, 11, or a 12.

The underlined is false. At no point does Rending ignore armour.

 Happyjew wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
In short, it's 3 (str of weapon) plus d6 for armor pen

If you roll a 6, it's rending, which ignores armor (not ap2, just ignores armor) and then you add a d3 to the armor pen roll (of a 9 in this case)

As such, if you rend with a normal sniper rifle you will get a 10, 11, or a 12.

The underlined is false. At no point does Rending ignore armour.

In a sense being AP2 would ignore or rather (deny) armor saves. However the point is meh imo

Thanks guys!!! Finally got it

jmswargaming wrote:
3 + 6 + d3, also it's not AP2 for armor pen.

This


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

At no point does Rending ignore armour.

The Underlined is False.

Page 17, under Armour Piercing weapons - second paragraph. "The AP rating indicates the Armour Save the Weapon can Ignore."

Page 41, under Rending. "For every roll of a 6, the target automatically suffers a wound, regardless of his toughness. These wounds are resolved at AP2."

Since the AP rating of your weapon represents the Armour Save the weapon can ignore, you rending does, in fact, ignore armour on rolls of 6. Of course, I made the reasonable assumption that no Armour Saves of 1+ exist.

The point is the wounds are AP 2 not ignores armour. This could come into effect if a model had armour that ignored AP but not weapons that ignore armour. There is a difference and while AP 2 does in effect allow you to ignore the saves currently it does not mean that it will do so in all cases.

 Gravmyr wrote:
The point is the wounds are AP 2 not ignores armour. This could come into effect if a model had armour that ignored AP but not weapons that ignore armour. There is a difference and while AP 2 does in effect allow you to ignore the saves currently it does not mean that it will do so in all cases.

Nope, AP2 ignores all armour.

Invulnerable or cover saves and feel no pain are the only saves not ignored by ap2. There will never be an example of armour that ignores ap.

Semantics aside ap2 does ignore armour saves, it puts its figures in its ears and goes "lalalalalalala"

Ap2 is better than ignores armour

you get +1 on vehicle damage rolls for ap2.

(that is literally the only difference I can think of...)

Though highly unlikely, it is possible, something in the future might come up similar to WHFB where it is possible to have a 1+ save (of course it still fails on a 1, but would allow you a save against AP2 weapons).

PredaKhaine wrote:
Ap2 is better than ignores armour

you get +1 on vehicle damage rolls for ap2.

Except Rending is not AP2 against vehicles.

Happyjew, you seem like you've a good grasp of GW. What, well you play 40k and you understand fantasy.

Not to Invoke Diaord's Rule or anything, but there is about as much chance of us getting 1+ saves or ASM as we do of having a GW sale or lowering their prices.

"It could happen" is not a valid point of argument when it simply won't.

To perform reductio ad absurdum, sure we could have 1+ armour saves.

We could also get Lasguns altered to S10 -10ASM to counter act 1+ armour saves.

The old first attempts at rules for Primarchs had 1+ armour saves.

Just saying, you really cant say "never", especially when it happened.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The old first attempts at rules for Primarchs had 1+ armour saves.

Just saying, you really cant say "never", especially when it happened.

Yes. Games workshop HAS had price reductions, I have an example in a White Dwarf I own which is older than me. That doesn't mean it will ever happen again.

It doesnt mean it is impossible, either. It is also not even Improbable, just "unlikely", and therefore worthy of including for completeness sake.

If you dont like people being precise, in a forum dedicated to determining how rules operate, then maybe this isnt the forum for you?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The old first attempts at rules for Primarchs had 1+ armour saves.

What would be the difference between a 1+ and a 2++?

PredaKhaine wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The old first attempts at rules for Primarchs had 1+ armour saves.

What would be the difference between a 1+ and a 2++?

A couple of things.
1. 1+ Armour would be removed due to ES.
2. If the 2++ is from wargear, it can be destroyed by shieldbreaker rounds.
3. 1+ is still ignored by things that specifically say they ignore armour saves (such as boneswords).

Or things that are AP1 (Melta, Railguns, etc)

I would also like to point out that I don't know much about Fantasy (very little actually). I just got bored the other day at my gaming store while waiting for people to show and started reading the WHFB Rulebook FAQ that was posted.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It doesnt mean it is impossible, either. It is also not even Improbable, just "unlikely", and therefore worthy of including for completeness sake.

If you dont like people being precise, in a forum dedicated to determining how rules operate, then maybe this isnt the forum for you?

That was incredibly rude, given that I just used the exact language of a rule to prove that a Rending weapon ignores armour.

I am Precise. I just believe that the current state of the game is an acceptable way to make judgements of what is correct.

There is no 1+ armour save right now and it is highly improbable that there ever will be one again. That is enough to say that it isn't considerable when talking about the current state of "AP2 weapons" (and thus rending weapons) ignoring all armour

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It doesnt mean it is impossible, either. It is also not even Improbable, just "unlikely", and therefore worthy of including for completeness sake.

If you dont like people being precise, in a forum dedicated to determining how rules operate, then maybe this isnt the forum for you?

I just used the exact language of a rule to prove that a Rending weapon ignores armour.

False.

You used the exact language of a rule to prove that a Rending weapon, when it scores a rend, ignores armour of 2+ or worse.

You did not prove it ignores armor. Subtle but important difference.

 DeathReaper wrote:

You did not prove it ignores armor. Subtle but important difference.

He did prove it...

entry states "AP represents the armor value a weapon can ignore."

ipso facto; AP 2 ignores armor saves... please stop being obtuse about it.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

You did not prove it ignores armor. Subtle but important difference.

He did prove it...

entry states "AP represents the armor value a weapon can ignore."

ipso facto; AP 2 ignores armor saves... please stop being obtuse about it.

He's not being obtuse, he's writing with an eye to future changes. AP2 ignores armor of 2+ or better. However there are weapons that specifically state that they ignore all armor. In the current state of the game the two are interchangeable, but none of us can guarantee that will remain. The next codex could have a piece of wargear that ignores the AP of a weapon, as other posters have pointed out WHFB has a 1+ save, while this hasn't moved over to 40k yet it is not out of the realm of possibility.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

You did not prove it ignores armor. Subtle but important difference.

He did prove it...

entry states "AP represents the armor value a weapon can ignore."

ipso facto; AP 2 ignores armor saves... please stop being obtuse about it.

AP2 only ignores armor saves of 2+ or worse, It does not ignore 1+ armor saves. How can you not see that with what you quoted?

please stop being obtuse about it.

P.S. Try quoting my whole post next time, otherwise you can take things out of context.

 DeathReaper wrote:


AP2 only ignores armor saves of 2+ or worse, It does not ignore 1+ armor saves. How can you not see that with what you quoted?

please stop being obtuse about it.

P.S. Try quoting my whole post next time, otherwise you can take things out of context.

Armour saves of 1+ do not exist in the current game.

The argument is invalid at its very core. Think about this:

My argument, written as an argument statment is this:

Rending weapons allow AP2 on to wound Rolls of 6.
The best armour that is legally available (That is, not house rules, not unused forgeworld rules and not rules that are not current.) offers a roll of 2+
The AP value of a caused wound allows it to ignore armour. (It's in the way the rule is written.)
Therefore, AP2 allows you to ignore armour.

What is being presented is an "If then" statement, that is "If a 1+ armour save existed, then AP2 would not ignore armour saves." This is called a conditional.

An argument would be "Since there is a 1+ armour save, AP2 no longer ignores armour saves" that is an argument.

Since there is no 1+ armour save, at least one premise (and thus all, since its the only premise) is false, your argument can be deemed unsound.

"It could happen" is not a valid argument in rules interpretations.

"It could happen" that a player had to swear during a basketball game. That doesn't mean it is no longer a technical foul.
"It could happen" that my wallet would be empty because GW had an actual sale. That doesn't mean my wallet isn't empty from buying GW anyway.
"It could happen" that Armour Saves of 1+ existed. That rending doesn't ignore the all armour currently available.

In fact the only thing obtuse about it is that any of you could even think to bring something as imprecise as an "If then" conditional to a technical rules argument.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


AP2 only ignores armor saves of 2+ or worse, It does not ignore 1+ armor saves. How can you not see that with what you quoted?

please stop being obtuse about it.

P.S. Try quoting my whole post next time, otherwise you can take things out of context.

Armour saves of 1+ do not exist in the current game.

The argument is invalid at its very core. Think about this:

My argument, written as an argument statment is this:

Rending weapons allow AP2 on to wound Rolls of 6.
The best armour that is legally available (That is, not house rules, not unused forgeworld rules and not rules that are not current.) offers a roll of 2+
The AP value of a caused wound allows it to ignore armour. (It's in the way the rule is written.)
Therefore, AP2 allows you to ignore armour.

What is being presented is an "If then" statement, that is "If a 1+ armour save existed, then AP2 would not ignore armour saves." This is called a conditional.

An argument would be "Since there is a 1+ armour save, AP2 no longer ignores armour saves" that is an argument.

Since there is no 1+ armour save, at least one premise (and thus all, since its the only premise) is false, your argument can be deemed unsound.

"It could happen" is not a valid argument in rules interpretations.

"It could happen" that a player had to swear during a basketball game. That doesn't mean it is no longer a technical foul.
"It could happen" that my wallet would be empty because GW had an actual sale. That doesn't mean my wallet isn't empty from buying GW anyway.
"It could happen" that Armour Saves of 1+ existed. That rending doesn't ignore the all armour currently available.

In fact the only thing obtuse about it is that any of you could even think to bring something as imprecise as an "If then" conditional to a technical rules argument.

The argument (or what it has devolved to) is not about whether a 1+ save exists, it comes down to this line "ipso facto; AP 2 ignores armor saves... please stop being obtuse about it.". Having AP2 is not the same as "Ignores Armor" which is a special ability of two specific weapons. From the FAQ:

Q:If a melee weapon ignores armour saves, such as a Tyranid bonesword or Captain Tycho’s DeadMan’s Hand, is it treated as an unusual power weapon and therefore AP3? (p61)
A:No–it ignores armour saves completely

Notice GW doesn't say they have AP2, they state that those weapons ignore armour saves completely. In the section of the forum dedicated to the minutiae of the rules this is a valid distinction to make. Practically AP2 ignores all current armour saves, however this is not the same as "Ignores Armor", which is a property of specific items of wargear. The reason if/then statements were brought into the discussion is to highlight how there can be a difference between AP2 and Ignores Armor.

andystache wrote:


The argument (or what it has devolved to) is not about whether a 1+ save exists, it comes down to this line "ipso facto; AP 2 ignores armor saves... please stop being obtuse about it.". Having AP2 is not the same as "Ignores Armor" which is a special ability of two specific weapons. From the FAQ:

I'd be careful calling tangents "The argument".

andystache wrote:


Q:If a melee weapon ignores armour saves, such as a Tyranid bonesword or Captain Tycho’s DeadMan’s Hand, is it treated as an unusual power weapon and therefore AP3? (p61)
A:No–it ignores armour saves completely

Notice GW doesn't say they have AP2, they state that those weapons ignore armour saves completely. In the section of the forum dedicated to the minutiae of the rules this is a valid distinction to make. Practically AP2 ignores all current armour saves, however this is not the same as "Ignores Armor", which is a property of specific items of wargear. The reason if/then statements were brought into the discussion is to highlight how there can be a difference between AP2 and Ignores Armor.

Notice how not having AP2 means that a Tycho's hand or Tyranid Bonesword doesn't allow the Armour penetration AP2 bonus. Notice the Warscythe has Armour Bane and AP1.

This means the warscythe ignores armour and gets +2 to damage rolls against tanks.


GW says they ignore armour not because there is a difference between AP2 and "Ignores Armour" when it comes to wounding, but because there is a difference between AP2 and "Ignores Armour" when it comes to anti-tank affairs.

You'll also notice that they say "Ignores armour saves completely" when the other possible conclusion is that the weapon is an "unusual power weapon" which would thus have AP3. The difference there is that AP3 is not capable of ignoring all armour nor is it capable of doing added damage to tanks.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

andystache wrote:


Q:If a melee weapon ignores armour saves, such as a Tyranid bonesword or Captain Tycho’s DeadMan’s Hand, is it treated as an unusual power weapon and therefore AP3? (p61)
A:No–it ignores armour saves completely

Notice GW doesn't say they have AP2, they state that those weapons ignore armour saves completely. In the section of the forum dedicated to the minutiae of the rules this is a valid distinction to make. Practically AP2 ignores all current armour saves, however this is not the same as "Ignores Armor", which is a property of specific items of wargear. The reason if/then statements were brought into the discussion is to highlight how there can be a difference between AP2 and Ignores Armor.

Notice how not having AP2 means that a Tycho's hand or Tyranid Bonesword doesn't allow the Armour penetration AP2 bonus. Notice the Warscythe has Armour Bane and AP1.

This means the warscythe ignores armour and gets +2 to damage rolls against tanks.


GW says they ignore armour not because there is a difference between AP2 and "Ignores Armour" when it comes to wounding, but because there is a difference between AP2 and "Ignores Armour" when it comes to anti-tank affairs.

You'll also notice that they say "Ignores armour saves completely" when the other possible conclusion is that the weapon is an "unusual power weapon" which would thus have AP3. The difference there is that AP3 is not capable of ignoring all armour nor is it capable of doing added damage to tanks.

I'm only slightly trying to be glib when I say this, but if I read this correctly your counter to my statement of "there is a difference between 'AP2' and 'Ignores Armor'" is that there is a difference between AP2 and Ignores Armor? This is YMDC and someone asked for specificity in replies. You know this is truly foolish, the OPs question was answered ages ago and you and I can, and most likely would, go round and round with each other. For the sake of getting questions that need answers to the top I'm going to stop arguing. You make a great case, take that as you will. Cheers.