Librarium Online Forums banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,134 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi, I apologise in advance if there is already a thread on this but I was unable to find it if it was.
I had a thought the other day about how damage chart modifiers work in CC and after checking the rule book I wasn't able to find any definate answer to my question or maybe I missed it in any case here was my thought.

Say a space marine assaulted my tank and managed to get a glancing hit, this space marine was only armed with a boltgun, since in an normal assault even an tryanid Gargoyle (armour 6) would get an armour save then that means he has no AP value to his attack, does this also mean that you would apply the -1 modifier for no AP value as well?
Power weapons/fists/etc count as AP2 and so would rending hits so thats no big deal but what about these regular attacks?

I also checked the Grenade section just to be through but this added to my confusion as the grenades didn't have an AP value added to them either even though you would assume that melta bombs are AP1.

So can anyone direct me to the relevant info on this or would this count as one of those grey areas that crop up from time to time?
 

·
This is for the haters...
Joined
·
1,308 Posts
CC attacks don't have AP values.

AP- is still an AP Value (AP 0 effectively) which CC attacks don't have.

Also to be clear, Power Fists and Rending and stuff don't count as having AP2, they just ignore armor saves outright.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,134 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
CC attacks don't have AP values.

AP- is still an AP Value (AP 0 effectively) which CC attacks don't have.

Also to be clear, Power Fists and Rending and stuff don't count as having AP2, they just ignore armor saves outright.
Would the fact that power weapons and power fists ignore armour not make them AP2 anyway? This is probably on of these, its how you interperate it situations. Where niether side is right or wrong but I am just wanting evidence of this if it is available.

(This is just me expressing my thoughts not wanting a debate)
Its as I mentioned in my previous post, would you not expect a melta bomb to have AP1? When every other melta weapon, what ever its name, is like that? But they don't state an AP value for it only how each grenade applies for armour penetration. Perhaps they never thought that much into it or maybe they decided not to do it to make things simpler? (Refering to my original question not the statement about the bombs)


I think I will bring it up amongst my gaming group and see what they think after all they do say in THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE! Page2 is thaat the rulebook is there simply to help resolve arguements and "the rules in the book are simply a framework to create and enjoyable game." "You could even decide to change the rules to suit you better (this is known as a house rule.)" I'll discuss it with the group and see what they think, they may find it adds an interesting challenge to the game or they may think it adds too many complacations. If anyone does find anything out about this then feel free to leave a link or a reference to it so I can look it up later, chaio.
 

·
This is for the haters...
Joined
·
1,308 Posts
Would the fact that power weapons and power fists ignore armour not make them AP2 anyway? This is probably on of these, its how you interperate it situations. Where niether side is right or wrong but I am just wanting evidence of this if it is available.
No. Just because two mechanics do effectively the same thing does not mean they work the same or are the same.

(This is just me expressing my thoughts not wanting a debate)
Its as I mentioned in my previous post, would you not expect a melta bomb to have AP1? When every other melta weapon, what ever its name, is like that? But they don't state an AP value for it only how each grenade applies for armour penetration. Perhaps they never thought that much into it or maybe they decided not to do it to make things simpler? (Refering to my original question not the statement about the bombs)
No I wouldn't. There is nothing the in the Melta rules stating that it gives AP1 so you shouldn't expect it. The fact that weapons with melta have AP1 is a coincedence. By your logic I should also be able to expect the opposite, that weapons with AP1 should have Melta. I'm just saying.

I think I will bring it up amongst my gaming group and see what they think after all they do say in THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE! Page2 is thaat the rulebook is there simply to help resolve arguements and "the rules in the book are simply a framework to create and enjoyable game." "You could even decide to change the rules to suit you better (this is known as a house rule.)" I'll discuss it with the group and see what they think, they may find it adds an interesting challenge to the game or they may think it adds too many complacations. If anyone does find anything out about this then feel free to leave a link or a reference to it so I can look it up later, chaio.
Fine, just so you know the basis of rules discussion on forums is to interpret the rules by what the book says because it's the only true basis to reference. We wouldn't not real basis on what you want to do with the rules in your own games.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,134 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
No. Just because two mechanics do effectively the same thing does not mean they work the same or are the same.
I can see your point but I'm sure you can at least see mine. GW do have tendancy to have not only grey areas but plenty of mistakes in a lot of the codexs/ruleboks they release hence the reason for the FAQ on the GW website. For all we know this could be how the rules turn out in the next edition but we can never tell until it arrives can we?

No I wouldn't. There is nothing the in the Melta rules stating that it gives AP1 so you shouldn't expect it. The fact that weapons with melta have AP1 is a coincedence. By your logic I should also be able to expect the opposite, that weapons with AP1 should have Melta. I'm just saying.
There is a slight difference in what I said regarding that to what you would expect, show me a codex where a melta weapon does not have ap1, but there are plenty of weapons out there that are AP1 that are not melta. I think its more than a coincidence and more of a universal expectation, there would be a huge out cry if a new codex came out and their melta weapons were not ap1 when everyone elses is. But as I said I'm not wanting a debate I was just thinking aloud.

Fine, just so you know the basis of rules discussion on forums is to interpret the rules by what the book says because it's the only true basis to reference. We wouldn't not real basis on what you want to do with the rules in your own games.
I did post the question because I genuinely did not know because there was no clear definition one way or another and just wanted other peoples input on it. It wasn't so much on how I WANTED to play the game but simply a thought that I wished to explore. I accept the fact that this forum can only draw on what is written in rulebook and not beyond that but you cannot deny that no where in rulebook does it say that regular CC attacks have an AP value or in fact ignore this. It is simply accepted that a CC attacks are not affected by the modifiers that shooting weapons are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
Like Crownaxe pointed out, there's a difference between being AP- and simply not using the AP mechanic at all. The vehicle damage rules don't tell us to do anything different for attacks that don't use the AP mechanic (eg. close combat attacks, or special abilities like the Machine Curse psychic power), so we ca safely assume their rolls are unmodified.
 

·
Orks_n_Bugs
Joined
·
1,388 Posts
I'm in complete agreement with CrownAxe and Archon Charybdis on this one. I just wanted to point out what the vehicle rules actually say
rulebook said:
Penetrating and glancing hits inflicted by a weapon
shown as ‘AP–’ suffer a modifier of -1 to the roll on the
Vehicle Damage table
Now is there anywhere where a basic CCW is "shown as AP-"? No there is not. Basic CCW attacks may function similarly to AP-, but since they are not specifically shown to be AP- then this rule does not apply. The rule for AP1 works similarly.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top