About that AP1 vs Vehicles question:
Agruably, in the letter of the law you are right, you can not do it, I would play the way above if I ever shot a tank with a flamer, but never have), which would probably result in a dice off for who gets to choose the rule
THis is a viable arguement, and I'm sorry to take you to task, but I would go the other way.
The sentence in question is below:
"Any rolls which cause a wound on a roll of 6 count as AP1"
My arguement:
The use of the word "wound" is not sufficient to mean "this never works on vehicles".
That is a substantial exclusion that would require a seperate statement.
I think if that restriction were intended, it could easily have been quickly stated. I do not agree that the use of the word "wound" constitutes such a large restriction.
Too far of a leap for me.
Further Support:
Rulebook p.66 gives special consideatin to AP1 "Armor Piercing Weapons" when shooting at vehciles. Now look at what it says about "AP0" weapons: can only ever glance. This establishes something important: AP value is definitely relevant to vehicles. We did not have this in 3rd edition.
Therefore, I submit the use of the word "wound" seems to be for the purpose of brevity, (all the faith acts have a consistenly brief descriptions) it looks like "wound" is lazy/brief wording, and is not enough to create a restriction that would make it inconsistent with p.66.
So, if faced with this rare disagreement, I'd make the arguement above before I'd resort to rolling it off.