The Battle for 2nd edition

[Charly]

not what strength is used no, the weapon has its own strength, with the exception of basic weapons like swords, blades and saws. but i was wondering if the penetration role might increase or decrease depending on the users strength.

[El Capitan]

nope

[El Capitan]

they stay the same whatever

[Simon]

admin said:

we went the other way with the D6 bonus and only apply it against stationary vehicles.

I take that a power fist would then be 2D6+d20+8 if the vehicle was stationary?

The rulebook does actually state that the extra +D6 arnour penetration is only against stationary vehicles anyway.

[Charly]

yeah it is, they were using a further bonus +d6..

[James 40K Champ ***]

Moral of the story... always move your vehicle an inch

[tturen]

That is the moral of the story all right.

This is how armor penetration is calculated though:
D6 for all weapons that hit a vehicle CC or otherwise.
+
Strength of the weapon for all weapons CC or not.
+
D= damage dice (If a weapon has damage dice)
+
D= to the weapons or attackers ST bonus dice as
found on page 82.
+
D6 if the vehicle is stationary.

(Note: the weapons ST is used in all cases except when unpowered weapons like blades and saws are used.)

Hence a power fist is: D6+D20+8 for all users against a moving vehicle. Thats D6 for the basic armor penetration given to ALL weapons + Damage bonus dice for the weapons strength of 8 + 8 for the weapons strength. Weapons like chain swords get 2D6+4. Thats a D6 that all weapons get + D6 for strength bonus of 4+ 4 for the weapons strength.

So a regular marine with a knife should get 2D6+4. If you drop the ST bonus you get D6+4. Dropping that would make a powerfist suck though with D6+8. Dropping the basic D6 that ALL weapons get would give a powerfist D20+8. Pretty low.

So did you really drop the basic D6?

[Charly]

ok its really getting down to wording now, the rulebook states that

'accordingly attackers receive a bonus on their armour penetration dice roll against vehicles or dreadnoughts according to their strength or the strength of the weapon they are using.'

thats their strength OR the strength of the weapon. NOT both as u use in your interpretation. i explained it a little wrong before. back to the power fist example. a marine just using his basic weapon would use his strength of 4, and a bonus to penetration of D6. if the same marine was to use a power fist, his strength is irrelavent (the power is provided by the weapon itself) and the penetration role would be 8 (the strength of the weapon) + D6 (the basic role) + D20 (the strength-relative bonus).

in other words u only ever have one strength related bonus in a penetration role.

using your rules, a scout with a krak grenade against a stationary vehicle would have a penetration role of 4D6 + 6, giving a max of 30.. capable of collapsing a ceramite bastion... doesnt sound realistic

[Simon]

Right, ok...

The table in the rulebook is their as a guide for creatures that do not use a weapon with a strength value, ie. a Lictor or a genestealer. If a weapon already has a set penetration roll then it uses that, only gaining the bonus D6 when the vehicle they are after is stationary.

If a model is attacking a stationary vehicle, then a further +d6 is added to the penetration roll made. This applies to all weapons, including ones that have a set AP. Under these rules a Krak grenade would only get 2d6+6 AP, going up to 3d6 AP if the vehicle is stationary as it is stated in the rulebook.

In short, the table in the rulebook is only in place for models armed with weapons that are dependent on the model's strength ie. a Lictor's claws or a psykers force weapon. They do fit in with other close combat weapons that are in place, but do not boost the penetration of things like meltaguns (that's what the stationary vehicle rule is for).

Oh yeah, the meltabomb does have d6+d20+8 armour penetration (stated on page 81 of the rulebook I think under the grenade section).

[tturen]

"thats their strength OR the strength of the weapon. NOT both as u use in your interpretation. "

Nope I said:

"D= to the weapons OR attackers ST bonus dice as
found on page 82."

and

"(Note: the weapons ST is used in all cases except when unpowered weapons like blades and saws are used.)"

You see I used the term 'or' just as you later did as well. So a Krack grenade in CC is 3D6+6 for max 24.

Simon said:
"The table in the rulebook is their as a guide for creatures that do not use a weapon with a strength value, ie. a Lictor or a genestealer. If a weapon already has a set penetration roll then it uses that, only gaining the bonus D6 when the vehicle they are after is stationary."

No, thats not how it works in fact the example for the table is in fact a power fist. ALL move and fire weapons gain a CC bonus based on ST against vehicles this includes special weapons stationary or otherwise. The rule book on page 82 states:

"Accordinglyattackers recieve a bonus on their armour penetration dice roll against vehicles or dreadnoughts according to their Strength OR the Strength of the weapon they are using.

-----Place bonus table here---

"[glow=red,2,300]If the attacker is armed with a grenade or any ranged weapon wich isn't a 'move or fire' weapon he may use this in hand-to-hand combat against a vehicle. [/glow]NOTE that these weapons can't normally be used in close combat, so this is an exception to the normal rules... The attacker chooses his hit location [glow=red,2,300]exactly as if he were useing a close combat weapon such as a pistol or power sword and damage is worked out in the same way.[/glow]

Simon said:
"Under these rules a Krak grenade would only get 2d6+6 AP, going up to 3d6 AP if the vehicle is stationary as it is stated in the rulebook."

No the listed values for non-CC weapons are for ranged attacks only. The strength modifier is not calculated for them in the basic profile but as the rules clearly state they do recieve this bonus if they can be used in CC. Thats 3D6+6 for a krack grenade in CC and 4D6+6 against a stationary vehicle because, "Vehicles that are moving are even more vulnerable when attacked in close combat... [glow=red,2,300]stationary vehicles recieve an armour penetration bonus of a further D6.[/glow] Note this is a fixed D6 for all weapons that can be used in CC including regular CC weapons.

Weapons such a melta gun in CC under the actual rules get the basic D6+D6 (wounds)+1D20 (Strength bonus)+8 against a moving vehicle. A further D6 would be added if the vehicle was stationary.

"Oh yeah, the meltabomb does have d6+d20+8 armour penetration (stated on page 81 of the rulebook I think under the grenade section). "

Nope. They get 2D6+20+8. The numbers in the weapons sheet are incorrect as GW noted in a FAQ on the melta bomb. The idiot who did the grenades section listed all the profiles as per ranged attacks but as we all know you cant throw a melta bomb. From GW:

(42) The weapon stat card in the basic game lists the melta bomb's penetration as D6+D20+8. According to the formula S+Var Damage+D6+bonus vs. vehicles, it should be 2D6+D20+8. What is the penetration for a melta bomb?
[glow=red,2,300]2D6+D20+8 [/glow]

[Charly]

so u agree that in ur rules a scout can blow up a leman russ turret?

[Charly]

y does users strength affect the penetration of a grenade/melta bomb?

[Simon]

that's not the user's strength he's adding, it is the strength of the Krak grenade. The penetration put up there is actually wrong. It should be 2D6+D12+6 under Tturen's rules. My main problem with this is that the vehicles are not usually stationary when they get charged, so the 'putting the guns into the hatches and firing' is the same as saying 'put your gun into this hole and then watch it fly around the battlefield when the vehicle's momentum rips it from your hand.'

Also, under the rules as Tturen words them, an assault cannon could be used in close combat to rip a vehicle to pieces. Its penetration would be D20+D10+D6+8 in close combat. How? Well the bloody thing isn't listed as move or fire.

All of this problem comes down to wording in the rulebook. As I see it, they messed up with the melta bomb (all they did was copy out the stats for the melta missile), forgetting that it can't be used against living targets. The problem is then doubled by the fact that the rulebook says to work out 'DAMAGE' as normal for the tank when using a grenade/gun. This could therefore mean that penetration is what it is for shooting, or it is worked out for close combat. Basically, I would see it as this; a melta gun would become better than any close combat weapon for destroying a tank (except of course for a thunder hammer). This would actually cause people to drop their close combat weapons in favour of squads with different guns. The meltagun would actually make it worthwhile to stop taking heavy weapons and just take a lot of melta guns instead. I would personally think that a powerfist should be better at blowing a tank up than a meltagun for this simple reason: the meltagun would be removed from the person's hand and the powerfist would simply remove a chunk of the vehicle. I never want to see assault cannons in close combat with a tank thank you...

[El Capitan]

If we base 2nd ed. on the creation of realistic strategies etc, from my own (if extremely brief) expereince with tanks, there is absoulteyl no way that being closer to a tank will increase my chances if destroying it with a standard weapon. For one there arent many exposed weak areas...and seconed the ones that are such as hatches are going to be throughly bared down in battle. Basically if your an infantry man wth no special equipment you dont stand a chance....even with a pneumatic drill you woudnt get through contempary tank armour so neither would a space amrine comabt knofe...it just doesnt make sense and counters the ability of formulating strategy.

The fact that a model can pinpoint the location he wants in close combat pretty much is the mdoel finding a weak spot, his weapon however gain magic powers for the task. The only thig with giving weapons +1 D6 penetration dice agianst stationary vehicles amkes sense with is that the shock of a hit or an explosion will be totally absorbed by the tank rather than it being a flash strike that the vheicles momemntum may disregard. However even ther justification for +1 D6 is debatable.

Moreover, in all our years of playing 2nd ed. vehicles have very rarely surivived a close combat attack, melta bombs do the job every time, giving models an extra dice for what seems to be a super hero bravado reason will pretty much take away vehciels ability to seem like unstoppable monsters in the face of standard infantry and remove the tactical / panic elemtns of tryting to remove them.

The only thing i'd concede here is perhaps giving a krak grenade 3D6 +_6 penetration against a vehcile moving 10" or less....becoming your Saving Private Ryan 'stcky bomb' ...and giving krak grenades more of a point (unless their on jumpiong troops).

I'd rather this debate concluded, and we got onto more constructive ones (see the loopholes thread!) raer than continuing to throw intepreations of some words back and forth, if we are wrong about the penetration dice, then consider the past 7 years of our experience as playtesting and it has worked out extrmely well. As a commander you cannot task infantry to vehcile destruction with their bear ahnds, and whence troops such as inflitrators with krak grenades and assault troops with melta bombs come in.

As an inter-group question...what about the krak grenade suggestion...as it stands krak grenades always pentrate on a double 6, but maybe a bonus in cc?

[tturen]

"According to the formula S+Var Damage+D6+bonus vs. vehicles, it should be 2D6+D20+8."

For the record these are not my rules, they are not house rules, they are the rules as written by GW and are a basic mechanic in the game system. Any weapon that can be used in CC uses this formula.

Is this good? Well that is a clear matter for debate! I'm well aware that this rule has been deliberately and in the case of the OGC it would seem accidental altered. Most of the groups that I'm aware of who have opted to alter the rule have done so with the objective of making CC that involves moving vehicles (typically moving more than 10" because its the same speed that allows casualty free offloading of troops) more realistic. I have no issues with this at all and believe it should be encouraged.

Realistically slow moving vehicles are more vulnerable and stationary ones even more so but the mechanic used to reflect this in the game is itself not particularly realistic. In the particular case of melta guns though point blank aimed fire at a slow target should be capable of destroying even an MBT. In the case of the krack grenade against the same target unless the grenade can adhere to an exact target location I don't think it has much of a chance simply because the weak points on most tanks require exact targeting (IE vision slits, intake/exhaust vents, track or particular track assembly pieces and the like.). Many Cold War era troops with LAW's were in fact taught how to target specific locations like this at extremely close range (Though not actual CC!).

For my part even under the original rules I can't recall ever seeing an actual tank taken out with a ranged weapon used in CC. The rules as written have never been an issue for us.

"Krak grenade. The penetration put up there is actually wrong. It should be 2D6+D12+6 "

Nice catch and that is correct. My mistake.

[Charly]

i still dont understand where your bonus dice comes from, give me an example and explain each step.

[Charly]

a vehicle that is moving 10" is still moving faster than a marine could run, so i dont think weapons could be that accuratly targeted in CC with it at that speed. maybe at speeds upto 4"?

[James 40K Champ ***]

Simon, I disagree, I think a melta gun should be roughly as good as a powerfist. You dont actualy have to make contact witht he thing do you, in fact that would probably break the weapon!

CC can be a few feet away in realistic terms.

[El Capitan]

all i can say is, the increased vulnerability comes on account of choosing where you hit the tank, that seems to work fine. On a real tank you cant do extra damage up close with a ranged weapon, in fact you'd probably just cause a ricochet that ended up killing yourself!

As it stands, what we've applied has worked well over the years, consider it a tried and tested amendment that we favour

[Adoni-Zedek]

Charly, do you have a copy of the 2nd Ed rulebook? If so, turn to page 82.

1 When calculating the weapon's penetration, each weapon gains a d6. Each weapon, from a las pistol to a multi-melta, they all start with d6. Even a Harlequins' Kiss gets it.

2 Next, add a die based on the strength of the weapon. (This step applies only in close combat)
S1-3: nothing
S4-5: +d6
S6-7:+d12
S8-10:+d20

3 Next, if the weapon inflicts multiple wounds, add those values (+2d6 for lascannon, +1d4 for chainfist)

4 Finally, add in the actual strength of the weapon.

5 If used against a stationary vehicle/building in close combat, add an additional d6

A bolter gets d6 (1) + 4 (4) or d6+4. If used in close combat against a vehicle, it gains the strength-based close combat die of +d6(2)

A scout (or imperial guardsman) with a krak grenade gets d6 (1) + d12 (2) + d6 (3) + 6 (4), or 2d6 + d12 + 6, for a maximum penetration of 30. If the tank was not moving, he gains another +d6(5). So technically, yes, a guardsman with a krak grenade can blow the front armor on a Leman Russ turret.

Except that he can't realistically reach the turret from where he's standing, and thus is not allowed to direct his attack against that location. This is a key point, one many people forget. You can only attack a location in close combat that your model could reach from where he is standing. You can't attack the weapon sponson if you're standing in front of the tank. The treads or body could be easily reached from the front, and so are valid targets.

Models equipped with non-close combat weapons are allowed to use them to get one attack against a vehicle that can't fight back (ie, no open-topped vehicles, bikes, or dreadnoughts, or nurgle-infested tanks). So a captain with a meltagun and a powerfist may make 3 attacks with the powerfist, or one attack with the meltagun against a tank in close combat.

Does this help explain things better?

We play you must pass an initiative check to attack a vehicle moving faster than 10", or be struck by the vehicle itself. I like the idea of not being able to use basic weapons against them unless the vehicle moves less than 10". I personally would not allow any heavy weapons to be used in close combat against vehicles, except at the user's own strength as an improvised weapon. Regular troopers would have a heck of a time trying to position them, and Terminator suits aren't agile enough to bring the Assault cannon to the odd angles required to hit the weak points. (does that make sense?) On the other hand, the power fist on the left arm is custom designed just for that kind of thing. Same goes for multi-meltas mounted on dreadnoughts. That arm isn't designed to be used in close combat, so you can't use it to assault vehicles. Make sense? Sound fair?