Swift Attack and Razor Sharp

[Tegman 12]

Hi, I would like some input on the Title.

Example: A character is equipped with a weapon that has the Razor Sharp ability and said character makes a Swift Attack and gets five successes.

This means that he hits three times, and Razor Sharp, who need three successes, is also activated. Does all three hits benefit from Razor Sharp or only the first hit?

[cps 686]

All hits get the benefit.

 

If the wielder scores three or more degrees of success when attacking with this weapon, the weapon’s penetration value is doubled when resolving any hits from that attack.

[Tegman 12]

Wow, that's not bad, the Eviscerator (or whatever it's name is) will be a bad ass then

Thanks for the reply.

[Flail-Bot 93]

Pen 18... 3 2d10+SB hits against a tank. Would that do much? I don't know vehicle armor values off the top of my head. Just thinking of that sniper rifle discussion earlier...

Edited August 13, 2015 by Flail-Bot

[cps 686]

Pen 18... 3 2d10+SB hits against a tank. Would that do much? I don't know vehicle armor values off the top of my head. Just thinking of that sniper rifle discussion earlier...

 

Entirely within the realm of possibility of destroying a Chimera in one turn if you hit the rear armor.

[Tegman 12]

Jeez, they'll cut through anything I guess. Does anyone know if there exist any two-handed power swords and what would their pen are?

[Flail-Bot 93]

Jeez, they'll cut through anything I guess. Does anyone know if there exist any two-handed power swords and what would their pen are?

 

Power fist has Pen 9 and Power Axe pen 7. Neither are Razor Sharp.

 

It seems like there needs to be some distinction made between personal armor and vehicle armor. It makes sense that an eviscerator can just rip through normal armor, no problem, but reinforced bulkheads and tanks aren't really on the same level as infantry armor.

 

I recall a game with 3 levels of armor and damage (Star Wars? from FFG?), personal, vehicle, and starship. Any hit from a step up would annihilate the lower and hits from lower would simply be ineffective against higher levels. This kept your numbers from being silly and things like the sniper rifle and eviscerator killing tanks.

 

It seems like making a trait (vehicle killer) or something to apply to weapons designed for those things might be nice. Otherwise a weapon has its Pen ignored damage halved against armored vehicles. Now, you'd probably have to specify that certain light vehicles would still be damaged by small arms fire.

 

I guess you'd have a trait for vehicles: Lightly Armored

and a trait for weapon: Vehicle Killer

 

which would both do the same thing (basically).

[cps 686]

This kept your numbers from being silly and things like the sniper rifle and eviscerator killing tanks.

Counterpoint: Chainsawing a tank in half is ******* metal and 40k is a ******* metal setting.

 

Also shooting a tank so good the whole thing blows up is action-movie awesome and should definitely be a thing that can happen.

[Alox 107]

Melta weapons have pen 12, which fluff wise is the THE TANK BUSTER. So anything above that is just even better at tank busting...

[Tegman 12]

Melta weapons have pen 12, which fluff wise is the THE TANK BUSTER. So anything above that is just even better at tank busting...

Aye, and melta weapons double their pen if the target is withing short range so they cut through mostly everything

[Flail-Bot 93]

 

This kept your numbers from being silly and things like the sniper rifle and eviscerator killing tanks.

Counterpoint: Chainsawing a tank in half is ******* metal and 40k is a ******* metal setting.

 

Also shooting a tank so good the whole thing blows up is action-movie awesome and should definitely be a thing that can happen.

 

 

Haha!

 

I'm happy with PUNCHING tanks to death, I'm just not clear if sawing them in half is within my ability to suspend disbelief.

[Talon of Anathrax 55]

 

 

This kept your numbers from being silly and things like the sniper rifle and eviscerator killing tanks.

Counterpoint: Chainsawing a tank in half is ******* metal and 40k is a ******* metal setting.

 

Also shooting a tank so good the whole thing blows up is action-movie awesome and should definitely be a thing that can happen.

 

 

Haha!

 

I'm happy with PUNCHING tanks to death, I'm just not clear if sawing them in half is within my ability to suspend disbelief.

 

Think of it this way: after brutally sawing through it's outer hull, you rush in and horrible maul the crew and essential control systems in a series of wild sweeps with your enormous chainblade, before rushing out covered in gore before it explodes or catches fire.

FOR THE EMPEROR!

[Alox 107]

 

 

 

This kept your numbers from being silly and things like the sniper rifle and eviscerator killing tanks.

Counterpoint: Chainsawing a tank in half is ******* metal and 40k is a ******* metal setting.

 

Also shooting a tank so good the whole thing blows up is action-movie awesome and should definitely be a thing that can happen.

 

 

Haha!

 

I'm happy with PUNCHING tanks to death, I'm just not clear if sawing them in half is within my ability to suspend disbelief.

 

Think of it this way: after brutally sawing through it's outer hull, you rush in and horrible maul the crew and essential control systems in a series of wild sweeps with your enormous chainblade, before rushing out covered in gore before it explodes or catches fire.

FOR THE EMPEROR!

 

 

Also the blade will be a few thousand degrees celcius hot after chewing through the armoured side of a tank, so you will literally be bringing the light of the emperor to the heretics!

[InquisitorAlexel 244]

Remember that the eviscerator was made as a very destructive weapon on the table top game also. I destroyed many tanks with eviscerator wieldings priests in my long years as a guard commander!

[Bilateralrope 144]

 

 

This kept your numbers from being silly and things like the sniper rifle and eviscerator killing tanks.

Counterpoint: Chainsawing a tank in half is ******* metal and 40k is a ******* metal setting.

 

Also shooting a tank so good the whole thing blows up is action-movie awesome and should definitely be a thing that can happen.

 

 

Haha!

 

I'm happy with PUNCHING tanks to death, I'm just not clear if sawing them in half is within my ability to suspend disbelief.

 

 

The eviscerator in DH1 (Inquisitors handbook, pg 187) was described as having a crude version of the disruption field generator more commonly found on power-blades. Pity the DH2 eviscerator dropped that line, reducing it to only being a huge chain weapon.

[Utherix 31]

 

 

 

This kept your numbers from being silly and things like the sniper rifle and eviscerator killing tanks.

Counterpoint: Chainsawing a tank in half is ******* metal and 40k is a ******* metal setting.

 

Also shooting a tank so good the whole thing blows up is action-movie awesome and should definitely be a thing that can happen.

 

 

Haha!

 

I'm happy with PUNCHING tanks to death, I'm just not clear if sawing them in half is within my ability to suspend disbelief.

 

 

The eviscerator in DH1 (Inquisitors handbook, pg 187) was described as having a crude version of the disruption field generator more commonly found on power-blades. Pity the DH2 eviscerator dropped that line, reducing it to only being a huge chain weapon.

 

 

Perhaps it is because that honor now goes to the Zaythian Warbalde, Rogue Trader: Hostile Acquisitions page 56

[Skarsnik38 100]

 

Jeez, they'll cut through anything I guess. Does anyone know if there exist any two-handed power swords and what would their pen are?

 

Power fist has Pen 9 and Power Axe pen 7. Neither are Razor Sharp.

 

It seems like there needs to be some distinction made between personal armor and vehicle armor. It makes sense that an eviscerator can just rip through normal armor, no problem, but reinforced bulkheads and tanks aren't really on the same level as infantry armor.

 

I recall a game with 3 levels of armor and damage (Star Wars? from FFG?), personal, vehicle, and starship. Any hit from a step up would annihilate the lower and hits from lower would simply be ineffective against higher levels. This kept your numbers from being silly and things like the sniper rifle and eviscerator killing tanks.

 

It seems like making a trait (vehicle killer) or something to apply to weapons designed for those things might be nice. Otherwise a weapon has its Pen ignored damage halved against armored vehicles. Now, you'd probably have to specify that certain light vehicles would still be damaged by small arms fire.

 

I guess you'd have a trait for vehicles: Lightly Armored

and a trait for weapon: Vehicle Killer

 

which would both do the same thing (basically).

 

In the actual table top wargame eviscerators are better against vehicles than powerfists too and significantly better than power axes and about the same as a powerfists otherwise. So seems about right to me.

[Melil13 8]

I suppose they could have introduced a vehicle killer trait, but Dark Heresy has very little to do with combat. 

At its heart this is an investigation game, if you want to go run around chopping tanks up then i would imagine Only War would be better.
(If it isnt thats a design flaw of that system)

And in Table Top a Sniper rifle can pen a lightly armored tank by hitting the side or back armor and rolling a 6 to become AP 2 or 1 or w/e.
3d10+4 Pen 3 = 22 dmg on avg which is the armor points on the chimira side armor.

Also in table top melee always hits the rear armor so 16 ... 2d10+x2 str pen 9 ... that would work vs even the side armor of a tank.

 

I think the debate with the Evisorator and Power fist is that the Razor Sharp talent shouldnt be as powerful ... a straight +4 to pen would have put it on par with a powerfist (where it should be). 

[Skarsnik38 100]

I suppose they could have introduced a vehicle killer trait, but Dark Heresy has very little to do with combat. 

At its heart this is an investigation game, if you want to go run around chopping tanks up then i would imagine Only War would be better.

(If it isnt thats a design flaw of that system)

And in Table Top a Sniper rifle can pen a lightly armored tank by hitting the side or back armor and rolling a 6 to become AP 2 or 1 or w/e.

3d10+4 Pen 3 = 22 dmg on avg which is the armor points on the chimira side armor.

Also in table top melee always hits the rear armor so 16 ... 2d10+x2 str pen 9 ... that would work vs even the side armor of a tank.

 

I think the debate with the Evisorator and Power fist is that the Razor Sharp talent shouldnt be as powerful ... a straight +4 to pen would have put it on par with a powerfist (where it should be). 

That's not how sniper weapons work against vehicles in the table top. They are just str 4+d6 armor pen so can at best only glance armor 10. They only get ap 2 on to wound rolls of 6.

The eviscerator should be better than the power fist if comparing with the tabletop rules. In the table top they are the same except the eviscerator gets 2d6 armor pen instead of 1d6.

[Melil13 8]

They use to apply rending vs everything including vehicles on a nat 6 back 2 editions now, for those of us who remember that far back.

 

To be fair the newer editions have changed things a lot. So from that perspective would that change anything?

 

Any my note of changing Razor edge to a standard +4 was only to try and appease the one poster who wanted it toned down a bit more.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Melil13

[Flail-Bot 93]

Given the tabletop wargame is a hugely different animal than the RPG, I prefer to ignore its mechanical implications.

[cps 686]

Given the tabletop wargame is a hugely different animal than the RPG, I prefer to ignore its mechanical implications.

 

That and the tabletop rules are hot garbage.