Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Plushy

Pen and Armour values are ridiculous

Recommended Posts

Penetration:

  • Bolters, the armour-piercing rocket rounds we all know and love, have Pen 2. Every other game has given them Pen 4.
  • Meltaguns, the weapon designed for melting through the armor on a tank, have Pen 3. Contrast that with the Pen 12 they have in Only War. 
  • Power Weapons, which can cleave through tanks and Power Armour with ease, now have Pen 3. Contrast this with their usual Pen 9.
  • Eviscerators, the oversized chainswords wielded by the fanatics of the Ministorum, have the highest Penetration value in the system, at Pen 4. Other than being erroneously described by FFG in the past as having a Power Field, Eviscerators have no history of being especially good at shearing through armour.

Armour:

  • Cloth Robes have 3AP on the body and 2AP on the limbs. Apparently, the average burlap sackcloth is too thick for a Bolter's penetration to fully handle.
  • A Manufactorum Coverall - a worker's uniform - offers 3AP to the limbs. The average worker of the Imperium is apparently wearing body armor.
  • Enforcer Armour, which has been a form of Carapace in every fluff ever, is weaker than basic Guard flak, at 3AP across the board.
  • Flak Armour no longer has a bonus to resisting explosives damage, though this may be due to Explosive no longer being a damage type.
  • Carapace Armour is essentially the same as Flak, save for a thicker helmet and chestplate. I guess Storm Troopers don't get the good stuff after all!
  • Light Power Armour, the sort worn by the Battle Sisters of the Adepta Sororitas, now has 6AP for the chest and 5AP everywhere else. 

This is just all over the place. Values that have been the same through every gameline - Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, Deathwatch, Black Crusade, and Only War - have been lessened for no reason. Cloth robes now offer the protection of Light Flak, Enforcer Carapace Armour is now worse than the Flak worn by common Guard infantry, the Carapace worn by Storm Troopers is little better than Flak, and Power Armour is somehow worse than the old Carapace!

 

A bolt shell, designed to punch through armour with ease, is now weaker than a mundane rifle round and cannot pierce a sackcloth robe. It's worth repeating; the guns carried by Space Marines cannot ignore a sackcloth robe. Commissars must execute errant Guardsmen by shooting them three or four times, I suppose.

 

Even worse is Melta. These weapons exist "to cut through armour plate and heavy bulkheads alike," according to this very rulebook, yet don't have enough penetrating power to get through the armour worn by a basic infantryman. Melta weapons have been described as "turning a Space Marine in full Terminator Armour to slag in a single blow," yet are not actually capable of injuring a civilian groundcar (30AV on the Front facing). 

 

Or they might ignore vehicle armour completely, which is weird.

 

Power Weapons are the melee equivalent of Melta, designed to cut through almost anything. Yet they, too, are incapable of piercing the almighty Flak armour. Meanwhile, a fat chainsword is better at penetrating armour than any other weapon known to Man.

 

Who wrote these rules, and why are they employed? Have they ever read a single word about what they are building mechanics for or just guessing at random?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flak didn't get a bonus to resist weapons with the Explosive damage type. It was the "Blast" effect that set of their bonus... at least if I remember correctly.

 

On power-weapons: They are not really meant to ignore armour completely. They are "just" meant to be devastating weapons (represented by their high strength values which was 5 in the case of the power sword). However, when 3rd edition 40k rolled around they stopped most weapons giving bonuses to strength, so to streamline their effects they just had power weapons ignore armour. It didn't necessarily mean that "in reality" that armour provided no protection, just a handy game mechanic.

 

Now, as i have not read the beta, so I can't tell, but the main thing Power Weapons should have is that they do a lot of damage. If they do, that's fine. If so it doesn't really matter as Damage is actually better than Pen.

 

It looks like they are generally trying to tone down the numbers in this new version. Reducing Damage Reduction is a valid design choice if you also reduce Armour Penetration and Damage. Not saying I necessarily agree with it, but it is a valid choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like they've changed fluff alot borthian, from the lexicanum: 

Power weapons are a type of advanced hand to hand combat weapon taking several forms but utilising the same basic technological principle. When activated the blade of the weapon becomes sheathed in a fieldo f energy which disrupts solid matter, alloiwng the weapon to easily tear through armour, including even Terminator Armour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First a nit pick:  power weapons actually tend to have a penetration around 6 or so in older systems, not 9.  Powerfists and Thunderhammers got to around 9, but most other power weapons were considerably lower and some models of the Eviscerator had disruption fields to increase their ability to penetrate armour.

 

Now addressing the points

 

1) The armour values do seem off.

 

2) Decreasing the penetration scores isn't necessarily bad.  The higher Pen is, the less value armour has with respect to Toughness.  If Pen goes down but damage goes up, then the overall performance of the weapon is about the same but the importance of armour goes up and the importance of Toughness decreases.

 

Example:

 

 

Some dude with TB 4 and 2 points of leather armour.

 

Against a bolt gun that does 1d10+5 with AP 4 he's going to take 1d10+1 damage (Tearing)

 

Against a 1d10+7 AP 2 Boltgun he's going to take 1d10+3 damage (Tearing)

 

An IG wearing full flak (which in some fluff actually provides a little protection from some bolt weapons) is TB 3  Armour 4

 

Against vanilla bolt gun he'll take 1d10+2 (Tearing) and against the other he'll take 1d10+2 (Tearing).

 

The damage is the same but instead of taking less damage because of his beer belly, he's taking less damage because of the cerametal implants in his Cadian pattern flak armour.

 

That doesn't mean the weapon stats are right, just something to consider when deciding which weapons stats are right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The armor and penetration values are a bit out of whack in this particular game, and not really in line with the previous model [and I am not talking about DH 1.0], but more so Only War and Black Crusade, which are the new standard. 

 

Its a bit crazy how the robes STILL provide protection :P 

 

I am not sure how the Wound system would interact with previous damage weapon values, but I think it would be fair to give it a shot, just to keep things as compatible with the other lines as possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes me wonder if Penetration has a point at all under the new rules. It's values are pathetically low all across, armor doesn't do much either, and we have a set of weapon special qualities that either halve armor or Toughness Bonus on hit or ignore armor altogether. I don't think it'd make much difference if the extra punch the weapon has against armor was completely relegated to these special qualities, perhaps with a small damage boost to high-penetrating weapons on top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The armor values are weird.

 

Feudal, at Armour 4 is the same as flak armor. I susupect that some of these armors should be counted as primitive or low tech,(their effective Armour value should be 1/2 against non primitive weapons).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The armor values are weird.

 

Feudal, at Armour 4 is the same as flak armor. I susupect that some of these armors should be counted as primitive or low tech,(their effective Armour value should be 1/2 against non primitive weapons).

Its covered by its max AB of 2, and its weight.

 

Late game its useless. If you do have that mythical 95 Agi, you're best off not wearing armor (or sticking to the body glove or robes), and making full use of that movement rate. Stuff like Run and Gun, and the ability to use meters moved on a charge as bonus damage make it far more useful than a bit more armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, armorr seems to fade in comparison with toughness (or agility with nimble).

 

Sugestions to improve armour:

Cap dodge skill like AB is capped

Reduce wound normalisation, for instance carapace could be +4/+8 and power armour could be +3/+6. Will make these armors really attractive inspite of their dodge and AB cap. No armor at all could be +6/+12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem isn't that armor is ridiculously low, the problem is that taking 1 damage is almost the same as taking 10 (as long as it doesn't kill you outright), because ALL previous regular wounds are worth +5 when looking at the wound tables. Armor doesn't really help you survive longer.

 

I understand what they're trying to accomplish with their overhaul of wounds, but it doesn't really work - it's clunky (you have to read tables every time someone is damaged!) and broken.

 

It's a shame, because aside from that (and the "sniper"-type weapon being terrible) I really like the changes to this edition. 

Edited by Werewindlefr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem isn't that armor is ridiculously low, the problem is that taking 1 damage is almost the same as taking 10 (as long as it doesn't kill you outright), because ALL previous regular wounds are worth +5 when looking at the wound tables. Armor doesn't really help you survive longer.

That is not entirely correct I believe. The rules are as follows:

 

[page 207] To determine the wound effect, the character takes the total damage dealt by the hit (damage value minus defence value) and adds modifiers for each wounds he was suffering from prior to the attack:

Wound +5

Critical wound +10

 

So, if we ignore the errant "S" at the end of "Wounds" word (highlighted) and read the rule as it was probably intended, we get +10 to wound effects from EACH critical wound and +5 - from each regular wound. Which in turn means that two critical wounds to any given location practically guarantee character's death after a third wound, as the wound effect score of 29+ invariably kills.

The wounds overhaul idea as such, IMHO, is therefore good and sound. What is arguable is the level of 29+ for wound effects to become lethal - in my opinion, it should be cut on 10 points (with score of 19+ killing outright), but I guess that's down to personal preferences for combat lethality.

 

Weapon and armour stats ARE weird however :(

Not unbalanced between themselves, mind you, but weird.

 

As a side note - consider the tabletop: we have armour save 6+ for cloth armour and armour save 3+ for power armour. Which means power armour is (mathematically) only twice better than simple cloth. Now look for their respective stats in DH2.0 - 3 for cloth, 6 for power... hmm...  :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem isn't that armor is ridiculously low, the problem is that taking 1 damage is almost the same as taking 10 (as long as it doesn't kill you outright), because ALL previous regular wounds are worth +5 when looking at the wound tables. Armor doesn't really help you survive longer.

That is not entirely correct I believe. The rules are as follows:

 

[page 207] To determine the wound effect, the character takes the total damage dealt by the hit (damage value minus defence value) and adds modifiers for each wounds he was suffering from prior to the attack:

Wound +5

Critical wound +10

 

So, if we ignore the errant "S" at the end of "Wounds" word (highlighted) and read the rule as it was probably intended, we get +10 to wound effects from EACH critical wound and +5 - from each regular wound. Which in turn means that two critical wounds to any given location practically guarantee character's death after a third wound, as the wound effect score of 29+ invariably kills.

The wounds overhaul idea as such, IMHO, is therefore good and sound. What is arguable is the level of 29+ for wound effects to become lethal - in my opinion, it should be cut on 10 points (with score of 19+ killing outright), but I guess that's down to personal preferences for combat lethality.

 

Weapon and armour stats ARE weird however :(

Not unbalanced between themselves, mind you, but weird.

 

As a side note - consider the tabletop: we have armour save 6+ for cloth armour and armour save 3+ for power armour. Which means power armour is (mathematically) only twice better than simple cloth. Now look for their respective stats in DH2.0 - 3 for cloth, 6 for power... hmm...  :blink:

 

 

 

What? 3+ only twice as good as 6+? You MIGHT want to check your math on that one. I play orks, some of my friends play MEQ and trust me, 3+ is way better then 6+. 5+ is twice as good as 6+, 3+ is four times as good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What? 3+ only twice as good as 6+? You MIGHT want to check your math on that one. I play orks, some of my friends play MEQ and trust me, 3+ is way better then 6+. 5+ is twice as good as 6+, 3+ is four times as good.

 

I know that. I was just being sarcastic here :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MEQ armor is much better than 6 up. I personally really like the new wound system. Or, at least, the idea behind it. However, the way talents, weapons, and combat mechanics (looking at you RoF) work with it stains it. The concept behind anything getting through your defenses hurting is good. I like it. It gets rid of having to abstract damage. Consider the following piece of theoretical play:

 

[GM] "Okay, the ganger has his back pressed up against a wooden crate some 30 meters below you. Your vantage point allows you to completely ignore his cover as he is primarily concerned with your companions on the other side of the crate. What do you do?"

 

[Player] "I Aim, and Called Shot to his head. One shot, one kill."

 

[Rolls ensue]

 

[GM] "Alright, as per usual your character has an eye for accuracy and places that bullet well. Roll Damage."

 

Here's where the example becomes divergent between our systems. Ignoring previous bonuses to damage from the Accuracy trait if the player rolls poorly for Damage things become weird.

 

[Old DH; using wound "pool"] Having not done enough damage to get into Critical the GM has to describe how the bullet somehow missed the nervous system but still did considerable damage. This is troublesome after all the hype of setting up a head-shot and is rather unlikely.

 

[New DH; using "wounds" table] Even if the roll is poor we get visceral effects that hamper the target. While still disappointing because it isn't a kill (this needs tweaking in the new system badly) the player is rewarded with imposing a detrimental effect on the target, as a head-shot should at least incur.

 

[Acknowledgments] This said, much of this is up to the GM and isn't difficult. However, currently we are discussing the system and the direction the new DH system is going for systematized damage is better in my opinion. Furthermore, weapons need a serious overhaul as do the actual wound effects on the tables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having not read this entire thread (yet) it occurred to me...

 

In previous iterations of AP, TB, and Pen values, it had been said that weapon Damage was based on its effectiveness against an average TB 3, and that is why the Autogun profile listed 1d10+3, with the +3 specifically intended to negate TB 3. Using this as a base, some weapons were then weaker (Las-pistol at 1d10+2). Armour then provided the majority of protection-relatively speaking- these values were high compared to the remainder of the Damage a weapon was capable of causing. Armour was in turn mitigated by Pen values, which were between just less than to just more than half of the average AP values.

 

Perhaps this time around they have come at the subject from the other direction?
There is some AP remaining after reduction for many of the Pen values, but not much, and this may have been intentional- though it amounts to negligible figures and they may as well have said "weapons penetrate armour", and we'd be better off not using AP and Pen values at all- one negates the other. Of course, it may also explain why some close-combat weapons benefit from the addition of SB while others do not. I suspect we haven't fully divined the nuances of the scaling structure of the new system. 

 

What we have left are Damage values that have been reduced from those listed in previous game lines so that they reflect what the weapon alone is capable of doing to a PC with a TB 3 AND the new AP values, but without intentionally scaling it to oppose TB 3 and then referencing that weapon as a basis for modifying other weapons. The Wound mechanic has then been altered to jibe with this new "mystery" scaling.

 

I'm still on the fence about the Wound system. I need more feedback from the forum before its structure gels.

 

EDIT- Compiling items from previous comments:

 

we have a set of weapon special qualities that either halve armor or Toughness Bonus on a hit or ignore armor altogether

 

Decreasing the penetration scores isn't necessarily bad.  The higher the Pen value, the less importance armour has with respect to Toughness.  If Pen goes down but damage goes up, then the overall performance of the weapon is about the same but the importance of armour goes up and the importance of Toughness decreases.

Example:

Some dude with TB 4 and 2 points of leather armour. Against a bolt gun that does 1d10+5 with AP 4 he's going to take 1d10+1 damage (Tearing)

Against a 1d10+7 AP 2 Boltgun he's going to take 1d10+3 damage (Tearing)

 

An IG wearing full flak (which in some fluff actually provides a little protection from some bolt weapons) is TB 3  Armour 4- against vanilla bolt gun he'll take 1d10+2 (Tearing) and against the other he'll take 1d10+2 (Tearing).

 

The damage is the same but instead of taking less damage because of his beer belly, he's taking less damage because of the cerametal implants in his Cadian pattern flak armour

 

[page 207] To determine the wound effect, the character takes the total damage dealt by the hit (damage value minus defence value) and adds modifiers for each wounds he was suffering from prior to the attack:

Wound +5

Critical wound +10

 

So, if we ignore the errant "S" at the end of "Wounds" word (highlighted) and read the rule as it was probably intended, we get +10 to wound effects from EACH critical wound and +5 - from each regular wound. Which in turn means that two critical wounds to any given location practically guarantee character's death after a third wound, as the wound effect score of 29+ invariably kills.

The wounds overhaul idea as such, IMHO, is therefore good and sound. 

 

I personally really like the new wound system. Or, at least, the idea behind it. However, the way talents, weapons, and combat mechanics (looking at you RoF) work with it stains it. The concept behind anything getting through your defenses hurting is good. I like it. It gets rid of having to abstract damage. Consider the following piece of theoretical play:

 

[GM] "Okay, the ganger has his back pressed up against a wooden crate some 30 meters below you. Your vantage point allows you to completely ignore his cover as he is primarily concerned with your companions on the other side of the crate. What do you do?"

 

[Player] "I Aim, and Called Shot to his head. One shot, one kill."

 

[Rolls ensue]

 

[GM] "Alright, as per usual your character has an eye for accuracy and places that bullet well. Roll Damage."

 

Here's where the example becomes divergent between our systems. Ignoring previous bonuses to damage from the Accuracy trait if the player rolls poorly for Damage things become weird.

 

[Old DH; using wound "pool"] Having not done enough damage to get into Critical the GM has to describe how the bullet somehow missed the nervous system but still did considerable damage. This is troublesome after all the hype of setting up a head-shot and is rather unlikely.

 

[New DH; using "wounds" table] Even if the roll is poor we get visceral effects that hamper the target. While still disappointing because it isn't a kill (this needs tweaking in the new system badly) the player is rewarded with imposing a detrimental effect on the target, as a head-shot should at least incur.

 

It gelled. Hopefully by compiling these statements I have helped others to divine the nuances of the scaling structure of the new system.

 

RoF still needs to have another look (or six).

Edited by Brother Orpheo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MEQ armor is much better than 6 up. I personally really like the new wound system. Or, at least, the idea behind it. However, the way talents, weapons, and combat mechanics (looking at you RoF) work with it stains it. The concept behind anything getting through your defenses hurting is good. I like it. It gets rid of having to abstract damage. Consider the following piece of theoretical play:

 

[GM] "Okay, the ganger has his back pressed up against a wooden crate some 30 meters below you. Your vantage point allows you to completely ignore his cover as he is primarily concerned with your companions on the other side of the crate. What do you do?"

 

[Player] "I Aim, and Called Shot to his head. One shot, one kill."

 

[Rolls ensue]

 

[GM] "Alright, as per usual your character has an eye for accuracy and places that bullet well. Roll Damage."

 

Here's where the example becomes divergent between our systems. Ignoring previous bonuses to damage from the Accuracy trait if the player rolls poorly for Damage things become weird.

 

[Old DH; using wound "pool"] Having not done enough damage to get into Critical the GM has to describe how the bullet somehow missed the nervous system but still did considerable damage. This is troublesome after all the hype of setting up a head-shot and is rather unlikely.

 

[New DH; using "wounds" table] Even if the roll is poor we get visceral effects that hamper the target. While still disappointing because it isn't a kill (this needs tweaking in the new system badly) the player is rewarded with imposing a detrimental effect on the target, as a head-shot should at least incur.

 

[Acknowledgments] This said, much of this is up to the GM and isn't difficult. However, currently we are discussing the system and the direction the new DH system is going for systematized damage is better in my opinion. Furthermore, weapons need a serious overhaul as do the actual wound effects on the tables.

According to the new rules, you can't AIm and Called shot in the same turn as that takes 5AP with a sniper rilfe RoF of 1/3, 1 AP for Aiming and 1 AP for Called Shot.  It also leaves you with no AP free for evading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem isn't that armor is ridiculously low, the problem is that taking 1 damage is almost the same as taking 10 (as long as it doesn't kill you outright), because ALL previous regular wounds are worth +5 when looking at the wound tables. Armor doesn't really help you survive longer.

That is not entirely correct I believe. The rules are as follows:

 

[page 207] To determine the wound effect, the character takes the total damage dealt by the hit (damage value minus defence value) and adds modifiers for each wounds he was suffering from prior to the attack:

Wound +5

Critical wound +10

 

 

No, I meant, I got that (I expressed myself poorly). What I meant is that if you're hit 4 times by regular wounds that only deal 1 damage each, you still get a +20 to your next wound. Armor was of limited use, because getting 10 damage 4 times or getting 1 damage 4 times doesn't change that much (you get more wound effects in one case than in another, but even in the "4 times 1 damage" case you're getting a "16" effect anyway.

 

Armor isn't entirely useless, but it doesn't increase survivability much, because everything is flattened to "+5 per wound", even if they were barely damaging you.

 

So I don't think armor values are the problem, the +5/+10/Wounds table mechanic is. 

 

Anyway, wounds and weapons are the only real things that bother me in this edition, so it's easy to houserule it into something better and call it a day. Especially since a houserule will make things less atrociously clunky. This isn't the 80s edition of rolemaster, FFS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If armor turns out to be ineffective I would probably house rule that the normalization will be depending on type of armor (as I mention above), so power armor is +3/+6, carapace is +4/+8, or something similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like they've changed fluff alot borthian, from the lexicanum: [...]

 

To be fair, they have done so since day 1 - just like a whole lot of BL novel authors, and even GW themselves. That Lexicanum still propagates the lie of an overarching consistency between all those different sources does not change the fact that, as stated by the very people who actually write the material, it does not exist. Due to the franchise's "laissez faire" approach when it comes to such details, FFG are well within their rights, and (given the history of the IP) perhaps even expected to change the details according to how they think it fits best into their world view.

 

That doesn't mean that the customers necessarily end up liking said changes (and I have certainly moaned a lot about how they "nerfed" the Sororitas compared to the fluff I am used to), but it's difficult to say how many people may think it's worse and how many people think it's better than what was there before. For example, a whole lot of Deathwatch players seemed to appreciate how FFG cut out the Inquisition from said group's hierarchy.

 

The reduction of both Pen and Armour Protection seems balanced against one another and as such should not be much of a problem - though I'd certainly agree that it might feel weird if the difference between two pieces of equipment become so comparatively marginal. In my opinion, a huge part of this issue is that the designers still couldn't let go of Toughness as secondary armour (one of my biggest gripes with the old system), so that you'd now end up with a tough guy in a factory overall apparently being just as well protected as a flimsy old man in powered armour.

Now, if this seems right or not, that's a question we'd all have to answer individually ...

 

On the upside, this means that having someone in power armour running around with Acolytes in flak doesn't "unbalance" the game as much as it used to. Considering that a number of players have complained a lot about this, or even houseruled PA out of the game entirely, perhaps this was the thought behind the changes? A transformation into slight bonuses and preservation of archetypical appearances, rather than big gaps and preservation of older wargear backgrounds?

Edited by Lynata

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night, I showed a less active person in my gaming group the new armoury stuff, the nonsensical changes to Penetration and armour values, and all that -- his reaction, and the reaction of the most regular attendee aside from myself, amounted to "PMSL". Paired up with the new Wound mechanics, which they just didn't like, the more sensible reaction was "we have two conflicting sets of mechanics that clash horribly".

 

On the one hand, the damage dealing system itself generated a "well why on earth did they change it?" response, and the new wound mechanics resulted in more "PMSL" and "lolwut" reactions, before prompting one of them to say "it's just really messy" (identifying, in much less eloquent terms, some of the problems that other people have already expressed better than my groupmates could at the time).

 

It's just unpleasant and silly. My group is extremely likely to stick with 1st Edition for some time to come, because we felt that the changes to Pen, Armour, and the combat mechanics were neither necessary nor especially welcome.

Edited by Lucinus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lyanta, yeah, GW changes fluff but we kinda have to go with the newest edition, right? If not then space marines aren't supersoldier warrior monks who fight the enemies of the imperium, we could go back to Rogue Trader and make them drugged up convicts doing mercenery work for rogue traders. And the list goes on. Current fluff power weapons dice power armour, not terminator anymore but at least power armour.

My main problem is that it just puts the emphasis even more on toughness and ruins weapon diversity. It's all about damage, Penetration? Who cares! Well, I do. Some weapons should be better at penetrating armour, they might not do alot of damage, but they will get through the protection and cause harm. Which actually works pretty well with the new system.

It also translates HORRIBLY to vehicle combat. A meltagun has to either get very close (open combat that's impossible, you have to get the jump) or it won't be able to damage the front of a car. Read that that's being changed, so it will breach car but not a chimera. Which sounds better, but still not right according to the fluff. And rules that don't support the fluff just ruins the point of using an established franchice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try and keep TT stats out of the discussion.  TT stats don't exist to accurately represent the universe, they exist to be in the right general performance area while making as many concessions as necessary to keep the game playable in the desired manner.  That's why TT guns all have unbelieavably terrible range and you can field more than 10 Astartes in a 1000 point game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, can we take the fluff into consideration then Cynical? The meltagun is supposed to be an antitank weapon. In this game, it really isn't. Unless you're at half range, at which point it becomes an anti everything weapon. I feel it doesn't jive well with the fluff that a meltagun doesn't completely ignore general purpose mass produced body armour when it's supposed to take out tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fluff, and game play implications, is where I think the discussion should be.  I agree a melta gun should make a mess out of just about anything but it doesn't have to have a monster pen to do it.  Melta guns ignoring armour is a TT game mechanic, where armour represents a saving throw and a melta gun is so destructive that it just blasts through.

 

The mechanism (as vaguely described as it tends to be) of the melta gun's operation doesn't tend to be particularly effective at penetrating armour.  In fact, that just tends to be the opposite.  Its just so incredibly destructive (to the tune of double digit gigajoule level blasts for the vanilla melta gun)that armour is irrelevant.  The melta doesn't penetrate armour, it destroys it and then continues to destroy anything else in the path of the beam.  Fun heating secondary effects like the consequences of large scale flash vaporization, also occur.

 

In other words, the melta having a crap penetration score isn't a problem because giving the melta a pen score is only one way of representing how ridiculously destructive it is.  The method of how the melta works mechanically is less important than the result.  The melta should be very short ranged, single shot, somewhat unwieldy, have a limited supply of ammo, and just about anything it does hit should be slag, vapor, or ash with the results being even worse a point blank range.  That's what important.

 

I would like to add that I'm not saying the melta stats are good.  Timing being what it is, I'm half way through digesting Shadowrun 5th edition and my attention is really divided.  I'm just saying that there is more than one way of doing things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't ignore armour in the tabletop, adn you told me to disregard the TT rules so I have. But there, they simply get an extra D6 for penetrating armour at close range. Why? Because the melta isn't that destructive on its own, it needs that extra D6 in order to reliably penetrate most vehicle armour.

It does matter! It does as much against an enemy with armour as one without, making the entire concept of armour silly when it's simply a tacked on TB rather then a statistic that requires the players to either be prepared with their own armour piercing weapons or be very afraid of those that have them if they rely heavily on their armour for survival. Now it's simply a boring "you get an extra d10". It takes something i found fundemental to the armoury and not something I'm happy to see go. If anything I was hoping for more options not less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...