View Full Version : power weapons vs. vehicles

14-02-2009, 16:09
I know AP1 weapons get a +1 on the armor penetration table

but what about power weapons? I would think that a weapon that ignore armor saves would count at least as an "AP1" weapon but can't find anything in the book to back it up

so a fig armed with a power weapon is no more able to harm a vehicle than a "regular" grunt?

14-02-2009, 16:11
so a fig armed with a power weapon is no more able to harm a vehicle than a "regular" grunt?

Correct. If you want power weapons ripping open vehicles then it's back to 2nd edition. Nowdays that's down to power fists and thunder hammers.

14-02-2009, 16:21
This is another case where simple rules have won out over '40k realism.' If it slices through terminator armor, it should slice through dreadnoughts and rhino hatches, but that would be hard to write simple, balanced rules for, so it can't.

Don't expect realism or consistency from 40k. It is VERY abstract.

14-02-2009, 16:44
I'm not a fluff expert but I would think that the difference is in the sheer thickness and durability of the armour plating itself. Regardless of how tough Space Marine ceremite armour may be, there's a reason why they still use a Toughness value instead of and Armour value. The power weapon may well cleave into vehicle armour just as easily as personnel armour, but the force of a persons swing without mechanical assistance can only deliver so much force, meaning it simply can't punch through in any meaningful way most of the time. Rockets, Thunderhammers, Powerklaws, melta bombs ect are made specifically to enhance the anti-vehicle capabilities of personnel. So when you look at it that way, it seems alot more logical IMO.

14-02-2009, 17:01
Isn't this supposed to be in the rules section, where it has been asked numerous times?

Anyhow, all people before me have the correct answer, power weapons help squat against vehicles.