Are Melta bombs Melta?

[Wraith776]

Apologies if there is already a thread for this, I searched and couldn't find one anywhere.

 

So basically lately my group has run into the problem of meltabombs not actually having the Melta special rule, instead they have Armourbane. Specifically we've run into problems when using them against vehicles with armoured ceramite and the Avatar of Khaine.

 

First with armoured ceramite it states that:

 

"Weapons with the Melta special rule never roll an additional D6 against vehicles with Armoured Ceramite."

 

Second with the Avatar it states:

 

"The Avatar is unaffected by all Pyromancy psychic powers, all flamer weapons as defined in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook, and all attacks that have the Melta and/or Soul Blaze special rules."

 

Meltabombs don't actually have the Melta special rule so to me it means that it ignores rules like those above. To me the name doesn't have any merit on it being a Melta weapon and so ignored by the Avatar and Armoured Ceramite.

Its labelled as meltabomb to simplify things in my view.

After all a space marine meltabomb would work quite differently to an Eldar meltabomb, the same with Imperial guard melta bombs. The name simply gathers multiple weapons that would otherwise have subtle differences into one weapon.

 

What are your opinions on it?

[jeffersonian000]

Melta Bombs are Melta based breaching charges used to defeat vehicle armor or monstrous creatures. That is a fluff thing, not a cruch thing. Technically, Melta Bombs are not Melta weapons per the current game mechanics. But who knows? Maybe when Fantasy and 40k are merged next year, Melta Bombs might gain the Melta rule?

 

SJ

[Kristoff]

The problem with using the Melta rule versus the Armourbane rule is, "what is half the range of melee?"

[Lucien Eilam]

The rules don't address "melta weapons". They address weapons with the Melta special rule. There's really no question of which weapons are affected.

[Jolemai]

So do you feel that Armourbane = Melta?

[Lucien Eilam]

No, because it's not.

[Jolemai]

So you feel that a Melta Bomb works on an Avatar?

[Lucien Eilam]

Yes, because he's immune to weapons with the Melta special rule, and a melta bomb does not have the Melta special rule.

[Allart01]

Yup, meltabombs are not melta - you can wreck an armoured ceramite vehicle with them.

I'm not sure the designers did this on purpose, though.

[tdemayo]

Silly, but true: The Avatar is not immune to Melta Bombs (which have the Armorbane rule) but is immune to Melta guns (which do have the Melta rule).  Same with Armored Ceramite.  It's best just not to think too hard about the logic behind such things.  There are many other examples of 40k rules strangeness: Why are one race's giant robots (Wraithknights) vulnerable to snipers and fleshbane, but another race's giant robots (Dreadnaughts) not?  Just roll with it.  After all, this is a universe where people paint themselves bright red, hop on their motorcycle, and chainsaw their enemies.

[Captain Coolpants]

I'm sure melta bombs used to have the melta rule at some point?

 

Obviously they don't now though.

[Urauloth]

To be fair, regarding armoured ceramite vehicles, there's a difference (fluff wise) between a shot from even a powerful gun and someone actually clamping a whacking great bomb directly onto the hull. Same could probably be said of the Avatar - if you run up and strap a bomb to it, you're probably in with a better chance than if you shoot at it. You're also probably insane, but then again, you might be that if you spend too muh time overthinking warhammer fluff logic.

 

In terms of rules there's no argument; it's armourbane, not melta.

[JeffJedi]

Space Marine armor is made of ceramite but gains nothing against melts, its just a fluff thing.

[Wolf Brother Theur]

The way I have always played is the melta special rule deals with melta weapons in the shooting phase.  Melta bombs are used in the assault phase.  Melta bombs always have been and always will be 2D6+8

[Acebaur]

As established, Meltabombs do not have the Melta special rule.

 

If you want to justify it fluff wise that's easy. Things with the melta rule are basically heat rays that bore their way through armor and flesh. A meltabomb is much more similar to C4. C4 does not use heat to blow stuff up. It uses a massive shockwave to deal it's damage, not fire.

[Captain Coolpants]

I always thought of it like thermite. Stick it on and watch the melty glory!

[Quixus]

I always thought of it like thermite. Stick it on and watch the melty glory!

No one disputes that. The question is whether melta bombs get only a 1d6 armor pentration roll against Ceramite Plating or similar melta ignoring special rules. Ceramite plating ignores the extra d6 of Melta Weapons. According to the main rule book Melta Weapons are Inferno Pistols, Meltaguns, Multi-Meltas and Melta-Cannons. Melta Bombs are not classified as Melta Weapons. So they get the full 2d6.

[Kristoff]

 

I always thought of it like thermite. Stick it on and watch the melty glory!

No one disputes that. The question is whether melta bombs get only a 1d6 armor pentration roll against Ceramite Plating or similar melta ignoring special rules. Ceramite plating ignores the extra d6 of Melta Weapons. According to the main rule book Melta Weapons are Inferno Pistols, Meltaguns, Multi-Meltas and Melta-Cannons. Melta Bombs are not classified as Melta Weapons. So they get the full 2d6.

Fluffwise, it probably should, it is called a meltabomb, after all.

 

However, fluff aren't always rules. If you proposed it pre-game as a special house rule, I'd consider it so long as you are reasonable about it. But considering I just tend to use more Hammer and Fist than Bomb, it wouldn't affect me much.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

I can't see meltabombs listed under melta weapons.

 

So no, they are not melta weapons. It might not make sense in light of their name, but them's the rules.