Okay, haven't seen this on the forums anywhere...

It looks like there is a contradiction in the rules for the 'lance' weapon quality. The rules state that the penetration for a lance shot is equal to P x (1+D), where P = the weapon's base penetration, and D = the Degrees of success. But, the example at the end contradicts this, where a hit with 1 DoS and a base Pen 5 has a total Pen of 5.

Which is correct? I am confused...

Cheers,

- V.

Hmm it looks like you're on to something...
I think the issue lie in FFGs persisting problems with the first DoS, does a succefull roll grant you the first DoS, or is it when you succed your roll by 10%.

I would say that the first part is correct, since the base pen seems rather low for a heavy weapon/tank-killer, I mean pen5 would'n get you through light carapace. So the weapons pen would always be P + (P x DoS), as you wrote.

As a general rule, everywhere where something says "2 degrees of success," it should say "2 extra degrees of success,"

There are many many such issues involving copy-pasting from earlier game lines that had a slightly different mechanic.

Actually, for Only War making the check is your first DoS. See page 31 of the rulebook. It can be confusing because the other games only counted extra DoS.

Right, but a lot of the RAW has not been converted into the Only War rules.

^{Hmm, I'm not seeing a definitive answer on this. If Bogi_khaosa is right, then the example in the book makes sense. However, that does indeed result in an anti-tank weapon with potentially quite low penetration. Then again, you're not likely to see more than about pen 10 unless you're packing a Melta at short range. Has anyone gotten an official ruling from FFG?}

^Cheers,

^{- V.}

If you wanted to make Lance function approximately as it does in TT, what you would do is have it treat all AP values over a certain point as the same -- say, anything over 20 would count as 20 -- rather than giving it high Pen.

Anyway like I said, I am 99% sure that it should be "2 extra degrees of success," as in most places in the book where the same error occurs.