Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So quick question, lets say my friend is firing his turbo penetrator at my monolith, to avoid rules debate lets say we already agreed he gets his 4 d6, my question is, does he get 4d6 and then +3? or does the turbo penetrator just give him 4d6 flat out?

4D6 + 3 for being a sniper

Turbo doesn't work on living metal. Newest rules say you only ever rule 1d6 for penetration. In addition turbo should only have 4d6 since it states its own penetration rules.

hmmmmmmmm, I smell the sweet smell of recycled intransigence in the air.

Or someone who can get the search to work better than I can could link the the last time we had a bajillion page thread on turbo penetrator vs. living metal.

4d6 only. The rules state that it has an armor penetration of 4d6, so that is all it gets.

Normally armor penetration is made up of strength plus 1d6. Since both of those parts are armor penetration, and the turbo penetration round redefines what armor penetration is for that weapon, the 4d6 replaces all of what is normal.

Some other posters will disagree, but the text says 4d6 armour penetration, so its just 4d6.

kmdl1066 wrote:hmmmmmmmm, I smell the sweet smell of recycled intransigence in the air.

Or someone who can get the search to work better than I can could link the the last time we had a bajillion page thread on turbo penetrator vs. living metal.

Or people could just read the OP....

"to avoid rules debate lets say we already agreed he gets his 4 d6, "

Dracos - yet the exact same wording was 3+3D6 in the previous codex.

If they want to rule the same way in a new FAQ, then that is what they should do. The wording, however, is not ambiguous in the least.
Last edition =/= new edition.

exact same wording == exact same wording

4D6 +3

Yet the question is mysteriously not included in the current FAQ. Perhaps that is because that is no longer the answer.

For now, the rules say what they say. Show me a link to an FAQ that says 4d6+3 and you will have a point.

And the rules say what they say - it has an AP of 4D6. It is ALSO a sniper, meaning you add 3

Show me something saying it is only 4D6 and you may have a point. Perhaps its so blindingly obvious that they dont feel the need to FAQ it?

It is blindingly obvious. Normal weapons have normal rules for how to do armour penetration, which is normally strength +1d6.

The turbo pen states, in no uncertain terms, that is has an armor penetration of 4d6.

Saying "only" 4d6 would be stupid, the word "only" is unnecessary. You dont see the word "only" appear every time a value is given, because that would be redundant.

Old rulings would have a lot more pull if GW was self consistent. They don't even have a strong internal logic in the books or in their FAQs.

Gotta give it the +3 cuz it's a sniper rifle

Dracos wrote:Yet the question is mysteriously not included in the current FAQ. Perhaps that is because that is no longer the answer.

For now, the rules say what they say. Show me a link to an FAQ that says 4d6+3 and you will have a point.

Regardless, it will be a contentious issue for exactly that reason. It has identical wording to the old codex and the old FAQ question covering that exact question gave a specific answer. You can't assume that the FAQ answer was deliberately left off the FAQ in order to prove your point, it is just as likely that they dumped the whole old FAQ (figuring it was covering the old codex) and started fresh. It doesn't matter which way they end up ruling, it needs to be FAQ'd simply because it was ambiguous enough to require FAQing and nothing was changed with how it was written.

And the reason it is ambiguous (for living metal at the very least) is because it says that in practice a weapon trying to penetrate a Monolith uses its unmodified strength and gets no bonus penetration dice. Since the exact definition of what is or is not considered bonus penetration dice is ambiguous it naturally raises the question of whether or not the Turbo Penetrator round's ability is still considered bonus penetration dice that are effectively superseded by Living Metal.


But one thing should be clear here:

If you're playing that the Turbo Penetrator gets to use its S3 for the penetration roll, then against Monoliths you would just get S3+D6. And regardless of how you treat the turbo penetrator, you're still not getting any additional penetration dice against the Monolith due to Rending.

Certainly I can't claim to know why a question is not on an FAQ. However incorrect it is to state it was left off deliberately, it is even more erroneous to apply an answer that is not on the FAQ. Therefore, the only rational thing to do is (surprise) ignore questions not on the FAQ.

Without the previous FAQ, which should be the default stance when there is a new FAQ or new edition released, there is no ambiguity in the text that the Turbo pen round is 4d6 (no more, no less).

How this interacts with the monolith, however, is not clear. Since as you point out, "bonus penetration dice" is not defined. This seems to be an instance where the two special rules are of equal specificity and therefore neither automatically supersede the other. It is, therefore, prudent to apply the process of invoking TMIR to decide which special rule wins out, as described in the FAQ.

The correct interpertation is that the rifle gets Str3+4D6. against a monolith it only gets 3+1d6.

now, the last time GW FAQ'd it, they ruled that the rifle got ALL of its dice against the monolith for some reason. I disagreed with that, but that was what it was.



the rules are clear that it is a Sniper Rifle(and as such has the rending special rule and counts as Str3 against vehicles)

the main rules are that to damage a vehicle you roll a dice for armor penetration. you then add your strength to it. that dice is explicitly called an armor penetration roll.

the Turbopenetrator says the rifle rolls 4d6 for armor penetration. this is a replacement for the normal roll of a single dice.

Not this thread again...
Anyway, Grey templar nailed it.

Dracos wrote:It is blindingly obvious.

Yes, it is. Too bad you haven't been able to see it. Sniper = ST 3.

Like it makes a difference to have +3 when you get 4d6. That is if you get 4d6.

Armor penetration says roll a d6 + S (in this case, undeniably it is 3). Therefore anything in the game which is not d6+S, is getting bonus penetration. So monolith, d6+3. If for some reason it wasn't dice, but a set number, or multiplier, or anything other than dice, then it would for some reason apply.

You guys are better off arguing why a sniper who can't even infiltrate gets more armor penetration than most other things in the galaxy.

Erik - then I suggest you reread the codex, he DOES get infiltrate.

Ha, I made you look it up. Don't you ever sleep?

UK Flag.....

Which is another reason I should go to sleep then.

It will get 4d6 + 3. The living metal ignores lance and extra dice. I believe it uses those words. This would prevent things like the rending from a sniper, melta effect (not bombs as those specifically say 2d6+8), and chainfists.

Wow, you're going up against grey knights? Better just concede the game, man...

Ok, but seriously, I support the 3+4d6 view as none of the 4d6 are "additional" dice added to the normal dice being rolled for armor penetration for that rifle. This might be changed in an FAQ but it's my viewpoint for now at least.

Since this is a friendly game, you might want to playtest it for yourself and let us know how it goes. Agree before the game whether or not the rifle will get 4d6 or 1d6 and see if it makes a huge difference on how he has to deal with it.

Akroma06 wrote:It will get 4d6 + 3. The living metal ignores lance and extra dice. I believe it uses those words. This would prevent things like the rending from a sniper, melta effect (not bombs as those specifically say 2d6+8), and chainfists.

This is my thinking (although not sure about bombs or chainfists...)

Grey Templar wrote:the Turbopenetrator says the rifle rolls 4d6 for armor penetration. this is a replacement for the normal roll of a single dice.

You might have a point if it said that. Unfortunately, the text does not say to roll 4d6. It say the turbo penetration round has armor penetration of 4d6. This is important as armor penetration is made up of the strength and a roll of 1d6. Since it is replacing all of the armor penetration rules, and not just the roll, you are incorrect.

This constant faulty citation of the rules is what spreads the faulty interpretation of this rule.

It doesn't matter how many time you repeat your false interpretation, you can't change what the text says.

It says you have an armor penetration of 4d6, so, surprisingly enough, that is all you get.

So you dont get rending then, either?

Odd.

3+4D6 is RAW, RAI and RAP

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you dont get rending then, either?

Odd.

3+4D6 is RAW, RAI and RAP

So hath the great telepath Nosferatu1001 decreed it, so shall it be. For only he is in possession of the great author mind-reading ability. He shall decree both the rules as intended and how thou shall play them.

....

4d6 + rending would not be 4d6, now would it?

Its kind of stunning to me how many people have added in extra words to the text as they read it (intentionally or otherwise), or ignore what it says outright.

Go add whatever rules you want into your games. That's cool. I know I can read, sorry so many of you have a problem understanding a simple sentence. I've done my best to show you what it says, but it seems like many people will just read the rule whatever way they want it to read anyways.

Lets look up the rules for Chainfists shall we.

Space Marine Codex P64

"A chainfist is treated exactly like a powerfist, but rolls 2D6 for its armor penetration value"



by the argument you are using Dracos, a Chainfist will only get 2D6 against vehicles and won't add the users doubled Strength(which will only apply against non-vehicles)