Hey folks!

The main rulebook says that when determining penetration results, you add a D6 to the strength of the weapon, where some weapons have modifiers (Meltas, lances, etc). Living armour says that no additional dice may be used when rolling for penetration.

The two arguments:

1. Vindicares roll 4D6 to penetrate; none of those are EXTRA dice. They're all the "base" dice.

2. Armour penetration is STR + D6. Dice beyond that are additional.

My Take:

I don't put a whole lot of stock in #1. The rulebook specifically says (page 60) to roll a D6 and add the result to the weapon's strength. Despite the Vindicare entry not saying, "roll 3 extra dice for armour penetration" it doesn't have to - because armour penetration is already defined in the rulebook, with the vindicare modifying it with +3 dice.

Core Rule: Armour penetration is STR + D6
Vindicare: Roll 4D6 for armour penetration instead of STR + D6
Monolith: Only STR + D6 is allowed.

So where specific > general....

You get the Core Rule (general) allowing STR+D6, with the Vindicare rule coming next, adding a general rule of rolling 4D6 against all vehicles, and lastly a very specific rule on one vehicle disallowing those additional dice.

Same as with his old rules he gets 4D6 vs monoliths; as that's the strength value.

Isn't the Vindicare's strength simply treated as 4D6 against a vehicle? Nothing really for the monolith's special rule to override.

bushido wrote:Isn't the Vindicare's strength simply treated as 4D6 against a vehicle? Nothing really for the monolith's special rule to override.

His rule doesn't say that his STR is determined by 4D6. Rather, it says that he rolls 4D6 penetration.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bushido wrote:Isn't the Vindicare's strength simply treated as 4D6 against a vehicle? Nothing really for the monolith's special rule to override.

No, that is not the case.

I say 4d6, as per the old rules, until I hear otherwise.

Extra dice or not, no weapon ever gets more than the unaugmented strength of the weapon plus 1d6 for armor penetration against the Monolith. That's straight from the Monolith rules. Used to be different due to the FAQ, but that is no longer the case.

isnt a sniper rifle str3?

so its str3 +4d6 isnt it?

"In practice, any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what." Final line of the Living Metal rule. If the Vindicare's gun has no str. and just rolls 4D6 for armour pen. then he can, at max, score a str. of 6 as both specifically mention being for armour pen.

I'd say the more specific rules of the Vindicare override the (slightly) more general rules of the Monolith. I see it as a special case, but it's by no means concrete.

DoW

does the Vidicare rifle count as SNIPER! lol

if it does, its str3 +4d6 isnt it?
this would sort the question out

DogOfWar wrote:I'd say the more specific rules of the Vindicare override the (slightly) more general rules of the Monolith. I see it as a special case, but it's by no means concrete.

DoW

Just sayin', the Exitus Rifle is S3 versus vehicles because it is a sniper rifle. The Vindicare then gets to roll 4D6 as opposed to the normal 1D6 when rolling for armour pen. Living Metal specifically blocks any extra dice, meaning that you're back to "standard", i.e. S3+1D6. The Living Metal rule is more specific than the Exitus Rifle in this case.

I'd say no after reading Azure's post. Unless 4D6 is considered its base strength for the shot, then the extra 3D6 are for armor penetration, which against the monolith is only ever D6.

yep, thats what i thought, this is why i was asking if it was counted as a sniper shot. this does infact make it nastier against other vehicles though

4d6
roll and 6's and you ger rending, very nasty

Fetterkey wrote:I say 4d6, as per the old rules, until I hear otherwise.

You know, the FAQ about the vindicare getting his 4D6 against the monolith was removed a while ago.

Yep, we know. Which is why a lot of us are saying ST 3 plus 1d6, and rending most definitely does not work against Living Metal.

Concur here.

Everyone keeps trying to get around that Living Metal rule, and only Wraithcannon and EMP grenades have so far (as they don't roll for penetration exactly..)

I bet you they remove it for 'simplicity's sake' when they redo the codex though...

Ascalam wrote:
Everyone keeps trying to get around that Living Metal rule, and only Wraithcannon and EMP grenades have so far (as they don't roll for penetration exactly..)

Shokk Attack Gun. says hi.

And get argued about all over the place The camps are about 50/50.

Wraithcannon and EMP grenades are unarguable in their effect.They either do nothing, glance automatically or Pen automatically.

Still nothing like the Tau Railgun, though. Pure S10 AP1 goodness.

I agree with you, Dash. 3+D6 which isn't going to do anything to the Monolith. It's the Necron codex, guys! Give it what it has!

Azure wrote:"In practice, any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what." Final line of the Living Metal rule. If the Vindicare's gun has no str. and just rolls 4D6 for armour pen. then he can, at max, score a str. of 6 as both specifically mention being for armour pen.

I don't know how you got to S6 but I believe that this line tells it all, unaugmented D6 and 1 other D6, no more. This is what it says, so you can only get 9 Azure due to snipers already getting S3.

They were trying to be unambiguous in this and failed miserably, plus how the hell is a single sniper bullet going to destroy a Monolith??

phantommaster wrote:They were trying to be unambiguous in this and failed miserably, plus how the hell is a single sniper bullet going to destroy a Monolith??

Have you seen Star Wars original trilogy?

Doesn't matter that sniper guns do S + D6 + rending on the armor penetration, the Grey Knight codex overrides this.

Thus it does 4D6 (as there is no strength value for it) + rending.

Basically, it boils down to almost the same argument as meltabombs vs monoliths. Are meltabombs 8+2D6 AP or are they 8+D6 +extra D6 AP?

isnt meltabombs always rolled only one d6?

phantommaster wrote:

Azure wrote:"In practice, any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what." Final line of the Living Metal rule. If the Vindicare's gun has no str. and just rolls 4D6 for armour pen. then he can, at max, score a str. of 6 as both specifically mention being for armour pen.

I don't know how you got to S6 but I believe that this line tells it all, unaugmented D6 and 1 other D6, no more. This is what it says, so you can only get 9 Azure due to snipers already getting S3.

They were trying to be unambiguous in this and failed miserably, plus how the hell is a single sniper bullet going to destroy a Monolith??

Sorry! Didn't know about the sniper thing having a base str. of 3. DX Anyhow, the point still stands that the Monolith won't be glanced and certainly not penn'd

Doesn't matter that sniper guns do S + D6 + rending on the armor penetration, the Grey Knight codex overrides this.

It may do, but living metal also overrides the 4D6.


As said, some things are beyond it, including haywires
Vindi however, isnt.

Yeah Haywire grenades do not a happy monolith make.

The vindicare can try to ping away all day though, but if he chips my paintjob, i'm sending the nightbringer after him.

I prefer a can of "Warp Rift" spray for those pesky Necron infestations.

(What Living Metal? Auto-pen Beyoches!)

I need to get the GK book
Not interested in playing them 1 bit, but would like to have thier rules about.


In which case, i think i may grab a 3rd lith while im at it.

jy2 wrote:Doesn't matter that sniper guns do S + D6 + rending on the armor penetration, the Grey Knight codex overrides this.

Thus it does 4D6 (as there is no strength value for it) + rending.

Basically, it boils down to almost the same argument as meltabombs vs monoliths. Are meltabombs 8+2D6 AP or are they 8+D6 +extra D6 AP?

No, the GK codex doesn't change anything. The GK codex tells us what the round will NORMALLY get against vehicles. It doesn't do anything to change the Living Metal rules which deny anything more than unaugmented ST plus 1d6. Fine example of more specific (penetrator against Living Metal) vs general (penetrator against vehicles in general).

Grey Knights codex, page 53 wrote:
A Turbo Penetrator shot has an armour penetration of 4D6

Talk about vague. Thank you Ward, you useless hack.

First, the Turbo Penetrator does not use a strength value. It's not 3+4D6, it's just 4D6.

So if it's an issue of interpretation as below:

Basically, it boils down to almost the same argument as meltabombs vs monoliths. Are meltabombs 8+2D6 AP or are they 8+D6 +extra D6 AP?

then it's the former, rather than the latter.

As for how this applies to Monoliths... fething Ward...

Doesn't matter if it has a ST value or not. If it has the Sniper rule, it does, ST 3. If it doesn't have the Sniper rule, then it gets ST 0 plus 1d6, no matter what. And the meltabomb is the same way. Either it is ST 8 and gets 1d6, or it is ST 0 and gets 1d6. Neither of them gets around the Living Metal rule.

Is it;

1) Weapon str + 1d6 + 3-4d6 for penetration

2) 4D6 instead of (1).

Razerous wrote:Is it;

1) Weapon str + 1d6 + 3-4d6 for penetration

2) 4D6 instead of (1).

It is number 2, as specifically stated on page 53 of the codex.

its a sniper rifle (str3 vs vehicles) fireing a turbo penetrator (4d6 vs vehicles) where is the rule does it say it stops being a sniper rifle? or does the turbo penetrator replace the profile like the special issue ammo on sternguard?

either is irrelevent, as the monolith rule is quite specific.

If;

You received str 3 + 1d6 + 3d6 it would probably be str 3 + 1d6

You received str 3 + 4d6 then you would get str 3 + 4d6

You received just the 4d6, again you should get 4d6.

.... In practice, any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what.

Thats how it reads from the last section of its entry.
(bolding mine)

It uses the rule for a sniper correct?
In which case, it will be s3 with a single D6

Whats the rule for Farsight? Isn't there a precedent there?

Andrew

Just found my codex.

Dawn Blade Yadda, yadda, yadda{no mention of MC} O'Shavah rolls 2d6+5 when rolling to penetrate the armour of a vehicle.

I thought that that was faq'd to only one d6 vs a Monolith?

Formosa wrote:its a sniper rifle (str3 vs vehicles) fireing a turbo penetrator (4d6 vs vehicles) where is the rule does it say it stops being a sniper rifle? or does the turbo penetrator replace the profile like the special issue ammo on sternguard?

The codex says quite clearly that the armour penetration value of a turbo penetrator shot has an AP value of 4D6. It's similar to Gabriel Seth's Blood Reaver or Astorath's Executioners Axe, the weapon always strikes at a specified value, other modifiers are irrelevant. In this case, the strength 3 vs vehicles that a normal sniper rifle grants is not used.

But as for how this works against a Monolith... well... you'd best wait for a FAQ.

It states in the codex that a turbo penetrator shot has an armour penetration of 4D6

The round doesn't use the weapons strength, you just roll the 4d6 after you have rolled to hit.

Bye Monolith.

The codex says quite clearly that the armour penetration value of a turbo penetrator shot has an AP value of 4D6

And the living metal rule states that no more than a single D6 may be rolled.

the weapon always strikes at a specified value, other modifiers are irrelevant.

And the living metal has allways been D6 max, so i dont see how a new book somehow overrides this.
If it did, it would mention about it as GW have had tons of messages about the rule, hence the extensive FAQ issues to date.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:

The codex says quite clearly that the armour penetration value of a turbo penetrator shot has an AP value of 4D6

And the living metal rule states that no more than a single D6 may be rolled.

the weapon always strikes at a specified value, other modifiers are irrelevant.

And the living metal has allways been D6 max, so i dont see how a new book somehow overrides this.
If it did, it would mention about it as GW have had tons of messages about the rule, hence the extensive FAQ issues to date.

D6 max coming from a weapon with a strength value? When firing the turbo penetrator it negates the use of the weapons strength and just rolls 4d6

In which case it would be 0 + D6

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:

the weapon always strikes at a specified value, other modifiers are irrelevant.

And the living metal has allways been D6 max, so i dont see how a new book somehow overrides this.
If it did, it would mention about it as GW have had tons of messages about the rule, hence the extensive FAQ issues to date.

I was referring towards more general situations not involving the Monolith, since people tend to think that the turbo penetrator uses the strength of the rifle in addition to 4D6 (which it certainly does not).

In the case of the monolith, this has to be FAQ'd. I honestly can't decide on which way to go with this one. If I were playing against a Necron player, I'd let them have this one, just because I don't know how to approach this issue.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:In which case it would be 0 + D6

Turbo Penetrator rounds roll 4D6 for armour penetration.

thamor, the lith is a single D6 max, so im not suer how the turbo round overrides that.




Fafnir: Im hoping it does, and pretty quickly.
And when it does i intend on abusing the lith's as much as possible against GK players

Quick note, but what T is the vindi? And does he have EW?
Im guessing they still have a 4+ dodge.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:thamor, the lith is a single D6 max, so im not suer how the turbo round overrides that.

Are you sure? Because I'm looking at the Necron codex right now, and here's what it says:

Necron codex, page 21 wrote:
Similarly, weapons that get Additional Penetration dice (such as chainfists, monsterous creatures, or melta weapons) do not get extra dice against the Monolith

Now, I may be looking at an older version of the codex, but going by how the Turbo Penetrator round is worded, it shouldn't fall under this category. The round strikes at a specific AP value, that AP value being 4D6. If that's the case, then living metal should not stop it.

Once again, this really, absolutely needs to be FAQ'd, it's rediculous that something like this (and the lack of clarification on Nemesis Falchions, amoung other things) even made it past the editors. Until it does get FAQ'd, I'd recommend just letting the Necron players have this one.

Fafnir: Im hoping it does, and pretty quickly.
And when it does i intend on abusing the lith's as much as possible against GK players

And that's why we have Warp Rift, Vortex of Doom, and S10 hammers. Really though, if the Vindicare is rendered invalid against monoliths, he'll just become more useful for sniping out res orbs.

Quick note, but what T is the vindi? And does he have EW?
Im guessing they still have a 4+ dodge.

T4, no Eternal Warrior, he gets his 4+ dodge, has stealth, and a 6+ FNP style save (which seems pretty useless if you ask me).

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:thamor, the lith is a single D6 max, so im not suer how the turbo round overrides that.




Fafnir: Im hoping it does, and pretty quickly.
And when it does i intend on abusing the lith's as much as possible against GK players

Quick note, but what T is the vindi? And does he have EW?
Im guessing they still have a 4+ dodge.

I guess we'll have to wait for that FAQ

Yea he has a 4+ cover, 3+ if in cover and a 5+ FNP. If i can remember correctly he has w8 bs8 str4 t4 w1 i7 A4 ld9

Actually, it's WS8, BS8, S4, T4, W2, I7, A4, Ld10, Sv4+/4++

Holy feth i didn't notice the 2 wounds

Now, I may be looking at an older version of the codex, but going by how the Turbo Penetrator round is worded, it shouldn't fall under this category. The round strikes at a specific AP value, that AP value being 4D6. If that's the case, then living metal should not stop it.

Its not under that part, read the last sentance of living metal mate.

become more useful for sniping out res orbs.

Yea, thats what does both me
I think ill be playing a game of holding back until he dies from a lith pie plate.

T4, no Eternal Warrior, he gets his 4+ dodge, has stealth, and a 6+ FNP style save (which seems pretty useless if you ask me).

Thats good then, means i can ID him as quickly as possible.
On another note, he is just begging to take a dark lance to the head

Thats good then, means i can ID him as quickly as possible.
On another note, he is just begging to take a dark lance to the head

Most players will place him in cover, giving a 3+ cover, Not a great save but yea quite possibly a dark lance to the face.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:

Now, I may be looking at an older version of the codex, but going by how the Turbo Penetrator round is worded, it shouldn't fall under this category. The round strikes at a specific AP value, that AP value being 4D6. If that's the case, then living metal should not stop it.

Its not under that part, read the last sentance of living metal mate.

Could you quote it? I'm looking at the rules entry, but all I see after that is concerning ordinance weaponry.

If the Vindicare's weapon rolls 4D6 against vehicles for Armor Penetration then it is Very clear that it would not get to roll 4D6, only 1, because the Living Metal rule says "...any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for Armor Penetration using its unaugmented strength and a Single D6 No Matter What." Obvious emphasis being mine.

Also, don't read that with me doing some sort of arrogant voice where the emphasis is. I reread that and it sounds like I'm calling you stupid or something, I"m not, just trying to draw attention there.

.... In practice, any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what.

Thats the last part of the living metal rule mate.
Just after the info about ordnance weps.


Im starting to think we have different books mate
I got a newer one if that means anything? (i know they do change a little from print to print)
If it helps ill scan the page in at work tomorrow and show the rule on here.

Please quote the wording and page number. I don't need you to go to the effort of scanning it.

Also, the copyright date, if possible. I'm looking at Copyright 2002.

Twas the wording i quoted in my last post mate.

Page 21


C2002
Product code: 60 03 01 10 001


Gunna have a quick smoke mate and ill type out the whole rule for LM lol, long ass rule.

What's the "unaugmented strength" of the Turbo Penetrator round?

Can a Vindicare shoot at a vehicle without using a Turbo Penetrator round?

bushido wrote:What's the "unaugmented strength" of the Turbo Penetrator round?

As with any sniper shot, S3. However, in the case of the Turbo Penetrator shooting against a vehicle, the strength of the weapon is replaced entirely with 4D6, and no strength value is considered.

Obviously, this causes a fairly significant gap in rules, and is exactly why a FAQ is needed immediately.

Can a Vindicare shoot at a vehicle without using a Turbo Penetrator round?

Yes, in which case the shot is S3 Rending as usual.

But you wouldn't get rending vs the lith anyway.

3 - sniper weapon, unless the Vindicare's rifle has a S on it's statline.

I would imagine he could shoot a non-turbo shot at a vehicle (like using the anti-inv one on a ravager to negate it's flickerfield, perhaps?). I don't have the codex yet (it not being available to the general public yet, around here at least) but from what i hear he has other ammo than turbopenetrator.

Living Metal: The monolith is made of living necron metal which is not only self-repairing but is capable of adapting its structure to resis incomming attacks.
Attacks which count the targets armour value as being less than it really is (such as bright lances and blasters) do not do so against the monolith. Similarly, weapons that get additional armour penetration dice (such as chainfists, monsterous creatures or melta weapons) do not get the extra dice against the monolith. Ordnance weapons still roll 2D6 for armour penetration and select the highest score.
In practice, any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what.

Jack I'm hoping I can save you some time here if you see this before you start typing away. If the DkoK Commissar poster has the original codex then he has the Exact same wording as the second release just without the extra sentence that I posted on the first page. I used direct quotes so there's no interpretation. They didn't change anything else about the rule, just added in a single sentence.

Well, yeah, but even with rending, it's not like a normal sniper round could touch a Monolith anyway, so the point is largely irrelevant.

Speaking of rending, I'm under the inclination that the turbo penetrator round does not consider rending for the purposes of armour penetration anyway.

That seems conclusive to me Jack. So it would be S + D6 for the Vindicare then.

To touch on your other point fafnir - wouldnt the vindicare get rending for the turbo penetrator? You're adding dice, not changing your shot. If you got any 6's when rolling that shot, i'd see no reason why you wouldnt get rending on those dice.

My understanding of it was that the Vindi simply rolls 4d6 for armor pen when using the turbo round, and that's his strength. So living metal wouldn't matter, neither would rending, and no +3 strength. Just straight up 4d6.

I hope there's a FAQ about this as everyone seems to have a different opinion on what the rule means. >.<

I think a certain codex person needs a bullet between the eyes.


However, this be life.
GK dex does seem pretty nasty as it is.

The last question I'd have is: did they intend the Vindicare's 4d6 roll to replace the "3+1d6" roll for damaging a vehicle or just the "+1d6" part of that roll?

If the former, then you could probably expect the FAQ to say that a vindicare gets 4d6 against a monolith.

If the latter, then the Living Metal rule is clear and the vindicare should be shooting elsewhere.



edit: The reason I asked about what shot a vindicare uses against a vehicle is: would the Necron player be able to force his opponent to choose that shot because of living metal shenanigans? Or, if the Vindicare only has the option to use the turbo penetrator, then he wouldn't get 3+1d6, he'd only get 1d6...because of living metal shenanigans.

liam0404 wrote:
To touch on your other point fafnir - wouldnt the vindicare get rending for the turbo penetrator? You're adding dice, not changing your shot. If you got any 6's when rolling that shot, i'd see no reason why you wouldnt get rending on those dice.

No. You're replacing your normal penetration roll with a static 4D6 AP value. It is simply 4D6, no more, no less.

Which leads to the monolith issue. Once again, I'd recommend playing in favour of the Monolith now, but I wouldn't cash my chips on anything until a FAQ comes out.

Ascalam wrote:
I would imagine he could shoot a non-turbo shot at a vehicle (like using the anti-inv one on a ravager to negate it's flickerfield, perhaps?). I don't have the codex yet (it not being available to the general public yet, around here at least) but from what i hear he has other ammo than turbopenetrator.

There is, but there's really no reason to use anything but the Turbo Penetrator against a vehicle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bushido wrote:The last question I'd have is: did they intend the Vindicare's 4d6 roll to replace the "3+1d6" roll for damaging a vehicle or just the "+1d6" part of that roll?

Going by RAW, it replaces it entirely.

Fafnir: Chances are mate that the new cron book with have replaced LM with something else (along with WBB)

Im guessing they will simply wait and do that to kill a few birds with 1 stone.

bushido wrote:The last question I'd have is: did they intend the Vindicare's 4d6 roll to replace the "3+1d6" roll for damaging a vehicle or just the "+1d6" part of that roll?

If the former, then you could probably expect the FAQ to say that a vindicare gets 4d6 against a monolith.

If the latter, then the Living Metal rule is clear and the vindicare should be shooting elsewhere.

It states in the GK codex that the Turbo Penetrator rounds simply uses 4d6 to determine armour penetration.

This is the real bitch of a problem.
If it was dex against BRB, dex wins.


However, 2 dex's against eachother is a real pain in the arse to make heads or tails of.

Turbo - 4D6 pen, base strength swapped out.
LM - No more than 1 D6 rolled against it for AP.


If the turbo still had a base strength, this would have been dead and gone, but that 1 thing is stopping it since it drags it into a grey area of the rules.

Ascalam wrote:3 - sniper weapon, unless the Vindicare's rifle has a S on it's statline.

I would imagine he could shoot a non-turbo shot at a vehicle (like using the anti-inv one on a ravager to negate it's flickerfield, perhaps?). I don't have the codex yet (it not being available to the general public yet, around here at least) but from what i hear he has other ammo than turbopenetrator.

There is 3 types of ammo, Turbo Penetrator which is 4d6 again armour, Hellfire rounds which always wound on a 2+ (The new exitus rifle is AP 1 ) But the third I can't remember what it's called but basically it removes an invulnerable save that is granted by wargear.

So if you were shooting at a squad of Terminators with Storm shields, You would choose which terminator you want to shoot and then remove it's storm shield capability for the rest of the game. But it states in the rules that it only removes invulnerable saves that are from wargear, So it would work on Ghazghkull but not Fateweaver.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:
Turbo - 4D6 pen, base strength swapped out.

If it's rolling 4D6 for armour pen then how does that fall outside the final sentence of the LM rule? You get str. plus a D6 for pen. and if there's no str. then just that D6.

@Jack: that's pretty much what I'm saying. Players on either side have the same ability to be cheesy bastards with these particular rules.

GK player: "Hah! My rules say your monolith is now a smoking crater!"
Necron player: "Nah, man! *My* rules say that those silly bee bee guns can't even scratch my paint!"

@Azure: because depending on the wording of the GK book, the 4d6 you're rolling *is* the weapon's base strength (when shooting at a vehicle).

Thamor wrote:

There is 3 types of ammo, Turbo Penetrator which is 4d6 again armour,

And against infantry and monsterous creatures, if the wound caused by it is unsaved, then it inflicts two wounds instead of one.

(The new exitus rifle is AP 1 )

Always was.

But the third I can't remember what it's called but basically it removes an invulnerable save that is granted by wargear.

Shield Breaker. It removes the invulnerable save as soon as the wound is allocated (and it is allocated by the player controlling the Vindicare), and that invulnerable save is lost for the remainder of the game. Lysander and Eldrad should be scared.

Azure wrote: You get str. plus a D6 for pen. and if there's no str. then just that D6.

Not like i'm a Faq, but that's how i'd read it, ATM.

Azure, while i would like to agree mate, this is a 1 off really.
The fact that it does have no base strength really drags it down since no rules cover it.

However, my thoughts are still towards the turbo being 1D6 rather than 4.




Quick side note, but im now finding pariah's (as over priced and junky as they are) to be pretty nice.

Come within 12" of me and your LD goes down to 7.

Any GK that comes within 6" of me has to take a LD test, or be forced to fall back.
In combat this gets better, rather than falling back you only hit on 6's.

GK's are no longer fearless right? (ATSKNF replaced it)

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:
GK's are no longer fearless right? (ATSKNF replaced it)

Yes, and you will not believe how much that pisses me off.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Azure, while i would like to agree mate, this is a 1 off really.
The fact that it does have no base strength really drags it down since no rules cover it.

However, my thoughts are still towards the turbo being 1D6 rather than 4.

Can you help explain the other side then? I honestly do not see the argument for the it and that bothers me as people are adamantly defending it so there Must be something to it.

You cant have it all mate


So in theory, i can trap a unit in combat, drop its LD to the point i can force it to fail (leaving them hitting on 6's)
and then hack them apart with warscythes that allow no of saves of any kind.


This im really liking

I would use a C'tan, but shield breaker really would piss me off lol.
Granted its T8, but it will happen knowing my luck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

In practice, any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what.

^That azure.
The 4D6 now becomes its unaugmented strength instead of a basic 3.
The way it says "unaugmented strength AND a single D6" means the 1D6 rule does not apply to a base strength of a weapon, only after rules.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:You cant have it all mate

Well, it's not about getting any benefits or anything. ATSKNF is by and large much more utilitarian than Fearless, but in the case of Grey Knights, they're used to fighting the scariest melon-fethers that even Chaos can toss at them and consider it business as usual. They shouldn't be running period. I always liked the idea of them fearlessly charging the most fearsome of beasts or armies and fighting to the last without giving an inch of ground to their assailants.

So in theory, i can trap a unit in combat, drop its LD to the point i can force it to fail (leaving them hitting on 6's)
and then hack them apart with warscythes that allow no of saves of any kind.

Possibly, assuming that, with their higher initiative, the Grey Knights don't roll enough sixes to take you down. Also, the main problem for you in this situation is just how slow Pariahs are. By time they make it into range where they would be threatening, they'd probably end up being blown to bits first.

I would use a C'tan, but shield breaker really would piss me off lol.
Granted its T8, but it will happen knowing my luck.

It always wounds on a 4+, being a sniper round. However, the shield breaker only takes off invulnerable saves granted by wargear, your C'tan will not lose its invulnerable.

But doesn't the rule state that the 4D6 Are its armor pen. roll? It would never have a str. value, only an armor pen value which according to the LM rule can never go above a 1D6 addition to the str., which the Vindicator would never have.

Azure wrote:But doesn't the rule state that the 4D6 Are its armor pen. roll? It would never have a str. value, only an armor pen value which according to the LM rule can never go above a 1D6 addition to the str., which the Vindicator would never have.

This would be true, depending on which rule applies first. The Turbo Penetrator's AP value is essentially a static, specified value.

Fafnir wrote:

Azure wrote:But doesn't the rule state that the 4D6 Are its armor pen. roll? It would never have a str. value, only an armor pen value which according to the LM rule can never go above a 1D6 addition to the str., which the Vindicator would never have.

This would be true, depending on which rule applies first.

Do you have a direct link to the rule? Or is it easily copied to here so I can read it verbatim?

Well, it's not about getting any benefits or anything. ATSKNF is by and large much more utilitarian than Fearless, but in the case of Grey Knights, they're used to fighting the scariest melon-fethers that even Chaos can toss at them and consider it business as usual. They shouldn't be running period. I always liked the idea of them fearlessly charging the most fearsome of beasts or armies and fighting to the last without giving an inch of ground to their assailants.

Your not a WHFB player are you?
Retreat is a nice advantage on its own as it allows you to set up counter charges.
Not so much in 40k though lol.
just think of it as a tactical stand point instead.

Possibly, assuming that, with their higher initiative, the Grey Knights don't roll enough sixes to take you down. Also, the main problem for you in this situation is just how slow Pariahs are. By time they make it into range where they would be threatening, they'd probably end up being blown to bits first.

Pariah's can match your 24" S5 assault 2 gun with thier own one
They even have thier own 3+ save and shiny pole-arm weapon XD
They just cost what, 36 points each and £8.70? lol

It always wounds on a 4+, being a sniper round. However, the shield breaker only takes off invulnerable saves granted by wargear, your C'tan will not lose its invulnerable.

Fair enough then.
To the person who said about taking off the DE upgrade: Not worth it mate, they are low AV anyway, and with only a 1/3 chance of ignoring it.
The shot is better off going elsewhere.

Azure wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Azure wrote:But doesn't the rule state that the 4D6 Are its armor pen. roll? It would never have a str. value, only an armor pen value which according to the LM rule can never go above a 1D6 addition to the str., which the Vindicator would never have.

This would be true, depending on which rule applies first.

Do you have a direct link to the rule? Or is it easily copied to here so I can read it verbatim?

I posted it earlier in the thread:

Grey Knights codex, page 53 wrote:
A Turbo Penetrator shot has an armour penetration of 4D6

Essentially, it should be treated as a specified, static value, going by RAW. But if that's the case, it then conflicts with the Monolith's living metal.

Blame Ward.

Edit:

True enough Azure, i overlooked that.




Anyway, its 1:30 am and i got work at 5, off to grab some sleep

enjoy the debate!

Well, if it's got an Armor Penetration value of 4D6 then it has no str. and the final sentence of the Lm rule says that weapons going for Armor Pen. against the 'Lith get the str. (in this case zero) plus a single D6 for armor pen. then it should stand that the Vindicator's weapon get's but a single D6, with no str. to add, against the Monolith. Remember, str. and armor penetration are added to see if you glance/pen armor, and since the vindicator has no str., he only has 4D6, then he can only use one of those due to the LM rule.

Indeed. People here keep saying that the 4D6 replaces the strength value, but there is no valid "rules" justification for that stance.

Specific overrides general as well - which is the case here.

Vindicares have a general rule that ALL vehicles suffer 4D6 armour penetration from the turbo penetrator.

Monoliths have a SPECIFIC rule that armour penetration rolls made against IT in particular get STR + D6, and nothing else.

1. Vindicares roll 4D6 to penetrate; none of those are EXTRA dice. They're all the "base" dice.


Simple, as the 'Living Metal Rule' states 'Extra dice'.

Not base. No S3. No rending. Just 4D6.

It states 1d6 + str no matter what.

(no str listed for the gun) so it is 1d6 + 0

Looking @ C: DH the old turbo penetrator has the following text for its rules.

"Turbo-Penetrator: This inflicts 2 Wounds on any model wounded. If fired at a vehicle, the shot has an Armour Penetration value of 3D6."

Looking at the FAQ for the old WH codex (essentially the same assassin), the following blurb about the shot appears.

"Q. How does the Vindicare’s turbo-penetrator
round work in regards to rending?
A. Because sniper rifles are rending, when rolling
for armour penetration, the Vindicare gets to add
a D3 to the total for each dice that comes up a
six. So, if one of the three dice is a six, the total
penetration would be 6+2D6+D3+3 (giving a
result between 12 and 22); if two were sixes, the
total would be 12+1D6+2D3+3 (18 to 26); if all
three dice were sixes, the total would be
18+3D3+3 (24 to 30!). Almost certainly
enough..."

The new assassin's turbo penetrator is written as follows.

"Turbo-Penetrator: A turbo-penetrator shot inflicts 2 wounds on any non-vehicle model wounded, rather han 1. A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6."

Notice the similarities in the wording between the 2 assassins penetration value. I took my quote of the new assassin from the actual book, not the leaked playtest copy.
"shot has an Armour Penetration value of 3D6"
"shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6"

The only difference is the word 'value' missing.

I'm inclined to believe that the shot has 3+4D6+D3(per rend) as the weapon is still a sniper. It would not roll more than 3+1D6 against monoliths.

Here's hoping to a FAQ as soon as this army is released to fix many of these discrepancies

Ascalam wrote:Concur here.

Everyone keeps trying to get around that Living Metal rule, and only Wraithcannon and EMP grenades have so far (as they don't roll for penetration exactly..)

I bet you they remove it for 'simplicity's sake' when they redo the codex though...

Haywire blasters ignore the whole ordeal. haha

Forgot aboout those

I have the DE codex, but am still waiting for the units i want to be released, so it's been a while since i read it.

DE are nasty vs Necrons

akira5665 wrote:1. Vindicares roll 4D6 to penetrate; none of those are EXTRA dice. They're all the "base" dice.


Simple, as the 'Living Metal Rule' states 'Extra dice'.

Not base. No S3. No rending. Just 4D6.

And extra dice or not is totally irrelevant. Unaugmented strength of the weapon plus 1d6, no matter what. As Dash posted right above you and as I posted on page 1, it's a case of more specific vs more general. Codex vs codex or codex vs main rules also doesn't matter, it's specific vs general. So.....

Penetrator rule: Sniper sao ST 3 plus 4d6 against vehicles IN GENERAL

Living Metal rule, St plus 1d6, no matter what, more specific.

Penetrator round loses.

I agree a good basis would be specific beats general as others have said.Living Metal beats all armour penetration in GENERAL and Turbo Penatrator SPECIFICALLY has a static armour pen instead of added strength.

Wait that's not what everyone else is saying. Well let's compare then:
1 special rule on armour penetration on 1 model vs 1 special rule on armour penetration on 1 model huh specific vs general isn't really helping here...
1 special armour vs 1 special ammo out of 1 special gun would favor Turbo Penatrator imo but I wouldn't try to claim specific vs general in this case, they are both specific.

I think Turbo Penatrator comes out on top as it isn't written "Turbo Penetrator gains an additional +3d6 armour penetration" or some such which would be easy and unambiguos to be clear it doesn't beat special armour pen defences. Play-wise I'd say be ready for it to swing either way if you play either army. If You end up in a Necrons vs Grey Knights battle talk about it ahead of time. I'd roll off for it ahead of time cause I think it could go either way despite the fact that I do think it favors GK's

So I should recive my rending D3 bonus as that's more specific? It's what I roll against vehicles in general?

I feel like this is the same argument as the Melta Bomb argument. In my opinion you only get the one. In the game, you always roll one die for everything you do, weather it's wounding or rolling to hit. Anything more than that 1 is considered to be extra dice, because it is more than 1 die.
I feel like you're just trying to be tricky with RAW to more easily kill the monolith.

It should get FAQ'd though.

THEY'RE NECRONS GIVE THEM THERE 1 GOOD VEHICLE! lol! People voting yes in this thread are not looking into the rules before they do so.

That's why polls should always be made to allow people to change their vote.....................

TheFuzziestBear wrote:Turbo Penatrator SPECIFICALLY has a static armour pen instead of added strength.

The C: WH FAQ begs to differ. Look at the post I made @ the top of 4.

ChrisCP wrote:So I should recive my rending D3 bonus as that's more specific? It's what I roll against vehicles in general?

Should you receive rending against something that pretty much explicitly beats rending? Of course not. I'm saying a special rule that prevents additional dice doesn't prevent static dice from being greater than normal.

Soulx wrote:I feel like this is the same argument as the Melta Bomb argument. In my opinion you only get the one. In the game, you always roll one die for everything you do, weather it's wounding or rolling to hit. Anything more than that 1 is considered to be extra dice, because it is more than 1 die.
I feel like you're just trying to be tricky with RAW to more easily kill the monolith.

It should get FAQ'd though.

You don't only roll 1 die for everything you do though, it just happens less often that you roll more dice. Like LD and DT. I'm only claiming they are 2 specific rules so they have equal footing. Also you can feel like I'm just playing games to kill the monolith easier, but like I said before it'd have been very easy to explicitly give it extra dice so this wouldn't have come up (Which is also my answer to the Melta Bomb arguement, they should have seen this coming and explicitly spelled out "extra dice" if that was how they wanted it to be ruled). I'm not trying to play any RAW games, I'm saying I think that Turbo Penetrator should be 4d6, not RAW just imo. I think Straight by RAW you should talk about it ahead of time and roll off to see which equally valid specific rule should "beat" the other.

Mulletdude wrote:The C: WH FAQ begs to differ. Look at the post I made @ the top of 4.

I see nothing in your quote that claims they are additional dice, just that each one that rolls a 6 can rend. Also that quote was only for effect parodying the people claiming specific vs general as I would say they are both specific.

I don't know why anyone is even mentioning rending - rending is definately a no on Monoliths.

Why?

I don't know, I suppose I'm too literal? I wouldn't consider something additional dice unless it's 1d6+Xd6 or it's rules somewhere state it gains additional dice as opposed to just saying it is Xd6

If you look at the math it's very easy to tell there are extra dice rolling for armor pen. 3 (base str) + 6(assuming a rolled 6) + 2D6 + D3 (for the rend). Everything following the 6 is an extra dice rolled for armor penetration.

Because it add an additional D3. It was mentioned because someone brought it up in reference to 'more general'.

The reason a Turbo round would roll 4D6 for AP is that it's base AP. But, Living metal states that one never recives more than STR+1D6 for AP, thus a Vidi only allowed that.
If they rolled 4D6 for Str they'd be golden as that would be their base Str and an addition D6 would be allowed.

Mulletdude wrote:If you look at the math it's very easy to tell there are extra dice rolling for armor pen. 3 (base str) + 6(assuming a rolled 6) + 2D6 + D3 (for the rend). Everything following the 6 is an extra dice rolled for armor penetration.

So they aren't additional dice if sixes are rolled just any other result?
6+2D6+D3+3 (giving a
result between 12 and 22); if two were sixes, the
total would be 12+1D6+2D3+3 (18 to 26)
; if all
three dice were sixes, the total would be
18+3D3+3 (24 to 30!).

3 (base str) + 6(assuming a rolled 6) + 2D6 (the additional dice) + D3 (rending)
vs
3 (base str) +12 (assuming 2 6es are rolled) + 1d6 (the additional dice) + 2d3 (rending)
vs
3 (base str) +18 (assuming 3 6es are rolled) + 3d3 (rending)

It's all just spelling out rending and nothing more

It looks pretty black and white to me, no offence but this just seems to be a case of 'you mad' for Necron players. sniper rifles (exitus rifle included) have no strength value, the 4d6 of the turbo penetrator composes the strength of the round.

until someone pulls a reference from the 40k rulebook or the codex grey knights (which I'm looking at right now) that denotes a strength value on the exitus rifle, then the living metal argument holds no water.

The Rifle doesn't have a Str value hence (-)+D6. Values with a (-) characteristic (check out "ZERO-LEVEL CHARACTERISTICS" Pg 7 of the BRB.) are 0.
Lith allows Str+D6 for AP. No 4D6 for you.

you mad.

What is your str Value? Please add 1D6

I still have yet to see anywhere the 4d6 are considered additional dice, if they are spelled out anywhere as additional dice then I'll agree (or it's FAQ obviously), but imo they aren't not unless labeled as such.
Or you could say they are additional dice just because they are more dice than normal which would be reasonable too.

IMO they are equally valid and two conflicting but equal rules needing a FAQ to say which way it should go.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well I'm not going to be swayed without a note on "additional dice" for TP and you aren't either so I'm out.
Feel free to PM me an "I told you so" when the FAQ favors Living Metal. I'm sure it will, just don't feel what we have now does.

And extra dice or not is totally irrelevant. Unaugmented strength of the weapon plus 1d6, no matter what. As Dash posted right above you and as I posted on page 1, it's a case of more specific vs more general. Codex vs codex or codex vs main rules also doesn't matter, it's specific vs general. So.....

Penetrator rule: Sniper sao ST 3 plus 4d6 against vehicles IN GENERAL

Living Metal rule, St plus 1d6, no matter what, more specific.

Penetrator round loses.

I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong but saying that living metal is more specific in this case is BS the reverse is equally valid to your arguement:

Living Metal against weapons in general, Str + d6

Turbo Penetration round 4d6 flat no Strength.

So which is more specific Living metal against any weapon in general of the specific case of Turbo penetrator against Living metal...

My view its 4D6 its as written BADLY

It over rides BRB and Codex Necrons in my view

I'm inclined towards the Monolith taking the precedence here, but my opponent would have no difficulty persuading me to roll off to settle the argument. In full disclosure, I've played necrons before and have never played grey knights, and as such lack perspective from the opposite side of the argument. However, does seem to be a legitimate "immoveable object vs. irresistable force" situation.

and as far as actually playing it out, who in this thread has used the vindicare extensively with the new rules? I know I have and more often than not the 4d6 armor pen that looks OH SO SCARY, falls flat on its face, plus the way cover is these days most people play well enough to give themselves that 4+ cover against the round anyways.

I feel that this thread is blowing the rule out of proportion the same way everyone seems to think Jokaero's are the greatest thing since sliced bread (They're not, see the other thread on that topic for reference).

Flingitnow is somewhat correct. The specific vs general argument is pointless here as you have:

- Living metal vs all weapons

- Turbo Penetrator vs all vehicles

Neither overrides the other in that sense.

As far as how it works, it's the same as MC's close combat attacks or melta weapons, except you get an extra 3d6 vs an extra 1d6. The "but it's not additional dice" argument is a load of BS. The BRB tells you to roll 1d6 for armor penetration. The TP tells you to roll 4d6. That's 3 additional dice anyway you look at it.

The BRB says "Against vehicles, sniper weapons count as Strength 3"

The vindicare rifle has the sniper rule. Against a vehicle, the penetrator gets and additional 3d6 (for a total of 4d6+3) to penetrate the armor.

The turbo round says it has an AP value of 4D6 correct?
An AP value and base strength are not the same.

So, since the weapon has 0 strength, it would start as 0.
Turbo would be 4D6 for AP, however, since thats not its base strength, it would be additional dice.

Even if you dont agree with the last part, the last sentance of LM states no more than 1D6 can be rolled against it, which is pretty cut and clear.
the last part does not say "additional" or "extra" D6's, it applies to any and all dice rolled against it in general.




And to the one person saying crons players are just mad:

FotM Fanboy.

Even if you dont agree with the last part, the last sentance of LM states no more than 1D6 can be rolled against it, which is pretty cut and clear.
the last part does not say "additional" or "extra" D6's, it applies to any and all dice rolled against it in general.

Whilst the turbo penetrator round states 4d6 which is just as clear cut.

The way it is worded you would not get the +3 from strength either (i know it was FaQd the other way last time and may be again). Sniper rifles don't have base strength 0 or - they have strength X which is very different.

At the moment neither rule has an obvious precendent certainly no rule is more specific than the other. If you take the turbo penetrator round to do 3+ 4d6 against non-monliths then yes it is clear cut against Monolityh it would follow the normal pattern (as this is extra dice). But with a flat 4d6 there is no addition additional dice and no correlation to the normal armour penetration procedure as this is instead of that. It replaces how you normally work out the AP. Thus in this case I'd say neither rule takes a clear ascendance.

The turbo round doesn't roll for strength though, which is what melta-bombs do which is what causes them confusion. The turbo round rolls for Armor Penetration which the Monolith rule says can only compromise a single D6 in addition to the weapons strength. Since the weapon has no strength, it only gets the one die, at the Living Metal rule reduces any die, not necessarily extra die, down to one when rolling for Armor Penetration.

This isn't a case of general rule vs specific rule, it's a case of which specific rule you use.

Personally I would play it 4d6 pen, no +3 Str against the monolith (or any vehicle), no ability to rend.

The 'no extra dice no matter what' doesn't apply to the turbopen because it doesn't roll any extra dice; it simply rolls four dice.

Flingitnow: The sniper may have 3 against tanks, vindi doesent though with turbo.

A Chain fist also states 2D6 in its rules, the monolith got rid of that though.


Keep in mind the crons book has been out for a bloody long time now.
Usually a new special rule will state if it negates another book specific rule to save problems.




Clams: So what about the last part of LM?
It says nothing about additional, simply anything over a single D6 is reduced.

There will be a similar issue with Wave Serpents. Their Energy Field is a similar rule to Living Metal, but I believe it actually states that you never roll more than +1D6 for Armour Penetration.

Puma: Thats what LM states in the last sentance.

- You normally roll 1 die for armor penetration.
- Turbo Penetrator says you roll 4 dice for armor penetration (this is 3 additional dice)
- Living Metal does not allow any additional dice for armor penetration no matter what.

"Additional" is not some magic game term that only applies if it is specified. Anything more than the allotted number of dice for armor penetration (one) is additional by simple logic. As Jack pointed out:

Chainfist - "A chainfist is treated exactly as a powerfist, but rolls 2d6 for it's armor penetration value."
Turbo-penetrator - "A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6"

There is no difference in that language that affects this argument. One bypasses Living Metal and the other doesn't?

The Vindicare uses 4d6 as its strength. How is this an issue?

bryan40kman2000 wrote:The Vindicare uses 4d6 as its strength. How is this an issue?

Where does it say that? (It doesn't.)

59 people play necrons...

...jk

Living metal has so many holes... I would play it has 4d6 or 0 (but then again, I don't have to worry about it.)

What is 4d6? Is it strength, no, are they extra D6, no. So RAW seems to dictate 0.

Bryan, it has no strength, it simply has 4D6 AP.

Which again, i point out is not base strength.




Edit: Just somthing that again i repeat (since people seem to ignore it, along with LM rules)
The extra dice rolled do not have to be additional, or extra, or even extra terrestrial.
The last line of living metal (the one that gets ignored, or it would ruin thier points) states that no more than 1 (one, uno) D6 may be rolled.
4D6 > 1D6, therefor gets knocked down to a single D6.

Now, to rub salt in the wound, since the rifle firing said turbo round has no strength, it would be D6 + 0.

Jack peope know the line you are talking about and are not ignoring it. It states that in practice this means you never roll more than 1d6 + unaugmented strength. However unlike say a chainfist or MC that rolls multiple dice plus strength (the things that LM modifies) this has an entirely different way of rolling for armour penetration.

Whilst living metal does state 1d6 + S only likewise turbo states 4d6 flat. Both are working against each other and there is no clear accendancy in either rule.

Fling, you would have thought it would mention in the turbo rules about such a thing wouldnt you?
I think a certain member of GW staff needs to be shot.


Keep in mind though, the lith seems to be pretty clear its only 1D6 max, as its the main benefit of the rule.

The turbo however is simply stating what it does to armour, it doesent negate any abilities along the way, or go round them. (like haywire weapons would do)



All in all, everyone is kicking a dead horse until a FAQ pops up in a month or 2.


Well, off to the unsaved wound thread, enjoy

FlingitNow wrote:Jack peope know the line you are talking about and are not ignoring it. It states that in practice this means you never roll more than 1d6 + unaugmented strength. However unlike say a chainfist or MC that rolls multiple dice plus strength (the things that LM modifies) this has an entirely different way of rolling for armour penetration.

Whilst living metal does state 1d6 + S only likewise turbo states 4d6 flat. Both are working against each other and there is no clear accendancy in either rule.

It only roles for armor penetration, so the normal die you get to roll as added to strength are the only thing the Vindicare uses. However, the LM rule says those die can never be over a D6, so we count the vindicare as having zero strength, because the 4D6 are Not its strength, and add in only 1D6 because that's all the LM rule allows.

It only roles for armor penetration, so the normal die you get to roll as added to strength are the only thing the Vindicare uses. However, the LM rule says those die can never be over a D6, so we count the vindicare as having zero strength, because the 4D6 are Not its strength, and add in only 1D6 because that's all the LM rule allows.

And all the turbo penetrator rule allows is 4d6...

You are assuming that LM overrides the turbopenetrator rounds rules yet there is nothing to back up that conclusion. I'm not saying you are wrong just stating that at the moment there is a right answer RaW or RaI until we get an FaQ.

DP

FlingitNow wrote:

It only roles for armor penetration, so the normal die you get to roll as added to strength are the only thing the Vindicare uses. However, the LM rule says those die can never be over a D6, so we count the vindicare as having zero strength, because the 4D6 are Not its strength, and add in only 1D6 because that's all the LM rule allows.

And all the turbo penetrator rule allows is 4d6...

You are assuming that LM overrides the turbopenetrator rounds rules yet there is nothing to back up that conclusion. I'm not saying you are wrong just stating that at the moment there is a right answer RaW or RaI until we get an FaQ.

I may err, I will admit this as I have yet to physically read the entry, But from what I have been told the rule says that the 4D6 are rolled as its armor penetration armor, which would be canceled by LM as that rule is extremely specific.

Of course it has nothing that mentions overriding turbo rounds mate, they werent in the book at that point

If anything, and age is a stand point, LM has been how it was for ages now, so if anything, the turbo round should specify what it does to a lith.

Fling, no offence mate, but the turbo allows nothing mate, it simply states it rolls 4D6 for AP.

alot of weapons (melta, chains, MC's etc etc) all say they roll 2D6, but alas, they are cut out too.

the limit provided by the rule seems pretty solid in that nothing gets an extra dice against it.
Even stops lance weapons

Exactly it tells you to roll 4d6 if you are rolling 1d6 are you following that rule? If so great I'll start rolling 1d6 for leadership tests

All those other rules you quoted rolled 2d6 and Str so function using the normal pattern. As is the vindicare assassin only rolls 4d6 this is different from the normal pattern. I'm not saying you are wrong or that the FaQ will rule against you just saying at the moment there is no clear accendancy in either rule.

So in theory, your not allowed to roll more than 1 D6 against it, so you cant even shoot it now?
It would break the lith's rules to allow more XD



Also, thanks for finding my post.
Got a double and both are gone from my screen now, couldnt remember what i had typed.





Edit: To be honest mate, this is a calm debate anyway, we arent going anywhere, just killing time and having a chat by the seems of it lol

Compared to some of the debates on here this is downright serene.

FAQ would be nice, but we won't get it for a while, likely.

Tell me about it
No point getting stressed though.

Ive got my predictions at 4-6 weeks before a FAQ arrives as there is alot to cover.
However, from what ive seen in the past it can be anywhere from 1 week - a year for a valid FAQ to be placed -_-

And even then, they're rarely as comprehensive as they should be.

Whats the bet this is not even covered by the FaQ?

Sometimes I feel it is our basic comprehesion fail that causes the problem (i.e. the Dread Knight becoming JI with the teleoprter) other times the rules are just not specific enough to deal with a specific interaction with another rule (as in here the BrB tells us to roll off or house rule in these types of situation). And other times it is just plain unclear what they meant to say (how many attacks do you get for falchions).

To be honest I doubt it is down to a huge issue with the quality of rules writing or editting it is more a cultural thing. Here in England the spirit and intention of the law is what matters rather than the wording and the rules are not being written in a hard line way that is designed to be rules lawyered. It is simply not an aim of theres to write the rules in that way.

Thats sadly true.

Alot of them fill out the bulk of a FAQ with common sense rules that wouldnt go a single page on dakka without being answered fully.

then they throw in the odd worth-while one.



So, i predict 4-6 weeks, and they will miss out a few key points, like:

When a weapon inflicts X hits on a psyker, who or what in a GK unit takes those hits?

Of course, the turbo round and lith will possibly be missed, but im thinking negative since nothing works for crons anymore



even thier moulds have given up lol, got another lord turn up and from the waist up was pretty much a blob of metal.






Edit: The main issue with the rules seems to be a team effort.
GW feth up thier end alot, but then you have the great people who look for rules that arent so clear, simply to exploit them.


Anyway, just realised i got work in 3 hours, how time goes by.

The problem isn't the social environment, but just the entire idea of GW's lax nature with rules being an excuse for poor game design and terrible game design theory. Even worse, they actually get away with it and pass it off as being in the nature of good casual fun.

A game (regardless of medium) is nothing more than a set of rules (objectives are contained within the rules) that are agreed to by the player(s).

Now, in more understanding gaming communities, it's not a huge issue (it's still an issue, but not a huge one) when a rules discrepancy comes up. Roll off, house rule it, whatever. Any temporary rule to replace the bad ruling will work, so long as a rule is in play.

The fact that GW's rules are difficult to impossible (depending on the ruleset and individual rules themselves) to understand objectively is indicative of poor game design (were they to make videogames, which use a purely objective system to evaluate the game's rules, it would be a buggy, unplayable mess). By allowing such broken issues to come up so often, it just shows that Games Workshop doesn't give a gak about its community, and doesn't take them seriously.

This one is literally dead even.

We will never resolve it prior to FAQ.

Everyone is getting way too hung up on the "additional dice" comment in the living metal rule and aren't looking at the rule in it's entirety. Which is one of the biggest reasons these rules debates come up.

As I stated in a different thread, it's extremely cut and dry about this round working or not. To some people saying that the 4d6 replaces the Str of the weapon, no it does not. The rule for the round fired states it uses 4d6 for armor penetration, it does NOT say that is the strength of the WEAPON, only that the round fired uses that variable amount for armor penetration.

And again, even if the TP round DID work against the monolith, it's pretty much no better than any str 10 weapon, and worse than anything with str 10 in CC against the lith (due to sheer number of attacks differences). So, big freakin deal if they get to roll 4d6 (not that they actually do, but if GW decides to screw crons more...), odds of it doing anything are still slim and it also means that's just more of your necron models (or lord with phase shifter) not getting sniped and killed.

Stop focusing on the "additional dice" words, everyone, and start looking at the entire rule that was posted on page 3 or 4.

You know there are two ways of looking at this
A)It works on the monolith and you've got a number between 4-24 ... which gives it an ok chance at penetrating any AV.
B)It doesn't work on monoliths and you've got a number between 7-39 ... And with any rending roll you're guaranteed a pen on av12

A) has a good chance of failing and seems balanced
B) is completely over the top VS everything else

Rending still works, as that is a function of the sniper rifle rules and NOT the round (oc, not against the monolith)

It *used* to state, in the old FAQ, that the TP round was the sole exception, and tht it still got 4D6. This was then removed (around the 5th ed introduction, from memory) which implies that it no longer works.

Unless the rule states the "S" of the TP iis 4D6, which it doesnt, then it only gets 1D6 against a monolith

Rending doesn't work,as it adds d3 to the pen roll.

1d6 + str (and nothing else) is the rule.

Ascalam -

Rending still works, as that is a function of the sniper rifle rules and NOT the round (oc, not against the monolith)

I assume you missed that caveat. Some people were stating you would not get "rending", IN GENERAL, with the TP, when you DO still get rending as it is a function of the "sniper" weapon.

The fact that you add rending to every six rolled on the TP lends to the fact that it is indeed extra dice beyond 1d6 instead of a static 4d6 (otherwise you'd only get to roll a rending shot if ONE of the dice turned up a 6, not for every six that was rolled).

Yup, missed the caveat (too much blood in my caffiene-stream last night).

I agree wholeheartedly that sniper weapons Rend, and that the Vindicare's funky bullets add to the existing Sniper effects.

I would say only 1 d6

Wow, poll has changed today.
Yes was winning by 10


Also, if you support the 1 D6, the rending means nothing to you.

6 + D3 armour pen makes sad panda.

IIRC, both melta and lance are special rules or modifications to the weapons base profile. That is not the case with the Vindicare or his weapon (albeit the profile of the weapon is likely a representation of his skill as a sniper). Therefore I think the weapon's base profile requires S+4D6 as these are not "extra dice" beyond the weapon's profile.

Disclaimer: I have not read the yet-to-be distributed GK dex so this is based completely off of assumptions and may be off completely.

I don't see a way around the Living Metal rule in this context.

Again,

In practice, any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what.

That is the final line of the rule.

The TP round rolls 4d6 for Armor penetration against vehicle targets. Except, the Living Metal rule says that the vindicare's weapon, which is a sniper rifle firing a special round (which essentially means, it is a sniper rifle with special rules), rolls for armor penetration using the weapon's unaugmented strength, and a single D6, no matter what.

In other words, unless it says "this weapon ignores the "Living Metal" rule", or "instead of rolling for armor penetration" (in some form), there is no weapon in 40k which gets anything but base strength + 1d6, and that includes the turbo penetrator round.

Or, it would have to state that the 4D6 is the *strength* of the round.

Which they wouldn't do because I believe a vehicle ramming another vehicle is the only instance they allow a strength higher than 10.

Or they'd have to change the entire wording of the TP round rule.

I find it interesting that most of the commentary supporting the "Yes" answers are either based on a redacted FAQ or what I would call wishful thinking (substituting 4d6 for strength).

Kevin949 wrote:Which they wouldn't do because I believe a vehicle ramming another vehicle is the only instance they allow a strength higher than 10.

FYI. Even ramming is limnited to ST 10..................... Main rules FAQ:

Q: Can a ramming vehicle's Strength go above 10? (p69)
A: No, only a vehicle's Armour Value makes exception to
the .Maximum 10' rule for characteristics.

don_mondo wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Which they wouldn't do because I believe a vehicle ramming another vehicle is the only instance they allow a strength higher than 10.

FYI. Even ramming is limnited to ST 10..................... Main rules FAQ:

Q: Can a ramming vehicle's Strength go above 10? (p69)
A: No, only a vehicle's Armour Value makes exception to
the .Maximum 10' rule for characteristics.

All mixed up in the head!

I'd read it as the 4D6 are not bonus penetration dice, rather they take the place entirely of the normal armor penetration procedure, thus the Monolith's rule does not apply. It's hard to see them as "bonus" dice, as there is no strength value being applied and no statement of any "bonus", simply that the Turbopenetrator rolls a 4D6 for armor penetration instead of the normal procedure of S+D6.

Stop focusing on the "extra dice" portion of the rule! there is much more to the entire rule for living metal that just that one little snippet.

Vaktathi wrote:I'd read it as the 4D6 are not bonus penetration dice, rather they take the place entirely of the normal armor penetration procedure, thus the Monolith's rule does not apply. It's hard to see them as "bonus" dice, as there is no strength value being applied and no statement of any "bonus", simply that the Turbopenetrator rolls a 4D6 for armor penetration instead of the normal procedure of S+D6.

It doesn't matter if the dice are extra are not, and it doesn't matter what, or how many, dice the TP round says to roll.

See above on the Living Metal rule. If it is a weapon, and if it is rolling for armor penetration against the monolith (for the vindicare firing TP rounds, the answer to both of these is "yes"), it rolls 1d6 and adds unaugmented strength. End of story. In order to avoid this, the turbopenetrator would have to either 1) circumvent the armor penetration roll entirely, or 2) have an exception against the living metal rule.

4d6, 3d10 or 1d3, the procedure for rolling AP against the monolith is laid out in the living metal rule, and it applies to all weapons.

Kevin, you now know my pain
I had this from about 5 people yesterday who had the sole argument that the dice werent "extra"


Even after i pointed out that it doesent matter.
Last sentance states no more than a single D6 can be rolled for AP.

As an aside to lighten the mood, can you imagine the "BLOOP" sound the TP round would make as it splashed into the metalflesh of the monolith?

Just hear it in your head and you will smile - *BLOO-OOP*

Then a beautiful stargate-like ripple of concentric circles as the bullet pops out of the unharmed Monolith on the other side and drops to the ground with a 'clink'

From looking at the chain fists "A chainfist is treated exatly as a powerfist but rolls 2d6 for its armour penetration C:SM Pp64 )and melta rule They roll a extra d6 when rolling for ap if within 1/2 range mane rulebook p32.

now the vindicare states "a turbo penetrator inflicts two wounds if fired at a vehicle the shot has a armour penetration of 4d6"

its the for (chainfists) vs has (turbo penetrator) and melta states when rolling to penetrate.
the has 4d6 would negate living metal since it doesn't say add 4d6
however a chainfist says roll 2d6 for its ap
i am going wait on a faq thu as it can go either way the intent and wording on living metal is plain to mean only 1d6 no matter what.
I blame sloppy writing and a old dex vs a new dex.

oops had put living weapon instead of living metal.

wow, 179 votes and about a 50-50 split.

We definitely need an FAQ for this one.

cyrax777 wrote:From looking at the chain fists "A chainfist is treated exatly as a powerfist but rolls 2d6 for its armour penetration C:SM Pp64 )and melta rule They roll a extra d6 when rolling for ap if within 1/2 range mane rulebook p32.

now the vindicare states "a turbo penetrator inflicts two wounds if fired at a vehicle the shot has a armour penetration of 4d6"

its the for (chainfists) vs has (turbo penetrator) and melta states when rolling to penetrate.
the has 4d6 would negate living metal since it doesn't say add 4d6
however a chainfist says roll 2d6 for its ap
i am going wait on a faq thu as it can go either way the intent and wording on living weapon is plain to mean only 1d6 no matter what.
I blame sloppy writing and a old dex vs a new dex.

Pretty sure that chainfists are mentioned as an example of what does not get 2d6 for AP. Also, I don't think the TP round existed when the necron dex was written, did it? If not, then they couldn't have added it as an example (not that they should need to state everything that only rolls 1d6 since it says "you only ever get to roll un-augmented strength plus 1d6 no matter what."

I don't see what is so hard for people to get about this.

The answer is clearly no. Living Metal says you get S+d6 no matter what, so you get 3+D6 to pen the Monolith, or in other words you don't pen the Monolith.

Aramoro wrote:The answer is clearly no. Living Metal says you get S+d6 no matter what, so you get 3+D6 to pen the Monolith, or in other words you don't pen the Monolith.

What if strength is 4d6? Or its 3d6 + your normal d6



I say the rules were poorly written and are unclear. I couldn't decide one way or another, and same with my gaming group, so if it came up we would just do a roll off.

Ascalam wrote:Rending doesn't work,as it adds d3 to the pen roll.

You get rending against a mono, as well as PK and the like, but never roll more than 1d6 for Armour pen.

The Bringer wrote:

Aramoro wrote:The answer is clearly no. Living Metal says you get S+d6 no matter what, so you get 3+D6 to pen the Monolith, or in other words you don't pen the Monolith.

What if strength is 4d6? Or its 3d6 + your normal d6



I say the rules were poorly written and are unclear. I couldn't decide one way or another, and same with my gaming group, so if it came up we would just do a roll off.

If the strength is 3d6:

1) You'd be limited to 10, as the strength of the attack can't be more than 10.

2) You wouldn't get rending on those 3d6.

3) You're completely making rules out of thin air.


The Living Metal rule is horribly outdated and needs to be re-worded for 5th edition. But, the way it reads now, it clearly protects you from the Vindicare.

In practice, any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what.

^Posted earlier by Gwyidion.
im not used to the quoting thing yet sorry.

But does it say no matter what in the nec codex and if it does why are you all arguing?

It literally says "no matter what".

We're right there with you - the rule isn't ambiguous. It tells you exactly what to do.

Grakmar wrote:
If the strength is 3d6:

1) You'd be limited to 10, as the strength of the attack can't be more than 10.

2) You wouldn't get rending on those 3d6.

3) You're completely making rules out of thin air.


The Living Metal rule is horribly outdated and needs to be re-worded for 5th edition. But, the way it reads now, it clearly protects you from the Vindicare.

Haha, I realize all that...

I would completely agree that it clearly protects you from the Vindicare by RAW.

Kevin949 wrote:

cyrax777 wrote:From looking at the chain fists "A chainfist is treated exatly as a powerfist but rolls 2d6 for its armour penetration C:SM Pp64 )and melta rule They roll a extra d6 when rolling for ap if within 1/2 range mane rulebook p32.

now the vindicare states "a turbo penetrator inflicts two wounds if fired at a vehicle the shot has a armour penetration of 4d6"

its the for (chainfists) vs has (turbo penetrator) and melta states when rolling to penetrate.
the has 4d6 would negate living metal since it doesn't say add 4d6
however a chainfist says roll 2d6 for its ap
i am going wait on a faq thu as it can go either way the intent and wording on living weapon is plain to mean only 1d6 no matter what.
I blame sloppy writing and a old dex vs a new dex.

Pretty sure that chainfists are mentioned as an example of what does not get 2d6 for AP. Also, I don't think the TP round existed when the necron dex was written, did it? If not, then they couldn't have added it as an example (not that they should need to state everything that only rolls 1d6 since it says "you only ever get to roll un-augmented strength plus 1d6 no matter what."

I don't see what is so hard for people to get about this.

it is but I dont know what the old wording on chainfists were.

I can't decide which rule should take precedence. We need this clarified because it is such a vauge rule with how the vindicare rifle round works.

I vote you only get str+d6.

No +4d6, the rule for Living Metal is very specific.

woodbok wrote:

Ascalam wrote:Rending doesn't work,as it adds d3 to the pen roll.

You get rending against a mono, as well as PK and the like, but never roll more than 1d6 for Armour pen.

So is the rending part of the unaugmented strength of the weapon or is it part of the 1d6 that you are allowed to roll? Cause if it's not one or the other, you don't get it..................

In practice, any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what.

Seems very simple to me... I think people are very much over analyzing this... besides, it's Necrons, do you really need MORE help to defeat them? (I play Necrons so I'm allowed to say that!).

If a monstrous creature doesn't get his additional d6 to penetrate armor, why the hell would a sniper rifle round?

Exactly. I don't see why there is such a fuss.

@cryage
For clarification, common sense examples such as monsterous creatures vs the sniper round hold no bearing on rules discussions; otherwise things like Tau beating SM in close combat wouldn't work.

The Necron rule does say unagumented strength plus 1D6 no matter what, so unless the Turbo-Penetrator round's strength is the 4D6 it does not get to penetrate the Monolith's armor.

As far as I can tell, there is little to no reason to think that the round's strength is replaced by the 4D6: strength is not mentioned, and the only thing it does mention is AP which is by no means synonymous with strength.

OT: I would have to read the rules for the Vindicare closely to make sure, but from here, I think the Necron rule takes priority, but not sure.

As a side note, I read most of the first page as Vindicator instead of Vindicare and was confused as to what the hell everyone was talking about.

wouldnt this also concern wave serpents?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the problem is they clearly just reprinted the 3rd edition rules for assasins without playtesting or even thinking about them.

Why would you say that? There are clear specific differences between the entry in the two codices. For example assassins now have a weak version of FNP and the Callidus no longer has her poisoned blades nor can she voluntarily break from close combat.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Why would you say that? There are clear specific differences between the entry in the two codices. For example assassins now have a weak version of FNP and the Callidus no longer has her poisoned blades nor can she voluntarily break from close combat.

because there is no mention of rending in the entry. it would only really help against vehicles, in which case you would be using TP. but how does rending work with more than 1 dice?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
not all sniper rifles have str 3 against vehicles either.

the DE hex rifle is str 0 but i assume rends and can instakill.

The Hexrifle is like every other sniper weapon out there for Str, in that it's S X, not S 0, wounds on a 4+ and Rends. It also has an instakill if test failed additional rule for anyone wounded.

It's a sniper weapon, which the rulebook clarifies as S 3 vs vehicles, but it's irrelevant vs vehicles as the hexrifle specifically states it can't affect vehicles.

Soo, 3+4D6=\=S+D6... No?

Exergy wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Why would you say that? There are clear specific differences between the entry in the two codices. For example assassins now have a weak version of FNP and the Callidus no longer has her poisoned blades nor can she voluntarily break from close combat.

because there is no mention of rending in the entry. it would only really help against vehicles, in which case you would be using TP. but how does rending work with more than 1 dice?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
not all sniper rifles have str 3 against vehicles either.

the DE hex rifle is str 0 but i assume rends and can instakill.

The Callidus has Hit and Run. On I7

Easy. Every 6 you get gives you another D3. Check out the WH FAQ - its not tricky.

Hex Rifle is S3 against vehciles, as it is a sniper rifle.

They really didnt reprint the 3rd ed rules. The entire stat line for Assassins has changed massively - before denigrating GW perhaps reading the codex mroe thoroughly, and noting the HUGE differences between the versions of assassins, would be a good idea.

The question is moot since in all probability the remade monolith in the new necron codex will get other rules.
I cant see GW giving such a rule to the monolith meaning that armies like pure GK and orks basically have no chance in hell to ever down it.
Its not balanced and certainly not fun for players to face big nasty things on the tabletop that they stand no reasonable chance of handling.

S10 thunderhammers make monoliths go away.

No they dont since they need a 6 just to hit.

Ergo I find it impossible that GW will make the new monolith nigh unkillable for some armies.

Pyriel - erm, no they dont.

Skimmers are hit as normal vehicles in 5th edition. Best case for the necron player is a 4+ to hit.

And frankly, right now Liths are irrelevant, as everyone just rolls up the warriors like a carpet in CC and the whole army vanishes. They are tough, yes, but not that tough, and too slow to avoid the things that can wreck them.

Remember that when the Lith's rules were written the game was different, and most of the rules have changed since.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
'Its not balanced and certainly not fun for players to face big nasty things on the tabletop that they stand no reasonable chance of handling. '

Landraiders for orks. Didn't really slow them down thinking about that one...

Ditto twin claw BA dreads that have infinite attacks and are armoured up the wazzoo for ork crappy shooting, that can be dropped into combat by dropships (negating the shooting as it advances bit...)

nosferatu1001 wrote:Pyriel - erm, no they dont.

Skimmers are hit as normal vehicles in 5th edition. Best case for the necron player is a 4+ to hit.

Best is 6+ from deepstrike, but all subsequent turns would be a best of 4+.

Pyriel- wrote:No they dont since they need a 6 just to hit.

Ergo I find it impossible that GW will make the new monolith nigh unkillable for some armies.

Hmm only army I can see having an issue with monoliths are Tyranids, but they are just overall weak vs vehicles (IMHO, Hive guard is nice, but str8 doesnt do much on vehicles, and zoan's will get massacred if they don't pop it in the round they arrive from a mycetic spore).

Land raiders, IMHO are much more difficult as they carry more firepower and a full crew inside.

tyranids have access to a S10 AP1 weapon.

the aforementioned Zoans

They also have a S 10 Ap 4 2hot cannon option on the Tfex

Despite reading I fail to see how using 4d6 could fall within the realm of never being able to use more than s + d6 no matter what.

At most that just means it does not get to add its S value, and just gets d6.

Maybe it is my older codex.

kirsanth wrote:Despite reading I fail to see how using 4d6 could fall within the realm of never being able to use more than s + d6 no matter what.

At most that just means it does not get to add its S value, and just gets d6.

Maybe it is my older codex.

Frankly I'm amazed that they didn't go the same way as they did with fantasy and publish an update for all codex when they released the new rule book.

Because 40k didnt change anywhere near as much as 8th ed fantasy changed from 7th?

You couldnt operate a 7th ed, unFAQ'd book in 8th ed. You can run a 3rd ed book in 5th ed.

Barely

They should update all the codexes at the same rate, but they never will.

Marines, as the posterboys, will be updated every edition to keep their whizz-tricks current.

The rest of us are on a 'whenever we get around to it' basis.

Ascalam wrote:
They should update all the codexes at the same rate, but they never will.

Well, they have before. Twice even. It's just been over a decade since they did that.

I'm aware that they have done it before (back when Marines weren't the sole public focus of 40K and the other Xenos also got some love iirc).

I was referring to the future. If they've not done it in the last decade, do you really think they suddenly change their ways?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because 40k didnt change anywhere near as much as 8th ed fantasy changed from 7th?

You couldnt operate a 7th ed, unFAQ'd book in 8th ed. You can run a 3rd ed book in 5th ed.

... I disagree, they may function but not exactly as they're meant to. Take Tau they are the only codex with jetpacks ... that cannot use all the new jet-pack rules, since their codex is written differently. Black templars have only just got the new shinny toys, wouldn't it have made sence to FAQ all SM codex at the start? and necrons ...

All the old codices should have gotten looked at and tweaked to make them balanced for the new edition (tau get a small points slash, necrons get a extra HQ so they can redeploy, daemons get fixed , ect)... sure you can play them as is but surely happy customers are worth a little rewrite after all this a games company that makes its money from miniature sales.

Best is 6+ from deepstrike, but all subsequent turns would be a best of 4+.

And with warpquake about, mine will be starting on the table.

Hmm only army I can see having an issue with monoliths are Tyranids, but they are just overall weak vs vehicles (IMHO, Hive guard is nice, but str8 doesnt do much on vehicles, and zoan's will get massacred if they don't pop it in the round they arrive from a mycetic spore).

Against a monolith?
S10 AP1 from the Tfex or S10 CC from a basic fex.
Against all vehicles?
Rending pretty much everywhere, possible to field 17 TMC's in 2,500 (15 if you want some nice upgrades)

I dont think armour is an issue.

Getting to that armour can be, sometimes...

Podded Zoan Broods dropping down behind armour and cutting loose is one of the few things I miss from playing Nids

Jackal wrote:

Best is 6+ from deepstrike, but all subsequent turns would be a best of 4+.

And with warpquake about, mine will be starting on the table.

Hmm only army I can see having an issue with monoliths are Tyranids, but they are just overall weak vs vehicles (IMHO, Hive guard is nice, but str8 doesnt do much on vehicles, and zoan's will get massacred if they don't pop it in the round they arrive from a mycetic spore).

Against a monolith?
S10 AP1 from the Tfex or S10 CC from a basic fex.
Against all vehicles?
Rending pretty much everywhere, possible to field 17 TMC's in 2,500 (15 if you want some nice upgrades)

I dont think armour is an issue.

If your Carnifex gets to my monoliths to do some close combat attacks, I've done something terribly wrong. =p That's what wraiths, deceiver lords, and the Deceiver is for.

Landraiders for orks. Didn't really slow them down thinking about that one...

Ditto twin claw BA dreads that have infinite attacks and are armoured up the wazzoo for ork crappy shooting, that can be dropped into combat by dropships (negating the shooting as it advances bit...)

So because GW screwed up and made landraiders almost impossible for orks to handle we should go ahead and think it is ok to keep doing that for other armies?

What can GK do other then take overly expensive land raiders in an already expensive army (that necrons can gauss to death on turn one with ease anyway)
to handle monoliths?
What can orks do against it?

I predict the thing will get more balanced rules in the next necron codex.

The example of orks vs Landraiders was in response to this quote :

''Its not balanced and certainly not fun for players to face big nasty things on the tabletop that they stand no reasonable chance of handling. '

GW didn't screw up. It was deliberate. Orks struggle vs Heavy AV. Not all armies as good at one thing as another. Orks deal best with lower AV and infantry, and that's how it should be. It's their focus, as killing heavy infantry with invulnerables and Monsterous Creatures is the GK focus, both in CC and at range.


One- ask a necron player how 'easy' it is to gauss a Landraider to death on turn one. It's not, even assuming you can get troops close enough to it to do any good without having them gunned down. Nothing in the Necron arsenal has a hope of gaussing them on turn one (unless you're playing on a 2' by 2' table) except Heavy Destroyers (which are overpriced, fragile and come in tiny easy to kill units) as most necron guns are very short ranged. Destroyer wings might damage one, but wrecking a LR with 15 shots, 10 hitting on average, with 6's to glance? Not likely.

Two- Landraiders, while pricy, are far from overpriced for what they can do. I'd pay 350 for them to have a necron version.

Landraiders, to my mind are more 'unbalanced' than Monoliths, and are far more of a pain to deal with, for me.


'So because GW screwed up and made landraiders almost impossible for orks to handle we should go ahead and think it is ok to keep doing that for other armies?'

What do demonhunters do? Hunt demons. That's their focus, not obliterating flying bunkers. Why should they get an autowin vs the monolith? Just because they're the latest Marines? Cry me a river...

I think it's perfectly fine, fluff and rules wise, for them to struggle vs armour 14. They can take lascannons in plenty of places (including monkey-mounted) to take it out if they want. Thunderhammers and powerfists work fine on it too. They have far more options than the orks for killing AV 14, and will actually hit what they shoot at. Ork anti tank vs AV 13+ consists of beating on it directly

*edited for clarity*

I rolled a guy's army down with my deffrollas. He called me a one-trick pony.

My answer:

1. Yeah, it's a darn good trick, isnt it?

2. So? You spammed rhinos and razorbacks. Why can't I spam things too?

3. How else do you expect me to destroy tanks? With my BS 2 rokkits?

Good trick, innit :0)

I'm a big fan of deffrolla BW, preferably filled with Meganobs or other unpleasantness

Tri - you cannot operate a non- FAQed fantasy book in 8th ed. You can run a 3rd ed codex in 5th ed.

It may not be great, but it works. It was not a change to the core rules in the same way as 8th ed was.