4d6 or 3+4d6 for armor penetration?

Searched, couldn't find anything recent.

3+4d6; Sniper weapons count as S3 vs vehicles as a base, and Rend on any "6" rolled on any Dice(that means you could get 1-4 extra d3)

Armor Penetration is the Roll to see if you ... penetrate Armor, this is added to your weapon's base S(3 for sniper weapons, BRB page 31)

Well that answers that.

So... each of the 4d6 that gets a 6 gets an extra d3? Wow.

Yeah but you only need 1, really.

Unless you roll 3 "1s" and 1 "6"

No. Raw is that it has an armour penetration of 4D6. In other words, you roll 4D6 with no other modifiers. No rending, no strength. Just 4D6.

I think rending still applies becuase it is still a sniper rifle. It's also Ap 1 so anything rolled is +1

Fafnir wrote:No. Raw is that it has an armour penetration of 4D6. In other words, you roll 4D6 with no other modifiers. No rending, no strength. Just 4D6.

looking at it a little closer, i will give you no s3; but rending will definitely apply as you are still rolling "Armor penetration" and any armor penetration roll of 6(4 chances) grants a d3.

Looking at the witch hunters FAQ and my witch hunter codex, the old vindicare turbo penetrator "Has an Armour Penetration value of 3D6". and +3strength was included in the FAQ ruling on how it worked.

The same FAQ also shows that rending still applies as well.

the new one "Has an Armour Penetration of 4D6". I don't see any reason for them to change their minds on it now.

It doesn't matter what the old FAQ says, this is a new codex. Until it is FAQ'd, RAW states that you always and only ever roll 4D6 with no other modifiers (monoliths are another issue entirely).

Fafnir wrote:It doesn't matter what the old FAQ says, this is a new codex. Until it is FAQ'd, RAW states that you always and only ever roll 4D6 with no other modifiers (monoliths are another issue entirely).

no it doesn't; RAW says that you roll 4d6 for penetration and any roll of 6 on penetration grants a d3(which would be a modifier).

Witch hunter FAQ does not hold any bearing on this conversation though as that is an entirely different Vindicare, with an entirely different turbo-penetrator in an entirely different Codex. Much like how BT Drop pods are still BS2 while all other Drop pods are BS4(even DA, who got theirs changed via FAQ)

Fafnir wrote:It doesn't matter what the old FAQ says, this is a new codex. Until it is FAQ'd, RAW states that you always and only ever roll 4D6 with no other modifiers (monoliths are another issue entirely).

It specifically states 4d6, which overrides the 3+d6 part. This does not remove the fact that it also has rending. 4d6+rending.

I simply brought up the witch hunters FAQ because the only difference between their turbo pen rounds is a 4 in place of a 3.

It still gets the Strength 3 in addition to the 4D6. Remember, armor penetration and strength are two very different, mutually exclusive things. The rulebook states you get your strength plus armor penetration. THe Vindicare's turbo penetrator modifies the number of dice for the armor penetration only. It does not say to discard the strength 3.

If you still insist 4D6 only is correct I will direct you to the rules for the eviserator in the GK codex. It states it has an armor penetration of 2D6. Would you be willing to tell some one that his tank-hunting weapon is actually WORSE because of it's special rules?

Wow, this will definitely be in the FAQ.

Guess I will have to discuss with opponent for now.

cuda1179 wrote:It still gets the Strength 3 in addition to the 4D6. Remember, armor penetration and strength are two very different, mutually exclusive things. The rulebook states you get your strength plus armor penetration. THe Vindicare's turbo penetrator modifies the number of dice for the armor penetration only. It does not say to discard the strength 3.

If you still insist 4D6 only is correct I will direct you to the rules for the eviserator in the GK codex. It states it has an armor penetration of 2D6. Would you be willing to tell some one that his tank-hunting weapon is actually WORSE because of it's special rules?

I really just want to take the GK codex out in the street and put it down like the Dog it is.

Armor penetration per the BRB is the S+1d6; all weapons prior to the GK codex(including IG eviserators/termie chainfists) add an additional D6 to armor Penetration.

Then the GK codex comes along and Specifies their weapons to Deal xd6 for armor penetration. Yes this means S is not added; they are not dealing extra d6, and they are not dealing S+xD6, thay are just dealing xD6.

I swear Ward finalized this thing in about 1 hour prior to printing after a 3-day bender of booze and hard drugs.

Your right it does have an armor penetration of 4d6 but it also has a weapon type of sniper and the brb tells us that sniper weapons are str 3 against vehicles and rending. Nowhere in the rule for the Turbo-Penetrator shot is there anything to discount the sniper classification and bonuses.

Once again, the specific rule overrides the generic rule.

bwraith12 wrote:Your right it does have an armor penetration of 4d6 but it also has a weapon type of sniper and the brb tells us that sniper weapons are str 3 against vehicles and rending. Nowhere in the rule for the Turbo-Penetrator shot is there anything to discount the sniper classification and bonuses.

You may want to cross reference the Armor penetration rules again, page 60 of the brb.

Armor penetration is S+1d6; all instances prior to the GK codex has the weapons adding a d6; even MCs ad a d6, and then give you the example/clarification of 2d6+Strength(page 51 of the BRB) All the grenades give you a flat Armor Penetration roll of Value+xd6.

The GK codex does not do this, they give you a flat Armor Penetration value of xD6; the GK Eviserator is just 2d6. The turbo-penetrator is 4D6+rending(because it is still weapon type: Sniper; Which has rending).

Sniper weapons are S3 for regular Armor penetration, but turbo-penetrator rounds do not do regular Armor penetration; they will still get the rending bonus d3 on any/all 6s though.

solles wrote:Looking at the witch hunters FAQ and my witch hunter codex, the old vindicare turbo penetrator "Has an Armour Penetration value of 3D6". and +3strength was included in the FAQ ruling on how it worked.

The same FAQ also shows that rending still applies as well.

the new one "Has an Armour Penetration of 4D6". I don't see any reason for them to change their minds on it now.

This.

I'm pretty sure an FAQ will say the same.
The wording between the GK and WH codex is the same other than the placement of a 4 instead of a three.
I don't see how the FAQ won't say S3 and Rending are added based on this previous FAQ. Saying "But this is a new codex" is kind of an odd point, as it's an old codex, but it's the same exact rule.
That's my two cents though, but who knows, according to the DE FAQ following logic and reason based on previous FAQs is never a reliable source.

When dealing with rules we as a community generally go with specific over general. You are making an assumption that the strength is not included because it says 4d6 for armor pen but in the brb it says that when you roll for armor pen you get your str+1d6 for your pen value. The grey knight codex specifically states that you get to roll 4d6 for armor pen but no where in the codex does it override the str that the brb states that you get with the roll of an armor pen. Your monstrous creature example further shows that you can go above +1d6 armor pen and still get your str bonus and from my knowledge there is nowwhere in the brb book that says you do not get your str bonus on an armor pen on anything that has a str value.


Also saying that the witch hunters official fact has no bearing is incorrect, though it may be a completely different vindicare with different turbo penetrator rounds it still sets the precedent that a weapon that goes above 2d6 pen still gets its str value added to the pen unless it specifically states it does not.

Fafnir wrote:It doesn't matter what the old FAQ says, this is a new codex. Until it is FAQ'd, RAW states that you always and only ever roll 4D6 with no other modifiers (monoliths are another issue entirely).

No, RAW states that it has the Sniper rule and that gives it ST 3.

To clarify for OP.

Yes you get Str 3
Yes you get Rending
Yes your get 4d6 also.

I hope no one minds me going off topic a bit here.

But if it is just 4d6 and that is the strength of the shot then surely you do get the full 4 against a monolith?

No, that isnt the strength of the shot, it its the addtional dice for armour penetration

It gets S3+4D6+ rend on any and all 6s.

taylor048 wrote:I hope no one minds me going off topic a bit here.

But if it is just 4d6 and that is the strength of the shot then surely you do get the full 4 against a monolith?

if people won't give him his Str3 and rending, then he should get the 4 against the monolith.


opponents of Str3+4d6+rending, choose your poison

I was fully prepared to quote every where that details Armor penetration; and all forms of bonus D6 form armor penetration to show that they all said +xD6.

Then I got to the first entry of the First Codex I was going to use to prove my point(Unfortunately after having quoted every instance in the BRB, in full): Codex Space Marines, the Chainfist. Wording is exactly the same as Turbo-penetrator and Eviscerator: "rolls 2d6 for armor penetration".

We have been using the Chainfist for several years now applying S8+2d6 for Penetration; Why should we stop adding S to the weapons now?

I relent, and revert back to my very first post.

Yeah, I said the same thing about the eviserator about 6 posts ago. Seems all the "Only 4D6" guys seem to be ignoring it and sticking their heads in the sand.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, that isnt the strength of the shot, it its the addtional dice for armour penetration

It gets S3+4D6+ rend on any and all 6s.

What Nos said, except when shooting against a vehicle that reduces additional penetration die (monolith, wave serpant), in which case it would be S3+1D6.

cuda1179 wrote:Yeah, I said the same thing about the eviserator about 6 posts ago. Seems all the "Only 4D6" guys seem to be ignoring it and sticking their heads in the sand.

When I was still a proponent of 4d6 only I addressed that, even pointed out the the IG Eviscerator specifies that it adds an additional d6 to armor penetration vs the GK eviscerator that simply calls for 2d6 armor penetration(same as the C:SM Chainfist) and added ist to the worthless weapons for Penetration.

Kommissar Kel wrote:I Codex Space Marines, the Chainfist. Wording is exactly the same as Turbo-penetrator and Eviscerator: "rolls 2d6 for armor penetration".

The wording isn't the samel.

"A chainfist is treated exactly as a power fist, but rolls 2D6 for its armour penetration."

It is essentially the same. It is equating dice roll with armour penetrtion, which is the critical part.

I agree with Fafnir because the special rules always will over ride the generic rule in such ways that raw doesnt say anything about str.

for the purpose of this RAW argument, it's still the same. That wording with what was used as an argument before meant you used double strength and struck last in normal cc, and only rolled a straight 2d6 vs vehicles.

Khorne Flakes wrote:I agree with Fafnir because the special rules always will over ride the generic rule in such ways that raw doesnt say anything about str.

Except Fafnir is WRONG on the RAW.

Citation? Eviscerators and chainfists say they're treated like powerfists, except they roll 2D6 (instead of one) for armour penetration.

The Turbo Penetrator round says that it's armour penetration is 4D6.

Very big difference in wording.

How is "roll 2D6 for penetration" fundamentally different in concept to "armour penetration is 4D6"?

In the latter you are making the extraordinary claim that the total penetration is 4D6, despite the former having the same essential wording and it still roling 2S+2D6

Or, in other words: there is no difference. If you claim TP is a total of 4D6 then you are also claiming Chainfists are WORSE at getting through armour than a TH or PF. Or, in other words, you are claiming the absurd.

Citation otherway required now.

Space Marine Codex, page 64 wrote:
A chainfist is treated exactly as a powerfist, but rolls 2D6 for it's armour penetration value.

Grey Knights Codex, page 53 wrote:
A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6

Very different wording. The Chainfist's description notes that you roll 2D6, rather than one for the armour penetration. The turbo penetrator states that its armour penetration is exactly 4D6.

Actually, depending on what codex you are looking at the eviserator rules sometimes state: "against vehicles the eviserator has 2D6 armor penetration".

Which codex?

Niether the Imperial Gaurd, Witch Hunters, or now defunct Daemonhunters codecies say that.

The turbo penetrator states that its armour penetration is exactly 4D6

? when did they add that exactly in the wording im looking at the codex at thats not there . All sarcasm aside it doesnt state exactly, only, or any other specifier all it states is that turbo penetrator has 4d6 penetration and no where and i do mean no where is there anything saying that this rule contradicts the rule for a sniper weapon, so this with the backup of a similar unit with a similar ammo having a faq that also verifies the sniper aspect of a weapon this topic is pretty moot.

Fafnir - no, the wording is not particularly different.

One tells you you roll 2D6 for AP. One tells you its value is 4D6. Which you do by rolling 4D6

The end result is the same. Either you state that the total AP is 4D6, nothing else, in which case chainfists ONLY get 2D6 in total, or you dont

I'm going with: treat it EXACTLY as it was in both the WH and DH codex, EXACTLY how the rules tell you to treat it:

3+4D6+Rending on any and all 6s. Its the only way that follows all the rules.

Citation requred for why this is wrong, or concede

Fafnir wrote:

Space Marine Codex, page 64 wrote:
A chainfist is treated exactly as a powerfist, but rolls 2D6 for it's armour penetration value.

Grey Knights Codex, page 53 wrote:
A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6

Very different wording. The Chainfist's description notes that you roll 2D6, rather than one for the armour penetration. The turbo penetrator states that its armour penetration is exactly 4D6.

Wait what are you actually serious? You're saying that

'X for Armour Penetration'

is 100% different to

'Armour penetration of X'

Chain fists explicitly roll 2D6 for Armour pen instead of whatever Power Fists do, that is RAW from the book, if you add Strength to Chain Fists then you add Strength of Turbo Pen shots.

Theres a good argument to say that yes Chain Fists do only roll a total of 2D6 for armour pen as the other weapons listsed, i.e. Grenades all says 6+D6, 8+ 2D6 for their Armour Penetration values.

Rolling for AP is different than stating the AP is a certain value.

If the Turbo Penetrator said "has an armour penetration of 14," would you add 3 to that too? 4D6 is a static value.

Chainfists note that you're still rolling for AP. The turbo penetrator just has you rolling four dice, and that's what the AP is. Similar wording, very different RAW outcome.

Yet the WH codex FAQ states that it is 3+3D6+rending.

Onus is on you to prove the substantive difference; so far you havent. "Rolls 2D6 for AP" == "AP of 4D6" in essence. Note that CSM chainfists DO add strength, explicitly, whereas C: SM do not.
Yes: if it states it has an AP of 14 you STILL add 3, as you have not added your strenght. Same as Chainfists.

You have not proven ANY difference, RAW you are wrong

Fafnir wrote:Rolling for AP is different than stating the AP is a certain value.

If the Turbo Penetrator said "has an armour penetration of 14," would you add 3 to that too? 4D6 is a static value.

Chainfists note that you're still rolling for AP. The turbo penetrator just has you rolling four dice, and that's what the AP is. Similar wording, very different RAW outcome.

Chain fists Roll 2D6 for armour penetration? Wheres the strength modification in that? You are arguing an extremely flimsy line here, I dont think you've got any proof at all to support your claim.

Sniper = S3 & Rending.

Turbo Penetrator = Sniper + 4D6 Penetration

If it gets Rending from being a Sniper weapon, it also gets S3 from being a Sniper weapon.

Thus Turbo Penetrator = S3 + 4D6 + Rending

Giving you a theoretical total Penetration value of 39. Ouch!

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet the WH codex FAQ states that it is 3+3D6+rending.

And the WH FAQ is for the WH codex. It will probably be FAQ'd to match the WH codex, but current RAW is that it only gets 4D6.

Onus is on you to prove the substantive difference; so far you havent.

Or rather, you choose to ignore it. It's stated in the context of a static value. Rolling for AP=/=AP of...

Fafnir wrote:
Or rather, you choose to ignore it. It's stated in the context of a static value. Rolling for AP=/=AP of...

Why are they different, why would Rolling X for AP mean you add your Strength but AP of X means you do not. You have nothing to support this theory.

Rolling X for AP is just as explicitly , it your says you roll S+X for AP like grenades do if it meant you add your strength.

Because the chainfist mentions rolling for armour penetration. The Turbo Penetrator notes that it is only a static value.

Fafnir wrote:Because the chainfist mentions rolling for armour penetration. The Turbo Penetrator notes that it is only a static value.

But WHY are they different, that's what I'm asking you to explain. It should be pretty simple.

Power fists roll 2xStrength +1d6 for penetration.

Chainfists work like power fists except they use 2d6.

Logically, this means they roll 2xStrength +2d6 since power fists already add 2xStrength.

Turbopenetrator says nothing to imply it uses some kind of penetration rules other than what it states.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aramoro wrote:
But WHY are they different, that's what I'm asking you to explain. It should be pretty simple.

Chainfist says it works like a power fist except in one area.

Turbopenetrator says how it works without referencing anything else.

DarknessEternal wrote:Power fists roll 2xStrength +1d6 for penetration.

Chainfists work like power fists except they use 2d6.

Logically, this means they roll 2xStrength +2d6 since power fists already add 2xStrength.

Why is that logical? Powerfists roll 2S + D6 for Pen, Chainfists Roll 2D6. They are exactly the same as Powerfists EXCEPT they roll 2D6 for penetration so clearly you don't add the strength to them.

There's nothing to suggest that Chainfists are any different than Turbo Pens.

All right, I had to pull an English professor into this argument (thanks Mom). Page 48 if the Grey Knights codex states: " Eviserators follow all the rules for power fists, and roll 2D6 for armour penetration."

Now, do we all see that comma after the word "fist"? Although not technically needed it does in fact add some clarity. It means that there are actually two rules smashed into one sentence. The rule gramatically could have been written as two sentences, and mean the same thing. Those two rules being: Eviserators follow all the rules for Powerfists. Evisterators roll 2D6 for armor penetration.

The second rule is an ademdum to the first. So, can someone tell me how, RAW, "roll 2D6" is substancially different to "has an armor penetration of "4D6"? Don't say that it's diffent because the Eviserator actually states you have to roll, what do you think you do with the 4D6, look at the dice and guess?

As a question for the people arguing that is is definately ONLY 4D6, are you actually believing that this is how it should work, or is this a silly RAW where you are just debating the way the rules are laid-out?

DarknessEternal wrote:Power fists roll 2xStrength +1d6 for penetration

Where exactly is this rule ever stated?

Power fist's rules simply double the users Str, it is The Armor penetration rules that state you use the S+1d6; therefore you use 2xbase S(current S)+1d6.

Therefore with the chainfist which is worded in the exact same way as the GK Evicerator, which is worded in the same way as turbo-penetrator(excepting a 4 instead of a 2).

If you can except the Chainfist, then you should except the GK Eviscerator. If you accept the GK eviscerator you should accept the Turbo-penetrator.

If Eviscerators and Chain fists only rolled 2d6 for penetration, they wouldn't be following the rules for power fists.

Yes they would; when they attack non-vehicle models.

The Powerfist rules do not say anything about Armor penetration.

Page 42, look it up; I'll wait.

Powerfists ALWAYS double the wielders Str. against vehicles and non-vehicles.


the rules for vehicles state that you take your Str, roll a D6 and add them together. this D6 is called the Armor penetration roll.

certain items or special rules allow you, or disallow, you from rolling additional dice for Armor Penetration.




Are people here just trying to nerf the Codex through an Apparent, but non-existant, loop hole?

you do realize what its going to be FAQed to do? it WILL be 3+4D6+rending and you know it.

why do you fight the unwinnable battle? the FAQ will be out in a month or 2. is this struggle really worth a couple months of Vindicares only rolling 4D6 and not adding Str and Rending?

I know this is a long and drawn out conversation but people are forgetting one fundamental thing. The specialty round does not override the special rules under type for the exitus rifle. This means the result will be S3+4d6+Rending=Armor Penetration. The turbo-penetrator round is not like sternguard ammo which modifies the whole profile of the weapon firing it.

Grey Templar wrote:
you do realize what its going to be FAQed to do? it WILL be 3+4D6+rending and you know it.

If anyone knew how it would be FAQed, there'd be no point of contention.

I honestly don't understand where the only 4D6 for armour pen is coming from. I got what is written, but even so, it doesn't states that it is only 4D6 for armor pen, and that it doesn't get the rules for being a sniper rifle.

And you do realize it was worded the exact same in the old DH codex except it was 3D6 not 4D6, right?

Those arguing that it doesn't get the STR3 from being a sniper rifle, but gets the Rending from it, really have no leg to stand on in this arguement. There is nothing that states they get half the rule but not the other half. Plus, if you read the rule, it states they count as STR3 against vehicles, it doesn't tell you that they add +3 to the Armour Penetration total, or anything else, it just says they count as STR3, and they are rending.

This is why you should just invest in alot of AV10 vehicles, instead of bringing Land Raiders!

DarknessEternal wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:
you do realize what its going to be FAQed to do? it WILL be 3+4D6+rending and you know it.

If anyone knew how it would be FAQed, there'd be no point of contention.

No, people will try and get any advantage they can from a small rule ambiguity for whatever time they can.


its rediclous. I GARUNTEE the FAQ will make if 3+4D6+rending.

Grey Templar wrote:
No, people will try and get any advantage they can from a small rule ambiguity for whatever time they can.

I play GK, and I'm no the pro-4d6 only side. There's no advantage in it for me, but that's what the rules say.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:
you do realize what its going to be FAQed to do? it WILL be 3+4D6+rending and you know it.

If anyone knew how it would be FAQed, there'd be no point of contention.

No one does know how it will be FAQed, a valid point as GW can always change their minds.
However, since the rule is obviously a point of debate, all that we, as rational humans can do is look at an FAQ from another codex that had the exact same rule but with a 3 instead of a 4.
That FAQ stated 3+3D6+Rending, it's only logical to conclude based on this that the new one will be 3+4D6+rending.

Something every single player here, and myself included at times, over look is one simple fact writen into the very first page of another game a long long LONG time ago:

All rules are subject to change and the interpitation of the players and game master involved.

In this case where so many here are arguing the fine point of the general rule vs the specific rule, in most cases the specific rule should be the one used. How ever, we as players can, and often do, make changes to them.

I see no reason why this can not be such a case. As was mentioned earlier, take it up with your oppenant. See what the opposing player thinks and says, then run with it as you both agree on.

After all, this is a game. It's ment to be fun. Not to be argued to death. `nuff said.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet the WH codex FAQ states that it is 3+3D6+rending.

Onus is on you to prove the substantive difference; so far you havent. "Rolls 2D6 for AP" == "AP of 4D6" in essence. Note that CSM chainfists DO add strength, explicitly, whereas C: SM do not.
Yes: if it states it has an AP of 14 you STILL add 3, as you have not added your strenght. Same as Chainfists.

You have not proven ANY difference, RAW you are wrong

The rifle says "has an Armor Penetration of 4d6." That means AP == 4d6.

Chainfists, if I'm reading correctly, say your roll 2d6 for armor penetration. This is different, yes it is. What do we normall roll for armor penetration? 1d6. This says we roll 2d6. Therefore we replace the 1d6 with 2d6.

The wording on Chainfists replaces the "what we roll" section of the AP equation, which we can tentatively define as Str + "what we roll" = AP. So instead of Str + "1d6" as usual, it's Str + "2d6".

The wording on the rifle says AP = 4d6. It's wording doesn't have the implication that we replace the "what we roll" part with 4d6, it just redeclares the whole equation as 4d6.

It's a really subtle difference, and yet another sign that GW has to learn how to write rules. But that's the RAW of it right now, from what I see. I don't see any problem with rending, though, as it depends on the dice, not the rest of the equation.

I have no argument for what may or may not be FAQed, or whether we should count the old FAQ. (I'm thinking so, but hell, they might go all Tyranid on the GKs and nerf them as much as possible) I'd personally play it conservatively as 4d6 with no +3, and discuss rending before firing.

CinderBlack: Something almost every single poster here, including you, overlooks is this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page
You might want to check Rule #7.

This is the place to argue rules to the death, in advance or afterwards, so you can concentrate on gaming when you are actually at a gaming table, moving your models and have a great time.

I don't understand how people say that RAW is only 4d6. It does not say only 4d6. It says, quoted from the codex. "A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6." This does not say "value" like some people are saying. It does not say "only" or "exactly" like some people are implying. It says it has an armour penetration of 4d6. How is this different than the chain fist? Please explain to me differently than has been previously explained, cuz I don't see it. Armour Penetration is specifically defined as S+1d6. If an entry says they recieve a different armor pen, then it recieves S + the listed penetration. All other entries that have ever ever listed a straight armor pen has always added str to the equation.

Why would we assume that this is any different now?

The RAW is 4d6 only can't be true. The 4d6 only crowd is actually talking about RAI, because RAW says armor pen adds Str to the roll. Rending is added on rolls of 6. Someone show me somewhere in the history of this game where Str is NOT added to an armor pen roll. I can't find it. I can't recall it ever happening. It doesn't exist.

Until FAQed otherwise, I'm going with S+4d6+rending.

On a side note, i'll never field one of these dudes. There's better options.

I don't have the rulebook in front of me, but the previous poster's argument actually leads to the opposite conclusion he states.

The line quoted from the grey knight codex says that the Armor Penetration is 4d6. If the Rulebook states that Armor penetration is normally S+1D6, then semantically the 4d6 is replacing the entire S+1D6 formula.

Basic grammer would dictate that the turbo pen round gets only the 4d6 as that is his armor penetration. Similarily, it dictates that the chainfist would only get 2d6 as it uses similar (or effectively identical) wording.

RAW: 4d6.

RAI: Who knows? Its possible it was written like the chain fist rule thinking it would be interpreted the same way chain fist was interpreted to be S+2d6.... but I'm not really ready to give them that much credit. As always, RAI is impossible to know and is really just an individual's attempt to impose their own version of how the rules should be on others.

For all the people arguing against the strength addition, have you checked what the Armor Penetration section of the BRB states??

Pg. 60: Armour Penetration:

Once a hit has been scored, roll a D6 and add the weapons strength to it, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.

The Armour Penetration roll is a D6, then the strength is added. So technically, by RAW, the 4D6 for a Turbo Penetrator is rolled, and then you add the S3 to it. Hence, you satisfy both rules, as you roll the 4D6 for armor Penetration, then add the S3 of the sniper Rifle. On any roll of a 6, you get the Rending rule. There is nothing in the Turbo Penetrator's rules that state that it doesn't add the strength and that it doesn't do exactly as you read for Armour penetration, except that you add 3 more D6 to the normal roll to make it a 4D6 +Strength.

Galador wrote:For all the people arguing against the strength addition, have you checked what the Armor Penetration section of the BRB states??

Pg. 60: Armour Penetration:

Once a hit has been scored, roll a D6 and add the weapons strength to it, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.

The Armour Penetration roll is a D6, then the strength is added. So technically, by RAW, the 4D6 for a Turbo Penetrator is rolled, and then you add the S3 to it. Hence, you satisfy both rules, as you roll the 4D6 for armor Penetration, then add the S3 of the sniper Rifle. On any roll of a 6, you get the Rending rule. There is nothing in the Turbo Penetrator's rules that state that it doesn't add the strength and that it doesn't do exactly as you read for Armour penetration, except that you add 3 more D6 to the normal roll to make it a 4D6 +Strength.

Thank you for this. I don't have the BRB in front of me and couldn't quote it directly. This was my point. You always add the str to the armor pen. Always!

Again what was written by the last poster is in opposition to what the text is saying. The heading presented of armor penetration is expanded to mean a single d6 with strength added to it. Armor penetration is both the single d6 and the strength value. They are both presented as part of the armor penetration. There is no reason to think only the d6 is the armor penetration.

Dracos wrote:I don't have the rulebook in front of me, but the previous poster's argument actually leads to the opposite conclusion he states.

How?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If a rule in a codex lists something that specifically says it breaks or changes a rule in the BRB then it does. In this case, the entry does not specifically say it changes the armor pen rule, and therefor will be based off of the armor pen rule in the BRB as armor pen + Str. The word only, or just, or any other word that would imply ignoring the + Str rule listed in the BRB is not in the GK dex. So why would it?

Again, I ask anyone that is pro-4d6 only to please give an example of somewhere in the history of this game where armor pen does not include str. If it exists, I may reconsider my standing on this debate.

When the rules instruct you to make an Armour penetration roll, you trigger the Turbo Penetrator's Armor Penetration. Strength is part of the normal Armor penetration. That has been quoted by 2 recent posters. There is nothing stating you keep the strength, so you don't.

Its easy. Replace normal Armor penetration (S+d6) with more specific rules for Turbo Penetrator's Armor Penetration (4d6). The Strength gets dropped as part of the replacement instructed by the text.

And in the case of Chain Fist wording, it only replaces the "roll" part, not the whole thing.

Sothas wrote: therefor will be based off of the armor pen rule in the BRB as armor pen + Str.

And this is where you are getting confused. The text quoted does not state this at all. It says that Armor penetration is S+1D6. The S is an inherent part of the Armor penetration.

You don't need a precedent for a rule to function in a new way - that's why they have codices in addition to the rulebook in the first place.

The rule is very clear.

People who are saying that you would only get 4D6 Armour penertration are making an incorrect assumption. You are assuming that the line of 'the Armour Penetration if 4D6' is over writing a rule. There is nothing that implys this. It simply states that the Armour Penetration roll is using 4 Dice. The rule for Armour Penetration is still in effect.

For example, you roll to hit against a Land Raider.

If you hit the Land Raider, you then apply the Turbo Penetrators ability. This being the rolling of 4 Dice to determine your armour penetration roll. Using the Armour Penetration roll, you would then apply the Weapons Strengh. As he is using a Sniper Rifle that would be the Strengh 3. Any rolls of a 6 would still be rending, as it is still a Sniper Rifle.

There is nothing in the entry for the Trubo Penetration rule that says it is no longer a Sniper Rifle.

Dracos wrote:

Basic grammer would dictate that the turbo pen round gets only the 4d6 as that is his armor penetration. Similarily, it dictates that the chainfist would only get 2d6 as it uses similar (or effectively identical) wording.

Taken out of context from the rest of the rules, this completely true. However, as I said before, this isn't how the rules are writen, as it says in many other sources it is the amount of d6's that are rolled plus the Str. FAQs and other rule books disagree with no Str added.

Holy wrote:The rule is very clear.

People who are saying that you would only get 4D6 Armour penertration are making an incorrect assumption. You are assuming that the line of 'the Armour Penetration if 4D6' is over writing a rule. There is nothing that implys this. It simply states that the Armour Penetration roll is using 4 Dice. The rule for Armour Penetration is still in effect.

For example, you roll to hit against a Land Raider.

If you hit the Land Raider, you then apply the Turbo Penetrators ability. This being the rolling of 4 Dice to determine your armour penetration roll. Using the Armour Penetration roll, you would then apply the Weapons Strengh. As he is using a Sniper Rifle that would be the Strengh 3. Any rolls of a 6 would still be rending, as it is still a Sniper Rifle.

There is nothing in the entry for the Trubo Penetration rule that says it is no longer a Sniper Rifle.

What you are saying is incorrect. Armor Penetration roll and Armor Penetration are not identical.

Normallly, the Armor Penetration is comprised of the Armor Penetration roll and Strength. When you are told to replace the Armor penetration, it replaces all of its components. When you are told to replace the armor penetration roll, you replace just that part.

This is actually grammatically pretty simple. I'm kind of surprised at how hard it is for some to understand it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sothas wrote:

Dracos wrote:

Basic grammer would dictate that the turbo pen round gets only the 4d6 as that is his armor penetration. Similarily, it dictates that the chainfist would only get 2d6 as it uses similar (or effectively identical) wording.

Taken out of context from the rest of the rules, this completely true. However, as I said before, this isn't how the rules are writen, as it says in many other sources it is the amount of d6's that are rolled plus the Str. FAQs and other rule books disagree with no Str added.

I was actually even incorrect about the chainfist, as I missed that it replaces only the Armor Penetration roll and not the entire Armor Penetration.

I made a mistake here too, but it still doesn't say what you think/want it to.

Holy wrote:The rule is very clear.

People who are saying that you would only get 4D6 Armour penertration are making an incorrect assumption. You are assuming that the line of 'the Armour Penetration if 4D6' is over writing a rule. There is nothing that implys this. It simply states that the Armour Penetration roll is using 4 Dice. The rule for Armour Penetration is still in effect.

You're making an assuption yourself. You're saying that "Armour Penetration of 4d6" = "Armor Penetration roll of 4d6".

As mentioned, Armour Penetration is the sum: Str + [roll] = [AP]

Chain Fist says the roll is 2d6: [roll] = 2d6
which becomes: Stre = 2d6

The turbo-penetrator says Armor Penetration is 4d6: [AP] = 4d6

I'm not going to insult people and say that the meaning is "simple." It's the mathematician in me that sees the difference in which variable is being replaced, and not everybody looks at things through those goggles.

I'm about to sound like a broken record here.

Find me somewhere in the history of this game where armor pen does not include Str. Even the previous version of this weapon includes str.

Sothas wrote:I'm about to sound like a broken record here.

Find me somewhere in the history of this game where armor pen does not include Str. Even the previous version of this weapon includes str.

Who cares? Why can't a rule in a book of new rules work in a new way? That is arbitrary and obtuse.

edit: also haywire grenades.

Sothas wrote:I'm about to sound like a broken record here.

Find me somewhere in the history of this game where armor pen does not include Str. Even the previous version of this weapon includes str.

The FAQ of the previous weapon includes Str. It originally did not, because that was 4th Edition. (It may very well be FAQd that way again, but that's a different discussion)

Precedent is in the Grey Knights Codex, pg. 53

"Things are more like they are now than they ever have been before."

ElCheezus wrote:I'm not going to insult people and say that the meaning is "simple." It's the mathematician in me that sees the difference in which variable is being replaced, and not everybody looks at things through those goggles.

I guess I thought it was simple because I see it the same way.

ElCheezus wrote:

The FAQ of the previous weapon includes Str. It originally did not, because that was 4th Edition. (It may very well be FAQd that way again, but that's a different discussion)

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but if 4th edition sniper rifles didn't have a str value. I could be wrong, but that is what I remember. If that is true, then in that case you can't add Str to the TP round because it didn't exist. This still doesn't disprove the fact that all weapons ever have had their Str value added to their Armor pen.

Dracos wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:I'm not going to insult people and say that the meaning is "simple." It's the mathematician in me that sees the difference in which variable is being replaced, and not everybody looks at things through those goggles.

I guess I thought it was simple because I see it the same way.

It's a "forest for the trees" or "hindsight is 20/20" or one of those optical illusions with the jar and the two old women. Once you get used to seeing things a certain way, it's a) hard to change and b) hard to realize that other people don't also see it.

This discussion reminds me of tutoring algebra and variable replacement. Everyone agrees it's easy once they get it, but sometimes it takes a while, and sometimes you have to explain it in 10 different ways to find the one that works for people. In this case you also have to throw in we're talking about words instead of equations, and people interpret things different ways.

Plus, ya know, the FAQ completely contradicted what we're trying to say. So there's precedence for thier side, even if it's not technically for this Codex. Maybe we'll get a FAQ ourselves in a year or so.

Dracos wrote:

Who cares? Why can't a rule in a book of new rules work in a new way? That is arbitrary and obtuse.

It is a bit, yeah. But it still doesn't change the fact that what I said is true. New rules come out all the time, but you only break the old rules when it specifically says so. I agree with the previous dude talking about changing the correct variables. In this case it's a difference is english and math, which is gunna get ugly if that argument keeps going. It doesn't replace the S value, only the d6 value. With the exquation S + d6 = AP, and changing it to 4d6 won't change the S value, but instead make it S + 4d6 = AP. I'm probably explaining it like crap, but I'm sure(hope) you get my point.

Dracos wrote:When the rules instruct you to make an Armour penetration roll, you trigger the Turbo Penetrator's Armor Penetration. Strength is part of the normal Armor penetration. That has been quoted by 2 recent posters. There is nothing stating you keep the strength, so you don't.

Its easy. Replace normal Armor penetration (S+d6) with more specific rules for Turbo Penetrator's Armor Penetration (4d6). The Strength gets dropped as part of the replacement instructed by the text.

Where the rules instruct you to make an armour penetration roll, they tell you to roll 12D6. That is the Armour Penetration roll. They then tell you to add the Str of the weapon too it. You are adding it backwards. You have to do it in the correct order in the first place in order to realize that you roll the 4D6 for armour Penetration, THEN you add the strength to the armour penetration roll.

It states that the Vindicare rolls 4D6 for armor penetration, which as I stated earlier, is almost exactly what it says in the BRB, except it says you roll a D6.... and then it states you add the strength of the weapon to the roll. Hence, both rules are fulfilled without either being broken, as you roll the Armour Penetration of the 4D6, as per the Turbo Penetrator's rules, and then add the strength to it, as per the BRB rules.

Dracos wrote:

Sothas wrote: therefor will be based off of the armor pen rule in the BRB as armor pen + Str.

And this is where you are getting confused. The text quoted does not state this at all. It says that Armor penetration is S+1D6. The S is an inherent part of the Armor penetration.

You don't need a precedent for a rule to function in a new way - that's why they have codices in addition to the rulebook in the first place.

You have it backwards, you dont add the 1D6 to the strength, you add the S to the 1D6. According to the rules in the BRB. If you do the rule the correct way, then you will understand that the Strength comes after the roll for Armour penetration. As I also stated above. There is no need for a precedent for a new rule, as this isn't a new rule but a modification of a normal one.

Sothas wrote:

Dracos wrote:

Who cares? Why can't a rule in a book of new rules work in a new way? That is arbitrary and obtuse.

It is a bit, yeah. But it still doesn't change the fact that what I said is true. New rules come out all the time, but it still doesn't tell you to break the old rules. I agree with the previous dude talking about changing the correct variables. In this case it's a difference is english and math, which is gunna get ugly if that argument keeps going. It doesn't replace the S value, only the d6 value. With the exquation S + d6 = AP, and changing it to 4d6 won't change the S value, but instead make it S + 4d6 = AP. I'm probably explaining it like crap, but I'm sure you get my point.

At this point it's the difference that you see the rule as only replacing the roll, and we see it as replacing the whole thing. Precedence of other Codecies is on our side, as (other people have quoted) Chain Fists specify that you *roll* 2d6.

You are again making the mistake of saying that Armor penetration and Armor penetration roll are the same thing.

There is a distinction. The turbo pen replaces the armor penetration. The order of the variables the armor penetration is comprised of is irrelevent.

To use the same form Elcheezus did, the variable order according to the text is

[AP] = [D6] + [S]

If the text said to replace the armor penetration roll with 4d6, then you would replace the D6 part of the equation with the 4d6. But it doesn't. It says that it has an Armor Penetation of 4d6. Therefore, the rule has redefined the entirety of the [AP] variable. It is not longer comprised of its components [d6] + [S], but rather is simply [4d6].

ElCheezus wrote:

Holy wrote:The rule is very clear.

People who are saying that you would only get 4D6 Armour penertration are making an incorrect assumption. You are assuming that the line of 'the Armour Penetration if 4D6' is over writing a rule. There is nothing that implys this. It simply states that the Armour Penetration roll is using 4 Dice. The rule for Armour Penetration is still in effect.

You're making an assuption yourself. You're saying that "Armour Penetration of 4d6" = "Armor Penetration roll of 4d6".

As mentioned, Armour Penetration is the sum: Str + [roll] = [AP]

Chain Fist says the roll is 2d6: [roll] = 2d6
which becomes: Stre = 2d6

The turbo-penetrator says Armor Penetration is 4d6: [AP] = 4d6

I'm not going to insult people and say that the meaning is "simple." It's the mathematician in me that sees the difference in which variable is being replaced, and not everybody looks at things through those goggles.

I can see where you are coming from. But the rule of Armour Penetration isn't an equation. It is a set of triggered abilities.

You roll to hit.

If you hit, it triggers the allowance to penetrate. This is done by rolling dice. The line that Armour Pentration is 4D6 applys to this section.

After the penetrate roll it triggers the addition of strengh.

Saying that the Armour Penetration is 4D6 does not subsituting the triggered effects of the Armour Penetration roll. It modifys one effect within the rule.

Well as with many debates, it's starting to loop back on its self.

I still see the fact that it doesn't specifically say you don't use the str, therefor you do.

Armor pen, and armor pen roll are really the same thing, but since there's a one word difference people will point that out, and unfortuntately, without a FAQ saying anything in any dirrection, it's hard to debate, Armor pen and armor pen roll being the same thing, because english says otherwise.

Again i point out, as I have in so many forums, that GW, specifically Ward, and thie GK dex, are writen like utter crap. There are more debates floating around about this dex than I've seen for many other dexes in quite a while. There's more attempts to abuse the system (DKs riding in stormravens and taking 2 spots, LOL) than before.

So really, play it as you play it until the FAQ is out. Luckily everyone I know are 4d6 + str people, so there's nothing to worry about for me.

But for those that remember old rules, or have old rules handy. Did old snipers have a str value? Cuz i remember it as they didn't, but I'm not sure. If someone can clearify that'd be awesome.

Breaking it down into an equation is just another way to try and explain it.

Here is another attempt.

The armor penetration has a definition and directions on how to proceed in the rulebook.

The codex states that the Turbo pen round has an armor penetration of 4d6.

Therefore, any time where you would need/use armor penetration for the Turbo pen, you use the rules that replace the description in the rulebook. Those rules are simply 4d6.

^^ the above

It also has precedence on its side: the WH FAQ which explains what the identical in essence wording states

3+4D6+ rending on every 6

Just a note, the odds of getting a pen on AV 14 without the +3 is 44.37%. The odds with the +3 are 76.08%

That doesn't include any Rending calculations, though. :-/ I'm currenlty trying to reason if Rending will increase or decrease the difference. . . hmmm. . .

Sothas wrote:Well as with many debates, it's starting to loop back on its self.

I still see the fact that it doesn't specifically say you don't use the str, therefor you do.

Armor pen, and armor pen roll are really the same thing, but since there's a one word difference people will point that out, and unfortuntately, without a FAQ saying anything in any dirrection, it's hard to debate, Armor pen and armor pen roll being the same thing, because english says otherwise.

Again i point out, as I have in so many forums, that GW, specifically Ward, and thie GK dex, are writen like utter crap. There are more debates floating around about this dex than I've seen for many other dexes in quite a while. There's more attempts to abuse the system (DKs riding in stormravens and taking 2 spots, LOL) than before.

So really, play it as you play it until the FAQ is out. Luckily everyone I know are 4d6 + str people, so there's nothing to worry about for me.

It does specifically state you don't use strength, because it says you use 4d6. It doesn't say I don't add my attacks or wounds either, but you don't see me trying to get those in either. Thats because this is a permissive ruleset. You are told to use 4d6, and only 4d6.

However you or I think it should or was intended to work must be kept separate from what we actually read. There is nothing that indicates you add strength to the 4d6 given, no more than you would add any other value to the 4d6. That is because you don't add anything.

Rending will for sure increase the difference with AV14

3 1's and a 6 = 9 + 3 (max rending roll) = 12.
3 1's and a 6 = 9 + 3 str + 3 (max rending roll) = 15. Pen. Boom!

ElCheezus wrote:Just a note, the odds of getting a pen on AV 14 without the +3 is 44.37%. The odds with the +3 are 76.08%

That doesn't include any Rending calculations, though. :-/ I'm currenlty trying to reason if Rending will increase or decrease the difference. . . hmmm. . .

Rending should decrease the difference, because more of the rending hits will be over 14 for the +3 anyways. So the reality is that its closer than ~44% to 76%, but still a significant difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sothas wrote:Rending will for sure increase the difference with AV14

3 1's and a 6 = 9 + 3 (max rending roll) = 12.
3 1's and a 6 = 9 + 3 str + 3 (max rending roll) = 15. Pen. Boom!

This is one example, but there are many more where its

3 2s and 1 6= 6+6+3 =15
3 2s and 1 6= 6+6+3+3 =18. The STR was irrelevent, meaning the difference of having the str is less.

Dracos wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:Just a note, the odds of getting a pen on AV 14 without the +3 is 44.37%. The odds with the +3 are 76.08%

That doesn't include any Rending calculations, though. :-/ I'm currenlty trying to reason if Rending will increase or decrease the difference. . . hmmm. . .

Rending should decrease the difference, because more of the rending hits will be over 14 for the +3 anyways. So the reality is that its closer than ~44% to 76%, but still a significant difference.

Oh yeah, good call. For some reason I was thinking too small. Rending will give the "without str" a better chance to pen, and the "with str" will have roughly the same chance to pen. Dunno what I was thinking. Also, while I'm good at math, I hate it, and I'd rather not calculate. I'll leave that to people who like it.

Everyone keeps talking about algebra and calculus and all sorts of mathematical equations.....

You all do realize you are never required in 40K to go beyond grade school math, correct???

It does help, however, to have a Master's in English!! Which I am pretty sure none of us have, but I could be wrong. I know I don't, I tend to stay away from English as even though its my native language, it confuses the crap outta me sometimes!

Also, everyone keeps using the chainfist, which I'm sorry, if you will not accept what another FAQ said about pretty much the exact same weapon and rules, then there is no way that you can use a totally different weapon, especially a close combat vs shooting weapon, from a whole other codex, as a basis for your argument. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you won't take one, don't use another, even as examples, because if we are doing that, the Witchhunter example defines this instance much more clearly than the Chainfist example does.

There is no precedence for not including all the rules.


And on a slightly different note, its not likely that 4D6 is ever really going to Penetrate that much on its own. The lowest you would get on that 4D6 is 4, while the average is 12, and the highest is 24. So, on average, most vehicles will suffer a glance, while anything AV13 or AV14 is relatively safe. But once you add that S3 to the mix, that is when the Turbo Penetrator actually begins to shine, as it should, cause it is meant to be an almost guaranteed penetration, IMHO at least. With S3 the lowest you would get is 7, while the average would be 15, and the max would be 27. This is without rending of course. I'm gonna be lazy and let everyone else figure the rending on their own, or maybe ElCheezus, our resident mathematician will do it for us?



Ok, so wife came home and slowed my post down, it should have been like 5 posts ago....

But anyway, another question on your argument has sprung to my mind. You state that you cannot add the strength of the weapon because it says 4D6 only. So how are you explaining the Rending? Please explain to me how the Sniper Rifle in question only gets HALF of its rules.....

You can't choose what parts of the rules you want to use. It is a sniper rifle, and it gets the Str 3 and the rending, and it even states that the str combines with the rending against vehicles.

Now, if it had a special rule stating that it didn't get to add its strength, I would agree with that, but honestly there is only one sniper rifle that I can think of that doesn't get its STR against vehicles, and come to think of it, that same sniper rifle is also the only Assault sniper rifle that I know of. Every other Sniper rifle I have seen is Heavy.....

Galador wrote: come to think of it, that same sniper rifle is also the only Assault sniper rifle that I know of. Every other Sniper rifle I have seen is Heavy.....

The rifle is Heavy, but he also has a Pistol that can use the same ammo. Also, Marbo has a Pistol with the Sniper rule.

The average of 4d6 is 14.

Also, it does have a special rule that prevents it from adding strength: the Turbopenetrator rule.

Galador wrote:
And on a slightly different note, its not likely that 4D6 is ever really going to Penetrate that much on its own. The lowest you would get on that 4D6 is 4, while the average is 12, and the highest is 24. So, on average, most vehicles will suffer a glance, while anything AV13 or AV14 is relatively safe. But once you add that S3 to the mix, that is when the Turbo Penetrator actually begins to shine, as it should, cause it is meant to be an almost guaranteed penetration, IMHO at least. With S3 the lowest you would get is 7, while the average would be 15, and the max would be 27. This is without rending of course. I'm gonna be lazy and let everyone else figure the rending on their own, or maybe ElCheezus, our resident mathematician will do it for us?

Incorrect. The average die roll of a d6 is actually 3.5, not 3. 3 is half of six, but since you don't have a zero on the die, the average is half way between 1 (the smallest number) and 6 (the largest number). The actual average roll is 14 (3.5 x 4). So it will, on average, glance AV 14 (no including rending or str). This is exactly the same reason why craps shooters favor a 7. 7 being the most rolled number with 2d6. (avg 3.5 x 2)

ElCheezus wrote:

Galador wrote: come to think of it, that same sniper rifle is also the only Assault sniper rifle that I know of. Every other Sniper rifle I have seen is Heavy.....

The rifle is Heavy, but he also has a Pistol that can use the same ammo. Also, Marbo has a Pistol with the Sniper rule.

I didn't say the sniper rifle that I was talking about there was the Vindicare's. Reread the line before it, I mentioned that there is only one sniper rifle in the game that I know of that doesn't get it strength against vehicles, and then I added the rest of that sentence. Please quote me entirely if you are going to quote me at all.


And as far as the average goes, my mistake. Haven't sat down to do averages up in a long time. But honestly, if I ever did roll 4D6 +S for a turbo penetrator, I would still probably get 7's and 11's on average, seeing as the dice gods have hated me ever since the Rogue Trader days!!

Galador wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:

Galador wrote: come to think of it, that same sniper rifle is also the only Assault sniper rifle that I know of. Every other Sniper rifle I have seen is Heavy.....

The rifle is Heavy, but he also has a Pistol that can use the same ammo. Also, Marbo has a Pistol with the Sniper rule.

I didn't say the sniper rifle that I was talking about there was the Vindicare's. Reread the line before it, I mentioned that there is only one sniper rifle in the game that I know of that doesn't get it strength against vehicles, and then I added the rest of that sentence. Please quote me entirely if you are going to quote me at all.

I didn't even know there was one. What is it?

ElCheezus wrote:I didn't even know there was one. What is it?

The Hexrifle in the Dark Eldar codex. It is Assault 1, and has no effect on vehicles. As stated per its rules.

My point with the avg is that, with this argument of yes or no to the str being added, is that you will still pen with this thing a ton. It's a greater chance to pen than any other weapon I can think of. (except for maybe meltas and lances... can't be bothered with math right now. Would be interesting to knwo though. MATH WIZARDS GO!)

Melta in range is 58% pen. Str 8 Lance is 33% and Str 9 Lance is 50%

All assuming you've already hit.

ElCheezus wrote:Melta in range is 58% pen. Str 8 Lance is 33% and Str 9 is 50%

All assuming you've already hit.

Don't encourage him!!!!

How is S9 better than S8 lance? S9 requrires a 6 to pen and S8 lance requires a 5. As an eldar player, I'm very well aware that my brightlances are better vs AV 14 than a lascannon.

Fixed. DE have Str 9 Lances, right? Void Lances?

Do they? i dunno. I'll check with my DE playing buddy later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've gotta return to the debate real quick.

Witch Hunter's army codex is still current, therefor the Witch Hunter's FAQ is still current, and in the FAQ the TP round adds Str. So how doe this not apply to the new one?

Also on that note, can the witch hunters take the new assassins? Do they have to use the old ones? Logic says they use the new ones, RAW says they don't. So...?

ElCheezus wrote:Just a note, the odds of getting a pen on AV 14 without the +3 is 44.37%. The odds with the +3 are 76.08%

That doesn't include any Rending calculations, though. :-/ I'm currenlty trying to reason if Rending will increase or decrease the difference. . . hmmm. . .

So, results from calculating Rending. . . It increases the odds of the "+ Str" shots by 2.57%, and increases the odds of the "4d6" shots by 10.73%
It closes the gap between them a little.

So new results are:

4d6: 55.1% (714+(417/3)/1296)
+ 3: 78.65% (986+(100/3)/1296)

Edit: for a second there I calculated too many rending contributions to the "+3" group. Fixed.

The Bomber has 2 S9 lances. Nothing else does.

RAW says WH, paper dex, can induct GK into the army. This includes an elite, which could be a new style assassin.

It does specifically state you don't use strength, because it says you use 4d6. It doesn't say I don't add my attacks or wounds either, but you don't see me trying to get those in either. Thats because this is a permissive ruleset. You are told to use 4d6, and only 4d6.

However you or I think it should or was intended to work must be kept separate from what we actually read. There is nothing that indicates you add strength to the 4d6 given, no more than you would add any other value to the 4d6. That is because you don't add anything.

You cant add attacks or wounds because there is no basis for you to use them. You are acting like people are plucking the str 3 rending out of the air and they are not. It states in the brb that they are included because of the sniper rule, and you say it specifically states you dont use strength for your penetration rolls, I have the codex in front of me and I dont see anything saying specifically, only, exclusively, or any other isolating term that states that is all you get. Throughout the pro 4d6 posts everyone has taken liberties by adding these words to make their argument sound like it has a solid basis when it does not. You are correct in your earlier statement that this is a permissive set of rules and just because something doesnt say something doesnt mean you dont get it but there are written rules in the brb that do give it to us. The con 4d6 poster have time and again referenced entries in the brb and codex so now i put the ball in your guys court and ask that you guys site sources in the brb stating that armor pen is done the way you state it is and also show me where it says the sniper rifle rules do not apply to a weapon with the sniper special rule.

This debate has really made me dig through the rules so in all it has helped me with the rules.

The BRB give the definition of a Sniper Rifle as having 1d6AP+ rending+ 3 Strength = 4 -12 AP Pg.31
Spacemarine Scouts for the most part.

The Daemonhunters Codex defines the Vindicares and Exitus Rifle as being a Sniper Rifle with special rounds - pg26
The Turbo-Penetrator round gives it 3d6 replacing the 1d6 on a regular Sniper Rifle hence 3d6+ rending+ 3 strength = 6 - 30 and it was FAQ by GW.
The Avg. roll here is only 12 with the strength

Officio Assassinorum Operatives
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 Gray Knights Codex now supercedes the DH Codex and replaces the 3d6 with 4d6.
Using the FAQ as a base the shot will now be 4d6+ rending+ 3 Strengh = 7 - 39
The Avg. roll now being 15 with the strength
I think they just wanted to give the Vindicare a now Avg. chance of always APing a Landraider err... 14 armor

I dont see GW changing the rule set by the DH FAQ

I hope this has been some help.


Sorry but its in the Witch Hunters FAQ

Ok, first of all, quit comparing it to the WH or old DH faq, this is a different book. Second, have any of you arguing for S+4D6 stop to think that maybe they wrote it the way they did specifically to get around certain other rules (i.e., living metal, ect)?

Also, it does not say that Sniper Rifles are 1d6AP+ rending+ 3 Strength it says that against vehicles, their armor penetration value is Str(3)+1D6(Rending)

What some of you people are willfully ignoring is that the rules for the round tell you that the Armor Pen is a simply 4D6, therefore using that rule in place of a normal armor pen calculation. in principle, it is similar to how the SM rule ATSKNF changes how regrouping works for them, or how Inquisitor Karamazov can ignore normal template targeting rules with his orbital strike relay.

Shivan Reaper wrote:Ok, first of all, quit comparing it to the WH or old DH faq, this is a different book. Second, have any of you arguing for S+4D6 stop to think that maybe they wrote it the way they did specifically to get around certain other rules (i.e., living metal, ect)?

Yeah! Quit using logic and reason based on past FAQs to come to a logic conclusion! It's been acceptable in almost every other YMDC debate to use one codex's FAQ with the same rule as another to come to a conclusion but that (arbitrarily) stops here!

Also, how would this in any way get around Living Metal? You can argue that it does, but even I, a GK player and not a Necron player, do not think that this gets around living metal in any way.

Shivan - noone is "wilfully ignoring" anything. Everyone simply disagrees with your position that somehow "roll" and "is" is a substantive difference

in other words your position still results in Chainfists rolling 2D6 in total. which is absurd.

Shivan Reaper wrote:Ok, first of all, quit comparing it to the WH or old DH faq, this is a different book.

Actually, that doesn't matter at all. It's not an errata, it's an FAQ and as such clarifies how the already existing rules work. Which means that the Vindicare does, indeed, have 3+4D6+rending as his armour penetration value.

You all point to how a much older book has the round working as how the new one works, yet when the new WH/SoB book comes out, it might/probably will be a exact match of the GK one as far as the assassins. The way it gets around living metal should be quite obvious if you view it RaW rather then what you are seeing as RaI, but that has been argued to death in other threads.

Nos, it isn't "everyone", it is just that the the others have seen that trying to present well reasoned arguments will not sway those who have their minds set in one rut. Also, why is everyone using the chainfist to compare, why not use the eviscerator, which is in the same codex.

Walrus, one, just because it is a similar rule between the two books, doesn't mean they work exactly the same. For example, since all the other SM drop pods are BS4, that means I can have my BT drop pods are automatically BS 4 too, right? Even though they are not, because they didn't change it in the errata. Also, it being a FAQ rather then errata makes it less valid, rather then more. To quote the page that leads to the FAQs:

"The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material....The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules"

Ok, now y'all can proceed to beat the dead horse this thread has become

Shivan Reaper wrote:
Walrus, one, just because it is a similar rule between the two books, doesn't mean they work exactly the same. For example, since all the other SM drop pods are BS4, that means I can have my BT drop pods are automatically BS 4 too, right? Even though they are not, because they didn't change it in the errata. Also, it being a FAQ rather then errata makes it less valid, rather then more. To quote the page that leads to the FAQs:

"The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material....The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules"

Still, it does give us a pretty strong argument for RAI 3+4D6+R...

Shivan all you have stated is that raw vindicares only get 4d6 pen and thats all youve done is stated. Why dont you break this down for all of us non believers and actually tell us how your stand on this is based upon rules as written instead of just stating it. As you said I can state that my drop pod gets bs 4 hell 5 all day because i think thats raw it does not mean in anyway shape or form that it is. Statements without facts are just that, statements.

Its not that they "only" get 4d6, its that they have an armor penetration of 4d6.

Note that the text says armor penetration, not armor penetration roll.

This difference is key as armor penetration is normally comprised of an armor penetration roll and strength. Since the turbo pen redefines the entire armor penetration and not just the armor penetration roll, you don't get to include your strength.

And the previous versioin used the exact same wording and gets the ST 3 plus 3d6. So why shouldn't we follow precedent?

You are free, of course, to "rules as played" it however you like. Perhaps a future FAQ will even go against what the text says and say its S+4d6.

But I'm simply stating what the text says as is. The way it is written does not allow for strength to be used. I don't see any ambiguity in the language at all.

Yet I see it the exact opposite way round, and the FAQ simpy confirms how it is likely to be ruled.

However, look at page 63 in the rulebook regarding grenades vs vehicles. It uses similar wording to the turbo-penetrator, I'll use Melta bombs as an example

"Against vehicles, grenades have the following armour penetration"
Melta bombs 8+2D6

Note that 8+2D6 is the total used, and that's never really been disputed. Since it has the same wording as the turbo-penetrator, it would seem to indicate that turbo-penetrator doesn't get the +3

I don't know how this got to 5 pages...

Even the the slowest of us (read: me) can read a damn rulebook and a codex.

Armour Penetration is just that, armour penetration. When you roll to penetrate armour, that is the bonus. It does not magically take away the RULE of 'sniper' and that 'sniper' gives you a base strength of 3 against vehicles and rending.

FFS, how can those people arguing such basic rules be so obtuse?

Joyous_Oblivion wrote:I don't know how this got to 5 pages...

Even the the slowest of us (read: me) can read a damn rulebook and a codex.

Armour Penetration is just that, armour penetration. When you roll to penetrate armour, that is the bonus. It does not magically take away the RULE of 'sniper' and that 'sniper' gives you a base strength of 3 against vehicles and rending.

FFS, how can those people arguing such basic rules be so obtuse?

Because it's conflicting, inconsistent writing and it's not spelled out with an example. It's a legitimate argument, regardless of which side you are on.

It is not particularly helpful, however, to come into a rules thread, insult everyone, and rehash arguments that were used on the first page.

Some rules override other rules. These rules do indeed "magically take away" rules. Grenades, for example, do not add the model's Strength even though it clearly says in the Assault section that you add a model's strength when determining armour penetration. The Vindicare's Dead Shot rule, for example, lets you target specific models - which "magically takes away" the rule that you must target a unit (not a model) when shooting.

Special rules are special. They do interesting things. If you referred to the base rules for everything, there wouldn't be any special rules. Understand now? This is why people are discussing it.

xarian the reason grenades read that way is because they dont have a str value anywhere else so they had to let you know what the strength is whereas the turbo penetrator round is fired from a sniper so it already has a str listed in the brb.

I would argue that the turbo round uses 4d6, but still gets the +3 strength and rending, based on how it is ammunition and how the other ammunition of the rifle works.

The hellfire rounds are fired from the ex rifle and are said to wound on a 2+ instead of a 4+. The ammo rule changes how the sniper attack usually does damage, but it doesn't change the fact that it is still an ap1 attack and would rend on a roll of 6 (which is redundant because of ap1, but it is still in effect)

The turbo rounds are said to use 4d6 instead of 1d6 for penetration. This ammo rule changes how many dice are usually used for penetration, but it doesn't change the strength of the gun, the ap1, or the rending rules, which are all still in effect.

The turbo round only has rules to change 1 aspect of the attack.
You can't really argue that the turbo round was intended to take away all of the other abilities of the rifle when the other ammo types don't do that AND the turbo rules themselves say nothing in regards to the other abilities.

Again, you can play however you want until the faq comes out, but it seems to me that the current version is in favor of 3str+4d6+rending

Not that it really matters but I think I am on the 4d6+rending camp.

You get 4d6 because that is "the armor penetration" you get rending because of the weapon type sniper.

If it had said armor penetration roll, or an additional 3d6 I think it would obviously be ruled as a total armor penetration of
3+1d6+3d6 (rending)

however, you overlook that the same plae that gives you the Rending special rule also gives you Str3 against vehicles.


you can't have one without the other.

its either a flat 4D6 or 3+4D6+rending.

Dracos wrote:Its not that they "only" get 4d6, its that they have an armor penetration of 4d6.

Note that the text says armor penetration, not armor penetration roll.

This difference is key as armor penetration is normally comprised of an armor penetration roll and strength. Since the turbo pen redefines the entire armor penetration and not just the armor penetration roll, you don't get to include your strength.

I am curious where you find this mysterious armour penetration roll as nowhere in the rulebook this phrase is used. There is a heading called Armour Penetration under which the way damaging a vehicle is explained, but nowhere does it mention there being a defined armour penetration roll (or even a real definition of what armour penetration is), all it says is that for damaging a vehicle you use a D6 and add the weapons strength.

Going completely RAW, Armour Penetration does not even have a meaning. Meaning all those "roll 2D6 for Armour Penetration" and "has an Armour Penetration of 4D6" are gibberish.

Actually it does have a definition. It is the text under the heading "Armor Penetration" on p60. The armor penetration roll is simply a name I give to the act of rolling the 1d6 to add it to the strength to get your total armor penetration.

It doesn't matter what you call the rolling part of armor penetration, so long as you realize that armor penetration is normally made up of two parts which are clearly outlined on p.60, rolling 1d6 and adding your strength. Both those parts combine to be your armor penetration. Neither on its own is the armor penetration.

Therefore when a special rule is made that replaces the normal armor penetration, it replaces both the parts of armor penetration - to whit: the rolling of a single d6 and adding the strength.

Dracos - except GW do not agree with that definition, as can be seen with the WH and DH FAQ stating the opposite.

Can someone quote the Witch Hunter codex's description of their version of it? (sorry if its already been posted)

Keep in mind that the WH FAQ in question is

A) 2 years old, and
B) Used for a different version of a unit/weapon with the same name.

Its not necessarily accurate to use that FAQ to answer the new weapon. I'll reserve my judgement on its applicability for the wording in the Witch Hunter codex.

it says the Turbo-penetrator round gives 3D6 for armor penetration, same as the DH codex.


the same wording it has in the GK codex except its now 4D6 instead of 3D6.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1490300a_FAQ_WitchHunters_2009.pdf

bottom of the last page, left side

Solles - you misread my post.

Grey Templar - Assuming the wording is exactly the same except the 3d6 instead of the 4d6, for practical reasons I would definitely adopt the WH FAQ answer (when playing with the GW FAQs - sometimes people in my area don't). However IMO the FAQ answer is a change of what the rule is actually saying.

Ah, my bad.

As for wording, I've got both codices here, quoting them verbatim.

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

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

Maybe they thought that it needed the +3 to balance it, and fixed it in this codex by making it 4d6 without the +3. The difference in averages between 3d6+3 and 4d6 is 0.5, so it's a really close comparison. Since FAQs rarely explain the *why* behind the rulings, we don't know.

Ultimately, what matters is that the WH FAQ refers to a different unit with a different weapon and a different effect in a different codex, despite similar names. Will they FAQ it the same way? Maybe. Doesn't matter until they do, though. You're stuck with either a strict RAW or a house rule.