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

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