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.

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.