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.

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

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

Ascalam -

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

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

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

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

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

I would say only 1 d6

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


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

6 + D3 armour pen makes sad panda.

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

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

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

Again,

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

That is the final line of the rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

don_mondo wrote:

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

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

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

All mixed up in the head!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

oops had put living weapon instead of living metal.

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

We definitely need an FAQ for this one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

The Bringer wrote:

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

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



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

If the strength is 3d6:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

It literally says "no matter what".

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

Grakmar wrote:
If the strength is 3d6:

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

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

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


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

Haha, I realize all that...

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

Kevin949 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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