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.

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!