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.

Dashofpepper wrote:Uh...you're mixing up your specific > general here.

Grey Knight Codex: Turbo-Penetrator has 4D6 armour penetration. IE, STR + 4D6.

There is nothign that states you get your STR in addition to the 4d6, you simply added that in. There is nothing to indicate you get your str, therefore you don't.

Its actually really easy, as soon as you realize that Armour penetration is defined as S+1d6 normally. 4d6 =/=S+1d6. Therefore one of the rules has to take precidence, which the obviously more specific Turbo pen rules do. Again there is nothing in the language of the turbo pen round that suggests the STR is added.

People make the mistake that since it is normally added, they add it in. However, that is not what the rule is telling you to do.

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

Assuming your quote is entirely accurate, I'll agree the Monolith's rule is slightly more specific (it specifies "against any weapon") and ends up trumping the turbo pen as a result giving the turbo pen its useless S+1d6 against the lith.

AAAAnnnnnd they're off....

'Turbopen and Lith are neck and neck, racing for the first post in what's sure to be a long and very annoying thread, just like the several dozen we've seen so far.. '

*crown cheering*

Haven't we done this one enough fellas? The consensus generally falls to Monolith, with several folk going off in a huff or the thread being locked for flaming.

The Lith is supposed to be damn near uncrackable . It makes up for its glaring faults as a MBT.

Everyone keeps on trying to dodge around a rule that couldn't get much clearer without a flaming message across the sky. We get into realms of metaphysical argument over whar constitutes a weapon and what 'no matter what' really means..



*edit for dyslexia* Dyslexics of the world untie!

Dracos wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:Uh...you're mixing up your specific > general here.

Grey Knight Codex: Turbo-Penetrator has 4D6 armour penetration. IE, STR + 4D6.

There is nothign that states you get your STR in addition to the 4d6, you simply added that in. There is nothing to indicate you get your str, therefore you don't.

Sniper rifles do add their strength of 3 against vehicles. This isn't really the thread to discuss this in though, it's been up quite a few times already.

Dracos wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:Uh...you're mixing up your specific > general here.

Grey Knight Codex: Turbo-Penetrator has 4D6 armour penetration. IE, STR + 4D6.

There is nothign that states you get your STR in addition to the 4d6, you simply added that in. There is nothing to indicate you get your str, therefore you don't.

Its actually really easy, as soon as you realize that Armour penetration is defined as S+1d6 normally. 4d6 =/=S+1d6. Therefore one of the rules has to take precidence, which the obviously more specific Turbo pen rules do. Again there is nothing in the language of the turbo pen round that suggests the STR is added.

People make the mistake that since it is normally added, they add it in. However, that is not what the rule is telling you to do.

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

Assuming your quote is entirely accurate, I'll agree the Monolith's rule is slightly more specific (it specifies "against any weapon") and ends up trumping the turbo pen as a result giving the turbo pen its useless S+1d6 against the lith.

you have that backwards.


Unless you are told you DON'T get to add your Str then you always get it.

this is because that is how rolling to damage vehicles works standard. there are specilized cases, but, in all cases, unless something is specifically altered then it doesn't get altered.


Status Quo is that Sniper Rifles(which the Exitus Rifle/Pistol is) are Str3 against vehicles and have the Rending special rule.

You are told you don't add your STR. The turbo pens armour penetration (which the rulebook defines as 1d6 + STR) is 4d6. It clearly can't be both 1d6+ S and 4d6 since those are not equal. Therefore it must be one or the other. You can't just pick the part of each rule you like and put them together.

edit: By saying that the Turbo pens's armour penetration is 4d6, it is saying you replace what it would normally be. Since the STR is part of what it would normally be, that part, along with the normal 1d6, is replaced.

Very well, have that interpertation for now.


you know darn well what the FAQ is going to say.

I see no point in sticking to an interpertation that is going to disappear in a month or so.

Did you make your crystal ball or can you buy them somewhere?

My crystal ball is the way GW has done these things in the past.

WH and DH codices: 3D6 armor penetration.

FAQ: Str+3D6+rending.


use a little common sense and reasonable extrapolation.

the answer is clear enough.


I disagreed with GWs ruling that the Exitus could hurt Monoliths, but thats my deal. necrons are bad enough as it is, do we really need to kill their monoliths?

I don't really know if that FAQ answer should apply or not. For instance, the change from 3d6 to 4d6 could be to make it closer to the old possible results while keeping it simple.

Arguements about what is intended but not written is useless. Lets stick to discussing what's written.

I played in a grand tournament, and an opponent shot the vindicare at my wave serpent and rolled 4 dice.

I reminded him that against wave serpents you only roll 1 dice for armor penetration.

The turbo round is being fired from a sniper rifle. All the turbo round rules do is replace the normal 1d6 pen with 4d6; nothing else. You still get the strength 3 of the gun in addition to the ap1 and rending rules. There is nothing there to imply that the ability of the round takes away the strength or anything else from the gun; it's changing one aspect only. If you're going to say you don't use the strength, then you also have to take the stance that your attack doesn't get rending and doesn't get ap1... which turns your turbo round into an ap nill piece of garbage.

If you can find another weapon in the game that behaves the way you are supporting (no strength addition), you will have a stronger case. Otherwise, you are arguing in favor of a rule which doesn't say "don't use strength" and is unlike anything else in the game. That would be a very weak stance to take

Ok. Haven't weighed in on this before, but a reading of the RULEBOOK says the following. I'm basing this rules interpretation on the most similar weapons - Melta weapons - the one type of weapon that routinely roll more than 1d6 for AP. Ok.

Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a d6 and add the weapon's Str to it, comparing this total to the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle

Note that at no point, ever, is 1d6 defined as an 'Armour Penetration' value. There is no such thing. There is a rule called 'Armour Penetration' which tells you that you tae the Str of the weapon and add 2d6 to it. That is all. There is no such thing as an AP value, merely a rule that allows you to calculate the AP.

Melta Weapons....roll an extra d6 when rolling to penetrate a vehicle's Armour Value at half range or less.

RAW - A melta weapon does not change from the normal armour penetration calculation (which would be the standard Str + d6), but they have a special, specific rule that allows them to add 1d6 in some situations. A Melta weapon does not have an 'AP value' of 2d6. There is no such thing as an AP value. It has the is normal, standard AP calculation, but with a special rule that may or may not apply.

Against vehicles, grenades have the following armour penetration. Melta Bombs : 8+2d6

RAW - Melta Bombs have an armour penetration calculation of 8+2d6, which replaces the normal armour penetration rules (which would be the standard Str + d6). It's important to remember that Melta Bombs DO NOT HAVE A STR VALUE. Their armour penetration value is NOT Str+something, it's defined completely seperately, and replaces the normal calculation.

Therefore, I conclude that...

- The entry for Turbo Penetrator uses the same wording as Melta Bombs - that they calculate armour penetration as 4d6. This is NOT a modification to the existing AP calcuation (which would give you Str + 4d6) but a complete replacement of it, since the wording of the entry is as Melta Bombs, which implies a complete replacement.

- Furthermore, while various rules talk about 'armour penetration', there is no (capitalised) such thing as an 'Armour Penetration' number or value. Each weapon lists HOW it calculates it's armour penetration. This is important. To read the rule as 'turbo penetrator is Str+4d6' requires that you read the 4d6 as an 'Armour Penetration' value, which replaces the usual 'Armour Penetration' value of 1d6. This is not the case.

- According to the letter of the rules, to see if a weapon penetrates a vehicle, you calculate Str+1d6. To find out if a Melta Bomb penetrates a vehicle, you calculate 8+2d6. To find out if a Turbo-penetrator penetrates a vehicle, you calculate 4d6. These are all completely separate replacements of the 'standard' rules. It's as simple as that.

- And finally, since every other example of these 'variations' is unusable against a Monolith, and Turbo Penetrators use the same language as all the other variations, I conclude that Turbo Pentrators ARE affected by the Monolith's special rules.

RAW - Melta Bombs have an armour penetration calculation of 8+2d6, which replaces the normal armour penetration rules (which would be the standard Str + d6). It's important to remember that Melta Bombs DO NOT HAVE A STR VALUE. Their armour penetration value is NOT Str+something, it's defined completely seperately, and replaces the normal calculation.

You know that's not just some arbitrary number 8 right? That's the strength of the bomb, and it gets added to the 2d6. Strength = 8, str 8 + 2d6

Turbo-penetrator rounds roll 4D6 for Armor Penetration.


an Armor Penetration roll is Str+1D6.


the Turbo-penetrator rules make you replace the 1D6 with 4D6. so that means you get Str3+4D6+rending.



this is crystel clear to me and I am 99% confidant the FAQ will rule it this way.

Again you have added in that the word "roll" to make it suit your interpretation.

I don't know why you keep doing that. The turbo penetration round has an armor penetration of 4d6. I'm sorry that you disagree with what it says, but that doesn't change the text.

He probably keeps using the word roll, because that's what you actually do with the 4d6's... unless you just plan on telling your opponent "my codex doesn't tell me to roll my armor pen dice, so I am choosing 4 6's as my result. I broke your av 14 with my 24."

The turbo round does use 4d6, no disputing that, but seeing as how it is nothing more than a special type of ammunition that is changing one aspect of an attack (amount of dice used for armor pen) and nothing else, he doesn't understand why you are choosing to ignore the rest of the abilities of the sniper rifle firing it (str3, ap1, rending).

Seriously, if you can point out another item in the game the doesn't factor in the strength of a weapon when determining armor penetration, use that as an example to strengthen your case. If not, you have to follow the precedents set by the rest of the game, because the codex doesn't say that strength doesn't get included.

Haywire grenades.

edit: Oh yeah, and FYI GW having never made a similar rule does not preclude them from making a unique or new rule.

That's about the most obtuse argument against a rule I can think of.

Here is a list of things the codex does not say is not included for the turbo pen round: Weapon skill, Ballistic skill, Strength, Toughness, Wounds, Initiative, Attacks, Leadership, Saving throw, or eleventy billion other things. Seriously, they don't have to tell you what not to add to it. They told you what you get, and that's all it says so that's all you get. Its really just that simple.

Wraithcannon ditto




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Haywire Blaster too

edit: Oh yeah, and FYI GW having never made a similar rule does not preclude them from making a unique or new rule.

That's about the most obtuse argument against a rule I can think of.

What's obtuse is arguing a point over and over with no examples. In that case, you have no choice but to go by other rules to get some form of consistency.

It's nice that you finally gave one with the haywire grenades. In that case, their rules tell you not to use that and go by a special damage chart.
Does the turbo round tell you to ignore strength and only use the 4d6? No.

Here is a list of things the codex does not say is not included for the turbo pen round: Weapon skill, Ballistic skill, Strength, Toughness, Wounds, Initiative, Attacks, Leadership, Saving throw, or eleventy billion other things. Seriously, they don't have to tell you what not to add to it. They told you what you get, and that's all it says so that's all you get. Its really just that simple.

Actually, it does mention wounds.
They don't have to tell you what not to add on that list of stuff you gave because most of it isn't used when determining armor penetration from a shooting attack, so that is completely irrelevant.
Strength on the other hand, does.

Come to think of it, ballistic skill is usually needed too when shooting



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ascalam wrote:Wraithcannon ditto




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Haywire Blaster too

Again, the rules for both are clearly stated.

And actually, doesnt a haywire blasters strength come into play and give you 2 chances to do something to a vehicle?

omerakk wrote:You know that's not just some arbitrary number 8 right? That's the strength of the bomb, and it gets added to the 2d6. Strength = 8, str 8 + 2d6

I realise that, in earlier editions of 40k, this was the case, and this is why it's 8. But, in the rules of 5ed, nowhere in the rulebook are grenades ever listed as having a Str value. Meltabombs do not have a Str of 8. But they penetrate armour using the calculation 8+2d6.

Grey Templar wrote:Turbo-penetrator rounds roll 4D6 for Armor Penetration.
an Armor Penetration roll is Str+1D6.
the Turbo-penetrator rules make you replace the 1D6 with 4D6. so that means you get Str3+4D6+rending.
this is crystel clear to me and I am 99% confidant the FAQ will rule it this way.

Again, this isn't what the rulebook says.

Normal weapons' Armour Penetration is Str+1d6. At no point anywhere does the rulebook say that only the 1d6 is the 'Armour Penetration' part. I repeat, the Armour Penetration of a weapon is Str+1d6.

The Armour Penetration of a turbo-penetrator is 4d6. You use this instead of the normal Armour Penetration, which is Str+1d6.

At no point ever in the rulebook does it say 'only the 1d6 is the Armour Penetration value'. In the rules for armour penetration, it quite clearly states the opposite.

I realise that, in earlier editions of 40k, this was the case, and this is why it's 8. But, in the rules of 5ed, nowhere in the rulebook are grenades ever listed as having a Str value. Meltabombs do not have a Str of 8. But they penetrate armour using the calculation 8+2d6.

I'm not sure I can agree with that. Why bother using the same setup as previous additions and list the 8+2d6 in the same setup as the str+1d6 form used in the armor pen rules if the 8 isn't considered the strength of the attack? Wouldn't it have been listed as 2d6+8 if it was just a modifier and not a strength value?

Normal weapons' Armour Penetration is Str+1d6. At no point anywhere does the rulebook say that only the 1d6 is the 'Armour Penetration' part. I repeat, the Armour Penetration of a weapon is Str+1d6.

The Armour Penetration of a turbo-penetrator is 4d6. You use this instead of the normal Armour Penetration, which is Str+1d6.

At no point ever in the rulebook does it say 'only the 1d6 is the Armour Penetration value'. In the rules for armour penetration, it quite clearly states the opposite.

Good points. If the turbo round was an actual weapon, I would agree. Since it's an ammunition being fired from another weapon, I don't see it like that. The other 2 types of ammunition have special rules, but still follow the rest of the rules given for the sniper rifle listed, and I think the turbo round works the same way.

I guess it's just another case of wait and see. If we're lucky, we will get answers by July

This seems clear to me.The assassin has a sniper rifle and all the related rules that go with it.So a sniper rifle is S3 against vehicles ( as normal ) and then the 1D6 of the armour pen roll is replaced by the 4D6 of the Turbo round.There is nothing to suggest you ignore the strength of the rifle and just roll the 4D6.I am with GT on this,it should be S3+4D6 with Rending.

********************************************************************************************************************************************************************
I realise that, in earlier editions of 40k, this was the case, and this is why it's 8. But, in the rules of 5ed, nowhere in the rulebook are grenades ever listed as having a Str value. Meltabombs do not have a Str of 8. But they penetrate armour using the calculation 8+2d6.

I'm not sure I can agree with that. Why bother using the same setup as previous additions and list the 8+2d6 in the same setup as the str+1d6 form used in the armor pen rules if the 8 isn't considered the strength of the attack? Wouldn't it have been listed as 2d6+8 if it was just a modifier and not a strength value?


********************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Normal weapons' Armour Penetration is Str+1d6. At no point anywhere does the rulebook say that only the 1d6 is the 'Armour Penetration' part. I repeat, the Armour Penetration of a weapon is Str+1d6.

The Armour Penetration of a turbo-penetrator is 4d6. You use this instead of the normal Armour Penetration, which is Str+1d6.

At no point ever in the rulebook does it say 'only the 1d6 is the Armour Penetration value'. In the rules for armour penetration, it quite clearly states the opposite.

********************************************************************************************************************************************************************

(fething quotes keep screwing up for some reason )




In earlier versions of 40K the meltabomb was resolved as a point blank meltagun hit (s 8 + 2d6). The same stat remains, but without the text saying that it is a meltagun hit.

Most folk would treat it as S8, that i've played against, which infers that frag are S 4, and tankbustas S 6 (i think).

Where living metal is concerned people get a little over-creative trying to dodge the rule. Meltabombs would get 8 + 1d6 if the 8 is a Strenght value (it isn't explicitly stated to be) or just 1d6 if it isn't.
Strictly speaking RAW you'd only get the d6, as meltabombs aren't listed as being S 8 + 2d6, but pen 8 + 2d6, but everyone tends to play it as 8+1d6 which was pretty obviously RAI at the time the dex was written.

These days, with rules changed and the codex lagging behind by a few editions things get a bit muddier, as the RAW no longer matches the original RAI too well regarding them.

For turbopenetrator rounds the RAW could be argued in the same way as S 3 for the rifle plus 1d6 (per living metal) or 0 + 1d6 (as the 4d6 doesn't mention the 3 S from the rifle, so RAW it doesn't have one). I'm not too fussed, personally, at allowing the 4d6, but i don't think that it's RAI with the Living Metal rule, as it in no way supercedes it.

ArBitorian - yet the WH FAQ states that "an armour penetration of 3D6" means 3+3D6+Rending.

You know how this will be ruled, and ignoring previous precedent (only a single word, which does not affect the wording, is different) is obtuse in this regard.

It is a sniper rifle, sniper rifles roll 3+XD6+Rending on any 6

That FAQ is for a different version of the weapon with the same name. I personally expect it to be ruled in the opposite way. I believe the change from 3d6 to 4d6 was to make it mathematically close to how the previous version worked with the FAQ, while making it more simple.

I like how people are stating that they know how something with be FAQ'd in the future. Unless you can cite an official source your opinion on how it will be FAQ'd is completely irrelevant to a rules discussion.

Yet you have no rules backing for that expectation. The rules for both versions are functionally identical.

If you are being truly objective about it, the only conclusion you can come to is the 3+4D6 version.

And, even if we can cite an actual source (I could) it would still be irrelevant as it could not be verified by anyone. Which is the point.

Don't get me wrong, How I would Play It would be the interpretation my opponent holds.

But that doesn't change what the text says. The FAQ for the WH version of the weapon changes how it works from its original wording (which is perfectly acceptable). It is not proof one way or the other on what they intended for the Grey Knight version of the weapon.

The rules backing that expectation is that its what the rules actually say. Seems like a pretty good reason to believe it.

We are not going to agree it seems, so I'll simply end my side of this by agreeing that we disagree on this issue.