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.

punkow wrote:Again? There's a Faq explaining what the wording means... if you do not like it, well... do as you wish...

No...there *IS* no FAQ explaining the wording. There is *NO* document giving special permission for the turbo-penetrator to work. I understand that there once was an ancient FAQ that did allow it, but that it was redacted by GW. You have no permission to combine old rules with new, old codices with newer variants, or to make up your own rules.

Remember that 40k is permissive. The rules tell you what you MAY do. You don't look at the rules and say, "Well, it doesn't say I can't, so I will" - you look to them for guidance on what boundaries to stay inside.

And to your point....a new FAQ with a redacted rule that is counter to an old FAQ *is* a contradiction.

Here's an example:

A law is in effect that says, "All handguns will be checked at the door."
A new law is passed that no longer says that.

Your argument is that since the new law doesn't say, "Handguns no longer need to be checked at the door" that they still must.

Dude, it doesn't work that way.

IMHO it works exactly that way... in fact if the second law of your example do not contain an article saying: "the first law artcle xxx or the entire first law is now abrogated", the first law will still be in effect (but this is strongly linked to continental judicial traditions... and we are talking about a wargame )

What I'm saying is that, since that wording used to be interpreted in that way, until I'm TOLD to interpret it in a different way I'll keep using the old interpretation... This is also influenced by 1 consideration: The Old Daemonhunter codex and the new GK codex have the SAME EXACT wording, and the 'crons dex is sadly the same... in addition I do not think that the turbo-pens are supposed to be Str3+4d6 but only 4d6... str 3+4d6 = autopen on everything you shhot at , while 4d6 is far more reasonable... So add: same wording ; existance of a (even if old) faq that covers the situation, apparent reasonability of the interpretation... and you have my interpretation... otherwise I will have to explain to my IG buddy why his Leman Russ must suffer 1 pen hit for turn...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But I think that now we should really stop... I also checked your old thread and appears that, even with a slightly majority of people agreeing with you, opinions are pretty much divided in half...
Personally, given my Gaming group with only 1 necron player but lots of IG and Marines, using LRs I'll use my interpretaion... 3+4d6 is too much... the necron player will have to accept this.

libby with Warp Rift might give it a shot also when close enough on occasion, or you get close on intention: 1st round port with Mordrak suicide deathstar :^

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/180/354641.page is the thread in question from YMDC about Vindicare vs. Monolith.

Punkow, like you - the minority of people who believe that the turbo-penetrator should work believe it because it "should" or because the Monoliths are "overpowered" or because "it did once."

Nary a rules citation to be had. While you're welcome to play whatever variant of miniature wargaming in your local circle, and enforce whatever personal rules you like upon your Necron player, don't do him the disservice of calling it Warhammer 40k, or telling him that the actual game has anything to do with your personal agenda.

GW didn't FAQ the vindicare versus the monolith, but they did FAQ how to handle the situation of 2 special rules contradicting each other.

Q: When two special rules or effects contradict each
other how is this resolved? (p2)
A: Roll off using ‘The Most Important Rule!’.

So a Vindicare has a 50% chance of being useless against a monolith.

The single best way of handling a monolith still remains hammerhand + deamonhammer. If every unit of PAGK has a deamonhammer every unit of PAGK can smash a monolith.

They don't contradict though, both say armor pen and how they work within the armor pen rules for both

punkow wrote:... with GK??? Bwahahahah!!! Look well in your dex... look at the Vindicare Assassin... Look at the Necron FAQs... look again at your Vindicare and his Turbo-penetrator... then go aout and smash those nasty monoliths...

.
Nope the vindicare will do d6+3 ap that is all.
Also a lot of you are confused about the ap of turbo pen rounds its 4d6 + all the sniper rules, so 4d6 + 3 with rending.

◊GK.53D.01 – Q: Does a Vindicare firing ‘TurboPenetrator’ add the Strength of his weapon (S3 sniper weapon) to his 4D6 vehicle armor penetration roll?
A: Yes, so the penetration roll would be S3+4D6 (plus any bonus D3s provided by ‘rending’) [clarification].

◊GK.53D.02 – Q: What happens when a Vindicare uses ‘Turbo-Penetrator’ against a vehicle that doesn’t allow extra penetration dice (such as an Eldar Wave Serpent or Necron Monolith)?
A: Penetration would be only S3+D6 against such targets (and rending cannot not provide a further D3) [clarification]

punkow wrote:In the old Daemonhunters or necron faq (don't remember which), it was explicitly stated that turbopenetrator round worked against liths ... obviously they're no longer available but there's no reason to think that things have changed since the urbopenetrator is pretty the same... Remember that turbopen do not let you roll str3+4d6 but simply roll 4d6 and so there are no bonus dice but only a random determined armour pen...
GW removed those faqs but didn't say that they changed interpretation, so ... vindis rolls 4d6 against liths... but feel free to think what you want... I'm not starting a debate here...

edit... rememberd which one : this...

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1180146_Necrons_FAQ_2004-11_Edition.pdf

indeed....

And that FAQ does nothing to support your point. A Vindicare rolls 4D6 instead of 1D6 for penetration; you only ever get 1D6 against the Monolith, it's that simple.

As for saying the wording of Turbo-Penetrator hasn't changed therefore the old Daemonhunters FAQ for it still stands; pants! What's in print and the current version is all that counts. You can't say because GW haven't released an FAQ stating 'ignore the old FAQ that isn't even available anymore' that you can pick and chose what rules you will follow.

Anyway. Shadow Blade has put that to rest above.

Bah... Do you think that I didn't speak about this issue with the necron player? we spoke about this and we both tought that this is the best solution... But apparently I surely am not a true gamer since I try to find a balanced solution...

Ignoring all current editions and rules of the game and using the outdated ones isn't exactly a balanced solution

It's perfectly fine to play like that at the flgs with your friends, just don't count on convincing anyone else when the rules are already clear.


One thing that I am surprised no one mentioned is that the turbo round isn't actually the same weapon it used to be. The original one only used 3d6 and didn't have rending

this is how i deal with monoliths....................................
.................................................................................
................................................................................
................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
..................................................................................
.......................................... i ignore them.

These threads are stupid and seem to pop up once a week. "how do I deal with monoliths with x army?" The same way y,z and every other army deals with it. Option 1) Ignore it. Option 2) str9-10 weapons, they are there for a reason! Is it really that complex ?


There should be a sticky in this forum - A list of weapons/units strong enough to take down a monolith, for each army, so we don't have to have one of these silly discussions every other week.

Jihallah wrote:These threads are stupid and seem to pop up once a week. "how do I deal with monoliths with x army?" The same way y,z and every other army deals with it. Option 1) Ignore it. Option 2) str9-10 weapons, they are there for a reason! Is it really that complex ?


There should be a sticky in this forum - A list of weapons/units strong enough to take down a monolith, for each army, so we don't have to have one of these silly discussions every other week.

Or stress the Search function.

No one uses the search function. For example, you just reminded me there is a search function


...but seriously. AV14 all round, with no bonus dice. Which means you need str8 to at least glance it, and you can't glance it to death, since it doesn't actually lose its weapon when you destroy it (yes I'm aware a meltagun can glance and roll a 6 to destroy it. By "glance to death" I'm referring to enough weap destroyed/immobilized results to wreck it).
Therefore, If you REALLY want to blow it, you need str9-10. Or if you want to just win, go for a phase out. Holy crap, every single one of these stupid threads boils down to those two things! Also known as basic mathematics

YES!!!!! i agree...

I did use the search button before posting this topic, but wanted a specific approach with Grey Knights. Mainly I wanted to know if it was worth sacrificing TL Heavy bolters and TL autocannons to instead include more TL lascannons in the army (on razorbacks and dreads)

I also specifically stated not using the Vindicare (whether the rule works or not) and the topic ended up about that anyway.


I don't think it's a silly topic, as unlike other marine armies, GKs have a more limited ability to take lascannons and the units that CAN take them, are usually equipped with a psy-bolt version of something else. So back to the original question, is it worth taking more lascannons over the psy heavy bolters and other things if I know I will be playing a good necron opponent who uses monoliths? I know the guy I'm playing is vastly more experienced than me (and I know he has two monoliths).

The other option would be a large amount of Daemon Hammers (which I will probably take anyway), although the monolith seems like it would be hard to hit with these. Interceptors with hammers seem like they would be exceptionally useful though.

Lastly, Necrons will be getting an update soon, so saying stuff like "just phase them all out" is a bit short sighted as their rules could change (and I doubt my opponent would make it easy anyway). I'm sure monoliths will still be tough as nails though, so lascannons are looking like a really good option. There have been some good responses on the first page, thanks for the advice so far.

I think that, even if you tailor the list to beat necrons, lascannons are not worth the points and the loss of more psycannon or psybolt weapons... even a lascannon needs a 6 to pen a Monolith, and you can't spam them... personally I think that CC is the best way to take down liths... Necrons suck at cc while they can annoy your gk in the shoting phase (well... not so much... but it's anyway the phase they're stronger at) therefore reaching close combat is anyway a good tactic ... Str 10 daemon hammer is the most reliable and cheap way to tackle liths, IMHO so do not waste too much points on lascannons... consider also that the lith do not have a very long range so you haven't to suffer loads of its shooting phases.

... And saying to a new user that the thread he opened is stupid is.... questionable.

(and I'm sorry if I kept talking about vindicares ... )

Well that's something we can agree on punkow.