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.

What is the current standing on this match up? Is the relevant chapter approved FAQ no longer used? What made that ruling go away?

As far as I know, you only ever get 1D6 penetration against the monolith.
I am not sure of the official rules, but this is what I understood to be correct.

Once upon a time, there was an ancient FAQ that gave the turbo-penetrator special permission to bypass the living armor rule. However, that FAQ was replaced by a new one, which no longer provided that special permission.

You can save time by viewing this thread, which is 7 pages of saving this discussion from becoming duplicate.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/180/354641.page


I just wrote this to someone in another thread about this, and am copy/pasting it for posterity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.