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.

Living Metal: The monolith is made of living necron metal which is not only self-repairing but is capable of adapting its structure to resis incomming attacks.
Attacks which count the targets armour value as being less than it really is (such as bright lances and blasters) do not do so against the monolith. Similarly, weapons that get additional armour penetration dice (such as chainfists, monsterous creatures or melta weapons) do not get the extra dice against the monolith. Ordnance weapons still roll 2D6 for armour penetration and select the highest score.
In practice, any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what.

Jack I'm hoping I can save you some time here if you see this before you start typing away. If the DkoK Commissar poster has the original codex then he has the Exact same wording as the second release just without the extra sentence that I posted on the first page. I used direct quotes so there's no interpretation. They didn't change anything else about the rule, just added in a single sentence.

Well, yeah, but even with rending, it's not like a normal sniper round could touch a Monolith anyway, so the point is largely irrelevant.

Speaking of rending, I'm under the inclination that the turbo penetrator round does not consider rending for the purposes of armour penetration anyway.

That seems conclusive to me Jack. So it would be S + D6 for the Vindicare then.

To touch on your other point fafnir - wouldnt the vindicare get rending for the turbo penetrator? You're adding dice, not changing your shot. If you got any 6's when rolling that shot, i'd see no reason why you wouldnt get rending on those dice.

My understanding of it was that the Vindi simply rolls 4d6 for armor pen when using the turbo round, and that's his strength. So living metal wouldn't matter, neither would rending, and no +3 strength. Just straight up 4d6.

I hope there's a FAQ about this as everyone seems to have a different opinion on what the rule means. >.<

I think a certain codex person needs a bullet between the eyes.


However, this be life.
GK dex does seem pretty nasty as it is.

The last question I'd have is: did they intend the Vindicare's 4d6 roll to replace the "3+1d6" roll for damaging a vehicle or just the "+1d6" part of that roll?

If the former, then you could probably expect the FAQ to say that a vindicare gets 4d6 against a monolith.

If the latter, then the Living Metal rule is clear and the vindicare should be shooting elsewhere.



edit: The reason I asked about what shot a vindicare uses against a vehicle is: would the Necron player be able to force his opponent to choose that shot because of living metal shenanigans? Or, if the Vindicare only has the option to use the turbo penetrator, then he wouldn't get 3+1d6, he'd only get 1d6...because of living metal shenanigans.

liam0404 wrote:
To touch on your other point fafnir - wouldnt the vindicare get rending for the turbo penetrator? You're adding dice, not changing your shot. If you got any 6's when rolling that shot, i'd see no reason why you wouldnt get rending on those dice.

No. You're replacing your normal penetration roll with a static 4D6 AP value. It is simply 4D6, no more, no less.

Which leads to the monolith issue. Once again, I'd recommend playing in favour of the Monolith now, but I wouldn't cash my chips on anything until a FAQ comes out.

Ascalam wrote:
I would imagine he could shoot a non-turbo shot at a vehicle (like using the anti-inv one on a ravager to negate it's flickerfield, perhaps?). I don't have the codex yet (it not being available to the general public yet, around here at least) but from what i hear he has other ammo than turbopenetrator.

There is, but there's really no reason to use anything but the Turbo Penetrator against a vehicle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bushido wrote:The last question I'd have is: did they intend the Vindicare's 4d6 roll to replace the "3+1d6" roll for damaging a vehicle or just the "+1d6" part of that roll?

Going by RAW, it replaces it entirely.

Fafnir: Chances are mate that the new cron book with have replaced LM with something else (along with WBB)

Im guessing they will simply wait and do that to kill a few birds with 1 stone.

bushido wrote:The last question I'd have is: did they intend the Vindicare's 4d6 roll to replace the "3+1d6" roll for damaging a vehicle or just the "+1d6" part of that roll?

If the former, then you could probably expect the FAQ to say that a vindicare gets 4d6 against a monolith.

If the latter, then the Living Metal rule is clear and the vindicare should be shooting elsewhere.

It states in the GK codex that the Turbo Penetrator rounds simply uses 4d6 to determine armour penetration.

This is the real bitch of a problem.
If it was dex against BRB, dex wins.


However, 2 dex's against eachother is a real pain in the arse to make heads or tails of.

Turbo - 4D6 pen, base strength swapped out.
LM - No more than 1 D6 rolled against it for AP.


If the turbo still had a base strength, this would have been dead and gone, but that 1 thing is stopping it since it drags it into a grey area of the rules.

Ascalam wrote:3 - sniper weapon, unless the Vindicare's rifle has a S on it's statline.

I would imagine he could shoot a non-turbo shot at a vehicle (like using the anti-inv one on a ravager to negate it's flickerfield, perhaps?). I don't have the codex yet (it not being available to the general public yet, around here at least) but from what i hear he has other ammo than turbopenetrator.

There is 3 types of ammo, Turbo Penetrator which is 4d6 again armour, Hellfire rounds which always wound on a 2+ (The new exitus rifle is AP 1 ) But the third I can't remember what it's called but basically it removes an invulnerable save that is granted by wargear.

So if you were shooting at a squad of Terminators with Storm shields, You would choose which terminator you want to shoot and then remove it's storm shield capability for the rest of the game. But it states in the rules that it only removes invulnerable saves that are from wargear, So it would work on Ghazghkull but not Fateweaver.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:
Turbo - 4D6 pen, base strength swapped out.

If it's rolling 4D6 for armour pen then how does that fall outside the final sentence of the LM rule? You get str. plus a D6 for pen. and if there's no str. then just that D6.

@Jack: that's pretty much what I'm saying. Players on either side have the same ability to be cheesy bastards with these particular rules.

GK player: "Hah! My rules say your monolith is now a smoking crater!"
Necron player: "Nah, man! *My* rules say that those silly bee bee guns can't even scratch my paint!"

@Azure: because depending on the wording of the GK book, the 4d6 you're rolling *is* the weapon's base strength (when shooting at a vehicle).

Thamor wrote:

There is 3 types of ammo, Turbo Penetrator which is 4d6 again armour,

And against infantry and monsterous creatures, if the wound caused by it is unsaved, then it inflicts two wounds instead of one.

(The new exitus rifle is AP 1 )

Always was.

But the third I can't remember what it's called but basically it removes an invulnerable save that is granted by wargear.

Shield Breaker. It removes the invulnerable save as soon as the wound is allocated (and it is allocated by the player controlling the Vindicare), and that invulnerable save is lost for the remainder of the game. Lysander and Eldrad should be scared.

Azure wrote: You get str. plus a D6 for pen. and if there's no str. then just that D6.

Not like i'm a Faq, but that's how i'd read it, ATM.

Azure, while i would like to agree mate, this is a 1 off really.
The fact that it does have no base strength really drags it down since no rules cover it.

However, my thoughts are still towards the turbo being 1D6 rather than 4.




Quick side note, but im now finding pariah's (as over priced and junky as they are) to be pretty nice.

Come within 12" of me and your LD goes down to 7.

Any GK that comes within 6" of me has to take a LD test, or be forced to fall back.
In combat this gets better, rather than falling back you only hit on 6's.

GK's are no longer fearless right? (ATSKNF replaced it)

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:
GK's are no longer fearless right? (ATSKNF replaced it)

Yes, and you will not believe how much that pisses me off.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Azure, while i would like to agree mate, this is a 1 off really.
The fact that it does have no base strength really drags it down since no rules cover it.

However, my thoughts are still towards the turbo being 1D6 rather than 4.

Can you help explain the other side then? I honestly do not see the argument for the it and that bothers me as people are adamantly defending it so there Must be something to it.

You cant have it all mate


So in theory, i can trap a unit in combat, drop its LD to the point i can force it to fail (leaving them hitting on 6's)
and then hack them apart with warscythes that allow no of saves of any kind.


This im really liking

I would use a C'tan, but shield breaker really would piss me off lol.
Granted its T8, but it will happen knowing my luck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

^That azure.
The 4D6 now becomes its unaugmented strength instead of a basic 3.
The way it says "unaugmented strength AND a single D6" means the 1D6 rule does not apply to a base strength of a weapon, only after rules.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:You cant have it all mate

Well, it's not about getting any benefits or anything. ATSKNF is by and large much more utilitarian than Fearless, but in the case of Grey Knights, they're used to fighting the scariest melon-fethers that even Chaos can toss at them and consider it business as usual. They shouldn't be running period. I always liked the idea of them fearlessly charging the most fearsome of beasts or armies and fighting to the last without giving an inch of ground to their assailants.

So in theory, i can trap a unit in combat, drop its LD to the point i can force it to fail (leaving them hitting on 6's)
and then hack them apart with warscythes that allow no of saves of any kind.

Possibly, assuming that, with their higher initiative, the Grey Knights don't roll enough sixes to take you down. Also, the main problem for you in this situation is just how slow Pariahs are. By time they make it into range where they would be threatening, they'd probably end up being blown to bits first.

I would use a C'tan, but shield breaker really would piss me off lol.
Granted its T8, but it will happen knowing my luck.

It always wounds on a 4+, being a sniper round. However, the shield breaker only takes off invulnerable saves granted by wargear, your C'tan will not lose its invulnerable.

But doesn't the rule state that the 4D6 Are its armor pen. roll? It would never have a str. value, only an armor pen value which according to the LM rule can never go above a 1D6 addition to the str., which the Vindicator would never have.

Azure wrote:But doesn't the rule state that the 4D6 Are its armor pen. roll? It would never have a str. value, only an armor pen value which according to the LM rule can never go above a 1D6 addition to the str., which the Vindicator would never have.

This would be true, depending on which rule applies first. The Turbo Penetrator's AP value is essentially a static, specified value.

Fafnir wrote:

Azure wrote:But doesn't the rule state that the 4D6 Are its armor pen. roll? It would never have a str. value, only an armor pen value which according to the LM rule can never go above a 1D6 addition to the str., which the Vindicator would never have.

This would be true, depending on which rule applies first.

Do you have a direct link to the rule? Or is it easily copied to here so I can read it verbatim?

Well, it's not about getting any benefits or anything. ATSKNF is by and large much more utilitarian than Fearless, but in the case of Grey Knights, they're used to fighting the scariest melon-fethers that even Chaos can toss at them and consider it business as usual. They shouldn't be running period. I always liked the idea of them fearlessly charging the most fearsome of beasts or armies and fighting to the last without giving an inch of ground to their assailants.

Your not a WHFB player are you?
Retreat is a nice advantage on its own as it allows you to set up counter charges.
Not so much in 40k though lol.
just think of it as a tactical stand point instead.

Possibly, assuming that, with their higher initiative, the Grey Knights don't roll enough sixes to take you down. Also, the main problem for you in this situation is just how slow Pariahs are. By time they make it into range where they would be threatening, they'd probably end up being blown to bits first.

Pariah's can match your 24" S5 assault 2 gun with thier own one
They even have thier own 3+ save and shiny pole-arm weapon XD
They just cost what, 36 points each and £8.70? lol

It always wounds on a 4+, being a sniper round. However, the shield breaker only takes off invulnerable saves granted by wargear, your C'tan will not lose its invulnerable.

Fair enough then.
To the person who said about taking off the DE upgrade: Not worth it mate, they are low AV anyway, and with only a 1/3 chance of ignoring it.
The shot is better off going elsewhere.

Azure wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Azure wrote:But doesn't the rule state that the 4D6 Are its armor pen. roll? It would never have a str. value, only an armor pen value which according to the LM rule can never go above a 1D6 addition to the str., which the Vindicator would never have.

This would be true, depending on which rule applies first.

Do you have a direct link to the rule? Or is it easily copied to here so I can read it verbatim?

I posted it earlier in the thread:

Grey Knights codex, page 53 wrote:
A Turbo Penetrator shot has an armour penetration of 4D6

Essentially, it should be treated as a specified, static value, going by RAW. But if that's the case, it then conflicts with the Monolith's living metal.

Blame Ward.

Edit:

True enough Azure, i overlooked that.




Anyway, its 1:30 am and i got work at 5, off to grab some sleep

enjoy the debate!

Well, if it's got an Armor Penetration value of 4D6 then it has no str. and the final sentence of the Lm rule says that weapons going for Armor Pen. against the 'Lith get the str. (in this case zero) plus a single D6 for armor pen. then it should stand that the Vindicator's weapon get's but a single D6, with no str. to add, against the Monolith. Remember, str. and armor penetration are added to see if you glance/pen armor, and since the vindicator has no str., he only has 4D6, then he can only use one of those due to the LM rule.

Indeed. People here keep saying that the 4D6 replaces the strength value, but there is no valid "rules" justification for that stance.

Specific overrides general as well - which is the case here.

Vindicares have a general rule that ALL vehicles suffer 4D6 armour penetration from the turbo penetrator.

Monoliths have a SPECIFIC rule that armour penetration rolls made against IT in particular get STR + D6, and nothing else.

1. Vindicares roll 4D6 to penetrate; none of those are EXTRA dice. They're all the "base" dice.


Simple, as the 'Living Metal Rule' states 'Extra dice'.

Not base. No S3. No rending. Just 4D6.