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.

DarknessEternal wrote:

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.

No, people will try and get any advantage they can from a small rule ambiguity for whatever time they can.


its rediclous. I GARUNTEE the FAQ will make if 3+4D6+rending.

Grey Templar wrote:
No, people will try and get any advantage they can from a small rule ambiguity for whatever time they can.

I play GK, and I'm no the pro-4d6 only side. There's no advantage in it for me, but that's what the rules say.

DarknessEternal wrote:

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.

No one does know how it will be FAQed, a valid point as GW can always change their minds.
However, since the rule is obviously a point of debate, all that we, as rational humans can do is look at an FAQ from another codex that had the exact same rule but with a 3 instead of a 4.
That FAQ stated 3+3D6+Rending, it's only logical to conclude based on this that the new one will be 3+4D6+rending.

Something every single player here, and myself included at times, over look is one simple fact writen into the very first page of another game a long long LONG time ago:

All rules are subject to change and the interpitation of the players and game master involved.

In this case where so many here are arguing the fine point of the general rule vs the specific rule, in most cases the specific rule should be the one used. How ever, we as players can, and often do, make changes to them.

I see no reason why this can not be such a case. As was mentioned earlier, take it up with your oppenant. See what the opposing player thinks and says, then run with it as you both agree on.

After all, this is a game. It's ment to be fun. Not to be argued to death. `nuff said.

nosferatu1001 wrote: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

The rifle says "has an Armor Penetration of 4d6." That means AP == 4d6.

Chainfists, if I'm reading correctly, say your roll 2d6 for armor penetration. This is different, yes it is. What do we normall roll for armor penetration? 1d6. This says we roll 2d6. Therefore we replace the 1d6 with 2d6.

The wording on Chainfists replaces the "what we roll" section of the AP equation, which we can tentatively define as Str + "what we roll" = AP. So instead of Str + "1d6" as usual, it's Str + "2d6".

The wording on the rifle says AP = 4d6. It's wording doesn't have the implication that we replace the "what we roll" part with 4d6, it just redeclares the whole equation as 4d6.

It's a really subtle difference, and yet another sign that GW has to learn how to write rules. But that's the RAW of it right now, from what I see. I don't see any problem with rending, though, as it depends on the dice, not the rest of the equation.

I have no argument for what may or may not be FAQed, or whether we should count the old FAQ. (I'm thinking so, but hell, they might go all Tyranid on the GKs and nerf them as much as possible) I'd personally play it conservatively as 4d6 with no +3, and discuss rending before firing.

CinderBlack: Something almost every single poster here, including you, overlooks is this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page
You might want to check Rule #7.

This is the place to argue rules to the death, in advance or afterwards, so you can concentrate on gaming when you are actually at a gaming table, moving your models and have a great time.

I don't understand how people say that RAW is only 4d6. It does not say only 4d6. It says, quoted from the codex. "A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6." This does not say "value" like some people are saying. It does not say "only" or "exactly" like some people are implying. It says it has an armour penetration of 4d6. How is this different than the chain fist? Please explain to me differently than has been previously explained, cuz I don't see it. Armour Penetration is specifically defined as S+1d6. If an entry says they recieve a different armor pen, then it recieves S + the listed penetration. All other entries that have ever ever listed a straight armor pen has always added str to the equation.

Why would we assume that this is any different now?

The RAW is 4d6 only can't be true. The 4d6 only crowd is actually talking about RAI, because RAW says armor pen adds Str to the roll. Rending is added on rolls of 6. Someone show me somewhere in the history of this game where Str is NOT added to an armor pen roll. I can't find it. I can't recall it ever happening. It doesn't exist.

Until FAQed otherwise, I'm going with S+4d6+rending.

On a side note, i'll never field one of these dudes. There's better options.

I don't have the rulebook in front of me, but the previous poster's argument actually leads to the opposite conclusion he states.

The line quoted from the grey knight codex says that the Armor Penetration is 4d6. If the Rulebook states that Armor penetration is normally S+1D6, then semantically the 4d6 is replacing the entire S+1D6 formula.

Basic grammer would dictate that the turbo pen round gets only the 4d6 as that is his armor penetration. Similarily, it dictates that the chainfist would only get 2d6 as it uses similar (or effectively identical) wording.

RAW: 4d6.

RAI: Who knows? Its possible it was written like the chain fist rule thinking it would be interpreted the same way chain fist was interpreted to be S+2d6.... but I'm not really ready to give them that much credit. As always, RAI is impossible to know and is really just an individual's attempt to impose their own version of how the rules should be on others.

For all the people arguing against the strength addition, have you checked what the Armor Penetration section of the BRB states??

Pg. 60: Armour Penetration:

Once a hit has been scored, roll a D6 and add the weapons strength to it, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.

The Armour Penetration roll is a D6, then the strength is added. So technically, by RAW, the 4D6 for a Turbo Penetrator is rolled, and then you add the S3 to it. Hence, you satisfy both rules, as you roll the 4D6 for armor Penetration, then add the S3 of the sniper Rifle. On any roll of a 6, you get the Rending rule. There is nothing in the Turbo Penetrator's rules that state that it doesn't add the strength and that it doesn't do exactly as you read for Armour penetration, except that you add 3 more D6 to the normal roll to make it a 4D6 +Strength.

Galador wrote:For all the people arguing against the strength addition, have you checked what the Armor Penetration section of the BRB states??

Pg. 60: Armour Penetration:

Once a hit has been scored, roll a D6 and add the weapons strength to it, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.

The Armour Penetration roll is a D6, then the strength is added. So technically, by RAW, the 4D6 for a Turbo Penetrator is rolled, and then you add the S3 to it. Hence, you satisfy both rules, as you roll the 4D6 for armor Penetration, then add the S3 of the sniper Rifle. On any roll of a 6, you get the Rending rule. There is nothing in the Turbo Penetrator's rules that state that it doesn't add the strength and that it doesn't do exactly as you read for Armour penetration, except that you add 3 more D6 to the normal roll to make it a 4D6 +Strength.

Thank you for this. I don't have the BRB in front of me and couldn't quote it directly. This was my point. You always add the str to the armor pen. Always!

Again what was written by the last poster is in opposition to what the text is saying. The heading presented of armor penetration is expanded to mean a single d6 with strength added to it. Armor penetration is both the single d6 and the strength value. They are both presented as part of the armor penetration. There is no reason to think only the d6 is the armor penetration.

Dracos wrote:I don't have the rulebook in front of me, but the previous poster's argument actually leads to the opposite conclusion he states.

How?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If a rule in a codex lists something that specifically says it breaks or changes a rule in the BRB then it does. In this case, the entry does not specifically say it changes the armor pen rule, and therefor will be based off of the armor pen rule in the BRB as armor pen + Str. The word only, or just, or any other word that would imply ignoring the + Str rule listed in the BRB is not in the GK dex. So why would it?

Again, I ask anyone that is pro-4d6 only to please give an example of somewhere in the history of this game where armor pen does not include str. If it exists, I may reconsider my standing on this debate.

When the rules instruct you to make an Armour penetration roll, you trigger the Turbo Penetrator's Armor Penetration. Strength is part of the normal Armor penetration. That has been quoted by 2 recent posters. There is nothing stating you keep the strength, so you don't.

Its easy. Replace normal Armor penetration (S+d6) with more specific rules for Turbo Penetrator's Armor Penetration (4d6). The Strength gets dropped as part of the replacement instructed by the text.

And in the case of Chain Fist wording, it only replaces the "roll" part, not the whole thing.

Sothas wrote: therefor will be based off of the armor pen rule in the BRB as armor pen + Str.

And this is where you are getting confused. The text quoted does not state this at all. It says that Armor penetration is S+1D6. The S is an inherent part of the Armor penetration.

You don't need a precedent for a rule to function in a new way - that's why they have codices in addition to the rulebook in the first place.

The rule is very clear.

People who are saying that you would only get 4D6 Armour penertration are making an incorrect assumption. You are assuming that the line of 'the Armour Penetration if 4D6' is over writing a rule. There is nothing that implys this. It simply states that the Armour Penetration roll is using 4 Dice. The rule for Armour Penetration is still in effect.

For example, you roll to hit against a Land Raider.

If you hit the Land Raider, you then apply the Turbo Penetrators ability. This being the rolling of 4 Dice to determine your armour penetration roll. Using the Armour Penetration roll, you would then apply the Weapons Strengh. As he is using a Sniper Rifle that would be the Strengh 3. Any rolls of a 6 would still be rending, as it is still a Sniper Rifle.

There is nothing in the entry for the Trubo Penetration rule that says it is no longer a Sniper Rifle.

Dracos wrote:

Basic grammer would dictate that the turbo pen round gets only the 4d6 as that is his armor penetration. Similarily, it dictates that the chainfist would only get 2d6 as it uses similar (or effectively identical) wording.

Taken out of context from the rest of the rules, this completely true. However, as I said before, this isn't how the rules are writen, as it says in many other sources it is the amount of d6's that are rolled plus the Str. FAQs and other rule books disagree with no Str added.

Holy wrote:The rule is very clear.

People who are saying that you would only get 4D6 Armour penertration are making an incorrect assumption. You are assuming that the line of 'the Armour Penetration if 4D6' is over writing a rule. There is nothing that implys this. It simply states that the Armour Penetration roll is using 4 Dice. The rule for Armour Penetration is still in effect.

For example, you roll to hit against a Land Raider.

If you hit the Land Raider, you then apply the Turbo Penetrators ability. This being the rolling of 4 Dice to determine your armour penetration roll. Using the Armour Penetration roll, you would then apply the Weapons Strengh. As he is using a Sniper Rifle that would be the Strengh 3. Any rolls of a 6 would still be rending, as it is still a Sniper Rifle.

There is nothing in the entry for the Trubo Penetration rule that says it is no longer a Sniper Rifle.

What you are saying is incorrect. Armor Penetration roll and Armor Penetration are not identical.

Normallly, the Armor Penetration is comprised of the Armor Penetration roll and Strength. When you are told to replace the Armor penetration, it replaces all of its components. When you are told to replace the armor penetration roll, you replace just that part.

This is actually grammatically pretty simple. I'm kind of surprised at how hard it is for some to understand it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sothas wrote:

Dracos wrote:

Basic grammer would dictate that the turbo pen round gets only the 4d6 as that is his armor penetration. Similarily, it dictates that the chainfist would only get 2d6 as it uses similar (or effectively identical) wording.

Taken out of context from the rest of the rules, this completely true. However, as I said before, this isn't how the rules are writen, as it says in many other sources it is the amount of d6's that are rolled plus the Str. FAQs and other rule books disagree with no Str added.

I was actually even incorrect about the chainfist, as I missed that it replaces only the Armor Penetration roll and not the entire Armor Penetration.

I made a mistake here too, but it still doesn't say what you think/want it to.

Holy wrote:The rule is very clear.

People who are saying that you would only get 4D6 Armour penertration are making an incorrect assumption. You are assuming that the line of 'the Armour Penetration if 4D6' is over writing a rule. There is nothing that implys this. It simply states that the Armour Penetration roll is using 4 Dice. The rule for Armour Penetration is still in effect.

You're making an assuption yourself. You're saying that "Armour Penetration of 4d6" = "Armor Penetration roll of 4d6".

As mentioned, Armour Penetration is the sum: Str + [roll] = [AP]

Chain Fist says the roll is 2d6: [roll] = 2d6
which becomes: Stre = 2d6

The turbo-penetrator says Armor Penetration is 4d6: [AP] = 4d6

I'm not going to insult people and say that the meaning is "simple." It's the mathematician in me that sees the difference in which variable is being replaced, and not everybody looks at things through those goggles.

I'm about to sound like a broken record here.

Find me somewhere in the history of this game where armor pen does not include Str. Even the previous version of this weapon includes str.

Sothas wrote:I'm about to sound like a broken record here.

Find me somewhere in the history of this game where armor pen does not include Str. Even the previous version of this weapon includes str.

Who cares? Why can't a rule in a book of new rules work in a new way? That is arbitrary and obtuse.

edit: also haywire grenades.

Sothas wrote:I'm about to sound like a broken record here.

Find me somewhere in the history of this game where armor pen does not include Str. Even the previous version of this weapon includes str.

The FAQ of the previous weapon includes Str. It originally did not, because that was 4th Edition. (It may very well be FAQd that way again, but that's a different discussion)

Precedent is in the Grey Knights Codex, pg. 53

"Things are more like they are now than they ever have been before."

ElCheezus wrote:I'm not going to insult people and say that the meaning is "simple." It's the mathematician in me that sees the difference in which variable is being replaced, and not everybody looks at things through those goggles.

I guess I thought it was simple because I see it the same way.

ElCheezus wrote:

The FAQ of the previous weapon includes Str. It originally did not, because that was 4th Edition. (It may very well be FAQd that way again, but that's a different discussion)

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but if 4th edition sniper rifles didn't have a str value. I could be wrong, but that is what I remember. If that is true, then in that case you can't add Str to the TP round because it didn't exist. This still doesn't disprove the fact that all weapons ever have had their Str value added to their Armor pen.

Dracos wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:I'm not going to insult people and say that the meaning is "simple." It's the mathematician in me that sees the difference in which variable is being replaced, and not everybody looks at things through those goggles.

I guess I thought it was simple because I see it the same way.

It's a "forest for the trees" or "hindsight is 20/20" or one of those optical illusions with the jar and the two old women. Once you get used to seeing things a certain way, it's a) hard to change and b) hard to realize that other people don't also see it.

This discussion reminds me of tutoring algebra and variable replacement. Everyone agrees it's easy once they get it, but sometimes it takes a while, and sometimes you have to explain it in 10 different ways to find the one that works for people. In this case you also have to throw in we're talking about words instead of equations, and people interpret things different ways.

Plus, ya know, the FAQ completely contradicted what we're trying to say. So there's precedence for thier side, even if it's not technically for this Codex. Maybe we'll get a FAQ ourselves in a year or so.

Dracos wrote:

Who cares? Why can't a rule in a book of new rules work in a new way? That is arbitrary and obtuse.

It is a bit, yeah. But it still doesn't change the fact that what I said is true. New rules come out all the time, but you only break the old rules when it specifically says so. I agree with the previous dude talking about changing the correct variables. In this case it's a difference is english and math, which is gunna get ugly if that argument keeps going. It doesn't replace the S value, only the d6 value. With the exquation S + d6 = AP, and changing it to 4d6 won't change the S value, but instead make it S + 4d6 = AP. I'm probably explaining it like crap, but I'm sure(hope) you get my point.

Dracos wrote:When the rules instruct you to make an Armour penetration roll, you trigger the Turbo Penetrator's Armor Penetration. Strength is part of the normal Armor penetration. That has been quoted by 2 recent posters. There is nothing stating you keep the strength, so you don't.

Its easy. Replace normal Armor penetration (S+d6) with more specific rules for Turbo Penetrator's Armor Penetration (4d6). The Strength gets dropped as part of the replacement instructed by the text.

Where the rules instruct you to make an armour penetration roll, they tell you to roll 12D6. That is the Armour Penetration roll. They then tell you to add the Str of the weapon too it. You are adding it backwards. You have to do it in the correct order in the first place in order to realize that you roll the 4D6 for armour Penetration, THEN you add the strength to the armour penetration roll.

It states that the Vindicare rolls 4D6 for armor penetration, which as I stated earlier, is almost exactly what it says in the BRB, except it says you roll a D6.... and then it states you add the strength of the weapon to the roll. Hence, both rules are fulfilled without either being broken, as you roll the Armour Penetration of the 4D6, as per the Turbo Penetrator's rules, and then add the strength to it, as per the BRB rules.

Dracos wrote:

Sothas wrote: therefor will be based off of the armor pen rule in the BRB as armor pen + Str.

And this is where you are getting confused. The text quoted does not state this at all. It says that Armor penetration is S+1D6. The S is an inherent part of the Armor penetration.

You don't need a precedent for a rule to function in a new way - that's why they have codices in addition to the rulebook in the first place.

You have it backwards, you dont add the 1D6 to the strength, you add the S to the 1D6. According to the rules in the BRB. If you do the rule the correct way, then you will understand that the Strength comes after the roll for Armour penetration. As I also stated above. There is no need for a precedent for a new rule, as this isn't a new rule but a modification of a normal one.

Sothas wrote:

Dracos wrote:

Who cares? Why can't a rule in a book of new rules work in a new way? That is arbitrary and obtuse.

It is a bit, yeah. But it still doesn't change the fact that what I said is true. New rules come out all the time, but it still doesn't tell you to break the old rules. I agree with the previous dude talking about changing the correct variables. In this case it's a difference is english and math, which is gunna get ugly if that argument keeps going. It doesn't replace the S value, only the d6 value. With the exquation S + d6 = AP, and changing it to 4d6 won't change the S value, but instead make it S + 4d6 = AP. I'm probably explaining it like crap, but I'm sure you get my point.

At this point it's the difference that you see the rule as only replacing the roll, and we see it as replacing the whole thing. Precedence of other Codecies is on our side, as (other people have quoted) Chain Fists specify that you *roll* 2d6.

You are again making the mistake of saying that Armor penetration and Armor penetration roll are the same thing.

There is a distinction. The turbo pen replaces the armor penetration. The order of the variables the armor penetration is comprised of is irrelevent.

To use the same form Elcheezus did, the variable order according to the text is

[AP] = [D6] + [S]

If the text said to replace the armor penetration roll with 4d6, then you would replace the D6 part of the equation with the 4d6. But it doesn't. It says that it has an Armor Penetation of 4d6. Therefore, the rule has redefined the entirety of the [AP] variable. It is not longer comprised of its components [d6] + [S], but rather is simply [4d6].

ElCheezus wrote:

Holy wrote:The rule is very clear.

People who are saying that you would only get 4D6 Armour penertration are making an incorrect assumption. You are assuming that the line of 'the Armour Penetration if 4D6' is over writing a rule. There is nothing that implys this. It simply states that the Armour Penetration roll is using 4 Dice. The rule for Armour Penetration is still in effect.

You're making an assuption yourself. You're saying that "Armour Penetration of 4d6" = "Armor Penetration roll of 4d6".

As mentioned, Armour Penetration is the sum: Str + [roll] = [AP]

Chain Fist says the roll is 2d6: [roll] = 2d6
which becomes: Stre = 2d6

The turbo-penetrator says Armor Penetration is 4d6: [AP] = 4d6

I'm not going to insult people and say that the meaning is "simple." It's the mathematician in me that sees the difference in which variable is being replaced, and not everybody looks at things through those goggles.

I can see where you are coming from. But the rule of Armour Penetration isn't an equation. It is a set of triggered abilities.

You roll to hit.

If you hit, it triggers the allowance to penetrate. This is done by rolling dice. The line that Armour Pentration is 4D6 applys to this section.

After the penetrate roll it triggers the addition of strengh.

Saying that the Armour Penetration is 4D6 does not subsituting the triggered effects of the Armour Penetration roll. It modifys one effect within the rule.