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.

Well as with many debates, it's starting to loop back on its self.

I still see the fact that it doesn't specifically say you don't use the str, therefor you do.

Armor pen, and armor pen roll are really the same thing, but since there's a one word difference people will point that out, and unfortuntately, without a FAQ saying anything in any dirrection, it's hard to debate, Armor pen and armor pen roll being the same thing, because english says otherwise.

Again i point out, as I have in so many forums, that GW, specifically Ward, and thie GK dex, are writen like utter crap. There are more debates floating around about this dex than I've seen for many other dexes in quite a while. There's more attempts to abuse the system (DKs riding in stormravens and taking 2 spots, LOL) than before.

So really, play it as you play it until the FAQ is out. Luckily everyone I know are 4d6 + str people, so there's nothing to worry about for me.

But for those that remember old rules, or have old rules handy. Did old snipers have a str value? Cuz i remember it as they didn't, but I'm not sure. If someone can clearify that'd be awesome.

Breaking it down into an equation is just another way to try and explain it.

Here is another attempt.

The armor penetration has a definition and directions on how to proceed in the rulebook.

The codex states that the Turbo pen round has an armor penetration of 4d6.

Therefore, any time where you would need/use armor penetration for the Turbo pen, you use the rules that replace the description in the rulebook. Those rules are simply 4d6.

^^ the above

It also has precedence on its side: the WH FAQ which explains what the identical in essence wording states

3+4D6+ rending on every 6

Just a note, the odds of getting a pen on AV 14 without the +3 is 44.37%. The odds with the +3 are 76.08%

That doesn't include any Rending calculations, though. :-/ I'm currenlty trying to reason if Rending will increase or decrease the difference. . . hmmm. . .

Sothas wrote:Well as with many debates, it's starting to loop back on its self.

I still see the fact that it doesn't specifically say you don't use the str, therefor you do.

Armor pen, and armor pen roll are really the same thing, but since there's a one word difference people will point that out, and unfortuntately, without a FAQ saying anything in any dirrection, it's hard to debate, Armor pen and armor pen roll being the same thing, because english says otherwise.

Again i point out, as I have in so many forums, that GW, specifically Ward, and thie GK dex, are writen like utter crap. There are more debates floating around about this dex than I've seen for many other dexes in quite a while. There's more attempts to abuse the system (DKs riding in stormravens and taking 2 spots, LOL) than before.

So really, play it as you play it until the FAQ is out. Luckily everyone I know are 4d6 + str people, so there's nothing to worry about for me.

It does specifically state you don't use strength, because it says you use 4d6. It doesn't say I don't add my attacks or wounds either, but you don't see me trying to get those in either. Thats because this is a permissive ruleset. You are told to use 4d6, and only 4d6.

However you or I think it should or was intended to work must be kept separate from what we actually read. There is nothing that indicates you add strength to the 4d6 given, no more than you would add any other value to the 4d6. That is because you don't add anything.

Rending will for sure increase the difference with AV14

3 1's and a 6 = 9 + 3 (max rending roll) = 12.
3 1's and a 6 = 9 + 3 str + 3 (max rending roll) = 15. Pen. Boom!

ElCheezus wrote:Just a note, the odds of getting a pen on AV 14 without the +3 is 44.37%. The odds with the +3 are 76.08%

That doesn't include any Rending calculations, though. :-/ I'm currenlty trying to reason if Rending will increase or decrease the difference. . . hmmm. . .

Rending should decrease the difference, because more of the rending hits will be over 14 for the +3 anyways. So the reality is that its closer than ~44% to 76%, but still a significant difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sothas wrote:Rending will for sure increase the difference with AV14

3 1's and a 6 = 9 + 3 (max rending roll) = 12.
3 1's and a 6 = 9 + 3 str + 3 (max rending roll) = 15. Pen. Boom!

This is one example, but there are many more where its

3 2s and 1 6= 6+6+3 =15
3 2s and 1 6= 6+6+3+3 =18. The STR was irrelevent, meaning the difference of having the str is less.

Dracos wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:Just a note, the odds of getting a pen on AV 14 without the +3 is 44.37%. The odds with the +3 are 76.08%

That doesn't include any Rending calculations, though. :-/ I'm currenlty trying to reason if Rending will increase or decrease the difference. . . hmmm. . .

Rending should decrease the difference, because more of the rending hits will be over 14 for the +3 anyways. So the reality is that its closer than ~44% to 76%, but still a significant difference.

Oh yeah, good call. For some reason I was thinking too small. Rending will give the "without str" a better chance to pen, and the "with str" will have roughly the same chance to pen. Dunno what I was thinking. Also, while I'm good at math, I hate it, and I'd rather not calculate. I'll leave that to people who like it.

Everyone keeps talking about algebra and calculus and all sorts of mathematical equations.....

You all do realize you are never required in 40K to go beyond grade school math, correct???

It does help, however, to have a Master's in English!! Which I am pretty sure none of us have, but I could be wrong. I know I don't, I tend to stay away from English as even though its my native language, it confuses the crap outta me sometimes!

Also, everyone keeps using the chainfist, which I'm sorry, if you will not accept what another FAQ said about pretty much the exact same weapon and rules, then there is no way that you can use a totally different weapon, especially a close combat vs shooting weapon, from a whole other codex, as a basis for your argument. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you won't take one, don't use another, even as examples, because if we are doing that, the Witchhunter example defines this instance much more clearly than the Chainfist example does.

There is no precedence for not including all the rules.


And on a slightly different note, its not likely that 4D6 is ever really going to Penetrate that much on its own. The lowest you would get on that 4D6 is 4, while the average is 12, and the highest is 24. So, on average, most vehicles will suffer a glance, while anything AV13 or AV14 is relatively safe. But once you add that S3 to the mix, that is when the Turbo Penetrator actually begins to shine, as it should, cause it is meant to be an almost guaranteed penetration, IMHO at least. With S3 the lowest you would get is 7, while the average would be 15, and the max would be 27. This is without rending of course. I'm gonna be lazy and let everyone else figure the rending on their own, or maybe ElCheezus, our resident mathematician will do it for us?



Ok, so wife came home and slowed my post down, it should have been like 5 posts ago....

But anyway, another question on your argument has sprung to my mind. You state that you cannot add the strength of the weapon because it says 4D6 only. So how are you explaining the Rending? Please explain to me how the Sniper Rifle in question only gets HALF of its rules.....

You can't choose what parts of the rules you want to use. It is a sniper rifle, and it gets the Str 3 and the rending, and it even states that the str combines with the rending against vehicles.

Now, if it had a special rule stating that it didn't get to add its strength, I would agree with that, but honestly there is only one sniper rifle that I can think of that doesn't get its STR against vehicles, and come to think of it, that same sniper rifle is also the only Assault sniper rifle that I know of. Every other Sniper rifle I have seen is Heavy.....

Galador wrote: come to think of it, that same sniper rifle is also the only Assault sniper rifle that I know of. Every other Sniper rifle I have seen is Heavy.....

The rifle is Heavy, but he also has a Pistol that can use the same ammo. Also, Marbo has a Pistol with the Sniper rule.

The average of 4d6 is 14.

Also, it does have a special rule that prevents it from adding strength: the Turbopenetrator rule.

Galador wrote:
And on a slightly different note, its not likely that 4D6 is ever really going to Penetrate that much on its own. The lowest you would get on that 4D6 is 4, while the average is 12, and the highest is 24. So, on average, most vehicles will suffer a glance, while anything AV13 or AV14 is relatively safe. But once you add that S3 to the mix, that is when the Turbo Penetrator actually begins to shine, as it should, cause it is meant to be an almost guaranteed penetration, IMHO at least. With S3 the lowest you would get is 7, while the average would be 15, and the max would be 27. This is without rending of course. I'm gonna be lazy and let everyone else figure the rending on their own, or maybe ElCheezus, our resident mathematician will do it for us?

Incorrect. The average die roll of a d6 is actually 3.5, not 3. 3 is half of six, but since you don't have a zero on the die, the average is half way between 1 (the smallest number) and 6 (the largest number). The actual average roll is 14 (3.5 x 4). So it will, on average, glance AV 14 (no including rending or str). This is exactly the same reason why craps shooters favor a 7. 7 being the most rolled number with 2d6. (avg 3.5 x 2)

ElCheezus wrote:

Galador wrote: come to think of it, that same sniper rifle is also the only Assault sniper rifle that I know of. Every other Sniper rifle I have seen is Heavy.....

The rifle is Heavy, but he also has a Pistol that can use the same ammo. Also, Marbo has a Pistol with the Sniper rule.

I didn't say the sniper rifle that I was talking about there was the Vindicare's. Reread the line before it, I mentioned that there is only one sniper rifle in the game that I know of that doesn't get it strength against vehicles, and then I added the rest of that sentence. Please quote me entirely if you are going to quote me at all.


And as far as the average goes, my mistake. Haven't sat down to do averages up in a long time. But honestly, if I ever did roll 4D6 +S for a turbo penetrator, I would still probably get 7's and 11's on average, seeing as the dice gods have hated me ever since the Rogue Trader days!!

Galador wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:

Galador wrote: come to think of it, that same sniper rifle is also the only Assault sniper rifle that I know of. Every other Sniper rifle I have seen is Heavy.....

The rifle is Heavy, but he also has a Pistol that can use the same ammo. Also, Marbo has a Pistol with the Sniper rule.

I didn't say the sniper rifle that I was talking about there was the Vindicare's. Reread the line before it, I mentioned that there is only one sniper rifle in the game that I know of that doesn't get it strength against vehicles, and then I added the rest of that sentence. Please quote me entirely if you are going to quote me at all.

I didn't even know there was one. What is it?

ElCheezus wrote:I didn't even know there was one. What is it?

The Hexrifle in the Dark Eldar codex. It is Assault 1, and has no effect on vehicles. As stated per its rules.

My point with the avg is that, with this argument of yes or no to the str being added, is that you will still pen with this thing a ton. It's a greater chance to pen than any other weapon I can think of. (except for maybe meltas and lances... can't be bothered with math right now. Would be interesting to knwo though. MATH WIZARDS GO!)

Melta in range is 58% pen. Str 8 Lance is 33% and Str 9 Lance is 50%

All assuming you've already hit.

ElCheezus wrote:Melta in range is 58% pen. Str 8 Lance is 33% and Str 9 is 50%

All assuming you've already hit.

Don't encourage him!!!!

How is S9 better than S8 lance? S9 requrires a 6 to pen and S8 lance requires a 5. As an eldar player, I'm very well aware that my brightlances are better vs AV 14 than a lascannon.

Fixed. DE have Str 9 Lances, right? Void Lances?

Do they? i dunno. I'll check with my DE playing buddy later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've gotta return to the debate real quick.

Witch Hunter's army codex is still current, therefor the Witch Hunter's FAQ is still current, and in the FAQ the TP round adds Str. So how doe this not apply to the new one?

Also on that note, can the witch hunters take the new assassins? Do they have to use the old ones? Logic says they use the new ones, RAW says they don't. So...?

ElCheezus wrote:Just a note, the odds of getting a pen on AV 14 without the +3 is 44.37%. The odds with the +3 are 76.08%

That doesn't include any Rending calculations, though. :-/ I'm currenlty trying to reason if Rending will increase or decrease the difference. . . hmmm. . .

So, results from calculating Rending. . . It increases the odds of the "+ Str" shots by 2.57%, and increases the odds of the "4d6" shots by 10.73%
It closes the gap between them a little.

So new results are:

4d6: 55.1% (714+(417/3)/1296)
+ 3: 78.65% (986+(100/3)/1296)

Edit: for a second there I calculated too many rending contributions to the "+3" group. Fixed.

The Bomber has 2 S9 lances. Nothing else does.

RAW says WH, paper dex, can induct GK into the army. This includes an elite, which could be a new style assassin.

It does specifically state you don't use strength, because it says you use 4d6. It doesn't say I don't add my attacks or wounds either, but you don't see me trying to get those in either. Thats because this is a permissive ruleset. You are told to use 4d6, and only 4d6.

However you or I think it should or was intended to work must be kept separate from what we actually read. There is nothing that indicates you add strength to the 4d6 given, no more than you would add any other value to the 4d6. That is because you don't add anything.

You cant add attacks or wounds because there is no basis for you to use them. You are acting like people are plucking the str 3 rending out of the air and they are not. It states in the brb that they are included because of the sniper rule, and you say it specifically states you dont use strength for your penetration rolls, I have the codex in front of me and I dont see anything saying specifically, only, exclusively, or any other isolating term that states that is all you get. Throughout the pro 4d6 posts everyone has taken liberties by adding these words to make their argument sound like it has a solid basis when it does not. You are correct in your earlier statement that this is a permissive set of rules and just because something doesnt say something doesnt mean you dont get it but there are written rules in the brb that do give it to us. The con 4d6 poster have time and again referenced entries in the brb and codex so now i put the ball in your guys court and ask that you guys site sources in the brb stating that armor pen is done the way you state it is and also show me where it says the sniper rifle rules do not apply to a weapon with the sniper special rule.

This debate has really made me dig through the rules so in all it has helped me with the rules.

The BRB give the definition of a Sniper Rifle as having 1d6AP+ rending+ 3 Strength = 4 -12 AP Pg.31
Spacemarine Scouts for the most part.

The Daemonhunters Codex defines the Vindicares and Exitus Rifle as being a Sniper Rifle with special rounds - pg26
The Turbo-Penetrator round gives it 3d6 replacing the 1d6 on a regular Sniper Rifle hence 3d6+ rending+ 3 strength = 6 - 30 and it was FAQ by GW.
The Avg. roll here is only 12 with the strength

Officio Assassinorum Operatives
Q. How does the Vindicare’s turbo-penetrator
round work in regards to rending?
A. Because sniper rifles are rending, when rolling
for armour penetration, the Vindicare gets to add
a D3 to the total for each dice that comes up a
six. So, if one of the three dice is a six, the total
penetration would be 6+2D6+D3+3 (giving a
result between 12 and 22); if two were sixes, the
total would be 12+1D6+2D3+3 (18 to 26); if all
three dice were sixes, the total would be
18+3D3+3 (24 to 30!). Almost certainly
enough…

The new Gray Knights Codex now supercedes the DH Codex and replaces the 3d6 with 4d6.
Using the FAQ as a base the shot will now be 4d6+ rending+ 3 Strengh = 7 - 39
The Avg. roll now being 15 with the strength
I think they just wanted to give the Vindicare a now Avg. chance of always APing a Landraider err... 14 armor

I dont see GW changing the rule set by the DH FAQ

I hope this has been some help.


Sorry but its in the Witch Hunters FAQ

Ok, first of all, quit comparing it to the WH or old DH faq, this is a different book. Second, have any of you arguing for S+4D6 stop to think that maybe they wrote it the way they did specifically to get around certain other rules (i.e., living metal, ect)?

Also, it does not say that Sniper Rifles are 1d6AP+ rending+ 3 Strength it says that against vehicles, their armor penetration value is Str(3)+1D6(Rending)

What some of you people are willfully ignoring is that the rules for the round tell you that the Armor Pen is a simply 4D6, therefore using that rule in place of a normal armor pen calculation. in principle, it is similar to how the SM rule ATSKNF changes how regrouping works for them, or how Inquisitor Karamazov can ignore normal template targeting rules with his orbital strike relay.

Shivan Reaper wrote:Ok, first of all, quit comparing it to the WH or old DH faq, this is a different book. Second, have any of you arguing for S+4D6 stop to think that maybe they wrote it the way they did specifically to get around certain other rules (i.e., living metal, ect)?

Yeah! Quit using logic and reason based on past FAQs to come to a logic conclusion! It's been acceptable in almost every other YMDC debate to use one codex's FAQ with the same rule as another to come to a conclusion but that (arbitrarily) stops here!

Also, how would this in any way get around Living Metal? You can argue that it does, but even I, a GK player and not a Necron player, do not think that this gets around living metal in any way.

Shivan - noone is "wilfully ignoring" anything. Everyone simply disagrees with your position that somehow "roll" and "is" is a substantive difference

in other words your position still results in Chainfists rolling 2D6 in total. which is absurd.

Shivan Reaper wrote:Ok, first of all, quit comparing it to the WH or old DH faq, this is a different book.

Actually, that doesn't matter at all. It's not an errata, it's an FAQ and as such clarifies how the already existing rules work. Which means that the Vindicare does, indeed, have 3+4D6+rending as his armour penetration value.

You all point to how a much older book has the round working as how the new one works, yet when the new WH/SoB book comes out, it might/probably will be a exact match of the GK one as far as the assassins. The way it gets around living metal should be quite obvious if you view it RaW rather then what you are seeing as RaI, but that has been argued to death in other threads.

Nos, it isn't "everyone", it is just that the the others have seen that trying to present well reasoned arguments will not sway those who have their minds set in one rut. Also, why is everyone using the chainfist to compare, why not use the eviscerator, which is in the same codex.

Walrus, one, just because it is a similar rule between the two books, doesn't mean they work exactly the same. For example, since all the other SM drop pods are BS4, that means I can have my BT drop pods are automatically BS 4 too, right? Even though they are not, because they didn't change it in the errata. Also, it being a FAQ rather then errata makes it less valid, rather then more. To quote the page that leads to the FAQs:

"The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material....The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules"

Ok, now y'all can proceed to beat the dead horse this thread has become