Melta bombs and Monoliths

[Castus Xanthis]

Similarly, weapons that get additional Armour Penetration dice (such as chainfists, monstrous creatures or melta weapons) do not get the extra dice against the Monolith.

 

This is the line that I have been talking about the whole time. If a weapon rule says that it rolls a certain number of dice(Meltabombs and Acid Mines) they get all their dice. If a weapon rule says that it rolls an "Additional" die (Melta) then you only roll 1 die. To muddy the waters, Chainfists say that they roll 2d6 for armor penetration, which they should unless you see the chainfists inclusion in the rule.

[Isiah]

Exactly.

 

Look at chainfists, despite their 'standard' 2D6 operation (ie no 'extra' dice) they are specifically prevented from using two dice by RAW. By extension (although not RAW) the same could be said of the 'standard' 8+2D6 (ie no 'extra' dice) of the melta bomb being only able to use one too.

 

Fair enough on MCs who yes get an 'additional' D6, or melta weapons with their 'extra' D6 bonus.

 

The whole monolith plus extra dice issue has dragged on for years but:

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

is key to it all unfortunately.

 

Cheers

I

[Pinky Narfanet]

It may have been covered earlier and I've missed it, but what about the definition of weapon by codexes and rulebook? Maybe they all define weapons as "ranged weapons" (ie meltaguns) and "close combat weapons" (ie chainfists). Grenades I think, as I don't have my books with me, are not weapons but instead wargear. Technically there's a difference, technically they're not affected by Living Metal as that only effects "weapons"... thoughts?

 

Could be mistaken but I think Dourine has already raised that one :( some way back, but grenades are indeed 'weapons' – or at least they are in the DA Codex.

*cough*

So Dark Angels with Melta Bombs get 8+D6 and everyone else gets the normal penetration because their grenades aren't weapons?

*cough*

 

Sounds good to me...

 

;)

 

But, since I don't have the DA codex, I'd otherwise be inclined to go with the aforementioned theory (grenades=equipment and not weapons).

 

Although, the BRB does say (under Type, page 27) that "all weapons are classified as either Rapid Fire, Pistol, Assault, Heavy or Ordnance." That would seem to indicate (Codex: Dark Angels notwithstanding) that Grenades, although possessing "Assault" and "Defensive" types, are not "weapons."

[Castus Xanthis]

you are correct.

[SeattleDV8]

Grenades are under weapons in the wargear section of the DA codex, but to how they work we are pointed to the rules in the BRB.

[Isiah]

Although, the BRB does say (under Type, page 27) that "all weapons are classified as either Rapid Fire, Pistol, Assault, Heavy or Ordnance." That would seem to indicate (Codex: Dark Angels notwithstanding) that Grenades, although possessing "Assault" and "Defensive" types, are not "weapons."

 

Ooppss indeed you are correct – grenades are not weapons :(.

 

I still feel they don't benefit from their second dice though.

[Castus Xanthis]

Meltabombs are not melta weapons, we have been over this :( , Meltabombs are not melta weapons because they are not weapons and they don't have the melta special rule.

[Culsandar]

Meltabombs are not melta weapons, we have been over this :( , Meltabombs are not melta weapons because they are not weapons and they don't have the melta special rule.

 

And they don't get the +1 for AP 1, and they don't get +1d6 for being in close range.

 

wordthatrhymeswithmelta-bombs are simply 8+2d6. No bonus dice, no extra. Base.

[Steelmage99]

We just need to keep in mind that having grenades not being weapons, might have some unforseen consequences at a later date.

[Apogee]

Interesting to note the lack of AP1 on the grenades (and chainfist). That solidifies the argument for me - they are clearly not teh same as Melta, or else they'd benefit from that rule, too.

[Steelmage99]

Interesting to note the lack of AP1 on the grenades (and chainfist). That solidifies the argument for me - they are clearly not teh same as Melta, or else they'd benefit from that rule, too.

 

Except that the Melta rule states nothing about AP1. As far as solidifing, that is not the argument to use.

[Grey Mage]

The thing is, they have no AP whatsoever. By going with the idea that they use the same profiles as ranged weapons you imply that they need an AP value in order to penetrate a vehicle. By this logic you could roll a 20 on a landspeeder and still would only glance it. The profile for grenades is distinct from any ranged weapon, and seeing as grenades are not thrown in WH40k this makes perfect sense. Its obviously not a close combat weapon, though it is used in CC as its not listed under CCW or SCCW. Grenades get their own section and work differently. 1 Model, 1 A.

 

So while I agree that it would be within the spirit of the rules to declare that Meltabombs are str 8+1d6 armor penetration vs a monolith there is nothing stating this second dice is a bonus die or otherwise RAW giving any connection to another weapon type. Thus as far as I can see theres no RAW justification for not giving it 2d6 Armor Penetration.

[Legatus]

If a weapon rule says that it rolls a certain number of dice(Meltabombs and Acid Mines) they get all their dice. If a weapon rule says that it rolls an "Additional" die (Melta) then you only roll 1 die. To muddy the waters, Chainfists say that they roll 2d6 for armor penetration, which they should unless you see the chainfists inclusion in the rule.

On page 60 in the BRB, in the rules for shooting at vehicles, it is described that you test for armour penetration by rolling a D6 and adding the weapon's Strength. On page 63, in the rules for vehicles in assaults, it describes that armour penetration in close combat is done by roling a D6 and adding the attacker's Strength. Those are the general rules for penetrating armour. Any weapon that rolls more than a D6 plus it's Strength is irregular and would be rolling "additional dice" over the basic rules, no matter how that weapon itself may be described.

[Captain Malachi]

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

Why does no one (other than Isiah) read this part of the rule? :D

[DevianID]

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

Why does no one (other than Isiah) read this part of the rule?

 

Because there are known exceptions to living metal's 1d6+strength argument, and they are arguing that the melta bombs are a further exception, thus that rule line does prevent meltabombs from rolling 2d6?

[Legatus]

Because there are known exceptions to living metal's 1d6+strength argument

What are those exceptions?

[DevianID]

Off the top of my head, the vindicare round and tyranid bio acid mines, since neither have a strength value when determining their AP.

[Legatus]

Bio-Acid Spore Mines have Strength 3. Unlike the generic armour penetration value of one D6 plus Strength, the Bio-Acid Spore Mine rolls 2D6+3 for armour penetration, similar to melta bombs or chainfists. Unless GW would specify in an errata that the Bio-Acid Spore Mine overrules the Living Metal rules, they will only roll D6+3 for armour penetration against a Monolith.

 

Sniper Rifles used to have an armoruu penetration of 2D6 in 4th, with no additional Strength added to it. The Turbo Penetrator rules are based off of them, and add another D6 to armour penetration. In 5th Edition, Sniper Rifles now have D6+3 armour penetration instead, with the additional chance on a further +D3 due to 'Rending'. Irregardless of the Sniper Rifle rules used, the Turbo Penetrator round has special rules for increased armour penetration, and as the 'Living Metal' rule firmly established, such rules areignored when rolling for AP against a Monolith. Against a Monolith, a Vindicare using his Sniper Rifle has an armour penetration value of D6+3, without the chance for the additional D3 from 'Rending'. Using the Turbo Penetrator round would be wasted against the Monolith, as his rules specifically negate such special armour penetration rules.

[angronn]

Q. If a bio-acid Spore Mine detonates and hits a

vehicle, its Strength is listed as 2D6+3. As it is a

blast weapon, is this Strength value halved if the

hole in the centre of the template is not over

vehicle in question?

 

A. No, because they do not use their basic strength

and apply a special rule instead. Bio-acid Spore

Mines always roll 2D6+3 to penetrate vehicle

armour, giving an average value of 10.

 

From the current Tyranid FAQ. One rule says "ALWAYS ROLLS 2D6+3", one rule says "NEVER ROLLS MORE THAN 1D6". Which way to go?

 

EDIT: Regarding the Turbo-Penetrator, the old FAQ for the Necrons (I think - might have been the Inquisition) specifically noted that the Turbo-Penetrator DID get 3D6 vs the Monolith. In the most recent udate of FAQs this has been dropped, without clarifying the matter in the opposite direction. So old precedent would indicate one thing, but current rules on the matter are grey. The absence of the clarification in and of itself can't be taken as indicative of a ruling, as Necron-specific issues seem to be disappearing from the main rules (as per the We'll Be Back mention being removed from the Sweeping Advance rules).

[Legatus]

I honestly think whoever answered that question was not entirely sure on the rules. The person asking the question, as well as the person answering the question, seem to be confused since the Bio Acid Spore Mine rules are not specifying what part of the "2D6+3" may be the "Strength" of the spore mine against the vehicle. In fact, the question asserts an incorrectly that the Spore Mine is listed as having a "Strength of 2D6+3". That is incorrect, as the Spore Mine is listed as "rolling 2D6+3 to penetrate armour", which would normally be D6+Strength, and the answer does not seem to notice this.

Bio Acid Spore Mines are basically using "2D6 + Strength", just like melta bombs or chain fists, even though the Bio Acid Spore Mine rules are not spelling that out. Bio Acid Spore Mines are Strength 3. Against vehicles they have an armour penetration of 2D6+3, instead of what would usually have been D6+3. That is not an overly complicated or unusual special rule. If the hole of such a Spore Mine blast would not be over a vehicle you would basically halve the "+3", resulting in 2D6+1 armour penetration.

 

If you want to take that FaQ answer at face value, I would still say that the Monolith rules overrule this one, since even though it states that Bio Acid Spore Mines "allways roll 2D6+3", it also points out that this is because Bio Acid Spore Mines do not use their basic strength and are using a special rule for armour penetration instead. And special rules for armour penetration is exactly what the Monolith rules are negating. Something that the answer is not taking into account, as it is focusing specifically on the basic rule situation of blast weapons hitting vehicles with half their strength if the hole is not over the vehicle.

 

Regarding the Turbo-Penetrator, the old FAQ for the Necrons (I think - might have been the Inquisition) specifically noted that the Turbo-Penetrator DID get 3D6 vs the Monolith.

I assume then that the person answering that question has asserted that the Turbo Penetrator basically has a "Strength" of 2D6, which would make for a total and legal 3D6 of armour penetration against a Monolith. But that is not what you would get from reading the rules in the Codices alone, and the lack of a current FaQ (together with the fact that the Inquisitor Codices are based on the 4th Edition Sniper Rifles) still makes me question it.

[angronn]

I honestly think whoever answered that question was not entirely sure on the rules. The person asking the question, as well as the person answering the question, seem to be confused since the Bio Acid Spore Mine rules are not specifying what part of the "2D6+3" may be the "Strength" of the spore mine against the vehicle. In fact, the question asserts an incorrectly that the Spore Mine is listed as having a "Strength of 2D6+3". That is incorrect, as the Spore Mine is listed as "rolling 2D6+3 to penetrate armour", which would normally be D6+Strength, and the answer does not seem to notice this.

Bio Acid Spore Mines are basically using "2D6 + Strength", just like melta bombs or chain fists, even though the Bio Acid Spore Mine rules are not spelling that out. Bio Acid Spore Mines are Strength 3. Against vehicles they have an armour penetration of 2D6+3, instead of what would usually have been D6+3. That is not an overly complicated or unusual special rule. If the hole of such a Spore Mine blast would not be over a vehicle you would basically halve the "+3", resulting in 2D6+1 armour penetration.

 

If you want to take that FaQ answer at face value, I would still say that the Monolith rules overrule this one, since even though it states that Bio Acid Spore Mines "allways roll 2D6+3", it also points out that this is because Bio Acid Spore Mines do not use their basic strength and are using a special rule for armour penetration instead. And special rules for armour penetration is exactly what the Monolith rules are negating. Something that the answer is not taking into account, as it is focusing specifically on the basic rule situation of blast weapons hitting vehicles with half their strength if the hole is not over the vehicle.

 

I appreciate the logic behind this, but RAW is completely stricken here with an immovable object and irresistible force. One rule says "always" (no matter how mistaken you might think it) and one rule says "never" (no matter how mistaken I might think it). I think the only way to go would be to roll a D6 each time (or each game), or house-rule which of the rules to override.

 

Regarding the Turbo-Penetrator, the old FAQ for the Necrons (I think - might have been the Inquisition) specifically noted that the Turbo-Penetrator DID get 3D6 vs the Monolith.

I assume then that the person answering that question has asserted that the Turbo Penetrator basically has a "Strength" of 2D6, which would make for a total and legal 3D6 of armour penetration against a Monolith. But that is not what you would get from reading the rules in the Codices alone, and the lack of a current FaQ (together with the fact that the Inquisitor Codices are based on the 4th Edition Sniper Rifles) still makes me question it.

 

I agree that the disappearing FAQ question is odd, and doesn't really help, but without clarification the recognition of a certain logic behind 5th ed sniper rifles doesn't help what the RAW says about the Turbo-Penetrator. It's not as defined a conflict as the Spore Mines but it's still a case of special rules conflict and seem to try and override each other. Personally, past precedent (old FAQ reasoning and demonstration that the Necron "ALWAYS" statement isn't 100% true, as above) makes me indecisive, and I would again go with discussing it pre-battle and rolling a D6.

[Legatus]

Special rules for armour penetration overrule the basic rules for armour penetration, which would be a D6 plus the weapon's strength compared to the vehicles armour value. Some of these special armour penetration rules are in the BRB (such as melta weapons or rending weapons), but others such as 'lance' weapons are found in Codices.

The Monolith rules are written specifically to negate such special armour penetration rules and make the wapons use the basic D6 + Strength against it's full armour value again, and the rule even adresses lances as an example.

 

Since the Monolith's rules adress weapons with special armour penetration rules, and even gives examples not only from the rulebook but also from other codices, it takes precedence over any weapon with special armour penetration rules, unless that weapon's rules would state that they even worked against a Monolith. The Spore Mine FaQ could be interpreted as such a statement, but as I have pointed out, the question asserted an incorrect rule, which the answer did not adressed or corrected, so I am not very confident in it taking precedence over the Monolith rules.

[angronn]

I'm not convinced by "this special rule overrides all other special rules unless second special rule references first special rule" given that the Tyranid FAQ (which you could discount as being only GW's house-rules, if you really wanted to) doesn't reference it specifically but does given an ALWAYS statement.

 

My feeling is that the RAW is inconsistent, and we're all going to have to discuss the issue before matches. I don't actually mind playing 1D6+8 for melta bombs, as it gives the Monolith that little extra fear factor which seems appropriate when playing Necrons. However, I think the rules are far from clear on the matter. I can't wait for a new Necron codex though...

[Legatus]

I'm not convinced by "this special rule overrides all other special rules unless second special rule references first special rule" given that the Tyranid FAQ (which you could discount as being only GW's house-rules, if you really wanted to) doesn't reference it specifically but does given an ALWAYS statement.

As I said, that FaQ could be interpreted as overruling the Monolith rules, but I have my doubts because of the incorrect rule quoted by the question and the answer not adressing that.

 

With the exception of that FaQ I don't think the Monolith rules leave anything to be desired. They are quite extensive and clear cut.

[Castus Xanthis]

Agreed. The Necrons need a new codex and ultimately that should clear everything up, hopefully.