Jump to content

vindicare turbo penetrator ammo


radens

Recommended Posts

Page 31 BRB Sniper rules explain that a Sniper Rifle counts as Strength 3 when determining armour penetration. And due to Sniper special rule gets Rending and Pinning as well

 

Page 60 BRB Armour penetration rules explain that armour penetration is determined by rolling a D6 and adding the weapon's Strength to it. Special ammo used 4d6 instead of 1d6

 

Page 53 GK Codex Vindicare Assassin/Turbo-Penetrator rules explain that a turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6. If only using only this 4d6 does is it also discount the sniper pinning and rending in addition to the +3S?

 

QED

 

Bold mine, but to be clear not trying to be an a$$ in any way, heck I even called the GW 1-800 number for a laugh and the guy was adamant and clear that it gets +3S 4d6 and rending all added up, but then the silly troll also thought it was balanced by being a one shot round like it used to be so huge grain of salt taken :wallbash:

 

To back up that the other rules are not discounted, when looking at how the TP round can take two wounds on a non-vehicle model it doesn't have to mention that it is going to cause pinning on the unit it might be a part of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Special ammo used 4d6 instead of 1d6

As I have tried to point out, and I thought quite elaborately at that, the D6 you roll for armour penetration is NOT the weapon's "Armour Penetration". The Strength + the D6 is the armour penetration.

 

A Sniper Rifle has an Armour Penetration of 3 + D6. It DOES NOT have an Armoru Penetration of D6, which is then added to it's counted Strength of 3. The 3+D6 is the Armour Penetration.

 

Thus, when the turbo-penetrator rules explain that this particular shot has an armour penetration of 4D6 instead, it has 4D6 instead of 3+D6, and not 4D6 instead of the D6.

 

Hence my line of progressive reasoning with the rule texts you quoted:

 

-> Sniper Rifles have Strength 3 against vehicles

 

-> For armour penetration you roll a D6 and add the Strenght

 

- => A Sniper rifle has an Armour Penetration of 3+D6

 

-> a turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6

 

- - => where a regular Sniper Rifle has an Armour Penetration of 3+D6, a turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6 instead.

 

 

If only using only this 4d6 does is it also discount the sniper pinning and rending in addition to the +3S?

Since the turbo-penetrator rule specifically adresses the armour penetration value, but not any further special properties, I assume that the rending property is intact. For example, I also assume that the turbo-penetrator shot would still count as pinning, since that property is not revoked by the turbo-penetrator special rules either.

 

 

Edit: Gosh, I keep typing "armoru" instead of "armour". And I thought I only had issues with "teh".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When working out the average penetration for this shot, according to just 4d6 without the sniper rule +3S, it wouldn't be just be the average for 4d6 but also the average with the chance for rending on each d6 as well.

 

min penetration 4

max 36

 

Heh, I get those same typing errors all the time, I think it is like stuttering with fingers ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When working out the average penetration for this shot, according to just 4d6 without the sniper rule +3S, it wouldn't be just be the average for 4d6 but also the average with the chance for rending on each d6 as well.

Ah, you're right. That would add about 1* to the average armour penetration, for an average of 15 for the 4D6 or 18 for the 3+4D6. (Maybe more like 15.3 and 18.3)

 

*(Average of 0.66 rolls of 6 among the 4D6, and an average roll of 2 for the additional D3.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember a time when the use of Special Characters required th eopponent's explicite permission...

 

Well, a Carnifex can have an average Armour penetration of 17 on the charge, with a range between 12 and 22. Even a Demolisher only has a range of 11 to 16, with an average of around 15, in comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember a time when the use of Special Characters required th eopponent's explicite permission...

 

Well, a Carnifex can have an average Armour penetration of 17 on the charge, with a range between 12 and 22. Even a Demolisher only has a range of 11 to 16, with an average of around 15, in comparison.

 

It would be nice if common sense will prevail on this topic and a single sniper shot from a RIFLE should not be capable of doing more then DOUBLE the penetration of a Demolisher Cannon lol

In the end you still have to give explicit permission in that you choose to play or not ;)

I suppose once these get used in tournaments there will be a generally accepted and preferred method of working it out.

 

Anyone had a ruling on it?

 

Edit: New FAQ states they do get the rending on each dice, just in dispute about the S3, but looks like the vindicare is now the best vehicle killer in the game hands down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember a time when the use of Special Characters required th eopponent's explicite permission...

 

Well, a Carnifex can have an average Armour penetration of 17 on the charge, with a range between 12 and 22. Even a Demolisher only has a range of 11 to 16, with an average of around 15, in comparison.

 

It would be nice if common sense will prevail on this topic and a single sniper shot from a RIFLE should not be capable of doing more then DOUBLE the penetration of a Demolisher Cannon lol

Im sorry, but this is 40k. That rifle is the pinacle of rifle technology by a civilization that can literally break the fabric of reality and throw it at you as a weapon, or hold the sun in the palm of their hand.

 

Darn right it busts open the most powerful tanks in the game.

 

In the long history of ridiculous things in 40k, this doesnt even rank. Back to rules if you all would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i find this one of those arguments that follow a laughable RAW line.. to me its very clear that you add strength to any D6 rolls you make.. it has a very set precedent throughout the entire edition.

yet this ONE thing is different?

i dont buy it.

 

also as ive said the WH vindicare does add the strength to his round, now i realise the counter arguments that rules change over editions, but its a very good precedent.

 

so you can follow your silly RAW interpretations if you like, and ill play the game as it was meant.. with some common sense..

 

ta very muchly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i find this one of those arguments that follow a laughable RAW line.. to me its very clear that you add strength to any D6 rolls you make.. it has a very set precedent throughout the entire edition.

yet this ONE thing is different?

i dont buy it.

Arguing that it is "clear" that a weapon was not meant to only roll a number of D6s for Armour Penetration because that had not been done previously in the current Edition while at the same time dismissing references to the two previous editions where this had been done as mere rules lawyering is a bit of a double standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguing that it is "clear" that a weapon was not meant to only roll a number of D6s for Armour Penetration because that had not been done previously in the current Edition while at the same time dismissing references to the two previous editions where this had been done as mere rules lawyering is a bit of a double standard.

 

my argument is that the WH codex desptie being written in a past edition, Is valid in 5th edition..

it seems you want to attack me instead of attacking my arguments.. thats really not cool.. i had thought more of you than that.

 

good day to you sir

 

note i had said "to me its clear"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you can follow your silly RAW interpretations if you like, and ill play the game as it was meant.. with some common sense..

But is it really so silly?

AP = 4d6

- Minimum possible : 4

- Average roll : 12 to 16 (Median : 14)

- Maximum possible : 24

AP = 3 + 4d6

- Minimum possible : 7

- Average roll : 15 to 21 (Median : 17)

- Maximum : 27

AP = 3 + 4d6 + rending

- Minimum possible : 7

- Average roll : 15 to 22 (Median : 18)

- Mximum : 39

The Turbo-penentrator round has a 50/50 chance of glancing AV 14 with just 4d6. The odds of glancing or penetrating AV13 and lower increase greatly. However when you factor in an extra 3 points for weapon strength you now enter into an instance where you find it increasingly likely that you will never fail to penetrate any armor value. I don't think I need to go on about the probabilities involved, so I will simply point out that - if GW wanted you to use 3 + 4d6 (+/- rending) they could have just as easily make it "auto-penetrating". They know the concept - they implimented it in Strength D weapons in Apocalypse. The reason I come down on the side of AP = 4d6 is simply a gut feeling that while it produces a large probability of penetrating it also allows for a reasonable opportunity of failure. And as Warhammer 40,000 is first and foremost a game, having something set up to require random chance while clearly making it statistically impossible to fail just seems un-fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my argument is that the WH codex desptie being written in a past edition, Is valid in 5th edition..

it seems you want to attack me instead of attacking my arguments.. thats really not cool.. i had thought more of you than that.

 

good day to you sir

Ahem... ;)

 

to me the answer is pretty clear, but youll always get a few people that like to argue the ifs buts and maybes.. perhaps its becuase they like to argue, perhap they are rules lawyers.. who knws, who cares.. certainly not me
however i think valerius has it spot on.. the rules have always been strength plus pen.

it just seems too rules lawyer-ish to suddenly interpret this as being differently..

all this referring to older rulessets smacks of rules lawyer interpreting for gain, it doesnt sit well with me.

we us 5th ed now, lets stick with that

so you can follow your silly RAW interpretations if you like, and ill play the game as it was meant..

Pot? Kettle? Black?

 

I have explained the rules interpretation in great detail. And there is really nothing ambiguous about it, once one understands how the "Armour Penetration" mechanic is defined (but then I would not put it past a GW designer to make such a mistake in his Codex). Your "argument" for the past pages has basically been that interpreting the rules as defined in the rulebook is basically just silly rules lawyering which completely misses how the game is meant to be played. As if simply rolling 4D6 for armour penetration would be such an odd concept. Ah, but we aren't allowed to refer to previous editions, where this was included in the basic rulebook rules for sniper rifles. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moving on- both of you have said things that imply things about the other. I dont care- move on or this thread will be closed.

 

with all respect i feel i have not said anything about mr legatus.. i have made broad statements about rules lawyers in general, but havent made any hints towards him being one..

 

My point, that is relevent to this argument is that we cannot argue precedents from older rulebooks as they dont exist anymore. however a codex such as WH that was written in an older edition is still useable under 5th and does allow for precedents, becuase theses armies are fielded in 5th and the codex rules would supercede the 5th ed BRB.

the vindicare in WH adds strength to his turbo pen rounds, which gives us a solid precedent..

i fail to see how this is hypocritical, a pot or a kettle of any colour.. it is what it is.

 

Your comments are noted. In the future feel free to send me a PM about the matter- as this could drag the conversation back off track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please respect the Moderator's wishes and stop anything that might get this closed. Keeping this on track, especially for the short term until a solid answer is determined, is important to me. Back to where we are on the subject so far...

 

As it stands the new FAQ is pretty clear about adding the rending to the 4d6, I also don't think anyone disagrees that it is still AP1 and that leaves just the +S3 which would be the only thing left out at this point so it is probably included which makes this the single model in the 40k universe that has rules that allow for such crazy Penetration high numbers to be rolled, which to me is implying either serious error/poor implementation by the codex writer (which does seem to have some broad appeal) or this is a going to be a model that is going to be mandatory in ever GK list as an ultimate vehicle killer.

 

Further to this the next rules to examine are the ones that will work against this insane Turbo-Penetrator ability, perhaps some rules that will allow this unit to be turned against the GK's themselves, rules that might lower its AP roll (like living metal), rules to deny cover to the model (TF cannon), rules to protect against and if possible increase survivability, and the best rules to use to either destroy or totally tie up the model - keep on topic so not tactics but rules that will affect the vindicare/its special TP ammo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A turbo-penetrator shot has an armor penetration value of 4d6.

This is page. 53 of C:GK.

 

Against vehicles grenades have the following armor penetration:

Core book pg. 63

 

The wording says, to me, that the 4d6 is the total armor penetration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A turbo-penetrator shot has an armor penetration value of 4d6.

This is page. 53 of C:GK.

 

Against vehicles grenades have the following armor penetration:

Core book pg. 63

 

The wording says, to me, that the 4d6 is the total armor penetration.

But then how do you account for the near-identically-worded WH Vindicare's Turbo-Penetrator being 3+3d6?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then how do you account for the near-identically-worded WH Vindicare's Turbo-Penetrator being 3+3d6?

Because the Codex Witch Hunters was written in 3rd Edition, when Sniper Rifles had a single D6 as Armour Penetration, but the FaQ was to update the rules for 5th Edition, where a Sniper Rifle has 3+D6 Armour Penetration.

 

3rd Edition: D6 --> 3D6

 

5th Edition: 3+D6 --> 3+3D6

 

Obviously in 3rd Edition, where Sniper Rifles didn't count as S3 against vehicles, the FaQ would not have added an additional +3 to the Vindicare's turbo-penetrator shot out of nowhere. The "Armour Penetration of 3D6" woud have been left exactly as it was described in the Codex Witch Hunters. The rule in Codex WH was very specific and described the entire Armour Penetration value of the shot correctly. But it was written with the single D6 of Sniper Rifles in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If fired at a vehicle, the shot has an Armor Penetration value of 3d6.

 

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…

 

Hmm. Interesting.

 

The Ordo Hereticus versions statement- besides the number of d6 involved- exactly matches that of the GK codex. "Armor penetration value" as opposed to " "armor penetration:"

 

This could be the difference of melee vs. shooting, but its an incredibly strong correlation- I think that does it for me. 4d6+3 would seem to be the right choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ordo Hereticus versions statement- besides the number of d6 involved- exactly matches that of the GK codex. "Armor penetration value" as opposed to " "armor penetration:"

 

This could be the difference of melee vs. shooting, but its an incredibly strong correlation- I think that does it for me.

I would like to point out again that the Witch Hunter turbo penetrator rules were written for 3rd Edition. So when that rule had been written, the "has an Armour Penetration value of 3D6" was indeed meant to be the total armour penetration for this rifle. That this was in 5th Edition amended with an added strength bonus (which did not exist for sniper rifles prior to 5th Edition) does not change the fact that when the rule was written, it was written to be a total and final value.

 

So when a current Codex writes "the shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6", then this, too, is describing a total and final value.

 

It is allways possible that this was a mistake and was not intended by the author, but that is what the rules text is saying. As it had been what the 3rd Edition Codex Witch Hunters rules text was saying.

 

 

Edit:

Here are the relevant rules texts with clarification:

 

3rd Edition: "the turbo penetrator has an Armour Penetration value of 3D6. And that is all." - C:WH

 

5th Edition: "because sniper rifles have had their rules changed between 3rd and 5th Edition, the turbo penetrator now has 3+3D6 Armour Penetration." - WH FaQ

 

5th Edition: "the turbo penetrator has an Armour Penetration of 4D6. And that is all." - C:GK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm skeptical of the idea that identically-written rules should have different interpretations depending on which codex they're in.

As I said, they mean exactly the same.

WH Vindicare gives 3+3d6. GW has explicitly stated this.

 

Ergo, if the same words mean the same thing, the GK Vindicare gives 3+4d6. Simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WH Vindicare gives 3+3d6. GW has explicitly stated this.

 

Ergo, if the same words mean the same thing, the GK Vindicare gives 3+4d6. Simple.

It is simple. The WH rules and the GK rules mean exactly the same. The WH rule was changed via an FaQ clarification. That's not really complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.