Jump to content

vindicare turbo penetrator ammo


radens

Recommended Posts

Given the case that Legatus has made, over and over, the ambiguity should fade away. I also really fail to get how a FAQ for a different codex that has a notably weaker gun set precedence for reading into making this man portable rifle the most powerful anti tank gun outside of destroyers. Yeah obviously RAI wants that (if you are a GK hack like my balls out cheating mates). RAW is 4d6. RAI would probably not be an order of magnitude stronger than it's prior incarnation. So given that the law and the facts are on the side of 4d6, I see alot of table pounding on the side of 4d6+3. With rend, this gun that almost never misses (the dice gods really have to have it in for you) will almost certainly pentrate anything (well Mono and Wave Ser maybe not, that's another thread) even at 4d6. Seriously play with this damn unit (but just don't let it's nasty AV powers distract you from it's also being unique......)

 

yup thats right, legatus wrote the dex, therefore his interpretation must clear up the ambiguity inherant within the dex..

also please clarify what you mean by 'law and facts'.. what we have here are 2 interepretations.. one is that you use 'vacuum RAW' which is "it only says 4D6".. vs a more common sense approach which says every other weapon uses strength, so without a note saying otherwie this one must too..

 

if your srgument is that 4D6 + rend is enough to pen most vehciles, then why argue against the extra strength 3?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yup thats right, legatus wrote the dex, therefore his interpretation must clear up the ambiguity inherant within the dex..

also please clarify what you mean by 'law and facts'.. what we have here are 2 interepretations.. one is that you use 'vacuum RAW' which is "it only says 4D6".. vs a more common sense approach which says every other weapon uses strength, so without a note saying otherwie this one must too..

 

And the equally common sense argument that if they meant "rolls an extra 3d6 for armour penetration" then they would damn well have said so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yup thats right, legatus wrote the dex, therefore his interpretation must clear up the ambiguity inherant within the dex..

also please clarify what you mean by 'law and facts'.. what we have here are 2 interepretations.. one is that you use 'vacuum RAW' which is "it only says 4D6".. vs a more common sense approach which says every other weapon uses strength, so without a note saying otherwie this one must too..

 

And the equally common sense argument that if they meant "rolls an extra 3d6 for armour penetration" then they would damn well have said so!

 

except that we all acknowledge GW is rubbiush at wording rules, ontop of this the GW dex was even more poorly worded

as i said if your interpretaton was correct then this would be the one weapon that goes against the rule of adding strength to pen rolls.. if that were the case then it should state that its an exception

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yup thats right, legatus wrote the dex, therefore his interpretation must clear up the ambiguity inherant within the dex..

also please clarify what you mean by 'law and facts'.. what we have here are 2 interepretations.. one is that you use 'vacuum RAW' which is "it only says 4D6".. vs a more common sense approach which says every other weapon uses strength, so without a note saying otherwie this one must too..

 

And the equally common sense argument that if they meant "rolls an extra 3d6 for armour penetration" then they would damn well have said so!

 

except that we all acknowledge GW is rubbiush at wording rules, ontop of this the GW dex was even more poorly worded

as i said if your interpretaton was correct then this would be the one weapon that goes against the rule of adding strength to pen rolls.. if that were the case then it should state that its an exception

 

And by the same token , if this is the one weapon that goes against the rule of specifying that extra dice are rolled for penetration, then the rule should state that it's an exception.

 

The armour penetration rules specify that you roll a D6. Whenever you are called upon to roll more than a single D6 this is specifically shown as an addition to the roll. The turbo penetrator however does not show this. You're saying that this is simply poor wording on the part of GW but there is no evidence to support that. They have made a clear statement of what the armour penetration is and you cannot argue that poor wording means they omitted to state that this is an exception to one rule (adding Strength) but then refuse to accept that they also omitted to state that this was an exception to another rule (adding extra dice).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK this is going to be added to the Grey Area topic later. So no need to further chew the cud here. I'll go through the topic and pick up the relevant arguments on both sides and call it a day.

 

Hopefully a passing GW FAQ writer will see it and add it to his 'To Do' list B).

 

Cheers

I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK this is going to be added to the Grey Area topic later. So no need to further chew the cud here. I'll go through the topic and pick up the relevant arguments on both sides and call it a day.

Just a few additional rebuttals, if I may, since I think there are still a few misconceptions about the issue.

 

 

maturin:

But....this is the very definition of a precedent! I don't see how you can go on to the next statement:
Because of that, the FaQ is not really a precedent for "how to interprete the turbo penetrator rule text". The rule text was clear, and simply was overruled by the FaQ.

And again, I say - this is the very definition of a precedent.

It would be a precedent if the Witch Hunters FaQ explained how an ambiguous rule had to be applied, and a later Codex would also use said same ambiguous rule. But the Witch Hunters turbo penetrator rules were not really ambiguous. They were old and outdated. And they were changed because they were old, not clarified for being ambiguous. If a weapon from an old Codex gets changed, you cannot assume that the same weapon in a new Codex, that already has different stats than the old Witch Hunter version (4D6 instead of 3D6) also is supposed to be changed. Especially if the rule is very specific and not ambiguous about what it's Armour penetration is.

 

That is why I compared it to the Obliterator Toughness being changed. If a rule gets changed because the rule in itself is ambiguous, that's a precedent for other rules of this kind. But when stats or rules get changed because they were old, or because they were incorrect, then you cannot assume that other rules are also supposed to be changed. Then it is a specific, isolated instance, and does not serve as a precedent.

 

 

---

 

greatcrusade08:

simply falling back on RAW "it only says 4D6" is no argument when taken in relation to the knowledge we have as experienced 40k players

common sense must prevail

The crux is not that it "only says 4D6". The crux is that it gives a specific Armour Penetration value. And "Armour Penetration" is the entire thing.

 

As someone else has pointed out, if it had said "the shot rolls 4D6 for Armour Penetration", then it would have been clear that this is the dice part of the Armour Penetration, and you would add the weapon strength to the roll as usual.

 

But that's not what the rule says. The rule says that "it has an Armour Penetration of 4D6". And that is a clear statement.

 

As I said, it is conceivable that this was not the intent of the author. But it is also conceivable that it was. From a "how the rule mechanic works" point of view, he might have wanted the weapon to function like the Witch Hunter version. Then he should have phrased the rule differently. From a "game balance" point of view, 4D6 are already slightly better than 3+3D6 (due to a 0.5 higher average and a higher chance of rending), and 3+4D6 would be insane.

 

4D6 and rending has an average of ~15 Armour Penetration, which might occasionally fail to penetrate a Land Raider. 3+4D6 has an average Armour Penetration of ~18, which will fail top penetrate a Land Raider significantly less often.

 

 

d-cannons are a barrage weapon that uses a special eldar penetration roll instead of a strength value.. this is a specific exception, noted as such

 

"Against targets with an Armour Value, a D-Cannon always inflicts a glancing hit on a roll of 3 or 4 and a penetrating hit on a roll of 5 or 6."

(Codex Eldar, p. 45)

 

"A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6."

(Codex Grey Knights, p. 53)

 

In what way is the D-Cannon's Armour Penetration noted as a specific exception? The rule simply describes how the weapon penetrates armour. The rules for the turbo-penetrator simply give an Armour Penetration value. The D-Cannon rules don't point out how "you do not roll a D6 and add a Strength like you would normally do". They simply describe what you do do to penetrate armour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't intend to be snarky...but here is an example:

 

No where in the rules does it state that Khan becomes "Bike Infantry" when he hops on Moondraken, and previously some people around here tried to argue that meant he could get into a Rhino.

 

The crux of their argument? That the absence of the statement "Khan becomes/is Bike Infantry on his Bike" was a purposeful omission.

 

The reality of it? He's on a bike. The GW peeps recognized this and expected the same of their players.

 

The crux of this current argument? That the absence of "Strength 3" from the Turbo Pen rules was a purposeful omission.

 

In the presence of the "Khan situation" above, it's remarkable to me that anybody might actually try to work with this rule set as if it's intended to be played to-the-letter. RAW just does not work in all cases, however much we want it to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be a precedent if the Witch Hunters FaQ explained how an ambiguous rule had to be applied, and a later Codex would also use said same ambiguous rule. But the Witch Hunters turbo penetrator rules were not really ambiguous. They were old and outdated. And they were changed because they were old, not clarified for being ambiguous. If a weapon from an old Codex gets changed, you cannot assume that the same weapon in a new Codex, that already has different stats than the old Witch Hunter version (4D6 instead of 3D6) also is supposed to be changed. Especially if the rule is very specific and not ambiguous about what it's Armour penetration is.

 

One more, couldn't resist...

 

Legatus, you're making an assumption here - that the FAQ specified what it did because the rule was old. This is entirely a presupposition on your part. From my point of view, the FAQ merely showed what the FAQ author's mental work in his head - and the +3 strength from "sniper" was a no-brainer, "of course, duh! this is 5th ed" addition. Since 5th ed. came out (with the addition of the sniper rending mechanism) that's the way I'd assumed it worked, and the FAQ only confirmed that. From my point of view, there was no ambiguity in the rule either. Now, maybe I was playing it incorrectly by RAW. But the FAQ at the time only confirmed (to me) that GW's rules are rubbish and that RAI reigns supreme.

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.