Melta bombs and Monoliths

[angronn]

Interesting. I was under the impression it was in the second edition of the Necron Codex (I only have the first).

[GTang]

'twas in the 4th edition FAQ, iirc. Neither the Living Metal rule or the Turbo-Penetrator round changed much in between. And the new FAQ does say that double strength weapons do still give their bonuses. So, the Vindicare's round is 3+3d6 without rending, because - perhaps unlike a lot of the other dice - no part of that 3d6 has been considered bonus penetration.

[maniclurker]

I think every is over looking the fact that the crondex entry says that, in practice, you'll only ever get ST + single D6.

[GTang]

It's not in the living metal rule itself. In practice doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. Double strength items definately work now. Turbo-penetrator is almost certainly another one - the new rending dice are bonus, the rest of the dice aren't. Whether melta bombs are or are not remain to be seen. I tend to think not because they're named melta. The FAQ ruling on inferno pistols, incinerator items vs. the Avatar of Kaine's ability seems to suggest that calling it melta might be enough to think of it as melta.

[Steelmage99]

Gtang, you seem to insist that the Turbo Penetrator retains the 3D6.

 

Any rules to back that up?

 

So far, you have said that it was mentioned in the 4th edition FAQ, but it isn't anymore.

 

You have stated that the Living Metal rule and the Turbo Penetrator rules haven't changed. That is all fine but not really relevant.

 

And then my personal favorite; you state that since double strength still works, the TP should still roll 3D6. Those two things doesn't really have anything to do with each other, do they?

 

In the end you state that the 3D6 is not considered having any bonus dice compared to the normal 1D6 because..........you say so.

[GTang]

In 4th edition, the double strength thing was not FAQed. So it looks like most places considered double strength items as not working with monoliths. And at that point, the turbopenetrator was FAQed. So, it was clear that that did work against them. The rules for living metal haven't changed. Why should the turbopenetrator change when the 5th edition FAQ seems to make the Living Metal rule work on more things, such as the double strength items?

 

In any case, the rationale for why it does work is the same in 5th as it is in 4th. The 3d6 is not bonus dice because the rules don't say any part of it is bonus dice. In all other cases, such as monstrous creatures against vehicles or melta guns against vehicles, the d6s are given as +d6 and/or called "additional." Living Metal specifies additional dice as what goes away. Except for the new rending part of things, there's no + anything to the 3d6 for a turbopenetrator. It's 3d6 against all vehicles for no particular reason. So, it is what it is - a regular 3d6 + 3 penetration roll.

 

Living Metal reconfigures common rules. So do the named, school assassins. This round rolls 3d6 not as a bonus, but as its standard operating procedure. The way rending works with this round suggests this as strongly rule-changingly unusual as Living Metal, too - any 6 on any of the d6s count for additional rending dice. No other shot can get +3d3 against non-living metal vehicles.

 

In the case of melta bombs, the logic is longer. Is calling it a melta bomb sufficient to think of it as having an additional +d6 when it's not stated explictly? The Eldar FAQ seems to indicate that this jump can be made. So until that's FAQed, melta bombs look like they're 8+d6 against monoliths to me.

[Steelmage99]

In 4th edition, the double strength thing was not FAQed. So it looks like most places considered double strength items as not working with monoliths.

 

Yes, all they places where people couldn't read.

 

And at that point, the turbopenetrator was FAQed. So, it was clear that that did work against them.

 

But not anymore. Things change.

 

The rules for living metal haven't changed.

 

Completely irrelevant.

 

Why should the turbopenetrator change

 

The Games Designers move in mysterious ways....

 

when the 5th edition FAQ seems to make the Living Metal rule work on more things, such as the double strength items?

 

Check the FAQ. Living Metal doesn't work on double strength items.

 

In any case, the rationale for why it does work is the same in 5th as it is in 4th. The 3d6 is not bonus dice because the rules don't say any part of it is bonus dice. In all other cases, such as monstrous creatures against vehicles or melta guns against vehicles, the d6s are given as +d6 and/or called "additional." Living Metal specifies additional dice as what goes away. Except for the new rending part of things, there's no + anything to the 3d6 for a turbopenetrator. It's 3d6 against all vehicles for no particular reason. So, it is what it is - a regular 3d6 + 3 penetration roll.

 

Anything that rolls more dice than one (which is the norm) rolls additional dice. Doesn't matter if it is "bonus dice", "additional dice" or "whatever dice". The Living Metal rule says roll unargumented strength (which has been FAQed) + 1D6, no matter what. That is pretty easy to understand, isn't it? Follow the rules please.

 

Living Metal reconfigures common rules. So do the named, school assassins. This round rolls 3d6 not as a bonus, but as its standard operating procedure. The way rending works with this round suggests this as strongly rule-changingly unusual as Living Metal, too - any 6 on any of the d6s count for additional rending dice. No other shot can get +3d3 against non-living metal vehicles.

 

Again, it doesn't matter if it is standard, bonus or additional. The Living Metal rule is very clear cut.

 

In the case of melta bombs, the logic is longer. Is calling it a melta bomb sufficient to think of it as having an additional +d6 when it's not stated explictly? The Eldar FAQ seems to indicate that this jump can be made. So until that's FAQed, melta bombs look like they're 8+d6 against monoliths to me.

 

Actually I didn't want to go there at all. One could say that Living Metal mentions melta weapons, not Melta weapons and there is a subtle difference. Since it mentions melta weapons with a lover case "m", one could argue that the designers didn't mean "weapons with the Melta rule", but rather "things named melta". But it is a bit of a stretch. One that I have carefully avoided so far. :D

[Praeger]

ENOUGH

 

If you are going to post comments like this:

 

Yes, all they places where people couldn't read.

 

Then you have no reason to post here at all.

 

Im in a generous mood today - normally id issue a warning for that becouse it IS a trolling comment.

 

If you want to argue what is said then do so with logic and quotes, not petty little comments that are just asking to be replied in kind to.

 

If i see ANY more comments like this your posts will be deleted and warnings issued.

 

IT ENDS NOW.

[nighthawks]

turbo penetratoer is definately in the OLD FAQ and I believe it is in my second printing of the 'dex. I will check that tonight.

 

what about sniper rifles? 2D6+0 or what? there needs to be consitancy. if the TPR can be 3D6 (noting the resistance to same) why not the sniper 2D6 and the MB 8+2D6? if GW supports the reading where the TPR IS 3D6 - then this argument is over, and base S + 1D6 is used for standard shooting or assault weapons, as the BRB says. exception weapons are those that use an AP other than S+1D6 (such as 2S+1D6) and those that do not use S at all (sniper, TPR, meltabomb).

 

edit: oops- posted after praeger - I hope above is OK

[Grandmaster damion]

So this has come up again with the added bonus of GW clouding the water by changing there minds again in an FAQ which means nothing as only errata are offical

 

As I read the RAW a melta bombs AP is 8+2D6 with no bonus or extra D6 so there is no extra for the Living Metal Rule to remove

 

or am I missing something?

[GTang]

The other two grenades are 4, then 6, with a single d6, and we get to the melta bombs which are 8 and 2d6 (BRB pg. 63).

 

From the eldar FAQ:

Q. Is the Avatar immune to wounds cause by incinerators, inferno cannons and inferno pistols?

A. Yes, as they are all either melta or flame weapons under different names.

I read that as saying that being called a melta bomb is significant. Stuff that looks like melta should be treated like melta even if it's melta "under different names." With that FAQ question in the background, and the damage progression of the grenades, both might be enough for the bomb to be thought of as having a sufficiently melta-like rule going on. If it was called a "magic bomb" or "super bomb," the 2d6 couldn't be as easily linked to a melta characteristic. You'd have the suggestive numbers alone.

 

With the name melta, though, I think I'd play it as 8+d6 against Living Metal. It's a judgment call.

[DemetriiTZ]

The above argument makes sense to me.

[nighthawks]

From the eldar FAQ:

Q. Is the Avatar immune to wounds cause by incinerators, inferno cannons and inferno pistols?

A. Yes, as they are all either melta or flame weapons under different names.

I read that as saying that being called a melta bomb is significant. Stuff that looks like melta should be treated like melta even if it's melta "under different names." With that FAQ question in the background, and the damage progression of the grenades, both might be enough for the bomb to be thought of as having a sufficiently melta-like rule going on. If it was called a "magic bomb" or "super bomb," the 2d6 couldn't be as easily linked to a melta characteristic. You'd have the suggestive numbers alone.

 

 

some points to consider:

 

the Avatar is immune to ranged weapons of the "melta" and "flame" variety, and that is clarified in the FAQ you quoted. fine.

 

the MB is a grenade. grenades cannot be used against models with Wounds (non vehicles). the melta rule is a special classification of ranged weapons, explained in the shooting phase rules section of the BBB, that grants a range bonus. this is obviously not the case with a grenade, which is NOT a ranged weapon. melta bombs, then, do not have the melta special rule.

 

just as a storm bolter is not a bolt gun when considering special ammo for sternguard vets, despite the name, a melta bomb is not a melta weapon. Even though the range, strength, and AP of the storm bolter is the same as that of a bolt gun, they are different weapons with different firing profiles. likewise, even though the AP of a meltabomb is the same as any imperial melta ranged weapon within half of full range, it is not granted AP1, it is not measured by range, and it is not a firing attack. there are similarities, but the wepaons do not follow the same rules and thus those rules and their bonuses and penalties are not interchangable.

 

With the name melta, though, I think I'd play it as 8+d6 against Living Metal. It's a judgment call.

 

I don't believe that it is a judgement call - it's a misunderstanding of the rules and the addition of links that do not exist. MBs are not granted bonus die and thus are NOT reduced to 8+1D6 against living metal.

[angronn]

This all hinges on what "bonus" means in this context.

 

Some are arguing that since the general rule for AP is S+1D6, anything beyond the first D6 is a bonus (regardless of whether it has been stated as such).

 

The opposing view is that although S+1D6 is a general rule, with some weapons having "bonus" dice stated in their rules (chainfists, melta weapons etc.), there are other weapons with AP that are not bound by the general rule (grenades, turbo-penetrator, spore mines) and thus have no bonus dice to speak of.

 

I think RAW supports the second, whilst RAI might well support the first (hence the extra D6 for meltabombs vs. other grenades). However, since we're arguing RAW...

[Pepito the Mighty]

Not trying to raise and old thread from the dead here, but I had this come up a few weeks ago with my DH army.

 

I had never played against crons before, and the player I was up against asked me before we started if I knew how the TPR worked with the living metal rule.

 

I responded with "huh?"

 

He told me that TPR got it's 3d6 but no and additonal dice for rending.

 

Now to the case in point, what is the acceptable thing to do if you are running melta bombs against living metal in a tournament? Should you get a judge to rule beforehand, decide with the cron player before you start? I can see the argument both ways. If anything I believe Nighthawks makes a very strong case that it does work...

[Mal]

Meltabombs are an easy one.... just look at the rules for meltabombs, living metal means weapons with the 'melta' special rule doesn't get any bonus against it... the trusty meltabomb doesn't have the 'melta' special rule anymore. It is just a standard 8+2D6.

 

As for TPR.... we'll... sorry to say I can't help on that one.

[angronn]

Meltabombs are an easy one.... just look at the rules for meltabombs, living metal means weapons with the 'melta' special rule doesn't get any bonus against it... the trusty meltabomb doesn't have the 'melta' special rule anymore. It is just a standard 8+2D6.

 

Except that the 2nd edition of the Necron Codex muddies the waters with the "in practice" statement.

[Pepito the Mighty]

I don't want to bring back the debate...

 

I'm asking if the common practice when an argument like this arises, is to seek calirfication before the match? Wait til it comes up? Dice off... or something else.

[Pinky Narfanet]

I would seek clarification before the match. Just be polite about it.

 

As a personal rule, if I'm expecting any issues, I'd discuss those issues with the judge and/or the other player(s) before things got started. You (well, I) don't want to bog down a game in the middle because of a rules conundrum.

 

I can't wait for the new 'Cron Codex to (hopefully) clear these rules messed ups.

[Kadaeux]

I don't want to bring back the debate...

 

I'm asking if the common practice when an argument like this arises, is to seek calirfication before the match? Wait til it comes up? Dice off... or something else.

 

1: If thought of beforehand we try to clarify.

1a: If agreement cannot be reached (such as here) then the dice gods decide.

2: If not thought of beforehand we dice it off and accept that. (Once, not every time it comes up.)

[Kadaeux]

I can't wait for the new 'Cron Codex to (hopefully) clear these rules messed ups.

 

Ten Imperials says that it clarifies that ONE issue only and introduces AT LEAST three to replace it. Probably due to a new unit.

[Castus Xanthis]

It sounds like one of those wording technicalities to me. Look in the appropriate section in the codex, weapons that say "Roll an additional d6 for armor penetration" don't get their second or third die, whichever is the case, weapons that say "roll xd6 for armor penetration" get all their dice as no "Additional" dice are there.

[Frosty the Pyro]

In a tourny go to the judge, prefably before you even sit down, judges have athourity that trumps even GW.

 

I am of the opinion that having a strait armor penitration value trumps living mettal (acid mines 2+2d6, turbo penitrator 3d6(but no rending), melta bombs 8+2d6) Note that the sniper rifle does have a str vs vehicles as stated on pg 31 of the rulebook.

 

Also my copy of the necron dex (which i thought was up to date) never says anything about "in practice, you'll only ever get ST + single D6" Could you state the page and paragraph (and location in paragraph) that is so I can find it. And would it be against teh rules to post the living metal paragraph verbatim as I see in my codex.

[Pinky Narfanet]

It's the last sentence in the Living Metal entry for the Monolith...page 21. The exact sentence reads: "In practice, any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what."

[eyescrossed]

Actually frosty, acid mines and snipers are strength 3, and the turbo penetrator has 3+3D6 penetration.