melta orbital strike

[guillaume]

Okay, I did a search in this forum, but couldnt find any relevant posts.

 

Rule question:

 

I fire a melta orbital strike. It hits a vehicle (center of the blast on or off, it doesnt matter).

 

Codex say: roll 2D6 for penetration

rulebook page 60 says: when you roll to penetrate a vehicle's armour with an ordonance weapon, roll 2 dice instead of one and pick the highest result.

 

Two scenarios:

 

A: I roll 2 dice (melta pen) then roll a further 2 dice (ordonance pen) and choose the highest one for a total of 3 dice

OR

B: I roll 3 dice for total pen.

 

Obviously, A seems to be RAW, but B seems more player's friendly (less fussing around with the wording).

 

What should the roll be?

[Grand Master Tyrak]

I would roll 3 dice (ordnance + melta) and pick the highest two.

[Reinholt]

If you buy the codex > rulebook argument, you should roll two dice and take them both.

 

I would think, looking at the situation, that's probably the right resolution from an "intent" standpoint as well.

 

2 dice, take 1 highest is always an inferior option to the same 2 dice, take both. Usually when you are looking at mechanics, you don't get to make long convoluted chains of rolls, re-rolls, re-re-rolls, and selective rolling.

 

My inclination is to just use the melta rule, which is the superior rule and what is in the codex.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

I would say you get 4 dice in two matched colour pairs roll all four. Take the two highest of each coloured pair. (The colour pair making the Ordance roll) and the 2 being the Melta rule...but then thats me...

[jhrovii]

Codex say: roll 2D6 for penetration

 

Well there's your answer! :D

 

(other than that, I would 1d6 and another 2d6, picking the highest out of the pair. Tricky though)

[guillaume]

Codex say: roll 2D6 for penetration

 

Well there's your answer! ;)

 

(other than that, I would 1d6 and another 2d6, picking the highest out of the pair. Tricky though)

 

I am not sure that everyone understands my dilemma.

 

I am arguing (maybe I am wrong) that using a melta orbital strike, a player gets 3D6 of total penetration.

 

2D6 from the melta, and an extra D6 from the ordonnance.

 

The way i see it, the ordonance extra dice should be rolled as following the rulebook: roll 2D6 and use the highest one.

 

e.g: I have an orbital strike that strikes a chaos land raider, but the hole is not over the vehicle (half strength).

 

I have St4 (hole not on vehicle) , I roll 2D6 for melta (get a 3 and a 4) for a total of 11 so far.

Then, because it is an ordonance, I roll a further 2D6, (get a 3 and a 4) and choose the highest roll (4) which I then ADD to the 11, making a total penetration of 15. Hence, the chaos land raider is penetrated.

 

That's the way I see it. Am I right, or am I way off?

[Reinholt]

I see what you are saying.

 

I think the correct interpretation is to take 2D6 as per the melta rule, only.

 

The reason for that is this:

 

Nowhere in the Melta rule is it saying something like "you get an extra D6 for every D6 you normally roll" or "this rule combines with other weapon rules". The bottom line is that any "Melta" weapon takes 2D6 for being a melta.

 

Conversely, any Ordnance weapon takes an extra D6 for being Ordnance and you take the best of the two per the rulebook. However, your codex tells you to take 2D6 for being a melta instead (actually, it literally says "Ordnance blast; 2D6 armour penetration"); it's right in the text of the weapon, and if they had intended it to have some special property as melta ordnance, they could have said so right there. They didn't. I would assume what they wrote was what was intended.

 

However, if you really wanted to argue the point that a later update of the rulebook takes primacy over your codex for applying the ordnance rule, I could live with that interpretation and let you roll two dice, take the best one, and then roll another die for being a melta weapon. Keep in mind, though, this means that your force weapons are also going to need to function as per the rulebook and thus do not cause instant death to models with eternal warrior.

 

Either the rulebook takes precedence or the codex takes precedence; you don't get to flip back and forth depending on what is the best outcome for you based on the specific rule.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Dude, it's this simple;

 

DH/WH FAQ: All Orbital Strikes are Ordnance Barrage weapons now, ignore the stuff about '(In)Accuracy'

 

Ordnance barrage weapons: Against vehicles, you always hit side armour, and if the hole of the Large Blast marker isn't over the hull then the Strength is halved. You also roll an extra dice and pick the highest result. In most circumstances, this means you roll 2D6 and pick the highest (ie the normal 1D6, then the bonus D6, then pick the highest of the two)

 

Melta torpedo (variant Orbital Strike); In the 'Notes' section, it states 'Ordnance blast: 2D6 armour penetration'.

 

The first part is an old definition that simply means 'use the Large Blast marker'. The 2nd part tells us that the melta-torpedo's basic armour penetration roll is 2D6. This is NOT the melta rule.

 

Now, combine the two;

 

Ordnance barrage (always hit side armour, if hole not over hull 1/2 Strength, roll an extra D6 and pick the highest result) and the 'melta torpedo' rule (2D6 armour penetration), and you get;

 

Melta-torpedo: Against vehicles, you'll roll S8+3D6 (discarding the lowest roll), resolved against side armour facing. If the hole of the Large Blast didn't end up over the hull of the vehicle, you only roll S4+3D6 (discarding the lowest roll), resolved against side armour facing.

 

Can I repeat again for the benefit of the tape, nowhere in the rules of the melta-torpedo Orbital Strike does the 'melta' rule come up? It's a different rule entirely; it's like saying the MC rule (ie you roll Strength+2D6 against vehicles in close-combat) is the same as the melta rule.

[glsn]

Where in the Daemonhunter/Witchhunter FAQ does it say the (In)Accuracy is ignored? I just read through it and the only thing it says about the Orbital Strike is that you don't have to tell your opponent where it will be landing.

[jeffersonian000]

Where in the Daemonhunter/Witchhunter FAQ does it say the (In)Accuracy is ignored? I just read through it and the only thing it says about the Orbital Strike is that you don't have to tell your opponent where it will be landing.

 

 

Its in the Witchhunter FAQ, but not the Daemonhunter FAQ, oddly enough. Btw, there is precedence for rolling 3 dice and taking the higher 2 in the rules already, which is the simplest resolution for this issue.

 

SJ

[glsn]

Huh, that's odd. Thanks.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Where in the Daemonhunter/Witchhunter FAQ does it say the (In)Accuracy is ignored? I just read through it and the only thing it says about the Orbital Strike is that you don't have to tell your opponent where it will be landing.

 

Well, there are also clarifications for how Temple Assassins work in the WH FAQ; it would be pretty stupid to claim that a WH Callidus gets a single-handed neural shredder, but a DH Callidus doesn't. So, I use both when determining whether any new rules changes have come about. By same token, the Orbital Strikes should be identical (as in all Ordnance Barrage, then add on the individual profiles for the different types).

 

Its in the Witchhunter FAQ, but not the Daemonhunter FAQ, oddly enough. Btw, there is precedence for rolling 3 dice and taking the higher 2 in the rules already, which is the simplest resolution for this issue.

 

Yeah, it's just easier to do the Strength+3D6 and discard the lowest roll.

[number6]

Actually, there is a recent topic devoted to this subject. See my post for a thorough discussion of the dice rolling mechanics with melta torpedos.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

The thing is, the alternatives are all far harder to get your head around. They all require either making up new rules/precedents, ignoring one or the other (either the melta-torpedo rule or the rules for Ordnance Weapons). Given that this is educated house-ruling, the simpler the better IMO.

 

I mean, the usual precedent for these situations is;

 

BRB base rules for weapon/wargear: Okay, so far so good

 

Codex adds feature not found with 'generic' version: This doesn't mean 'lets totally ignore the basic version', it means 'base rules' then 'codex addition'. So, for example;

 

Psykers: Can normally only use one psychic power per turn (as told to us in the BRB)

Mark of Tzeentch: Codex addition. It would be illogical to claim that the Tzeentchian Sorceror/Prince can't cast one power 'base', otherwise the bonus of an additional power makes no sense. Therefore, they can use two powers a turn (the most abusive combo being 'Warptime' then 'Winds of Chaos'. Mmmm, tasty AP2 flamer that wounds on a 4+ with re-rolls).

 

 

Therefore, if we turn our attention to the melta-torpedo;

 

BRB base rules: The FAQ (as I stated before, I consider both DH/WH FAQ's joined at the hip, rules-wise) says they're all Ordnance Barrages. This (in addition to other things) means they get the bonus 1D6 for being an Ordnance weapon.

 

Codex addition: Instead of normal 1D6, the melta-torpedo rolls 2D6 for it's armour penetration.

 

The most logical way to roll when dealing with armour is Strength+3D6, discarding lowest roll. You don't have to ignore any rules, and it's simple to explain to an opponent. If need be give other examples where a normal BRB version is modified by a Codex version (the psyker example is but one of many, but the mechanic is the same in each case).

 

 

Obviously, with the lack of an 'official' ruling on this matter, this is largely just my interpretation. People should feel free to play it however they want; the rules haven't been updated in so long it's anyones guess how they are supposed to function (like a lot of DH/WH stuff).

[GTang]

I think I'd just take the 2d6. Partly because of the codex vs. BRB reasons above. Also, because the melta torpedo is 2d6 even when the center isn't on the model.

[guillaume]

After all of that, and I think for simplicity's sake, as Reclusiarch Darius as stated here and in other such posts (I should have looked more thoroughly), 3D6 and discard the lowest is what I'll play.

 

Thanks everyone.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

@ Gtang: The Ordnance rules don't deny you the extra D6 if you don't get the hole over the hull (which is I think you're line of reasoning), they halve the Strength. So the mechanic should be the same; base AP then Ordnance bonus on top.

 

@ guillaume: Glad I could help.

[GodwynDi]

Also, just as a note, just because "melta" is not mentioned in the statline in the witchhunter codex, this is because melta was not an actual wargear description at the time of printing, according to GW about the inferno pistol, which is a melta, even though it does not have melta in the statline. It is a 3rd edition codex after all.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Also, just as a note, just because "melta" is not mentioned in the statline in the witchhunter codex, this is because melta was not an actual wargear description at the time of printing, according to GW about the inferno pistol, which is a melta, even though it does not have melta in the statline. It is a 3rd edition codex after all.

 

GW did clarify (in an earlier FAQ) that the inferno pistol is a 'melta' weapon. However, they have not said anything about the melta-torpedo itself.

 

I believe the intention of the rules for the melta-torpedo are meant to grant it the 'melta bonus' automatically (ie with no range specified, like with all other melta weapons), because it's a barrage of missiles that either hits the target or misses. Hence, the '2D6 armour penetration' granted in the 'Notes' section for the melta-torpedo.

 

However, from a strictly RAW perspective (which isn't the only way to go, but helps avoid confusion I find), the melta-torpedo doesn't have the actual 'melta' rule (either in the codex, or from a FAQ). It has it's own special rule contained in the 'Notes', which means it always has 2D6 armour penetration (and being an Ordnance weapon, another D6 and remove the lowest roll). Hence, S+3D6, remove the lowest.