vindicare turbo penetrator ammo

[Chengar Qordath]

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.

The FAQ did not change anything; it merely explained how a piece of wargear works in 5th edition.

[Grey Mage]

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.

FAQ is a form of clarification, supposedly- not rules changes, wich are errata.

 

It doesnt always work like that, but when it doesnt I think my desire for internal consistancy overrides the already dropped ball that is game balance.

[Legatus]

The FAQ did not change anything;

Yes it did. The Codex WH was written in 3rd Edition, where Sniper Rifles only had a single D6 for Armour Penetration. So when the Codex Witch Hunters said "it has an Armour Penetration of 3D6", then it meant exactly that, that the turbo-penetrator has specifically those 3D6 and nothing else to penetrate Armour values.

 

"has an Armour Penetration of X" means that is all, the total value. That is what it meant in 3rd Edition, and that is what it still means now. And that is what the Codex Grey Knights says about the new turbo penetrator.

 

The FaQ changes the Armour Penetration for the turbo penetrator from 3D6, as it is given in that Codex, to 3+3D6.

[Chengar Qordath]

The FAQ did not change anything;

Yes it did. The Codex WH was written in 3rd Edition, where Sniper Rifles only had a single D6 for Armour Penetration. So when the Codex Witch Hunters said "it has an Armour Penetration of 3D6", then it meant exactly that, that the turbo-penetrator has specifically those 3D6 and nothing else to penetrate Armour values.

 

"has an Armour Penetration of X" means that is all, the total value. That is what it meant in 3rd Edition, and that is what it still means now. And that is what the Codex Grey Knights says about the new turbo penetrator.

 

The FaQ changes the Armour Penetration for the turbo penetrator from 3D6, as it is given in that Codex, to 3+3D6.

How it worked in 3rd edition is only relevant if you're playing a 3rd edition game. This is 5th edition, and in 5th edition snipers weapons have strength 3 + however many d6 for armor penetration.

 

If I ever play a game under the 3rd edition rulebook, then it would only have 4d6

[Legatus]

The point is that the rule from 3rd Edition (C:WH), as meant in 3rd Edition, and the rule from 5th Edition (C:GK) are written the same, and do indeed mean the same.

 

"it has an Armour Penetration of 3D6" back in 3rd Edition meant that the total Armour Penetration value was those 3D6.

 

And "it has an Armour Penetration of 4D6" now in 5th Edition means exactly the same, that the total Armour Penetration value is those 4D6.

 

The Witch Hunters turbo penetrator uses 3+3D6 in 5th Edition. But not because that's what it's Codex WH rules say. The Codex WH rules didn't say that. The FaQ had to update that. In the Codex WH alone it was only the 3D6. Exactly how in the Codex Gk only the 4D6.

 

"it has an Armour Penetration of 3D6"

 

"it has an Armour Penetration of 4D6"

 

They mean the same.

[Morollan]

I'm with Legatus on this one and I think the rules support his view. The turbo shot is clearly stated to have an armour penetration of 4d6. Not "an extra 3D6", not "4D6+3". Just 4D6. The 4D6 replaces the normal roll of 1D6 + Strength that normal weapons receive.

[Grey Mage]

Unless of course "armor penetration value" added to the strength of a weapon for its roll, as opposed its 'armor penetration' wich is the total roll.

[skink]

I'm also with Legatus. I'm sure this has been said before but I'm just reasoning it through again - pg. 60 of the rule book has a section titled 'Armour Penetration', which then describes this as D6 plus weapon strength. If the codex describes 'Armour Penetration' as 4D6, then codex trumps rule book; Amour Penetration is 4D6, regardless of strength.

 

The WH codex (S3+3D6) is effectively still 4D6, but with a slightly below average roll pre-assigned as your first D6. From a personal slant, I'm pretty sure common sense dictates that a weapon shouldn't have an average roll of 17 (in addition to it rending? Plus AP1?! Really??) to penetrate armour, and wouldn't play it that way myself.

 

And, thinking about it some more, I guess this is similar to the Falchion (sp?) story; the rules said '+1 Attack'. Lots of folk assumed that this was an additional +1A (read 4D6) to the +1A already granted by having two weapons of the same type (read S3). It wasn't.

[greatcrusade08]

I'm also with Legatus. I'm sure this has been said before but I'm just reasoning it through again - pg. 60 of the rule book has a section titled 'Armour Penetration', which then describes this as D6 plus weapon strength. If the codex describes 'Armour Penetration' as 4D6, then codex trumps rule book; Amour Penetration is 4D6, regardless of strength.

which is a great RAW argument, but we know that GW words its rules badly, so RAW often has as much founding as RAI

me personally i go by precedent, every other weapon adds its strength to the pen roll, yet this is different... i dont buy it

 

The WH codex (S3+3D6) is effectively still 4D6, but with a slightly below average roll pre-assigned as your first D6. From a personal slant, I'm pretty sure common sense dictates that a weapon shouldn't have an average roll of 17 (in addition to it rending? Plus AP1?! Really??) to penetrate armour, and wouldn't play it that way myself.

this isnt a real argument, S3+3D6 is not the same as 4D6, for a start it adds the strength value.. plus you cant throw out average rolls as an argument, how do you know what GW intended for this weapon.. if they didnt want it to b powerful they wopuldnt have gievn it 4D6 and AP1 would they?

The WH FAQ clearly shows the turbo-pen adds its strength, ive seen no argument to counter this beyond "it was a previous editions rule".. which doesnt stand up to any serious scrutiny, the WH dex is a useable dex with the 5th ed rules, and the FAQ was released to allow it as such..

 

And, thinking about it some more, I guess this is similar to the Falchion (sp?) story; the rules said '+1 Attack'. Lots of folk assumed that this was an additional +1A (read 4D6) to the +1A already granted by having two weapons of the same type (read S3). It wasn't.

how is that an argument?, the two have no correlation to argue a precedent.. it makes no sense whatsoever

[skink]

me personally i go by precedent, every other weapon adds its strength to the pen roll, yet this is different... i dont buy it

I totally agree with you for the majority of weapons, but I guess the point I was trying to put across was that as the codex (as I read it) is stipulating a 'special' rule/affect, one should go with it. Is that not the usual precedent with rules?

 

this isnt a real argument, S3+3D6 is not the same as 4D6, for a start it adds the strength value.. plus you cant throw out average rolls as an argument, how do you know what GW intended for this weapon.. if they didnt want it to b powerful they wopuldnt have gievn it 4D6 and AP1 would they?

S3+3D6 minus 3D6 is 3. 4D6 minus 3D6 is D6. One of the reasons I like power armour is because I can be fairly safe in the knowledge I can roll 3 or better on a D6. I didn't say they were the same, I said that their effect was similar, which I don't think is deniable. And you're right, I can't be sure what GW wanted for the weapon, which is why I was sure to say that it was a personal ideal.

 

how is that an argument?, the two have no correlation to argue a precedent.. it makes no sense whatsoever

Do you not think? They both appear in the same codex, and they both have a special ruling with regards to their particular effect/bonus which has been the subject of some controversy between which some parallels can be drawn (which I attempted to do). I thought the principle was quite suitable, but obviously not! Never mind...

[Legatus]

me personally i go by precedent, every other weapon adds its strength to the pen roll, yet this is different... i dont buy it

The turbo penetrator uses 4D6 (!) to penetrate armour, making it a unique weapon no matter how you put it. That this should necessarily conform to any particular game mechanic, even if it's rules description suggests the opposite, is not a very solid argument.

 

Take the Neural Shredder on the same page in Codex Grey Knights, for examples. It's rules state that it uses the opponent's Leaderhip instead of his Toughness to wound. Yet you wouldn't then claim that because no other weapon has ever done this, the rule must be badly written and we should go by precedent and use the opponent's Toughness value to wound instead.

Now, the Neural Shredder's rules are quite specific in that it doesn't use the Toughnes, but similarly the rules for the turbo penetrator quite clearly give an Armour Penetration value.

 

Also, compare the turbo penetrator to the rules of the Vindicare's Hellfire shot. It always wounds on 2+. Sniper rifles don't work that way normally. The special shot changes the properties of the weapon.

 

"Sniper hits wound on a roll of 4+, regardless of the victim's toughness." (BRB, p. 31)

 

Not so for the hellfire shot --> "The shot always wounds on a 2+." (C:GK, p. 53)

 

 

"Against vehicles, sniper weapons count as Strength 3" (BRB, p. 31), "Once a hit has been scored, roll a D6 and add the weapon's Strength to it" (BRB, p. 60), "Armour Penetration [in close combat] is worked out in the same way as for shooting (D6 + the Strength of the attacker)." (BRB, p. 63)

 

But not so for the turbo penetrator shot --> "A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6." (C:GK, p. 53)

 

The shots both modify one or more elements of the usual sniper rules. The hellfire shot changes the to-wound roll of the weapon, while the turbo penetrator changes the Armour Penetration of the weapon. And it should be noted that Sniper Rifles do not have a Strength value of 3. They have a Strength of X. It is a special rule of sniper weapons that when firing at vehicles specifically, they count as having a Strength of 3. But the turbo penetrator has it's own rules for Armour Penetration, just like the hellfire shot replaces the rules for wounding on 4+.

[maturin]

To me, this thread illustrates exactly how poor GW is at writing rules. I don't think we can divine RAI at all in this situation, as I think both sides have valid points. RAW is perhaps slightly less muddy, but we usually play RAI around here.

 

The frustrating thing for me is this pattern:

 

3rd edition codex specifies "it has an Armour Penetration of 3D6".

 

This is updated in the 5th edition FAQ to specify 3+3D6, giving us a precedent as to how they would like us to address this rule.

 

5th edition codex now (frustratingly!) uses the same confusing terminology (which needed FAQing!) as the old 3rd edition codex. WHY OH WHY? Do we now assume that they've decided to throw out the clarifying precedent of the FAQ because it was updating an old codex? Or do we assume that the GK author thinks that GK players will have the FAQ in mind when applying the rule? Either way, the last thing they should have done is write the rule in the EXACT SAME WAY without clarification, since they KNOW that it caused confusion in the past and would presumably do so again.

 

I don't know. This question needs to be re-FAQ'd. I'm gonna roll for which interpretation I use each game.

[Legatus]

This is updated in the 5th edition FAQ to specify 3+3D6, giving us a precedent as to how they would like us to address this rule.

The FaQ did not explain what the rule means. It updated the weapon's rules according to the 5th Edition Sniper Rifle mechanic.

 

In 3rd Edition, Sniper Rifles had a single D6 for armour penetration. The Witch Hunters Codex instead specified that with the turbo penetrator shot, the Exitus Rifle would have 3D6 Armour Penetration. And that was exactly what the rule meant. The total Armour Penetration is 3D6. That is specifically what the rule in Codex Witch Hunters says.

 

But in 5th Edition, Sniper Rifles were changed to have 3+D6 Armour Penetration. The FaQ added the additional bonus to the turbo penetrator Armour Penetration as well. That does not mean that the rule text in Codex Witch Hunters now means something completely different. It still gives the shot a total Armour Penetratiopn of 3D6. But the FaQ changed that.

 

The Codex Grey Knights rule means exactly what the text in Codex Witch Hunters means. It specifies a total Armour Penetration for the shot.

 

 

It is conceivable that the author of Codex Grey Knights was looking at the old Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters rules when writing the Codex Grey Knights, and when writing the rules for the Assassins naturally looked at their previous rules as well. He may have seen the rules for the turbo penetrator, but remembered that they are 3+3D6 in the game, getting the impression that this was what the rule would result in. So perhaps the author meant for it to be 3+4D6 but let himself be confused by the 3rd Edition rule for turbo penetrators.

 

On the other hand, 3+3D6 with rending has an average value of 14.5, begging the question why a game designer would feel the need to add an additional D6 to this already phenomenal Armour Penetration. So it is also conceivable that, just as skink suggested, the game designer simply replaced the "3" with another D6, if only for the sake that 4D6 looks more convenient in a rule text than 3+3D6.

 

 

There is no ambiguity in that the description in the Codex Grey Knights gives a total Armour Penetration value of 4D6.

[Roesor]

Well. I shall be doing it 3 + 4d6 + rending until actualy told otherwise by offcialness. I'm curious, has anyone ever even needed the extra 3+? I have not. He's tallied 3 super heavy kills so far without needing the extra 3.

[Darkmagi]

I have needed the extra 3 a grand total of 2 times vs land raiders... so it happens on occasion. Over all as the weapon is a sniper weapon i agree and i shall be playing it as 3+4d6+rending especially with the clarification from the witch hunters faq

[thade]

To me, this thread illustrates exactly how poor GW is at writing rules.

I feel like I speak to this myself roughly once a week here when posting, and that it should carry more weight than it does...but here we are, thread after thread, trying to analyze to the very letter what something must specifically and unambiguously mean as it is written. Often this task is impossible.

 

There is an implicit counter-argument here that people are using and I think it bears being stated, unambiguously and specifically.

 

Armor Pen is Strength + Pen Dice; that is the basic rule. If it is the case that the Vindicator rifle overrides some or all of this basic rule, it must explicitly state that this is the case It does state that it overrides the Pen Dice (instead of 1d6, it's 4d6). It makes no reference whatsoever to the Strength. Sure, this might imply that we're expected to omit the Strength from the rifle's pen rolls...but that's RAI. Because it is ambiguous and not clear as to whether it omits the Strength from the roll or not, we must include the Strength. There's your Occam's Razor RAW, right there.

 

Now I'd like to add one further point, which is my interpretation. Grain of salt, pre-loaded.

 

We are arguing over a value of 3 potentially added to 4d6. 4d6 on an average roll will glance the Raider. Adding 3 to that almost assures a Penetrate. Given the cost of the Vindicare and his vulnerabilities (i.e. he can't be buried in a unit) and that it's only one shot per round, for my part I suspect the 3 is to be included.

 

That's where I'm at.

[greatcrusade08]

as always thades common sense approach humbles my previous attempts to argue this point..

somebody give him a cookie :)

[thade]

as always thades common sense approach humbles my previous attempts to argue this point..

somebody give him a cookie :)

Ha! Much appreciated, man.

 

Hold the applause tho; I've no doubt that Legatus will soon attempt to parry my thrust.

[Legatus]

Armor Pen is Strength + Pen Dice; that is the basic rule. If it is the case that the Vindicator rifle overrides some or all of this basic rule, it must explicitly state that this is the case It does state that it overrides the Pen Dice (instead of 1d6, it's 4d6). It makes no reference whatsoever to the Strength. Sure, this might imply that we're expected to omit the Strength from the rifle's pen rolls...but that's RAI. Because it is ambiguous and not clear as to whether it omits the Strength from the roll or not, we must include the Strength. There's your Occam's Razor RAW, right there.

Your first sentence was correct. Then you went off track a bit.

 

 

Armor Pen is Strength + Pen Dice

Exactly.

 

 

It does state that it overrides the Pen Dice (instead of 1d6, it's 4d6).

Nnnope. It does not state that it overrides the Pen dice. It gives a specific Armour Pen. Armour Pen is all inclusive, as you pointed out yourselve earlier.

 

 

Sure, this might imply that we're expected to omit the Strength from the rifle's pen rolls...but that's RAI. Because it is ambiguous and not clear as to whether it omits the Strength from the roll or not, we must include the Strength. There's your Occam's Razor RAW, right there.

You then essentially claim that going with the letter of the rule is RAI, and adding a Strength value even though the rule gives a specific Armour Pen value would be RAW.

 

 

Here is your RAW:

 

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

 

That means the shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6. There is nothing ambiguous about it. There is only confusion about what "Armour Penetration" means.

 

 

Basic Armour Penetration: Strength + 1D6

 

Armour Penetration of a boltgun: 4 + 1D6

 

Armour Penetration of a laser cannon: 9 + 1D6

 

Armour Penetration of a melta bomb: 8 + 2D6*

 

Armour Penetration of a krak grenade: 6 + 1D6

 

Armour Penetration of a sniper rifle: 3** + 1D6

 

Armour Penetration of a turbo-penetrator shot: 4D6***

 

 

*This is a special rule, since weapons normally roll only a single D6 for Armour Penetration. The special rule adds another die.

 

**This is a special rule, since weapons normally add their Strength value, but a sniper rifle does not normally have a Strength value. The special rule adds a Strength value specifically for the purpose or Armour Penetration.

 

***This is a special rule, since weapons normally add their Strength value to a single D6. The special rule replaces the rifle's usual Armour Penetration with a completely new value.

[greatcrusade08]

de-ja-vu :)

 

no offense to you legatus, when it comes to definates your the man to ask.. but rules discussions are not definates.. if it was clear there wouldnt be any discussion.. if you see my point.

there can be no true RAW aslong as we al agree that GW makes a mess of its rules wording.. if we all can agree to that one point then arguing rules becomes a matter of interpretation, set precedent and playability.

[Legatus]

As I said earlier, I think it is conceivable that the author himself was not entirely aware of what "Armour Penetration" truly meant, and intended for it to only refer to the dice. I assume the reason for that was the confusion caused by the Witch Hunter rule and the Witch Hunter FaQ, which causes some to assume that the rule text from the Codex WH means what the WH FaQ clarified. The author might have known in his mind that the Witch Hunter rifle had 3+3D6 Armour Penetration, and was then looking at how the old rule was written, and based the new rule on that text.

 

For the same reason the players reading the rules are confused about how to interprete it. They, too, might have gotten the impression that the "Armour Penetration" maybe refered only to the dice that are rolled and added to the weapon's Strenght. But "Armour Penetration" is the value you compare to a vehicle's "Armour" value to determine whether or not the vehicle suffers damage. Normally that is the Strength of the weapon plus a single D6. The turbo penetrator replaces the sniper rifle's usual Armour Penetration with a new value. There is no problem with the rule as it is written. It is just that several players assume that there has to be something added to those dice.

[greatcrusade08]

There is no problem with the rule as it is written. It is just that several players assume that there has to be something added to those dice.

 

its the safest assumption to make based off set precedents.. the way the WH turbo-pen works has to be taken into account, yet you seem too happyu to ginore it as irrelevant.. i just cant agree to ingore it..

as for:

Armour Penetration of a melta bomb: 8 + 2D6*

 

This is a special rule, since weapons normally roll only a single D6 for Armour Penetration. The special rule adds another die.

 

both the meltabomb and chainfist arent noted as having an extra D6, they are speficially stated to have 2D6 pen, without any explanation as to how or why.. it is what it is

granted the BRB shows its 8+2D6.. but the rules for penetrating a vhcile are kept relatively simple.. the same as assault.. you roll a D6 and add yours or the weapons strength..

a sniper rifle does have a strength, IIRc the BRB FAQ noted that all strength 'X' were to be changed to strenght one.. either way its speifically noted as having S3 against vehicles.

[thade]

Right. Toe to toe it is then. ^_^

 

It does state that it overrides the Pen Dice (instead of 1d6, it's 4d6).

Nnnope. It does not state that it overrides the Pen dice.

Yyyyup. It does, actually. In the same way that, for instance, the Walker rules state that they override normal shooting rules. How? Well, of course they don't say "This overrides the normal rules for infantry and vehicles n that a walker can move, fire all weapons, and assault." Instead it says that the walker can move, fire all weapons, and assault.

 

This is how the rules work, so it shouldn't be a surprise. There is a basic section (Movement, Shooting, and Assault), basic overrides (for instance, the rules on Walkers), and further overrides (in Codecies).

 

Now, what in the Walker rules is not overridden due to not being mentioned in the aforementioned basic rules? How about Consolidation? Walker gets blown up in CC...the assaulting unit doesn't get a consolidate because it's a vehicle. This is never stated, so is not overridden, and well, that's my example.

 

What's talked about? 4d6 Pen Dice. What's not talked about? The 3 Strength. Including the 3 is the simplest path as it's what people are used to. That's really the thing, isn't it? What people are used to is as much a part of this rule set as the stuff that's written in.

 

I can see why you disagree, but perhaps you can see the limits on literal interpretation of this rule set? Your assertions fit the exact writing of the rules, but then the other camp's assertions here also do, in that they don't break any of the written rules. When things seem ambiguous, the simple path is the solution: the Basic Rule with applicable overrides.

[dswanick]

Right. Toe to toe it is then. ^_^

 

It does state that it overrides the Pen Dice (instead of 1d6, it's 4d6).

Nnnope. It does not state that it overrides the Pen dice.

Yyyyup. It does, actually. In the same way that, for instance, the Walker rules state that they override normal shooting rules. How? Well, of course they don't say "This overrides the normal rules for infantry and vehicles n that a walker can move, fire all weapons, and assault." Instead it says that the walker can move, fire all weapons, and assault.

In this instance I don't think you are quite correct thade. Here's how I see it -

Take the statement "thade's pet is an albino beagle". We now know something about your pet - it's from the beagle breed and it is all white with pink eyes. Now imagine that I say I'm replacing thade's pet with a siamese cat. We now know that you pet is no longer a beagle but is now a siamese. Does this mean that your pet is still an albino? We don't know. One could assume that it is, because we didn't specify that the replacement pet is a normally colored siamese. We could also assume that your cat is normally colored because we didn't specify that the replacement was an albino siamese. Ultimately, though, we do not know from the information provided.

Now replace albino with S3, beagle with d6, and siamese with 4d6 - and you will get why Legatus is arguing the point. Legatus' argument seems to be : Armor Penetration is a phrase defined as (S+d6) which is replaced by the Turbo-Pen rules definition of (4d6). You seem to be arguing that the phrase is defined as the number of dice to be rolled - S+(d6) which is replaced by S+(4d6). Neither assumption is wrong, but both are assumptions because nowhere does GW write exactly what the phrase means within the context of the game. They simply expect the players to infer the correct definition from context and precident.

Personally, I'm of the oppinion that the 4d6 is the sum total of the Armor Penetration. But that's just my gut feeling.

[Legatus]

Yyyyup. It does, actually. (...)

 

What's talked about? 4d6 Pen Dice.

You know, when I disagreed with your assertment the last time, I not only pointed out what it actually talks about, I even quoted the rule in that post (though a bit further down).

 

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

 

Ephasis mine. It is not talking about how "the shot has 4D6 dice for Armour Penetration". It is talking about the "Armour Penetration". Armour Penetration is S+D6. The entire value.

 

The rules for Armour Penetration explain how the weapons usually work against vehicles. I included other examples such as the melta bombs or the sniper rifle rules to show that there are other examples where a weapon will not simply use it's own Strength value and add a single D6. Weapons might have special rules that add extra dice or replace the strength value. Some weapons might add an additional value to the Strength of the weapon (in 4th Edition a Withcblade would tripple the bearer's Strength for Armour Penetration, though in 5th Edition it simply counts as Strength 9), or it might not have an Armour Penetration value at all and instead simply allways inflict a glancing hit. The turbo penetrator shot replaces the normal Armour Penetration of the rifle (which is 3 + D6 as it is a sniper rifle), with 4D6.

As far as I can remember it is the only weapon in the game that works in this way, but that is not a problem for the rules. They still work fine, and the rules for penetrating armour are not completely messed up by one weapon somehow not adding a static bonus to a dice roll.

 

 

Normal Armour Penetration: Weapon Strength + 1D6

 

 

Some notable Exceptions:

 

Melta bombs: 8 + 2D8 (one additional D6)

 

Sniper rifles: 3 + D6 (the weapon's Strength is not 3, it gets this value specifically for Armour Penetration)

 

D-Cannon: Glances on a roll of 3 or 4, Penetrates on a roll of 5 or 6 (no Armour Penetration value at all, the result of a die roll determines the result.)

 

Vibro Cannon: Automatic glancing hit (no Armour Penetration value at all, allways a glancing hit)

 

and now

 

Exitus rifle with turbo-penetrator: 4D6 (weapon's normal Armour Penetration of 3+D6 is replaced by 4D6)