vindicare turbo penetrator ammo

[thade]

Dswanick, are you suggesting that the difference between 3+4d6 vs 4d6 is alike to the difference between an albino beagle and a siamese cat? :D I respectfully disagree.

 

Legatus, you both refer to the Vindicare's rifle being a Sniper rifle and cite the override listed in it's rule as implicitly counter-manding that rule. Maybe I'm confused. Is the rifle not subject to the Sniper rule? (It does say Sniper in its profile.)

 

The Sniper rule is Str 3 + 1d6 + Rending. (It does actually say that it 'counts-as S3' for purposes of Armor Penetration, and that's what we're talking about here.) What is overridden in the Vindicare rules? The 1d6. What's not overriden? The core of the Sniper rules (S3 and Rending).

 

Here is where I am getting lost on your position. By your own logic, I can make the following assertion: the Sniper rifle rule doesn't have the words Armor Penetration in it, so Sniper rifles don't have Armor Pen at all. More specifically, it doesn't say he gets a d6, so they don't get 1d6 in addition to Str 3 and Rending. That's a pure and literal reading of that rule. It is, of course, bullocks...because of the way Armor Pen's basic rules work. They involve a d6. What's being overridden? S3 and Rending are added. Naturally, since we're Penetrating (or trying to) armor, we get the d6. That's the Basic Rule, which was not overridden (nor was it even referred to).

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

Legatus, you both refer to the Vindicare's rifle being a Sniper rifle and cite the override listed in it's rule as implicitly counter-manding that rule. Maybe I'm confused. Is the rifle not subject to the Sniper rule? (It does say Sniper in its profile.)

 

The Sniper rule is Str 3 + 1d6 + Rending. (It does actually say that it 'counts-as S3' for purposes of Armor Penetration, and that's what we're talking about here.) What is overridden in the Vindicare rules? The 1d6. What's not overriden? The core of the Sniper rules (S3 and Rending).

 

Here is where I am getting lost on your position. By your own logic, I can make the following assertion: the Sniper rifle rule doesn't have the words Armor Penetration in it, so Sniper rifles don't have Armor Pen at all. More specifically, it doesn't say he gets a d6, so they don't get 1d6 in addition to Str 3 and Rending. That's a pure and literal reading of that rule. It is, of course, bullocks...because of the way Armor Pen's basic rules work. They involve a d6. What's being overridden? S3 and Rending are added. Naturally, since we're Penetrating (or trying to) armor, we get the d6. That's the Basic Rule, which was not overridden (nor was it even referred to).

I think Legatus' point is that the TP rule overrides the rules for sniper rifles when it comes to penetrating armour. I.e instead of 3+D6 it is a flat 4D6, and not 3+4D6 or anything else.

[Legatus]

Legatus, you both refer to the Vindicare's rifle being a Sniper rifle and cite the override listed in it's rule as implicitly counter-manding that rule. Maybe I'm confused. Is the rifle not subject to the Sniper rule? (It does say Sniper in its profile.)

 

The Sniper rule is Str 3 + 1d6 + Rending.

A "Sniper" type has the following properties:

 

1. It only has Strength X, but allways wounds on a 4+.

 

2. It counts as pinning.

 

3. It counts as Rending.

 

4. It counts as Strength 3 against Vehicles.

 

The Exitus Rifle is of the "Sniper" type. So far so good. but the Exitus rifle also has three special ammunition types, which will further alter it's properties.

 

Hellfire - This shot wounds on 2+. Note that property (1) of the "Sniper" properties no longer applies, and is instead superceded by the rules of this ammunition type.

 

Shield-Breaker - This weapon has an additional effect and does not alter the "Sniper" properties.

 

Turbo-Penetrator - This shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6. This replaces the weapon's usual Armour Penetration of 3+D6 it would have due to property (4) of the "Sniper" type.

 

--> With Hellfire ammunition, the rifle has 3+D6 Armour Penetration, due to counting as a "Sniper" weapon. With the Shield-Breaker ammunition, the rifle has 3+D6 Armour Penetration, due to counting as a "Sniper" weapon. With Turbo-Penetrator ammunition, the rifle has 4D6 Armour Penetration, due to the ammunition rule superceding and replacing the weapon's regular Armour Penetration value.

 

 

Armour Penetration normally is S + D6. Turbo-Penetrator rules say "no", the Armour Penetration of this shot is not S+D6. It is 4D6.

 

 

Here is where I am getting lost on your position. By your own logic, I can make the following assertion: the Sniper rifle rule doesn't have the words Armor Penetration in it, so Sniper rifles don't have Armor Pen at all.

I don't know how you could possibly make such an asserting according to my logic. A weapon's Armour Penetration is equal to it's Strength plus one D6. A Sniper Rifle counts as Strength 3, so would have an Armour Penetration of 3+D6. The Trubo Penetrator doesn't have an Armour Penetration of 3+D6. It has an Armour Penetration of 4D6.

[maturin]

Legatus,

 

You keep analyzing the current rule based on the extant rule set. While normally and by RAW I might agree with you, the fact is that we have a clear precedent to follow in this case - the FAQ. I know it may seem like I'm harping on the point, but I believe it is an important one and I have yet to see it addressed in a clear and concise manner on this thread.

 

You asserted earlier that "The WH rule was changed via an FaQ clarification". I disagree - the FAQ does not include any text whatsoever that actually changes the rule. It does not say "Replace the Vindicare's turbo-penetrator rule with the following: AP of 3+3D6". The FAQ simply launches into an explanation of how the rule should be interpreted in 5th edition. Here is the quote from the FAQ:

Q: How does the Vindicare's turbo-penetrator round work in regards to rending?

 

A: Because sniper rifles are rending, when rolling for armor 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...

 

Again, there is nothing about changing the rule itself. It simply gives us guidance on how to interpret the words "...the shot has an armor penetration of 3D6" - which admittedly may change how you interpret or apply the rule.

 

Now we have in the new codex almost the same verbiage. We're still in 5th edition. Why should we disregard the guidance we have previously received on how to interpret the words "armor penetration"? Yes, it may go against RAW, but GW has just told us (via the FAQ) to disregard RAW and told you how they intend the rule to be played in 5th edition. The whole section of the FAQ is entitled "Clarifications for using Witch Hunters in Warhammer 40k 5th edition". We're still in 5th, right? I don't see why we should disregard such clear guidance on how they expect the words "Armor Penetration" to be interpreted.

[thade]

I don't know how you could possibly make such an asserting according to my logic.

No insult intended. Purely being honest.

A weapon's Armour Penetration is equal to it's Strength plus one D6. A Sniper Rifle counts as Strength 3, so would have an Armour Penetration of 3+D6.

Agreed on both counts.

The Trubo Penetrator doesn't have an Armour Penetration of 3+D6. It has an Armour Penetration of 4D6.

This is where we differ. You seem to be (at least, implicitly) treating the Turbo Penetrator as if it is a different weapon entirely (sort of like the melta side of a combi-melta, as a loose analogy?) and I see it as an override. Let me try to state what you are saying in my words, to make sure I'm on the level.

 

The Turbo Penetrator is not a Sniper rifle; it has only the Armor Penetration it has listed, nothing more; it cannot wound as it has no Strength associated with it. As it is not a Sniper rifle, it does not benefit from the S3/Rending rules as it does. Since the FAQ clears up how it Rends, it does get Rending...but because the FAQ does not address the Strength that comes with Sniper, it does not get that.

 

Are those fair inferences?

[Legatus]

maturin:

You asserted earlier that "The WH rule was changed via an FaQ clarification". I disagree - the FAQ does not include any text whatsoever that actually changes the rule. It does not say "Replace the Vindicare's turbo-penetrator rule with the following: AP of 3+3D6". The FAQ simply launches into an explanation of how the rule should be interpreted in 5th edition.

 

(...)

 

Again, there is nothing about changing the rule itself. It simply gives us guidance on how to interpret the words "...the shot has an armor penetration of 3D6" - which admittedly may change how you interpret or apply the rule.

The crucial point is that the rules for Armour penetration have not changed significantly from 3rd to 5th Edition. So if you have a statement like

 

"the weapon has an Armour Penetration of X"

 

then that would have meant the same in 3rd Edition as it means now. None of the words involved has a different definition now. That statement has not changed it's meaning.

 

The WH rule was written in 3rd Edition, and at that time that rule was supposed to do exactly what it says. It gave the turbo penetrator an Armour Penetration of 3D6.

 

But the turbo penetrator in the WH FaQ does not have Armour Penetration 3D6. It now has Armour Penetration 3+3D6. You cannot interprete the Codex WH rule to mean that. Because that is not what the rule says. It is purely the FaQ updating the weapon's Armour Penetration to be more in line with the 5th Edition sniper rules. It changes the weapon's rules from what the Codex Witch Hunters says to something new. So, yes, the rule was changed in the FaQ. It was changed incidentally, and not formally via an "Errata" description.

 

 

---

 

thade:

You seem to be (at least, implicitly) treating the Turbo Penetrator as if it is a different weapon entirely (sort of like the melta side of a combi-melta, as a loose analogy?) and I see it as an override. Let me try to state what you are saying in my words, to make sure I'm on the level.

 

The Turbo Penetrator is not a Sniper rifle; it has only the Armor Penetration it has listed, nothing more; it cannot wound as it has no Strength associated with it. As it is not a Sniper rifle, it does not benefit from the S3/Rending rules as it does. Since the FAQ clears up how it Rends, it does get Rending...but because the FAQ does not address the Strength that comes with Sniper, it does not get that.

 

Are those fair inferences?

No, they are not.

 

With the hellfire ammunition, the Exitus rifle still fires as a sniper rifle. But it does not wound on 4+, like sniper rifles usually do, it now wounds on 2+. The rest is still exactly the same as with any other sniper rifle, but because the hellfire rules overrule the usual sniper rules, it now wounds on 2+ instead of 4+.

 

Similarly, with the turbo penetrator ammunition, the Exitus rifle still fires as a sniper rifle. But it does not have an Armour Penetration of 3+D6, like sniper rifles usually have, it now has an Armour Penetration of 4D6. The rest is still exactly the same as with any other sniper rifle, but because the turbo penetrator rules overrule the usual sniper Armour Penetration, it now has 4D6 Armour Penetration instead of 3+D6.

 

 

- Sniper weapons count as Strength 3 when shooting at Vehicles

 

- When shooting at vehicles, you normally roll a D6 and add the weapon's Strength for Armour Penetration

 

- With the turbo penetrator, the shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6

[maturin]

But the turbo penetrator in the WH FaQ does not have Armour Penetration 3D6. It now has Armour Penetration 3+3D6. You cannot interprete the Codex WH rule to mean that. Because that is not what the rule says. It is purely the FaQ updating the weapon's Armour Penetration to be more in line with the 5th Edition sniper rules. It changes the weapon's rules from what the Codex Witch Hunters says to something new. So, yes, the rule was changed in the FaQ. It was changed incidentally, and not formally via an "Errata" description.

 

(Legatus' words, emphasis mine)

 

Similarly, with the turbo penetrator ammunition, the Exitus rifle still fires as a sniper rifle. But it does not have an Armour Penetration of 3+D6, like sniper rifles usually have, it now has an Armour Penetration of 4D6. The rest is still exactly the same as with any other sniper rifle, but because the turbo penetrator rules overrule the usual sniper Armour Penetration, it now has 4D6 Armour Penetration instead of 3+D6.

 

 

- Sniper weapons count as Strength 3 when shooting at Vehicles

 

- When shooting at vehicles, you normally roll a D6 and add the weapon's Strength for Armour Penetration

 

- With the turbo penetrator, the shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6

 

Legatus, these are your own words. Keeping in mind that the WH FAQ was written in 5th edition with 5th edition rules in mind, isn't it obvious that we are meant to keep the "Sniper" characteristic when applying Armour Penetration (even if it is an incidental ruling)?

[dswanick]

Dswanick, are you suggesting that the difference between 3+4d6 vs 4d6 is alike to the difference between an albino beagle and a siamese cat? ;) I respectfully disagree.

Nope, re-read my post : I'm stating that the difference between 3+4d6 and 4d6 is the difference between an albino siamese cat and a siamese cat (no coloration specified).

[Legatus]

Keeping in mind that the WH FAQ was written in 5th edition with 5th edition rules in mind, isn't it obvious that we are meant to keep the "Sniper" characteristic when applying Armour Penetration (even if it is an incidental ruling)?

Frankly, no, it isn't.

 

I had included a selection of weapons that have a different Armour Penetration from the norm. Some weapons change the dice (melta) some weapons change the strength (sniper rifle or witchblade). But other weapons replace the entire process with a single fixed die roll (d-cannon) or flat out auto glance or penetrate (vibro cannon). The turbo penetrator gives a specific value for Armour Penetration.

 

What the Witch Hunters FaQ did was alter the rules of a Codex that was from two Editions earlier, and slightly changed it in line with some new 5th Edition rules. The Codex Grey Knights is not from an old Edition, it has been written now. The notion that the FaQ was supposed to alter all references of "Armour Penetration" to mean that you would still add some Strength value is very unlikely, compared to the notion that the FaQ was simply supposed to alter a rule that was five years old.

 

E.g. imagine a Strength 4 weapons would have the special rule "this weapon has an Armour Penetration of 4+2D6". Would you then want to add it's Strength for a total of 4+4+2D6?

 

"Armour Penetration" is defined as a specific value for game purposes. It is what you compare with the vehicle's Armour. It is NOT just the dice you roll. If a rule states that "this is the weapon's Armour Penetration" then that is it. If the rule meant for you to add the Strength on top of that, then the rule would have been incorrectly written.

 

 

Edit: So, no, to me it is not obvious that the FaQ was supposed to redefine what "Armour Penetration" means. To me it seems obvious that the FaQ was simply supposed to update the Armour Penetration of the 3rd Edition Witch Hunter weapon for 5th Edition.

[maturin]

What the Witch Hunters FaQ did was alter the rules of a Codex that was from two Editions earlier, and slightly changed it in line with some new 5th Edition rules. The Codex Grey Knights is not from an old Edition, it has been written now. The notion that the FaQ was supposed to alter all references of "Armour Penetration" to mean that you would still add some Strength value is very unlikely, compared to the notion that the FaQ was simply supposed to alter a rule that was five years old.

 

...

 

Edit: So, no, to me it is not obvious that the FaQ was supposed to redefine what "Armour Penetration" means. To me it seems obvious that the FaQ was simply supposed to update the Armour Penetration of the 3rd Edition Witch Hunter weapon for 5th Edition.

 

In the end though, it doesn't matter what edition codex the FAQ is updating - could be 2nd, could be 3rd, could be 5th! The FAQ essentially brings whatever it was, up to 5th edition standards. And their "slight change" in interpretation very specifically added the +3 strength to the calculation of "Armour Penetration of 3D6". They could have just as easily left that +3 out, in which case I would be in complete agreement with you. But what we have here is a 5th edition interpretation of how "Armour Penetration of 3D6" is supposed to be applied, in the case of this special rule (only)...ie, keep the sniper +3 strength in addition to 3D6.

 

Your argument would be valid if the FAQ was issued in 4th edition. Your argument would be valid if the FAQ made no mention of the +3 strength. Neither of these is true.

 

Now we have another 5th edition codex which deals with the very same unit and the very same special rule. (I don't think I ever implied that our discussion would redefine "Armour Penetration" for the whole game). The fact that the updated special rule has the nearly the same wording as the old one, and only differs in the number of D6 leaves us with two options: ignore the existence of the FAQ and go with RAW (your point of view), or accept the fact that GW often writes their rules badly but leaves the intent as clear as day (or dusk, at least).

[Rabban]

Wading in here (new user, forgive my noobness). This has actually been a bitter debate point in my little gaming group (such that a member got "banned" for not being willing to fight against the 4d6+3 rending version). I must say that I agree with Legatus and his reasoning is sound. I found another yet uncited example of strength not being added to a armour penetration shot. The Eldar Revenant Titan (apocalypse pg 140). "Against vehicles the sonic lance rolls 3d6 for armour penetration." This weapon has a strength of X. I know its Apoc, granted, and that it is likely written in a 4th ed perspective. But it is yet another example of strength not being added to a armour penetration roll.

Also to those who claim that the 3+4d6+rending version is no big deal, I ask how many times have you been up against it? I have faced a set of two to three of these bastards in damn near every 1.5k per player, 2 player per team game we've played recently, and while the GK generally go down in falls of defeat in the end, this gun absolutely slaughters vehicles. It is 77 percent likely to immobilze (at least) armour 12 (based on my number crunching with dice probability engines without accounting for rending). And the sniper, lurking in cover for the save, takes a rather considerable amount of firepower to silence. It really screws vehicle heavy lists (which have enough going against them all ready in my opinion). Given the sniper likely to hit (more likely than any other unit who has to roll for it that I know of) maybe not having it essentially guaranteed to immobilze the enemy is more in keeping with the games balance. No other ranged weapon other than a D weapon is better at killing tanks. This makes little sense to my understanding of the 40k universe. It's more than 76 percent likely to penetrate a LR (I have not figured out the much more complex equation to account for rending, which probably puts it in the 80 percent range) compared to a melta being 58 percent likely to do so.

I think it is a very unsporting unit at 4d6+3+rending. Did GW intend to make this sniper the greatest tank killer in the galaxy? Why this was not addressed in the GK FAQ is beyond me.

[Legatus]

But what we have here is a 5th edition interpretation of how "Armour Penetration of 3D6" is supposed to be applied

I find it extremely unlikely that the Witch Hunters FaQ was supposed to alter the entire "Armour Penetration" game mechanic. Perhaps unnoticed by anyone that doesn't play an outdated 3rd Edition faction. As I said, it is far more likely (as in, pretty obvious) that the FaQ was supposed to simply upgrade a very old weapon. It was not intended to update the reading of "has Armour Penetration X" to 5th Edition standards. Because that statement would still mean exactly the same today. It was intended to take a weapon that was written during 3rd Edition times and gave it a little boost*. Then comes the new Codex Grey Knights, and instead of leaving the weapon at this updated 3+3D6, they change the stats again. Now it is 4D6.

 

 

Edit:

*3D6, while having a maximum of 18, have an average Armour Penetration of 10.5, so the 3rd Edition Witch Hunters turbo-penetrator was not the most reliable tank killer. And then you have to consider that the Daemonhunters and Witch hunters were generally bad at fighting Armour, especially at longer ranges. With the added +3 the turbo penetrator had an average Armour Penetration of 13.5, or 14.5 if you figure in the rending. It was obviously an improvement for an old and outdated weapon, and not supposed to fundamentally change the definition of "Armour Penetration". That term has meanst the same thing for the past three editions. Changing it in an obscure FaQ of a faction almost no one plays would have been extremely arbitrary.

 

 

Editedit:

 

So essentially, you suggest that the FaQ means:

 

"all references to 'Armour Penetration' will henceforth only mean the dice you roll"

 

while I suggest the FaQ means:

 

"the WH turbo penetrator now has 3+3D6 Armour Penetration, instead of the old 3D6 Armour Penetration"

[Darkmagi]

Also to those who claim that the 3+4d6+rending version is no big deal, I ask how many times have you been up against it? I have faced a set of two to three of these bastards in damn near every 1.5k per player, 2 player per team game we've played recently, and while the GK generally go down in falls of defeat in the end, this gun absolutely slaughters vehicles.

 

If your opponents are fielding more then one vindicare assassin in a single list they are cheating... the vindicare is a unique model and per BRB pg 49 you may only field one of the same unique model of that name... so you should never be facing more then 7 shots from a vindicare for the duration of the whole game... that's provided that you don't play dawn of war. I use the Vindicare in my GK lists and I have had several games where he has missed completely (even with his re-roll... stupid 1's) and if the GK finally go down in the end then the vindicare cant be "slaughtering" vehicles unless you field very few vehicles as he can at most kill one vehicle a turn of you roll good on the pen table.

 

Overall I fint the argument of CHEESE is highly over exaggerated when at most the you will get 7 shots and you have to target priority whats important... Such as killing pesky rune priests.

[maturin]

I find it extremely unlikely that the Witch Hunters FaQ was supposed to alter the entire "Armour Penetration" game mechanic.

 

And again I ask why this would redefine "Armour Penetration" for the whole game. We're only talking about one special rule. There are plenty of situations where a special rule breaks the usual game mechanics or definitions...though admittedly I can't think of any right now (too early and kids are screaming....ugh)

 

It was intended to take a weapon that was written during 3rd Edition times and gave it a little boost*. Then comes the new Codex Grey Knights, and instead of leaving the weapon at this updated 3+3D6, they change the stats again. Now it is 4D6.

 

I don't think a FAQ has ever been intended as a game-balancer or to give underpowered units "a little boost". Can you cite examples where this has happened? My understanding was they were there to guide us in interpretations of the rules. Rebalancing a codex is a job for a new codex.

 

EDIT: Well, I suppose FAQ's have brought wargear up to current standards, like BT 3++ storm shields. But as far as I know, they haven't arbitrarily decided to give things random boosts of strength. They have to work within existing rules...such as the Exitus rifle using 3D6 armour penetration and keeping the sniper rules.

 

So essentially, you suggest that the FaQ means:

 

"all references to 'Armour Penetration' will henceforth only mean the dice you roll"

 

Again, I never said that this change would redefine "Armour Penetration" for the whole game. It only does for this rule and this unit.

 

 

 

EDIT: Another thing that just occurred to me, Legatus. By your definition (since by your analysis the Turbo-penetrator overrides the "sniper" trait) the TP round is not rending either, since the text does not say "Armour Penetration of 4D6, rending"

[thade]

Another thing that just occurred to me, Legatus. By your definition (since by your analysis the Turbo-penetrator overrides the "sniper" trait) the TP round is not rending either, since the text does not say "Armour Penetration of 4D6, rending"

This is part of my point, but I think he skirts around it as the FAQ implies that it still Rends (i.e. it says that multiple dice hitting sixes in the pen roll will each add a d3). He's comfortable with that implication, but not the S3 one.

[Morollan]

Another thing that just occurred to me, Legatus. By your definition (since by your analysis the Turbo-penetrator overrides the "sniper" trait) the TP round is not rending either, since the text does not say "Armour Penetration of 4D6, rending"

This is part of my point, but I think he skirts around it as the FAQ implies that it still Rends (i.e. it says that multiple dice hitting sixes in the pen roll will each add a d3). He's comfortable with that implication, but not the S3 one.

 

Sorry but that argument holds no water whatsoever. The Sniper rules very clearly separate the Rending and Armour Penetration aspects of that type of weapons. Legatus is not suggesting for one moment that the Turbo Penetrator ignores all the rules for Sniper rifles. It merely replaces one part of those rules with a specific rule for that shot. The more this argument goes on, the more I'm convinced that 4d6 is correct, both RAW and RAI.

[Legatus]

And again I ask why this would redefine "Armour Penetration" for the whole game.

Again, I never said that this change would redefine "Armour Penetration" for the whole game.

You were saying that the FaQ establishes that the phrase "Armour Penetration of X" does not refer to the actual and entire Armour Penetration but only to the dice part of the Armour Penetration, and that all such rule texts would have to be interpreted accordingly from now on. Essentially, "Armour Penetration" does no longer mean what the rulebook had established, and what it meant in the past three editions, it now meant only the dice you rolled, and still has to have a Strength value added to it.

 

I.e. "it has an Armour Penetration of 2D6" means that these are only the dice, and you would then add the Strength value to that. Of course, that would mean that when a weapon is described as "it has an Armour Penetration of 4+D6" (with the Strength of the wepaon being 4), then you would add the weapon's Strength to this for a total of 4+4+D6, since that is how "it has an Armour Penetration of X" is supposed to be applied.

 

 

Well, I suppose FAQ's have brought wargear up to current standards, like BT 3++ storm shields. But as far as I know, they haven't arbitrarily decided to give things random boosts of strength. They have to work within existing rules...such as the Exitus rifle using 3D6 armour penetration and keeping the sniper rules.

It is not that random of a boost, as you are aware, since between 3rd and 5th Edition the sniper rules were changed. The 3rd Edition rules were brought in line more with the new 5th Edition sniper rules. However, that does not mean that a rule giving a specific Armour Penetration value now has a different meaning.

 

 

2003: Codex Witch Hunters is released. The Turbo-Penetrator is given 3D6 Armour Penetration.

 

2008: 5th Edition of 40K is released. The Witch Hunters FaQ states that the turbo penetrator has 3+3D6 Armour Penetration.

 

2011: The Codex Grey Knights is released. The Turbo-Penetrator is given 4D6 Armour Penetration.

 

 

Another thing that just occurred to me, Legatus. By your definition (since by your analysis the Turbo-penetrator overrides the "sniper" trait) the TP round is not rending either, since the text does not say "Armour Penetration of 4D6, rending"

This is part of my point, but I think he skirts around it as the FAQ implies that it still Rends (i.e. it says that multiple dice hitting sixes in the pen roll will each add a d3). He's comfortable with that implication, but not the S3 one.

I have not "skirted around it", and have explained my position in an earlier post, even though I would not have imagined that this would have been necessary.

 

Sniper weapons:

 

- allways wound on 4+

 

- are pinning

 

- are rending

 

- count as Strength 3 against vehicles, for an Armour Penetration of 3+D6

 

 

hellfire ammunition allways wounds on 2+. The hellfire shot still counts as pinning. The hellfire shot still counts as rending. The hellfire shot still counts as strength 3 against vehicles, for an Armour penetration of 3+D6. But it does not wound on 4+ as sniper rifles usually do. The hellfire rules specifically say that this one attribute is different.

 

turbo-penetrator ammunition has 4D6 Armour Penetration. The turbo-penetrator shot still wounds on 4+. The turbo penetrator shot still counts as pinning. The turbo penetrator shot still counts as rending. But it does not have 3+D6 Armour Penetration, as sniper rifles usually have. The turbo penetrator rules specifically say that this attribute is different.

 

It is like a rule saying "it counts as a powerweapon, but with (...)", or "it is a boltgun, but allways wounds on (...)" etc. Special items or weapons are often based off of known weapons, but with changed stats or attributes, or additional special rules.

 

The Exitus rifle is of the "sniper type". However, when it uses the hellfire shot, then one of the sniper attributes is changed. And when it uses the turbo penetrator shot, another attribute is changed.

[thade]

What I think you are saying: Since S3 is not specified in the "Armor Penetration" component of Turbo Penetrator, it doesn't get S3; as it makes no reference to Rending, it is unaffected.

 

The implication: Armor Penetration is a two-part component - often Strength + Pen Dice - and here the Strength component is omitted, thus there is a direct implication there is no Strength component for Turbo Penetrator.

 

What I am saying: Armor Penetration implicitly includes the Strength 3 from the Sniper rule, as it always has before.

 

Occam's Razor.

[Legatus]

What I am saying: Armor Penetration implicitly includes the Strength 3 from the Sniper rule, as it always has before.

Armour Penetration indeed allways includes the Strength value. Armour Penetration is the entire value you compare to the vehicle's Armour value. It is not just the dice you roll.

 

A laser cannon has 9+D6 Armour Penetration.

 

A melta bomb has 8+2D6 Armour Penetration.

 

etc.

 

Armour Penetration = what the weapon brings to bear against the vehicle's Armour value.

 

So when a rule states that "this weapon has an Armour Penetration of XX", then that "XX" value is the entire thing. Normally the Armour Penetration is determined by rolling a single D6 and adding the Strength of the weapon. But there are weapons where that is not the case. There are weapons that roll more than a single die. There are weapons that alter the Strength of the weapon for the specific purpose of armour penetration. There are weapons where you don't roll at all, and automatically score a glancing hit. There are weapons where you roll a single D6, and on a result of 3 or more you score some kind of hit, no matter the actual Armour.

 

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

 

That is the line from the new Codex Grey Knights. It is that simple. Here it is again for effect:

 

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

[thade]

It is that simple.

Your position isn't really simple, though; every post you've put up to explain it has been large. You cite several rules and attempt to mire the issue in logistics.

 

Omission doesn't really say to me (and, apparently, many others who've played the game much longer) that Strength is not a part of the Pen roll for the Vindicare's Turbo Penetrator. It's always been the case that Str + Pen Dice = Armor Pen. Because it is always the case otherwise, wouldn't they made a bigger deal out of it? If this instance is truly an exception, it really would have to come out and say "It doesn't get Strength for this roll" because that's a pretty unique instance.

 

Simple = what we're used to: Str + Pen Dice. This is the simplest possible explanation; hence why I invoke Inquisitor Occam's name.

[Morollan]

It is that simple.

Simple = what we're used to: Str + Pen Dice. This is the simplest possible explanation; hence why I invoke Inquisitor Occam's name.

 

Entirely incorrectly on this occasion. Yours is not the simplest possible explanation. The simplest possible explanation is "Does what it says on the tin", ie it has an armour penetration of 4d6.

[thade]

Entirely incorrectly on this occasion. Yours is not the simplest possible explanation. The simplest possible explanation is "Does what it says on the tin", ie it has an armour penetration of 4d6.

It says "Armor Penetration" on the tin, which includes S3 and Rending as it's a Sniper Weapon. Nothing new there.

 

Saying I am incorrect proceeded by various adjectives doesn't invalidate my position, but that seems to be the leading cause of thread-longevity here. Some things in this game just aren't written down because the authors feel they're obvious. It's a poor way to handle a rule set, but there it is.

 

The rule set is a staggered series of exceptions. Turbo Penetrator ammo does not state that it's an exception to Strength being included in the Pen roll; simple omission of it is not enough to conclude that it's an exception to Strength being included in the roll.

 

Show me where it states that it is an exception and we have a winner. If it doesn't say "I'm an exception!", it is not. It follows all of the rules that it does not override.

[maturin]

I'll concede the point on the rending aspect, Legatus - your arguments are well reasoned and well supported. Touche! :)

 

 

 

But I'll still take issue with the following:

 

2003: Codex Witch Hunters is released. The Turbo-Penetrator is given 3D6 Armour Penetration.

 

2008: 5th Edition of 40K is released. The Witch Hunters FaQ states that the turbo penetrator has 3+3D6 Armour Penetration.

 

2011: The Codex Grey Knights is released. The Turbo-Penetrator is given 4D6 Armour Penetration.

 

 

Again, my point is that the WH FAQ states no such thing. It doesn't restate the rule, it doesn't change the wording. It tells us their intention on how to use it. Here's my view:

 

2003: Codex Witch Hunters is released. The Turbo-Penetrator is given 3D6 Armour Penetration.

 

2008: 5th Edition of 40K is released. The Witch Hunters FaQ states that you add the +3 strength in common with all sniper weapons to the "Armour Penetration" of the Turbo-Penetrator.

 

2011: The Codex Grey Knights is released. The Turbo-Penetrator is given 4D6 Armour Penetration.

 

 

Nothing in C:GK does anything to invalidate the suggested course of action as outlined in the FAQ. Yes, C:GK came out after the FAQ, and I would have hoped they would have been more specific with their wording, but they weren't. And we're left with this - looking at hints in the rules and FAQ's on what to do.

 

(Side note - clearly GW DID mean to make the Vindicare the meanest anti-vehicle unit out there - otherwise they wouldn't have given it 4D6 rending AP!!!!! Personally I'll play them as just 4D6 though....it's OP enough.)

[Morollan]

Turbo Penetrator ammo does not state that it's an exception to Strength being included in the Pen roll; simple omission of it is not enough to conclude that it's an exception to Strength being included in the roll.

 

Yes it is, because if Strength is included then the Armour Penetration is not 4d6. It's 4d6+3.

 

EDIT - To put it another way, as I have mentioned before, why does this rule not state "Turbo Penetrator shots roll an additional 3 dice for Armour Penetration"? They do it for melta weapons, so why not this?

[thade]

Turbo Penetrator ammo does not state that it's an exception to Strength being included in the Pen roll; simple omission of it is not enough to conclude that it's an exception to Strength being included in the roll.

 

Yes it is, because if Strength is included then the Armour Penetration is not 4d6. It's 4d6+3.

 

EDIT - To put it another way, as I have mentioned before, why does this rule not state "Turbo Penetrator shots roll an additional 3 dice for Armour Penetration"? They do it for melta weapons, so why not this?

Grammar variety? Different authors? There are simple explanations to that conundrum that do not involve "Implicit rules changes/overrides via omission."