vindicare turbo penetrator ammo

[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?

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

 

Oh come off it! If you can't come up with anything better than that then there's really no point arguing.

[Chengar Qordath]

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."

Or just copy-pasting the rule from the previous codex, and expecting people to have enough common sense to realize that the same rule in the same edition of the game works the same way.

[maturin]

Or just copy-pasting the rule from the previous codex, and expecting people to have enough common sense to realize that the same rule in the same edition of the game works the same way.

 

This! This a million times! Well put, sir!

[thade]

Oh come off it! If you can't come up with anything better than that then there's really no point arguing.

My bottom line, which still has not been addressed is very plain:

 

Omission is not sufficient for an override.

 

The entire counter-argument hinges upon omission; it's not there, so you say, it doesn't get it. If this was actually the case, think of how many other rules would be different. More to the point, think of how bloated the rules would get.

 

If it doesn't stay "No Str 3" it still gets it. It always has. Refer to Occam.

 

As for your dismissal of my recent post, you might want to reconsider. This rule set has been show on many occasions to not hold up to legal-level scrutiny. There are rules which have been a part of the game for so long that they are simply assumed; it is why the rule set doesn't hold up to legal-level scrutiny. I sympathize that it gets frustrating, but there it is. I will not come off it; it's how the game works.

[Morollan]

Oh come off it! If you can't come up with anything better than that then there's really no point arguing.

My bottom line, which still has not been addressed is very plain:

 

Omission is not sufficient for an override.

 

The entire counter-argument hinges upon omission; it's not there, so you say, it doesn't get it. If this was actually the case, think of how many other rules would be different. More to the point, think of how bloated the rules would get.

 

If it doesn't stay "No Str 3" it still gets it. It always has. Refer to Occam.

 

As for your dismissal of my recent post, you might want to reconsider. This rule set has been show on many occasions to not hold up to legal-level scrutiny. There are rules which have been a part of the game for so long that they are simply assumed; it is why the rule set doesn't hold up to legal-level scrutiny. I sympathize that it gets frustrating, but there it is. I will not come off it; it's how the game works.

 

It's not an omission. It's a rule. The armour penetration for a turbo penetrator is 4d6. This is clearly stated in the codex, which supercedes the basic rules. If GW wished to make it 4d6+3 then they had an ideal opportunity to do so but chose not to. Instead of giving 3d6+3 they decided to give 4d6 - a slight boost over the previous version.

 

If you wish to add 3 to that then go right ahead but in the absence of a specific item in the GK FAQ I would class that as cheating.

[Darkmagi]

However you must also realize that the sniper rule was not re-stated in the Gk codex its in the BRB so GW didn't feel the need to re-state the obvious they just said the exodus rifle has the sniper rule. GW has said time and time again that they will not FAQ things that they consider common sense. I highly doubt they will FAQ this as the Witch hunters FAQ sets precinct and the Exodus rifle says it has the sniper rule.... yes Occam's razor.... all sniper weapons count as strength 3 vs vehicles... THAT IS THE SNIPER RULE there is nothing in the Turbo Penetrator rules that contradict this.

[thade]

It's not an omission. It's a rule. The armour penetration for a turbo penetrator is 4d6. This is clearly stated in the codex, which supercedes the basic rules.

Were it so clearly stated, would we be here? I didn't even weigh in on this thread until letting it seethe for three pages.

 

Let me try to highlight the usage of the word "omission" here, as I feel you are misinterpreting it in my context. You (and others) are asserting that S3 is not included because it is omitted from the Turbo Pen ammo description. Your entire premise hinges upon that; they didn't put it there, so they meant for it not to be there.

 

That is an inference, and I maintain an incorrect one.

 

The defacto standard is Str + Pen Dice. For a rule to supercede this defacto standard, it would have to clearly state it's doing so.

 

It does not.

 

So by not adding Strength we are falling outside of the rules.

 

If you wish to add 3 to that then go right ahead but in the absence of a specific item in the GK FAQ I would class that as cheating.

I ask respectfully that you keep your focus on the rules at hand and refrain from directing these kinds of claims at me. If you feel I'm warranting this sort of affront (because you see me doing the same), 1. it was not my intent, and 2. point it out so I can apologize for it.

 

EDIT: Perhaps it's worth adding that I don't own a Vindicare model, nor do I plan to. I hadn't thought it was relevant, but it is?

[Legatus]

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.

Well, the rule in Codex Grey Knights is simple. The shot has 4D6 Armour Penetration. And that's that. A very clear statement, and pretty much impossible to misinterpret.

 

...or it would be, had not the Witch Hunters FaQ changed the turbo penetrator stats from its original 3D6 Armour Penetration to 3+3D6 Armour Penetration. That complicates the issue, unfortunately. People now assume that this must be the logical way to interprete a statement such as "has X Armour Penetration". But then it doesn't have "X" Armour Penetration. It has 3+X Armour Penetration.

 

"The shot has 4D6 Armour Penetration."

 

What Armour Penetration does the shot have? - "It has 3+4D6 Armour Penetration!"

 

That's not right.

 

 

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.

The rule tells you the Armour Penetration of the shot. There is no omission.

 

 

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.

It isn't really as unique as you think. And it is really not a big deal at all. Armour Penetration usually is the Strength of a weapon plus a single D6. I have given several examples of weapons that have a different Armour Penetration, two of which are completely independent of a Strength value, and one of which designates a different Strength value to the weapon or bearer for the specific purpose of Armour Penetration. Heck, Sniper rifles themselves are an exception, since they would usually not have a Strength value at all. They have no Strength value, and in 3rd Edition they only had teh single D6 for Armour Penetration. Obviously that meant they could never penetrate any Armour, since the lowest Armour value was 9 (via the Vehicle Design rules), so in 4th Edition they were given an Armour Penetration of 2D6 instead, which allowed them to penetrate some vehicles. In 5th Edition, that was changed again, and now the sniper rifles, even though they remained at Strength X, were given a Strength value for the specific purpose of penetrating armour via a special rule.

Sniper rifles are already an exception to the regular Armour Penetration rules. They have a special rule affecting their Armour penetration, and do not rely on the simple weapon Strength + D6 like weapons usually do.

 

 

It says "Armor Penetration" on the tin, which includes S3 and Rending as it's a Sniper Weapon.

The Armour Penetration of a sniper rifle indeed includes the S3. A sniper rifle has an Armour Penetration of 3+D6. It does not have an Armour Penetration of D6, to which you then add the +3.

 

 

An easy quiz:

 

What is the Armour Penetration of a laser cannon?

 

What is the Armour Penetration of a melta bomb?

 

What is the Armour Penetration of a Sniper Rifle?

 

 

Every player should be able to answer those questions.

 

The bonus question is:

 

What is the Armour Penetration of a Codex Grey Knight exitus rifle with the turbo-penetrator shot?

 

 

When the turbo penetrator special rule replaces the "Armour Penetration", it replaces the 3+D6. Because that is the normal Armour Penetration of a Sniper rifle. But with the turbo penetrator it does not have 3+D6 Armour Penetration, it now has 4D6. The single D6 of the Sniper Rifle is not its Armour Penetration. The 4D6 do not replace the single D6. The 4D6 replace the Armour Penetration. Which is 3+D6.

 

3+D6 --> becomes --> 4D6

 

Normal Armour Penetration --> Special Armour Penetration

 

 

My bottom line, which still has not been addressed is very plain:

 

Omission is not sufficient for an override.

 

The entire counter-argument hinges upon omission; it's not there, so you say, it doesn't get it.

The argument is actually that the rule in Codex Grey Knights is very clear and very specific. It states that the shot has a certain Armour Penetration value, and our position is that the weapon would then actually have that Armour Penetration value. Your argument is that it should have a different Armour Penetration value.

 

 

This is the rule:

 

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

 

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

 

Your position: A turbo-penetrator has an Armour Penetration of 3+4D6.

 

 

You (and others) are asserting that S3 is not included because it is omitted from the Turbo Pen ammo description. Your entire premise hinges upon that; they didn't put it there, so they meant for it not to be there.

 

That is an inference, and I maintain an incorrect one.

 

The defacto standard is Str + Pen Dice.

The standard for penetrating Armour is to take the weapon's Strength and add a single D6. I have listed four weapons where that is not the case already, but that had no impact at all. How many weapons that do not use the weapon's Strength plus a single D6 would you like to have listed to consider that weapons with a different type of Armour Penetration value are not that uncommon?

 

 

---

 

maturin:

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.

The change was simply asserted, incidentally, in one of the FaQ answers. None the less it changed the rules for the Witch Hunters turbo-penetrator. The Witch Hunters turbo-penetrator originally had an Armour Penetration of 3D6. The FaQ explained that it had an Armour Penetration of 3+3D6.

 

 

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.

The wording in Codex Grey Knights is not the problem. That rule is very specific. The shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6. The confusion comes solely from the FaQ altering the Witch Hunters rule.

[Isiah]

The confusion comes solely from the FaQ altering the Witch Hunters rule.

 

Indeed. Which as it currently stands only has jurisdiction over the WH and not the GK.

[thade]

The confusion comes solely from the FaQ altering the Witch Hunters rule.

 

Indeed. Which as it currently stands only has jurisdiction over the WH and not the GK.

^This. I think this is actually the confusion, as it were: that it has any bearing at all.

[Chengar Qordath]

The confusion comes solely from the FaQ altering the Witch Hunters rule.

 

Indeed. Which as it currently stands only has jurisdiction over the WH and not the GK.

True, but it's certainly a useful precedent when working out the correct interpretation of an identical rule in another codex. Not a perfect answer, since GW rules are frequently inconsistent, but at the moment it's the best answer we have from an official GW source. Hopefully, GW will get around to properly answering the question in the GK FAQ.

[thade]

True, but it's certainly a useful precedent

We've hit on this very topic many, many times on the OR board, at least since I first appeared here. Search for "precedent". :D The bottom-line is that a codex FAQ only impacts the codex to which it refers; it can't be used in any way to adjudicate how other codecies or their FAQs work.

[Chengar Qordath]

True, but it's certainly a useful precedent

We've hit on this very topic many, many times on the OR board, at least since I first appeared here. Search for "precedent". :P The bottom-line is that a codex FAQ only impacts the codex to which it refers; it can't be used in any way to adjudicate how other codecies or their FAQs work.

Yeah, I know precedent doesn't solve the rules question since FAQs only apply to the codex they refer too, and certainly it doesn't anything close to the weight of a proper FAQ for the codex in question, but it's worth mentioning when it comes to an ambiguous rules issue.

[Legatus]

But the Codex Grey Knights is not ambiguous in this instance. It is only because of the Witch Hunters FaQ that there is any confusion. The rule in Codex Grey Knights does not really need to be explained.

 

And the rule in Codex Witch Hunters did not need to be explained. It was not mentioned in the FaQ because the text in Codex Witch Hunters was somehow ambiguous. The question was about how "rending" would apply to a weapon that rolled multiple D6s. I.e. can the rending bonus be applied only once, or for each 6? In the answer, the FaQ then asserted that you would also add the +3 of regular sniper rifles to the Witch Hunters turbo penetrator. That had not been the question, and that had not been the case up until this FaQ. The FaQ merely stated that this is how it now worked.

 

Because of that, the FaQ is not really a precedent for "how to interprete the turbo penetrator rule text". The rule text was clear, and simply was overruled by the FaQ. Much like how a 4th Edition Chaos FaQ changing the Obliterator Toughness from 5 to 4(5) would be no precedent that other units with T5 should only really count as T4(5) (or even just future Codex versions of Obliterators counting as such).

 

It was a modification of the rule, not a definition how it is meant to be read.

[maturin]

The FaQ merely stated that this is how it now worked.

 

But....this is the very definition of a precedent! I don't see how you can go on to the next statement:

 

Because of that, the FaQ is not really a precedent for "how to interprete the turbo penetrator rule text". The rule text was clear, and simply was overruled by the FaQ.

 

And again, I say - this is the very definition of a precedent. It's not the first time that GW has ditched RAW for a RAI interpretation of their own rules - see GK: FAQ when it comes to Coteaz and his units becoming troops/taking up (or not) FOC slots. By RAW, his troops don't take up FOC slots. But GW declared they do....setting a precedent.

Much like how a 4th Edition Chaos FaQ changing the Obliterator Toughness from 5 to 4(5) would be no precedent that other units with T5 should only really count as T4(5) (or even just future Codex versions of Obliterators counting as such).

 

I do agree with your point here...

 

It was a modification of the rule, not a definition how it is meant to be read.

 

No, it was a GW FAQ-answerer's interpretation of how he read and applied the rule, really. As the question didn't address the rule itself, all we can say is that's how GW interpreted that rule in 5th edition.

 

 

 

 

All in all, though, I have to concede several points, thanks to the persistent points made by the pro-RAW advocates here:

 

1) The WH FAQ holds no official sway over units in C:GK, and as such has no official bearing on our discussion here. (But I'd argue that it's still a precedent, and should guide our RAI musings).

 

2) If you read by strict RAW, the TP does not get the +3 sniper bonus.

 

 

 

So ... that doesn't leave me much ground to stand on. Really, it's more of a RAI thing....and a hunch that GW is never going to answer this since the GK FAQ didn't address it. Since I'm going to be doing the sportsmanlike thing and using the 4D6 version for my Vindi (when I get that army assembled), I'll retire from the discussion here. But should GW come out with another FAQ that gives the Vindi the +3 strength....I reserve the right to say "I told you so!". ;)

[greatcrusade08]

by pure RAW, read in a vacuum then the turbo-pen only gets 4D6..

however one thing thats been established in the Or forum is that GW is terrible at writing rules..

 

fact is every other weapon in all the codexes ive seen rolls strength+D6's for armour pen, if this is the only exception then it should be noted that it doesnt include strenght.. the arguments ive seen are that it should be noted the other way around.. thats not how exceptions work.

given that every weapons does in fact add its strength, the 4D6 to me is only a replacement for the D6's and strength would be added as normal.. its merely a shorthand add-on to the basic rules of armour penetration.

the WH FAQ has been argued to death, and tbh the arguments ive seen sound a little desperate.

"it doesnt count for anything other than WH"

"it was written in another edition"

"the FAQ is a modification fo the rule"

"blah blah"

 

poppycock.. the FAQ shows how the rule is meant to be interpreted within 5th edition.. that strenght is added.. to me the FAQ says more about 5th ed armour pen than it does about the WH dex.. and is very much an accurate source of set precedence.the BRB is also a set precdence given every weapon no matter its type adds strength to its pen dice.

 

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

common sense must prevail

[Morollan]

If you care to go back through Legatus' posts in this thread you'll see that your basic premise of "every other weapon in all the codexes ive seen rolls strength+D6's for armour pen" is incorrect and the rest of your argument therefore falls down. He's listed several examples on several occasions of weapons that fall outside of that norm. There's also the point I've raised in that if it was intended to add 3d6 to the normal armour penetration mechanic then GW already has a perfectly clear wording that could be used to demonstrate that - the melta rules. My contention is that they chose not to do so because that is not their intent. They changed 3d6+3 to 4d6, which is an improvement on the power of the weapon. The extra 3 on top of that would frankly be overkill.

[greatcrusade08]

so melta weapons dont add strength?

[Morollan]

so melta weapons dont add strength?

 

/facepalm

 

Of course they do! The point is that the melta rules specify that they roll an extra d6 for armour penetration. If GW intended the turbo penetrator to roll an extra 3d6 for armour penetration then why didn't they say so?

[greatcrusade08]

that has no bearing on my argument, my argument was that all weapons added strength to thier rolls, not what rolls they make..

melta weapons roll 2D6 and add strength

barrage weapons roll 2D6 and pick the highest, then add strength

lance weapons treat AV as 12, rolls 1D6 and adds strength

basic weapons roll 1D6 and add strength

WH turbo-pen rolls 3D6 and adds strength

 

every weapon in the 40k universe adds strength to whatever number of D6's it rolls. except this one (according to some of you).. yet no mention is made of this being an exception to the rule

[Morollan]

every weapon in the 40k universe adds strength to whatever number of D6's it rolls. except this one (according to some of you).. yet no mention is made of this being an exception to the rule

 

D-Cannons and Vibro Cannons say hi.

[greatcrusade08]

every weapon in the 40k universe adds strength to whatever number of D6's it rolls. except this one (according to some of you).. yet no mention is made of this being an exception to the rule

 

D-Cannons and Vibro Cannons say hi.

 

fine if you want to go down that route:

 

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

vibro-cannons casue an instant glancing hit on a vehicle, the rules specifically state you dont roll for penetration..

 

these two examples you noted, were in attempt to argue my reasoning but all youve done is strengthen it.. these exceptions are noted as such, wheras the GK turbo-pen makes no such mention.

as such the strenght should be added to the pen rolls

[Morollan]

Your argument, such as it was, is that all weapons add strength to a dice roll for armour penetration. They do not.

 

You've also managed to avoid commenting on why GW allegedly chose to ignore a perfectly clear wording, such as the one used for melta weapons, in favour of an apparently ambiguous (although actually it isn't) wording. Any comments on that?

[greatcrusade08]

Your argument, such as it was, is that all weapons add strength to a dice roll for armour penetration. They do not.

 

now your just being awkward for the sake of it.. fine 99% of all weapons add strenght to their pen rolls

the noted exceptions work differently to standard weaponry and their rules reflect this.

the result is still the same, without a commentry on behaving differently to other weaponry, the 'rule' must apply to turbo-pen rolls

 

You've also managed to avoid commenting on why GW allegedly chose to ignore a perfectly clear wording, such as the one used for melta weapons, in favour of an apparently ambiguous (although actually it isn't) wording. Any comments on that?

you want a comment on poorly worded rules?

the GK dex is awash with ambiguity and poorly worded rules, it sets a precedent that any rule has to be taken with a pinch of salt until clarified by an FAQ..

again in this case set precedent has to take priority over ambiguity

 

tbh, this is fast turning into a circular argument of common sense vs vacuum RAW.. it should be closed IMO

[Rabban]

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