Vindicare VS Monolith

[falldown]

Can you legitimately say that there is a difference between these entries?

 

"A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6." C:GK pg 53

 

"A chainfist is treated exactly as a power fist, but rolls 2D6 for its armour penetration value." C:SM pg 64

 

One has an armor penetration of 4d6. One rolls 2d6 for its armour penetration value.

 

Both are subjected to the Living Metal rule, both because of "...a single D6 no matter what," and because the chainfist is specifically mentioned. "Weapons that get additional Armour Penetration dice (such as chainfists, monstrous creatures or melta weapons) do not get the extra dice against the Monolith." The Turbo-Penetrator is a such as.

[Cmdr Shepard]

Standard AP "S+d6"; Turbo Pen Ap "4d6". As you can see this is a exception to the common rule.

I know some Necron players like to consider the Monolith an auto-win unit but I suppose the interpretation I wrote above sounds logical.

 

If a player want to "downgrade" the Vindicare and give the Monolith an advantage he/she is free to do, but the rule we are talking about is a clear exception to the common AP process.

Every weapon that rolls additional dice or has other bonuses for Armour Penetration is an exception to the normal Armour Penetration rules. The Monolith rules specifically adress such "exceptional" weapons and state that they cannot use their exceptional rules.

 

I.e. a Meltagun within short range does not roll 8+D6 for Armour Penetration. It gets an additional die and rolls 8+2D6. But the Monolith overrules that improved Armour Penetration.

Similarly, a turbo penetrator shot would not roll 3+D6 for Armour Penetration. It would instead roll 4D6. But, again, the Monolith overrules that improved Armour Penetration.

 

"In practice, any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what."

 

The Turbo Penetrator special AP rules are no different from any other weapon with improved AP rules and in no way overrides that line from the Monolith rule.

 

the problem is that according to the text of the Vindicare's rule his rifle, when used with turbo pen, does not have the common S3 of sniper rifles. It has "4d6" not "S+d6+3 additional d6"

 

So according to your theory the vindicare should roll an unmodified d6. I don't see why is the Monolith to overule Turbo pen and not vice versa?

The monolith rule mention "unaugmented strenght" but Turbo Pen does not have a "unaugmented strenght" its "unaugmented value" is 4d6.

 

How do you deal with warp rift, for example? It does not have a S value. It inflicts an auto pen hit.

If the monolith's rule supersedes anythink else we had this scenario:

 

Warp inflicts an auto pen hit to every vehicle; however since "any weapon [and warp rift counts as a ranged weapon] attacking the Monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what."" warp rift shouldn't be able to inflict an auto hit because it must roll a d6 and add an non-existet S value.

Hence warp rift cannot harm a monolith.

 

Turbo pen is a peculiar AP that does not follow the common AP rules, like Warp rift.

[thade]

Falldown's post there is really what people seem to be dodging, and it's fundamental. The wording between the chainfist and the turbo pen round are nigh identical.

 

"...has Armour Penetration 4d6..."

 

"...rolls 2d6 for its armor penetration value."

 

If the Chainfist is nerfed by Living Metal, the only sensible conclusion (which involves the fewest and simplest assumptions) is that the Turbo Pen round is also nerfed by Living Metal.

 

Pointing out that the Turbo Pen round casually omits Strength as part of its armor penetration is pretty silly. Strength has always been a part of armor pen. If it were the case that this one thing were the grand and exclusive exception to that fundamental tenant of WH40K, it would say as much. That's how this game works. They cut out stuff they feel is needless to save space and make production of the codex cheaper: if it was a grand and exclusive exception, it would not be needless...they'd have to put it there.

 

Were it the case that the Turbo Pen round should be considered differently than the Chainfist, it would state so very specifically. It does not. Why would you assume it?

 

Until somebody comes up with a way to show very clearly that the Chainfist and the Turbo Pen round are functionally different without using the presence of one and the absence of the other in the Living Metal rule itself, you're just throwing out baseless assumptions in an effort to press a struggle over semantics. Srsly, we're above this, people. Think it and know it: above this.

 

Don't let an "enjoyment of arguing" persist this. Some of you seem to be harping on "You cannot prove anything!" as some sort of battle cry to continue this argument based on its (admittedly very little) academic merit alone. This is folly. It's the most basic tenant of research that you cannot prove anything: congratulations on reiterating a few centuries worth of research method science. We all got that in college. Nothing is provable. Funny story: given sufficient data and consistent behavior patterns, we can pretty reliably predict things...as short hand, we often say things like this have been proven. Red Shift, for instance, is one of those things we can't really prove tells us what we're looking at billions of miles from earth: however, we all ride on that premise, and it has served us very well.

 

There is no academic merit in this entire argument. I promise.

 

TL;DR: You didn't read it, so just know I proved you srsly wrong. Any guy that uses Cecil the Dark Knight as his avatar must know what he's talking about.

[Legatus]

the problem is that according to the text of the Vindicare's rule his rifle, when used with turbo pen, does not have the common S3 of sniper rifles. It has "4d6" not "S+d6+3 additional d6"

 

So according to your theory the vindicare should roll an unmodified d6.

Why is that a problem?

 

"In practice, any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what."

 

4D6 is not "unaugmented strength and a single D6", so it is negated by the Monolith rules. But you are of course correct that the Sniper Rifle would roll a single D6m without any strength added to that roll, since Sniper Rifles technically have no Strength value and the Strength 3 that is generally used comes from a special rule.

 

 

I don't see why is the Monolith to overule Turbo pen and not vice versa?

Because the Turbo Penetration rule essentially says "this weapon does not use S+D6 like normal, it has a special AP". This works generally against all targets with an armour value. But the Monolith rules specifically adress such weapons with special AP rules and essentially says "special AP rules are ignored, and all weapons must use S+D6 against the Monolith".

 

The Monolith rule specifically adresses special AP rules, so it trumps all those rules.

 

 

How do you deal with warp rift, for example? It does not have a S value. It inflicts an auto pen hit.

Since in the case of a vehicle being hit by Warp Rift there is no Armour penetration process at all I would be inclined to say that the Monolith rules do not apply. There is no "test" or "attempt" to see whether the weapon can penetrate the Monolith's armour, which is where the Monolith rule would come into play. With the Turbo Penetrator, you roll dice and compare the result to the vehicle's AV. The Monolith rules apply to that process.

 

 

Turbo pen is a peculiar AP that does not follow the common AP rules, like Warp rift.

But... no weapon with a special AP follows the common AP rules. The Monolith rule is meant to specifically counteract such weapon rules.

 

 

Edit:

Pointing out that the Turbo Pen round casually omits Strength as part of its armor penetration is pretty silly. Strength has always been a part of armor pen. If it were the case that this one thing were the grand and exclusive exception to that fundamental tenant of WH40K, it would say as much.

Let's not get into that debate here. this has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

[falldown]

Warp Rift is completely different as are those Tau grenades that work well against vehicles. Turbo-Penetrator is not. Please look at my previous post.

[Cmdr Shepard]

But... no weapon with a special AP follows the common AP rules. The Monolith rule is meant to specifically counteract such weapon rules.

Special does not mean common... :D There is a huge difference between them, a difference that jusify a "different mechanics"

 

By the way it's clear everyone will not deny his own interpretation because we have no other means to discern "truth".

This discussion is a "loop", so there is no need for me to continue it. I don't want to post over and over the same concept :D

 

If your opponets allow you to use this intepretation than it's good for you. :)

 

In the end we posted our intepretation and every reader will find the one that best fits with his own opinions.

Honestly I believe forcing the GK player to roll a single d6 is not fair because it favours Necrons players, but this is my opinion.

 

There is a reson if I don't play against Codex Necron and I don't play it by myself: I play 40k for fun not to argue about a rule interpretation for an entire day.

[thade]

Shepard, my man: you're flailing. It's unbecoming.

 

the problem is that according to the text of the Vindicare's rule his rifle, when used with turbo pen, does not have the common S3 of sniper rifles. It has "4d6" not "S+d6+3 additional d6"

I've addressed this half a dozen times now. The chainfist is plain 2d6, yet is listed as an example in a list of examples that not exhaustive (which means it doesn't have everything in it that it affects). No reason to assume the Turbo Pen round is different at all.

 

So according to your theory the vindicare should roll an unmodified d6. I don't see why is the Monolith to overule Turbo pen and not vice versa?

The monolith rule mention "unaugmented strenght" but Turbo Pen does not have a "unaugmented strenght" its "unaugmented value" is 4d6.

So I could (as you're no doubt aware) completely reverse this statement in favor of the Monolith. Because it proves nothing in either direction, pointing it out does the point here no service. This is a wasted amount of typing on your part and contributes nothing.

 

How do you deal with warp rift, for example? It does not have a S value. It inflicts an auto pen hit.

(Emphasis mine.) That is how we deal with it. A hit that automatically penetrates doesn't need to roll to hit nor to penetrate: just like other abilities and weapons that auto-hit (no need to roll to hit) or auto-wound/penetrate (no need to roll to wound/penetrate). This example does a lot of damage to your thesis: you're not offering anything solid to undo the things the rest of us are saying. No offense intended, but you have no argument.

 

I'm going to say this once more. If you're confused or resist it, refer to the Nighthawks sig in my quote.

 

Ready?

 

1d6 is standard for armor penetration. Anything more than 1d6 (examples: 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, Rending) is extra dice. 1d6 normal. Anything more extra. So simple it's got to be Warhammer.

 

Maybe it'll help for you to ponder on this: no where is that extra dice-thing actually referred to as literal "extra dice" except in the Living Metal rule. It must mean that they've always been extra dice. No?

[Cmdr Shepard]

So I could (as you're no doubt aware) completely reverse this statement in favor of the Monolith

Exactly. That's why the I critized the mothod. It's a very grey area.

 

This is a wasted amount of typing on your part and contributes nothing.

I posted my opinion about the rule and there is no need to be so rude. Since someone don't like the fact I'm posting an opinion different from the majority of the "Necron favour" player I'll abandon this topic.

I'm here only for the purpose of civil discussion. Point.

 

EDIT: Typing correction

[Legatus]

Cmdr Shepard is correct in that the Turbo Penetrator rules do not simply add "three extra dice" to the Armour Penetration roll. It replaces the weapon's regular Armour Penetration of 3+D6 with a special Armour Penetration of 4D6. However, the Monolith simply does not allow your weapon to roll 4D6 for an Armour Penetration value.

[thade]

Rudeness is not my intention, but you honestly seem to not be reading or responding to posts that are contrary to your position. All you've been doing is reiterating the things people have been shooting down with different angles in each post. This gets frustrating and does in fact contribute nothing. It makes it look like you're posting just to post. You don't do this, typically, which fuels my frustration.

 

There is nothing grey here. If it's more than 1d6, it's extra and thus negated by Living Metal.

[falldown]

One more shot at this. Then I'm going to create a new thread about Turbo-Pen getting a str for its pen attempt :D

 

Can anyone legitimately say that there is a difference between these entries?

 

"A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6." C:GK pg 53

 

"A chainfist is treated exactly as a power fist, but rolls 2D6 for its armour penetration value." C:SM pg 64

 

One has an armor penetration of 4d6. One rolls 2d6 for its armour penetration value.

 

If there is no difference, both are subjected to the Living Metal rule. Two reasons "...a single D6 no matter what," and because the chainfist is specifically mentioned. "Weapons that get additional Armour Penetration dice (such as chainfists, monstrous creatures or melta weapons) do not get the extra dice against the Monolith." The Turbo-Penetrator is a such as.

 

If you disagree, fine. Wont' make a difference in two months (praying) anyways.

[thade]

Cmdr Shepard is correct in that the Turbo Penetrator rules do not simply add "three extra dice" to the Armour Penetration roll. It replaces the weapon's regular Armour Penetration of 3+D6 with a special Armour Penetration of 4D6.

This is a tertiary point, I'll grant you (and as I recall has its own massive, multi-page discussion) but I'm still not convinced this is the case. It's insignificant, really, as adding (or not) S3 makes very little difference when rolling four (or one) dice. <3

 

However, the Monolith simply does not allow your weapon to roll 4D6 for an Armour Penetration value.

On that much we can agree.

[Legatus]

Opinions are fine, but when a rule states "you only ever get to roll a single D6, no matter what", you need some basis for an interpretation that allows you to roll multiple D6s. A weapon rule explaining that the weapon rolls multiple D6s is not sufficient, because it is specifically such rules the Monolith rule is adressing and counteracting.

 

 

"In practice, any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what."

 

 

"Against Vehicles, grenades have the following armour penetration: Melta Bombs 8+2D6" - Nope, you are not getting the 2D6. You onle get to roll a single D6.

 

"Rending: (...) Against vehicles, an armour penetration roll of 6 allows further D3 to be rolled, with the result added to the total score." - Nope, you are not getting that additional D3. You only get the Strength plus the single D6.

 

"A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6." - Nope, you don't get to roll 4D6. You only get to roll a single D6.

[thade]

I'm not the only one that was reiterating the same concept. I was not posting just to post. I never did that. Your post was unfriendly. I don't want to make public polemics but I don't like to accused to be a "spammer".

Just a suggestion: respect different opinions.

I'm sorry it came to this, frankly. Arguments can get a bit heated; it's a safe bet to not take anything I ever say as if it's a personal attack, especially on the OR board. In spite of that, I can see why you may thing otherwise. I apologize.

 

Respect your opinion, I do. I respect it so much in fact that I am doing my best to put it through the wringer and see if it stands up. It does not. That's not a mark against you, or anyone. It's simply our best path to common ground. Given several theories where only one can stand, we gotta try and shoot them all down.

 

everything is tertiary on that matter because we don't have the elements required to discern the truth.

(Emphasis mine.) This is what I'm really talking about, man. I've addressed the very crux of this at least four times now. You seem to be disregarding it. Please, instead, consider it.

 

Saying "we can't prove this" is like saying "there is no point to this". It's a contradiction in stance and form, as - were there no point to this - you would not be supporting your own position anymore. For each hypothesis, there is an implicit null hypothesis (that the hypothesis itself is wrong). No way to know without testing them both which one will produce consistent results. We're not here to prove: as you say, nothing can ever be proven, ever. However, consistent results are good enough. It is why have anything more than caves to live in and carrier pigeons to deliver our messages.

 

That's what we're on about here: consistency. The game works best when it rules the day. As Legatus and others have said: anything beyond 1d6 is extra. If it's extra, Living Metal makes it go away.

 

Terming it as opinion versus opinion doesn't change the fact that one opinion uses fewer and simpler assumptions than the other. When in doubt, Occam is our friend. Go with the simpler opinion.

[Cmdr Shepard]

Opinions are fine, but when a rule states "you only ever get to roll a single D6, no matter what", you need some basis for an interpretation that allows you to roll multiple D6s. A weapon rule explaining that the weapon rolls multiple D6s is not sufficient, because it is specifically such rules the Monolith rule is adressing and counteracting.

 

 

"In practice, any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what."

 

 

"Against Vehicles, grenades have the following armour penetration: Melta Bombs 8+2D6" - Nope, you are not getting the 2D6. You onle get to roll a single D6.

 

"Rending: (...) Against vehicles, an armour penetration roll of 6 allows further D3 to be rolled, with the result added to the total score." - Nope, you are not getting that additional D3. You only get the Strength plus the single D6.

 

"A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6." - Nope, you don't get to roll 4D6. You only get to roll a single D6.

 

Why in one of the old GW documents about Necrons they said the old Turbo pen rolled its own 3d6?

 

(Emphasis mine.) This is what I'm really talking about, man. I've addressed the very crux of this at least four times now. You seem to be disregarding it. Please, instead, consider it.

 

In fact I believed I already mentioned that: we don't have the required elements. I just tried to explain one of the possible interpretations but I felt blamed for that.

If my posts was not so clear consider English is not my main language :D.

 

Currently every opinion on that rule is acceptable because every one has its own logic.

It was not my intention to be hostile but I don't like to be blamed for my own right to post my own opinions

[falldown]

So we have a case where...

Against the Turbo Pen getting 4d6

1. All rending weapons lose their d3s

2. The chainfist and Turbo Pen entries are thematically exactly the same (see my previous posts)

3. The chainfist loses its extra d6

4. The Monolith entry includes "Such as chainfists" and "a single d6 no matter what."

5. The 4d6 constitutes an addition of 3d6 on top of the standard armor pen allowed 1d6.

 

For the Turbo Pen getting 4d6

1. The Turbo Pen rule states "A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6." This bypasses the standard Pen rules and overrides the Living Metal rule.

2. The 4d6 does not constitute "adding additional dice"

3. In one of the old GW documents about Necrons they said the old Turbo pen rolled its own 3d6.

[falldown]

You have both apologized. You both disagree, and this has gotten way off topic.

 

Can we agree on the following?

 

Against the Turbo Pen getting 4d6

1. All rending weapons lose their d3s

2. The chainfist and Turbo Pen entries are thematically exactly the same (see my previous posts)

3. The chainfist loses its extra d6

4. The Monolith entry includes "Such as chainfists" and "a single d6 no matter what."

5. The 4d6 constitutes an addition of 3d6 on top of the standard armor pen allowed 1d6.

 

For the Turbo Pen getting 4d6

1. The Turbo Pen rule states "A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6." This bypasses the standard Pen rules and overrides the Living Metal rule.

2. The 4d6 does not constitute "adding additional dice"

3. In one of the old GW documents about Necrons they said the old Turbo pen rolled its own 3d6.

 

If I missed anything, or anyone would like the wording changed I will do so.

[Legatus]

Why in one of the old GW documents about Necrons they said the old Turbo pen rolled its own 3d6?

The explanation for why the 4.0.1 Necron FaQ made an exception for the Witch Hunter/Daemonhunter turbo penetrator was that it's 3D6 would not constitute a "bonus" to Armour Penetration, but the weapon's basic armour penetration. However:

 

- The current Necron FaQ has dropped that exception.

 

- The 4.0.1 Necron FaQ may have refered to the initial Codex Necrons. The revised Codex Necrons included its own updated rule for the Monolith, and it did not adopt the "turbo penetrator" exception of the previous FaQ.

 

- The current Codex Necron rules have added a blanked "no weapon will ever roll more than a singel D6 plus Strength" to the Monolith rule, which in its previous iteration had merely refered to "bonuses not applying". The revised rule does not simply deny bonuses, it flat out explains that a weapon will never get to use more than its strength and a single D6 for armour penetration.

 

- The rules for the turbo penetrator have changed since then (4D6 instead of 3D6, for an average of 14 Ap, as opposed to the former 10.5).

[Legatus]

Can we agree on the following?

 

Against the Turbo Pen getting 4d6

1. All rending weapons lose their d3s

2. The chainfist and Turbo Pen entries are thematically exactly the same (see my previous posts)

3. The chainfist loses its extra d6

4. The Monolith entry includes "Such as chainfists" and "a single d6 no matter what."

5. The 4d6 constitutes an addition of 3d6 on top of the standard armor pen allowed 1d6.

 

For the Turbo Pen getting 4d6

1. The Turbo Pen rule states "A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6." This bypasses the standard Pen rules and overrides the Living Metal rule.

2. The 4d6 does not constitute "adding additional dice"

3. In one of the old GW documents about Necrons they said the old Turbo pen rolled its own 3d6.

I would contest the red statements. On the case of the latter two not because the statements in themselve are not correct, but in that they are no viable arguments for why that would allow the turbo penetrator to be used against the Monolith rule.

 

 

The real problem, the one I tried to express is: we cannot decide what arguments are correct.

This argument is correct: B)

 

"In practice, any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what."

 

 

I am sorry if that starts to come across as repetitive, but that is a very straight forward rule statement, specifically explaining what a weapon can use to attempt to best this vehicle's armour. This is specifically meant to negate weapon rules that use anything more than the weapon's Strength and a single D6, so refering to a weapon's rule granting it more than its Strength and a singe D6 is no viable argument. Refering to an older FaQ where a specific weapon was allowed to use its rules against the Monolith is a viable argument to discern RAI, which I am usually in favour of. However, that FaQ entry has been dropped from the current FaQ, and the Monolith rule in the revised Codex Necrons is very straight forward.

[Cmdr Shepard]

I do my best to afford you (and everyone that) but it's a hard balance between that and giving your stance (which is valid and may be sound) the analysis it deserves (to see if it is in fact sound).

I wrote that just to explain I never "spammed" the same posts. If you thought that it was a misunderstanding.

 

I appreciate this very much...but as I am a dumb American I of course (regrettably) only speak two languages: English and Bad English. (1337-speak does not count, and is in fact banned on the B&C.) This is OT, but I blame our failing education system for not having learned a second and third language while growing up.

Don't worry about that. Very few persons around the world speak my own language, Italian, and most of them come from own country ;)

 

This was part of my auto-pilot; it hadn't occurred to me that the language barrier might be why it seemed otherwise. Here are some smilies:

Beside I was very quick in posting my replies and that was part of the misunderstand. Since I'm a currently very busy I have to use "multi-task" functions when I'm online B)

 

Not sure you mean to imply I don't have a social life, lol

It was not my intention. I just wanted to say: I don't have the time to write an essay about every single rule I comment here. Thus not "thesis" but just "opinions" :D

 

. I hate arguing over rules as it spoils the game for me.

I agree. That's why I said "roll a dice to set the dispute". It's not the best way but it's better than spending the entire day arguing on a single rule.

I don't want to blame GW. I like their products but the reason of such arguments about Necron codex is the fact they didn't update it.

 

This is just semantics, but an opinion on the OR board with supporting statements is indiscernable from a logical argument; that's why I stepped up to the plate there

Sadly this argument is very complex. We can only write down our opinions since there is no way to truly understand the effective interaction between two very peculiar rules that tend to overcome each others.

 

*offers to shake your hand*

I accept your offer. :D If I remember correctly you are among the first users I met here on B&C (I'm new to the community) and I always considered you one of my friends here on B&C.

[falldown]

I don't disagree Legatus. I just don't see the sides meeting on this and I wanted to make a specific list of the points each side has made for people that don't want to read the entire thread. In that regard I made the changes below.

 

Against the Turbo Pen getting 4d6

1. All rending weapons lose their d3s

2. The chainfist loses its extra d6

3. The Monolith Living Metal entry includes "Such as chainfists" and "will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single d6 no matter what."

4. The 4d6 constitutes an addition of 3d6 on top of the standard armor pen allowed 1d6.

 

For the Turbo Pen getting 4d6

1. The Turbo Pen rule states "A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6." This bypasses the standard Pen rules and overrides the Living Metal rule.

2. The 4d6 does not constitute "adding additional dice"

3. In one of the old GW documents about Necrons they said the old Turbo pen rolled its own 3d6.

[thade]

"In practice, any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what."

This quote seals the deal for me.

[Jacinda]

I just don't see the sides meeting on this

 

I don't see how there can be any sides. Walk into your local game store, pick up a real copy of the necron codex, turn to page 21 and read the rules for Living Metal. It really is that simple.

[falldown]

I don't see how there can be any sides. Walk into your local game store, pick up a real copy of the necron codex, turn to page 21 and read the rules for Living Metal. It really is that simple.

 

<shrug> That is my thought as well, but others disagree so there it is. The arguments for the two sides summarized.

[maxkool]

Wow. Ok after reading all this crap..(no offEnce but some of it is way Ot)

 

Here is how I would place this arguement...

 

Based on the line "... single d6 NO MATTER WHAT.."

 

This statement leads us towards no wep gets more than one dice for ap. On order to do anything differant someone needs to prove that "no matter what" donset include their wep.

The burden of proof is on the side of The single dice camp, no matter what u think the rules as written say this. No matter what is an exhaustive statement encompassing everything. Living metal says single dice plus str to get your ap.

The turbo pen round has no str apparently but that dosnt disqualify the no matter what statement. It simply becomes a single d6. If the wep does have str value then it's str plus 1d6 again no disqualifying of the single dice no matter what.

 

 

What is the arguement to disqualify this exqustive term...

Anything else is semantics as this line is exhaustive and unless someone points to a contextual argument within the gk or necron codex or faqs then this line as stands forces the turbo pen round to only roll one dice plus str(wether or not it has a str value)

 

Here is a non context example. Say the sternguard had an ap round. It says instead of the normal ap roll (single dice+str) u roll 4d6 for armor pen. This would still not work as it doesn't have anything in this rule to disqualify the single dice no matter what statement.

 

At this point I think it is closed unless a 4d6 camp poster can say why "no matter what" means everything but turbo pen rounds.