Vindicare VS Monolith

[Cmdr Shepard]

The burden of proof is on the side of The single dice camp

Burden of proof?! Is warhammer 40k a game played among friends or a trial?

No offense intended.

 

By the way turning a game into a trial is a very efficient way to ruin its fun. And you are talking with one who deal with "law's interpretation" on daily basis. ;)

A trial like approach cannot work in the context of friendly 40k. In a tournament there is a "judge" but his/her decision are not subjected to the typical "juridical review" ;). It's clear a tournament does not follow a "due process of law" :P

[thade]

It's been said more than once (by more than one of us) that these rules aren't really written to stand up to legal-style analysis and interpretation. That satisfies few, though, and so we get into these debacles.

 

I still feel that single line Legatus quoted above solves all of this. No one has yet to show otherwise. Why are we still unsure? <3

[Cmdr Shepard]

It's been said more than once (by more than one of us) that these rules aren't really written to stand up to legal-style analysis and interpretation.

I strongly agree. When I started to play 40k I tried that approach because it seemed the most logical and fair. Then I realized that if GW made laws in real world we would be in great trouble :P

Laws demand clarity (just to make things easy I won't write more detailed analysis on the matter ;) ) GW rules often are alien to that concept. No offense intented, GW ;)

So I had no other choice than using the "friendly approach" because the legal-style is not compatible with GW rules.

 

There is a reason if many persons are so eager to play the incoming Space Marine videogame. A 40k setting without those endless debates. End of the off topic statements ;)

[maxkool]

Wow ok. Do u want me to use different words to make u fell better? I only used those words as people understand what they mean. The rule as written Makes turbo pen roll only 1d6. If u want to do something else then it's up to you guys to prove why u can. And after reading all this I can say no one has. All thats been argued is points other than the line that includes no matter what. If no one can dispute the validity of this line then it pretty much answers it doesn't it.

 

If they wanted it to ignore special rules such as living metal they could have easily said something like " when shooting vehicles instead of the normal ap dice, roll4d6 to find the str of the wep for purposes of armor pen. But then people would be arguing that they get 4d6 plus another d6... Ugh

 

So raw is all we have to go on and as it stands no wep gets more than 1d6 no matter what....

 

 

All I was trying to say using the legal terms was that it's not an "interpretation" when the statement in question is an exhaustive statement. No more posting from me, I've never had anyone argue that line as it's pretty cut and dry when something says no matter what.

[falldown]

The argument is that the TP is the lone exemption due only to the wording of the entry on the weapon. The fact is that the TP entry is incredibly similar to the wording on the entry for a chainfist, and the chainfist is not exempt.

 

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

"A chainfist ... rolls 2D6 for its armour penetration value." C:SM pg 64

 

Add to this the other rules that have been quoted, "Such as chainfists" and "will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single d6 no matter what." In this case, the group that is fighting for an exemption needs to have more then 'the wording isn't clear' to go against the existing rules.

[Acebaur]

The TP rule would need to specifically say that it overrides the Monolith rule in order for it to do so. The words "no matter what" are rock solid in killing anything more than 1D6.

 

Trying to argue against it is like trying to argue for re-rolling a re-roll, when the rule in the BRB explicitly states that you can never do such a thing.

 

I think this thread has run it's course as the answer to the question has been clearly and definitively answered. So I think it's time to move on,(at least for me) and Thade and Shepard can hold hands and sing kumbaya together. :lol: ;)

[thade]

I think this thread has run it's course as the answer to the question has been clearly and definitively answered. So I think it's time to move on,(at least for me) and Thade and Shepard can hold hands and sing kumbaya together. :lol: ;)

I'm down.

[Cmdr Shepard]

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

"A chainfist ... rolls 2D6 for its armour penetration value." C:SM pg 64

The original point was the text of those rules. As I already mentioned rolls 2d6 is not similar to "has an AP of 4d6". In the first case you have "S+Xd6", in the second you have a plain "Xd6". It is a very special circumstance for the already mentioned reasons I have no intention to re post :P

I suppose contacting GW customer care will be of no help... or not?

 

 

So I think it's time to move on,(at least for me) and Thade and Shepard can hold hands and sing kumbaya together. :lol: :P

I agree it's time to move because it's clear everyone will retain his own opinion due to the "rule's text issues" we talked above.

I may be wrong but singing kumbaya does not seem a true "space marine thing", right? ;) :P

[Something Wycked]

Ah, translation, my specialty.

 

In practice

"What we're trying to say is"

 

any weapon

"all weapons from all codices, past, present and future"

 

attacking the Monolith

"used against a vehicle with the Living Metal rule during any phase"

 

will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength

"uses only its strength"

 

and a single D6

"and one die for armor penetration"

 

no matter what.

"NO MATTER WHAT."

 

Putting it all together:

 

"What we're trying to say is all weapons from all codices past, present and future used against a vehicle with the Living Metal rule during any phase uses only its strength and one die for armor penetration NO MATTER WHAT... Particularly including, you know, those weapons that roll more than one die, since the purpose of writing this rule is to limit you to rolling one die, especially if your weapon is supposed to use more than one die."

 

I doubt that me saying it will have any effect since I've lost count of how many people have said it already to no effect :P But hey. Maybe I'm the straw that broke the camel's back, eh? B)

[Cmdr Shepard]

Just tell me one thing:

Do you thinl Thuderhammers and power fists double the users' S value when they attack the Monolith?

 

Since currently the literal interpretation of the "Living Metal" rule seems to be the trend we should state the "unaugmented strength" line will prevent that, and many players said do.

 

However the FAQ states:

 

Q. Does a model with a powerfist/claw that

attacks a Monolith get to double its Strength for

armour penetration rolls?

A. Yes, powerfists/claws, thunder hammers, and so on still double their user’s Strength when

attacking a Monolith.

 

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Custom...ecrons_2009.pdf

 

This is a further proof the rules of Necron codex lack clarity.

[Legatus]

Ah, while you could claim that this was an inconsistency in the way GW wants us to interprete the Monolith rules, one could argue that the Monolith rules require that the unaugmented strength of the weapon is used. And while close combat is generally described as being based on the Strength value of the fighting model's stat line, one could argue that the Strength of a Thunderhammer none-the less can be interpreted as "twice the Strength value of the model swinging it". :lol:

 

E.g.

 

Strength of a power weapon attack: as model's Strength value

 

Strength of a power fist attack: twice the model's Strength value

 

Strength 4 model with power fist, tank hunter and rending

- potential AP: 9 + D6 + D3

- unaugmented: 8 + D6

 

 

In 2nd Edition of 40K close combat weapons had their own profile, just like ranged weapons, including their own strength value. E.g. Chain swords were strength 4 (not very interesting for Marines, but nice for Guardsmen), power swords had Strenth 5, Power Fists had Strength 8. In 3rd Edition GW simplified the rules and changed the close combat mechanic to allways rely on the model's own Strength value. None-the less, you could interprete the mechanic as not being a case of a power fist or thunderhammer "augmenting" the strength of the wielder, but the attack made with a powerfist or thunderhammer having a certain Strength based on the strength of the wielder.

 

I.e.

 

not

 

weapon augments model's strength --> model's strength is used for combat attacks

 

but

 

model's strength determines weapon attack strength --> weapon attack Strength is used for combat attacks

 

 

The bold line is what is then used as the "unaugmented Strength" against a Monolith. If you interprete close combat to use the model's Strength, then you would assume thet the value in the model's stat line was the "unaugmented Strength". But if you interprete close combat so that the model's Strength value determines the Strength of it's close combat attacks, then an attack from a model with a powerfist would have an "unaugmented" Strength of twice the model's stat line value.

 

Now, usually a detailed analysis like this is never needed, as the process is pretty straight forward (use model's strength, powerfist doubles strength, done), so the rules do not explain the mechanic or how to interprete it in the more complex manner as explained above. The rules for powerfists simply say that they "double the user's Strength". It does not specify that this is "for the purpose of attacks made in close combat with the powerfist". This has led some to interprete it so that a model with powerfist and power weapon could attack with the power weapon and still benefit from the doubling strength of the powerfist for this attack. Characteristics tests on the model's Strength value (such as against a Tyranid strangleweb attack, C:Tyranids, p. 39) also still use the model's unaugmented Strength characteristic, and would not benefit from a doubled Strength value if the model was equipped with a powerfist. So while it is apparent from how the doubling of the powerfist is applied in various situations that they "double the Strength of the attacks made with the powerfist", unfortunately that is not how powerfists are specifically described on page 42 of the rulebook.

[Isiah]

I've cleaned out some posts in this topic. Can we keep it totally rules-focussed please from this point on.

[maxkool]

One thing I find funny is that this is similar in how people have tried to argue about sweeping advances and wbb and what not. It dosnt specifically say anything about sweeping advances in the wbb so in effect we get nothing. For as everyone has said before a rule must specifically override another rule BY NAME in order to work. Ergo, when it comes to getting a bit of help everyone says nope, the neuron wbb rules in the codex don't mention sweeping advances so u get nothing. But as soon as it's going the other way people are saying that somehow they are exempt from the living metal rule even tho no SPECIFIC mention of TP rounds is made.

 

So in the essence of fairness seeing as the sa+wbb has been rules against the necrons due to non specific wording the same should apply the other way. After thinking about this it realy points to taking and not giving on the part of the players wanting 4d6. If u get 4d6 then i get wbb from SA, just to keep it fair...

 

 

Stop trying to kick a poor codex when it's down :P

[Jacinda]

Just tell me one thing:

Do you thinl Thuderhammers and power fists double the users' S value when they attack the Monolith?

Actually no. The Strength of the weapon is model strength times two. That's why it is in () when output by Army builder. It does not actually double the model's strength. The weapon itself has that Strength value.

[Legatus]

Actually no. The Strength of the weapon is model strength times two. That's why it is in () when output by Army builder. It does not actually double the model's strength. The weapon itself has that Strength value.

While that is what I would say, to be fair, it is not how that particular game mechanic (power fists doubling Strength) is explained in the rulebook. For a more in-depth disection of that rule mechanic see my previous post.

[Cmdr Shepard]

Actually no. The Strength of the weapon is model strength times two. That's why it is in () when output by Army builder. It does not actually double the model's strength. The weapon itself has that Strength value.

CC weapons don't have a S value by themselves. It's the model to possess it. However it's clear the "unaugmented" word could be used to prevent to double the model strenght because the "base value" is the S of his stats. Even bare hands, and rifles' stocks count as CC weapons in assualt: that's was the argument against the "double strenght".

 

Personally I agree with the FAQ but it's obvious the rule is not clear, as many rules in C:Necron.

[Something Wycked]

As Legatus pointed out, the equation works like this: PFist or THammer Strength = 2(Model's Strength)

 

The strength of the fist/hammer, even though a function of the model's characteristic, is unaugmented. Said another way, the model's strength is augmented, the weapon's is not.

 

Living Metal does not state unaugmented model's strength, but it does state unaugmented weapon's strength.

 

It is clear, it just takes a very close reading of the text to see it- which does effectively make it unclear to those who do not read it so closely. We all agree this is a bad and common issue with GW's rules. :D

[thade]

...on the money...

He is indeed.

[Legatus]

It is clear, it just takes a very close reading of the text to see it- which does effectively make it unclear to those who do not read it so closely. We all agree this is a bad and common issue with GW's rules.

I disagree. Wit the first statement. The last one is fine. No closer reading of the close combat rules will reveal how a powerfist attack has a Strength value equal to twice the wielding model's strength. I agree that this is how the weapon rule is logically meant to be implemented in combat. But it's not how it is described, unfortunately.

[Something Wycked]

I was referring to the Living Metal rule stating "weapons" instead of "models," but I do of course see your point Legatus.

 

:unsure: thade.

[Frosty the Pyro]

I am not going to read the whole thing, but here is some history for you

 

once upon a time, the FAQ of the old turbo penitrator allowed it to work on living medal, this was removed from the FAQ a long time ago, way before the new GK dex. Aditionaly the old tyranid dex allowed for one of their spore mines (acid mines IIRC) to also use its modified dice. Those two FAQ examples were the only ones in the entire game that could do so. They are both gone. As such there is no longer any precidence to suport anything at all using multiple additive dice when dealing with a monolith. Combined with how increadably underpowered the necron codex is in 5th edition, I side, quite firmly, that the turbo penitrator round deals 3+1d6 armor pen vs a monolith, and is as such, unable to score a glancing or penitrating hit.