Vindicare trumps Dreadnought

[adamv6]

6th edition for me has completely changed how and when I use dreadnoughts. I have tried in so many games now to strategically place my rifleman dread to avoid him going down early, but, most people are picking off dreadnoughts to get first blood (and on Big Guns never tire an extra VP for killing a heavy).

 

Also, local to me, people have realised that the hull points on vehicles is not that big an issue, but rhinos are dwindling in numbers. As such alot more Raiders have appeared.

 

I have on quite a few occasions, penetrated a Land Raider with my psycannons, but, they are not ideal and I prefer a different role for them. The Rifleman dread is as good as useless against AV14, which is annoying.

 

So, my Vindicare has come back out the box, and I have to say is producing the goods in most games I have been playing.

 

First turn I try and wreck a high armour vehicle (the Vindicare really annoys Necron players I have found). 4D6 AP should on average roll 14, add that to the ST3 and your through anything. Get a 6 to rend and unless the dice gods are going to piss on your bonfire, you're defininely through. AP1 adds a nice bonus as well, more often than not exploding the little bundles of joy. First blood to me, and a bunch of high value troops now footslogging and getting multiple turns of psycannons to the face.

 

Second turn it either does the same or start picking characters and Sarg's out of squads.

 

After that, he is normally taking so much fire he is lucky to be alive, but again, he normally is. Between his improved cover save, his 4+ Invuln and FNP on a 6 keep him playing more often than not.

 

All in all, I am finding running a Vindicare alot more beneficial than a dreadnought. Anyone else changing there lists and removing dreadnoughts?

[shortysl]

6th edition for me has completely changed how and when I use dreadnoughts. I have tried in so many games now to strategically place my rifleman dread to avoid him going down early, but, most people are picking off dreadnoughts to get first blood (and on Big Guns never tire an extra VP for killing a heavy).

 

Also, local to me, people have realised that the hull points on vehicles is not that big an issue, but rhinos are dwindling in numbers. As such alot more Raiders have appeared.

 

I have on quite a few occasions, penetrated a Land Raider with my psycannons, but, they are not ideal and I prefer a different role for them. The Rifleman dread is as good as useless against AV14, which is annoying.

 

So, my Vindicare has come back out the box, and I have to say is producing the goods in most games I have been playing.

 

First turn I try and wreck a high armour vehicle (the Vindicare really annoys Necron players I have found). 4D6 AP should on average roll 14, add that to the ST3 and your through anything. Get a 6 to rend and unless the dice gods are going to piss on your bonfire, you're defininely through. AP1 adds a nice bonus as well, more often than not exploding the little bundles of joy. First blood to me, and a bunch of high value troops now footslogging and getting multiple turns of psycannons to the face.

 

Second turn it either does the same or start picking characters and Sarg's out of squads.

 

After that, he is normally taking so much fire he is lucky to be alive, but again, he normally is. Between his improved cover save, his 4+ Invuln and FNP on a 6 keep him playing more often than not.

 

All in all, I am finding running a Vindicare alot more beneficial than a dreadnought. Anyone else changing there lists and removing dreadnoughts?

 

It's of relatively little importance but the Turbo-Penetrator round doesn't benefit from a Sniper Rifle's strength of 3. You simply gain 4d6 armour penetration.

 

I actually created my first Grey Knights lists without Dreadnoughts anyway because I wanted to get away from the 'traditional' Space Marine build, so i've always included an Assassin, and the Vindicare was always first choice (I always like to play as a sniper or marksman in FPS' so he just suited my style). I do find that he generally doesn't survive past turn 3 but even then i can be content with the fact that he always distracts a significant portion of my opponent's force, allowing the rest of my army to dictate their engagements.

[Gentlemanloser]

You do keep the S3 of the rifle, plus all dice Rend.

[Morollan]

You do keep the S3 of the rifle, plus all dice Rend.

 

I believe this was debated endlessly in 5e. Was there ever an official answer?

[adamv6]

6th states in the Sniper USR that when hitting a vehicle the weapon has a strength of 3. Everyone I have played has had no problems with this and the Turbo Penetrator round.

[Morollan]

6th states in the Sniper USR that when hitting a vehicle the weapon has a strength of 3. Everyone I have played has had no problems with this and the Turbo Penetrator round.

 

I don't particularly want to go into this argument again as it was gone into at great length previously with, AFAIK, no real conclusion but Sniper weapons were S3 vs vehicles in 5e and remain so in 6e so I'm not sure that anything has changed.

[Seahawk]

I've always used a Vindicare and never used rifleman dreadnoughts. The latter are for the uncreative. B)

[Inquisitor Fox]

I've always used a Vindicare and never used rifleman dreadnoughts. The latter are for the uncreative. :P

I wouldn't necessarily say uncreative, so much as it's a logical consequence of a traditional Dreadnought role. :D I consider myself very creative, am running a very non-traditional Grey Knights list (two generic Inquisitor HQs and deep striking GKs), and I plan on getting one and using it with a Storm Raven.

 

Why, you may ask?

 

One, the Reinforced Aegis save is dead sexy. Two, a Dred allows us to get heavy weapons firepower which our squads otherwise lack. Let's face it, even a regular Space Marine squad doesn't sit still and fire their heavy weapons, and while a psycannon is also dead sexy we are often using them against infantry to back up our bazillion psybolt ammo stormbolters. We need other platforms for heavy, anti-vehicle weaponry.

 

So then we look at what platforms can we have to do this job? Razorbacks, Land Raiders, Dreadnoughts, Storm Ravens. That's pretty much the list. Razorbacks are fragile little things, are transports for many units, and often argued best left cheap. Land Raiders are the kings of our heavy firepower but very expensive. Storm Ravens are incredibly fun but lots of people have a love/hate relationship with flyers. Then our classic support, the Dreadnought. Able to advance and fire weaponry in support of our infantry, able to advance at pace with a group of infantry models, able to help shield our forces from psychic powers, able to go into buildings and up stairs, plus negotiate rugged terrain.

 

So lets look at what firepower we can give our Dreadnoughts. Lascannons are king, of course, but only one, only twin liked, and kinda spendy. Missiles are also good, but again only one shot. Melta likewise suffers from low fire rate and range, but it does melt most anything into slag. Then we look at the autocannon. Good range, good fire rate, and unlike every other army in existence we can enhance ours to be almost as good as a missile launcher (technically a krak missile has better AP, but one half the fire rate). It's cheap, economical, versatile, able to take on light to medium armor without blinking, shields our troops from witches and just plain looks awesome.

 

I wouldn't say it's uncreative... for what it does, which is support infantry on the advance and taking out light to medium armored targets while our infantry focus fire on enemy infantry, it simply rocks. It's a bread and butter unit because it's very hard to match what it can do and consistantly add to our forces. I also support using Land Raiders, Razorbacks, Storm Ravens, henchmen, etc. The point is to have units than can fill the role of fire support in your list, whatever units you chose to fill that void is up to you. Creativity is in how your army plays together and plays on the table. Picking something because it's just plain a solid choice isn't being uncreative though.

 

That being said, I absolutely love my Vindicare :D He's just fun.

[BrotherWasted]

Sniper Rifles are S3 vs vehicles and by definition are Rending weapons.

 

Roll to hit, then roll 4D6 and add 3. If you roll any natural 6s on penetration, add another D3 to the total.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I would say use both. That's what I do.

 

My PsyDread usually kills a couple of vehicles and some infantry before getting torrented to death (or having a lucky shot kill him).

 

Vindicare usually snipes a Land Raider etc, then a squad leader or two, then dies to either charges (annoying he doesn't even have a power sword, his statline is god-like in melee otherwise) or to high Strength (his 4++ breaks pretty easily).

[Morollan]

Sniper Rifles are S3 vs vehicles and by definition are Rending weapons.

 

Roll to hit, then roll 4D6 and add 3. If you roll any natural 6s on penetration, add another D3 to the total.

 

It's been discussed at length before and it is not conclusive either way due to GW failing to explicitly define what Armour Penetration actually means. You can find one discussion here and I'm sure there were others. Nothing in 6e seems to have changed the arguments either way.

 

EDIT: Actually, thinking about it, something has changed in 6th. We now know specifically that Codex trumps rulebook. Codex says "A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6", which therefore overwrites the normal rules from the rulebook.

[Gentlemanloser]

Only in a conflict.

 

There's no conflict with the Turbo Penetrators rules, or the rules for Sniper Weapons/Rending.

[Morollan]

Only in a conflict.

 

There's no conflict with the Turbo Penetrators rules, or the rules for Sniper Weapons/Rending.

 

I disagree. The TP rules say:

 

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

 

That conflicts with what the rulebook says, which is:

 

roll a D6 and add the weapon's Strength

 

That is a conflict and therefore the codex version is the one to use.

[Gentlemanloser]

Which would be 4d6 + Weapon Strength, with Rending.

 

Weapon Strength is seperate to the 1d6 'armour penetration', and it's that value that's updated by the Codex.

 

Edit: I do see the issue though.

 

The 4d6 are clearly called "the Armour Penetration dice" in the GK FAQ, I'll check the wording in the BRB when I get home, as to whether it includes the Weapon Strength value in the 'Armour Penetration'. Which is rather a seperate term.

[Morollan]

Edit: I do see the issue though.

 

The 4d6 are clearly called "the Armour Penetration dice" in the GK FAQ, I'll check the wording in the BRB when I get home, as to whether it includes the Weapon Strength value in the 'Armour Penetration'. Which is rather a seperate term.

 

That is exactly the issue. "Armour Penetration" is not actually a defined term. The relevant section says:

 

ARMOUR PENETRATION ROLLS

Hitting a vehicle is no guarantee that you will actually damage it. Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the Weapon's Strength, comparing this total with the Armour value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle

 

If the GK Codex said "A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6 plus the Weapon's Strength" or "A turbo-penetrator shot rolls an additional three dice for Armour Penetration" then I would agree with you but that's not what it says. It tells us exactly what to roll with no mention of any additions. This conflicts with the BRB rule so we go with what the codex says. And it does not say to add the Weapon's Strength to the roll.

[Gentlemanloser]

Thing is, it's an Armour Penetration roll.

 

While the Weapons Strength adds into the final total, it's not part of the 'roll', as you can't roll it. :lol:

 

The Armour Penetration roll itself is the 1d6. So having an armour penetration of 4d6 doesn't exlcude adding the Weapons base Strength (or any other bonuses, like Tank Hunter, for example).

 

This ties into the GK FAQ, listing the dice as 'armour penetration' dice.

 

What's the wording on MCs 2d6?

[Morollan]

As I said earlier, there is no definition of "Armour Penetration" in the rulebook. We are just told of a procedure to follow. However you look at it though, the GK Codex gives us a different procedure and this is a conflict. It does not give us permission to do anything other than roll 4D6 (and apply Rending to each dice where applicable).

[Gentlemanloser]

Armourbane tells you to roll 2d6 for armour penetration. Does this also mean that anyone with armourbane now loses the Strength based portion of the Armour Penetration roll's total damage?

 

The Armour Penetration of the roll is the d6. A Turbo Penetrator replaces this with 4d6. Just like armourbane replaces the d6 with 2d6.

 

The result is not the 'armour penetration'. The total you get after your armour penetration roll plus Strength isn't defined. It's just the total.

[GOFADK]

Armourbane tells you to roll 2d6 for armour penetration. Does this also mean that anyone with armourbane now loses the Strength based portion of the Armour Penetration roll's total damage?

 

The Armour Penetration of the roll is the d6. A Turbo Penetrator replaces this with 4d6. Just like armourbane replaces the d6 with 2d6.

 

The result is not the 'armour penetration'. The total you get after your armour penetration roll plus Strength isn't defined. It's just the total.

 

Just my words :lol:

[BrotherWasted]

As I said earlier, there is no definition of "Armour Penetration" in the rulebook. We are just told of a procedure to follow. However you look at it though, the GK Codex gives us a different procedure and this is a conflict. It does not give us permission to do anything other than roll 4D6 (and apply Rending to each dice where applicable).

 

A Turbo Penetrator shot rolls 4D6 for armour penetration.

 

When you "roll for armour penetration" you always add the weapon's strength, as clearly stated in the BRB.

 

Instead of rolling 1D6, you roll 4D6. The Codex/FAQ simply replace the term "1D6" with "4D6" and the process continues as normal.

 

No conflict.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Yeah, dunno why you would argue otherwise. Only haters who don't play Knights do so, and they're wrong anyway, as has been pointed out. Vindicare = dead tank, everytime.

[Morollan]

As I said earlier, there is no definition of "Armour Penetration" in the rulebook. We are just told of a procedure to follow. However you look at it though, the GK Codex gives us a different procedure and this is a conflict. It does not give us permission to do anything other than roll 4D6 (and apply Rending to each dice where applicable).

 

A Turbo Penetrator shot rolls 4D6 for armour penetration.

 

When you "roll for armour penetration" you always add the weapon's strength, as clearly stated in the BRB.

 

Instead of rolling 1D6, you roll 4D6. The Codex/FAQ simply replace the term "1D6" with "4D6" and the process continues as normal.

 

No conflict.

 

No, the turbo-penetrator does not "roll 4d6 for armour penetration". I've quoted what the codex actually says a couple of times already "A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6"

 

There is a conflict because you are making assumptions on what "Armour Penetration" is. If you can find a rule that tells us clearly what this term means then that's fine but as it stands the rulebook tells us to roll a single d6 and add the weapon's strength. The Codex tells us to just roll 4D6. No Strength is added. It is an assumption, nothing more, that the 4D6 for the TP round only replaces the 1D6 rather than the whole total. Normal English usage tells us the opposite.

 

I'm somewhat surprised that Gentlemanloser is arguing against this as he has been a strident voice in the "Codex>Rulebook" debates and this seems as clear a case of such a conflict as any I've seen.

[Fenric]

I have recently discussed this with my friend I play with and I can't really help being split on this since he agrees fully with Morollan on this that it doesn't say roll just that it's plain armor penetration of 4d6. Problem is to know what gamesworkshop really meant since I do agree that it's not very clear at all.

[the jeske]

If you take dreadnoughts then either use them with an aegis or better yet with the landing thing that gives them +4 inv . 4-6 dreads with +4inv still work ok . not as good as they did in 5th , but ok .

[Gentlemanloser]

I'm somewhat surprised that Gentlemanloser is arguing against this as he has been a strident voice in the "Codex>Rulebook" debates and this seems as clear a case of such a conflict as any I've seen.

 

So you're also ruling that Chain Fists have only 2d6 for Armour Penetration and lose the S8 of the wileder?

 

I am very vocal about Codex > BRB, but this isn't a case it applies. It might not be worded as clearly as it could be, but both Armourbane and the Turbo Penetrator use the same langauge.

 

The armour penetration is the amount you roll. The number of d6 you are allowed. In addition to this Armour penetration *roll* you also include the Strength of the Weapon being used to form your total value.

 

Codex doesn't conflict with BRB here.