Vindicare trumps Dreadnought

[Fenric]

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.

 

Does armourbane also say has 4d6 armor penatration? Or does it say has a so and so many d6 roll(not sure howp many dice armourbane adds)? And if it says the same has it been ruled that it has str+armor pen?

 

Hope you understand what I mean, I need some real proof if i'm going to be allowed to play it as 3+4d6 in my group.

[Morollan]

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.

 

I'm making no comment on Armourbane or Chainfists other than to say that there is ambiguity there, as there is with turbo-penetrator rounds. This is further exacerbated by the Melta wording, which says:

 

Ranged weapons with this special rule roll an additional D6 when rolling to penetrate a vehicle's Armour at half range or less

 

Sadly, this is pretty much the level of GW rules writing that we've all come to know and love. No consistency, no clarity, no editor! But I cannot accept that there is no conflict between the codex and the rulebook. We have two differently worded procedures and that is a conflict. To simply resolve it in your favour by use of an assumption is not acceptable and certainly if I was playing against someone who did that I would expect, at the very least, to have to dice off for it if my opponent was unwilling to accept what the codex very clearly says in black and white.

[Gentlemanloser]

Does armourbane also say has 4d6 armor penatration? Or does it say has a so and so many d6 roll(not sure howp many dice armourbane adds)? And if it says the same has it been ruled that it has str+armor pen?

 

The BRB uses the same wording.

 

Weapons or units with Armourbane roll 2d6 for armour penetration.

 

If your stance is that the TP's 4d6 for armour penetration doesn't allow the strength of the weapon, then you also have to say that Chainsfists (and every other unit/weapon with Armourbane) no longer gets thier strength into the total.

 

You could rule this way.

 

Or you could rule that there's no conflict between Codex and BRB (or BRB and BRB in the case of armourbane), that the 4d6/2d6 replaces the usual 1d6, and the entirely seperate 'Weapon Strength' isn't 'Armour Penetration'.

 

One has far reaching implications across the whole system (and stems from including Weapon Strength into Armour Penetration, when it's a demonstratably seperate stat), the other offers no conflict.

 

 

Edit: The Armourbane special rules doesn't say that weapons/units with it roll 2d6 + Strength, or that you replace the 1d6 with 2d6, purely that your roll 2d6 for Armour Penetration.

 

Edit 2; Just to add;

 

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

 

We are told clearly what Armour Penetration is. It's the roll. B)

 

The heading is Armour Penetration roll. FAQs and special rules both use the term 'roll' when discussing armour penetration.

 

What's not defined, and is confusing the matter, is the total of the roll *plus* the Weapon strength, the value you use to compare to the vehicles Armour, isn't defined.

 

But it's not the "Armour Penetration". ;)

[Morollan]

Edit 2; Just to add;

 

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

 

We are told clearly what Armour Penetration is. It's the roll. B)

 

That would be the Armour Penetration Roll, as explained under the heading of the same name. Again though, Armour Penetration, as a standalone term, is undefined.

 

I'm not saying which interpretation of the 'armour penetration/roll' rules is correct. In fact, I would lean towards your version as it does indeed make more sense (although I also feel the TP round is then even more OP than intended). What I am arguing is that there is a conflict and I'm struggling to see how it can be argued that there isn't. In 5th, that just left the question open but in 6th, as we both well know, we are told that Codex trumps rulebook meaning that we must do what the codex says. And that is to roll 4d6 (with Rending on each dice). Nothing else.

 

Still, it doesn't look like either of us will convince the other so perhaps it's better to leave it at that?

[Gentlemanloser]

:tu:

 

The TP is OP. My mates dispise the Vindicare. lol

 

The rules differ, but it's not really a conflict. Gah, that makes no sense. The codex rules for TP (being a 4d6 over a 1d6) update those in the BRB, like a lot of Codex rules.

 

But it's not really a conflict. Like Warp Charges, for example only (BRB saying number of powers per turn based on warp charges, Codex saying a number of powers per turn based on mastery levels), where you get different outcomes.

 

The TP update just makes the roll, better.

 

I hope that explains things, but not sure it does! :/

[Fenric]

Thanky you Gentleman that explained it very well for me and now I'm all on your side on this issue. DIdn't really understand what armourbane was until your post since I still have yet to play my first 6ed match and just started looking it up recently.

 

I'd say before the 6th edition rulebook i'd be more inclined to make it 4d6 straight off but with the new rulebook it clarifies it better and shoudl work the same way as armourbane. Thing is the later codices were made for 6th edition in mind so the shot wasn't fully explained until the sixth came out. So in this case i'd say it's not so much rulebook>codex but more that the rule books completes the codex and explains it.

[Gentlemanloser]

Thing is the later codices were made for 6th edition in mind so the shot wasn't fully explained until the sixth came out.

 

Totally agree! And I think that's why TP was worded as it was.

 

Not as clear as it could be, but using the same language as soon to be released rules in 6th.