Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've searched the forums and yak's FAqs, but I've not found anyone bring this up before.  I believe I may be the first.  Ever.

Hunter-Killer missiles can only be shot 'once per battle'.

In the rulebook under Armament destroyed it says, 'this can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or Hunter-Killer missiles'.

Does it still count after it's been fired?

So, let's say my opponent's destroyed the Inferno cannon and heavy bolter on a Hellhound and gets a third Armament destroyed result, does it get promoted to Immobilised or does it destroy the Hunter-Killer missile I've already fired?

Posted By Curis on 09/26/2007 5:34 AM
or does it destroy the Hunter-Killer missile I've already fired?

I think you have answered your own question ... How can your attacker destroy the missile you've already fired?

My call is that the missile has been fired so it no longer "functions as a weapon". Therefore I don't have to chose it when I get a "weapon destroyed" result on your vehicle. I can go right to "immobilized".

Mike

But the launch rail's still there.

Once the weapon is spent (1 use) it no loger plays any part in the game. Just because the model may have a rail or other depiction on the figure does not mean the weapon is there once it has been fired and discarded.

Consider the weapon as destroyed. Making any other asumption as to the remaning ability of a one shot weapon to affect the game after the one shot fired is trying to bend the rules, and thats not Kosher....

 

And as you already said, the "weapon" is gone ... right?

Actually we had like a ten page discussion on just this topic long ago before it was lost during the last board migration.

The RAW argument was simply that a hunter-killer is worded that it is a weapon that may only be fired once but it doesn't specify anywhere that the weapon is destroyed or no longer exists. Therefore it is a legal weapon to be removed from a weapon destroyed result.


Of course, it is one of those RAW positions that will instantly make everyone around you think you're a complete moron if you actually try to use in a game so it really doesn't matter one bit.


There simply is no reason to argue the point. The rules say one thing and the vast, vast, vast majority of players can figure out that the rules weren't written clearly enough in this case and choose to play it against the RAW.

I find your vehemence puzzling, yak. Rules-wise, the resolution is clear--the HK is a weapon whether it has fired or not. Balance-wise, it seems reasonable that a crappy upgrade like the HK should serve a secondary purpose. Fluff-/logic-wise, there's no reason a weapon that has run out of ammunition should have any less of a chance of getting destroyed than a weapon that has not. I would let my opponents count HKs as weapons every time.

Ultracurses! I thought I'd stumbled upon virgin rules debate territory.