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.

FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY.

Feel free to post how and why you voted, but please DO NOT ENGAGE OTHERS IN DISCUSSIONS/ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK THE RULES SAY. Please create a separate thread if you feel the urge to have this kind of discussion.



The Damaged - 'Weapon Destroyed' rule says (rulebook, pg 61): "One of the vehicle's weapons (chosen by the attacker) is destroyed -- ripped off by the force of the attack. If a vehicle has no weapons left, treat this result as an 'immobilized' result instead. This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles."

The rules for a Hunter-Killer Missile say (Imperial Guard Codex, pg 70): "A hunter-killer missile is a krak missile with unlimited range that can only be fired once per game. They are fired at Ballistic Skill 3 and are treated as an additional weapon."






QUESTION: Do you play that a weapon which cannot fire again (i.e. has used up all of its shots for the game) still counts as a weapon and can therefore be destroyed by a 'weapon destroyed' damage result?



OPTION A. Yes, even though the weapon cannot fire, there is nothing in the rules indicating that it is no longer a weapon. Therefore it definitely still counts as a weapon and can be destroyed via a 'weapon destroyed' result.


OPTION B. No, a weapon which can no longer fire, especially in the case of something like a Hunter-Killer missile (which physically fires off of the vehicle) is clearly no longer a weapon and therefore cannot be destroyed via a 'weapon destroyed' damage result.


OPTION C. It depends on the style of weapon for me. If it is something like a missile that fires off the vehicle, that clearly can't be destroyed by 'weapon destroyed' damage result as once it is fired it is clearly no longer part of the vehicle. However, if the weapon was something more like a gun that can run out of ammunition (Such as a Stompa's Supa-Gatla), then even if that ran out of ammo during the game I would still say it could be destroyed by a 'weapon destroyed' result because the weapon would still clearly be on the vehicle.


OPTION D. Something else entirely: reply exactly what it is below.

Voted for A.

However so far its never really been a problem, as its (around here) rare that players use hunter killers or other similar weapons. And even then, we rarely get enough weapon destroyed/immobs that it would matter.

But in case it would happen, thats how I'd try to play it.

I voted for A as well.

Oddly enough, this is also what the rules say

I play B. Not RAW, but makes more sense. You can't destroy a weapon that is no longer there.

Not had this come up before, but I think I would go with A.

Gwar! wrote:I voted for A as well.

Oddly enough, this is also what the rules say

This

Voted A.

Never even thought of it before.

I voted C and I think most of the people that voted B just didn't read C before voting, they are basically the same answer.

RAW is obviously A.

FlingitNow wrote:I voted C and I think most of the people that voted B just didn't read C before voting, they are basically the same answer.

They're really not.

B is saying that any limited use weapon no longer counts as a weapon once it has been used up.
C is saying that a limited use weapon that is separate from the vehicle (like a HK missile) doesn't count as a weapon once it has been used, while a limited use weapon that is a part of the vehicle does.

They're effectively the same, since I don't think there actually are any of the latter type of weapons in the game. But technically different.

Essentially, under option C a HK missile would not count once it's used. A single-shot flamer sponson would. Under option B, neither would count.

The only of the limited ammo type weapons I can think of is the Storm Eagle Rocket Launcher the Manticore has.

I went with B. If it didn’t fire you can destroy it but if already fired you can’t destroy it.

They're really not.

B is saying that any limited use weapon no longer counts as a weapon once it has been used up.
C is saying that a limited use weapon that is separate from the vehicle (like a HK missile) doesn't count as a weapon once it has been used, while a limited use weapon that is a part of the vehicle does.

They're effectively the same, since I don't think there actually are any of the latter type of weapons in the game. But technically different.

Essentially, under option C a HK missile would not count once it's used. A single-shot flamer sponson would. Under option B, neither would count.

I said basically the same because they are very similar. I do understand the difference.

I think C makes more sense than B, isn't there an IG weapon that has 4 shots (Manticore? Don't have IG codex or play them) if that tank has fired all 4 shots and then got weapon destroyed as the "barrel" and weapon is still there I'd let him take that as the weapon destroyed result (assuming it had no other functioning weapons).

Hence the weapon is still there but out of ammo, where as blowing up a hunter killer missile that isn't there just doesn't makes sense. Thus C makes the most logical sense to use. THough A and B are easier to define and can't lead to arguments...

FlingitNow wrote:Hence the weapon is still there but out of ammo, where as blowing up a hunter killer missile that isn't there just doesn't makes sense.

In both cases, you're blowing up a missile launcher that has no missiles...

In both cases, you're blowing up a missile launcher that has no missiles...

I'd disagree, I'd say in one case you're blowing up a missile launcher with no missiles in the other you're blowing up an empty space that used to be a missile...

FlingitNow wrote:

In both cases, you're blowing up a missile launcher that has no missiles...

I'd disagree, I'd say in one case you're blowing up a missile launcher with no missiles in the other you're blowing up an empty space that used to be a missile...

HK missiles come in launchers so yay weapon to destoy ...so do you mean Tau seaker missiles?

so do you mean Tau seaker missiles?

Spot the Tau player that's never used IG...

Yeah Seeker missiles, I assumed hunter missiles where pretty much the same...

HK missiles used to come in box launchers. They currently do not, but are rather a missile that just sits on a part of the tank and is fired.
(for IG at least, I forget what SM HK missiles look like)

ph34r wrote:HK missiles used to come in box launchers. They currently do not, but are rather a missile that just sits on a part of the tank and is fired.
(for IG at least, I forget what SM HK missiles look like)

Guard HK missiles sit on a launching rail.
Marine HK missiles are in a launching tube that looks like a cut-down regular missile launcher.

Option B for the simple reason that from a gameplay standpoint you are removing an effect on the game when you destroy a weapon. Allowing a weapon destroyed result on a weapon that no longer influences the game is in effect a "free" chance to ignore a vehicle damage result. Vehicles are hard enough to kill as is.

Gwar! wrote:The only of the limited ammo type weapons I can think of is the Storm Eagle Rocket Launcher the Manticore has.

The Stompa Supa-gatler can, not that it comes up in non-apoc play.

A, as it's the RAW. B/C do make a sizable amount of sense, but if the RAW ain't broken don't fix it.

ha shows how often Ig use HK missile round here ...

how about the Deathstrike .... after its fired can you still suffer weapons destroyed?

Yes, because it has a special rule saying that it doesn't suffer weapon destroys, it has a different effect instead.

Newb perspective here:

Option A. I would consider part of its usefulness as a one-shot weapon as protecting the vehicle from one extra weapon destroyed result. Also, it's RAW, which is what I play for simplicity's sake.

/2cents

Gorkamorka wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The only of the limited ammo type weapons I can think of is the Storm Eagle Rocket Launcher the Manticore has.

The Stompa Supa-gatler can, not that it comes up in non-apoc play.

A, as it's the RAW. B/C do make a sizable amount of sense, but if the RAW ain't broken don't fix it.

Thanks for that (I KNEW there had to be one I wasn't thinking of), I've now added it into the poll text.

I voted for option A. While option C makes sense conceptually, it would require judgement calls to be made on every single type of one-shot weapon, which is far too much work.

We need to have another poll, who actually uses HK missiles?