One of the vehicle's weapons (randomly chosen) is destroyed, including any combi- or built in weapons. This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles. Do not count weapons that have run out of ammunition - they're already non-functional for the most part. If a vehicle has no weapons left, treat this result as an Immobiiised result instead (see below).
So...can a Weapon Destroyed result destroy the Serpent Shield?
The argument for says that the Serpent Shield is expressly fired 'as a hull-mounted weapon' and is therefore eligible to be destroyed. In addition, the quoted text clearly shows that equipment which functions as a weapon is intended to be a legitimate target for Weapon Destroyed results.
The argument against says it is a piece of vehicle equipment, not a weapon. Furthermore, the quoted rules from the BRB specify that vehicle 'upgrades' that function as weapons can be targeted, and the Serpent Shield is not an upgrade but stock equipment.
While I'm of the opinion that the shield is a legal target for Weapon Destroyed, a) nobody I know plays it that way and b) I'm not sure how RAW would work in this case (would you lose the whole thing, would you lose the ability to fire it, etc).
If forced to make a call on what happens (assuming it can be destroyed) I would say it would still provide a shield, but cannot be fired.
Regarding the argument "it comes stock", what about Tau seeker missiles? The Sky Ray comes standard with them does that mean they are not an upgrade for them?
I would say (and several in my local gaming area) that it cannot be. For the simple fact it is not listed as a weapon. It is a shield that can be fired as a weapon as an option but it is not modelled and if im not mistaken (i dont have my codex in front of me) it isnt listed in the back with the rest of the weapon profiles.
Guilldog wrote: I would say (and several in my local gaming area) that it cannot be. For the simple fact it is not listed as a weapon. It is a shield that can be fired as a weapon ...
This. It's not a weapon. It just has the option to be used as one.
So it is not a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon?
It is, but it only functions as a weapon in your shooting phase, if you can destroy a weapon on my vehicle, during my shooting phase, I will agree with it being a viable option to be removed.
So it is not a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon?
It is, but it only functions as a weapon in your shooting phase, if you can destroy a weapon on my vehicle, during my shooting phase, I will agree with it being a viable option to be removed.
Where does it say in the rules that it must count as a weapon all the time to be able to be destroyed by a weapon destroyed result?
Because so far we have a rule that says wargear that functions as a weapon can be destroyed by a weapon destroyed result. It doesn't specify any limitations as to when that wargear must function as a weapon (such as "all the time" or "in the turn in which it is destroyed"), just that if it can then it can be destroyed.
So it is not a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon?
It is, but it only functions as a weapon in your shooting phase, if you can destroy a weapon on my vehicle, during my shooting phase, I will agree with it being a viable option to be removed.
I would like to see it function as a weapon in any other phase. I mean, my Leman Russ's battlecannon only functions as a weapon during my shooting phase - otherwise it's a useless tube hanging off of the end of my tank.
Jimsolo wrote: The argument against says it is a piece of vehicle equipment, not a weapon. Furthermore, the quoted rules from the BRB specify that vehicle 'upgrades' that function as weapons can be targeted, and the Serpent Shield is not an upgrade but stock equipment.
Emphasis mine. This is a distinction without a difference - in gameplay terms, it never matters whether a piece of wargear was a default choice, or something your bought as an upgrade. The wording of the BRB entry is just awkward rule writing. So I think the "No, it cannot be destroyed by a Weapon Destroyed result" poll option is incorrect.
I don't think the "Yes, but it will only destroy the weapon portion of the Serpent Shield" option makes sense either. I can't think of any other case where "part" of a piece of wargear is destroyed, usually that sort of effect is achieved through modifiers (for example, the Vindicare Assasin's Shield-breaker ability doesn't "partially destroy" wargear, it just removes armor saves).
So that leaves "Yes, and it will destroy the Shield in its entirety" and "Other/confused/no opinion". I think the first option is clearly the intent, and is how we play it. There are lots of ambiguities in the rules like this, you just need to play it the way it makes sense.
Interesting tidbit- page 87 of the main rulebook lists several pieces of vehicle wargear under the heading 'upgrades' and refers to them by that term throughout, even though several of them are stock equipment, and at least two are never available for purchase (that I'm aware of). That would seem to indicate that they might be using the term 'upgrade' synonymously with wargear. I was on the fence about this, but page 87 has convinced me into the 'Yes, it can be destroyed completely' camp.
DanielBeaver wrote: ...in gameplay terms, it never matters whether a piece of wargear was a default choice, or something your bought as an upgrade.
Given that the rulebook actually specifies 'upgrades' in this particular case, that statement would appear to be untrue.
Jimsolo wrote: Interesting tidbit- page 87 of the main rulebook lists several pieces of vehicle wargear under the heading 'upgrades' and refers to them by that term throughout, even though several of them are stock equipment, and at least two are never available for purchase (that I'm aware of). That would seem to indicate that they might be using the term 'upgrade' synonymously with wargear. I was on the fence about this, but page 87 has convinced me into the 'Yes, it can be destroyed completely' camp.
That's my take on it as well. My feeling is that the use of the word "upgrades" on the page 74 table is just sloppy rules writing by someone who didn't think through the implications. The serpent shield is a weird edge case, but it see's enough play that this question is important (if only GW would FAQ this -.-)
"One of the vehicle's weapons (randomly chosen) is destroyed - including any combi- or built in weapons. This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons"
A Serpent Shield functions as a weapon and is a vehicle upgrade according to the BRB.
PrinceRaven wrote: "One of the vehicle's weapons (randomly chosen) is destroyed - including any combi- or built in weapons. This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons"
A Serpent Shield functions as a weapon and is a vehicle upgrade according to the BRB.
Voted yes (destroy the whole thing).
As demonstrated in the other thread, people are happy to use the TL (and I don't believe that one even mentions can be used by upgrades that/while functioning as a weapons). Either is is, or it is not, don't try best of both worlds eh.
The vehicle upgrades part of the weapon destroyed rule allows buying a bolter to give your Vindicator a 50/50 chance of keeping its main gun.
The weapon you want to knock out is the scatter laser, since that provides twin linked most of the time. With that down, the output is seriously degraded.
RAW the shield is not a weapon, but vehicle equipment. I understand the desire to change that, but besides said desire being aired, no actual rule based arguments to support the cause without selective reading or squinting have been brought forward.
Stephanius wrote: The vehicle upgrades part of the weapon destroyed rule allows buying a bolter to give your Vindicator a 50/50 chance of keeping its main gun.
The weapon you want to knock out is the scatter laser, since that provides twin linked most of the time. With that down, the output is seriously degraded.
RAW the shield is not a weapon, but vehicle equipment. I understand the desire to change that, but besides said desire being aired, no actual rule based arguments to support the cause without selective reading or squinting have been brought forward.
Based on the recent grenades thread I do see a separate in wargear which can function as weapons and 'weapons' RAW. However, upgrades that are not weapons can be destroyed by weapons destroyed, if it functions as one.
Which SS does.
On the grenades thread I nearly wrote a whole lot about Weapons-As-A-Function and Weapons-As-A-Item but thought better of it.
Stephanius wrote: RAW the shield is not a weapon, but vehicle equipment. I understand the desire to change that, but besides said desire being aired, no actual rule based arguments to support the cause without selective reading or squinting have been brought forward.
It doesn't have to be a weapon to destroy it. The rules clearly state that if it functions as a weapon you can blow it up, no selective reading required.
RAW - Its a piece of wargear that functions as a weapon. Therefore it can be destroyed
HIWPI - You are shooting s7 shots around with it and just killed a vindicator and a predator in one turn with your dedicated transports and are seriously telling me its not a weapon i can destroy? Seriously?
The weapon you want to knock out is the scatter laser, since that provides twin linked most of the time. With that down, the output is seriously degraded.
And with the Shield knocked out the output is reduced to zero.
The deff rolla is a piece of war gear that functions as a weapon but is not treated as a weapon for the weapon destroyed result. I would therefore take from that, in the absence of any other clear ruling, that this is the same. Both are war gear that can make attacks, but are not weapons.
Unlike the Serpent Shield, the Deff Rolla doesn't have a weapon profile and has a FAQ entry explicitly stating it is not destroyed by a weapon destroyed result.
How is "One of the vehicle's weapons (randomly chosen) is destroyed... This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons" not a clear ruling?
Stephanius wrote: The vehicle upgrades part of the weapon destroyed rule allows buying a bolter to give your Vindicator a 50/50 chance of keeping its main gun.
The weapon you want to knock out is the scatter laser, since that provides twin linked most of the time. With that down, the output is seriously degraded.
RAW the shield is not a weapon, but vehicle equipment. I understand the desire to change that, but besides said desire being aired, no actual rule based arguments to support the cause without selective reading or squinting have been brought forward.
Would you say this sentence is true or untrue?
"The serpent shield is a piece of wargear that confers a shield and functions as a weapon."
If you would disagree about this description please feel free to give one that describes this particular piece of wargear better in your eyes.
BRB P.74 Vehicle damage table, weapon destroyed:
"One of the vehicle's weapons (randomly chosen) is destroyed - including combi- or built-in weapons."
Weapons. A Combi-weapon weapon that combines two weapons into one, usually with restrictions, e.g. combi melta.
"This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle mounted storm-bolters or a hunter-killer missile."
The key word here being UPGRADES, I.e. buy more weapons, split the destroyed result chance between stock and add-on weapons.
I don't have my Eldar Codex at hand, but it lists the serpent shield as gear, explains that it can be discharged, which then is handled as a shooting attack with the profile we know. I cannot buy a serpent shield as an upgrade for any unit in the codex, ergo it is not an upgrade.
The first sentence does not touch the shield since it is not a weapon.
The second sentence does not affect it, since it is not an upgrade.
Clearly, the weapon destroyed rules do not affect the serpent shield.
Query - what Imperium vehicles do not come standard with Smoke Launchers and/or Searchlights? Doesn't almost every vehicle have them? Yet they are listed as upgrades.
Happyjew wrote: Query - what Imperium vehicles do not come standard with Smoke Launchers and/or Searchlights? Doesn't almost every vehicle have them? Yet they are listed as upgrades.
Happyjew wrote: Query - what Imperium vehicles do not come standard with Smoke Launchers and/or Searchlights? Doesn't almost every vehicle have them? Yet they are listed as upgrades.
Don't grey knights have to spent a point per searchlight?
The actual point was however that the intention of that second sentence explicitly includes the add-on weapons in the random allocation for the first sentence. Presumably because without it people would argue that since the weapon isn't stock they get to ignore them and destroy the main gun instead.
I would say yes if it was used as a weapon. When the shield is used as a weapon it loses the ability to be a shield until that player's next turn, right? Therefore it is still considered a weapon until that player's next turn and is thus still a weapon on the shooter's turn.Therefore it is a viable weapon to be destroyed on a weapon destroyed result.
Col. Dash wrote: I would say yes if it was used as a weapon. When the shield is used as a weapon it loses the ability to be a shield until that player's next turn, right? Therefore it is still considered a weapon until that player's next turn and is thus still a weapon on the shooter's turn.Therefore it is a viable weapon to be destroyed on a weapon destroyed result.
I agree with this point of view and voted accordingly.
PrinceRaven wrote: Unlike the Serpent Shield, the Deff Rolla doesn't have a weapon profile and has a FAQ entry explicitly stating it is not destroyed by a weapon destroyed result.
How is "One of the vehicle's weapons (randomly chosen) is destroyed... This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons" not a clear ruling?
First, the shield is not an upgrade. It is war gear that is standard.
Second the rest of that statement that you missed out clarifies what that relates to. It relates to upgrades "such as pintle mounted storm-bolters or a hunter-killer missile".
Finally the absence or presence of a weapon profile dose not define what is and is not a weapon. A CCW dose not have a weapon profile.
Here is the argument from before the deff rolla got the FAQ. It clearly shows that the argument is not as clear cut as you make it. That is why the deff rolla got an FAQ. The absence of an FAQ for the wave serpent shield is not evidence that the same logic dose not apply.
PrinceRaven wrote: Unlike the Serpent Shield, the Deff Rolla doesn't have a weapon profile and has a FAQ entry explicitly stating it is not destroyed by a weapon destroyed result.
How is "One of the vehicle's weapons (randomly chosen) is destroyed... This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons" not a clear ruling?
First, the shield is not an upgrade. It is war gear that is standard.
So are smoke launchers, yet there are listed as upgrades in the rulebook, so clearly anything extra a vehicle has is considered a vehicle upgrade.
Second the rest of that statement that you missed out clarifies what that relates to. It relates to upgrades "such as pintle mounted storm-bolters or a hunter-killer missile".
Two other things with weapon profiles
Finally the absence or presence of a weapon profile dose not define what is and is not a weapon. A CCW dose not have a weapon profile.
In the words of Ice Cube, "check yo self before you wreck yo self"
Steve steveson wrote: First, the shield is not an upgrade. It is war gear that is standard.
People keep repeating this line of logic, but it is a distinction without a difference. In gameplay terms, it never matters whether a piece of wargear was a default choice, or something your bought as an upgrade.
Steve steveson wrote: First, the shield is not an upgrade. It is war gear that is standard.
Page 87 defines Smoke Launchers as upgrades. On Rhinos it's standard wargear. There's no rule saying they're not upgrades, so it looks like standard wargear can be upgrades.
Finally the absence or presence of a weapon profile dose not define what is and is not a weapon. A CCW dose not have a weapon profile.
It does actually - page 51.
Here is the argument from before the deff rolla got the FAQ. It clearly shows that the argument is not as clear cut as you make it. That is why the deff rolla got an FAQ. The absence of an FAQ for the wave serpent shield is not evidence that the same logic dose not apply.
An argument from last edition. With a completely different piece of wargear.
Deffrollas are used as part of a Tank Shock or Ram - not by themselves.
Serpent Shields are used as a weapon. The same logic can't apply because they're not the same at all.
[offtopic]The reason I ask what a "weapon" counts as was for the somewhat unrelated Fire Barrels upgrade in the AM Codex. [/offtopic]
I maintain that the Serpent Shield can be destroyed.
Here's a hypothetical: If the Serpent Shield came stock on a Wave Serpent, or could be bought as an upgrade for a Falcon for X points, would it count as an upgrade in both cases, neither in both cases, or an upgrade in one case but not in another?
Unit1126PLL wrote: [offtopic]The reason I ask what a "weapon" counts as was for the somewhat unrelated Fire Barrels upgrade in the AM Codex. [/offtopic]
I maintain that the Serpent Shield can be destroyed.
Here's a hypothetical: If the Serpent Shield came stock on a Wave Serpent, or could be bought as an upgrade for a Falcon for X points, would it count as an upgrade in both cases, neither in both cases, or an upgrade in one case but not in another?
Eldar Codex p97 "Wave Serpents may take items from the Eldar Vehicle Equipment list."
Vehicle Equipment List and items, not upgrades and upgrade list. It appears the common English definition applies. That means add-on improvements or replacements, not stock gear.
There is no point cost listed for the serpent shield, ergo it cannot be an upgrade.
Vehicle Equipment List and items, not upgrades and upgrade list. It appears the common English definition applies. That means add-on improvements or replacements, not stock gear.
Except that the BRB lists several pieces of stock wargear and calls them upgrades. Clearly the common English definition does NOT apply.
Vehicle Equipment List and items, not upgrades and upgrade list. It appears the common English definition applies. That means add-on improvements or replacements, not stock gear.
Except that the BRB lists several pieces of stock wargear and calls them upgrades. Clearly the common English definition does NOT apply.
I think Stephanius has a point... indirectly. I don't think it matters whether or not the Serpent Shield is defined as an "Upgrade" to determine whether or not it counts as a weapon that is a viable target for the "Weapon Destroyed" result.
However, he is correct and it is worth noting that the Serpent Shield appears in the Eldar codex under the "Vehicle Equipment" and NOT under the "Ranged Weapons" category, along with the Prism Cannon, Doom Weaver, and other Eldar vehicle weapons. The Eldar Codex could have JUST as easily put the Serpent Shield in the "Ranged Weapons" category, and then explained the additional bonuses that it also functions as a shield.
But they didn't.
They put it in as a piece of equipment that has an optional profile that CAN be used as a weapon. I also think that the prior precedence of the Deff-Rolla not counting as a weapon lends strength to the argument. Yes, the Deff Rolla doesn't have a full weapon profile, but it certainly generates hits and could be called a "weapon". The same could be said of Tau Flechette dischargers. It's not the exact same thing, no.
Vehicle Equipment List and items, not upgrades and upgrade list. It appears the common English definition applies. That means add-on improvements or replacements, not stock gear.
Except that the BRB lists several pieces of stock wargear and calls them upgrades. Clearly the common English definition does NOT apply.
I think Stephanius has a point... indirectly. I don't think it matters whether or not the Serpent Shield is defined as an "Upgrade" to determine whether or not it counts as a weapon that is a viable target for the "Weapon Destroyed" result.
However, he is correct and it is worth noting that the Serpent Shield appears in the Eldar codex under the "Vehicle Equipment" and NOT under the "Ranged Weapons" category, along with the Prism Cannon, Doom Weaver, and other Eldar vehicle weapons. The Eldar Codex could have JUST as easily put the Serpent Shield in the "Ranged Weapons" category, and then explained the additional bonuses that it also functions as a shield.
But they didn't.
They put it in as a piece of equipment that has an optional profile that CAN be used as a weapon. I also think that the prior precedence of the Deff-Rolla not counting as a weapon lends strength to the argument. Yes, the Deff Rolla doesn't have a full weapon profile, but it certainly generates hits and could be called a "weapon". The same could be said of Tau Flechette dischargers. It's not the exact same thing, no.
I think the difference is that the Flechette Launchers, the Evenomed Blades of the Dark Eldar, and the Deffrolla all lack weapon profiles. They have the capacity to generate hits without ever being classified as a weapon. The Serpent Shield, however, does have a weapon profile.
Vehicle Equipment List and items, not upgrades and upgrade list. It appears the common English definition applies. That means add-on improvements or replacements, not stock gear.
Except that the BRB lists several pieces of stock wargear and calls them upgrades. Clearly the common English definition does NOT apply.
The BRB does have a page titled vehicle upgrades, which does include items that can be found stock on IOM vehicles. p.87 BRB However, the BRB vehicle upgrade list
- doesn't list the serpent shield.
- lists items which are/were not found stock on IOM vehicles.
The authors just called these entries what they are: vehicle upgrades.
There is no section explaining what constitutes an upgrade, ergo upgrade is taken from English, not 40k-ish.
The serpent shield cannot be bought for points and added an upgrade.
The serpent shield is installed stock in all serpents.
Ergo, it is not an upgrade.
Vehicle Equipment List and items, not upgrades and upgrade list. It appears the common English definition applies. That means add-on improvements or replacements, not stock gear.
Except that the BRB lists several pieces of stock wargear and calls them upgrades. Clearly the common English definition does NOT apply.
I think Stephanius has a point... indirectly. I don't think it matters whether or not the Serpent Shield is defined as an "Upgrade" to determine whether or not it counts as a weapon that is a viable target for the "Weapon Destroyed" result.
However, he is correct and it is worth noting that the Serpent Shield appears in the Eldar codex under the "Vehicle Equipment" and NOT under the "Ranged Weapons" category, along with the Prism Cannon, Doom Weaver, and other Eldar vehicle weapons. The Eldar Codex could have JUST as easily put the Serpent Shield in the "Ranged Weapons" category, and then explained the additional bonuses that it also functions as a shield.
But they didn't.
They put it in as a piece of equipment that has an optional profile that CAN be used as a weapon. I also think that the prior precedence of the Deff-Rolla not counting as a weapon lends strength to the argument. Yes, the Deff Rolla doesn't have a full weapon profile, but it certainly generates hits and could be called a "weapon". The same could be said of Tau Flechette dischargers. It's not the exact same thing, no.
This is actually the argumentation due to which the first rule sentence of weapon destroyed (randomly chosen weapon) is not applicable.
The serpent shield is not listed in the weapon sections of the armoury or summary.
"In it's shooting phase, the Wave Serpent can deactivate its shields to shoot a burst of energy with the following profile (treat this as a hull mounted weapon pointing forward):" p67 Codex Eldar. The serpent shield is vehicle equipment that can be discharged as a burst of energy. This burst of energy (not the shield) is then treated as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward.
So the shield is never treated as a weapon, it generates a burst of energy which is treated as one.
By deliberately NOT listing the serpent shield under weapons and not sticking the weapon label on it in any other way, the codex authors did not define it as weapon and make not eligible to be destroyed separately. Since it isn't an upgrade in any way either, and since not the shield, but only it's discharge energy burst have a weapon profile, the second sentence of the weapon destroyed rule which includes upgrades that function as weapons, does not apply either.
Conclusion: You can not destroy the serpent shield separately from the serpent, since it is neither classified as weapon, upgrade or functions as a weapon. They only way to destroy the serpent shield is to destory the serpent.
EDIT: I think I'm going to practice what I preach.
We've reached the point where you're repeating the same arguments, which I could only rebut by offering the exact same rebuttals. Repetition serves no purpose other than to echo endlessly across pages and pages of the same old, same old.
I hear your argument, Stephanius, and I still don't agree. You've made your case, I've made mine. If I have anything new to add, I'll add it, but until then the best solution for everyone is to let the arguments that have already been made speak for themselves.
Apparently you didn't actually read my last post, otherwise you wouldn't have missed the new argument which does away with the "functions as weapon part".
The discussion is useless - like the poll - if one isn't willing to consider RAW arguments. HIWPI is just that. No actual RAW arguments for the serpent shield falling under the weapon destroyed rule have been presented.
Your argument is that the energy blast is the bit treated as a weapon therefore RAW it does not fall under the purview of Weapon Destroyed, others say the wargear itself is treated as a weapon while firing the energy blast and per RAW can be destroyed by a Weapon Destroyed Result.
Stephanius wrote: Apparently you didn't actually read my last post, otherwise you wouldn't have missed the new argument which does away with the "functions as weapon part".
The discussion is useless - like the poll - if one isn't willing to consider RAW arguments. HIWPI is just that. No actual RAW arguments for the serpent shield falling under the weapon destroyed rule have been presented.
There's a bit of a problem with your argument in that it's part fluff and part rules. For example, if I wrote the sentence "A battlecannon can fire a massive shell downrange with the following profile: (XYZ)" then by your argument the battlecannon isn't a weapon, the weapon is the shell.
It's obviously meant as a bit of fluff to spice up the rule, though.
Stephanius wrote: Apparently you didn't actually read my last post, otherwise you wouldn't have missed the new argument which does away with the "functions as weapon part".
The discussion is useless - like the poll - if one isn't willing to consider RAW arguments. HIWPI is just that. No actual RAW arguments for the serpent shield falling under the weapon destroyed rule have been presented.
There's a bit of a problem with your argument in that it's part fluff and part rules. For example, if I wrote the sentence "A battlecannon can fire a massive shell downrange with the following profile: (XYZ)" then by your argument the battlecannon isn't a weapon, the weapon is the shell.
It's obviously meant as a bit of fluff to spice up the rule, though.
The battlecannon fires the shell, ergo the shell is the projectile/ammo and the battlecannon is the weapon. The serpent shield entry is different from your example since it states that the serpent fires a burst of energy, which then is treated as a weapon. So technically the shield itself is not a weapon and cannot be fired. It can however be disabled and the surplus energy can be fired by the serpent.
Now, if you disregard that as fluff, the shield is still not an upgrade and not a weapon, leaving us with the same result, which is supported by the choices made be the codex eldar authors in how they list and describe the shield.
As further "upgrade" evidence I'd like to point to the German Version of the BRB, which explicitly lists additional vehicle equipment in the weapon destroyed rule.
A note on the weapons part, looking over the BRB recently on the subject I don't think there is a good definition of what constitutes a 'weapon'.
The sentence connecting profiles & weapons in the BRB is phrased that weapons will always have a profile. It doesn't state everything with a profile is a weapon. This could be deliberate...
I do think there is a distinct difference between a 'weapon' as described as an item and something that uses a weapon profile but isn't a 'weapon'. For instance, some models have special functions with the weapon profiles attached to themselves that are activated under certain circumstances - however these models are not 'weapons' ( or at least not in the same way a bolter is a weapon ).
Weapons always have weapon profiles, some wargear has weapon profiles, some powers have weapon profiles, some models have weapon profiles...
Then we are left to work out what they mean when they state weapon. There's some explanation in one of the writers heads - I think they just didn't convey it well in words.
I picked out other issues with the weapons section in general, there seems to be a discrepancy in what Is a melee weapon. One paragraph states if a weapon doesn't have a range it's a 'melee weapon'. Another paragraph on the same page states Melee weapons have the 'Melee' type. But we do see profiles without a range, and also absent of the 'Melee' type, so what are they suppose to be?
This causes further problems as I pointed out the requirement for +1 attack in Close combat is simply to have 2 'Melee weapons' (As opposed to 2 weapons of the melee type, which for some bizarre reason has been separated in the rules with no explanation as to what or why). - I think popular rules take a good RAI stance on this section, though I get a nagging feeling there's something missing from it.
Think the poll is still split enough to highlight these issues.
RAW it has to be a weapon OR an upgrade that functions as a weapon.
Since the shield is not listed as weapon and is not available or listed as upgrade (RAW) or additional stuff purchased by the player (RAI), neither the condition for the first sentence nor the pair of conditions for the second sentence are met. Ergo, not applicable.
I understand that non-Eldar players would prefer this to be different, but I do not see anyone pointing out rules that support the view.
RAW it has to be a weapon OR an upgrade that functions as a weapon.
Since the shield is not listed as weapon and is not available or listed as upgrade (RAW) or additional stuff purchased by the player (RAI), neither the condition for the first sentence nor the pair of conditions for the second sentence are met. Ergo, not applicable.
I understand that non-Eldar players would prefer this to be different, but I do not see anyone pointing out rules that support the view.
You do realize that I'm an Eldar player and I advocate that it can be destroyed? As I said in my first post, nobody else (including non-Eldar players) in my store agree with my interpretation, and if it was destroyed we have no idea if that affects the defensive capabilities as well.
RAW it has to be a weapon OR an upgrade that functions as a weapon.
Since the shield is not listed as weapon and is not available or listed as upgrade (RAW) or additional stuff purchased by the player (RAI), neither the condition for the first sentence nor the pair of conditions for the second sentence are met. Ergo, not applicable.
I understand that non-Eldar players would prefer this to be different, but I do not see anyone pointing out rules that support the view.
You do realize that I'm an Eldar player and I advocate that it can be destroyed? As I said in my first post, nobody else (including non-Eldar players) in my store agree with my interpretation, and if it was destroyed we have no idea if that affects the defensive capabilities as well.
No, I did not. My apologies. Yet, maybe ending up with questionable results thanks to the dual nature of the item was the motivation behind not labelling the shield as a weapon. We have no way of knowing the intentions, hence me sticking to the couple of relevant sentences.
I'm pretty sure the rage of Eldar players if that turned out to be the case and it got errata'd would actually create Khorne in our plane of existence.
I'd say RAW, it can destroy the weapon...but since it is a little unclear on if the whole of the item is removed of just the weaponized part of it...I went with the Shield still functions.
As an Eldar player, I'd gladly allow either of the Yes options though, as it already has a 1 in 6 chance of ignoring it if you aren't taking it for Dakka Serpents to begin with. :-)
It's war gear and not a weapon, there is no mounting for it, and it can't be destroyed. That's it, use simple logic and move along. Trying to get 10 people here to agree based off of GWS incredibly lack luster writing is trying to win verbal argument with a mute person , only one in the convo sounds crazy. The faq's used by some tourneys I have gone to have ruled it not able to be destroyed and that's perfectly fine. It's just a piece of war gear.
Lungpickle wrote: It's war gear and not a weapon, there is no mounting for it, and it can't be destroyed. That's it, use simple logic and move along. Trying to get 10 people here to agree based off of GWS incredibly lack luster writing is trying to win verbal argument with a mute person , only one in the convo sounds crazy. The faq's used by some tourneys I have gone to have ruled it not able to be destroyed and that's perfectly fine. It's just a piece of war gear.
It doesn't have to be a weapon to be able to be destroyed. The only requirement is that it can act like one. Which the serpent shield can.
Lungpickle wrote: It's war gear and not a weapon, there is no mounting for it, and it can't be destroyed. That's it, use simple logic and move along. Trying to get 10 people here to agree based off of GWS incredibly lack luster writing is trying to win verbal argument with a mute person , only one in the convo sounds crazy. The faq's used by some tourneys I have gone to have ruled it not able to be destroyed and that's perfectly fine. It's just a piece of war gear.
Ah, I see you didn't even casually glance through through the thread or look at the rules at all, but thank you for the barely informed opinion.
Lungpickle wrote: It's war gear and not a weapon, there is no mounting for it, and it can't be destroyed. That's it, use simple logic and move along. Trying to get 10 people here to agree based off of GWS incredibly lack luster writing is trying to win verbal argument with a mute person , only one in the convo sounds crazy. The faq's used by some tourneys I have gone to have ruled it not able to be destroyed and that's perfectly fine. It's just a piece of war gear.
It doesn't have to be a weapon to be able to be destroyed. The only requirement is that it can act like one. Which the serpent shield can.
That is incorrect. Please read that second sentence of the rule again.
The requirements for stuff on vehicles "weapon destroyed" can affect are:
a) it's a weapon OR
b) it's an upgrade that (AND) functions as a weapon
The shield isn't classified as a weapon anywhere in the Eldar codex, so (a) is out.
The shield is not an upgrade, it cannot be bought. Since the first half of (b) isn't met, it is irrelevant if the second half is met, and (b) is out too.
The codex authors really went out of their way to have the shield not listed or labelled as weapon anywhere in the codex and did describe the way the shield functions so that it isn't even functioning or treated as a weapon but rather deactivating the shield frees up energy that can be fired forward by the serpent.
Lungpickle wrote: It's war gear and not a weapon, there is no mounting for it, and it can't be destroyed. That's it, use simple logic and move along. Trying to get 10 people here to agree based off of GWS incredibly lack luster writing is trying to win verbal argument with a mute person , only one in the convo sounds crazy. The faq's used by some tourneys I have gone to have ruled it not able to be destroyed and that's perfectly fine. It's just a piece of war gear.
It doesn't have to be a weapon to be able to be destroyed. The only requirement is that it can act like one. Which the serpent shield can.
That is incorrect. Please read that second sentence of the rule again.
The requirements for stuff on vehicles "weapon destroyed" can affect are:
a) it's a weapon OR
b) it's an upgrade that (AND) functions as a weapon
The shield isn't classified as a weapon anywhere in the Eldar codex, so (a) is out.
The shield is not an upgrade, it cannot be bought. Since the first half of (b) isn't met, it is irrelevant if the second half is met, and (b) is out too.
The codex authors really went out of their way to have the shield not listed or labelled as weapon anywhere in the codex and did describe the way the shield functions so that it isn't even functioning or treated as a weapon but rather deactivating the shield frees up energy that can be fired forward by the serpent.
The problem is we do not know what GW means by "Vehicle Upgrade". They mention Smoke Launchers as an upgrade, but how many vehicles can purchase them?
So since we've decided it's not a weapon, it doesn't benefit from being Twin-linked after a scatter laser is successfully fired? The scatter laser rule says that it only effects weapons.
People are arguing it's not a weapon. You can't have your cake and eat it too, either it's a weapon and can be destroyed and twin linked or it's not a weapon and can't be twin linked.
I've seen the scatter laser thing brought up a few times. Is there anyone out there who thinks that there is a RAW reason the Serpent Shield both CANNOT be destroyed and CAN benefit from the Scatter Laser buff? It seems to track (at least to me) that you'd have to do it all or nothing, but I've seen people have some pretty convoluted trains of thought here on YMDC before...
PrinceRaven wrote: There's someone who thinks the energy blast is the only part of the Serpent Shield treated as a weapon, I'd imagine they would have that opinion.
You are thinking of either Phil Kelly or Matt Ward, authors of the Eldar Codex, right? I just pointed out what it says there, I didn't come up with it.
Warmonger2757 wrote: So since we've decided it's not a weapon, it doesn't benefit from being Twin-linked after a scatter laser is successfully fired? The scatter laser rule says that it only effects weapons.
People are arguing it's not a weapon. You can't have your cake and eat it too, either it's a weapon and can be destroyed and twin linked or it's not a weapon and can't be twin linked.
Actually you can, if as in this case there are two entirely different cakes, leaving one to be eaten and the other to be - probably eaten later. ;-]
Considering that "Weapon Destroyed" and "Laser-lock" are completely different rules with different conditions, it is possible that one doesn't affect the shield and the other does.
Weapon destroyed affects weapons or upgrades that function as weapons, the shield is neither a weapon nor an upgrade.
Laser Lock's condition is a hit with the laser, and instructs us to treat all other weapons on the model as twin-linked. The serpent shield rule explicitly instructs us that the serpent firing the energy burst is treated as a hull-mounted weapon firing forward with the following profile (...). That means it is treated the same as the shuriken catapult or cannon and does benefit from Laser-Lock.
Look on the bright side, at least Eldar don't have the hell-turkey, psi-ammo/grenades/weapons, shield eternal, croissants or super-heavy walkers outside of Apo. ;-]
PrinceRaven wrote: There's someone who thinks the energy blast is the only part of the Serpent Shield treated as a weapon, I'd imagine they would have that opinion.
You are thinking of either Phil Kelly or Matt Ward, authors of the Eldar Codex, right? I just pointed out what it says there, I didn't come up with it.
Warmonger2757 wrote: So since we've decided it's not a weapon, it doesn't benefit from being Twin-linked after a scatter laser is successfully fired? The scatter laser rule says that it only effects weapons.
People are arguing it's not a weapon. You can't have your cake and eat it too, either it's a weapon and can be destroyed and twin linked or it's not a weapon and can't be twin linked.
Actually you can, if as in this case there are two entirely different cakes, leaving one to be eaten and the other to be - probably eaten later. ;-]
Considering that "Weapon Destroyed" and "Laser-lock" are completely different rules with different conditions, it is possible that one doesn't affect the shield and the other does.
Weapon destroyed affects weapons or upgrades that function as weapons, the shield is neither a weapon nor an upgrade.
Laser Lock's condition is a hit with the laser, and instructs us to treat all other weapons on the model as twin-linked. The serpent shield rule explicitly instructs us that the serpent firing the energy burst is treated as a hull-mounted weapon firing forward with the following profile (...). That means it is treated the same as the shuriken catapult or cannon and does benefit from Laser-Lock.
Look on the bright side, at least Eldar don't have the hell-turkey, psi-ammo/grenades/weapons, shield eternal, croissants or super-heavy walkers outside of Apo. ;-]
How can it function as a weapon for one purpose but not for another?
PrinceRaven wrote: There's someone who thinks the energy blast is the only part of the Serpent Shield treated as a weapon, I'd imagine they would have that opinion.
You are thinking of either Phil Kelly or Matt Ward, authors of the Eldar Codex, right? I just pointed out what it says there, I didn't come up with it.
In its Shooting phase, the Wave Serpent can deactivate its shields to shoot a burst of energy with the following profile (treat this as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward): [weapon profile]"
What makes you so certain "this" refers only to the "burst of energy" and not the piece of wargear, and that the "burst of energy" is not the Serpent Shield but something completely unrelated?
What if the shield has been fired the previous turn? How can one destroy what doesn't exist?
In all seriousness though, I can't believe this is even a thing, most of the votes for yes are either people clutching furiously at straws or people who haven't read through the thread and just clicked yes because it's what they wish to be the truth. Can you explain to me why the Serpent shield is not listed in the weapons profile at the back of the codex? It's because it's not a weapon, and it doesn't exist as a weapon. It has a special rule that allows it to act like a weapon in the shooting phase. it all seems a lot more wishful thinking than actually reading the rules : )
PapaSoul wrote: What if the shield has been fired the previous turn? How can one destroy what doesn't exist?
In all seriousness though, I can't believe this is even a thing, most of the votes for yes are either people clutching furiously at straws or people who haven't read through the thread and just clicked yes because it's what they wish to be the truth. Can you explain to me why the Serpent shield is not listed in the weapons profile at the back of the codex? It's because it's not a weapon, and it doesn't exist as a weapon. It has a special rule that allows it to act like a weapon in the shooting phase. it all seems a lot more wishful thinking than actually reading the rules : )
From Weapon Destroyed: "This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons"
PapaSoul wrote: What if the shield has been fired the previous turn? How can one destroy what doesn't exist?
In all seriousness though, I can't believe this is even a thing, most of the votes for yes are either people clutching furiously at straws or people who haven't read through the thread and just clicked yes because it's what they wish to be the truth. Can you explain to me why the Serpent shield is not listed in the weapons profile at the back of the codex? It's because it's not a weapon, and it doesn't exist as a weapon. It has a special rule that allows it to act like a weapon in the shooting phase. it all seems a lot more wishful thinking than actually reading the rules : )
Some of us have read through the thread and the upgrade argument is compelling. It is basically saying even stock equipment that can act as a weapon can be destroyed by a penetrating hit. The argument to ignore it because it is stock or it isn't an IOM vehicle, or that TO have ruled differently is that strongly IMO. How many times to TO ruled against RAW because they don't like it?
PapaSoul wrote: What if the shield has been fired the previous turn? How can one destroy what doesn't exist?
In all seriousness though, I can't believe this is even a thing, most of the votes for yes are either people clutching furiously at straws or people who haven't read through the thread and just clicked yes because it's what they wish to be the truth. Can you explain to me why the Serpent shield is not listed in the weapons profile at the back of the codex? It's because it's not a weapon, and it doesn't exist as a weapon. It has a special rule that allows it to act like a weapon in the shooting phase. it all seems a lot more wishful thinking than actually reading the rules : )
Some of us have read through the thread and the upgrade argument is compelling. It is basically saying even stock equipment that can act as a weapon can be destroyed by a penetrating hit. The argument to ignore it because it is stock or it isn't an IOM vehicle, or that TO have ruled differently is that strongly IMO. How many times to TO ruled against RAW because they don't like it?
By the examples given in the book (pintle-mounted storm bolters, hunter-killer missiles, dozer blades, searchlights, extra armour and smoke launchers) we can determine a "vehicle upgrade is one of the following three things:
A. Only those particular 6 things
B. All Imperium of Man vehicle wargear
C. All vehicle wargear
My vote goes to A. You know, anything not listed cannot count as RAW. Doh?!?
Have to say that it is somewhat funny to use the same argument against weapon destroyed and for twin-linking.
Ps. My Vindicator got a hull mounted forward facing cannon, whose shells only act as a weapon on my own shooting phase, should I so decide, thus cannot be destroyed.
Naw wrote: My vote goes to A. You know, anything not listed cannot count as RAW. Doh?!?
Have to say that it is somewhat funny to use the same argument against weapon destroyed and for twin-linking.
Ps. My Vindicator got a hull mounted forward facing cannon, whose shells only act as a weapon on my own shooting phase, should I so decide, thus cannot be destroyed.
Your agreement is stupid. A more fair comparison is the assault explosive charges on a land raider crusader. Technically it's a weapon as its stat line is krak grenades. And that these should also count. Here's my verdict.
If you fire your shield, for the duration of your turn and your opponents next turn, if your serpent gets a wd result, it does count. And that if destroyed all benefits go away unless repaired by some method And that's how ill be playing it. If someone wants to spend the day rule lawyering I'll let the dice gods decide. They are the the gold standard for breaking a tie.
Rules for board games:
1. The dice gods can always end the debate on something
2. When in doubt or dealing with a rule lawyer exploiting Rules see rule 1
PrinceRaven wrote: There's someone who thinks the energy blast is the only part of the Serpent Shield treated as a weapon, I'd imagine they would have that opinion.
You are thinking of either Phil Kelly or Matt Ward, authors of the Eldar Codex, right? I just pointed out what it says there, I didn't come up with it.
In its Shooting phase, the Wave Serpent can deactivate its shields to shoot a burst of energy with the following profile (treat this as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward): [weapon profile]"
What makes you so certain "this" refers only to the "burst of energy" and not the piece of wargear, and that the "burst of energy" is not the Serpent Shield but something completely unrelated?
That is how "this" works. It refers to the last preceeding reference to avoid repetition.
The text passage in question goes: "In its shooting phase, the Wave Serpent can deactivate its shields to shoot a burst of energy with the following profile (treat this as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward (profile). If this option is used, the Serpent shield is inactive until the start of its following turn."
This passage is a series of statements.
"In its shooting phase, the Wave Serpent can deactivate its shields" WTF? why would I want to deactivate my awesome no-pen on 2+ shield?
"to shoot a burst of energy" A burst of energy? Is that supposed to be a my-little pony style eldar rainbow lightshow?
"with the following profile (treat this as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward (profile)." Aha, the energy burst is treated as a weapon!
"If this option is used, the Serpent shield is inactive until the start of its following turn." So it's turn by turn, would be dumb to disable it only in your own turn, but great that it goes back online.
Phil and/or Matt could easily have said "You can fire the shield as a weapon with the following profile". They didn't.
PrinceRaven wrote: By the examples given in the book (pintle-mounted storm bolters, hunter-killer missiles, dozer blades, searchlights, extra armour and smoke launchers) we can determine a "vehicle upgrade is one of the following three things:
A. Only those particular 6 things
B. All Imperium of Man vehicle wargear
C. All vehicle wargear
D. All vehicle wargear you add to the default load-out.
Don't get distracted by the IOM "vehicle upgrades" listed in the BRB. Those are examples. If I buy a 60's VW Beetle and put in power-everything, that is an upgrade (or heresy), if you buy a generic US car that comes with power-everything, that is stock. Not really hard to understand or agree to, unless you really really do not want to agree because you wish it was otherwise.
Some of those examples are stock items that cannot be purchased as additional wargear, therefore the definition of a vehicle upgrade being a piece of wargear purchased as an addition to a vehicle, while logical, is false.
PrinceRaven wrote: By the examples given in the book (pintle-mounted storm bolters, hunter-killer missiles, dozer blades, searchlights, extra armour and smoke launchers) we can determine a "vehicle upgrade is one of the following three things:
A. Only those particular 6 things
B. All Imperium of Man vehicle wargear
C. All vehicle wargear
D. All vehicle wargear you add to the default load-out.
Don't get distracted by the IOM "vehicle upgrades" listed in the BRB. Those are examples. If I buy a 60's VW Beetle and put in power-everything, that is an upgrade (or heresy), if you buy a generic US car that comes with power-everything, that is stock. Not really hard to understand or agree to, unless you really really do not want to agree because you wish it was otherwise.
That would be nice if either were a VW Beettle or an Avalon, but it is neither and your argument doesn't make sense.
Please do not use real world examples, especially when they have no relation to the rules.
PrinceRaven wrote: By the examples given in the book (pintle-mounted storm bolters, hunter-killer missiles, dozer blades, searchlights, extra armour and smoke launchers) we can determine a "vehicle upgrade is one of the following three things:
A. Only those particular 6 things
B. All Imperium of Man vehicle wargear
C. All vehicle wargear
D. All vehicle wargear you add to the default load-out.
Don't get distracted by the IOM "vehicle upgrades" listed in the BRB. Those are examples. If I buy a 60's VW Beetle and put in power-everything, that is an upgrade (or heresy), if you buy a generic US car that comes with power-everything, that is stock. Not really hard to understand or agree to, unless you really really do not want to agree because you wish it was otherwise.
That would be nice if either were a VW Beettle or an Avalon, but it is neither and your argument doesn't make sense.
Please do not use real world examples, especially when they have no relation to the rules.
The rules do not define "Vehicle Upgrade". They list a few items that are "vehicle upgrades", clearly as examples rather than as an exhaustive list.
"Some vehicles come stock with the example vehicle upgrades, therefore all vehicle gear must be upgrades". This claim has no basis in the rules and is illogical. Me pointing out the logical fallacy of your argument using a VW Bug doesn't touch the rules, but your argument isn't rule based in the first place.
PrinceRaven wrote: By the examples given in the book (pintle-mounted storm bolters, hunter-killer missiles, dozer blades, searchlights, extra armour and smoke launchers) we can determine a "vehicle upgrade is one of the following three things:
A. Only those particular 6 things
B. All Imperium of Man vehicle wargear
C. All vehicle wargear
D. All vehicle wargear you add to the default load-out.
Don't get distracted by the IOM "vehicle upgrades" listed in the BRB. Those are examples. If I buy a 60's VW Beetle and put in power-everything, that is an upgrade (or heresy), if you buy a generic US car that comes with power-everything, that is stock. Not really hard to understand or agree to, unless you really really do not want to agree because you wish it was otherwise.
That would be nice if either were a VW Beettle or an Avalon, but it is neither and your argument doesn't make sense.
Please do not use real world examples, especially when they have no relation to the rules.
The rules do not define "Vehicle Upgrade". They list a few items that are "vehicle upgrades", clearly as examples rather than as an exhaustive list.
"Some vehicles come stock with the example vehicle upgrades, therefore all vehicle gear must be upgrades". This claim has no basis in the rules and is illogical. Me pointing out the logical fallacy of your argument using a VW Bug doesn't touch the rules, but your argument isn't rule based in the first place.
PrinceRaven wrote: Some of those examples are stock items that cannot be purchased as additional wargear, therefore the definition of a vehicle upgrade being a piece of wargear purchased as an addition to a vehicle, while logical, is false.
It isn't that some vehicles come stock with the example upgrades, it is that some of the examples can only come stock.
PrinceRaven wrote: Some of those examples are stock items that cannot be purchased as additional wargear, therefore the definition of a vehicle upgrade being a piece of wargear purchased as an addition to a vehicle, while logical, is false.
It isn't that some vehicles come stock with the example upgrades, it is that some of the examples can only come stock.
Some? You mean (possibly) one, the smoke launchers. Grey Knights have to buy searchlights. I have no idea if some old (current when 6th Edition was published) IOM faction codex has a vehicle that had to - or could - buy smoke launchers. If one out of four vehicle upgrades should really not be purchasable anywhere - does that matter? It would be one out of four items, clearly not much of a trend.
Please read what it says in bold right under "Vehicle Upgrades":
"It is incredibly rare for even two vehicles of the same design to be identical - many are modified by their crews in order to archieve greater battlefield efficiency (or survivability). Accordingly, many vehicles have optional upgrades - the most common of which are listed here."
This makes very clear that the authors are talking about additions to vehicles, literally upgrades as in bought for points and not stock. I think we can forgive them for having added an item that is (maybe) not a literal upgrade to the same section, they are only human after all.
PrinceRaven wrote: Some of those examples are stock items that cannot be purchased as additional wargear, therefore the definition of a vehicle upgrade being a piece of wargear purchased as an addition to a vehicle, while logical, is false.
It isn't that some vehicles come stock with the example upgrades, it is that some of the examples can only come stock.
Some? You mean (possibly) one, the smoke launchers. Grey Knights have to buy searchlights. I have no idea if some old (current when 6th Edition was published) IOM faction codex has a vehicle that had to - or could - buy smoke launchers. If one out of four vehicle upgrades should really not be purchasable anywhere - does that matter? It would be one out of four items, clearly not much of a trend.
Please read what it says in bold right under "Vehicle Upgrades":
"It is incredibly rare for even two vehicles of the same design to be identical - many are modified by their crews in order to archieve greater battlefield efficiency (or survivability). Accordingly, many vehicles have optional upgrades - the most common of which are listed here."
This makes very clear that the authors are talking about additions to vehicles, literally upgrades as in bought for points and not stock. I think we can forgive them for having added an item that is (maybe) not a literal upgrade to the same section, they are only human after all.
Why do we not assume they mean anything that is not the base shell of the vehicle, not including its special rules?
I my knowledge, no codex since 6e came how has had the option to buy Smoke Launchers.
You are getting hung up on the word "Upgrade" and they may have misused it, they are only human after all. And they are also Games Workshop.
Edit:
I find the argument, they messed up and didn't mean the write that, as a poor argument and could be applied to anything in the book to try and prove any argument.
The weapon destroyed rule specifies vehicle upgrades. The section is called vehicle upgrades. The introduction specifies explicitly that these are modifications, literally upgrades and announces some examples.
Are vehicle upgrades additions to the stock loadout?
Yes, the section header says so.
Yes, the section introduction says so.
Yes, three of four examples say so.
By comparison, one example being bad is a very weak argument.
Stephanius wrote: The weapon destroyed rule specifies vehicle upgrades. The section is called vehicle upgrades. The introduction specifies explicitly that these are modifications, literally upgrades and announces some examples.
Are vehicle upgrades additions to the stock loadout?
Yes, the section header says so.
Yes, the section introduction says so.
And then immediately provides examples which prove the opposite. So the answer is no, actually.
Yes, three of four examples say so.
By comparison, one example being bad is a very weak argument.
Actually, it's three of five. When 40% of the examples don't fit with the definition you've interpreted, then your definition is probably wrong.
Now the other interpretation (being synonymous with 'wargear') encompasses 100% of those examples. Seems like that interpretation makes much more sense.
Opps, stopped at four and failed counting to five. Embarassing. =/
What are you counting as not available as upgrade besides smoke launchers? As stated earlier search-lights are optional upgrades for grey knights.
So that'd make it four out of five examples being available as upgrades, not three out of four, a clear majority in either case. The section doubles as place to find the 6th Ed rules for common wargear. My guess is they shoved the search-light in there because it didn't fit elsewhere.
It is a considerable leap from "one example item cannot be bought!" to "all vehicle gear in all of 40k must be meant!". A leap that isn't supported by anything written in the BRB. Steering the discussion to the vehicle upgrade section with it's examples is an attempt to be obtuse what the word "Upgrade" might mean. Not my idea.
The introduction of the vehicle upgrades is as close as the BRB gets to defining vehicle upgrades. It contains a bunch of synonyms for upgrades and thereby eliminates any chance of the author's misuse of the word or a misunderstanding.
I'm not sure what to say man, It isn't like it is a small thing that could have been easily missed, Smoke Launchers take up the right side of the page.
This is Games Workshop, they have shown that English definitions or real world examples don't work for the game. The description seems to point to something optional, yet a major example is something that is only stock.
This leads to two possibilities, that the examples themselves are erroneous, or they mean anything other then the base chassis (wargear).
Using one of your past arguments, it could be equally possible that the word 'optional' is there in error. However, both are the example and description are there, so we have to use both unless we are arguing HYWPI.
Can it fire? Yes, therefore it is a weapon. Can it kill stuff? Yes. I would say it would destroy the entire device as, from my understanding, the sheild and shot would come from the same generator. And kills things therefore it is a weapon, just like the fire tube things in astra militaurum.
The Home Nuggeteer wrote: Can it fire? Yes, therefore it is a weapon. Can it kill stuff? Yes. I would say it would destroy the entire device as, from my understanding, the sheild and shot would come from the same generator. And kills things therefore it is a weapon, just like the fire tube things in astra militaurum.
Yet, none of this logic is actually supported by the rules.
The Home Nuggeteer wrote: Can it fire? Yes, therefore it is a weapon. Can it kill stuff? Yes. I would say it would destroy the entire device as, from my understanding, the sheild and shot would come from the same generator. And kills things therefore it is a weapon, just like the fire tube things in astra militaurum.
Yet, none of this logic is actually supported by the rules.
Exactly, and yet I estimate 50% of the people who voted 'yes' have this as the basis of their arguement.
The Home Nuggeteer wrote: Can it fire? Yes, therefore it is a weapon. Can it kill stuff? Yes. I would say it would destroy the entire device as, from my understanding, the sheild and shot would come from the same generator. And kills things therefore it is a weapon, just like the fire tube things in astra militaurum.
If that was the case, a Tau Fragmentation Discharger would be a weapon, but it is a piece of wargear that can apply hits. It can not be fired and a Non-Walker Vehicle can not fight in CC so it isn't being used as a melee wepon. It can not be twin-linked, or can it re-roll to hit (unless fateweaver).
In order for it to be classified as a weapon, it need to be able to follow all the weapon ruled, which the Serpent Shield dose.
The Home Nuggeteer wrote: Can it fire? Yes, therefore it is a weapon. Can it kill stuff? Yes. I would say it would destroy the entire device as, from my understanding, the sheild and shot would come from the same generator. And kills things therefore it is a weapon, just like the fire tube things in astra militaurum.
Yet, none of this logic is actually supported by the rules.
Exactly, and yet I estimate 50% of the people who voted 'yes' have this as the basis of their arguement.
The reason people believe the shield can be destroyed is from the Weapon Upgrade part that says non-weapon wargear can be destroyed by Weapon Destroyed if it can be used as a weapon. The contention comes from the fact it says upgrade, yet lists a piece of wargear that can only come stock.
Thus we have a poll.
But smoke launchers are an upgrade. Or they were to the most recently written codex at that point. UPGRADES are the only thing it applies to. Its kind of in the wording.
PapaSoul wrote: But smoke launchers are an upgrade. Or they were to the most recently written codex at that point. UPGRADES are the only thing it applies to. Its kind of in the wording.
I think you should read through the thread first. If you can find an book that allows you to purchase Smoke Launchers then the argument fails. However, no one has provided evidence to that, to the contrary, they have been stock for the vehicles that have them.
To those arguing that the Serpent Shield is not a weapon upgrade because you didn't purchase it as an addition to the Wave Serpent, I'd like to direct you to Tenet 6 of YMDC:
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out. "
PrinceRaven wrote: To those arguing that the Serpent Shield is not a weapon upgrade because you didn't purchase it as an addition to the Wave Serpent, I'd like to direct you to Tenet 6 of YMDC:
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out. "
That makes a lot of sense whenever the BRB offers a definition that conflicts with the meaning or one of the meanings of the word in common English useage.
It makes no sense in this case, where the BRB and the English usage align perfectly:
BRB, p. 87 "Vehicle Upgrades":
"It is incredibly rare for even two vehicles of the same design to be identical - many are modified by their crews in order to archieve greater battlefield efficiency (or survivability). Accordingly, many vehicles have optional upgrades - the most common of which are listed here."
Merriam-Webster: "up·grade, noun \ˈəp-ˌgrād\
: an area or surface that goes upward : an upward slope
: an occurrence in which one thing is replaced by something better, newer, more valuable, etc.
As the Tenet implies, a 40k definition supercedes a common English definition. Otherwise the rulebook would not work.
However, the only 40k defintion for "vehicle upgrade" explicitly states that optional upgrades, improvements, modifications are meant.
Unless anyone finds a smoke-launcher purchaseable as upgrade, we can agree that the authors went against their stated definition by including the smoke launcher under vehicle upgrades.
What this doesn't do however, is change the definition or invalidate the four other examples - which are upgrades in the sense of the BRB and the English language.
In a RAW argument it is irrelevant what you'd like to see written down in the rules. What matters is what is written down in the official rulebooks.
Please don't break out dictionary definitions. It's generally considered bad form in YMDC. There's more than enough terms in 40k that mean something entirely different than what the dictionary definition states. As has been shown repeatedly in fact, 'upgrade' is one of them!
Jimsolo wrote: Please don't break out dictionary definitions. It's generally considered bad form in YMDC. There's more than enough terms in 40k that mean something entirely different than what the dictionary definition states. As has been shown repeatedly in fact, 'upgrade' is one of them!
No such thing has been shown, only claimed by way of assumptions. There isn't one shred of written BRB or Codex evidence for your point of view.
Please show me a passage of text that actually makes statements supporting your point of view.
Wishful thinking aside, the only point brought forward has been the smoke launcher not being available as upgrade. We do not know why it was included in the upgrade section. We can guess, but we cannot know. Assumptions or subjective interpretation do not trump, invalidate or change RAW text.
Stephanius, we have already explained why dictionary definitions do not work and shown why it does not line up. Please stop trying to argue definition.
Jimsolo wrote: Please don't break out dictionary definitions. It's generally considered bad form in YMDC. There's more than enough terms in 40k that mean something entirely different than what the dictionary definition states. As has been shown repeatedly in fact, 'upgrade' is one of them!
No such thing has been shown, only claimed by way of assumptions. There isn't one shred of written BRB or Codex evidence for your point of view.
Please show me a passage of text that actually makes statements supporting your point of view.
Wishful thinking aside, the only point brought forward has been the smoke launcher not being available as upgrade. We do not know why it was included in the upgrade section. We can guess, but we cannot know. Assumptions or subjective interpretation do not trump, invalidate or change RAW text.
Except that nobody plays by RAW. Nobody. (Unless you are telling me that you play where Flying Monstrous Creatures don't get Relentless or Smash. Or that you play Wraithguard as being unable to make shooting attacks.) What we CAN do is make reasonable inferences. The fact that 40% of the 'upgrades' listed in the upgrades section are almost always stock equipment seems like good evidence to reasonably infer that in context, 'upgrade' probably means 'wargear.'
That seems like a vastly more reasonable viewpoint than the opposing one, wherein a vehicle widely considered to be extremely overpowered anyway becomes even more overpowered by making its most potent weapon indestructible.
All the repetition in the world won't turn reasonable inferences into 'wishful thinking.' I think you might have joined up too late to miss the Fun List of RAW Fun. It wasn't written for the current edition, but the salient take-away from that thread was this: nobody plays by strict RAW. Everyone takes the necessary steps to interpret the rules in a reasonable manner so that we can all play a functional game. And I just can't believe that anyone could look at the rules in question here and think that interpreting them to get indestructible Serpent Shields is reasonable.
Nilok wrote: Stephanius, we have already explained why dictionary definitions do not work and shown why it does not line up. Please stop trying to argue definition.
I'm arguing the 40k definition of vehicle upgrade (p.87 BRB), the English definition was only included to show that there is no difference, to counter claims to the contrary.
Jimsolo wrote: Please don't break out dictionary definitions. It's generally considered bad form in YMDC. There's more than enough terms in 40k that mean something entirely different than what the dictionary definition states. As has been shown repeatedly in fact, 'upgrade' is one of them!
No such thing has been shown, only claimed by way of assumptions. There isn't one shred of written BRB or Codex evidence for your point of view.
Please show me a passage of text that actually makes statements supporting your point of view.
Wishful thinking aside, the only point brought forward has been the smoke launcher not being available as upgrade. We do not know why it was included in the upgrade section. We can guess, but we cannot know. Assumptions or subjective interpretation do not trump, invalidate or change RAW text.
Except that nobody plays by RAW. Nobody. (Unless you are telling me that you play where Flying Monstrous Creatures don't get Relentless or Smash. Or that you play Wraithguard as being unable to make shooting attacks.) What we CAN do is make reasonable inferences. The fact that 40% of the 'upgrades' listed in the upgrades section are almost always stock equipment seems like good evidence to reasonably infer that in context, 'upgrade' probably means 'wargear.'
That seems like a vastly more reasonable viewpoint than the opposing one, wherein a vehicle widely considered to be extremely overpowered anyway becomes even more overpowered by making its most potent weapon indestructible.
All the repetition in the world won't turn reasonable inferences into 'wishful thinking.' I think you might have joined up too late to miss the Fun List of RAW Fun. It wasn't written for the current edition, but the salient take-away from that thread was this: nobody plays by strict RAW. Everyone takes the necessary steps to interpret the rules in a reasonable manner so that we can all play a functional game. And I just can't believe that anyone could look at the rules in question here and think that interpreting them to get indestructible Serpent Shields is reasonable.
I hear you. However, unlike the examples for shoddy rule writing you provided, the rules in this case are not broken - they work just fine for most wargear, they just don't happen to match your point of view regarding the serpent shield. Reasonable is infering the use of a model's visor, helmet or head instead of non-visible eyes. If visible eyes were actually needed, power armor users would be out of luck too and could not fire.
You haven't revised your 40% stock equipment claim (to account for GK searchlight purchases) or explained how you arrived at it. I can only infer from this that you are not actually interested in valid premises and cling to the desired outcome instead.
In my (limited) experience, a units strength in relation to the point cost has nothing to do with reasonable, even in Codices where Matt Ward is not involved. There is no guaranteed value for points, there are horrible cheesy rules and units that are unfair, undercosted or both. One can try to adjust this with house rules or TO calls, but 40k is just such a horrible mess (even without FW) that it is a futile task, most likely just resulting in a differently skewed faction mix rather than an even one. Therefore RAW resulting in a unit to be subjectively too strong isn't really a valid reason to ignore RAW/RAI.
I was under the impression that the point of this thread was to determine how the serpent shield interacts with the weapon destroyed rule, based on the RAW or inferred RAI.
Your point of view is a HIWPI view, for which you cannot present RAW support. HIWPI is great, but discussing RAW vs HIWPI is futile.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The claim "upgrades" only means "non standard equipment" is proven false by a single counter example.
That is an opinion. Just like this one:
The claim "upgrades" means "all vehicle war gear" is proven false by the overwhelming majority of valid upgrade examples and the definition at the start of the section.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The claim "upgrades" only means "non standard equipment" is proven false by a single counter example.
That is an opinion. Just like this one:
The claim "upgrades" means "all vehicle war gear" is proven false by the overwhelming majority of valid upgrade examples and the definition at the start of the section.
Actually, that isn't an opinion, it's a fact - and it's wrong.
It isn't an opinion to say "2+2 = 3", even if it is wrong.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The claim "upgrades" only means "non standard equipment" is proven false by a single counter example.
This. Basic rule of science. It only takes one proven negative result to invalidate any number of positive results.
Nice real world example. This isn't science though and how real life results of scientific experiments are treated is something completely different from arguments in a rules debate.
It is entirely possible that there are concrete arguments for either side of an issue. These arguments are then examined and weighted to see which side of the scales has more pull.
In the Red corner, part 2 of the weapon destroyed rule, the vehicle upgrade section headline, it's introduction and four of five if it's examples. In the blue corner, one bad example, which incidentally isn't even relevant to the weapon destroyed rule and is only considered invalid because IOM armies get this option free of charge. Ready to take your hand off the scales?
It's not that they are saying the smoke launcher example means it IS an upgrade, it's more the point that it COULD be classified as an upgrade and as such there is no definitive proof of either argument yet. Until it is FAQed or the rules change it's seem HIWPI or roll off is what's called for.
PapaSoul wrote: But smoke launchers are an upgrade. Or they were to the most recently written codex at that point. UPGRADES are the only thing it applies to. Its kind of in the wording.
I think you should read through the thread first. If you can find an book that allows you to purchase Smoke Launchers then the argument fails. However, no one has provided evidence to that, to the contrary, they have been stock for the vehicles that have them.
IG Hellhound, Taurox, Sentinel. Do not come with Smoke Launchers and can purchase them.
PapaSoul wrote: But smoke launchers are an upgrade. Or they were to the most recently written codex at that point. UPGRADES are the only thing it applies to. Its kind of in the wording.
I think you should read through the thread first. If you can find an book that allows you to purchase Smoke Launchers then the argument fails. However, no one has provided evidence to that, to the contrary, they have been stock for the vehicles that have them.
IG Hellhound, Taurox, Sentinel. Do not come with Smoke Launchers and can purchase them.
*Tumbleweed*
I noticed this pretty much stopped the "pro destroyed" party in its tracks. I guess this is solved now. Never seen so much clutching at straws :/
PapaSoul wrote: But smoke launchers are an upgrade. Or they were to the most recently written codex at that point. UPGRADES are the only thing it applies to. Its kind of in the wording.
I think you should read through the thread first. If you can find an book that allows you to purchase Smoke Launchers then the argument fails. However, no one has provided evidence to that, to the contrary, they have been stock for the vehicles that have them.
IG Hellhound, Taurox, Sentinel. Do not come with Smoke Launchers and can purchase them.
Thank you sir!
I only have an old IG codex from 2003 here, that has optional smoke launchers as well.
I don't have the IG codex that was current when 6th edition was published.
PapaSoul wrote: But smoke launchers are an upgrade. Or they were to the most recently written codex at that point. UPGRADES are the only thing it applies to. Its kind of in the wording.
I think you should read through the thread first. If you can find an book that allows you to purchase Smoke Launchers then the argument fails. However, no one has provided evidence to that, to the contrary, they have been stock for the vehicles that have them.
IG Hellhound, Taurox, Sentinel. Do not come with Smoke Launchers and can purchase them.
*Tumbleweed*
I noticed this pretty much stopped the "pro destroyed" party in its tracks. I guess this is solved now. Never seen so much clutching at straws :/
Not so much. I was pro-destroyed before I found the upgrade description in the BRB, and only brought it up as additional evidence to support my point of view, which remains the same: it fires as a weapon, it has a weapon profile, it can be destroyed.
PapaSoul wrote: But smoke launchers are an upgrade. Or they were to the most recently written codex at that point. UPGRADES are the only thing it applies to. Its kind of in the wording.
I think you should read through the thread first. If you can find an book that allows you to purchase Smoke Launchers then the argument fails. However, no one has provided evidence to that, to the contrary, they have been stock for the vehicles that have them.
IG Hellhound, Taurox, Sentinel. Do not come with Smoke Launchers and can purchase them.
*Tumbleweed*
I noticed this pretty much stopped the "pro destroyed" party in its tracks. I guess this is solved now. Never seen so much clutching at straws :/
Not so much. I was pro-destroyed before I found the upgrade description in the BRB, and only brought it up as additional evidence to support my point of view, which remains the same: it fires as a weapon, it has a weapon profile, it can be destroyed.
Go for it champ!
I mean, you're wrong, but who cares about rules, right?
I mean, you're wrong, but who cares about rules, right?
I think most people care about the rules, hence the whole discussion.
On the one hand, it has a weapon profile and is treated as a weapon, it can both benefit from laser lock and can be destroyed.
On the other hand, it is a vehicle equipment, and therefore cannot be benefit from laser lock and be destroyed.
Since "Treated as" is the same as "Is" from a rules perspective, I am still of the opinion that 59% of people who voted in the poll hold - yes it can be destroyed.
I mean, you're wrong, but who cares about rules, right?
Well, so far Dakka seems to disagree with you.
If you would like to add something productive to the conversation, then please feel free. If you have nothing to add but sarcastic remarks, I'd appreciate it if you refrained.
I mean, you're wrong, but who cares about rules, right?
I think most people care about the rules, hence the whole discussion.
On the one hand, it has a weapon profile and is treated as a weapon, it can both benefit from laser lock and can be destroyed.
On the other hand, it is a vehicle equipment, and therefore cannot be benefit from laser lock and be destroyed.
Since "Treated as" is the same as "Is" from a rules perspective, I am still of the opinion that 59% of people who voted in the poll hold - yes it can be destroyed.
and that is 100% correct mr happyjew, if someone is going to say its a weapon, fine, its a weapon that has all those benefits. If not, and cant be destroyed, then fine, but it doesn't benefit from all those other things that benefit weapons too.
It you contend its a weapon for only the rules that benefit it, but not for those that are detrimental, then that has 0 RAW backing.
Either position could be RAW, but a mix of the two is 100% not.
I mean, you're wrong, but who cares about rules, right?
Well, so far Dakka seems to disagree with you.
If you would like to add something productive to the conversation, then please feel free. If you have nothing to add but sarcastic remarks, I'd appreciate it if you refrained.
Your post it technically within the rules PapaSoul but it is quite obvious you are trying to bait people. As Jim here said, if you want want to participate in the conversation and politely disagree, that is perfectly fine. Sarcasm, not so much. Please refrain from doing this again. Guys, PapaSoul is also pretty new, so I would appreciate it if you could continue being polite with him, Dakka is a bit more tamed than many other forums where that statement would be fine.
Please hit the Yellow Triangle button if problems persist.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The claim "upgrades" only means "non standard equipment" is proven false by a single counter example.
This. Basic rule of science. It only takes one proven negative result to invalidate any number of positive results.
Nice real world example. This isn't science though and how real life results of scientific experiments are treated is something completely different from arguments in a rules debate.
It is entirely possible that there are concrete arguments for either side of an issue. These arguments are then examined and weighted to see which side of the scales has more pull.
In the Red corner, part 2 of the weapon destroyed rule, the vehicle upgrade section headline, it's introduction and four of five if it's examples. In the blue corner, one bad example, which incidentally isn't even relevant to the weapon destroyed rule and is only considered invalid because IOM armies get this option free of charge. Ready to take your hand off the scales?
Yes, however a rules debate has to follow some forms, which is that your premise can be destroyed by a single counter example. There is no balance of probabilities needed when you take a restrictive position and that position is found to not be true for all cases.
If only Games Workshop actually defined it's damned terms a lot of the YMDC threads wouldn't exist. In this case, since there is no BRB definition we are going to have to go with the plain english definition. Therefore, Serpent Shields cannot be destroyed by Weapon Destroyed as per RAW since it is not an upgrade.
TheCustomLime wrote: If only Games Workshop actually defined it's damned terms a lot of the YMDC threads wouldn't exist. In this case, since there is no BRB definition we are going to have to go with the plain english definition. Therefore, Serpent Shields cannot be destroyed by Weapon Destroyed as per RAW since it is not an upgrade.
Not everything listed as an upgrade is always an upgrade, so you cannot say stock function-as-a-weapon cannot be destroyed
PrinceRaven wrote: So if a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon comes stock on a particular unit, is it now magically immune to Weapon Destroyed?
No, not magically, but logically. That was what the whole smoke launcher discussion was about. The claim was that because nobody can buy smoke launchers and everybody gets them stock (we didn't think/know about IG/AM), smoke launchers are not an upgrade; if smoke launchers are not an upgrade, then the term vehicle upgrade must apply to all vehicle war gear, not only add-ons. With the smoke launchers listed as upgrade for IG, that argument is dead in the water. Now, as demonstrated by that, if a piece of gear comes stock for somebody (SM), but is an upgrade for someone else (IG), it is still an upgrade.
Turning to the Eldar codex, there we have vehicle war gear including the serpent shield. What we don't have, is a points cost for the shield or any vehicle that can buy the serpent shield as an upgrade. Nobody can buy a serpent shield as option. Ergo, it is not an upgrade.
The second sentence of the weapon destroyed rule lists two conditions linked by a logical AND - "vehicle upgrades that" (AND) "function as a weapon". As demonstated, the shield is not an upgrade, which makes it not match the conditions for this half of the rule.
I think most people care about the rules, hence the whole discussion.
On the one hand, it has a weapon profile and is treated as a weapon, it can both benefit from laser lock and can be destroyed.
On the other hand, it is a vehicle equipment, and therefore cannot be benefit from laser lock and be destroyed.
Since "Treated as" is the same as "Is" from a rules perspective, I am still of the opinion that 59% of people who voted in the poll hold - yes it can be destroyed.
and that is 100% correct mr happyjew, if someone is going to say its a weapon, fine, its a weapon that has all those benefits. If not, and cant be destroyed, then fine, but it doesn't benefit from all those other things that benefit weapons too.
It you contend its a weapon for only the rules that benefit it, but not for those that are detrimental, then that has 0 RAW backing.
Either position could be RAW, but a mix of the two is 100% not.
Your argument is that the shield not being subject to weapon destroyed and benefiting from laser lock is unfair, and therefore cannot be correct RAW.
I sympathise with the fairness bit, but find it irrelevant when determining what the rules say. We can still conclude that the rules are stupid, unfair and we wont play that way, but that is HIWPI.
I think we agree now that the serpent shield is not an vehicle upgrade.
The next and hopefully final question is how to evaluate the serpent shield rule text to determine if it is a weapon or not. As demonstrated by people jumping all over the "functions as a weapon" condition of the weapon destroyed rule, that question is not so easily answered. The Codex authors did not include the shield under weapons, call it a weapon or list it in the weapon summary. The shield is listed in vehicle wargear, not in the weapons section of the armoury. So it doesn't become a weapon by declaration. Let's look at the serpent shield entry in the vehicle war gear section of the Eldar codex.
The serpent shield entry starts with fluff in italics, then describes the defensive part of the shield. This is followed by a paragraph that describes what happens when you deactivate the shield. This paragraph is "In its shooting phase, the wave serpent can deactivate its shields to shoot a burst of energy with the following profile (threat this as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward):" followed by the profile and another sentence that clarifies that the shields will be down until the start of the serpents following turn.
I claim that the serpent shield has exclusively defensive properties. The shield is referenced clearly in the first rule paragraph as the cause of the protection from penetrating hits. The only mention the shield gets in the second rule paragraph is that the shield is deactivated. From then on, the serpent is the actor and a burst of energy is fired. Gramatically and logically, the weapon profile applies to the burst of energy and not to the serpent shield. The rules do not state that the shield is fired. The shield is deactiavted, which allows a shooting attack to be made. Since it is not the shield that the weapon profile applies to, the existence of the profile doesn't make the shield function as a weapon or be a weapon.
Since the surplus energy that is available for shooting after deactivating the shield isn't an upgrade or a weapon, it cannot be destroyed. While vehicles obviously are not psykers, my understanding is that the shooting attack works similar to a witchfire, but uses surplus energy rather than warp charges.
TL;DR:
So, the burst of energy is treated as a hull mounted weapon, ergo it is affected by laser lock.
The serpent shield isn't a weapon by declaration or it's own rules, it also isn't an upgrade, ergo it cannot be affected by weapon destroyed.
TheCustomLime wrote: If only Games Workshop actually defined it's damned terms a lot of the YMDC threads wouldn't exist. In this case, since there is no BRB definition we are going to have to go with the plain english definition. Therefore, Serpent Shields cannot be destroyed by Weapon Destroyed as per RAW since it is not an upgrade.
Not everything listed as an upgrade is always an upgrade, so you cannot say stock function-as-a-weapon cannot be destroyed
\
Right, but Games Workshop never defines what an Upgrade actually is in Game Terms. You can call me out on being pedantic but the term "Upgrade" has a specific meaning to the rule because of the weapon destroyed rules. Because Games Workshop never gives us that meaning we have to go by the dictionary definition of the word.
So if the "destroyed" theory is correct, what happens if the sheild was fired in the following turn? It technically isn't there until the following turn :/
PrinceRaven wrote: Some of those examples are stock items that cannot be purchased as additional wargear, therefore the definition of a vehicle upgrade being a piece of wargear purchased as an addition to a vehicle, while logical, is false.
It isn't that some vehicles come stock with the example upgrades, it is that some of the examples can only come stock.
Some? You mean (possibly) one, the smoke launchers. Grey Knights have to buy searchlights. I have no idea if some old (current when 6th Edition was published) IOM faction codex has a vehicle that had to - or could - buy smoke launchers. If one out of four vehicle upgrades should really not be purchasable anywhere - does that matter? It would be one out of four items, clearly not much of a trend.
Please read what it says in bold right under "Vehicle Upgrades":
"It is incredibly rare for even two vehicles of the same design to be identical - many are modified by their crews in order to archieve greater battlefield efficiency (or survivability). Accordingly, many vehicles have optional upgrades - the most common of which are listed here."
This makes very clear that the authors are talking about additions to vehicles, literally upgrades as in bought for points and not stock. I think we can forgive them for having added an item that is (maybe) not a literal upgrade to the same section, they are only human after all.
However, this direction of argument (first brought up on page 2) fails under scrutiny. I was going to mention it earlier, but the discussion moved in a different direction, and the anti-destroyed camp settled on some different snippets of verbiage to make their case.
At any rate, using the plain English definition of upgrade doesn't get you anywhere by itself, because there's no baseline set for the initial "stock" object that is being upgraded. You could just as validly consider the starting point to be a "stock vehicle" (ie. BS + Armour Values + Vehicle Type + all the general rules governing vehicles) as you could consider it to be a "stock Wave Serpent" (ie. everything previously mentioned, but in the specific allotments granted to a Wave Serpent + the specific starting weapons and gear of the Serpent).
The point about Smoke Launchers now being an optional choice somewhere in the game is an interesting development.
I wonder if there are there any counter-examples of an "upgrade weapon" being included in a vehicle's basic gear? Ie. a vehicle that comes with an automatic Hunter- Killer missile, or something like that?
Most Space Marine vehicles automatically come with Searchlights and Smoke Launchers, which are both considered Vehicle Upgrades even if they don't function as weapons. Rhinos come stock with Storm Bolters, Stormravens come stock with Mindstrike missiles, which are similar to Hunter-Killer Missiles, but I can't remember anything that actually has H-K Missiles as stock.
Vehicles can buy them. Rhinos come with one. So is the one on a Rhino a weapon, or an "upgrade that functions as a weapon but was not selected as an upgrade and is therefore not counted as a weapon"?
PrinceRaven wrote: Some of those examples are stock items that cannot be purchased as additional wargear, therefore the definition of a vehicle upgrade being a piece of wargear purchased as an addition to a vehicle, while logical, is false.
It isn't that some vehicles come stock with the example upgrades, it is that some of the examples can only come stock.
Some? You mean (possibly) one, the smoke launchers. Grey Knights have to buy searchlights. I have no idea if some old (current when 6th Edition was published) IOM faction codex has a vehicle that had to - or could - buy smoke launchers. If one out of four vehicle upgrades should really not be purchasable anywhere - does that matter? It would be one out of four items, clearly not much of a trend.
Please read what it says in bold right under "Vehicle Upgrades":
"It is incredibly rare for even two vehicles of the same design to be identical - many are modified by their crews in order to archieve greater battlefield efficiency (or survivability). Accordingly, many vehicles have optional upgrades - the most common of which are listed here."
This makes very clear that the authors are talking about additions to vehicles, literally upgrades as in bought for points and not stock. I think we can forgive them for having added an item that is (maybe) not a literal upgrade to the same section, they are only human after all.
However, this direction of argument (first brought up on page 2) fails under scrutiny. I was going to mention it earlier, but the discussion moved in a different direction, and the anti-destroyed camp settled on some different snippets of verbiage to make their case.
At any rate, using the plain English definition of upgrade doesn't get you anywhere by itself, because there's no baseline set for the initial "stock" object that is being upgraded. You could just as validly consider the starting point to be a "stock vehicle" (ie. BS + Armour Values + Vehicle Type + all the general rules governing vehicles) as you could consider it to be a "stock Wave Serpent" (ie. everything previously mentioned, but in the specific allotments granted to a Wave Serpent + the specific starting weapons and gear of the Serpent).
The point about Smoke Launchers now being an optional choice somewhere in the game is an interesting development.
I wonder if there are there any counter-examples of an "upgrade weapon" being included in a vehicle's basic gear? Ie. a vehicle that comes with an automatic Hunter- Killer missile, or something like that?
If someone can buy the item for points, it must be an upgrade.
If nobody can buy the item for points (or swap it in), it cannot be an upgrade.
In the weapon destroyed rule, it doesn't really matter if a "weapon" is an upgrade or not, since the first sentence doesn't define stock or upgrade. If it's a weapon - such as a bolter, or hunter killer missile - that will do fine with the first sentence. Therefore I'm not sure how helpful discussing these items is to the serpent shield discussion.
Agreed, if you can buy it with points, it is an upgrade. However that is not the only, exclusive definition of upgrade that there is - anthing over and above base vehicle stats can be considered an upgrade.
I'm going with it can be destroyed, unless / intil they errata this "ermergency" weapon to 6", One Use
Must say, I'm surprised by the surprise about smoke launchers.
My sentinels have never had them and, now I have checked, I have had "freebie" smoke launchers on my hellhounds for years.
Cheaty scumbag.
nosferatu1001 wrote: I'm going with it can be destroyed, unless / intil they errata this "ermergency" weapon to 6", One Use
I have heard that the 60" range is a typo (said in all seriousness, it seemed), is that true or just internet static?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Agreed, if you can buy it with points, it is an upgrade. However that is not the only, exclusive definition of upgrade that there is - anthing over and above base vehicle stats can be considered an upgrade.
...
It would be helpful if you'd provide the reasoning that led to your conclusion, or the rule source for your definition.
The one and only "definition" source we've found in this thread is the start of the vehicle upgrades section. That makes clear that upgrades are modifications or additions to vehicles performed by the crew in the field. That logically excludes the gear the generic vehicle has ex-factory aka codex entry.
Fuusa,
No official Errata to correct it, so hard to say if it is true or not, but a lot of people feel that the Narrative for this weapon makes no sense compared to the Rules surrounding it.
PrinceRaven wrote: So if a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon comes stock on a particular unit, is it now magically immune to Weapon Destroyed?
No, not magically, but logically. That was what the whole smoke launcher discussion was about. The claim was that because nobody can buy smoke launchers and everybody gets them stock (we didn't think/know about IG/AM), smoke launchers are not an upgrade; if smoke launchers are not an upgrade, then the term vehicle upgrade must apply to all vehicle war gear, not only add-ons. With the smoke launchers listed as upgrade for IG, that argument is dead in the water. Now, as demonstrated by that, if a piece of gear comes stock for somebody (SM), but is an upgrade for someone else (IG), it is still an upgrade.
Turning to the Eldar codex, there we have vehicle war gear including the serpent shield. What we don't have, is a points cost for the shield or any vehicle that can buy the serpent shield as an upgrade. Nobody can buy a serpent shield as option. Ergo, it is not an upgrade.
The second sentence of the weapon destroyed rule lists two conditions linked by a logical AND - "vehicle upgrades that" (AND) "function as a weapon". As demonstated, the shield is not an upgrade, which makes it not match the conditions for this half of the rule.
I think most people care about the rules, hence the whole discussion.
On the one hand, it has a weapon profile and is treated as a weapon, it can both benefit from laser lock and can be destroyed.
On the other hand, it is a vehicle equipment, and therefore cannot be benefit from laser lock and be destroyed.
Since "Treated as" is the same as "Is" from a rules perspective, I am still of the opinion that 59% of people who voted in the poll hold - yes it can be destroyed.
and that is 100% correct mr happyjew, if someone is going to say its a weapon, fine, its a weapon that has all those benefits. If not, and cant be destroyed, then fine, but it doesn't benefit from all those other things that benefit weapons too.
It you contend its a weapon for only the rules that benefit it, but not for those that are detrimental, then that has 0 RAW backing.
Either position could be RAW, but a mix of the two is 100% not.
Your argument is that the shield not being subject to weapon destroyed and benefiting from laser lock is unfair, and therefore cannot be correct RAW.
I sympathise with the fairness bit, but find it irrelevant when determining what the rules say. We can still conclude that the rules are stupid, unfair and we wont play that way, but that is HIWPI.
I think we agree now that the serpent shield is not an vehicle upgrade.
The next and hopefully final question is how to evaluate the serpent shield rule text to determine if it is a weapon or not. As demonstrated by people jumping all over the "functions as a weapon" condition of the weapon destroyed rule, that question is not so easily answered. The Codex authors did not include the shield under weapons, call it a weapon or list it in the weapon summary. The shield is listed in vehicle wargear, not in the weapons section of the armoury. So it doesn't become a weapon by declaration. Let's look at the serpent shield entry in the vehicle war gear section of the Eldar codex.
The serpent shield entry starts with fluff in italics, then describes the defensive part of the shield. This is followed by a paragraph that describes what happens when you deactivate the shield. This paragraph is "In its shooting phase, the wave serpent can deactivate its shields to shoot a burst of energy with the following profile (threat this as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward):" followed by the profile and another sentence that clarifies that the shields will be down until the start of the serpents following turn.
I claim that the serpent shield has exclusively defensive properties. The shield is referenced clearly in the first rule paragraph as the cause of the protection from penetrating hits. The only mention the shield gets in the second rule paragraph is that the shield is deactivated. From then on, the serpent is the actor and a burst of energy is fired. Gramatically and logically, the weapon profile applies to the burst of energy and not to the serpent shield. The rules do not state that the shield is fired. The shield is deactiavted, which allows a shooting attack to be made. Since it is not the shield that the weapon profile applies to, the existence of the profile doesn't make the shield function as a weapon or be a weapon.
Since the surplus energy that is available for shooting after deactivating the shield isn't an upgrade or a weapon, it cannot be destroyed. While vehicles obviously are not psykers, my understanding is that the shooting attack works similar to a witchfire, but uses surplus energy rather than warp charges.
TL;DR:
So, the burst of energy is treated as a hull mounted weapon, ergo it is affected by laser lock.
The serpent shield isn't a weapon by declaration or it's own rules, it also isn't an upgrade, ergo it cannot be affected by weapon destroyed.
I don't really see why the whole "upgrade argument" is really needed to decide that a Serpent shield in fact can be destroyed when the main argument you are providing against it is from flavor text. Shouldn't the actual nuts and bolts, game mechanics text, "treat this as a hull-mounted weapon" indicate that it is in fact a weapon? As per your claim that the shield is not a weapon and that the "burst of energy" is what the weapon profile applies to, then could I not destroy said "burst of energy" even though it fires in the shooting phase and has a weapon profile? Emphasis mine, even you said the "burst of energy" has a weapon profile. I really don't see how you're getting the best of both worlds here (ie can be TL and cannot be destroyed) except by twisting around some of the flavor text surrounding the rule. This really reminds of the whole drop pod open/closed debate with the open side citing the fact that the drop pod's doors "burst open" upon landing.
The serpent shield entry starts with fluff in italics, then describes the defensive part of the shield. This is followed by a paragraph that describes what happens when you deactivate the shield. This paragraph is "In its shooting phase, the wave serpent can deactivate its shields to shoot a burst of energy with the following profile (threat this as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward):" followed by the profile and another sentence that clarifies that the shields will be down until the start of the serpents following turn.
I claim that the serpent shield has exclusively defensive properties. The shield is referenced clearly in the first rule paragraph as the cause of the protection from penetrating hits. The only mention the shield gets in the second rule paragraph is that the shield is deactivated. From then on, the serpent is the actor and a burst of energy is fired. Gramatically and logically, the weapon profile applies to the burst of energy and not to the serpent shield. The rules do not state that the shield is fired. The shield is deactiavted, which allows a shooting attack to be made. Since it is not the shield that the weapon profile applies to, the existence of the profile doesn't make the shield function as a weapon or be a weapon.
Since the surplus energy that is available for shooting after deactivating the shield isn't an upgrade or a weapon, it cannot be destroyed. While vehicles obviously are not psykers, my understanding is that the shooting attack works similar to a witchfire, but uses surplus energy rather than warp charges.
TL;DR:
So, the burst of energy is treated as a hull mounted weapon, ergo it is affected by laser lock.
The serpent shield isn't a weapon by declaration or it's own rules, it also isn't an upgrade, ergo it cannot be affected by weapon destroyed.
I don't think this line of reasoning gets you where you want to go. If asked, what would you say you are applying the laser lock to? Certainly not a burst of energy. The Serpent isn't equipped with a 'burst of energy'. What's more, if this burst of energy were somehow separate from the shield, the rules for it wouldn't be contained within the rules for said shield. I completely get how you've parsed this out, but I also think your suffering a little from a forest for the trees moment.
If you want to claim that it's a weapon, and further, a weapon that isn't somehow a part or function of the shield, you'd need to be able to show that it's actually, somehow, a separate weapon. The line of reasoning that ends in the bolded text above is flawed IMO. It sounds logical, but I think it completely escapes from the confines of the game mechanics and charges headlong into the heady realm of semantics. It's essentially a fluff argument IMO - I could easily say that we're talking about the the energy that creates the shield used in a different way, and I'd sound just as logical - and neither of us would be furthering the actual rules issue at hand. In order for your logic to stand up the 'weapon' needs to not be the shield, by which I mean you'd need to show what it actually is, rather than simply pointing out what it might not be. 'Things' (weapons, whatever) in 40K have rules that apply to them and those rules are listed in the appropriate entry for each item - that's the basic game design. So if the shooting weapon and profile listed under 'Serpent Shield' in the Eldar codex doesn't in fact apply in some fashion in to that listed piece of vehicle wargear, why do they appear there and what weapon or wargear are we actually talking about?
The issue of definition of terms is also, IMO, not nearly as cut and dried as your position would probably like it to be. The various terms equipment, wargear, and upgrade are all used somewhat interchangeably (and haphazardly) across books to refer to the same broad class of things.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Agreed, if you can buy it with points, it is an upgrade. However that is not the only, exclusive definition of upgrade that there is - anthing over and above base vehicle stats can be considered an upgrade.
...
It would be helpful if you'd provide the reasoning that led to your conclusion, or the rule source for your definition.
The one and only "definition" source we've found in this thread is the start of the vehicle upgrades section. That makes clear that upgrades are modifications or additions to vehicles performed by the crew in the field. That logically excludes the gear the generic vehicle has ex-factory aka codex entry.
Which is fluff, not rules. I provided the reasoning, that an upgrade is also anything above base stats, eg tank is an upgrade
nosferatu1001 wrote: Agreed, if you can buy it with points, it is an upgrade. However that is not the only, exclusive definition of upgrade that there is - anthing over and above base vehicle stats can be considered an upgrade.
...
It would be helpful if you'd provide the reasoning that led to your conclusion, or the rule source for your definition.
The one and only "definition" source we've found in this thread is the start of the vehicle upgrades section. That makes clear that upgrades are modifications or additions to vehicles performed by the crew in the field. That logically excludes the gear the generic vehicle has ex-factory aka codex entry.
Which is fluff, not rules. I provided the reasoning, that an upgrade is also anything above base stats, eg tank is an upgrade
That is a claim, a conclusion, not the reasoning on how you arrive at the point or the rules/examples you base yourself on.
If anything, you'd start from the vehicle type as the chassis and then apply things like armour, propulsion and armament from there.
Regardless of how you evaluate the vehicle upgrade intro, the example upgrades make it quite clear that the BRB considers upgrades to match the "fluff intro" exactly.
Considering that it is impossible to get a tank chassis, a 11/11/10 armour or a serpent shield seperately everything that is included in the package deal cannot be an upgrade.
Tbh, I see some value to both sides, so, afaiac, I would look to something similar that has been faqued and use that as a guide.
If you consider Miley Cyrus' enormous testicle, aka orky wrecking ball there may be some common ground.
Miley is a ranged attack (albeit in the assault phase), it has a weapon profile, range, strength (and an ap assigned in the faq) and so is clearly an upgrade that functions as a weapon.
Can she be destroyed as a weapon = no.
If there is something that is closer, then please say so.
Therefore in the absence of a faq, I would default to no.
If your going to use that bastard of a weapon against me and rules lawyer that it can't be destroyed, I'm not going to play you again. Seriously, get a grip guys. You've already got the most powerful codex, no need for extra icing.
How about this. If you use it (and I know you will), it counts as a weapon until the start of your following turn. And can be destroyed until then.
That is a claim, a conclusion, not the reasoning on how you arrive at the point or the rules/examples you base yourself on.
If anything, you'd start from the vehicle type as the chassis and then apply things like armour, propulsion and armament from there.
If anything? Try not to make this up as you go. If anything a base vehicle has an AV and a movement type, and everything else is, in one way or another, and upgrade depending on the vehicle entry. Your specious retention of 'upgrade' as a term isn't nearly enough to win this argument. Certainly not when it relies on an idea of 'stock' that isn't borne out by the rules at all. And certainly certainly not when the 'stock' Eldar chassis is one that the Serpent shield is most obviously an upgrade to.
Stephanius wrote: Regardless of how you evaluate the vehicle upgrade intro, the example upgrades make it quite clear that the BRB considers upgrades to match the "fluff intro" exactly.
Considering that it is impossible to get a tank chassis, a 11/11/10 armour or a serpent shield seperately everything that is included in the package deal cannot be an upgrade.
Blah. Blah blah blah. Blah blah. OK, let me move on to the part where that's not supposed to sound offensive (and it isn't). It was mor ein the way of attention grabbing, since you seem to have missed my last post. The word upgrade isn't used anywhere nearly as uniformly as you need it too in order for your position to actually hold water. The Eldar codex doesn't even have vehicle 'upgrades', it has vehicle wargear. Other codecies have 'upgrades' or not - it isn't a well defined term. And it would have to be in order for you to make the argument your making. To be more specific, you argument fails because it relies on a level of definition of terms that the 40K rules simply don't adhere to (in this instance anyway). Never mind that your position isn't in line with the basic game design (see my previous post).
PapaSoul wrote: But smoke launchers are an upgrade. Or they were to the most recently written codex at that point. UPGRADES are the only thing it applies to. Its kind of in the wording.
I think you should read through the thread first. If you can find an book that allows you to purchase Smoke Launchers then the argument fails. However, no one has provided evidence to that, to the contrary, they have been stock for the vehicles that have them.
IG Hellhound, Taurox, Sentinel. Do not come with Smoke Launchers and can purchase them.
*Tumbleweed*
I noticed this pretty much stopped the "pro destroyed" party in its tracks. I guess this is solved now. Never seen so much clutching at straws :/
The bolded statement is not true any longer, Astra Militarum vehicles only have smoke launchers as default equipment. Does that mean that, as of the AM codex release, this line of logic ceased to affect the rules discussion we're having?
(I'm being kind of a horse's ass here, but it illustrates how inconsistent of a ruleset we have to work with).
So the closest similar vehicle equipment I can find is the monolith portal which says in it's rules specifically that it cannot be destroyed separately. Though this will probably start arguments along the lines of "look at the precedent set by the monolith, this kind of thing can't be destroyed" and "It doesn't say it's immune like the monolith so it must be able to be destroyed". TBH I'm leaning more towards not an option for destroyed these days although it should be from a balance perspective and I can still see an argument for either way.
Fenris-77 wrote: If anything? Try not to make this up as you go. If anything a base vehicle has an AV and a movement type, and everything else is, in one way or another, and upgrade depending on the vehicle entry.
In my opinion, the "upgrade" argument is centred on a vehicle being a simple immobile box. It would have no av and wouldn't even be open-topped until you chop the roof off.
Any change to this box is an upgrade, movement type et al.
Consider the old vehicle design rules, for eg. You start building a vehicle from nothing (except that you know its a vehicle you are building).
Not that it helps, though. In the real world, that makes sense, in rules terms, it doesn't.
What is it that you change when you purchase (that is, pay for or swap) something?
If I change/add to something on a rhino, I have changed a rhino, not a featureless box or a basic space marine vehicle chassis.
If I could change this basic space marine vehicle chassis, I could buy heavy bolter sponsons for the rhino.
Its just as well that can't be done, don't you think?
The upgrade part of the serpent shield simply does not stand, so far, only the weapon designation holds water.
Naw wrote: Not wanting to start a new thread, I'll add it here:
What is your reasoning for allowing the shield's offensive capability to be twin-linked?
My reasoning is that it is treated as a weapon. And since Treated As=Counts as=Is, it is a weapon.
So by that logic, it can be destroyed. Either it can't be destroyed and can't be twin linked, or it can be destroyed and twin linked.
And I've said before it could be destroyed. I have no problem with that (other than the ramifications, iow, is the shield itself gone, or just the firing mechanism?). My group, on the other hand does, so it is played as not being able to be destroyed.
So, I'm going to bring this up because I dont think it has been noted yet.
From the Eldar Codex:
"In its shooting phase, the wave serpent can deactivate its shields to shoot a burst of energy with the following profile (threat this as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward):"
This clearly gives us permission to treat the Shield as a weapon, but only durring the Wave Serpent's shooting phase. We are never given permission to treat the Shield as a weapon durring our opponent's shooting phase, and therefore I don't think it can be destroyed by enemy fire.
By this logic you could still theoretically destroy it, but it would have to be a bad scatter from one of your own blast weapons, or something similar.
extremefreak17 wrote: So, I'm going to bring this up because I dont think it has been noted yet.
From the Eldar Codex:
"In its shooting phase, the wave serpent can deactivate its shields to shoot a burst of energy with the following profile (threat this as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward):"
This clearly gives us permission to treat the Shield as a weapon, but only durring the Wave Serpent's shooting phase. We are never given permission to treat the Shield as a weapon durring our opponent's shooting phase, and therefore I don't think it can be destroyed by enemy fire.
By this logic you could still theoretically destroy it, but it would have to be a bad scatter from one of your own blast weapons, or something similar.
EDIT: spelling and such
I mean, my Leman Russ's battlecannon is only a weapon during its shooting phase, otherwise it is a useless tube hanging off of the tank.
extremefreak17 wrote: So, I'm going to bring this up because I dont think it has been noted yet.
From the Eldar Codex:
"In its shooting phase, the wave serpent can deactivate its shields to shoot a burst of energy with the following profile (threat this as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward):"
This clearly gives us permission to treat the Shield as a weapon, but only durring the Wave Serpent's shooting phase. We are never given permission to treat the Shield as a weapon durring our opponent's shooting phase, and therefore I don't think it can be destroyed by enemy fire.
By this logic you could still theoretically destroy it, but it would have to be a bad scatter from one of your own blast weapons, or something similar.
EDIT: spelling and such
I mean, my Leman Russ's battlecannon is only a weapon during its shooting phase, otherwise it is a useless tube hanging off of the tank.
Not really, the cannon is always a weapon. It is listed as such. The Serpent Shield is not listed anywhere as a weapon.
Except on pg 67 where it tells you that if you deactivate the shield to use it as a weapon that it stays deactivated until the start of its following turn. I read that as it stays as a weapon until its following turn. If it can be a weapon then it can be destroyed like a weapon.
OIIIIIIO wrote: Except on pg 67 where it tells you that if you deactivate the shield to use it as a weapon that it stays deactivated until the start of its following turn. I read that as it stays as a weapon until its following turn. If it can be a weapon then it can be destroyed like a weapon.
This has zero rules support. Staying deactivated has nothing to do with a Weapon Destroyed result. I quote again:
"In its shooting phase...(threat this as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward):"
Where does it say it is treated as a weapon at any time other than its own shooting phase?
MarsNZ wrote: How can you be so by the letter with that rule but ignore
This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons
Keep clutching. I mean, it's not like your FOTM codex still dominates 6 months later.
Because by the letter, the shield is not an upgrade....it is not an optional purchase, and is not available on any other model...this has already been covered. Did you even read the thread?
Also, try not to get your panties in a wad, its just the internet, after all.
extremefreak17 wrote: So, I'm going to bring this up because I dont think it has been noted yet.
From the Eldar Codex:
"In its shooting phase, the wave serpent can deactivate its shields to shoot a burst of energy with the following profile (threat this as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward):"
This clearly gives us permission to treat the Shield as a weapon, but only durring the Wave Serpent's shooting phase. We are never given permission to treat the Shield as a weapon durring our opponent's shooting phase, and therefore I don't think it can be destroyed by enemy fire.
By this logic you could still theoretically destroy it, but it would have to be a bad scatter from one of your own blast weapons, or something similar.
EDIT: spelling and such
I mean, my Leman Russ's battlecannon is only a weapon during its shooting phase, otherwise it is a useless tube hanging off of the tank.
Not really, the cannon is always a weapon. It is listed as such. The Serpent Shield is not listed anywhere as a weapon.
Except where it says it is a weapon, in its rules. You know, the one you yourself said
extremefreak17 wrote: This clearly gives us permission to treat the Shield as a weapon
extremefreak17 wrote: So, I'm going to bring this up because I dont think it has been noted yet.
From the Eldar Codex:
"In its shooting phase, the wave serpent can deactivate its shields to shoot a burst of energy with the following profile (threat this as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward):"
This clearly gives us permission to treat the Shield as a weapon, but only durring the Wave Serpent's shooting phase. We are never given permission to treat the Shield as a weapon durring our opponent's shooting phase, and therefore I don't think it can be destroyed by enemy fire.
By this logic you could still theoretically destroy it, but it would have to be a bad scatter from one of your own blast weapons, or something similar.
EDIT: spelling and such
I mean, my Leman Russ's battlecannon is only a weapon during its shooting phase, otherwise it is a useless tube hanging off of the tank.
Not really, the cannon is always a weapon. It is listed as such. The Serpent Shield is not listed anywhere as a weapon.
Except where it says it is a weapon, in its rules. You know, the one you yourself said
extremefreak17 wrote: This clearly gives us permission to treat the Shield as a weapon
"In its shooting phase..." This is the only time we are given permission to treat it as a weapon. If it did not have those first four words, it would be a different story, but looks like a clear restriction to me.
Because by the letter, the shield is not an upgrade....it is not an optional purchase, and is not available on any other model...this has already been covered.
I don't think it has been covered though. YMDC seems to so often revert immediately to a grammar exercise and that's not always the right tool for the job. The dictionary definition of upgrade doesn't matter in the least here, what matters is how the word or rule is used in the game.
Some of the newer books don't use the phrase upgrade at all (like the Eldar 'dex), they just have vehicle equipment. Where that phrase is used is in the main rules, and in codexes that refer to the vehicle equipment in those rules (some of them anyway. In the new Guard Codex thet items from that upgrade list in the main rules are actually referred to simply as vehicle equipment where they are included in the Astra Militarum Vehicle Equipment list - no mention of the word upgrade at all.. On the other hand the Tempestus Codex goes back to referring to the 'upgrades' from the main book and the new stuff. Anyway, the point is that the word 'upgrade' isn't used to identify vehicle equipment purchased, shall we say, after market, but rather to identify the basic list of vehicle equipment listed in the main rules. In none of the codexes is there any kind of differentiation made between vehicle equipment that could be purchased, and equipment that only came contained in the point cost of specific vehicles - it's all simply listed as vehicle equipment.
The word 'upgrade' simply isn't used by GW in a consistent or rigorous enough way to be the lynch-pin of this argument.
The "in it's shooting phase" argument for the "burst of energy" not being a weapon is a complete non-starter. All that rule really says is "when you're allowed to shoot, you can shoot it with the following rules..." and it's written in pretty standard GW language. There's nothing there to suggest that's some kind of crazy unique rule that turns into a disappearing-reappearing weapon. That's what people are getting at with the cracks about Leman Russ barrels - it's the nature of GWs rules to tell you what the rules are for things according to when they can be used, and to say that something may be treated like a weapon in the shooting phase isn't the same as saying it may not be treated like a weapon in any other phase. I know there's going to me a mini-avalanche of people getting up their high horse about permissive rules systems after what I just wrote, but I really don't think this is the place for that particular argument, not when the Weapon Destroyed rules take that very language into account.
OIIIIIIO wrote: Except on pg 67 where it tells you that if you deactivate the shield to use it as a weapon that it stays deactivated until the start of its following turn. I read that as it stays as a weapon until its following turn. If it can be a weapon then it can be destroyed like a weapon.
This has zero rules support. Staying deactivated has nothing to do with a Weapon Destroyed result. I quote again:
"In its shooting phase...(threat this as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward):"
Where does it say it is treated as a weapon at any time other than its own shooting phase?
Where does it say Weapon Destroyed only works if the wargear is currently functioning as a weapon?
"In its Shooting phase"? There we have it, you can't shoot with it at all. Players have Shooting phases, not Wave Serpent
These arguments _always_ center around the wording, as Fenris wrote. Different authors, lazy editing, not adhering to previous syntax. On top of that the failure to address these issues later with FAQ's.
For me this is clear, based on the fact that it can be used as a weapon -> the shield is destructable until "its next Shooting phase".
extremefreak17 wrote: So, I'm going to bring this up because I dont think it has been noted yet.
From the Eldar Codex:
"In its shooting phase, the wave serpent can deactivate its shields to shoot a burst of energy with the following profile (threat this as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward):"
This clearly gives us permission to treat the Shield as a weapon, but only durring the Wave Serpent's shooting phase. We are never given permission to treat the Shield as a weapon durring our opponent's shooting phase, and therefore I don't think it can be destroyed by enemy fire.
By this logic you could still theoretically destroy it, but it would have to be a bad scatter from one of your own blast weapons, or something similar.
EDIT: spelling and such
I mean, my Leman Russ's battlecannon is only a weapon during its shooting phase, otherwise it is a useless tube hanging off of the tank.
Not really, the cannon is always a weapon. It is listed as such. The Serpent Shield is not listed anywhere as a weapon.
Except where it says it is a weapon, in its rules. You know, the one you yourself said
extremefreak17 wrote: This clearly gives us permission to treat the Shield as a weapon
"In its shooting phase..." This is the only time we are given permission to treat it as a weapon. If it did not have those first four words, it would be a different story, but looks like a clear restriction to me.
You would be hard pressed to find ANY weapon that functions in any phase other than the shooting phase.
extremefreak17 wrote: So, I'm going to bring this up because I dont think it has been noted yet.
From the Eldar Codex:
"In its shooting phase, the wave serpent can deactivate its shields to shoot a burst of energy with the following profile (threat this as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward):"
This clearly gives us permission to treat the Shield as a weapon, but only durring the Wave Serpent's shooting phase. We are never given permission to treat the Shield as a weapon durring our opponent's shooting phase, and therefore I don't think it can be destroyed by enemy fire.
By this logic you could still theoretically destroy it, but it would have to be a bad scatter from one of your own blast weapons, or something similar.
EDIT: spelling and such
I mean, my Leman Russ's battlecannon is only a weapon during its shooting phase, otherwise it is a useless tube hanging off of the tank.
Not really, the cannon is always a weapon. It is listed as such. The Serpent Shield is not listed anywhere as a weapon.
Except where it says it is a weapon, in its rules. You know, the one you yourself said
extremefreak17 wrote: This clearly gives us permission to treat the Shield as a weapon
"In its shooting phase..." This is the only time we are given permission to treat it as a weapon. If it did not have those first four words, it would be a different story, but looks like a clear restriction to me.
You would be hard pressed to find ANY weapon that functions in any phase other than the shooting phase.
extremefreak17 wrote: So, I'm going to bring this up because I dont think it has been noted yet.
From the Eldar Codex:
"In its shooting phase, the wave serpent can deactivate its shields to shoot a burst of energy with the following profile (threat this as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward):"
This clearly gives us permission to treat the Shield as a weapon, but only durring the Wave Serpent's shooting phase. We are never given permission to treat the Shield as a weapon durring our opponent's shooting phase, and therefore I don't think it can be destroyed by enemy fire.
By this logic you could still theoretically destroy it, but it would have to be a bad scatter from one of your own blast weapons, or something similar.
EDIT: spelling and such
I mean, my Leman Russ's battlecannon is only a weapon during its shooting phase, otherwise it is a useless tube hanging off of the tank.
Not really, the cannon is always a weapon. It is listed as such. The Serpent Shield is not listed anywhere as a weapon.
Except where it says it is a weapon, in its rules. You know, the one you yourself said
extremefreak17 wrote: This clearly gives us permission to treat the Shield as a weapon
"In its shooting phase..." This is the only time we are given permission to treat it as a weapon. If it did not have those first four words, it would be a different story, but looks like a clear restriction to me.
You would be hard pressed to find ANY weapon that functions in any phase other than the shooting phase.
Overwatch........
Pg 21 says that overwatch is resolved like a normal shooting attack. Crazy how that works.
extremefreak17 wrote: So, I'm going to bring this up because I dont think it has been noted yet.
From the Eldar Codex:
"In its shooting phase, the wave serpent can deactivate its shields to shoot a burst of energy with the following profile (threat this as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward):"
This clearly gives us permission to treat the Shield as a weapon, but only durring the Wave Serpent's shooting phase. We are never given permission to treat the Shield as a weapon durring our opponent's shooting phase, and therefore I don't think it can be destroyed by enemy fire.
By this logic you could still theoretically destroy it, but it would have to be a bad scatter from one of your own blast weapons, or something similar.
EDIT: spelling and such
I mean, my Leman Russ's battlecannon is only a weapon during its shooting phase, otherwise it is a useless tube hanging off of the tank.
Not really, the cannon is always a weapon. It is listed as such. The Serpent Shield is not listed anywhere as a weapon.
Except where it says it is a weapon, in its rules. You know, the one you yourself said
extremefreak17 wrote: This clearly gives us permission to treat the Shield as a weapon
"In its shooting phase..." This is the only time we are given permission to treat it as a weapon. If it did not have those first four words, it would be a different story, but looks like a clear restriction to me.
You would be hard pressed to find ANY weapon that functions in any phase other than the shooting phase.
Overwatch........
And other than Walkers and Longstrike's Hammerhead, what vehicle can fire Overwatch?
Happyjew wrote: [And other than Walkers and Longstrike's Hammerhead, what vehicle can fire Overwatch?
How about testing the water, think through what would happen if a war walker were equipped with a serpent shield.
Hello Bara, didn't think you did 40k any more (ruffian4/jubilex).
Don't some Tau Signature system say they work during your shooting phase, and then specifiably exclude overwatch?
The problem is that almost every reference to shooting weapons call out the shooting phase.
For example
Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase...
...if a model has more than one Shooting weapon, he must choose which one to shoot - he cannot fire both in the same Shooting phase.
A model with a multi-tracker can fire an additional weapon in each Shooting phase.
That means if we take "Shooting phase" to mean only the Shooting phase, then a 10-man Tac squad can fire 10 bolters, 10 bolt pistols and throw 10 grenades during overwatch, as the restrictions on those only apply to the shooting phase.
