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

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.

I went with Other.

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.

It is only fired as a weapon in your shooting phase, so it is only a weapon for that brief moment in time, and then it is standard war gear again.

@ Guilldog, insaniak, and danny1995:

So it is not a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon?

 Happyjew wrote:
@ Guilldog, insaniak, and danny1995:

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.

danny1995 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
@ Guilldog, insaniak, and danny1995:

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.

danny1995 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
@ Guilldog, insaniak, and danny1995:

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.

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.

What exactly defines a weapon in this case?

Is it something under the "weapons" heading in the wargear section?

Something with a profile?

I say "not destroyed" mostly because I play Eldar.

Who wants to nerf one of their army's most effective pieces of wargear?

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.

 insaniak wrote:

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 -.-)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


something under the "weapons" heading in the wargear section?

This is how we play.

"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?

 Stephanius wrote:

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.

Voted yes.

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.

IG Sentinels.

And IMO it is a weapon.

 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.