Switch Theme:

Can Serpent Shields be destroyed with Weapon Destroyed results?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Can a Weapon Destroyed result destroy a Serpent Shield?
Yes, and it will destroy the Shield in its entirety.
Yes, but it will only destroy the weapon portion of the Serpent Shield.
No, it cannot be destroyed by a Weapon Destroyed result.
Other/confused/no opinion

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Buffalo, NY

I asked because I never see them used, so I had no idea off-hand who (if anyone) did not have them.

Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut



Orlando

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.

If you dont short hand your list, Im not reading it.
Example: Assault Intercessors- x5 -Thunder hammer and plasma pistol on sgt.
or Assault Terminators 3xTH/SS, 2xLCs
For the love of God, GW, get rid of reroll mechanics. ALL OF THEM! 
   
Made in br
Fireknife Shas'el




Lisbon, Portugal

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/29 12:26:19


AI & BFG: / BMG: Mr. Freeze, Deathstroke / Battletech: SR, OWA / Fallout Factions: BoS / HGB: Caprice / Malifaux: Arcanists, Guild, Outcasts / MCP: Mutants / SAGA: Ordensstaat / SW Legion: CIS / WWX: Union

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"FW is unbalanced and going to ruin tournaments."
"Name one where it did that."
"IT JUST DOES OKAY!"

 Shadenuat wrote:
Voted Astra Militarum for a chance for them to get nerfed instead of my own army.
 
   
Made in gb
Tough Tyrant Guard





SHE-FI-ELD

So... wasn't mentioned on the other thread but assume you play it's not eligible to receive twin linked rule either.

It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.

Tactical objectives are fantastic 
   
Made in br
Fireknife Shas'el




Lisbon, Portugal

 Nem wrote:
So... wasn't mentioned on the other thread but assume you play it's not eligible to receive twin linked rule either.


I assume you can. Laserlock says that all weapons yet to fire become twin-linked; as the SS has yet to fire after Scatter laser, I'd give it the TL.

AI & BFG: / BMG: Mr. Freeze, Deathstroke / Battletech: SR, OWA / Fallout Factions: BoS / HGB: Caprice / Malifaux: Arcanists, Guild, Outcasts / MCP: Mutants / SAGA: Ordensstaat / SW Legion: CIS / WWX: Union

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"FW is unbalanced and going to ruin tournaments."
"Name one where it did that."
"IT JUST DOES OKAY!"

 Shadenuat wrote:
Voted Astra Militarum for a chance for them to get nerfed instead of my own army.
 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Buffalo, NY

 Nem wrote:
So... wasn't mentioned on the other thread but assume you play it's not eligible to receive twin linked rule either.


On the assumption it is not eligible to be TL by Scatter Laser, then I would say no, it cannot be destroyed.

Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia 
   
Made in au
Tea-Kettle of Blood




Adelaide, South Australia

Yes, it functions as a weapon and can be made Twin-Linked from Laser Lock.

 Ailaros wrote:
You know what really bugs me? When my opponent, before they show up at the FLGS smears themselves in peanut butter and then makes blood sacrifices to Ashterai by slitting the throat of three male chickens and then smears the spatter pattern into the peanut butter to engrave sacred symbols into their chest and upper arms.
I have a peanut allergy. It's really inconsiderate.

"Long ago in a distant land, I, M'kar, the shape-shifting Master of Chaos, unleashed an unspeakable evil! But a foolish Grey Knight warrior wielding a magic sword stepped forth to oppose me. Before the final blow was struck, I tore open a portal in space and flung him into the Warp, where my evil is law! Now the fool seeks to return to real-space, and undo the evil that is Chaos!" 
   
Made in fi
Longtime Dakkanaut




Dear Eldar,

Please do not come twin-linking your shield next time then as only weapons can be affected.

Thank you.
   
Made in au
Tea-Kettle of Blood




Adelaide, South Australia

"Treat this as a hull-mounted weapon..."

 Ailaros wrote:
You know what really bugs me? When my opponent, before they show up at the FLGS smears themselves in peanut butter and then makes blood sacrifices to Ashterai by slitting the throat of three male chickens and then smears the spatter pattern into the peanut butter to engrave sacred symbols into their chest and upper arms.
I have a peanut allergy. It's really inconsiderate.

"Long ago in a distant land, I, M'kar, the shape-shifting Master of Chaos, unleashed an unspeakable evil! But a foolish Grey Knight warrior wielding a magic sword stepped forth to oppose me. Before the final blow was struck, I tore open a portal in space and flung him into the Warp, where my evil is law! Now the fool seeks to return to real-space, and undo the evil that is Chaos!" 
   
Made in gb
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





 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.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210/280981.page

 insaniak wrote:
Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
 
   
Made in au
Tea-Kettle of Blood




Adelaide, South Australia

 Steve steveson wrote:
 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"


 Ailaros wrote:
You know what really bugs me? When my opponent, before they show up at the FLGS smears themselves in peanut butter and then makes blood sacrifices to Ashterai by slitting the throat of three male chickens and then smears the spatter pattern into the peanut butter to engrave sacred symbols into their chest and upper arms.
I have a peanut allergy. It's really inconsiderate.

"Long ago in a distant land, I, M'kar, the shape-shifting Master of Chaos, unleashed an unspeakable evil! But a foolish Grey Knight warrior wielding a magic sword stepped forth to oppose me. Before the final blow was struck, I tore open a portal in space and flung him into the Warp, where my evil is law! Now the fool seeks to return to real-space, and undo the evil that is Chaos!" 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Minneapolis, MN

 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.
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 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.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210/280981.page

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.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

[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?
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut






 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/29 20:29:35


   
Made in us
Hellish Haemonculus






Boskydell, IL

 Stephanius wrote:

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.

Welcome to the Freakshow!

(Leadership-shenanigans for Eldar of all types.) 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 Jimsolo wrote:
 Stephanius wrote:

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.
   
Made in us
Hellish Haemonculus






Boskydell, IL

Murrdox wrote:
 Jimsolo wrote:
 Stephanius wrote:

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.

Welcome to the Freakshow!

(Leadership-shenanigans for Eldar of all types.) 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Jimsolo wrote:
 Stephanius wrote:

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.

Murrdox wrote:
 Jimsolo wrote:
 Stephanius wrote:

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.

   
Made in us
Hellish Haemonculus






Boskydell, IL

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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/30 06:04:54


Welcome to the Freakshow!

(Leadership-shenanigans for Eldar of all types.) 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut






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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/30 06:46:38


   
Made in au
Tea-Kettle of Blood




Adelaide, South Australia

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.

Both seem like actual RAW arguments to me.

 Ailaros wrote:
You know what really bugs me? When my opponent, before they show up at the FLGS smears themselves in peanut butter and then makes blood sacrifices to Ashterai by slitting the throat of three male chickens and then smears the spatter pattern into the peanut butter to engrave sacred symbols into their chest and upper arms.
I have a peanut allergy. It's really inconsiderate.

"Long ago in a distant land, I, M'kar, the shape-shifting Master of Chaos, unleashed an unspeakable evil! But a foolish Grey Knight warrior wielding a magic sword stepped forth to oppose me. Before the final blow was struck, I tore open a portal in space and flung him into the Warp, where my evil is law! Now the fool seeks to return to real-space, and undo the evil that is Chaos!" 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 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.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 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.

   
Made in gb
Noise Marine Terminator with Sonic Blaster





Melbourne

 Stephanius wrote:
not a weapon


It doesn't need to be a weapon.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/30 08:28:03


Ex-Mantic Rules Committees: Kings of War, Warpath
"The Emperor is obviously not a dictator, he's a couch."
Starbuck: "Why can't we use the starboard launch bays?"
Engineer: "Because it's a gift shop!" 
   
Made in gb
Tough Tyrant Guard





SHE-FI-ELD

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.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/04/30 09:02:06


It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.

Tactical objectives are fantastic 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Baragash wrote:
 Stephanius wrote:
not a weapon


It doesn't need to be a weapon.


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.

   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Buffalo, NY

 Stephanius wrote:
 Baragash wrote:
 Stephanius wrote:
not a weapon


It doesn't need to be a weapon.


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.

Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Happyjew wrote:
 Stephanius wrote:
 Baragash wrote:
 Stephanius wrote:
not a weapon


It doesn't need to be a weapon.


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.

   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Everyone knows the serpentshield has a typo in it anyway...
It is supposed to be 6", not 60".
See the issues one extra zero can cause!

   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: