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

I'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.

6" would make more sense, but I just can't believe they'd let such a glaring typo in and NOT give us a hotfix FAQ immediately.

Of course, the comma in the section of the FMC entry in the BRB is still missing, so they still can't have Relentless or Smash, so what do I know?

Supposedly we are going to get the great FAQ flood soon. Hopefully it will solve many of these glaring typos and questions.

I anticipate it will be around 6.5e or "Revised 6e" is released.

Alternatively this emergency weapon should maybe be one shot.....

Or it could be d6+1 s7 autohits at ini 10 in the first round of melee.

You could make them a bit like tau flechette dischargers.

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. :-)

I say it can't as it is not listed as a weapon.

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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

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.

 Stephanius wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

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...

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.

 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. ;-]

 Stephanius wrote:

 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?

 Stephanius wrote:

 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?

 Nilok wrote:

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?

Not sure if that word helps your argument :/

The definition of a "Vehicle Upgrade" is only shown by its examples, which are both IOM vehicle wargear, one you purchase and one that comes stock.

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

I know it was stupid, I was being sarcastic in my whole message.

If it acts as a weapon then it must be a weapon. To further illustrate it, you want to TL it, too.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

 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.