Wave Serpent Shield and weapon destroyed results

[vahouth]

Please forgive me if this has already been sorted out, but I couldn't find anything about it here.

So, what do you guys think? 

Can a Wave Serpent's shield that has been used as a weapon, count as such when the weapon destroyed result shows up in a penetrating roll?

Food for thought. :)

[Fibonacci]

So far I think it's cover well in your post on Warseer.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?406542-Wave-Serpent-s-Shield-and-weapon-destroyed-results

[Captain Coolpants]

Well tournaments rule it as it can't be destroyed, plus various ork vehicle upgrades like death rollas can't be destroyed, even though it works like a weapon, and I'm sure there are other things.

[Fibonacci]

Well tournaments rule it as it can't be destroyed,

Not always.

 

In the ITC FAQ (Bay Area Open) they say it can be destroyed.

"A Wave Serpent’s Serpent Shield is a weapon and may be destroyed by a Weapon Destroyed result on the vehicle damage chart. Note that this destroys both the Serpent Shield’s offensive and defensive abilities."

 

Meanwhile, the NOVA Open's 2015 FAQ draft says differently.

"- The Wave Serpent’s Serpent Shield may not be removed due to a Weapon Destroyed result."

 

 

Invoking tournament ruling is not much help there at all. Well, unless your local has already agreed to follow one of those.

[Acebaur]

It's not a weapon. It's not listed under the "Ranged Weapon" section nor in the weapon section in the reference part in the back. It is clearly listed as Vehicle Equipment which cannot be destroyed by a weapon destroyed result. 

 

And before someone cites the Hunter Killer as being able to destroyed, the BRB specifically says that it is a weapon

[Kristoff]

It's not a weapon. It's not listed under the "Ranged Weapon" section nor in the weapon section in the reference part in the back. It is clearly listed as Vehicle Equipment which cannot be destroyed by a weapon destroyed result. 

 

And before someone cites the Hunter Killer as being able to destroyed, the BRB specifically says that it is a weapon

It shoots like a weapon. It has the profile of a weapon. It is able to be chosen as a weapon in the Shooting Phase.

 

It must be a daemon, BURN IT! BURN IT!

[Fibonacci]

It's not a weapon.

Codex: Eldar pg 67

"treat this as a hull-mounted weapon"

 

 

FWIW, I don't think there is a definitive answer.

[Acebaur]

 

It's not a weapon.

Codex: Eldar pg 67

"treat this as a hull-mounted weapon"

 

 

FWIW, I don't think there is a definitive answer.

 

 

You can't cherry pick that sentence out of it's paragraph. That paragraph starts out with "In its Shooting Phase the Wave Serpent can deactivate..." So only in the Eldar Shooting phase does it count as a weapon and only if the Eldar player chooses it to be. I'm not aware of any abilities that cause a weapon destroyed result on your own shooting phase. At any other time it's simply wargear

 

You're also leaving off the end of that sentence where is says "Treat this as a hull mounted weapon pointing forward"  That sentence is there to tell you where the shield can be fired from not that it is a weapon eligible for Weapon Destroyed Results. 

[vahouth]

IMHO the fact that the shield remains inactive during the enemy's shooting phase, is an indication that it still counts as a weapon.

[Acebaur]

IMHO the fact that the shield remains inactive during the enemy's shooting phase, is an indication that it still counts as a weapon.

 

No, it's an indication that GW wanted Eldar players to have to make a choice between using the shield defensively or offensively. Which as we all know failed miserably because every Eldar player I know shoots the thing every turn regardless. 

[vahouth]

That too. ;)

Both our "interpretations" are not mutually exclusive.

[Acebaur]

You're grasping at straws here. If it were a weapon it would be listed under the ranged weapon profiles and also in profiles list at the back. It says that it is treated as a hull mounted weapon when firing. The Weapon Destroyed result says that "vehicle upgrades that are weapons" not vehicle upgrades that are treated as weapons only in the owning players shooting phase and only if he chooses so. 

 

I can't explain this any clearer so if you still aren't convinced you will just have to argue with any eldar opponents you play against and good luck getting them agree to that. ;)

[Kristoff]

You're grasping at straws here. If it were a weapon it would be listed under the ranged weapon profiles and also in profiles list at the back. It says that it is treated as a hull mounted weapon when firing. The Weapon Destroyed result says that "vehicle upgrades that are weapons" not vehicle upgrades that are treated as weapons only in the owning players shooting phase and only if he chooses so.

I can't explain this any clearer so if you still aren't convinced you will just have to argue with any eldar opponents you play against and good luck getting them agree to that.

And yet, to quote myself from above, "It shoots like a weapon. It has the profile of a weapon. It is able to be chosen as a weapon in the Shooting Phase." Vehicle upgrades can still count as a weapon for Weapon Destroyed, unfortunately, that part has never been really defined. Just because it is listed elsewhere does not stop it from being a weapon. Its primary intended purpose IS defensive, but it does have an offensive capacity which the developers considered secondary, so it is listed under Vehicle Equipment as a result.

P.S.: Can someone provide a rule where a wargear listed with a weapon profile, but not listed with the weapons does not count for Weapon Destroyed?

[Acebaur]

By that reasoning a Witchfire psychic power on a Librarian Dreanought is eligible for weapon destroyed. 

 

I cannot think of another example of a piece of wargear like this. 

[Jolemai]

You're grasping at straws here. If it were a weapon it would be listed under the ranged weapon profiles and also in profiles list at the back. It says that it is treated as a hull mounted weapon when firing. The Weapon Destroyed result says that "vehicle upgrades that are weapons" not vehicle upgrades that are treated as weapons only in the owning players shooting phase and only if he chooses so.

I can't explain this any clearer so if you still aren't convinced you will just have to argue with any eldar opponents you play against and good luck getting them agree to that.

And yet, to quote myself from above, "It shoots like a weapon. It has the profile of a weapon. It is able to be chosen as a weapon in the Shooting Phase." Vehicle upgrades can still count as a weapon for Weapon Destroyed, unfortunately, that part has never been really defined. Just because it is listed elsewhere does not stop it from being a weapon. Its primary intended purpose IS defensive, but it does have an offensive capacity which the developers considered secondary, so it is listed under Vehicle Equipment as a result.

P.S.: Can someone provide a rule where a wargear listed with a weapon profile, but not listed with the weapons does not count for Weapon Destroyed?

Krak and Frag Grendes have ranged weapon profiles but can not be switched out in favour of a different weapon during list creation because they are wargear and not weapons.

By that reasoning a Witchfire psychic power on a Librarian Dreanought is eligible for weapon destroyed.

I cannot think of another example of a piece of wargear like this.

For what it's worth, if a Furioso Librarian Dreadnought suffers an Immobilised result, it still can't move even if it manifests the Wings of Sanguinius power.

[Kristoff]

By that reasoning a Witchfire psychic power on a Librarian Dreanought is eligible for weapon destroyed. 

 

I cannot think of another example of a piece of wargear like this.

Psyker powers are not Wargear, though.

 

Krak and Frag Grendes have ranged weapon profiles but can not be switched out in favour of a different weapon during list creation because they are wargear and not weapons.

I know it's standard convention, but still the question comes, where does it say that? Also, which Vehicle carries them?

 

Keep in mind every regular weapon is a piece of Wargear, but not all Wargear are weapons. How do we define what is a Weapon? The only thing, currently, that I know of is the profile.

[Acebaur]

Ironclads can have defensive and offensive grenades in the form of the Ironclad Assault Launchers.

 

 

I know it's standard convention, but still the question comes, where does it say that?

 

 

Frag and Krak are listed under "Special Issue Wargear" 

[Kristoff]

Ironclads can have defensive and offensive grenades in the form of the Ironclad Assault Launchers.

Not the codex Ironclad Assault Launchers. There is no weapon profile associated with them. It just provides charge bonuses like Assault and Defensive Grenades.

 

 

I know it's standard convention, but still the question comes, where does it say that?

 

Frag and Krak are listed under "Special Issue Wargear"

Not the question. Where does it say that the grenades are not Weapons?

 

Or, to put it another way, where does the rulebook define what is and is not a Weapon?

 

To my knowledge, a Weapon is defined by having a Weapon's profile.

[ShinyRhino]

 

Or, to put it another way, where does the rulebook define what is and is not a Weapon?

 

 

Trick question, since the rulebook never defines "weapon." The closest you get is the Weapons section, which says "every weapon has a profile..." but that pages does NOT say "every item with a profile is a weapon." If that were true, as others have said, every witchfire power would be a weapon.

[Acebaur]

My apologies, I was thinking of the last C:SM in which it actually said that Ironclads had counted as having both types of grenades. 

 

 

Regardless of the grenades, nothing has changed the fact that the entire paragraph in which it describes how the shield works as a gun says "In the shooting phase..." At the most you could say that it is a weapon during the Eldar shooting phase but at all other times it is wargear.  

 

A similar scenario involves the Cenobyte Servitors from the 4th BT codex. They are pieces of wargear, but they have a profile like a unit does. Yet because they are simply wargear they did not count for being part of the unit in terms of combat res or size of the unit in regards to morale checks. 

[Captain Coolpants]

That fact that it says "#treat# as a hull mounted weapon firing forward" this means that ONLY when you fire it in your shooting phase it would be a weapon, and the fact it's (supposedly) main ability is the sheild, and the shooting is its secondary ability to use instead of the default sheild ability, it's pretty obvious that it's not a weapon. Just a peice of excellent wargear with a special rule.

 

 

But I'm very confident that in the future, it'll be made a payable upgrade or will become D3 shots or something.

[Hellios]

Mon-Keigh, always complaining.

 

If it makes you feel better, if you had the ability to control an enemy vehicle for a shooting phase (I think there is, at least, an apocalypse formation that does this) I would allow you to fire the Shield as a weapon.

[Spacefrisian]

You can destroy it, but it stsil keeps the shield, and that piece of gear allows it to be used as a shooting attack, oh joy these circle running.