skyray ruling by GW - Warhammer 40K Fantasy
 

Welcome to Librarium Online!

Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!

Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!


Register Now!

User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 46
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    michigan, kalamazoo
    Age
    40
    Posts
    197
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    -6 (x0)

    skyray ruling by GW

    my local gaming club was having the issue with the does a weapon destroyed remove 1 or all seekers off a tau vehicle (noy just the skyray). well here is the ruling from "sanchez" at GW

    1. GW clearly defines each seeker missle in the description as a single shot weapon. as indicated by the profile HEAVY 1. so in short just one missle is removed

    2. the line in the description "may fire one or both in a turn" should say 1 or 2, NOT 1 or all its missles in a turn.

    3.markerlights are eligible for weapon destroyed results. <--- no reason given for this ruling.

    well there you go. thats the rulings given to my club president from the gw rep.


  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    The deep down truth Rikimaru's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    York
    Age
    51
    Posts
    5,714
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    724 (x8)

    Quote Originally Posted by dragon252 View Post

    3.markerlights are eligible for weapon destroyed results. <--- no reason given for this ruling.

    well there you go. thats the rulings given to my club president from the gw rep.
    What a load of crap, markerlights have no strength, the 40K rule book says clearly that for a weapon to be eligible for weapon destroyed results it has to be strength 4 or higher, who is this Sanchez dude anyway
    1984

  4. #3
    Member Fox3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    119
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    13 (x1)

    Quote Originally Posted by dragon252 View Post

    3.markerlights are eligible for weapon destroyed results. <--- no reason given for this ruling.
    silliness....

    It has been my experience recently that GW "reps" aren't really any more entitled than us (meaning the people of LO) for rules interpretation. I have a friend who has argued his point successfully and overturned a "ruling" many times. I doubt they have a secret FAQ that only the reps get to see.
    "To follow any path other than the Tau'va is to doom us all. Only together and with courage and discipline shall we stand victorious. Fight with fire and courage and nothing can stand against us."

    - Commander Shadowsun

  5. #4
    Junior Member gimmefour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    near Philadelphia, PA, USA
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    7 (x1)

    IMHO, the "ruling: that seeker missiles count toward an armanent destroyed doesn't make much sense at all. Seeker missiles aren't a weapon, they are ammunition for a weapon. Further, they are upgrades for vehicles, not weapons. Just think, same rule would apply to SMs and their annoying HK missiles.

    I suppose it makes sense to say that the markerlight on a skyray is its "strength 8" weapon, since it is used to fire the ammunition (i.e. the seekers.)
    "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or of the one . . . unless the one is me." -- O'Shova


  6. #5
    Gone LittleBlueMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Across the street.
    Posts
    1,286
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    3 (x3)

    Quote Originally Posted by dragon252 View Post
    2. the line in the description "may fire one or both in a turn" should say 1 or 2, NOT 1 or all its missles in a turn.
    umm, both implies a pair, as in two, and not all. This isn't loose like a "few", "both" only applies to two things, not one and not three or more. So it makes sense.
    Turtles For the Turtle God!
    Shells For the Shell Throne!

  7. #6
    The deep down truth Rikimaru's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    York
    Age
    51
    Posts
    5,714
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    724 (x8)

    Quote Originally Posted by gimmefour View Post
    IMHO, the "ruling: that seeker missiles count toward an armanent destroyed doesn't make much sense at all. Seeker missiles aren't a weapon, they are ammunition for a weapon. Further, they are upgrades for vehicles, not weapons. Just think, same rule would apply to SMs and their annoying HK missiles.

    I suppose it makes sense to say that the markerlight on a skyray is its "strength 8" weapon, since it is used to fire the ammunition (i.e. the seekers.)
    A markerlight is not used to fire seekers, it is used to mark the target, the skyray fires the weapon in that it psychically releases the missile, Markerlights are in effect glorified sights.

    Think of it this way if the turret missile release system malfunctioned the ML's could call a missile all day and it would make no difference they ain't gonna get one in reply, because the skyray launches the ML's not the ML itself.

    I know what your trying to say but a ML can guide hits for any tau unit so an XV8 could use the skyrays ML's to guide his CIB which is only strength 3, whats the strength of the ML then 3 or 8.

    The ML has no strength period, so it cannot be removed by armament destroyed results, in fact its designation as a weapon is irrelevant in regards to damage rolls, even if a player 'wanted' to take of a ML rather than his missiles he couldn't.
    1984

  8. #7
    Advocatus Diaboli Rork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Prowling LO, looking for fresh meat.
    Posts
    4,571
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    476 (x8)

    Unless you've got in on a FAQ from GW, don't believe it. Ironically GW staff seem to lose the ability to read the rulebooks once they've joined the company.

    Seeker missiles aren't a weapon, they are ammunition for a weapon. Further, they are upgrades for vehicles, not weapons. Just think, same rule would apply to SMs and their annoying HK missiles.
    It is a weapon, though. I'm not aware of any passage that says you can't destroy weapons bought as an upgrade (The game doesn't make any distinction between "ammo" and "guns" - there are only "weapons"). The rules for the HK says it "counts as an additional main weapon".

    It is a grey area though - Blowing one missile off at a time sounds completely daft, and with no specific "Seeker missile launcher" blowing them all off doesn't seem valid either.

    (You just have to play it as you see fit. In the case of the skyray I see no satisfactory answer)
    Last edited by Rork; May 15th, 2007 at 10:11.


    Having an army and not owning a rulebook is like owning a car with no steering wheel.

    Quote Originally Posted by amishcellphone
    <3 rork. He does all the arguing so I don't have to.

  9. #8
    The deep down truth Rikimaru's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    York
    Age
    51
    Posts
    5,714
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    724 (x8)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rork View Post
    Unless you've got in on a FAQ from GW, don't believe it. Ironically GW staff seem to lose the ability to read the rulebooks once they've joined the company.



    It is a weapon, though. I'm not aware of any passage that says you can't destroy weapons bought as an upgrade (The game doesn't make any distinction between "ammo" and "guns" - there are only "weapons"). The rules for the HK says it "counts as an additional main weapon".

    It is a grey area though - Blowing one missile off at a time sounds completely daft, and with no specific "Seeker missile launcher" blowing them all off doesn't seem valid either.

    (You just have to play it as you see fit. In the case of the skyray I see no satisfactory answer)
    Why is it daft to take one seeker at a time? the same could apply to any tank with a turret, how realistic is it going to be that a hit could destroy a battle cannon outright yet leave a heavy stubber intact, the skyray is a turret vehicle, the turret mounts weapons (in this case seekers), to remove all the seekers you would have to destroy the turret and as far as I know there is no 'turret removed' result in the damage tables.

    The problem I see with seekers on other vehicles is it says 'the vehicles weapons' this implies weapons under the vehicles control, all other list vehicle weapon upgrades are controlled by the vehicle they are mounted on and use their BS.

    The seeker is totally different it is not aimed or selected for firing by the vehicle carrying them, they are totally remote so they cannot be classed as a vehicles weapon because they have no offensive or defensive value to the vehicle carrying them, they are for all intents and purposes just extra weight until a ML calls them.
    I fully and totally believe that a weapon has to be vehicle controlled (I/E using its own BS) for it to be eligible for an armament destroyed result, but thats just my opinion.

    I even remember GW saying in a previous FAQ that seekers are not eligible for armament destroyed results.
    1984

  10. #9
    Senior Member ZenGamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Eastern PA, USA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    744
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    137 (x3)

    Riki, I think Rork meant that it would be silly for the Tau player's opponent to bother taking off one missile at a time, not that it is silly for him not to be able to.

    And I agree, I would probably take off the burst cannons before I bothered with the Seekers if I were playing against the Tau.
    -Thread Killer Bryan
    Tyranid Hive Fleet Typhoeus
    T'au Empire, Bork'an Sept

  11. #10
    Advocatus Diaboli Rork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Prowling LO, looking for fresh meat.
    Posts
    4,571
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    476 (x8)

    Quote Originally Posted by rikimaru View Post
    Why is it daft to take one seeker at a time? the same could apply to any tank with a turret, how realistic is it going to be that a hit could destroy a battle cannon outright yet leave a heavy stubber intact, the skyray is a turret vehicle, the turret mounts weapons (in this case seekers), to remove all the seekers you would have to destroy the turret and as far as I know there is no 'turret removed' result in the damage tables.
    It is possible - you don't have to make a gun explode to stop it operating. If the breach door gets jammed (bending the barrel, or whatever) the gun is functionally useless too. Blowing off a missile sounds a teeny bit accurate and remarkably light in terms of damage. I'm saying that both destroying a single missile and destroying them all is counter-intuitive for various reasons.

    I fully and totally believe that a weapon has to be vehicle controlled (I/E using its own BS) for it to be eligible for an armament destroyed result, but thats just my opinion.
    It is a weapon with a S greater than 3, which means it is eligible to be destroyed. In fact, read pg 67 of the BGB - "This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons." So for the time being, you would blow off one missile at a time (since they aren't combined into some sort of weapons system, like I said before). Even though if the turret took a direct hit, you'd likely mangle all the control mechanisms (which is a fluff point, not a rules point).

    I even remember GW saying in a previous FAQ that seekers are not eligible for armament destroyed results.
    It's not the in Tau Empire FAQ or (previous) Tau FAQ. All the previous FAQ mentions is that they can be fired in addition to any other main weaponry.


    Having an army and not owning a rulebook is like owning a car with no steering wheel.

    Quote Originally Posted by amishcellphone
    <3 rork. He does all the arguing so I don't have to.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts