[BS] [40k] [BS] H-K Tangent

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Hey,

> smithdoerr <askmeforn...@vodafone.it wrote:

>> Doctor Rock" <mala...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote

>> it's supposed to be a vectored seeking missile which uses
>> infra-red signature tracking

A simple ballistic missile is more grim and dark [rolls eyes].

> A human can appease the missile's machine spirit by
> um..."manipulating" it's targeting joystick better than another

Appease the . . . [Arrrgh!] Vote or no vote, you'll burn for that one!

BS2 it is, then. And speaking of BS -

I watched elsewhere as a long thread regarding the H-K spun out.

The 1st poster had an H-K Launch Tube modelled on his Pred.

He claimed that it could be counted as a 'weapon destroyed' . . .

. . . *after* he had fired said H-K's single allowed projectile.

I said, "It's no more a 'weapon' than any other empty magazine."

But I couldn't cite chapter and verse, so the debate raged on . . .

I was quite surprised at the number of people who agreed with him.

I don't think the question was ever satisfactorily resolved.

Was I wrong? I was certain, but I've had certainties overturned.

EG: I was wrong about the new RF rule changing a weapon's stats. Grrr .
.. .


Playa

--

"It's not hijacking if the thread's already dying!"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

smithdoerr wrote:
> "Playa" <hurlgen40k@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1121471648.252761.5020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> > Was I wrong? I was certain, but I've had certainties
> > overturned.
>
> All the SM codex says about it is that HKs "...are treated as an
> additional main weapon." and that it can only be used once per
> battle. Nothing about how it's treated after it fires. So
> rules-as-written, I guess it's still a weapon even after it has
> fired. But the attacker gets to pick which weapon is destroyed
> so this situation isn't likely to come up all that often.
>
>
> -smithdoerr

By the letter of the law, the guy is correct. Clearly in any sort of
friendly game, it's pretty clear that it's not an issue. (Of course,
it could be argued that anybody with an HK missile isn't powergaming,
but still...)

The situation could come up if multiple weapon destroyed damage results
would be promoted to Immobolized. Even if a Predator with no weapons
can't fight, it's still worth full points, while immobolized halves
that.

To sum up: The guy was correct, and might need to reappraise how
seriously he's taking his hobby.

Steve

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Playa" <hurlgen40k@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121471648.252761.5020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> And speaking of BS -
>
> I watched elsewhere as a long thread regarding the H-K spun
> out.
>
> The 1st poster had an H-K Launch Tube modelled on his Pred.
>
> He claimed that it could be counted as a 'weapon destroyed' . .
> .
>
> . . . *after* he had fired said H-K's single allowed
> projectile.
>
> I said, "It's no more a 'weapon' than any other empty
> magazine."
>
> But I couldn't cite chapter and verse, so the debate raged on .
> . .
>
> I was quite surprised at the number of people who agreed with
> him.
>
> I don't think the question was ever satisfactorily resolved.
>
> Was I wrong? I was certain, but I've had certainties
> overturned.

All the SM codex says about it is that HKs "...are treated as an
additional main weapon." and that it can only be used once per
battle. Nothing about how it's treated after it fires. So
rules-as-written, I guess it's still a weapon even after it has
fired. But the attacker gets to pick which weapon is destroyed
so this situation isn't likely to come up all that often.


--

-smithdoerr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Playa" <hurlgen40k@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121471648.252761.5020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> I watched elsewhere as a long thread regarding the H-K spun out.
>
> The 1st poster had an H-K Launch Tube modelled on his Pred.
>
> He claimed that it could be counted as a 'weapon destroyed' . . .
>
> . . . *after* he had fired said H-K's single allowed projectile.

what a scumbag. you were correct to pull him up on that - nobody NEEDS a
printed rule to inform them that a one-shot weapon is no longer a weapon
after it's taken the shot.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Doctor Rock wrote:

> "Playa" <hurlgen40k@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1121471648.252761.5020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>>I watched elsewhere as a long thread regarding the H-K spun out.
>>
>>The 1st poster had an H-K Launch Tube modelled on his Pred.
>>
>>He claimed that it could be counted as a 'weapon destroyed' . . .
>>
>>. . . *after* he had fired said H-K's single allowed projectile.
>
>
> what a scumbag. you were correct to pull him up on that - nobody NEEDS a
> printed rule to inform them that a one-shot weapon is no longer a weapon
> after it's taken the shot.
>
>

It's not a weapon at all, it's a vehicle upgrade. Smoke Launchers or
Searchlights are not weapons either.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Brion K. Lienhart" <brionl@lienhart.name> wrote in message
news:R8-dnTKGMaQhBEPfRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> Doctor Rock wrote:
>
>> "Playa" <hurlgen40k@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1121471648.252761.5020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>
>>>I watched elsewhere as a long thread regarding the H-K spun out.
>>>
>>>The 1st poster had an H-K Launch Tube modelled on his Pred.
>>>
>>>He claimed that it could be counted as a 'weapon destroyed' . . .
>>>
>>>. . . *after* he had fired said H-K's single allowed projectile.
>>
>>
>> what a scumbag. you were correct to pull him up on that - nobody NEEDS a
>> printed rule to inform them that a one-shot weapon is no longer a weapon
>> after it's taken the shot.
>
> It's not a weapon at all, it's a vehicle upgrade. Smoke Launchers or
> Searchlights are not weapons either.

while I personally agree, the rules description states that it is "treated
as an additional main weapon"; unfortunately for some people, who seem to be
incapable of applying logic or common sense to the letter of the rules, it
doesn't specify in precisely WHAT ways it's treated as one.