Where are the Rules for One-Shot Weapons?

[Nabterayl]

Okay, I may be just blind here, but is the special weapon rule One Shot ever actually defined anywhere? Help me out here ...

[UltramarineFan]

It's usually explained in the entry for the weapon in the 'Weapons' section of the codex, however, One Shot, surprisingly, means it can only have one shot in the game.

[Nabterayl]

As far as I can tell, "one-shot" weapons like hunter-killer missiles have it explained in the weapon entry, but if a weapon actually has a special rule called One Shot, it isn't defined anywhere. At any rate, I can't find any examples. Can anybody else?

I'm perfectly capable of extrapolating the precise meaning of One-Shot if I have to, but am I right that it's nowhere actually defined?

[Gotthammer]

Whilst some things, such as Hunter Killer Missiles in C:SM or Bloostrikes in C:BA, do specify that they may only be used once per game, the missiles in the Dark Eldar codex have the type 'one shot' (which I can't find expanded upon anywhere either) but no limitaitons in the text.

[UltramarineFan]

Ah sorry mis-interpreted, flipping through my GK book I couldn't find a definition but I'm positive it's in one of the new codexes

[Gotthammer]

Checked BA, IG, SM and DE - none of them define One Shot (or One Shot Only in the case of the Deathstrike) as a rule. The intent is obvious, but if you wanted to ride the douchecanoe downriver by pure RAW it is meaningless as a weapon type.
However doing so in more than a theoretical manner would likely see the end of the game for being a tool.

[Nabterayl]

Well, as long as I'm not blind. Thanks!

[Ulthwé Guardian]

I can guess the answer is no to this question, but on the subject of one shot missiles: can a DE Razorwing/Voidraven Bomber fire more than one missile per turn?

[yrdetraxe]

Short Answer: YES!

Long Answer: Yes, as 1 Missile = 1 Weapon and because of the Aerial Assault Special Rule both the Razorwing and the Voidraven can fire all of its Missiles when moving at cruising speed.
So if you want to you can fire all Missiles in 1 Turn as long as you don't move faster than 12".

[Nabterayl]

That is the original reason for my asking, though. I have a hunch that multiple one-shot missiles may in fact be a single weapon system with multiple, limited shots (c.f. the Imperial Armour Apocalypse FAQ on Hellstrikes and the Storm Eagle rocket), and I was trying to see if I could come up with any additional textual support for my supposition.

[Ulthwé Guardian]

Short Answer: YES!

Long Answer: Yes, as 1 Missile = 1 Weapon and because of the Aerial Assault Special Rule both the Razorwing and the Voidraven can fire all of its Missiles when moving at cruising speed.
So if you want to you can fire all Missiles in 1 Turn as long as you don't move faster than 12".

Really?!?! That's obscene! :-)

Glad I ignored buying any Ravagers and waited for Razorwing to be released, but I'm still gonna save two Heavy Support choices for a pair of Voidraven Bombers!

[yrdetraxe]

I have a hunch that multiple one-shot missiles may in fact be a single weapon system with multiple, limited shots
If I recall right that is not the case. Maybe for Apoc but afaik that is not the case for "basic" 40k.

Unfortunately I cannot prove it with an explicit wording.

[wkz]

Really?!?! That's obscene! :-)

Glad I ignored buying any Ravagers and waited for Razorwing to be released, but I'm still gonna save two Heavy Support choices for a pair of Voidraven Bombers!
Just read the rules carefully.... some of these One Shots DO come with the "Ordnance" rule attached to them. (and when you fire Ordnance weapon, unless some special rule intervenes, such as Leman Russes, you can only fire that weapon and no other)


Here's the only section directly referring to one-shot weapons:
Optional Weapons- page 58
... the possibility of buying additional weapons, such as one-shot missiles and pintle...
... Firing one of these additional weapons count as firing one of the vehicle's normal weapons (unless they are defensive weapons...)

Here's a related FAQ on such weapons.
Rulebook FAQ
Q: if a vehicle has a weapon with a limited amount of shots, and it has none left (for example a hunter-killer missile that has already been fired), does it count as a weapon that can be destroyed by a damaged-weapon destroyed roll on the vehicle damage table?

A: No. Once a weapon cannot possibly fire again during the battle it is effectively destroyed as far as Damaged-Weapon destroyed results on the vehicle damage table are concerned.

[yrdetraxe]

Just read the rules carefully.... some of these One Shots DO come with the "Ordnance" rule attached to them. (and when you fire Ordnance weapon, unless some special rule intervenes, such as Leman Russes, you can only fire that weapon and no other)
True, but afaik the only "One Shot" weapon having the "Ordnance" rule is the Manticore Missile.
And the vehicles in question were the DE Flyers and their missiles are nowhere near Ordnance. ;)

[Nabterayl]

True, but afaik the only "One Shot" weapon having the "Ordnance" rule is the Manticore Missile.
Don't forget Hellstrike missiles. The thing that got me thinking about this was that, according to the Imperial Armour Apocalypse FAQ, Valkyries can fire multiple Hellstrikes per Shooting phase, notwithstanding the fact that they're Ordnance, but if any Hellstrikes are fired no other weapons can be (because Hellstrikes are Ordnance). This suggests (but suggests only) that two Hellstrike missiles are in fact a single weapon system that can fire up to two times per turn, but can fire no more than two times per game.

[Ulthwé Guardian]

If I recall right that is not the case. Maybe for Apoc but afaik that is not the case for "basic" 40k.

Unfortunately I cannot prove it with an explicit wording.

For the time being I agree with yrdetraxe, so far it looks like we cannot disprove firing multiple missiles in the same turn or at least with the DE Razorwing/Voidraven.

If the above is true then I can assume a vehicle that is still carrying all/some of it's payload of missiles, then suffers weapon destroyed hit, the opponent can choose to destroy one of the missiles and not every single one.

P.S. Yes I know it refers to hunter killer missiles on the damage chart on page 61 of the rulebook. I'm just trying to clarify the issue of firing multiple missiles and are they treated as one weapon or many. :)

[Nabterayl]

Well, there's no need to disprove firing multiple missiles with the Void Raven/Razorwing, as the DE codex makes it clear that they can fire all their weapons if they can fire any. The question is whether, say, a Valkyrie can fire multiple Hellstrike missiles per turn, or a Stormraven can fire multiple Bloodstrike missiles counting as a single "shot," etc.

[yrdetraxe]

If the above is true then I can assume a vehicle that is still carrying all/some of it's payload of missiles, then suffers weapon destroyed hit, the opponent can choose to destroy one of the missiles and not every single one.
That's exactly how I see it too. He can choose to destroy 1 Missile (that has not been fired) but not all at once.

I also found a semi prove of my statement....
In the codex entry for the razorwing it says it has the following wargear: a TL Splinter Rifle, 2 Dark Lances and 4 Monoscythe Missiles (for a total of 7 weapons)
Because of this wording i take it that each missile is a seperate weapon. Otherwise you could destroy both Dark Lances with one Weapon Destroyed result too. ;)

And I would say that can (and should) be transferred to the other existing Vehicles in question as well, because the Valkyrie carrys 2 Hellstrike Missiles and the Stormraven has 4 Bloodstrike Missiles.
(Only exception I've seen so far is the Manticore where it explicitly states that only 1 Missile can be fired per turn)

[Tynskel]

I have always just treated it as a separate individual weapon, not a weapon system.

[Nabterayl]

I think whether or not there's a question here comes down to what you think of Forge World. The Imperial Armour Apocalypse I FAQ includes the following:


2. The Hellstrike missiles is listed as ordnance. Does this mean that they may now only fire that one missile at the cost of all its other weapons?

As an ordnance weapon a Hellstrike is fired instead of other weapons. It may fire as many missiles as you like though.

If you don't view that as something worth considering, then there's no reason to believe that four missiles are anything other than four individual weapon systems.

[Tynskel]

there's nothing in that statement that means that having multiple Hellstrikes is one weapon system.

All this means is that you can either fire ordnance or all other weapons- this is a rule from the main rulebook. If you have 10 hv bolters, and 10 hellstrikes, you can either fire 10 hv bolters, or fire 10 hellstrikes, but not both.

[Nabterayl]

there's nothing in that statement that means that having multiple Hellstrikes is one weapon system.

All this means is that you can either fire ordnance or all other weapons- this is a rule from the main rulebook. If you have 10 hv bolters, and 10 hellstrikes, you can either fire 10 hv bolters, or fire 10 hellstrikes, but not both.
I don't read "Firing a massive ordnance weapon requires the attention of all the gunners of the vehicle, so no other weapons may be fired that turn" as meaning that multiple ordnance weapons may be fired per turn. It sounds like firing an ordnance weapon precludes the firing of any other weapons.

[Tynskel]

true, and this is a perfect example how fluff and rules are intertwined.
However, the rule does not state that only one ordnance weapon may fire, all it states is that no other weapons may fire.

[Nabterayl]

Well, right. So if a vehicle had, say, a battle cannon and an earthshaker cannon, absent a special rule to the contrary, wouldn't we say that the vehicle could fire only one at a time, because after firing "an" ordnance weapon, no other weapons (even other ordnance weapons) could be fired?

[wkz]

Well, right. So if a vehicle had, say, a battle cannon and an earthshaker cannon, absent a special rule to the contrary, wouldn't we say that the vehicle could fire only one at a time, because after firing "an" ordnance weapon, no other weapons (even other ordnance weapons) could be fired?

That's the way I read it.

Also note: The FAQ provided is a Forgeworld ruling. By all means play the Ordnanace Bloodstrikes as following that FAQ in an Apocalypse game if needed (just make sure the opponent understands), but for the core games we should follow the core rules... which means we should follow the meaning above.

[Tynskel]

Well, right. So if a vehicle had, say, a battle cannon and an earthshaker cannon, absent a special rule to the contrary, wouldn't we say that the vehicle could fire only one at a time, because after firing "an" ordnance weapon, no other weapons (even other ordnance weapons) could be fired?

I don't completely believe that because the only instance we encounter multiple ordnance weapons, the FAQ states you can fire multiple ordnance weapons.

[wkz]

I don't completely believe that because the only instance we encounter multiple ordnance weapons, the FAQ states you can fire multiple ordnance weapons.Wait, did you just say "those ordnance missiles are 4 separate weapons, but can all be fired in one salvo"?

Once again, note where the FAQ come from (Forgeworld). For the core game of 40k, most Forgeword stuff will need permission by the opponent before it can even be fielded, balance non-withstanding. I do believe the use of that FAQ will also be dependent on your opponent's approval.

With the explicit approval of said opponent, we'll fall back to the core rules. AND the core rule's wording is very clear: "No other Weapons". As the 2nd (and more) Ordnance weapon is still a weapon, it just cannot be fired. Thus, as long as you consider the Ordnance missiles as a battery of 4 different weapons, you can only fire one a turn...

[Nabterayl]

For the core game of 40k, most Forgeword stuff will need permission by the opponent before it can even be fielded, balance non-withstanding.
I ... suppose? This strikes me as one of those community things that Everybody Knows (TM) about the game, like the "rule" that bases can only be bigger, not smaller, than the one the miniature is supplied with.

[wkz]

I ... suppose? This strikes me as one of those community things that Everybody Knows (TM) about the game, like the "rule" that bases can only be bigger, not smaller, than the one the miniature is supplied with.

It just need to be re-stressed, since one of the primary arguments used is dependent on the Forgeworld FAQ on Ordnanace weapons

[SeattleDV8]

I ... suppose? This strikes me as one of those community things that Everybody Knows (TM) about the game, like the "rule" that bases can only be bigger, not smaller, than the one the miniature is supplied with.

To be fair that was a rule in 4th ed., and many people still believe it is still is a rule.

[Nabterayl]

Right, which is precisely my point. Just as nobody can [anymore] point to a rule that says, "You can only base models larger" but many people still continue to treat that as a rule, nobody can point to a rule that says, "Forge World books and models are not part of the core 40K game" but many people treat that as the rule.

[SeattleDV8]

Fair enough and well stated.

[Tynskel]

It just need to be re-stressed, since one of the primary arguments used is dependent on the Forgeworld FAQ on Ordnanace weapons

I don't know if you realized this, but GW has a policy that you don't need to ask permission to use ForgeWorld any more. It is official. The rules in most cases are waaaaaay under powered.

It is just the tournament scene that doesn't allow ForgeWorld. I have yet to figure out why other than the judges are lazy.

[Nabterayl]

At any rate, assuming we give credence to the FAQ, there are now two possibilities:

Multiple Hellstrike missiles may be fired because multiple identical one-shot weapons are in fact a single "weapon" for firing purposes, with a limited number of shots and variable rate of fire - rather like the Manticore's Storm Eagle rockets, but without the explicit rate of fire limitation.
Multiple Hellstrike missiles may be fired because when the rulebook says "no other weapons may be fired" it means "no other non-ordnance weapons may be fired" or "no other types of weapons may be fired" or something along those lines.
Both are, admittedly, somewhat surprising results. I'm not sure either is really better from a textual fidelity standpoint. I tentatively favor an explanation that would not allow different types of ordnance to be fired at once, since the spirit of the rule seems to be that ordnance weapons have special needs which consume the crew's attention, and it seems that firing two different types of ordnance weapons at once contravenes that. What do others think?