Hunter Killer Missiles

[BlackKnight15624]

If you have a vehicle equipped with HKMs, and they suffer a weapon destroyed result- can you put that on the HKM instead of a different, possibly more vital, weapon? Since it is still a weapon (albeit a one-shot one), could be a sneaky tactic.

Please let me know if I'm completely off.

[Sir Biscuit]

Yes, the hunter-killer can be removed by a weapon destroyed result. However, remember that your OPPONENT gets to pick the weapon destroyed when they inflict it, not you.

[codiddy]

Yes, the hunter-killer can be removed by a weapon destroyed result. However, remember that your OPPONENT gets to pick the weapon destroyed when they inflict it, not you.
Sir biscuit has it dead on.

[sangrail777]

your completly off. Sir Biscuit is right. Your opponent picks the weapon.

[BuFFo]

If you have a vehicle equipped with HKMs, and they suffer a weapon destroyed result- can you put that on the HKM instead of a different, possibly more vital, weapon? Since it is still a weapon (albeit a one-shot one), could be a sneaky tactic.

You cannot do this since your opponent picks the weapon destroyed. But hey, it IS one more weapon to destroy before the vehicle can be immobikilled.

[lobster-overlord]

OK, here's another question for on top of what Buffo mentioned. If i have the HK, and I shot it first turn, does it still need to be destroyed then before destruction via immobilization happens?

[codiddy]

OK, here's another question for on top of what Buffo mentioned. If i have the HK, and I shot it first turn, does it still need to be destroyed then before destruction via immobilization happens?
I'm pretty sure if you shoot the hunter killer it its gone from the vehicle so therefore not an option to destroy any longer.

[lobster-overlord]

I'm pretty sure if you shoot the hunter killer it its gone from the vehicle so therefore not an option to destroy any longer.

"pretty sure" and "yes, it is gone" are not the same thing. Anyone with a place in the rules, or definitive on this one?

[karandras]

I would say that once any one time use only item is used it ceases to exist for game purposes. Seems kind of like rules lawyering and at odds with any notion of common sense to say otherwise.

That being said, it does raise yet another ambiguity in the rules. I think specifically as applied to the Manticore or the Deathstrike Launcher in the IG codex. If these vehicles weapon systems are out of ammo, how does that interact with weapon destroyed results???

I would still consider the HK different though as it isn't really a weapons "system".

[codiddy]

If you shoot the hunter killer it is gone from the vehicle so therefore not an option to destroy any longer.



Better?

[lobster-overlord]

If you shoot the hunter killer it is gone from the vehicle so therefore not an option to destroy any longer.



Better?

Not really since your answer doesn't seem to cite any specific rule or FAQ. It's a single shot weapon, not something that is "removed." It still exists as a weapon on the vehicle, it just cannot be used again. It still exists on the stat sheet for the given vehicle. Speculation is one thing, but an actual rule or specification on single shot weapons would be what I'm interested in knowing. I have the rule book and C:SM, and do not see anything that specifically deals with the notion of a single shot weapon in such a situation. I do understand that once it's shot, it's effectively a weapon that ceases to exist from a "shooting phase" point of view. However, I see nothing that actually states that it DOES cease to exist from a game POV.

Not trying to be a douche here, but if you can't provide a reference or a suggestion for a place to look for the rule, then please, don't post.

I ask because a concrete answer would be really helpful to those of us that field an HK on most every tank, and I've never thought about this concept before myself.

John M.

[HsojVvad]

So, what you are saying, if a HKM is fired, and I shoot at it, and I get a destroyed wepaon you can pick out the HKM? Great, I love it. That means I don't get to remove my Spore Mines because when they say they explode, it dosn't say to remove the mini and it gets to explode again when ever someone ends their movement within 2" or makes contact with it again. :p

[AbusePuppy]

So, what you are saying, if a HKM is fired, and I shoot at it, and I get a destroyed wepaon you can pick out the HKM? Great, I love it. That means I don't get to remove my Spore Mines because when they say they explode, it dosn't say to remove the mini and it gets to explode again when ever someone ends their movement within 2" or makes contact with it again. :p

Better than that- the explosion from that very Spore Mine will kill the SAME Spore Mine again (well... 85% of the time; it's a S4 weapon against a T1 target, after all) and cause it to detonate a second time.

Of course, being killed by itself does remove the Spore Mine, but it means that each Mine is actually two blasts in one.

[Fellend]

Hmm interesting the Black Templar codex says that it's to be treated as an additional main weapon. it can only be fired once.

I hate to agree with such abuse but raw seems to suggest that it is infact still there. You just can't fire it more than once. That being said i'd never use that since i think RAI is more relevant.

[DarkLink]

You just can't fire it more than once. That being said i'd never use that since i think RAI is more relevant.

Well, that's not really RAI. It's houserules. We don't know what RAI is, other than our preconceived notions of what we think the rules should be, which don't really have much of a basis in fact. Not that it's a bad thing to tweak the rules so that you like the game a little better, but you can't try to justify it with vague statements about RAI.

It's kinda like the PoTMS plus Smoke issue that came up again not too long ago. RAW seems to dictate you can fire with PoTMS after smoking. I choose not to play it that way, though. It's not because of RAI, since I don't know what RAI is. It's because I decided that there are less headaches that way, and choose to houserule it.

[BuFFo]

"pretty sure" and "yes, it is gone" are not the same thing. Anyone with a place in the rules, or definitive on this one?

All you are going to get on this subject IS "pretty sure".

There is no rule that covers this.

Bottom line, this is an issue you need to discuss with your opponent before a game.

So the choice is yours to make. We can have 20 pages more on this subject, but that won't get you anywhere!

[lobster-overlord]

All you are going to get on this subject IS "pretty sure".

There is no rule that covers this.


Thanks BuFFo, that's more about what I was looking for on the subject

John M>

[BuFFo]

Thanks BuFFo, that's more about what I was looking for on the subject

John M>

It is my pleasure helping you out!

Come back and tell us, here on the forums, what you and your friends decide to do. Always nice to see outside perspectives on a subject such as this.

Game on!

[The Mystic]

Actually it's quite clearly stated.

Page 61 MRB, Damaged- Weapon Destroyed:

" This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles."

Pretty cut and dry really. :)

[Gir]

Actually it's quite clearly stated.

Page 61 MRB, Damaged- Weapon Destroyed:

" This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles."

Pretty cut and dry really. :)

Not really, as it doesn't say anything about them being fired.

Common sense says that once it fires, it can't be destroyed. Otherwise you'll get stuff like: 4 blood strike missiles on a storm raven that have to be blown up, even if they've fired, and 6 bombs on a thunderbolt (As each bomb is a separate weapon) that have to be blown up, even if they've been dropped.

Not that it matters, the rules say that the 'hunter-killer missile' can be destroyed. If it get's shot, it has been destroyed, the vehicle then only has the launcher, which is not stated as destroyable.

[therealjohnny5]

All you are going to get on this subject IS "pretty sure".

There is no rule that covers this.

Bottom line, this is an issue you need to discuss with your opponent before a game.

So the choice is yours to make. We can have 20 pages more on this subject, but that won't get you anywhere!

I'm with Buffo on this one, there is no specific rule clarifying for fired HK missiles. We have always played once it's fired it's done. Like take it off and place elsewhere. However, that is a house rule that we've agreed on.


Actually it's quite clearly stated.

Page 61 MRB, Damaged- Weapon Destroyed:

" This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles."

Pretty cut and dry really. :)

Yeah i agree with you on Pre fired HK missiles similarly to additionally purchased SB's, the difference being that once a HK is fired it's done for, that SB still hangs around. But again these are house rules. We can't be afraid of bringing something up to our opponent before a game, even if it may put us at a seeming disadvantage if the ruling goes against us. It doesn't seem honest to me. but then i don't mind, and even enjoy playing from the underdog position.

[BuFFo]

Actually it's quite clearly stated.

Page 61 MRB, Damaged- Weapon Destroyed:

" This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles."

Pretty cut and dry really. :)

Maybe you missed what we were discussing, but, we are talking about a HKM AFTER it has fired. There is no rule which covers this. I know it may seem logical to count it as one, but, after you played a game where empty shells were used as weapons to be destroyed, you get pretty irate fast at how stupid it seems to need to destroy a HKM once it is no longer a threat.

As long as it has a Missile inside it, yeah, you are correct.

[Xas]

as part of the price for the HK you also get the mechanis to fire it (only orks would be insane enough to just lay a missile into a tank, put it on fire and hope to hit) so the weapon system is still there in fluff as well.

as there is nothing to say that RAW the one-shot weapon gets destroyed when used you actually have to kill it before imobilizing/killing the tank!

[Gir]

as part of the price for the HK you also get the mechanis to fire it (only orks would be insane enough to just lay a missile into a tank, put it on fire and hope to hit) so the weapon system is still there in fluff as well.

as there is nothing to say that RAW the one-shot weapon gets destroyed when used you actually have to kill it before imobilizing/killing the tank!

Good news for Blood Angel players then, having to get destroy all 4 blood strike missiles on the storm raven, even if they've been fired (As the firing mechanism would still be there)

[Gooball]

Wait..
How do you even get weapon destroyed on a MISSILE?
Wouldnt that just make it go boom..
i think ill just delete my logic app.. it never gets it right :o

[Gir]

Wait..
How do you even get weapon destroyed on a MISSILE?
Wouldnt that just make it go boom..
i think ill just delete my logic app.. it never gets it right :o

Despite popular belief, shooting a missile or bomb will NOT make it explode.

[TSINI]

I'm suprised no-one has picked up the argument from the other side

Say you have a vehicle which has been immobilised, and all its other weapons blown off, it still has its hunter killer missile.

when it fires the missile at a target that presents itself. does the vehicle then have to be removed from play? it has no weapons and is immobilised, and 5th edition rules don't seem to like these armoured hulks lying around.

And on a similarpoint to the storm raven, do you have to roll for weapon destroyed results for each missile on a manticore, even after they've been fired.



I know how i'd play it. when a hunter killer is gone, you don't need to blow off the mount for it, its gone.

if i had a tank in a similar situation as my first point (immobilised with only an unfired HK missile left) i would leave the no gunned box on the table until it gets another immobilised result or weapon destroyed result.

and when a bomb or missile is fired, it no longer needs to be destroyed. effectively a manticore or flyer loses a "weapon destroyed wound" when it fires a 1 shot weapon.

but this is just me, i've never been competitive so have never cared for such things as "my tank should still be here it has 4 mechanisms for its missiles left which you will need to blow off first"

[BuFFo]

TSINI, sounds good to me.

[Gir]

I'm suprised no-one has picked up the argument from the other side

Say you have a vehicle which has been immobilised, and all its other weapons blown off, it still has its hunter killer missile.

when it fires the missile at a target that presents itself. does the vehicle then have to be removed from play? it has no weapons and is immobilised, and 5th edition rules don't seem to like these armoured hulks lying around.


Except you never remove a vehicle if it has no weapons and is immobilized. It's still not worth a kill point and is only worth half victory points until it is properly destroyed, and a vehicle with no weapons that is immobilized still needs one more weapon destroyed/immobilized result to destroy it.

[DarkLink]

when it fires the missile at a target that presents itself. does the vehicle then have to be removed from play? it has no weapons and is immobilised, and 5th edition rules don't seem to like these armoured hulks lying around.


You can have an immobilized vehicle with no weapons on the table. It isn't removed. If it suffers another damage result after that, then it's removed. But the problem you're imagining isn't actually a problem.