Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In that case my Searchlight is a Upgrade that functions as a weapon. It can hit a unit and cause it to die (albeit indirectly). Is that able to be destroyed as a Weapon upgrade?

Is that even a serious answer? Go ahead and argue that, but I'm not seeing any rules quotes. I don't think a Searchlight would fit the definition for functioning as a weapon any more than red paint, but you are free to argue otherwise.

Gwar! wrote:In that case my Searchlight is a Upgrade that functions as a weapon. It can hit a unit and cause it to die (albeit indirectly). Is that able to be destroyed as a Weapon upgrade?

"Indirectly" can encompass pretty much anything! My Armour Plates cause a unit to die indirectly! (You really need me to explain how?)

Does a Searchlight damage enemy units directly?
Wrecking Balls do.
They act in the Assault Phase*, roll-to-hit*, and have Strength*. Assuming a successful action, they cause damage to enemy units*.
What essential feature of a weapon are they missing?

*Just like Close-Combat Weapons.

You berate me for not providing rules quotes,
yet you have not proven that just having a Strength Value allows it to act as a weapon, especially since GW never define what Acting like a weapon means.

Gwar! wrote:You berate me for not providing rules quotes,
yet you have not proven that just having a Strength Value allows it to act as a weapon, especially since GW never define what Acting like a weapon means.

And they didn't give a definition for the word "the" yet we can still read the book. Unless otherwise defined, you have to use the plain english definition.

It is a vehicle upgrade, and it functions as a weapon. You use it to attack enemies, thus it is a weapon. The language seems left open on purpose. No reason to arbitrarily include everything, but certainly a Wreaking Ball that attacks your troops directly fits under this open wording.

BGB p.61 wrote:One of the vehicle's weapons (chosen by the attacker) is destroyed - ripped off by the force of the attack. If the vehicle has no weapons left, treat this result as an "immobilised" result instead. This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters and hunter-killer missiles.

No definitive requirements for weapons are listed. P.27 that defines Weapons

BGB p.27 wrote:Every weapon has a profile that consists of several elements, for example:

it then lists, as an example, that which you keep arguing is required.

All that is required is "a profile that consists of several elements"

Ork Codex p.93 wrote:Wreakin' Ball
"A vehicle with a wreakin' ball causes a Strength 9 hit upon one unengaged enemy unit within 2" of the wreakin' ball at the beginning of the Assault phase on the roll of a 4+. The vehicle may not use its wreakin' ball if it has moved more than 12" that turn.

That is a profile with several elements. Furthermore it is a smashy ball. It functions as a weapon.

I have no problem with allowing it as a weapon, so long as you let me include my upgrades that are not actually weapons as weapons too.

Gwar! wrote:I have no problem with allowing it as a weapon, so long as you let me include my upgrades that are not actually weapons as weapons too.

So basically you have no evidence to support your view, so you've resorted to the "I'm right and you're wrong" argument? Well played sir.

I think its obtuse to argue that armor plates function as weapons, while a wreaking ball is just obviously a weapon. I cannot describe more precisely or in more detail why you are wrong than I have already done.

Play how you want, but I'd love to see someone's reaction when you explain to their face that a wreaking ball is not functioning like a weapon or why armor plates do.

Gwar! wrote:I have no problem with allowing it as a weapon, so long as you let me include my upgrades that are not actually weapons as weapons too.

I'm perfectly fine with that, so long as they function as weapons.

What essential elements are missing from the Wrecking Ball that you feel it must have to function as a weapon?

And please, include the pertinent rule that supports your view.

Dracos wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

BlackSpike wrote:Wrong, they are Vehicle Upgrades that function as weapons, so they can.
OK, this part is still up for debate, it seems.

Indeed it is. They do not function as weapons because weapons have specific things they need to be weapons. To function as a Ranged Weapon, it needs a Range, Strength, AP and Type. To function as a CCW they need to be Specified as using the CCW rules or a Special Kind of CCW rules.

The wrecking ball is none of these.

This is the problem. You need to quote the rule supporting this statement. There is nothing that defines what something would need in order to "function as a weapon" in the BGB. You have to take it in plain english, and its a vehicle upgrade i can hit your dudes over the head with. It can be destroyed.

Also, please quote where in the BGB these "Ranged Weapons" you keep referring to are. I only know of Weapons(p.27) and Close Combat Weapons(p.42).

Lets keep this debate to relevent rules quotes.

Well, I brought this point up earlier. Seeker Missiles.
-they are vehicle upgrades
-that are ranged weapons

So, let's say I am playing an opponent who rolls 3 Weapon Destroyed results on my Hammerhead:
Wpn Destroyed 1: "Okay, you've knocked off a Seeker Missile"
Wpn Destroyed 2: "Okay you've knocked off the second Seeker Missile"
Wpn Destroyed 3: "Okay you've knocked off the Gun Drones"

And he is then pissed because I still am able to use the Railgun.
This would seem ridiculous if this was RAI...and would get your ass kicked by most opponents.

The attacker chooses, id go the railgun first myself.

Dracos and Blackspike have provided cogent arguments and have thoroughly refuted Gwar's "argument." However, it now becomes a test of endurance because I doubt that either dracos or blackspike are able to flog a thread to death with the determination gwar has consistently shown.

olympia wrote:Dracos and Blackspike have provided cogent arguments and have thoroughly refuted Gwar's "argument." However, it now becomes a test of endurance because I doubt that either dracos or blackspike are able to flog a thread to death with the determination gwar has consistently shown.

Personal attacks now is it?

Well you are pretty much trolling here Gwar, so I think he is calling your spots black.

Dracos wrote:Well you are pretty much trolling here Gwar, so I think he is calling your spots black.

Because you do not agree with my Interpretation I am trolling?

I don't make personal remarks against you or anyone else, and in fact have received stern warnings (among other things) for far less, so I feel I am able to take offence at insults and such directed at me.

olympia wrote:Dracos and Blackspike have provided cogent arguments and have thoroughly refuted Gwar's "argument." However, it now becomes a test of endurance because I doubt that either dracos or blackspike are able to flog a thread to death with the determination gwar has consistently shown.

Its not so much about endurance as inclination.
I feel that all salient arguments have now been made, and have not heard anything to convince me that the Wrecking Ball does not function as a weapon, and plenty to persuade me that it does.
If new points are raised, or expansions on previous points, then I may join back in.
Maybe if this question could be answered:

BlackSpike wrote:What essential elements are missing from the Wrecking Ball that you feel it must have to function as a weapon?

Otherwise, I have other things to be arguing about

Che-Vito wrote:

Well, I brought this point up earlier. Seeker Missiles.
-they are vehicle upgrades
-that are ranged weapons

So, let's say I am playing an opponent who rolls 3 Weapon Destroyed results on my Hammerhead:
Wpn Destroyed 1: "Okay, you've knocked off a Seeker Missile"
Wpn Destroyed 2: "Okay you've knocked off the second Seeker Missile"
Wpn Destroyed 3: "Okay you've knocked off the Gun Drones"

And he is then pissed because I still am able to use the Railgun.
This would seem ridiculous if this was RAI...and would get your ass kicked by most opponents.

Fiirstly as mention the person shooting picks what is destroyed.
Secondly... Wpn Destroyed 3: "Okay you've knocked off the Gun Drones" ... lol, Fail. Drones count as passengers you can't target them ever.
Thirdly the whole point of adding weapons is to make sure you've something worth shooting once the main gun gets blown off.

Tri wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Well, I brought this point up earlier. Seeker Missiles.
-they are vehicle upgrades
-that are ranged weapons

So, let's say I am playing an opponent who rolls 3 Weapon Destroyed results on my Hammerhead:
Wpn Destroyed 1: "Okay, you've knocked off a Seeker Missile"
Wpn Destroyed 2: "Okay you've knocked off the second Seeker Missile"
Wpn Destroyed 3: "Okay you've knocked off the Gun Drones"

And he is then pissed because I still am able to use the Railgun.
This would seem ridiculous if this was RAI...and would get your ass kicked by most opponents.

Fiirstly as mention the person shooting picks what is destroyed.
Secondly... Wpn Destroyed 3: "Okay you've knocked off the Gun Drones" ... lol, Fail. Drones count as passengers you can't target them ever.
Thirdly the whole point of adding weapons is to make sure you've something worth shooting once the main gun gets blown off.

To the first: Yes I know...my phrasing didn't reflect so, which is my poor writing.
To the second: This is true as well I assume, although something I have never had to deal with in-game.
To the third: debatably RAW, as this thread has evidenced.

Seeker missiles, to me, would seem to be as much a weapon as a hunter-killer missile.

However... Flechette launchers? They could be weapons as well considering this debate. I mean, I don't think they are, and have never played them as such, but if all they have to do is hurt the enemy....
(and above: replace gun drones with Burst Cannons / Smart Missile System)