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.

Ran into this the other day and it seemed screwy.

Friend scored a weapon destroyed result on my wartrukk. Instead of its only one big shoota, he declared my wrecking ball as the target.
This began a lengthy debate that left a sour taste in my mouth, but I am still a weedy new guy earnin my teeth so I conceded.

Wrecking ball is listed under wargear, as an upgrade, but his argument was simply its used to cause damage...therefore its a weapon. In my mind I tried to imagine (similar scenario) someone blowing off a deff-rolla from a battle wagon which seemed ludicrous.

Are wargear selections subject to weapon destroyed results?

... lots of things could be weapons ... games workshop has never defined what 'function like a weapon' but not a weapon is...

I'm a strong believer in stuff like this counting for weapon destroyed, however in my local gaming circle we've found it easier to only count thing that are actually weapons and ignore things that function like a weapon. There are so many different things that could count and no answer if it does or not.

But what about Deffrollas?!

RELEASE THE HOUNDS!

In all seriousness, our flgs plays it essentially the same way. Functioning as a weapon is a pretty gray area and, quite frankly, if you got a weapon destroyed result on something other than a one-gun-wonder, I think you deserve to take off something nasty like a Deffrolla or Wrecking Ball since it's the probably the worst damage table roll you can get.

DoW

All my vehichles in the IG dex have their weapons (Multilasers/Lascannons ect) listed under wargear. So yes, I would say an opponent can get rid of the wrecking ball. If we were to apply your logic of 'upgrades' to a Leman russ, you would not be able to choose the Sponsons as a Weapon Destroyed target.

From the section on Weapons we know that "Every weapon has a profile..", although the section on Assaults also clarifies that Close Combat Weapons also exist and do not have a profile.

Thus a Weapon is either a Ranged Weapon (with a profile) or a Close Combat Weapon. If it falls into one of these categories then it can be destroyed by weapon destroyed (as per the FAQ on Walker CCWs).

To the best of my knowledge a Wrecking Ball does not have a profile, and so is not a ranged Weapon. Neither is it used in Assaults and so is not a Close Combat Weapon. Thus it cannot be the subject of a Weapon Destroyed result as it isn't a weapon.

Emperors Faithful wrote:All my vehichles in the IG dex have their weapons (Multilasers/Lascannons ect) listed under wargear. So yes, I would say an opponent can get rid of the wrecking ball. If we were to apply your logic of 'upgrades' to a Leman russ, you would not be able to choose the Sponsons as a Weapon Destroyed target.

This is incorrect. The rules for 'weapon destroyed' specify:

"One of the vehicle's weapons (chosen by the attacker) is destroyed - ripped off by the force of the attack...This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles."


It is *very* clear what weapons a vehicle has, sponson-mounted weapons included. The only theoretical grey area here is what other stuff 'function[s]' as a weapon.

In the game of 40K, you have two types of weapons:

1) Ranged weapons, that have a profile as demonstrated on page 27 of the rules and are used when making shooting attacks (as described in the rules for shooting)
2) Close combat weapons as described on page 42 of the rules, that are used to make attacks in close combats (as described in the rules for fighting a close combat).


Therefore, in order for something to 'function' like a weapon, it has to have a ranged profile to be used for shooting. Although vehicles can be assaulted, they cannot be locked in combat, so to this point there are no close combat weapons for vehicles except for those used by walkers. An Ork Boarding Plank allows models on board to asault, but is not a weapon and is not used by the vehicle to make attacks in a close combat (as non-walker vehicles cannot get engaged in combat). A Wreckin Ball is used in the Assault phase, but again, is not used by the vehicle to make attacks in close combat (as non-walker vehicles cannot get engaged in close combat).


The premise that because a piece of wargear inflicts damage this means it 'functions as a weapon' is a completely arbitrary line drawn in the sand that has absolutely no bearing in the rules. Worse, it cannot be supported any more then a hundred other ludicrous similar premises like: 'all weapons are glued to a vehicle therefore any wargear glued to the vehicle functions like a weapon' or 'all weapons require the player to roll dice and therefore any wargear that requires a player to roll dice functions like a weapon.'

The truth is, NOT all weapons inflict damage...some just cause crazy effects while others just inflict instant death without causing wounds, etc, etc, etc. The ONLY concrete line that can be determined by the rules are the two types of weapons defined in the rules: ranged weapons and close combat weapons.

Ranged weapons have a profile and are used to shoot and close combat weapons are used by models when locked in combat.

Unless a piece of wargear fits into one of these two existing patterns, it is NOT a weapon and cannot be destroyed by a 'weapon destroyed' result.


Deff Rollas cannot be destroyed. Tau Flechette Dischargers cannot be destroyed. Ork Wreckin Balls cannot be destroyed, etc, etc, etc.

I disagree. In my opinion a vehicle upgrade functions as a weapon if it inflicts wounds or damage results on any models, or enhances the vehicle's ability to do so. This definition isn't any more arbitrary that the one you're drawing.

You have to infer/make up a definition for "function as a weapon" to destroy anything other than a shooting weapon with a profile.

The Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon is the classic example. It has no profile, and the Dreadnought inflicts the wounds, but the DCCW increases its strength and ignores armor saves.

The Deffrolla inflict wounds more directly than a DCCW does; why shouldn't it be considered a weapon?

Mannahnin wrote:I disagree. In my opinion a vehicle upgrade functions as a weapon if it inflicts wounds or damage results on any models, or enhances the vehicle's ability to do so. This definition isn't any more arbitrary that the one you're drawing.

You have to infer/make up a definition for "function as a weapon" to destroy anything other than a shooting weapon with a profile.

The Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon is the classic example. It has no profile, and the Dreadnought inflicts the wounds, but the DCCW increases its strength and ignores armor saves.

The Deffrolla inflict wounds more directly than a DCCW does; why shouldn't it be considered a weapon?

But that premise does not hold water. Not all weapons inflict wounds or damage results on models. For example, the old Dark Eldar codex had those vehicle grenade launchers that just caused pinning. Or a weapon could theoretically just cause a unit to count as moving in difficult terrain the next turn.

Basically a ranged weapon can be written to have absolutely any effect a writer comes up with, so if we follow that logic we have to assume that every single piece of vehicle wargear effectively functions like a weapon and can be destroyed, which is obviously preposterous.


The Dreadnought Close Combat weapon is not the same as a Deff Rolla. Besides the fact that its called a 'Dreadnought Close Combat weapon', its rules specify that it is a power weapon, which is a defined 'special close combat weapon' (not to mention the rules explicitly tell you what happens when it is removed by a 'weapon destroyed' result). So again, I would point to the fact that if any piece of wargear functions as a close combat weapon, then it by definition *is* functioning as a weapon.

And let's be frank here. The only item anyone really cares about is the Deff Rolla. Nobody wants a Dark Eldar player to deny them the ability to count their 2nd 'weapon destroyed' result as 'immobilized' because they've also got 'Envenomed Blades' or a 'Shock Prow'.

The Deff Rolla does not function as a weapon. While it enhances the vehicle's ability to cause damage while tank shocking/ramming it in no way functions like either defined type of weapon in the game (ranged or close combat).

My definition is not arbitrary, it is actually based on the two weapon types defined in the rules. Ranged weapons have a profile and are used to make shooting attacks and close combat weapons give the model bonuses when used in close combat.

Mannahnin wrote:I disagree. In my opinion a vehicle upgrade functions as a weapon if it inflicts wounds or damage results on any models, or enhances the vehicle's ability to do so. This definition isn't any more arbitrary that the one you're drawing.

You have to infer/make up a definition for "function as a weapon" to destroy anything other than a shooting weapon with a profile.

The Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon is the classic example. It has no profile, and the Dreadnought inflicts the wounds, but the DCCW increases its strength and ignores armor saves.

The Deffrolla inflict wounds more directly than a DCCW does; why shouldn't it be considered a weapon?

Because by the definition you give Enhanced Aethersails count as a weapon. They allow a model to move faster, thus enhancing it's ability to deal damage through a tank shock/ram. Would you agree with Enhanced Aethersails being chosen as the subject of a Weapon Destroyed result?

But that premise does not hold water. Not all weapons inflict wounds or damage results on models. For example, the old Dark Eldar codex had those vehicle grenade launchers that just caused pinning. Or a weapon could theoretically just cause a unit to count as moving in difficult terrain the next turn.

The obvious example you're looking for here is Tau markerlights. They do no damage, cause no wounds, do not, increase the firers ability to do damage and otherwise have no direct ill effect on the targetted unit. However when your mate points his gun at them they burst into life

Yet they are still a ranged weapon. As they are by Yakefaces definition...

It's also worth considering that expanding the weapon destroyed result into vehicle wargear also reduces the effect of glancing hits by making it considerably more difficult to kill a vehicle with multiple weapon destroyed or immobilised results.

As such, I support the tightest possible definition of weapon for this purpose.

All of this is why my group choose to limit weapons destroyed to weapon. There are many things that 'function like a weapon' that could easily count and there is no way of telling what does count. It is all very subjective.

The Deff Rolla is a good example ...

yakface wrote:The Deff Rolla does not function as a weapon. While it enhances the vehicle's ability to cause damage while tank shocking/ramming it in no way functions like either defined type of weapon in the game (ranged or close combat).

... while I agree that it doesn't match any other weapon type, that doesn't mean it isn't. A battle wagon without deff rolla (or any other weapons) cannot cause any harm (other then a moral test); a battle wagon with a deff rolla can. A weapon is an instrument used with the aim of causing harm or death to human being and i think this counts.

Still it needs defining better ...

No, a Deff Rolla is an upgrade that enhances the vehicles Tank Shocks and Rams, so that they (the rams and shocks) causes damage.

Tri wrote:... while I agree that it doesn't match any other weapon type, that doesn't mean it isn't. A battle wagon without deff rolla (or any other weapons) cannot cause any harm (other then a moral test); a battle wagon with a deff rolla can. A weapon is an instrument used with the aim of causing harm or death to human being and i think this counts.

Rulebook pagbe 61 wrote:...this can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted Storm Bolters and hunter-killer missiles.

I think "function as weapons" is a fairly broad term, and within the context of GW's kind of common-sense writing idiom, I do think that items like Deffrollas and Flechette Launchers, which cause wounds or damage results, could easily be seen as weapons.

That being said, I concede that Yak's choice of where to draw the line of what is a weapon and what is not is probably the clearest and most consistent intepretation presently available, and am content to use it.

I think there are a lot of valid points here. All are well thought and backed. My friend is favored of stating "if it looks like a duck...quacks like one...what is it?"

But when you are talking about a game as complex as 40k where everything depends upon specific definition to determine whether it is viable, then I want it clear.

I believe Yakface has made the most convincing case, and clear definition. At least for me it makes perfect sense. This is how it all translates to me given the above points. Or least how it makes sense to me.

1. There is no wpn profile.
2. There is no WS or BS roll made.
3. Neither declare/define "functions as any kind of weapon" anywhere in their description.
4. Their effects only occur under very specific circumstances, and not as a part of Shooting or Assault (vehicles can't assault, or your talkin tank shock).

While it is perfectly arguable that if it causes damage, it is a weapon. But again, in a game I believe you need clear definition. Hell, a vehicle causes damage all by itself- It's a moving weapon...right?

Extremely silly comparison I know...

+1 to yakface. basiclly anything listed under the vehicle armory thats not indicated as being a pintle mount or HK is immune to WD results. otherwise it just gets too messy and confusing to run the game.

Couple things to consider here:

1) How about the original question that was raised in this thread, the wreckin ball? It certainly seems to meet the requirements for a cc weapon....it has a range, a roll to hit, a str etc. If we draw a hard and fast rule that doesnt include things such as this we would appear to be changing RAW. <not that there is anything wrong with changing RAW, we just need to be clear about it>


2) How about the clear parallel between a weapon that enhances a model's attacks (ie a power fist or power klaw) and a vehicle upgrade that enhances a model's attacks (ie a deff rolla).



One of the largest problems is that what is considered a weapon is pretty broad in 40k. Just from the ork codex we see that grenades, tank busta bombs, a bomb squig and even a kustom force field are weapons. So rather than being narrow in their definition, it appears that what is considered to be a weapon is very very broad.


A deff rolla may well not function enough as a weapon to fit the rule. However, a wreckin ball is a much harder call to make. If we limit the rule to ONLY the listed pintle mounts or hunter-killer missiles then we are ignoring the "such as..." portion of the rules.



Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:
A deff rolla may well not function enough as a weapon to fit the rule. However, a wreckin ball is a much harder call to make. If we limit the rule to ONLY the listed pintle mounts or hunter-killer missiles then we are ignoring the "such as..." portion of the rules.

The Wrecking Ball is much closer, but still not a weapon within the games definitions.

1. It isn't a CCW, because it isn't used in Close Combats. It doesn't use the models attacks or WS, and isn't labeled as a CCW.
2. It isn't a Ranged Weapon, because it doesn't have a profile. It has most of the important parts, but lacks the key part indicating what kind of weapon it is. Is it Assault, Rapid Fire, Heavy, Pistol, or Ordinance? If it isn't one of those, it's not a Ranged Weapon by the main rulebook.

The problem is that all of these definitions about what is and is not a ranged weapon fail completely and utterly when faced with the various special weapons in the game that are defined explicitly as weapons.

Do you want a ranged weapon without a profile that doesn't cause any wounds? Pavane of Slaanesh.
Do you want a ranged weapon without a profile that does cause wounds? Aura of Decay.
Do you want a ranged weapon without the indicator of what type it is? Breath of Chaos.

The problem is that for 40K the phrase "functions as a weapon" is vague to the point of uselessness because there really isn't a useful definition of weapon beyond other than "it says it is" except I'm sure there's at least one weapon that doesn't actually say it's a weapon.

solkan wrote:The problem is that all of these definitions about what is and is not a ranged weapon fail completely and utterly when faced with the various special weapons in the game that are defined explicitly as weapons.

Do you want a ranged weapon without a profile that doesn't cause any wounds? Pavane of Slaanesh.
Do you want a ranged weapon without a profile that does cause wounds? Aura of Decay.
Do you want a ranged weapon without the indicator of what type it is? Breath of Chaos.

The problem is that for 40K the phrase "functions as a weapon" is vague to the point of uselessness because there really isn't a useful definition of weapon beyond other than "it says it is" except I'm sure there's at least one weapon that doesn't actually say it's a weapon.

Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon, but that doesn't make them ranged weapons. If you had some ability that could destroy a 'weapon' off any model (god forbid), this would not give you leeway to destroy psychic shooting attacks because they aren't weapons...its just that using one counts as firing a ranged weapon.

The other thing that all ranged attacks have is that they count as shooting. While many of them ignore different steps in the shooting process, when you're finished using them your model has now finished shooting for the phase.

And that's the real key here...

Ranged weapons are used to shoot (the rules for shooting) and close combat weapons are used to fight in close combat (fighting close combat rules). If an item isn't functioning in either of these two ways then it isn't functioning as a weapon as defined in the game.

@Chrysis Except the vehicle upgrade does NOT need to be a weapon, it is not a weapon but merely needs to function as a weapon. From the rule, the upgrade most clearly does not need to actually be a weapon.

Weapons are unfortunately not limited to such a strict definition of ranged and cc weapons. Most weapons can be easily be seen to be a ranged or a cc weapon...but we have examples that are not so limited.


In the ork codex we have the kustom force field as a weapon. This item only has a defensive effect, so apparently there are defensive weapons in 40k.

In the blood angels codex we find that the servo harness is a weapon. This is the harness itself, not the servo arm on the harness, not the plasma cutter but the harness itself is the weapon.

In the DE codex we find that cluster caltrops are a weapon. Cluster caltrops modify the attack that a reaver jetbike makes with its bladevanes. (eerily, this is a weapon that functions in a manner similar to the deff rolla).

In the DE codex we find that flip belts are weapons. Flip belts affect movement...

For that matter, the reaver jetbike and the skyboard are both weapons as well.




So clearly in 40k there are many items that are weapons that do not shoot or affect cc. Weapons are clearly not limited to shooting or cc. It appears that 40k functioning like a weapon is a very loose category rather than a tight neat set of items. Or in other words, yes they have done it again.



Sliggoth

I think that besides the wooly writing of the rules, common sense would presume that anything which has the capacity to cause harm by intention or design is by it's very nature a weapon.

Valid examples above of course clearly state that some items do not cause any physical harm, but are still classified as weapons. Well then, if we are to allow exceptions on that side of the fence is it not fair to allow them this side too?

I would defiantely classify an item which has the capacity to wound a weapon, regardless of whether it is described as such. Eethersails or Star Engines are not weapons, as their intention or design is not to cause harm. A big spiky ball, or a big spiky roller is designed and intended as a weapon.

Yeah, I can't sign on to the Yakface train here... It is way too muddy of an issue to pretend it is as cut and dried as some profess. Compelling arguments either way, certainly, but no slam dunk as I see it. And I can't see any clear resolution until GW makes a definitive statement on it (which they probably won't since they didn't take the opportunity in their recent FAQ flood). So then you are left with "house interpretations" (arbitrary) that FLGS use or the INAT (equally arbitrary but widely disseminated) that some tournies use.

Beast wrote:Yeah, I can't sign on to the Yakface train here... It is way too muddy of an issue to pretend it is as cut and dried as some profess. Compelling arguments either way, certainly, but no slam dunk as I see it. And I can't see any clear resolution until GW makes a definitive statement on it (which they probably won't since they didn't take the opportunity in their recent FAQ flood). So then you are left with "house interpretations" (arbitrary) that FLGS use or the INAT (equally arbitrary but widely disseminated) that some tournies use.

I think it's pretty clear, and a lot of people are trying to misinterpret this. Go by what is actually defined as a weapon as Yakface has presented. In order for something to be a weapon, it needs to function as one, IE, makes close combat attacks in the assault phase (which a vehicle cannot do to begin with) or fire using a ballistic skill in the shooting phase.

It's either that, or any wargear can be destroyed, which totally messes things up in very clearly unintended ways.

For example: You've immobilized my chimera, and blown off the multilaser and heavy flamer (it has no stubber or HKM). You immobilize or weapon destroy again. I tell you to pick a wargear, blow off the extra armor, searchlight, camo netting, etc etc etc until you get through those. Then I'm wrecked.

Come on guys...

Like I said, it is not as clearly cut and dreid as you are trying to say it is. I understand you just want to go with an interpretation, but GW made the statement about "functions as a weapon". That is a very mushy and "interpretable" statement.

I'm not professing you go one way or the other, just saying groups will have to make an arbitrary decision since it is so vague...

Because something functions as a weapon, does not make it a weapon.

And only weapons are subject to weapon destroyed results. This is where you're losing it.

I can use a ladle as a spoon, but just because it functions like a spoon, doesn't make it a spoon.

Except... Didn't GW say that things which "function as weapons" can be removed by weapon destroyed results... Doesn't that make my point of how vague and unclear things are in this case... An arbitrary decision (however you decide to rule) is the only way forward.

targetawg: That is flatly incorrect- the Weapon Destroyed results specifically includes "upgrades that function as weapons". Hence the dispute.

Out of interest, without taking sides on this issue, if we assume that Deff Rollas, Wrecking Balls and anything else that can cause damage are destroyable....... how many items could be debatable or a "grey area"?

jmurph wrote:targetawg: That is flatly incorrect- the Weapon Destroyed results specifically includes "upgrades that function as weapons". Hence the dispute.

IIRC weapons are a defined entry in the core rules. Once you are told "upgrades that function as weapons" you need to look up what a weapon is according to the core rules. And Wrecking Balls, Deff-Rollas, and extra armor don't fit the characteristics in that section, as I believe the beginning of the section defines them as having a profile and a few other characteristics. I'd need someone to quote this text (I don't have my core rulebook on me).