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.

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Wow, I'm gone for a week....

Anyway, I am of the Opinion that only upgrades that are fully defined as a weapon (either by saying they are a CCW or having a FULL profile [Name, Range, Strength, AP, Type] in the case of a Shooting Weapon) count as one for Weapon Destroyed results.

A Wrecking Ball does not have this.

Welcome back. I'd lost intrest in this thread as the other side were just saying it wasn't a weapon no rule. At least I can have a debate with you.

Now this is where every one goes wrong it does not need to be a weapon.

3 Damage - Weapon Destroyed
One of the vehicle's weapons (chosen by the attacker) is destroyed - ripped off by the force of the attack. If a vehicle has no weapon left, treat this result as an 'immobilised' result instead. This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles.

All it wants are vehicle upgrades, that function as weapons. What is the function of a weapon? To attack the enemy. Your arguing that it doesn't have a full profile. Well it depends which phase its used in. Shooting phase must have range, Strength and AP. The Assault Phase never uses the AP value; You ether ignore armour or don't. It is almost identicaly formated to every other CCW in 40k. But wait they can never charge into CC how will they ever use it? Easy it can attack any unlocked unit, within 2" at the start of the assault phase; Like those pesky unit that assualted you last turn (or is about to ... harlequins only have a 3" melta range)

Deffrolla is a more tricky one to define. I think it is unquestionably a weapon as it causes D6-2D6 Strength 10 hits. It is being used like a CCW to modifies the the Tank Charge Attack. And Tank Charge is listed as a Special Attack.

Yes but you forget that for a Weapon to count as a Close Combat Weapon it must specifically be stated as such. A Weapon is anything with a Full Profile or Specifically States as a CCW. A HK Missile has a full Profile, a Wrecking Ball does not, it has a Strength and a Fixed "to hit" number. If that counts as a weapon, then a Ram is also a weapon (After all, it has a Strength, and a fixed To hit roll [automatic]), a Tank Shock is a Weapon, and flechette dischargers are weapons.

In Short, It just opens up a huge can of worms. To keep it simple, just have upgrades that are actually weapons count as them. Of course, if you insist in a game that a Wreking ball is a Weapon, I will insist that my Extra Armour and Dozer Blades are too

IMHO a "vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon" does not need a full weapon profile.
It may have special rules that allow it to function as a weapon without requiring a full profile.
Also, there are several things that ARE weapons that do not use the standard Weapon rules; two from Codex: Ork are Bomb-Squigs and Kustom Force Field.

BlackSpike wrote:IMHO a "vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon" does not need a full weapon profile.
It may have special rules that allow it to function as a weapon without requiring a full profile.
Also, there are several things that ARE weapons that do not use the standard Weapon rules; two from Codex: Ork are Bomb-Squigs and Kustom Force Field.

Yes, but neither of them are on vehicles, so do not have any place in this debate.

If you are going to take "Function as a Weapon" to be literally "Anything that can kill a model" then Tank Shocking is a Weapon, therefore a Tank itself is a weapon, and could be destroyed by the first Weapon Destroyed result.

A custom force field is a weapon? I thought that was a mobile cover save device...

BrotherStynier wrote:A custom force field is a weapon? I thought that was a mobile cover save device...

He has to exchange a Weapon for it, so apparently it counts as a two handed weapon. I guess because it was written for 4th edition that still cared about how much a model could carry (in 5th the only restriction on two handed weapons is if you use it in CC [eg. A Big Choppa] you cannot get bonus attacks)

well even cosidering that it dose damage ad the boarding plank thing gw staff members told me know as it is only used at certain points in a game. it is not like a normal close combat weapon isit!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woops imeant gw staff told me NO

Well to keep the "can of worms" in the same context as the Ork upgrade, we can look at other army's upgrades that have an 'almost' profile and function like weapons. These include but are not limited too:

DE Slave snares: they act as str 4 hits on units the Raider goes over

DE Scythes: These cause str 5 hits on units that assault a Vehicle with this upgrade in an assault on models that roll a 1 to hit

Tau flachet (sp?) launchers: Act like the DE scythes sorta...I don't own the codex

Are some of examples of upgrades that act like weapons in certain circumstances.

I personally would not consider any of these as 'weapon' upgrades.

Gwar! wrote:

BrotherStynier wrote:A custom force field is a weapon? I thought that was a mobile cover save device...

He has to exchange a Weapon for it, so apparently it counts as a two handed weapon. I guess because it was written for 4th edition that still cared about how much a model could carry (in 5th the only restriction on two handed weapons is if you use it in CC [eg. A Big Choppa] you cannot get bonus attacks)

Oh okay, thanks for clearing that up.

Gwar! wrote:
Yes but you forget that for a Weapon to count as a Close Combat Weapon it must specifically be stated as such. A Weapon is anything with a Full Profile or Specifically States as a CCW. A HK Missile has a full Profile, a Wrecking Ball does not, it has a Strength and a Fixed "to hit" number. If that counts as a weapon, then a Ram is also a weapon (After all, it has a Strength, and a fixed To hit roll [automatic]), a Tank Shock is a Weapon, and flechette dischargers are weapons.

In Short, It just opens up a huge can of worms. To keep it simple, just have upgrades that are actually weapons count as them. Of course, if you insist in a game that a Wreking ball is a Weapon, I will insist that my Extra Armour and Dozer Blades are too

It unfortunately doesn't need to be a weapon just function like one.

All Tanks can Make 2 movement attacks Tank shock and Ramming. "When moving a tank, the player can declare that the vehicle is going to attempt to make a tank shock attack instead of moving normally" & as we all know Ramming is a special type of tank charge.

Do you lose your attacks if you don't have a CCW? No you can still hit them but gain no bonuses. If that CCW is a power weapon you ignore armour. If its a Power fist then it slows you down but also doubles your strength and ignores armour. A deffrolla bring some hefty bonuses to that attack why would you not class that as being like a weapon (please don't just say it isn't called one, that is not required by the rule).

So we should keep it simple? Now whats not simple about any thing that functions like a weapon being destroyable? Extra Armour and Dozer Blades don't act like a weapon.

Hell heres a list of things that don't act like a weapon
Ard case, armour plates, boarding plank, grot riggers, red paint job, stickbomb chukka, camo netting, dozer blades, enclosed crew compartment, extra armour, Searchlights, smoke launcher, cerberus launcher, frag assault launcher, ironclad assault launcher, jamming beacon, blacksun filter, decoy launchers, disruption pod, landing gear, multi-tracker, sensor spines, targetting array, target lock, holo-field, spirt stone, star engines, vector engines

And heres those that do
Deff rolla, wrecking ball, pintle- mounted weapons, hk missiles, flechette discharger, seeker missile

That all the codex's I have near me but as you can see all the up grades that count as weapons because they attack the enemy or improve on attack the vehicle does. Some times automatically; other times using there own rules for when it happens; but they always do damage to the enemy.

So would you count Slave Snares and Scythes as weapons too? And how is the Deff Rolla a Weapon? It isn't used as a weapon, it is used to modify how a vehicle Tank Shocks.

The thing is also, that the Wrecking Ball and Deff rolla are used in the movement phase, not the Shooting or Assault Phase. Not many Weapons in 40k are used in the Movement phase. I don't think any are. There are only two types of Weapons in 40k, those used in the Shooting Phase (Known as ranged or Shooting Weapons) and those used in the Assault Phase.

There are no rules for weapons used in the Movement phase, so a Wrecking Ball cannot count as a weapon (nor function like a weapon because they only function in the shooting/Assault phase)

Wrecking Ball is used at the start of the the Assault phase gwar. And the Deffrolla is used to modifies an attack very much like a close combat weapon so it is like a weapon.

Slave Snares are weapon since damage is taken (the lost models also add to the results of the next shooting phase in regards to the moral check)

Scythes are a bit more tricky but i would also place them as a weapon since they're acting as a defensive attack.

Edit and for the last time they don't need to be a weapon. The rule only wants you to have a vehicle upgrade; that acts like a weapon

Since the weapon destroyed rules specifically add in a line about upgrades that function as weapons they obvoiusly meant for it to include some items that dont have a full weapon profile. This is possibly a case where the RAW actually was a bit giddy and was written to give us clear guidance in unusual cases -- a rare and golden moment if so.

As gwar points out weapons tend to function in either shooting or assault phases, this however is a point in favor of counting the wreckin ball as a weapon since it functions in the assault phase. It also has a to hit die roll and a str charateristic...plus it has a range limitation of 2" very similar to models in cc. It would be difficult for it to be be any closer to functioning as a weapon without actually being one.

The rolla and scythes are in a different class (similar to each other actually) since they take effect during the movement phase; it shouldnt be a surprise tho that some things from a codex as out of date as the DE codex would fit strangely under current rules. Rolla, scythes and snares should probbaly be considered separately from the wreckin ball since they are less clearly weaponlike.



So does the wreckin ball count as a weapon per the op's question?

Both sides seem to have to have made a case that it meets the definiton of functioning like a weapon, but it appears to not actually BE a weapon. So for weapon destroyed results it appears that a ball would count.



Sliggoth

Woops my bad I thought It was used in the Movement Phase (don't have the codex at hand).

Well, in any case, this is another Ambiguous case with more than one legitimate answer that can only be properly addressed with a GW errata blah blah blah.

Personally, I am starting to warm to the viewpoint put forward by Tri and the others (must be the Rum again), but I wont be convinced without a Proper GW Errata (yay for cop out answers, cause GW don't write Erratas any more )

Well if i ever play against you gwar I'll remember to bring the drinks. In the mean time it would be nice if GW would employ some one to keep the Errata and FAQ up date. (ok FAQ is just GW house rules but its better then nothing and does come with a GW backing)

Tri wrote:Well if i ever play against you gwar I'll remember to bring the drinks. In the mean time it would be nice if GW would employ some one to keep the Errata and FAQ up date. (ok FAQ is just GW house rules but its better then nothing and does come with a GW backing)

What we need is GW to pull their thumbs out, actually ISSUE errata (and NOT put rules changes in the FAQ pit for God-Emperor Sake) that clears it up and makes things Unambiguous (thereby eliminating the need for a "In-House Rules" FAQ Section).

The main problem is that the GW Shareholders do not perceive rules support as making them money, therefore they are not going to hire even 1 guy (that's all it needs really) to sort this stuff out.

The sad thing is the truth is the utter opposite. No Rules = No one buys Minis. The Sole Reason (Capitalised) people play 40k any more is because of it's huge player base. 90% of my buddies who all came into wargaming with me, all cut their teeth on 40k (as that's what their Older Friends also played) but all but myself have moved onto other, better rules set (with, lets be honest, terribad Minis). The only reason I haven't given up is because no one else where I am Plays anything BUT 40k (and a bit of Fantasy)

tl;dr Version:
GW make excellent miniatures, but don't make good rules

Sliggoth wrote:Since the weapon destroyed rules specifically add in a line about upgrades that function as weapons they obvoiusly meant for it to include some items that dont have a full weapon profile. This is possibly a case where the RAW actually was a bit giddy and was written to give us clear guidance in unusual cases -- a rare and golden moment if so.

As gwar points out weapons tend to function in either shooting or assault phases, this however is a point in favor of counting the wreckin ball as a weapon since it functions in the assault phase. It also has a to hit die roll and a str charateristic...plus it has a range limitation of 2" very similar to models in cc. It would be difficult for it to be be any closer to functioning as a weapon without actually being one.

The rolla and scythes are in a different class (similar to each other actually) since they take effect during the movement phase; it shouldnt be a surprise tho that some things from a codex as out of date as the DE codex would fit strangely under current rules. Rolla, scythes and snares should probbaly be considered separately from the wreckin ball since they are less clearly weaponlike.



So does the wreckin ball count as a weapon per the op's question?

Both sides seem to have to have made a case that it meets the definiton of functioning like a weapon, but it appears to not actually BE a weapon. So for weapon destroyed results it appears that a ball would count.



Sliggoth

I believe this sums up the answer quite well.

Thank you all for the well thought and indepth discussion. What I have gathered here is that by rule a vehicle upgrade must function as a weapon to be removed by a weapon destroyed result. The Wreckin' Ball (original question) appears to meet that requirement and I will play it as such until either an official GW FAQ or INAT.FAQ/Adepticon ruling changes this.

what is the strenght of the wrecking ball becuase if it is all about destroying it on a weapon destroyed result. is it st4 or less??? no then is a weapon. yes not a weapon

The wrecking ball has no strength, it just hits at a specific strength.

Emperor no seriously i am wrote:what is the strenght of the wrecking ball becuase if it is all about destroying it on a weapon destroyed result. is it st4 or less??? no then is a weapon. yes not a weapon

I don't understand this reasoning.
What does its Strength have to do with it being a weapon, or functioning as a weapon?

BlackSpike wrote:

Emperor no seriously i am wrote:what is the strenght of the wrecking ball becuase if it is all about destroying it on a weapon destroyed result. is it st4 or less??? no then is a weapon. yes not a weapon

I don't understand this reasoning.
What does its Strength have to do with it being a weapon, or functioning as a weapon?

If it doesn't have a strength, it cant possibly be a weapon, nor act like one. Otherwise Searchlights are weapons as well.

Wrecking Ball attacks at S9.
I don't see the distinction between S1-4 and S4+.
S3 weapons are still weapons, yes?

BlackSpike wrote:Wrecking Ball attacks at S9.
I don't see the distinction between S1-4 and S4+.
S3 weapons are still weapons, yes?

Indeed! or Sx!

sorry sr5+ it can be destroyed on a WEAPON destroyed result

Emperor no seriously i am wrote:sorry sr5+ it can be destroyed on a WEAPON destroyed result

WTF are you on about? Any Weapon can be destroyed by a Weapon Destroyed Result, even S1-4 weapons... Otherwise Storm Bolters would never get destroyed (which they do). Wrecking balls are not weapons, so they cannot be destroyed.

Gwar! wrote:

Emperor no seriously i am wrote:sorry sr5+ it can be destroyed on a WEAPON destroyed result

WTF are you on about? Any Weapon can be destroyed by a Weapon Destroyed Result, even S1-4 weapons... Otherwise Storm Bolters would never get destroyed (which they do).

Correct.

Wrecking balls are not weapons,

Correct

so they cannot be destroyed.

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

I would like to see Emperor quote a rule to back up his position that S1-4 weapons are treated differently from S5+ weapons.

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.

Emperor no seriously i am wrote:sorry sr5+ it can be destroyed on a WEAPON destroyed result

Wow! I wanna play against you! That way the Hurricane Bolters on my LRC will always be safe!

Seriously, that is so wrong it isn't even funny. Where did you get that idea from?

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.

Quite the opposite!
To function as a weapon, it quite specifically is NOT a weapon, so must not be stated to be a weapon!
A wrecking ball is a vehicle upgrade that functions as a close-combat weapon. It has a special rule for range, a special rule for to-hit, and has strength. It has a special rule for target-type.

EDIT: Can y ou show how a wrecking ball does NOT function as a close-combat weapon? Which essential features is it lacking?

Didn't one edition of 40k have a rule that defensive weapons couldn't be destroyed as a Weapon Destroyed result? Which just meant it rolled straight to Immobilized, or if Immoblized already, to Vehicle Destroyed. Although, I may be confusing game systems.

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.