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.

Sliggoth wrote:How do weapons function?

I just covered that in my post.

@sourclams
A vehicle explodes result is not a weapon, but you have to note that it does FUNCTION like a weapon which is the entire argument regarding

3 - Damaged - Weapon Destroyed wrote:
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 weapons left, treat this result as an 'immobilized' result instead. This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles.

The upgrade does not have to actually be a weapon... merely function like one.
One of the functions of a weapon is replacing the users strength with it's own.

Why argue against this? It's great that the GW finally has something official out there! No more of this back and forth. It works. Yay! 130pt BW here I come.

Which means I can disable the exploding with a weapon destroyed result!

Does Wrecked also count as a Weapon? I mean, it has the same effect as a Horrorfex witht he Pinning tests and all...

Klawz wrote:Which means I can disable the exploding with a weapon destroyed result!

I really wish people would stop trying to bring this up, as it is NOT VALID. A tank exploding is not an upgrade. The "Defrollas function as weapons" crowd has been very careful not to claim that "a weapon" is defined as "something which causes hits".

Which brings up an interesting question; if a weapon is not "something which causes hits", then how is some OTHER, non-weapon thing functioning as a weapon merely by causing hits?


EDIT: And on a related note;

"Please define "functions as a weapon". And then provide a logical argument which proves that your definition of "functions as a weapon" is what GW meant. And then provide another logical argument that we should use your interpretation of the RAI in this instance, as opposed to any other interpretation.

Once you've done that, and all your arguments stand, I will agree with you."

Nobody has done this yet.

@klawz & @gwar
Good work! Your reading comprehension has saved you again!

Lucky for us Exploding and Wrecked are vehicle upgrades, and so are clearly relevant to this discussion.

I keep forgetting I need to use small, concise sentences when @gwar might be involved.

Vehicle upgrades that function as weapons may be removed by a Weapon Destroyed result.

But nowhere does it say the Deff Rolla is a weapon. It doesn't fit the rules for either guns or DCCW, and if you are going to argue that something that only acts like a weapon is a weapon in a game, than I WILL go all rules-lawyer on you!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

paidinfull wrote:@klawz & @gwar
Good work! Your reading comprehension has saved you again!

Lucky for us Exploding and Wrecked are vehicle upgrades, and so are clearly relevant to this discussion.

I keep forgetting I need to use small, concise sentences when @gwar might be involved.

Vehicle upgrades that function as weapons may be removed by a Weapon Destroyed result.

But how does a weapon function?

paidinfull wrote:I'm curious how does the Deffrolla not function as a weapon per the definition of a weapon provided on p.27?

Ha, re-reading it's actually a pretty loose description but still take a look
BRB p61

3 - Damaged - Weapon Destroyed wrote:
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 weapons left, treat this result as an 'immobilized' result instead. This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles.

Now note the statement is not "count as weapons" but rather "function" like a weapon. Since the description of a weapon having a profile is irrelevant we have to look at the functions of the weapon.

Well the Deff Rolla has a Strength value(10) that functions identically to that of the strength of a weapon "when rolling to wound for shooting hits, use the weapon's Strength rather than the firer's." We're using S10 to do these hits instead of the Battlewagon's strength correct? It doesn't have a strength so we must be as the Battlewagon is causing the D6 hits. So that's one instance where it's clearly "functioning like a weapon." We have a maximum range "Base Contact" or 0", it doesn't work if the wagon hasn't made contact with it's target. We don't have an AP value so that's "-". Type is description of the weapon and not really a function of the weapon, but 3 out of 4 are functioning like a weapon"

It's funny, how is it NOT functioning like a weapon? Under the Tank Shock rules it even refer's to the tank being "aimed", with the obvious intent of coming into contact with an enemy unit.

The Wrecking Ball also "functions" like a weapon so could ALSO be removed. I'm confused how it can be argued any other way. That's like arguing with a Judge you can't be charged with "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" for beating someone with your shoe. "Well technically my shoe isn't a weapon" haha The Judge would say, "No, but it functioned like one when you used it to break the guys jaw, nose, orbital socket and cheekbone."

I'm pretty sure there's a section of the book called "Weapons" where they're defined as having a profile and a different section called "Special Close Combat Weapons". Your shoe, if it does anything other than provide you with +1 attack in close combat, is a "Special Close Combat Weapon".

All those things in the "Weapons" part of the book shoot and damage things at range and are defined as having a profile. Note that there is no subset of weapons called "ranged" and not really any support for an argument that the term "weapon" extends to anything other than ranged weapons.

The "functions as a weapon" examples in the vehicle damage description both have profiles, shoot and damage things at range.

The "Special Close Combat Weapons" section covers things that hurt you in close combat. Nothing in this section defines "close combat weapons" (special or otherwise)` as a subset of weapons. There's no support I can see for an argument that says the term "weapons" would include anything other than those things that have profiles. (I also don't think there's any support for inventing a "profile" for a deth-rolla given that they didn't put one in the army book.)

Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons are another separate entity. They're not part of the "Special Close Combat Weapons" group or the "Weapons" group. Their rules in the walkers section of the BRB allow them to be chosen as candidates for weapon destroyed results. There's no support for saying that DCCW are weapons or special close combat weapons.

If you go to the actual ork codex, you'll find that the distinction blurs and the authors list items that don't have profiles and indeed can't be used offensively (KFF) in the Weapons section. They don't put deth-rollas, reinforced rams, wreckin' balls, or any of the other items these arguments are trying to slide into the "weapons" category.


If we said that deth-rollas are weapons because they allow increased effectiveness in tank-shok/ramming, would we say that red paint jobs are too because they let me move farther and tank-shock more targets? If so, then there are a bunch more items in the same category that would suddenly prolong the lifespan of a damaged vehicle vs glancing hits.

If my battlewagon had a kustom force field and you wanted to blow it off with a weapon destroyed result, there would be an argument.

Dice cause wounds as well.
I think in my next game where i get a weapon damaged result, I'm going to tell my opponent that he can't use his dice anymore and thus has lost the game by default.

Preposterous, isn't it?


On a more serious note..
All i see now is people trying to make up their own definition of what "function as a weapon" means in order to support a very tenuous position.
The rules simply do not support that position.

The BRB defines what a weapon is, and how it functions.
The BRB discusses what happens when a player chooses a DCCW as the destroyed weapon.

A deffrolla does not fall within either of those categories.

I admit that there have been many spurious and downright silly comments regarding removing a person's vehicle because it could explode and do damage. I'm really surprised no one has tried to claim that passengers of a transport can be removed because they have weapons.


I've asked 3-4 times already in this thread for anyone to list a single example from an official source showing that something other than a "weapon" or DCCW being subject to a weapon destroyed to support their position. I've yet to see anyone give one.


I understand that people don't like the fact that deffrollas affect vehicles, but come on.
If you feel that a deffrolla running amok is going to be the be all and end all, then adjust your strategies accordingly.
The game evolves and so must you.

@waagh Well, to answer your questio about something other tan a weapon or a dccw being subjct to a weapon destroyed..its rather obvious. A hunter killer missile is listed right in the same paragraph that we are all discussing. And it just so happens that said missile isnt a weapon or a dccw. So what we are trying to do here is determine what other vehicle upgrades would also fall into this category of not being weapon yet still functioning as weapons.

And yes, talking about destroying dice is preposterous, since once again it doesnt belong in this thread. Or did I miss the part where dice are simehow a vehicle upgrade?

@sourclams Sorry to not have responded to you previously, as it seemed most likely that you were making a joke. But since you seem to be serious: UI neither know nor care if a straw man arguement involving an exploding vehicle is a weapon. Its totally irrelevant to the discussion and if you feel that strongly about it you should start a new thread about exploding vehicles



We are still seeing many arguements being raised that are diverting the thread badly...so many that I must wonder if people simply cant come up with good answers so they want to try and derail the thoughts here?



To some extent we do need to determine what constitutes "function as weapons" since it does seem likely that at least the wreckin ball would qualify.


Making ludricous comments that have no bearing on vehicle upgrades is entertaining, but not particularly helpful.



Sliggoth

jshbchnn wrote:
All those things in the "Weapons" part of the book shoot and damage things at range and are defined as having a profile. Note that there is no subset of weapons called "ranged" and not really any support for an argument that the term "weapon" extends to anything other than ranged weapons.

The "functions as a weapon" examples in the vehicle damage description both have profiles, shoot and damage things at range.

^^^^ This.

Rulebook Pg 27 "Every weapon has a profile that consists of several elements, for example: Name, Maximum Range, Strength, AP, Type" and gives the Boltgun stats.

The "functions as a weapon" examples both meet all the profile elements given as an example of a Weapon on pg 27.

Further quote: "All weapons are classified as either Rapid Fire, Pistol, Assault, Heavy, or Ordnance."

Observation: The Storm Bolter and Hunter Killer both have all the requirements of the Weapon section of the book: Name, Max Range, Strength, AP, and Type.

Further Observation: The Tau Flechette launcher, Ork Deff Rolla and Wreckin Ball, and Dark Eldar Slave Snares and Scythes, while causing damage of some sort do not meet the minimum listed requirements of Weapons on pg27 of the Rulebook as they lack one or more of the required profile elements.

Observed Logic Flaw: Equating the lack of a Maximum Range profile element to a vehicle wargear upgrade to Maximum Range profile element of zero inches.
Reason: A profile element is not the profile element value. A profile element is a container in which a value may be stored. The items without a profile element of "Maximum Range" cannot have a "Maximum Range" of zero inches since they lack the profile element to assign the value to. I understand this is not an easy concept for some, but database programmers and accountants will get this. You can't assign a value to a column if the column doesn't exist.

Conclusion: Storm Bolters and Hunter Killers are "function as" Weapon wargear upgrades. Deff Rollas, Wreckin Balls, Flechette Launchers, Slave Snares and Scythes are not.

Sliggoth wrote:@waagh Well, to answer your questio about something other tan a weapon or a dccw being subjct to a weapon destroyed..its rather obvious. A hunter killer missile is listed right in the same paragraph that we are all discussing. And it just so happens that said missile isnt a weapon or a dccw. So what we are trying to do here is determine what other vehicle upgrades would also fall into this category of not being weapon yet still functioning as weapons.

And yes, talking about destroying dice is preposterous, since once again it doesnt belong in this thread. Or did I miss the part where dice are simehow a vehicle upgrade?

@sourclams Sorry to not have responded to you previously, as it seemed most likely that you were making a joke. But since you seem to be serious: UI neither know nor care if a straw man arguement involving an exploding vehicle is a weapon. Its totally irrelevant to the discussion and if you feel that strongly about it you should start a new thread about exploding vehicles



We are still seeing many arguements being raised that are diverting the thread badly...so many that I must wonder if people simply cant come up with good answers so they want to try and derail the thoughts here?



To some extent we do need to determine what constitutes "function as weapons" since it does seem likely that at least the wreckin ball would qualify.


Making ludricous comments that have no bearing on vehicle upgrades is entertaining, but not particularly helpful.



Sliggoth

Wrong.
H-K missiles are single use weapons. They even have a weapon profile.
Your example doesn't hold water


Before anyone tries to claim that an h-k is not a weapon..

pg 58 brb


Optional Weapons
Some vehicles have, among the options of their army
list entry, the possibility of buying additional weapons, such
as one-shot missiles and pintle-mounted guns.
Firing one of these additional weapons counts as firing
one of the vehicle's normal weapons (unless they are
defensive weapons, as described above).


In short, all of the "functions as weapons" listed in the weapon destroyed rule are
defined as optional weapons here.
The only variation from this is a DCCW, which is specifically said to be subject to it.

The Green Git wrote:

jshbchnn wrote:
All those things in the "Weapons" part of the book shoot and damage things at range and are defined as having a profile. Note that there is no subset of weapons called "ranged" and not really any support for an argument that the term "weapon" extends to anything other than ranged weapons.

The "functions as a weapon" examples in the vehicle damage description both have profiles, shoot and damage things at range.

^^^^ This.

Rulebook Pg 27 "Every weapon has a profile that consists of several elements, for example: Name, Maximum Range, Strength, AP, Type" and gives the Boltgun stats.

The "functions as a weapon" examples both meet all the profile elements given as an example of a Weapon on pg 27.

Further quote: "All weapons are classified as either Rapid Fire, Pistol, Assault, Heavy, or Ordnance."

Observation: The Storm Bolter and Hunter Killer both have all the requirements of the Weapon section of the book: Name, Max Range, Strength, AP, and Type.

Further Observation: The Tau Flechette launcher, Ork Deff Rolla and Wreckin Ball, and Dark Eldar Slave Snares and Scythes, while causing damage of some sort do not meet the minimum listed requirements of Weapons on pg27 of the Rulebook as they lack one or more of the required profile elements.

Observed Logic Flaw: Equating the lack of a Maximum Range profile element to a vehicle wargear upgrade to Maximum Range profile element of zero inches.
Reason: A profile element is not the profile element value. A profile element is a container in which a value may be stored. The items without a profile element of "Maximum Range" cannot have a "Maximum Range" of zero inches since they lack the profile element to assign the value to. I understand this is not an easy concept for some, but database programmers and accountants will get this. You can't assign a value to a column if the column doesn't exist.

Conclusion: Storm Bolters and Hunter Killers are "function as" Weapon wargear upgrades. Deff Rollas, Wreckin Balls, Flechette Launchers, Slave Snares and Scythes are not.

The only other things that can be destroyed are DCCW, because they said so.

Klawz wrote:The only other things that can be destroyed are DCCW, because they said so.

Thank you, and yes. There is a specific example of DCCW being selected but of course this is only for Walkers and is an exception.

The Green Git wrote:
Thank you, and yes. There is a specific example of DCCW being selected but of course this is only for Walkers and is an exception.

And this is the strongest argument against removing Deffrollas on a WDR; the norm is that you cannot blow wargear off of a vehicle, and where you are allowed to, it is because a specific rule explicitly allows you to. The Deffrolla has no such rule and is not classified as a weapon.

yakface wrote:

coredump wrote:I do not think it is a weapon.

But I do think it acts like one, and that is all the rules dictate.

The rules do not say "Weapons purchased as a vehicle upgrade",
they do not say "Vehicle upgrades that are also weapons", they say "Vehicle upgrades that 'act like' a weapon"

I see no need to be able to define the deff rolla as a weapon in order for it to act like a weapon.

I think it is unfortunate that their examples are both of vehicles upgrades that *are* weapons, but that does not change what the rule actually says.

So boarding planks are weapons? Grabba Claws? Flechette Launchers? Frag Assault Launchers?

Where is the imaginary line drawn if the vehicle upgrade doesn't have to actually be a weapon?

I agree with your point, it may be a 'cleaner' rule if we only count things that are weapons, or have a weapon stat line. Less grey area, an easier break point. I just don't think it is the best way otherwise.

To me, to 'function' like a weapon basically means it is doing damage to the target.

Boarding plank? No, it just allows a model to attack
Grabba Klaw? No, it holds something still, but to me that is not 'functioning' like a weapon, it does no damage.
Flechette launchers? Yes.
Frag Assault Launchers? No. Again, they do not do damage.

I think if an upgrade is used to damage the enemy, that is the same function as a weapon.

coredump wrote:
To me, to 'function' like a weapon basically means it is doing damage to the target.

Ok, THIS is the crux of the issue. Where in the rules is this definition? Where do you get it from?

BeRzErKeR wrote:

coredump wrote:
To me, to 'function' like a weapon basically means it is doing damage to the target.

Ok, THIS is the crux of the issue. Where in the rules is this definition? Where do you get it from?

Simple, I don't.

The rules are clear, you can remove an upgrade if it 'functions like a weapon'

They rules are not clear, however, on what it means to 'function like a weapon'.

[This happens all the time, for instance the rules are also clear about front side rear armor, but not so clear on how to figure it out. (ala devilfish, etc.)]

So, what the debate *really* should be about, is what *does* it mean for something to "function like a weapon".
Note: this is not the same as *being* a weapon, or meeting the definition of a weapon.

For me, I tried to decide, what is the main function of a weapon? My answer was 'to cause damage to the enemy'.

Does anyone else have a better response?

Double post.

Well, actually, the obvious answer is in fact that something which "functions like a weapon" does so by meeting the criteria for being a weapon.

Failing that, something could "function like a weapon" by doing the same kind of thing that the objects described under "weapons" do. So, for instance, a Weirdboy's Frazzle power "functions like a weapon" because it does exactly the same thing as a weapon. This also brings us back to the point that something can only "function like a weapon", under this definition, by meeting all the criteria for BEING a weapon. . . making it a weapon.

In short, my argument is that "functions like a weapon" is simply clarification text ensuring that nobdoy tries to argue that hunter-killer missiles, pintle-mounted storm bolters, and the like are NOT "weapons", because they are upgrades, and thus cannot be removed on a Weapon Destroyed result. "Functions like a weapon" basically means, in the Warhammer 40k ruleset, "is a weapon".

Why? Becaause we are given no other context in which to interpret the phrase. A "weapon" is defined, along with several similar things that (importantly) are not actually weapons. We know what weapons do. But Deffrollas and similar upgrades don't do the exact same thing! So, how much "like" a "weapon" do you have to be to function "like" a "weapon"? I don't think simply inflicting hits cuts the mustard.

Something important to note; we cannot simply use the dictionary definition of "weapon" here. The dictionary frankly has little to do with Warhammer 40k. A "Weapon" is entirely separate from a "Close-Combat Weapon", which is itself distinct from a "Dreadnought Close-Combat Weapon". Simple English would indicate that the latter two are subtypes, but in Warhammer 40k that's not the case.

You're basing your argument off of your personal interpretation of the rules; that is, your opinion as to the RAI. That's not sufficient. We're looking for RAW here. Since the RAW are unclear, I propose we default to the most literal interpretation which allows the game to proceed; that is, that in order to "function like a weapon" an object must BE a "Weapon".

coredump wrote:
For me, I tried to decide, what is the main function of a weapon? My answer was 'to cause damage to the enemy'.

Does anyone else have a better response?

As has already been explored, if the only criteria for something to be a weapon is whether or not that thing causes damage to an enemy, then dangerous terrain, vehicle explodes results, sweeping advances, and Gets Hot! rolls would all be classified as weapons. Since at least one of these things is quite clearly not a weapon by conventional understanding, there has to be some other component. GW defines that component as a weapon profile.

sourclams wrote:As has already been explored, if the only criteria for something to be a weapon is whether or not that thing causes damage to an enemy, then dangerous terrain, vehicle explodes results, sweeping advances, and Gets Hot! rolls would all be classified as weapons.

But not as Vehicle Upgrades that count as weapons, which is the actual criteria for removal under discussion...

Without weighing in on either side (because frankly, at this point I'm a little undecided as to the best way to play it), that's the thing that seems to be consistently overlooked in this thread. The argument isn't that anything that causes damage can be removed by a Weapon Destroyed result. The argument is that Weapon Destroyed results apply to Weapons and to vehicle upgrades that function as weapons... and that in that context any upgrade that causes damage can be said to be a weapon.

So can we please stop with the claims that this somehow applies to anything that isn't a vehicle upgrade?

insaniak wrote:

But not as Vehicle Upgrades that count as weapons, which is the actual criteria for removal under discussion...

Without weighing in on either side (because frankly, at this point I'm a little undecided as to the best way to play it), that's the thing that seems to be consistently overlooked in this thread. The argument isn't that anything that causes damage can be removed by a Weapon Destroyed result. The argument is that Weapon Destroyed results apply to Weapons and to vehicle upgrades that function as weapons... and that in that context any upgrade that causes damage can be said to be a weapon.

So can we please stop with the claims that this somehow applies to anything that isn't a vehicle upgrade?

Correct on all counts. My counter-argument is that saying that merely causing damage is grounds for saying something "acts like a weapon" is not supported in the rules, and stricter readings are preferable in places where the rules are unclear. The stricter reading is that "weapon" and "acts like a weapon" are redundant, and "acts like a weapon" essentially means "is a weapon". This requires a vehicle upgrade to BE a weapon, as defined in the BRB, in order to be removed by a Weapon Destroyed result.

So you think that they are weapons?

I understand what you're saying; only if it's a vehicle upgrade is it eligible for a Destroyed result, but if we all agree that these things aren't weapons then the premise by which a Deffrolla "functions as a weapon" is equally preposterous.

These effects aren't eligible because they're neither vehicle upgrades nor weapons. The Deffrolla isn't eligible because although it is a vehicle upgrade, it's still not a weapon.

Not sure if I said it or not, but this is a total, "counts as jump infantry" argument.

An unit that is equipped with an item that makes them count as jump infantry is still the unit they were and is never jump infantry. They may count as jump infantry, but are never truly jump infantry.

A vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon, is never a weapon. It may function as a weapon, but it is never truly a weapon.

So while you want to wave in the what weapon profiles are for weapons, do not wave them in the air for a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon. It isn't a weapon, it is a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon.

Now for the storm bolter and missile crowd, read the rule again:

"...functions as a weapon, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles."

That sentence structure is not a definitive of what constitutes a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon. The specific use of "such as" followed by two examples does not limit you to those two examples. With this reasoning, you are saying that the only army that has vehicle upgrades that can function as weapons are Space Marines since no other army has pintle mounted storm bolters and hunter-killer missiles.

BeRzErKeR wrote: My counter-argument is that saying that merely causing damage is grounds for saying something "acts like a weapon" is not supported in the rules, and stricter readings are preferable in places where the rules are unclear. The stricter reading is that "weapon" and "acts like a weapon" are redundant, and "acts like a weapon" essentially means "is a weapon". This requires a vehicle upgrade to BE a weapon, as defined in the BRB, in order to be removed by a Weapon Destroyed result.

Please note that I am in no way limiting the possibilities only to pintle-mounted storm bolters and HK missiles. Big shootas and rokkit launchas fall into this category, as do big gunz and killkannons on Battlewagons, and I do not list examples for other armies only because I am largely unfamiliar with them.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote: My counter-argument is that saying that merely causing damage is grounds for saying something "acts like a weapon" is not supported in the rules, and stricter readings are preferable in places where the rules are unclear. The stricter reading is that "weapon" and "acts like a weapon" are redundant, and "acts like a weapon" essentially means "is a weapon". This requires a vehicle upgrade to BE a weapon, as defined in the BRB, in order to be removed by a Weapon Destroyed result.

Please note that I am in no way limiting the possibilities only to pintle-mounted storm bolters and HK missiles. Big shootas and rokkit launchas fall into this category, as do big gunz and killkannons on Battlewagons, and I do not list examples for other armies only because I am largely unfamiliar with them.

And with your assertation that,

The stricter reading is that "weapon" and "acts like a weapon" are redundant, and "acts like a weapon" essentially means "is a weapon".

is really the downfall of your argument. As I pointed out, the use of "counts as" and "functions as" throughout the BRB has consistently been that they ONLY "count as", but never actually are whatever they are being counted as. So, you cannot use the definitive definition for a weapon when something only "functions as a weapon".

Brother Ramses wrote:Not sure if I said it or not, but this is a total, "counts as jump infantry" argument.

An unit that is equipped with an item that makes them count as jump infantry is still the unit they were and is never jump infantry. They may count as jump infantry, but are never truly jump infantry.

A vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon, is never a weapon. It may function as a weapon, but it is never truly a weapon.

So while you want to wave in the what weapon profiles are for weapons, do not wave them in the air for a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon. It isn't a weapon, it is a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon.

So what does functioning as a weapon mean? The rulebook doesn't define it... so we look at the definitions for weapons, of which a deff rolla meets none, or even any of the many requirements.

The options presented are:
Use the rules in the rulebook for weapons and the examples given to determine whether something is weaponlike enough to count.
Or
Use a completely arbitrary and subjective claim based entirely on qualifications the rules never mention to determine if something is weaponlike enough on a case-by-case basis.

Brother Ramses wrote:Now for the storm bolter and missile crowd, read the rule again:

"...functions as a weapon, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles."

That sentence structure is not a definitive of what constitutes a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon. The specific use of "such as" followed by two examples does not limit you to those two examples. With this reasoning, you are saying that the only army that has vehicle upgrades that can function as weapons are Space Marines since no other army has pintle mounted storm bolters and hunter-killer missiles.

Sure... but what does that sentence mean then? It means that pintle-mounted storm bolters and hunter-killer missles both have common attributes that clue the reader into what "functions like a weapon" really means.

Both have the weapon stat line. Neither are missing anything from the stat line.

I can with 100% certainty say my interpretation of the sentence (all such upgrades must have a complete weapon stat line) is in total harmony with all attributes of the two examples given. Can you say the same about a Deff Rolla, Flechette Launcher or Slave Snare? No.

The Green Git wrote:
Both have the weapon stat line. Neither are missing anything from the stat line.

So, the only way for you to accept this would be if the rule clarifications specifically listed the deffrolla with a stat line?

Does anyone else wonder if the GW authors are trolling these sites, laughing their butts off at all the bickering?

The Green Git wrote:Sure... but what does that sentence mean then? It means that pintle-mounted storm bolters and hunter-killer missles both have common attributes that clue the reader into what "functions like a weapon" really means.

Both have the weapon stat line. Neither are missing anything from the stat line.

I can with 100% certainty say my interpretation of the sentence (all such upgrades must have a complete weapon stat line) is in total harmony with all attributes of the two examples given.

Here's another way of interpreting that:

------------------------------------------------------
What does that sentence mean then? It means that pintle-mounted storm bolters and hunter-killer missles both have common attributes that clue the reader into what "functions like a weapon" really means.

Both can potentially damage an enemy model.

I can with 100% certainty say that interpretation of the sentence (all such upgrades must be capable of damaging enemy models) is in total harmony with the attributes of the two examples given, and with upgrades like the Deff Rolla...
------------------------------------------------------

Again, not saying I agree with that interpretation... but it fits your break-down just as well as your chosen criteria.