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.

No they cry with a mixed combination or glee and pain, the pain for how such a collection of bull-headed poor reading level dopes could try to play their game while at the same time they are so happy because anyone of that level is doomed to continue spending money on them.


My point is there are very very very solid easy to follow arguments for both RaW and RaI.

You are continuing to argue a counter-point without addressing the arguments presented 'no your wrong it's like this' is not addressing a point. your engaging in a shouting match while almost everyone else is engaged in discussion.

Also you still haven't addressed the fact that your original agument was based on a fallacy.

BeRzErKeR wrote: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.

I disagree. Granted, if it meets the criteria for *being* a weapon, it obviously will function like a weapon. But the reverse is not necessarily true. When I use my hands to drink from a faucet, they 'function' like a cup; my hands don't have to meet the criteria of being a cup, to function like one.

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

Could be. That is a reasonable interpretation. Though if that was their intent, I think there would be better ways to state it. "Weapons purchased as a vehicle upgrade can also be removed. Such as a...."
But the purposefully used the term 'function like a..." Makes me think they had a somewhat wider meaning.

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.

Ah.... and that is the crux of the question.

What does it mean to 'function' like a weapon?

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".

Careful, you state I am using personal interpretation, but then continue to state the RAW is unclear. Therefore no matter what we come up with, it is based on personal interpretation. My interpretation is something can have the function of a weapon, without being a weapon. Your interpretation is that only a weapon can function like a weapon.

To me, when you boil down the purpose of a weapon, when you get to the essence of it function, it is to inflict damage on the enemy. So that is how I view it.

A vehicle upgrade that inflicts damage on the enemy, can also be removed.

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.

Yes they have common attributes, the both function to damage the enemy. I really don't see how having a stat line can be equated with what its function is. That may meet a definition, but not its function. Function is what something does and/or how it does it. A stat line is none of those things

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

But you are using a circular argument. Of course things defined as a weapon will function like a weapon; but that defeats the entire meaning of the term 'function like a..'

"Everything that functions like a door stop" Surely that includes things that don't meet the definition of a door stop
Things that function as a step stool. Surely that includes things that don't meet the defintion of a step stool
Things that function as a blanket...
etc
etc

Yes, I can guarantee that a blanket will function like a blanket; just like I can guarantee a weapon (pintle mounted storm bolter) will function like a weapon. But a coat can funtion like a blanket, and a deff rolla can function like a weapon.

Brother Ramses wrote:

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".

But we're not discussing things that "count as" weapons. We're discussing things which "act like" weapons. That frustratingly vague language is, in fact, the whole reason the discussion has gone on so long.

Hmm, reading the DCCW rule.....its kind of interesting. There is nothing there that tells us that there is anything unusual about picking the dccw as a weapon destroyed result. So it appears that the BRB is already fine with a dccw being destroyed....the rule on pg 73 in the box is merely to tell us that the entire arm is destroyed.


Sliggoth

So let's leave the rolling pins in the kitchen where they belong and go play some good old fashioned grimdark dakka dakka warhams.

The problem, as I see it, is people are assigning their "real world" interpretation of what a weapon is and how it functions.
That in and of itself violates the rules of ymdc.

The BRB defines what a weapon is and how it functions in game terms. That is the definition that must be used.

Except....it appears that the DCCW on its own may be considered a weapon by the BRB. Read the rules in the box on pg 73, it appears to take for granted that a player can choose the dccw as a weapon destroyed result, its only providing new rules as to what happens to the other weapons in that arm of the dreadnought.

40k unfortunately is not a well written rules set. At points the authors are very sloppy with their terms, there are all too many times that they use words interchangeably just because they seem to feel like it.


Sliggoth

The problem with the argument of trying to define what 'functioning like a weapon' means is that there can be no definitive answer given the rules we currently have. You can try to draw a line in the sand and say: 'well, weapons cause hits so therefore any vehicle upgrade that causes hits is functioning like a weapon' or 'all weapons cause damage, so any vehicle upgrade that cause damage are functioning like a weapon.'

Unfortunately, all of these arguments have no basis to stand on. The fact is, weapons in the game of 40K can do all sorts of crazy things. A weapon could just automatically cause pinning, doing no damage to the enemy, and weapons can certainly have special rules that don't cause hits. In fact, the game designers can write weapon rules that do just about anything and everything...hell, you could even take this to absurdity and say that all weapons involve rolling dice, so therefore any vehicle upgrades that involve rolling dice are functioning as a weapon.


In other words, trying to define what 'functions like a weapon' is a completely and utterly futile adventure and you can only ever accomplish in determining what you feel it means. This feeling is never going to be something concrete that you can ever expect a stranger to agree on without a discussion.

So everyone can feel free to keep arguing this idea for a thousand pages, you aren't going to ever come to any sort of conclusion.


On the other hand, the game does provide us with a clear definition of what 'weapons' are as defined on page 27. So if a vehicle upgrade has a weapon profile we can concretely say that it is functioning as a weapon and nobody can possibly argue that point.

Beyond that, any upgrade (or any other item in the game) that is called a 'weapon' is clearly a 'weapon' from the simple fact that, uh, it is called a 'weapon' and therefore is a weapon (and weapons can be destroyed by a 'weapon destroyed' damage result).


So on one side you have a concept that can never possibly be defined except within one's own personal standards, as technically 'weapons' can function in any possible way in the game of 40K.

On the other side you have a real quantifiable game defined way of telling what is a weapon or not, that no one can possibly have a claim that any of these items aren't weapons.


To me there is no question...one interpretation is essentially unplayable when taken to its logical extreme (except to say that *all* vehicle upgrades are potentially destroyable) and the other interpretation has a very clear delineation of what is/isn't acceptable and falls within the confines of the existing framework of the game.


But continue on...

I do feel, that yakface is correct. I also feel that for the sake of balance, especially if you can just keep going until you stop when ramming, the deffrolla should be destroyable.

Edit: Went back and read the ram rules...I was wrong

Aside from that, I agree with Yakface...continue on, it's entertaining :3

IMO an upgrade that is "Functioning like a weapon" would imply that it can act independantly of the vehicle, both examples given h-k missiles and pm bolter operate entirely on their own. however if a BW is immobilized can you still deal damage with the deffrolla? so i would argue that though the deffrolla is an upgrade it does not "function like a weapon" and that the BW itself is what is "funtioning like a weapon" during the tank shock.

insaniak wrote:Here's another way of interpreting that: <sillyness snipped for brevity>

Yes... but that way of "interpreting" it broadens the interpretation to include items NOT in the examples. My way of interpreting it in no way broadens the examples, and in no way goes contrary to the examples in any aspect.

Your way differs from the examples in potentially many aspects (need not have Maximum range or other aspects of Weapon as defined in the Weapon definition). I'd again remind you that picking merely one aspect of a Weapon as defined in the 40K book does not make other items "function as" weapons. It just makes them share a common single attribute... they do damage.

Example of my logic: All ducks are birds, can fly, have webbed feet, and quack. Ducks are ducks. Chickens are not.

Example of your logic: All ducks are birds, can fly, have webbed feet, and quack. Ducks and chickens are ducks because they are both birds.

Rules wise, there is no indication that a Deff Rolla is a weapon. Stating b/c is inflicts a S10 hit makes it a weapon doesn't cut the mustard. Any tank that rams a vehicle conducts a (insert #)S hit as well. But, it is clear we would not consider the tank a weapon in regards to a 'Weapon Destroyed' result.

Tank peforming a ram does not equate weapon.
Deff Rolla utilized in a ram does not equate weapon.

yakface wrote:To me there is no question...one interpretation is essentially unplayable when taken to its logical extreme (except to say that *all* vehicle upgrades are potentially destroyable) and the other interpretation has a very clear delineation of what is/isn't acceptable and falls within the confines of the existing framework of the game.

My entire reasoning and basis for the assertion that without an outer boundary that is clearly defined we must fall back to what IS clearly defined.

The same reason I don't like powers and other effects occurring to embarked troops... the rules simply do not tell us what happens in certain circumstances, leaving personal opinions and guesswork as the only answers. The simplest and most effective answer is to fall back to a position that the rules DO cover.

Personally, I play with orks. I do not use a deffrolla right now. When I start using rollas, I will leave it up to my opponent to determine if it is destroyable or not. I would let it be his (or her) call at the beginning of the game and then go with it. That way, if there was any controversy later in the game, it was never my decision so I would not have to entertain any whining.

I think the bigger question that needs to be addressed is whether or not the deffrolla hits stack with a ramming attack and in what order are they resolved.

Again... for those in the back, or those who cannot read small print or those who just skim posts waiting for their chance to speak again...

A DEFF ROLLA IS NOT A WEAPON IT DOES NOT DO DAMAGE TO ANYTHING! THE BATTLEWAGON PERFORMS THE TANKSHOCK/RAM AND DOES THE DAMAGE. THE DEFF ROLLA ENHANCES THE DAMAGE DONE BY THE BATTLEWAGON.

PER THE ORK CODEX P.55
Deff Rolla: A Deff Rolla is a great spiked roller that brings the collossal weight of the Battlewagon to bear on anything in its way. A Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla may re-roll Dangerous Terrain tests. Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit. If the unit elects to make a Death or Glory attack, it takes a further D6 Strength 10 hits in addition to the usual effects.

witchcore wrote: both examples given h-k missiles and pm bolter operate entirely on their own.

No they don't. They just act as additional weapons.

The Green Git wrote:Your way ...

I should point out again that it's not actually 'my' way. Just the opposing argument in play. I already said I don't actually entirely agree with it.

Doc Rogers wrote:...stuff in too large a font

Writing it larger doesn't make it any more correct, and just irritates people.

For what it's worth, saying that the Battlewagon causes the damage is still only one way of looking at it. A Space Marine hitting something with a powersword causes a S4 wound on whatever he hits... but the Space Marine is not the thing that actually does the damage. The Space Marine performs the action, but the powersword causes the damage. In the same way, the Battlewagon performs the action (Tank Shock) but it's the Deff Rolla that actually causes the damage.

The statline argument is far more relevant.

Doc Rogers wrote:Again... for those in the back, or those who cannot read small print or those who just skim posts waiting for their chance to speak again...

A DEFF ROLLA IS NOT A WEAPON IT DOES NOT DO DAMAGE TO ANYTHING! THE BATTLEWAGON PERFORMS THE TANKSHOCK/RAM AND DOES THE DAMAGE. THE DEFF ROLLA ENHANCES THE DAMAGE DONE BY THE BATTLEWAGON.

PER THE ORK CODEX P.55
Deff Rolla: A Deff Rolla is a great spiked roller that brings the collossal weight of the Battlewagon to bear on anything in its way. A Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla may re-roll Dangerous Terrain tests. Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit. If the unit elects to make a Death or Glory attack, it takes a further D6 Strength 10 hits in addition to the usual effects.

Seriously, no need to be insulting.

But, the FAQ which "clarified" everything, explicitly states "The deffrolla inflicts d6 S10 hits....." So there!

Well i went through an actually read all the extra walls of txt with people arguing over the price of tea in china...so lets cut to the chase and just post these simple definitions up and then continue this logical debate.


Define Function
Function: "the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists;role."


Synonyms of Function (since this seems to be the word in question)
operation
behave
role
utility

Define Weapon
Weapon: 1. "any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon."

2."anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire. "




Now in the definition of weapon, First definition i would like to point to the words 'any instrument or device' that has very important bearings on a deff rolla.

Second definition id like to point out keywords 'anything used against', this also has very important implications upon the deff rolla as it is an additional object (wargear) being used by said assailant to inflict additional harm to the enemy.

Now that we have taken the pieces of the definition of weapon that allows us to try and bring the deff rolla into the catagory of a 'weapon' let us now continue to evaluate the problem by checking the definition of 'function'.

I would like to highlight the portion towards the end of the definition of function 'something is designed or exists;role' This would include the def rolla because it is a piece of wargear designed to inflict additional damage upon an enemy. so its function is to increase harm.

Thus by its Function, and the definition of weapon we can therefor make the logical conclusion that by written language definitions the deff rolla is a weapon.

Unless someone else wants to try and argue with definitions.

Regardless of the rule issues with the Deff Rolla being removed as a weapon destroyed or not what some people don't get that if it is allowed to be taken out by a WDR the game of 40k becomes broken.

Green is Best! wrote:

But, the FAQ which "clarified" everything, explicitly states "The deffrolla inflicts d6 S10 hits....." So there!

Sir I have already pointed out your fallacy in relation to that comment and you didn't adress it then, would you care to try now?

orkcommander wrote:Regardless of the rule issues with the Deff Rolla being removed as a weapon destroyed or not what some people don't get that if it is allowed to be taken out by a WDR the game of 40k becomes broken.

God forbid we make it stop being the well oiled machine that it currently is......

Either Exploding is a weapon, or a vindicator battlecannon isn't. A battlecannon isn't an upgrade, it comes with the stock tank.

TopC wrote:Well i went through an actually read all the extra walls of txt with people arguing over the price of tea in china...so lets cut to the chase and just post these simple definitions up and then continue this logical debate.


Define Function
Function: "the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists;role."


Synonyms of Function (since this seems to be the word in question)
operation
behave
role
utility

Define Weapon
Weapon: 1. "any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon."

2."anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire. "




Now in the definition of weapon, First definition i would like to point to the words 'any instrument or device' that has very important bearings on a deff rolla.

Second definition id like to point out keywords 'anything used against', this also has very important implications upon the deff rolla as it is an additional object (wargear) being used by said assailant to inflict additional harm to the enemy.

Now that we have taken the pieces of the definition of weapon that allows us to try and bring the deff rolla into the catagory of a 'weapon' let us now continue to evaluate the problem by checking the definition of 'function'.

I would like to highlight the portion towards the end of the definition of function 'something is designed or exists;role' This would include the def rolla because it is a piece of wargear designed to inflict additional damage upon an enemy. so its function is to increase harm.

Thus by its Function, and the definition of weapon we can therefor make the logical conclusion that by written language definitions the deff rolla is a weapon.

Unless someone else wants to try and argue with definitions.

alas people will continue to argue moot cyclical arguments while skipping over this ordered and logical one...i love dakka dakka.

ChrisCP wrote:

Green is Best! wrote:

But, the FAQ which "clarified" everything, explicitly states "The deffrolla inflicts d6 S10 hits....." So there!

Sir I have already pointed out your fallacy in relation to that comment and you didn't adress it then, would you care to try now?

I must have missed it so I am not sure what fallacy you are talking about.

Every statement I have made about this is like I said above, the FAQ clearly states what is inflicting the d6 S10 hits. People are arguing (IN REALLY LOUD VOICES!!!!) that the battlewagon is inflicting the damage and I am simply stating the FAQ does not say that.

To which, I get responses about rules, weapon definitions, etc.

So, I ask you, what part of this statement is false:

The FAQ clearly states that "the deffrolla does indeed inflict d6 S10 hits on vehicles...."

TopC wrote:
Define Function
Function: "the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists;role."


Synonyms of Function (since this seems to be the word in question)
operation
behave
role
utility

Define Weapon
Weapon: 1. "any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon."

2."anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire. "




Now in the definition of weapon, First definition i would like to point to the words 'any instrument or device' that has very important bearings on a deff rolla.

Second definition id like to point out keywords 'anything used against', this also has very important implications upon the deff rolla as it is an additional object (wargear) being used by said assailant to inflict additional harm to the enemy.

Now that we have taken the pieces of the definition of weapon that allows us to try and bring the deff rolla into the catagory of a 'weapon' let us now continue to evaluate the problem by checking the definition of 'function'.

I would like to highlight the portion towards the end of the definition of function 'something is designed or exists;role' This would include the def rolla because it is a piece of wargear designed to inflict additional damage upon an enemy. so its function is to increase harm.

Thus by its Function, and the definition of weapon we can therefor make the logical conclusion that by written language definitions the deff rolla is a weapon.

Unless someone else wants to try and argue with definitions.

So TopC has solved it by his definitions, any and all wargear/vehicle upgrades function as weapons and can be destroyed via a weapons destroyed role, because smoke launchers would aid in defence of the tank, and search lights would aid in an attack, boarding planks aid in attacks ect.....

witchcore wrote:

So TopC has solved it by his definitions, any and all wargear functions as a weapon and can be destroyed via a weapons destroyed role, because smoke launchers would aid in defence of the tank, and search lights would aid in an attack, boarding planks aid in attacks ect.....

Which was my whole point before.

If you believe the Deff Rolla can be destroyed because it functions as a weapon then you have to allow all vehicle upgrades to be destroyed because of the broad definitions being used to formulate this argument.

witchcore wrote:

TopC wrote:
Define Function
Function: "the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists;role."


Synonyms of Function (since this seems to be the word in question)
operation
behave
role
utility

Define Weapon
Weapon: 1. "any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon."

2."anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire. "




Now in the definition of weapon, First definition i would like to point to the words 'any instrument or device' that has very important bearings on a deff rolla.

Second definition id like to point out keywords 'anything used against', this also has very important implications upon the deff rolla as it is an additional object (wargear) being used by said assailant to inflict additional harm to the enemy.

Now that we have taken the pieces of the definition of weapon that allows us to try and bring the deff rolla into the catagory of a 'weapon' let us now continue to evaluate the problem by checking the definition of 'function'.

I would like to highlight the portion towards the end of the definition of function 'something is designed or exists;role' This would include the def rolla because it is a piece of wargear designed to inflict additional damage upon an enemy. so its function is to increase harm.

Thus by its Function, and the definition of weapon we can therefor make the logical conclusion that by written language definitions the deff rolla is a weapon.

Unless someone else wants to try and argue with definitions.

So TopC has solved it by his definitions, any and all wargear functions as a weapon and can be destroyed via a weapons destroyed role, because smoke launchers would aid in defence of the tank, and search lights would aid in an attack, boarding planks aid in attacks ect.....

then this gets taken a step further.... search light can only be used as a weapon for 1 turn (or 100% night fight)
Boarding plank is arguable only a weapon if there are orks in said vehicle because otherwise its just a plank and is not able to be used as a weapon
smoke launchers, yep but after they have been used they are consumed and no longer a defensive system
etc
etc
etc

I was merely trying to point out that by definition a deff rolla does function as a weapon though.. to at least lay that argument to rest

yakface wrote:

If you believe the Deff Rolla can be destroyed because it functions as a weapon then you have to allow all vehicle upgrades to be destroyed because of the broad definitions being used to formulate this argument.

I reject your false choices Sir!

I would say the counter argument would be that because a Deffrolla is a vehicle upgrade that inflicts d6 S10 hits, it is functioning as a weapon. Smoke Launchers, grabbing klaws, et al, while upgrades, do not inflict hits so are not functioning as weapons in a 40k sense.

But again, if we were playing with deffrollas, I would just ask you what your opinion was and go with it. I could care less which way it goes as both results have their pros and cons, just as long as we make a decision (preferably before the game starts) and stick with it.

Green is Best! wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

Green is Best! wrote:

But, the FAQ which "clarified" everything, explicitly states "The deffrolla inflicts d6 S10 hits....." So there!

Sir I have already pointed out your fallacy in relation to that comment and you didn't adress it then, would you care to try now?

I must have missed it so I am not sure what fallacy you are talking about.

Every statement I have made about this is like I said above, the FAQ clearly states what is inflicting the d6 S10 hits. People are arguing (IN REALLY LOUD VOICES!!!!) that the battlewagon is inflicting the damage and I am simply stating the FAQ does not say that.

To which, I get responses about rules, weapon definitions, etc.

So, I ask you, what part of this statement is false:

The FAQ clearly states that "the deffrolla does indeed inflict d6 S10 hits on vehicles...."

The codex states that the BW inflicts d6 S10 hits as a result of having Deff Rolla equipped.

Even though the FAQ is newer then the codex the language in the codex over rules the FAQ since the FAQ isn't official rules.