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.

Baragash wrote: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"?

Movement phase (MP),Shooting Phase (SP), Assault Phase (AsP)
Dark Eldar ...
Chain-snares (D3+ S4 Ap-) (MP), Envenomed Blades(S4 AP-)(AsP), Shock Prow (lets you tankshock and ram) (MP), void mine (one shot S9 AP2 Blast lance) (MP)
Tau ...
Flechette discharge (in CC wounds on 4+) (AsP)
Ork ...
Deffrolla (d6 or 2d6 Str10 hits) (MP), Wrekin' ball (str9 hit on a 4+), Reinforced Ram (lets you tankshock and ram) (MP), Grabbin Klaw (holds a tank in place) (ET)


Special attention should be given to the Void Mine as it 'counts as using a weapon' implying that it is not one; which is odd since it has almost a full ranged weapon profile. What is missing is the range as it goes off in the movement phase.

targetawg wrote:
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).

Let's see what the English language says a weapons is...

From Dictionary.com:

weap·on   /ˈwɛpən/ Show Spelled
[wep-uhn] Show IPA

–noun
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.
3. Zoology . any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings.

So what does that tell you about things that "function as weapons"? It tells me that there are huge categories and possibilities for interpretations.

i don't bother with weapon destroyed results on my tanks

Beast wrote:

targetawg wrote:
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).

Let's see what the English language says a weapons is...

From Dictionary.com:

weap·on   /ˈwɛpən/ Show Spelled
[wep-uhn] Show IPA

–noun
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.
3. Zoology . any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings.

So what does that tell you about things that "function as weapons"? It tells me that there are huge categories and possibilities for interpretations.

So a weapon destroyed result could include the Hull of the tank? Because a tank can perform a "Ram" using the armour value of its hull to calculate the strength of the hit.

Also the BRB can and does define some words in much more narrow terms than that provided in a dictionary.

zeshin wrote: So a weapon destroyed result could include the Hull of the tank? Because a tank can perform a "Ram" using the armour value of its hull to calculate the strength of the hit.

Also the BRB can and does define some words in much more narrow terms than that provided in a dictionary.

needs to be a 'vehicle upgrade' but that is the problem in a nut shell. What do you count? and what don't you count?

Target, at that point you run into the case of the Dreadnought Close Combat weapon, or similar items like the Siege Hammer.

I'm content with the line where Yak draws it, but I agree that GW's phrasing leaves the question a bit ambiguous.

targetawg wrote:...a lot of people are trying to misinterpret this.

This kind of thing is never a useful addition to this kind of discussion. Please leave it out next time.

If we were to take this to EXTREMES, when discussing what counts as weapons, then why not just ask him to remove the whole vehicle?
- After all, the vehicle ITSELF can be used as a weapon when ramming...

No, but seriously, what i define as a weapon is what rolls to hit, roll to wound and has to be saved against (if possible).

Billinator wrote:If we were to take this to EXTREMES, when discussing what counts as weapons, then why not just ask him to remove the whole vehicle?
- After all, the vehicle ITSELF can be used as a weapon when ramming...

No, but seriously, what i define as a weapon is what rolls to hit, roll to wound and has to be saved against (if possible).

Again it has to be 'vehicle upgrade' that "functions like a weapon"

@ Billinator Its fine that you limit weapons to that strict set of gear...but unfortunately GW includes many many other things in their list of weapons that dont fall under your definition.

We have many examples of weapons in 40k that simply do not roll to hit, roll to wound or involve saves. GW has far too many items listed as weapons that do nothing of the sort.

There is a listing called weapons starting on pg 27 of the BRB. We know that this set of rules is incomplete because it soley deals with ranged weapons...missing cc weapons entirely. So this section has to be read as the rules for ranged weapons, leaving us hanging for everything else in 40k that is a weapon.



Sliggoth

Tri wrote:

Baragash wrote: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"?

Movement phase (MP),Shooting Phase (SP), Assault Phase (AsP)
Dark Eldar ...
Chain-snares (D3+ S4 Ap-) (MP), Envenomed Blades(S4 AP-)(AsP), Shock Prow (lets you tankshock and ram) (MP), void mine (one shot S9 AP2 Blast lance) (MP)
Tau ...
Flechette discharge (in CC wounds on 4+) (AsP)
Ork ...
Deffrolla (d6 or 2d6 Str10 hits) (MP), Wrekin' ball (str9 hit on a 4+), Reinforced Ram (lets you tankshock and ram) (MP), Grabbin Klaw (holds a tank in place) (ET)


Special attention should be given to the Void Mine as it 'counts as using a weapon' implying that it is not one; which is odd since it has almost a full ranged weapon profile. What is missing is the range as it goes off in the movement phase.

I phrased my question quite badly...

If we assume that upgrades that can "obviously" cause damage (eg Chain-snares, Deffrolla, items related to ramming, but not items only related to tank shocks) are not a "grey area" for the moment.............. how many contentious items would there be?

For example, out of the above list everything "obviously" causes damage bar the Grabbin Klaw (which I can't comment on as the Ork Codex is in the loft right now).

Oh you mean weapons that don't cause damage ... well since DE got a new codex I don't think there are any that don't cause damage other then the Grabbin Klaw. You might include psychic powers ... it is a vehicle upgrade in some armies ... just not sure if its classifiable as a weapon

... Blood angels have a psychic hood, force weapons and 2 powers ...

Sliggoth wrote:@ Billinator Its fine that you limit weapons to that strict set of gear...but unfortunately GW includes many many other things in their list of weapons that dont fall under your definition.

We have many examples of weapons in 40k that simply do not roll to hit, roll to wound or involve saves. GW has far too many items listed as weapons that do nothing of the sort.

There is a listing called weapons starting on pg 27 of the BRB. We know that this set of rules is incomplete because it soley deals with ranged weapons...missing cc weapons entirely. So this section has to be read as the rules for ranged weapons, leaving us hanging for everything else in 40k that is a weapon.



Sliggoth

The thing is, the rules don't say that every single vehicle upgrade can be destroyed by a 'weapon destroyed' result...so clearly GW imagines that there are some upgrades that function as a weapon and others that do not.

We all agree that they've done a poor job of delineating that difference but essentially you have to draw the line in the sand and make a determination somewhere, fully understanding that you're doing so in the face of unclear rules.

The main rulebook defines the two ways that weapons function in the game (ranged weapons that shoot and close combat weapons that are used in close combat), while I must concede that there are many items listed in codexes as being 'weapons' (like a Kustom Force Field), these weapons do not actually function like weapons as described in the rulebook.

So again, going with the clear directive that the rule was not intended to allow ALL vehicle upgrades to be destroyed, I think you have to stick with the rulebook description of how weapons function, which are things that either shoot (ranged weapons) or that are used to fight in close combat (which, of current vehicles, only walkers do in the game).

This definition is finite, within the framework found in the rulebook and is easily identifiable. Any other line you draw in the sand does not have those qualities. If you go by the 'if it causes damage then its a weapon' you leave a bunch of questions open to items like the Reinforced Ram that allows a Trukk to Ram and thereby inflict damage...is that considered functioning like a weapon? Items like that become further questions.

If you stick with: the weapon must be used to shoot or the weapon must be used to fight while locked in combat, then *exactly* which items can and cannot be destroyed become crystal clear.

targetawg wrote: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).

I think there may be a disconnect somewhere, targetawg, or else I'm not understanding your point.

The reason people debate the issue is because the rule states "upgrades that function as weapons" rather than just "weapons." There would be no muddy waters if they had just said "weapon upgrades" (e.g. pintle weapons, hunter killer missiles, sponsons, etc) because we know what those are and they are clearly defined in either the rulebook or relevant codex.

The crux of the argument comes from the language they chose to use in the rule that seems to imply that things other than weapons - but specifically function in the same manner as weapons - can be targeted by a weapon destroyed result.

DoW

DogOfWar wrote:

targetawg wrote: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).

I think there may be a disconnect somewhere, targetawg, or else I'm not understanding your point.

The reason people debate the issue is because the rule states "upgrades that function as weapons" rather than just "weapons." There would be no muddy waters if they had just said "weapon upgrades" (e.g. pintle weapons, hunter killer missiles, sponsons, etc) because we know what those are and they are clearly defined in either the rulebook or relevant codex.

The crux of the argument comes from the language they chose to use in the rule that seems to imply that things other than weapons - but specifically function in the same manner as weapons - can be targeted by a weapon destroyed result.

DoW

My point was that it defines it also includes vehicle upgrades that function as a weapon. Now, you could look up weapon in the dictionary, but I believe the more appropriate definition is how it is defined in the rulebook (weapon being a section heading). What I'm saying is that when it says "functions as a weapon" you are then referred to look up what a weapon is within the confines of the rulebook.

Statements like: (pg 27 under type) "All Weapons are classified as either rapid fire, pistol, assault, heavy or ordnance"

I also don't agree dreadnaught close combat weapons or seismic hammers create a disconnect. They are formally defined as a weapon in the title.

Seismic hammer in it's entry states "A seismic hammer is treated as a dreadnaught close combat weapon.." Once again, this is also defined as a weapon.

Nowhere in the wrecking ball or deffrolla entry is their a reference to the term weapon or that it may be one. The term is never used, probably to clear up this distinction. The same goes for the grabbin klaw, and all other wargear entries I could look through.

yakface wrote:
The thing is, the rules don't say that every single vehicle upgrade can be destroyed by a 'weapon destroyed' result...so clearly GW imagines that there are some upgrades that function as a weapon and others that do not.

We all agree that they've done a poor job of delineating that difference but essentially you have to draw the line in the sand and make a determination somewhere, fully understanding that you're doing so in the face of unclear rules.

If you stick with: the weapon must be used to shoot or the weapon must be used to fight while locked in combat, then *exactly* which items can and cannot be destroyed become crystal clear.

Sorry to shamelessly parse your quote from above Yak, but these make the point I was try to get across to people. Any decision made (like the one you just made above) as to which vehicle upgrades function as weapons (or- if any for that matter) is a purely arbitrary decision that can't definitively be backed by a clear statement by GW or the BRB. So people are left with nothing more than a house interpretation (or an INAT interpretation) which is just one opinion, based on whatever that group of people think is right for whatever reasons. This isn't a topic that will ever have a clear resolution until GW clarifies what they mean (which will be never most likely). INAT can make it clear for places that use the INAT, and FLGS can make it clear for their constituent community, but it is far from a universally clear and unambiguous topic. I will move on and go with what my community agrees to when playing locally, and use Tourney rulings when I play in them (whether that is INAT or something else). The challenge is to be flexible enough to accomodate various interpretations in various venues...

Beast wrote:
Sorry to shamelessly parse your quote from above Yak, but these make the point I was try to get across to people. Any decision made (like the one you just made above) as to which vehicle upgrades function as weapons (or- if any for that matter) is a purely arbitrary decision that can't definitively be backed by a clear statement by GW or the BRB. So people are left with nothing more than a house interpretation (or an INAT interpretation) which is just one opinion, based on whatever that group of people think is right for whatever reasons. This isn't a topic that will ever have a clear resolution until GW clarifies what they mean (which will be never most likely). INAT can make it clear for places that use the INAT, and FLGS can make it clear for their constituent community, but it is far from a universally clear and unambiguous topic. I will move on and go with what my community agrees to when playing locally, and use Tourney rulings when I play in them (whether that is INAT or something else). The challenge is to be flexible enough to accomodate various interpretations in various venues...

I completely agree. I was just also trying to point out that some 'lines in the sand' are easier to define than others, which is why I've been defending the one I've chosen. I believe it leaves little to no room for uncertainty. Whereas I believe the definition of 'if the upgrade causes damage then it functions like a weapon' leaves plenty of room for questions and uncertainty.

I also believe that if it were not for the Deff Rolla (which people desperately *want* to blow off Battlewagons) this would not even be a question that we'd be discussing, despite the fact that the OP was a question about the Wrecking Ball. I think if the Deff Rolla weren't in question then people (right or wrong) would simply say 'nope, you can't destroy the Wrecking Ball because it isn't a weapon.'

I make this claim because I don't think we ever had these kinds of discussions online until GW FAQ's to allow the Deff Rolla to work when ramming. As soon as that happened all of a sudden the questions about what vehicle upgrades actually function as weapons started popping out of the woodwork!

Yak - I took part in a discussion about this twice before the ruling came out IIRC. Its not just about the deffrolla, but that is part of it.

I also came to the same decision as Yak, not because I believe there is any rules basis for it, but because there is too little help from the rules as to what to include.

Its just more practical to make it restrictive, else you get people trying to blow off your extra armour so that you can't Tank shock. Its just not worth the hassle to me.

OTOH, people should feel free and open about working out with your own play group what can be reasonably destroyed. I have a friend who uses battlewagon orks and we agreed the deffrollas can get blown off, but against anyone else I stick to getting rid of the big shoota because its not worth the trouble to even ask about theirdeffrolla.

It certainly makes sense for questions on vehicle upgrades that act as weapons to shoot through the roof once the deff rolla faq came out. Prior to the faq we locally only had one ork BW modelled with a rolla, and the owner usually played it as a non rolla BW counts as. The wreckin ball has been fairly rare, and locally we had usually played it as a valid target for weapon destroyed. (ork players liked that the truk wasnt immobilized, other players agreed easily enough that it must count as a ccw)

It also is certainly easier to make a simple blanket ruling that nothing beyond pintle mounts and missiles act as a weapon. Easier and faster, altho it may not be an obvious idea for many players seeing a wreckin ball or rolla on the tabletop.

Now rollas are showing up everywhere; its an extremely popular choice in ork armies and an almost automatic choice for BWs. So we are going to see this discussed fairly frequently, especially if a rule is drawn up that may strike the average player as counterintuitive. If something on a vehicle *looks* like a huge weapon many people are going to think its acting as a weapon when it does damage.


There are some fundamental questions raised by the idea that weapons are only acting as firing weapons or cc weapons. Because the rolla has us look at the tank shock rules we immediately run into the BRB telling us that a tank uses its mass as a weapon, performing an attack during the movement phase. Because of the wording used in the BRB this certainly seems to mean that weapons may possibly act in phases other than the firing and cc phases. And that GW considers a wide wide variety of things to be weapons. This does raise the question as to whether or not the reinforced ram might not be functioning as a weapon. A reinforced ram is what allows a truk to perform a tank shock, without the ram the vehicle cannot attack.

We do need to look at vehicle upgrades beyond pintle mounts and missiles it seems. Chain snares allow a vehicle to cause hits on units...at least considering whether or not these count as weapons is likely to come up in the future as well.

A line in the sand does need to be drawn, drawing a line that is going to continually be questioned by players is perhaps suggesting that the location of the line needs to be very carefully examined.



Sliggoth

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?

No the deft rolla is a dozer blade

yakface wrote:were not for the Deff Rolla (which people desperately *want* to blow off Battlewagons) this would not even be a question that we'd be discussing,

This is almost the exact opposite from what I have seen.

Being able to destroy the deffrolla means the battlewagon is more survivable; the rolla should not be used for dis-embarking range but nor can it be used for targeting range.

2/3 are bonuses.

Any time I ask Ork players they prefer that it IS a weapon, it's the opponent that prefers it is not.

ymmv

Editing to add:
And the dis-embark range can be re-gained by turning.

I would say no, It can not be removed as without special action it can not be shot, nor can it be used in Assault. Therefore I would not count it as a weapon.

Alastergrimm wrote:I would say no, It can not be removed as without special action it can not be shot, nor can it be used in Assault. Therefore I would not count it as a weapon.

what do you mean by " It can not be removed as without special action"?

Not having access to the Ork Codex, I have to ask......

How exactly does the Wrecking Ball function? As in, when is it used and how does it cause damage?

Wrecking ball is a ranged attack that functions in the assault phase, via a vehicle upgrade.

helgrenze wrote:Not having access to the Ork Codex, I have to ask......

How exactly does the Wrecking Ball function? As in, when is it used and how does it cause damage?

The exact wording is "A vehicle with a wrecking ball causes a strength 9 hit upon one unengaged enemy unit within 2" of the wreckin' ball at the beginning of the assault phase..."

So, the Wrecking Ball Functions like an assault weapon....

helgrenze wrote:So, the Wrecking Ball Functions like an assault weapon....

Assault weapons are non-walker vehicle mounted and autohit at 2" to unengaged enemies at the start of the assault phase?

I don't think a single part of the rule functions like any assault weapon I know of, other than the fact that it deals a hit.

yakface wrote:

Sliggoth wrote:@ Billinator Its fine that you limit weapons to that strict set of gear...but unfortunately GW includes many many other things in their list of weapons that dont fall under your definition.

We have many examples of weapons in 40k that simply do not roll to hit, roll to wound or involve saves. GW has far too many items listed as weapons that do nothing of the sort.

There is a listing called weapons starting on pg 27 of the BRB. We know that this set of rules is incomplete because it soley deals with ranged weapons...missing cc weapons entirely. So this section has to be read as the rules for ranged weapons, leaving us hanging for everything else in 40k that is a weapon.



Sliggoth

The thing is, the rules don't say that every single vehicle upgrade can be destroyed by a 'weapon destroyed' result...so clearly GW imagines that there are some upgrades that function as a weapon and others that do not.

We all agree that they've done a poor job of delineating that difference but essentially you have to draw the line in the sand and make a determination somewhere, fully understanding that you're doing so in the face of unclear rules.

The main rulebook defines the two ways that weapons function in the game (ranged weapons that shoot and close combat weapons that are used in close combat), while I must concede that there are many items listed in codexes as being 'weapons' (like a Kustom Force Field), these weapons do not actually function like weapons as described in the rulebook.

So again, going with the clear directive that the rule was not intended to allow ALL vehicle upgrades to be destroyed, I think you have to stick with the rulebook description of how weapons function, which are things that either shoot (ranged weapons) or that are used to fight in close combat (which, of current vehicles, only walkers do in the game).

This definition is finite, within the framework found in the rulebook and is easily identifiable. Any other line you draw in the sand does not have those qualities. If you go by the 'if it causes damage then its a weapon' you leave a bunch of questions open to items like the Reinforced Ram that allows a Trukk to Ram and thereby inflict damage...is that considered functioning like a weapon? Items like that become further questions.

If you stick with: the weapon must be used to shoot or the weapon must be used to fight while locked in combat, then *exactly* which items can and cannot be destroyed become crystal clear.

I get what you mean here, but... It is, as many other rules are; In a grey-zone.

Above all, i feel that it's of great importance to agree on such matters before you even start the game, because they DO matter.

As many have said before me, there's both advantages and disadvantages to whether or not a part of a vehicle counts as a weapon. Personally, i've had games where i've used several rounds - with several AV-units - pounding away on a single vehicle (namely a Land Raider), getting one too many horrible results, and only managing to take off a single weapon per turn - two tops.
- If, in this case, we were to contemplate that scenario, where that ONE killpoint really mattered (say; in that annihilate mission), and the game ends in a loss, from not having agreed on which counts as a weapon, well... Buttom line is, that you learn these things, as you play games, and you learn what to agree on before the game starts.

In the end, i guess were bound to solve ourselves, what GW was too busy solving, and make agreements before the game starts, or alternatively have a roll-off if anything in the grey-zone arises during the game.

But buttom line (buttom-BUTTOM-line that is!), and as you yourself describe, is that you're sometimes left with nothing more than "drawing lines in the sand", filling out the slobby gaps left by the authors of the RAW (RAI aside).
(Speaking of such, just see how much Doomthumbs can get out of a word missing here and there! (sorry, D-thumbs!))

But then again; if those rules were perfect, we wouldn't be sitting here, discussing, cyber-socialising with one another, now would we? *giggles*

Need to finish the rule quote for the wreckin ball "...on a roll of 4+".


The wreckin ball basically gives the vehicle one cc attack at the start of the assault phase, on an enemy unit thats within 2" (which just happens to be the distance for who can fight in cc). Its pretty straight forward, and happens to look an awful lot like how a servo arm operates.


Sliggoth

So... there is a "to hit" type roll before the str 9 hit..... which actually does put the wrecking ball into the "functions as a weapon" catagory.

I really do not think it matters if a vehicle cannot typically enter close combat. This "upgrade" allows the vehicle it is attached to, to make a close combat attack in the assault phase. That would be the definition of "Functions as a weapon".