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.

svendrex wrote:So what you are saying that the Plasma Syphon will ONLY work against Grey Knight Plasma weapons, as it is the only codex that defines them. Even though Space Marines (of all other types) and imperial guard have a weapon called a Plasma Gun with the same stats, it is NOT in a box that says "plasma weapons", therefore it is NOT a plasma Weapon...?

No I am saying that Only Plasma guns, plasma pistols, and Plasma cannons are "Plasma Weapons" as far as the Plasma Siphon is concerned.

Just because the same weapons are in other codices, does not make it not the same weapon.

A Plasma pistol is a plasma pistol, whether that is in the grey knights codex, the IG codex, the Nilla marines codex or the Black templar codex, etc.

If a new codex came out that had the same named item, but not with the same profile as the grey knight codex that would be a different weapon.

regardless of what we say here, the end result is that GW needs to make an FAQ that says what weapons are "plasma" weapons.

I think it is a little dubious to say "becasue a Weapon in another codex has the same name and statline, and in that codex it is labeled as a plasma weapon, it is plasma weapon in this codex too"
RAW if they wanted space wolf Plasma guns to be "plasma" weapons, why are they not labeled as such in that Codex? Why do you need to reference a precedent from another codex?
The weapon is different simply because it is called a "plasma weapon" in the one codex and not labeled as such in another.

That being said, there is no answer to this question that is not dubious. It simply needs a FAQ


There are some weapons that are clearly "plasma" weapons. (the ones with plasma in their name mostly)
There are some other weapons the based on the fluff are also clearly plasma weapons as well. (such as the LR Executioner turret)
There are some other weapons that might be plasma or not (such as the Starcannon)


Not that it really has any bearing on issue at hand, but I find the idea of a little dude with a little plasma vacuum sucking up all the plasma from a Plasma Blast Gun (the titan scale plasma gun) kinda funny

Because the only codex that even cares what a "plasma Weapon" is, should be the one that defines it.

Name definitely does not count: fire Dragons are in no way either on Fire, nor Dragons.

Fluff Never counts in rules, many of the rules are based on fluff: but it is the rules to represent the story that we use.

The weapons are exactly the same(Matching name, profile, and special rules) the only difference is a clear explanation, in the codex that actually cares what a plasma weapon is, declaring those weapons to be "plasma Weapons"; now if, instead of a box-out for explanation they added a Special rule to those plasma Weapons that said "Plasma Weapon" and a note that explained that the extra special rule meant that those weapons were plasma weapons and to be treated as such in all respects; then only the Pistol, gun, and cannon from the Grey knights Codex would be considered a "Plasma Weapon" Since they are now different from all other versions of those weapons.

This is cut and dry, why is anyone still arguing about it?

The codex lists three weapons as plasma weapons that it effects with the plasma siphon. That's all that matters.

Fluff doesn't = rules, search for the "Demon" argument. Until they FAQ, there are only three weapons in the game plasma siphon works against.

Dammit GW gimmie a FAQ for this crap already, at least my post count is going up though...

Because it labels is "including", indicating the list is NOT exhaustive.

As such OTHER weapons ARE affected, but you have no means to determine what those weapons are.

Grey Templar wrote:maybe Matt is planning on updating all of the codexs himself so he can standardize everyone.

That would be a terrible, terrible day for 40k.

Including is meaningless, and I wasn't referring to the Plasma Siphon's rules; but rather the explanation of what are plasma weapons per the GK Codex(Page 58, if you want to see what "Plasma Weapons" are per the codex).

If you take "including" as non-exhaustive, and as such other weapons may be included currently Then you can just proclaim any weapon fired within 12" reduces the shooters BS to 1; after all "plasma Weapons" in that case would be undefined, and therefore any weapon would be applicable. What parameters for definition would you have in this case? You cannot use name because then you open up the "Daemons" debate to include CSM Daemons again along with anything that is clearly not a Daemon but has Daemon in the name(future speculation). You cannot use fluff, because, after all, fluff =/= rules; and if you were to include fluff here you must include it in every other debate as a parameter.

In the end you have a Codex that has an exhaustive list of what that Codex lists as "Plasma Weapons", in that codex you have an item that has an effect on "Plasma Weapons" until GW FAQs it to include Executioner Plasma Cannons, Plasma Blast guns, Tau Pulse weapons, etc; nothing but the 3 listed weapon in the "Plasma Weapon" Box-out is a plasma Weapon.


Edit: I totally did not even see your second line of text there Nos; seems you agree after all. I honestly do believe that future Codices that have a weapon that should be considered a "plasma Weapon" will have a similar box-out, likely including the original 3 weapons should those weapons be included in said future-codex. Alternately should a Codex include a single "Plasma Weapon" the rules are likely to explain that it is as such(Tau Plasma Rifles, assuming they do not consider Pulse/burst weapons as "plasma Weapons" especially as that would be a gigantic Nerf to the new Tau codex)

thats just a list of Plasma weapons in the GK codex.


i do agree that it NEEDS to be FAQ'd.


it will probably be a lame option even when it gets FAQ'd even if it included basically everything with plasma in its fluff. although it would suck for T'au if it effected their Pulse Rifles(technically a plasma weapon)

and the 12" kinda sucks. if it was if the target was in 12" yeah, but the firer has to be in 12"/

A List of Plasma Weapons in a Codex that has rules regarding Plasma Weapon is the determining factor as to just what are Plasma Weapons.

As I said; I agree it needs an FAQ answer(and fully expect there to be one) since there are other Plasma Weapons in the Fluff(that is, clearly imperial Plasma weapons) that are not on that list.

then again we also have fluff that Storm bolters and Boltguns share the same ammunition, yet Special issue ammo cannot be used in Storm Bolters; heck if there were a way to put Psybolt ammo on Nilla Marines Dorn's arrow would not be able to be effected(it is not on the list), even though it is just a special storm bolter.

Noir wrote:
Guy 1 "Hey lets use this device that only effects are own weapon."
Guy 2 "Even better lets give it to the guys fighting Xenos. It be real useful."

And that would be the single dumbest thing if the history of 40K.

Two words for you.

MATT

WARD

Need I say more?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gavo wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:maybe Matt is planning on updating all of the codexs himself so he can standardize everyone.

That would be a terrible, terrible day for 40k.

Also this. This post must go down in the history of epicness.

KK - yep, I do agree. We know it includes other weapons, but have no solid way of determining what those weapons actually are

What about Badrukks rippa gun?

Str 7 Ap 2 get's hot. Sounds like a plasma weapon we need a FAQ.

Ouch! That's another tough one Varon.

Doesn't have a Plasma name but does actually have "Gets Hot!" which is normally bunched with plasma weapons.

GOD DAMN YOU MATT WARD!!!! DAMN YOU TO HELL!!!!

But not all plasma weapons are gets hot. Its even worse defined than "Daemon"....

Thats a good point all pulse weapons for Tau are plasma based!

So Burst cannons, Pulse rifles and Pulse carbines are 6's to hit?

Not content with screwing one of my favourite armies (Daemonhunters) and, somehow, dropping Land Raiders and ThunderWolfy Wolf Wulfen Wolves with magic saves of lunacy, he's now setting out to knobbly my Tau and Orks?!!

Wait, there's a giant robot too? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaard!

gr1m_dan wrote:Ouch! That's another tough one Varon.

Doesn't have a Plasma name but does actually have "Gets Hot!" which is normally bunched with plasma weapons.

GOD DAMN YOU MATT WARD!!!! DAMN YOU TO HELL!!!!

Not hard at all.
Da Rippa (Badruks Gun) is a plasma weapon, it is described as an ogryn mortar gun firing plasma canisters.

The Kustom Mega Blasta however, is not, even though it's S8 AP2, "Gets hot!".

Obviously we have no other choice than reading the fluff for those two rules(Demons/Plasma).

You do have a choice for DAemon, as there is a Daemon rule it is perfectly well defined exactly what is, and isnt, a daemon.

Yes but the Daemon rule doesn't apply to Daemon Princes, Chaos Spawn and many other things which, to a sane person, are clearly daemons...

Spawn are not daemons. Theyve been mutated by daemon powers, but are not daemons.

Daemon princes are mortals who have been elevated and are now part daemon. They are NOT daemons.

Finally: insulting people by calling them "insane" if they disagree with you violates the rules on this board. Up until now this was a polite discussion.

I'm only going to say this once more for clarity.

Fluff doesn't equal rules.

3 guns are affected until an FAQ changes that.

juraigamer wrote:I'm only going to say this once more for clarity.

Fluff doesn't equal rules.

3 guns are affected until an FAQ changes that.

juraigamer has it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Spawn are not daemons. Theyve been mutated by daemon powers, but are not daemons.

Daemon princes are mortals who have been elevated and are now part daemon. They are NOT daemons.

Finally: insulting people by calling them "insane" if they disagree with you violates the rules on this board. Up until now this was a polite discussion.

Yes. I've actively insulted people for not agreeing with me rather than making a lighthearted, throwaway comment... *sigh*

THis is a text only forum, and there was nothing light hearted or throw away about your statement.

Reread it with the eyes of someone who does not know you meant it in that way, and see how it reads now.

InquisitorVaron wrote:What about Badrukks rippa gun?

Str 7 Ap 2 get's hot. Sounds like a plasma weapon we need a FAQ.

It does specifically say anything with the "Get's Hot!" doesn't it?

Tau Codex: No weapon type called 'Plasma Weapons'
Chaos Space Marine Codex: No weapon type called 'Plasma Weapons'
Eldar Codex: No weapon type called 'Plasma Weapons'
Space Wolf Codex: No weapon type called 'Plasma Weapons'
Grey Knights: Wait a minute, there's a Plasma Weapon type consisting of Plasma Gun, Plasma Cannon and Plasma Pistol, but this is the only codex that has a Plasma Weapon type, and so they must be the only things affected, since no other codex has a Plasma Weapon, and the rulebook doesn't have anything on Plasma Weapons.

The only thing getting in the way of this being a straight answer is people who think name/fluff=rules and who blatantly ignore the precedent set by the CSM Daemon Prince who is devoid of a Daemon rule yet has Daemon in its name.

As juraigamer said, until the FAQ the Plasma Siphon only affects the Plasma gun, Plasma Cannon and Plasma Pistol as outlined in the GK codex; no ifs, no buts; there is no wiggle room here.

+1 to the above. I am going with that stance until it is FAQ'd.

It will need to go over every codex and what weapons are affected because frankly that could screw the Tau right over as every weapon is a form of "plasma" in fluff terms. Lets hope they go the sensible way!

Ok, finally found it. I don't understand why there's a debate. There is a like of the weapons, AND on PG 58 it defines it again.

No debate, no need for FAQ. It's plasma gun, plasma pistol, and plasma cannon, doesn't even say get's hot is part of it.

If it's FAQed then we deal with it then.

SOthas - because it states "including", which MEANS "there are other weapons that the following that are included in this rule. Examples of weapons are:"

We just have no way kf knowing what those weapons are...

nosferatu1001 wrote:SOthas - because it states "including", which MEANS "there are other weapons that the following that are included in this rule. Examples of weapons are:"

We just have no way kf knowing what those weapons are...

No it doesn't. If there were more weapons it would say, "including, but not limited to..." Including in this context does not mean there are more. In this context it means literally "these are your weapons." Also, as I stated, on pg 58 it lists Plasma Weapons in a side box, gives it a definition, and then lists only these three weapons. It also lists flamers on pg 56 and meltas on pg 57, all of which are either listed in, or FAQed into the Avatar's immunity.

So no, there's no debate on what is or is not a plasma weapon when it is clearly defined in the book twice. If it gets FAQed then fine, but this is a clearly stated rule no matter how slowed it may be.