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.

Ascalam wrote:No, just one of the passengers can

Think of him as surfing a plank extended fromt he side, and swinging a powerklaw as the trukk races past something/one.

The rulings make no sense by RAW or even RAI. They would seem to me to be a bais against orks in favour of the dreadnought owner.

I can accept rollas being weapon destroyed, though i'd not put them as being a weapon myself.

The assault rules don't really support the second ruling at all.

They made the mistake of trying to visualize a Nob with a powerklaw smacking a Dreadnought while it could not fight back... Currently the discussion has included letting the dreadnought smack the trukk itself, hitting the squad, or hitting the nob that swung at it... It is also about 6 other players v me on following the assault rules regarding who can fight.

Why is there so much debate over it Dash of pepper clearly summed it up. A wartruck hauling ass into battle drives pasta dreadnaught witha cunning nob hanging over the side does the whole hit a mailbox while hanging out of a car holding a bat. Now do this to a person, you think that person has any chance of attacking the bat wielding asshat? No, so why would a dreadnaught? I swear the people that play this game have ZERO imagination. C'mon have fun and play the game, the rules are clear. If you dont want orks doing drive byes on your vehicles, park them in difficult terrain.

And even then, if they have Reinforced Rams, they can still barrel past and smack you! That is a bit of a problem in 40K, too many people looking at it and stopping at the tabletop, instead of looking past into the 'actual' combat that the tabletop simulates.



On the issue of "Is it a Weapon?", perhaps a good way to look at it would be "Does it do damage in the Shooting or Assault phase?" This would rule out the Deffrolla, Bladevanes, anything that modifies Tank Shokking, etc, while including onboard guns and things like Wrecking balls and such.

elchristoff wrote:The way I see it is weapon destroyed = ranged weapon. Although I'm sure all my fellow ork players would rather lose the deffrolla than get an immobilised result. Sadly arguing it that way, it'd be the first weapon to go since the attacker picks the weapon of their choice :-(

What about DCCW?

I know for certain I'd want to be able to destroy those and Dreadnaught's Blood Talons, BA Libby Dread's Force weapon, etc.

DCCW are weapons. They are clearly listed as such in most codexes (same way a Powerfist is a weapon )

Which just adds weight to the whole "Can deal damage in the Shooting or Assault phases" theory.

Leigen_Zero wrote:
Taking this to the complete TFG extremes, Ork RPJ counts as a weapon for weapon destroyed results.
As it allows me to move 1" further than normal, it allows my BW to ram 1" further than normal, so providing that I am using my battlewagon to 'offensively' ram my opponent, my RPJ is being used in an offensive context, and so I will gladly lose 1" movement to a weapon destroyed result to keep my BW on the table!

Extra Movement is in no way an attack on the enemy. The BW ramming is is already considered an attack since it already has those rules.

One needs to think about what an offensive ability, or weapon is, and then form a well thought out classification on what a weapon really is.

QuietOrkmi wrote:
We would have to define offensive as well unfortunately... A shield, normally defined as a defensive weapon can be changed into an offensive weapon when your frame of mind is change.

A shield that lets me survive your attack also lets me attack once more, because I am still alive. Without the shield I am left with one less attack because I am now incapacitated. Therefore the shield is an offensive weapon that allows me to fight longer.

Lets say a Storm shield can be equipped on a Dreadnought.

A Storm shield has no way of being used offensively there are no direct rules for the SS being thrown like Captain America's shield or anything like that (Though that would be freakin cool, yet not practical at all) So a SS is most definitely not a weapon, since there are no rules to attack with a SS.

Anything that is directly used to damage an enemy or remove/affect enemy models in a detrimental way should be considered a weapon.

Except attakcs dont only occur in the shooting or assault phases.


Tank shocks occur in the movement phase, and are called attacks in the brb on pg 68. So attacks arent quite as limited as we might hope, and weapons arent quite so limited as we might hope.


Someone asked why flip belts are weapons, its because the DE codex calls them weapons. They also call cluster caltrops weapons, and the caltrops are used during the movement phase when reavers pass over a unit (another case where attacks are made during the movement phase).

The DE codex even lists skyboards as weapons. Not just the splinter pods that the boards are armed with but THE ENTIRE bloody skyboard.




So we see that if anything GW is extremely lenient and goes far overboard in calling things weapons. At least for orks and DE it seems that anything that can hurt the enemy is a weapon.

Sliggoth

Well, I'm not sure about DE, but in the hands of an Ork, anythingis a weapon. The codex even says some Madboyz go into battle wielding stuffed Pterasquirrels.

Sliggoth wrote:Except attakcs dont only occur in the shooting or assault phases.


Tank shocks occur in the movement phase, and are called attacks in the brb on pg 68. So attacks arent quite as limited as we might hope, and weapons arent quite so limited as we might hope.


Someone asked why flip belts are weapons, its because the DE codex calls them weapons. They also call cluster caltrops weapons, and the caltrops are used during the movement phase when reavers pass over a unit (another case where attacks are made during the movement phase).

The DE codex even lists skyboards as weapons. Not just the splinter pods that the boards are armed with but THE ENTIRE bloody skyboard.




So we see that if anything GW is extremely lenient and goes far overboard in calling things weapons. At least for orks and DE it seems that anything that can hurt the enemy is a weapon.

Sliggoth

Flip Belts

P.42 Listed under the wargear section for each type of Harlequin
P.56 Included on the page of "weapons", but only contains a note saying "see page 42"
P.87 On the Army list, it is under the Wargear section for Harlequins.


It is listed ONCE as a Weapon, and even then it is a very vague listing as it references another page.
It is listed TWICE as Wargear, once where the rules for it are, and once where you pay the points for it.


I would argue that it is NOT a weapon and that the heading for pages 56-60 "Weapons" is a misnomer and does not contribute to the rules.

Plasma Grenades, Phantasm Grenade launchers, and SkyBoards are all included under this heading. It is very dubious that they are weapons.


Again I say that only Shooting and Close Combat weapons count because it is the simplest answer. (though it might not be RAI)

Otherwise, you will need a list of every piece of wargear in the game that counts as a weapon.

Wargear includes weapons. Wargear is a more general heading than weapons, in other words most weapons are wargear (perhaps all) but not all wargear are weapons. Looking at the DE codex we see that kabalite warriors list wargear as splinter rifle and kab armor. On the next page we see that wyches have quite a variety of wargear, including ccw, plasma grenades and splinter pistol.

So if an item is listed as wargear...it *might* be a weapon.

But if an item is ever lsited as a weapon, then we know it IS a weapon.



The arcane wargear on pg 60 are also weapons; they are also referred to as arcane weapons on pg 56, altho these items are also called wargear.

We really dont need to list waht wargear counts as a weapon for general purposes since most of the time we really dont care whether or not a particular item is a weapon or not. For the purposes of what vehicle upgrade might be functioning as a weapon then yes we do need to consider what items GW might think are weapons.

So its more a matter of the TO making rulings on what can be destroyed this way. Which of course can have no relation to what the actual RAW might be since often the TO wants to strike a balance between keeping it simple, keeping reasonably close to the raw and keep it making sense to people.


Sometimes it might make sense to rule that only weapons can be destroyed, and we ignore the rest of the raw.

Sometimes it might make sense to destroy upgrades that most players think are weapons, simply because upgrades that do massive amounts of damage seem to be functioning as weapons.

Sometimes it might make sense to get some people togehter and work rationally through the list of upgrades and make a ruling ofr each one.




Sliggoth

All I can say is, Im glad I dont play at the store where QuietOrkmi does. Talk about hoeing a player. Maybe your just playing too good, tell them to stop sucking and stop letting you kick their asses

Weirdest thing happened yesterday... I decided to agree with them on their ruling but take it to TFG extremes of saying everything orks use is obviously a weapon, thus battlewagons and Trukks are practically immune to weapon destroyed = immobilize results as their would be easily like 7 weapons on my vehicles...

Throw in the fact that I can remobize the battle wagon and take units of 12 burnas with 3 meks that allow me to repair weapon destroyed and immobilize, I might just close top them to make them incredibly resilient to everything...

Surprisingly enough, they decided the Deff Rolla not being a weapon was not so bad...

So lesson learned: If a ruling is made that seems bias against your army, take that ruling to TFG extremes.

I like Dash's comment. Otherwise, the game gets to crazy and wonky. At least, that is how we play it at our FLGS. It has to actually have a weapon profile. It can't just be a vehicle upgrade (for example, we do not count a Wreckin' Ball on a Trukk as a weapon).

The wreckin ball pretty much does fit a weapon profile tho. During the assault phase you get to attack a unit within 2" of the wreckin ball, rolling to hit on a 4+ to cause a str 9 hit. No ap of course because ap isnt used during assaults.

It was the wreckin ball that our local ork player used to win his arguement on getting the list expanded. Once he explained how the wreckin ball worked he got the other local players to agree to that being a weapon...and enough to rethink things that most went with his arguement that the reinforced ram was a weapon too. He managed to keep his truks moving most games.



Sliggoth

It pretty much comes down to our battlewagons becoming impervious to weapon destroyed = immobilized/wreck from having a lot of weapons.

or...

Our "deff-rollas" cannot be destroyed first as they are not a weapon...

looks like win-win as long as we know in advance...