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.

What does the game Warhammer 40k consider a weapon for weapon destroyed?

Tricky subject.

For example a lot of the ork vehicle upgrades have been debated both ways

Congrats, you just broke the game


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would say that any ranged weapon a vehicle can carry is a weapon for this purpose.

Anything with a strength value.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Anything with a strength value.

That would include the silver plating that Grey knights can put on their vehicles to hurt daemons...

QuietOrkmi wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Anything with a strength value.

That would include the silver plating that Grey knights can put on their vehicles to hurt daemons...

And I could easily see bullets mucking up armoured plating.

It does not need to make sense... it just follows your definition. If you feel this example is wrong, then perhaps the definition needs to changed...

QuietOrkmi wrote:It does not need to make sense... it just follows your definition. If you feel this example is wrong, then perhaps the definition needs to changed...

I don't think the example is wrong, it makes sense. Weapon Destroyed = destroying an offensive ability of the tank. Any ability which causes damage can be offensive. The best way in 40k (imo) to determine if something can cause damage is to see if it has a strength value.

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 :-(

For the OP: what was the situation that made you question this?

deffrolla is my guess

As an ork player, I always disagreed that a roll should be considered a weapon for this simple reason:

If you immobilise the vehicle, you negate the rolla. If my orks could disengage the rolla and push it around, I would be fine considering it a weapon.

If you immobilise a wagon, I can still shoot my Big Shootas or Rokkits. My klaws and wrecking balls can still hit anything within 2". So, I define a weapon as anything that can deal an attack on its own (and the rolla and reinforced ram are the only things coming to mind that I would not count as weapons). Having a strength value does not necessarily have to be included (i.e. grabbin' klaws and grabba sticks).

Now, with that being said, that is my personal opinion. Whenever I do run wagons with rollas, I always ask up front how we are going to define the rolla. I am OK with it either way as long as I know up front.

I always state that a weapon is something with a profile in the listing in the codex. Wargear doesn't have such things, but in an orks case all those fancy shooting gubbings are.

The problem is that the OP's local store has made a couple of house rulings.

1. Deffrollas are weapons and can be weapon destroyed.
2. Dreadnoughts can swing back at Orks inside a vehicle using a powerklaw.

The lot of them are ninnies, and instead of learing to play gakking 40k by the rules, tailoring their armies to be able to handle threats appropriately, they would rather make up their own rules to give themselves an advantage.


OP:

Weapons come in two types: Either it is a close combat weapon and references as such in the the codex, or it is a ranged weapon and meets the following criteria: Strength, AP, Range, Type. A deffrolla has no close combat characteristics, nor does it fit the profile of a ranged weapon - those are the only two available options. If they're going to classify anything with a strength as a weapon...all infantry models in 40k are weapons. They have strength profiles. all vehicles are weapons because they have a strength value associated with their ramming. Wargear exists to bridge the gap and add unique flavor. A Deffrolla is a piece of wargear.

Similiarly, units may make close combat attacks only against units which they are engaged with, pending other requirements. A Nob using a boarding plank never engages a dreadnought - so the dreadnought can't make its close combat attacks against the embarked unit. Nor can you ever make close combat attacks against an embarked unit. Nor can an embarked unit ever be locked in close combat. If a dreadnought and an ork unit are in combat...then they are locked in combat - and being embarked means that all the required rules for assault get broken.

Dashofpepper wrote:The problem is that the OP's local store has made a couple of house rulings.

As far as I can tell, the OP never made any comment about any house rules...

I say again, to the original poster, what situation made this question be asked?

Its a little more complicated than just what is a weapon too if we are talking about the weapon destroyed result on a vehicle.

A weapon destroyed result can destroy any weapon on the vehicle or any vehicle upgrade that function as weapons. And then in typical GW fashion they fail to even give us a definition of a weapon, let alone what an upgrade that functions as a weapon might be.

And since the op seems to be interested in orks (from his posting name) matters are even more fun and interesting when we look at the ork codex.

Turn to pg 89 in the ork codex and you find the start of a section detailing ork weapons. We find that orks consider many odd and unusual things to be weapons, some of which simply do not even begin to have normal weapon profiles. Grabba sticks are weapons. Bomb squigs are weapons. Kustom force fields are weapons (!). As well as the various grenades.

So what is a weapon, and what may function as a weapon to an ork seem to be rather open ended in nature. And because the rules in this case are not at all clear we are left with a mess.


...............................................................................................

The op didnt make reference to the boarding plank but it was brought up as a separate issue later.

A boarding plank lets a passenger make his cc attacks exactly as if he were disembarked and charging. This means that the passenger is not actually disembarked, he merely is allowed to attack as if he were. This also means that the passenger can freely attack a walker but is immune to any attacks back since the passenger is still actually embarked on the transport.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:The problem is that the OP's local store has made a couple of house rulings.

As far as I can tell, the OP never made any comment about any house rules...

I say again, to the original poster, what situation made this question be asked?

Solo, the OP never made any comments in *THIS* thread about the issue. But this thread originated because I thought he'd have better luck with a thread than a series of PMs.

the problem is that once you start to clissify "anything that can deal damage" as a "weapon" you get into a grey area.


What about DE shock Prows or Ork Reinforced Rams that let you tank shock and Ram?

What about weapons that hurt attackers like Tau Flacettes or GK True silver armor?

What about LD modifying items (losing LD is damage right?) like DE Torment Grenades or Laud Hailers?


There is only one way to deal with this simply (and it also happens to be the way the rules are written). Weapons are EITHER a Close Combat Weapon (1 handed or 2 handed with special rules) or a Ranged Weapon (fired in the shooting phase, has Range, Str, AP and Type). If it not one of those things, it is not a weapon and as such does not follow any of the rules for weapons.

Wow couple of months and this surfaces again. It comes down to this ...

If a vehicle upgrade works like a weapon then it can be destroyed. Since there is no way of defining what functioning like a weapon is you have two options:
a) discuse upgrades that might function like weapons ( Deffroll:Ork, Slave netsE)
b) it must be something with a weapons profile or is specifically called a weapon.

... Personally I've been in favour of a wide number of upgrades that could function like weapons but I understand why many people choose the simpler option. There really is no answer to what 'functioning like a weapon' is so it makes sense to keep to those that follow standard weapon profiles.

@ sven The problem with limiting weapons to those two categories is...that 40k explicitly includes items that are outside those categories. We KNOW that there are other weapons, looking at the ork codex gives us several examples. And grabbing a more modern codex we can look at the DE codex and again find that there are all sorts of weird things that are weapons.

So by RAW we see that "weapons" is a very broad category, and since it is painted so broadly in several places we must also presume that this is RAI as well. If they keep doing something over many years time its either what they intend, its a part of their *vision* of 40k or else the developers are even more clueless than we have been led to believe.

While one should never underestimate the capacity of a loosely run company like gw to wander aimlessly, IF there is any intent regarding weapons types we can only conclude that weapons are an extremely open list. And so functioning like a weapon has to be open to at least considering wargear of various natures.


The precedent that flip belts are weapons (from the DE codex) certainly does push us towards the ugly idea that shock prows and reinforced rams might well be functioning like weapons.



Sliggoth


PS Local ork player has argued for years that a reinforced ram is a weapon since without the ram his truks cannot make a ram attack. So he has always bought the ram as extra protection from weapon destroyed results.

Sliggoth wrote:PS Local ork player has argued for years that a reinforced ram is a weapon since without the ram his truks cannot make a ram attack. So he has always bought the ram as extra protection from weapon destroyed results.

Again, as an ork player, I disagree. If the truck cannot move, the ram in no longer functioning. The same thing applies to a deffrolla. I see it as a case of double jeopardy against the ram/rolla.

Taking his logic one step further, the catergory of tank makes a battlewagon able to tank shock, can you destroy that too?

If a tank, like a vindicator, gets immobilized against a ruined wall it was trying to go through that makes the demo cannon non functional as well, so would you not consider the Demo cannon viable for Weapon Destroyed, since immobilized result can make it no longer function?

The long and short of it is there is no hard and fast rules to what a weapon actually is.

I would play it as anything that can be used offensively against the opposing army, and is a wargear upgrade (Or weapon) as described in their entry, counts as a weapon for this purpose.

DeathReaper wrote:
If a tank, like a vindicator, gets immobilized against a ruined wall it was trying to go through that makes the demo cannon non functional as well, so would you not consider the Demo cannon viable for Weapon Destroyed, since immobilized result can make it no longer function?

Being unable to use the deff rolla because of immobilization is pretty universal as you cannot preform a tank shock if your immobilized... on an open field this still holds true. Your counter example is a little tough to consider because you would have to satisfy specific conditions (facing a wall that completely blocks all traces of LOS from the barrel to the enemy) in order to happen and the wall still does not stop you from firing the cannon only stops you from finding a target for the cannon.

DeathReaper wrote:
The long and short of it is there is no hard and fast rules to what a weapon actually is.

I would play it as anything that can be used offensively against the opposing army, and is a wargear upgrade (Or weapon) as described in their entry, counts as a weapon for this purpose.

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.

Sliggoth wrote:@ sven The problem with limiting weapons to those two categories is...that 40k explicitly includes items that are outside those categories. We KNOW that there are other weapons, looking at the ork codex gives us several examples. And grabbing a more modern codex we can look at the DE codex and again find that there are all sorts of weird things that are weapons.

So by RAW we see that "weapons" is a very broad category, and since it is painted so broadly in several places we must also presume that this is RAI as well. If they keep doing something over many years time its either what they intend, its a part of their *vision* of 40k or else the developers are even more clueless than we have been led to believe.

While one should never underestimate the capacity of a loosely run company like gw to wander aimlessly, IF there is any intent regarding weapons types we can only conclude that weapons are an extremely open list. And so functioning like a weapon has to be open to at least considering wargear of various natures.


The precedent that flip belts are weapons (from the DE codex) certainly does push us towards the ugly idea that shock prows and reinforced rams might well be functioning like weapons.

How are flip belts a weapon? In every place they are listed under wargear. The list of wargear Includes weapons, but it also includes things that are not weapons. (like holo-suits for example)

I agree that there are some cases where the RAW and the RAI are muddy and it is clear that GW is adding many more "Things that hurt people in the movement phase" in the newer books.

My solution (only shooting or close combat weapons are weapons) is offered out of simplicity as otherwise EVERY piece of wargear can be argued to be a weapon. (some better than others)

Dashofpepper wrote:

Weapons come in two types: Either it is a close combat weapon and references as such in the the codex, or it is a ranged weapon and meets the following criteria: Strength, AP, Range, Type.

Gotta agree with Mr Pepper on this one, if the upgrade says 'weapon' or it has a weapon profile then it's a weapon and can be destroyed etc. Otherwise things start to look a bit silly.

DeathReaper wrote:
I would play it as anything that can be used offensively against the opposing army, and is a wargear upgrade (Or weapon) as described in their entry, counts as a weapon for this purpose.

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!

DakkaDakka wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:The problem is that the OP's local store has made a couple of house rulings.

1. Deffrollas are weapons and can be weapon destroyed.
2. Dreadnoughts can swing back at Orks inside a vehicle using a powerklaw.

Wait....are you saying that normally a group of boyz in a trukk can assault while still in a trukk?

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.

wat about DE in their raider ? can a haywire grenade be used?

No. Orks can do it because they have an upgrade that SPECIFICALLY allows them to attack while embarked.