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.

Alerian wrote:Niether the Wreckin' ball, nor the Deffrolla follow the rules for Shooting or Assault. Niether has a ranged or CC profile. Niether utilizes a BS or WS.

I don't think you need to utilize WS or BS to count as (respectively) a CCW or a Ranged Weapon.

Che-Vito wrote:So a Weapon Destroyed could be used against a Seeker Missile on a Tau vehicle?

I don't see why not. It's not a defensive weapon. It's fired in the shooting phase. It has a weapon profile.

Anything that causes a wound to a model falls into the generic category of a 'weapon' in the English language. If a tank Tank Shocks a unit, a single model takes his Death or Glory attack, and fails to stop the tank, that model is removed. So, by the definition 'anything that causes damage is a weapon', the tank itself is now a weapon. In common English, the tank would be considered a 'weapon', as would all it's armament.

In 40k, the game separates the two. The tank is a Vehicle. It's armament are its Weapons. But, the tank is a vehicle not a weapon. In game terms, there are Ranged Weapons and Close Combat Weapons. There are other ways to inflict damage on models and units that fall into neither category, such as the Wrecking Ball, Deff Rolla, Ramming, Tank Shock, Dangerous Terrain Tests, and Cluster Bombs from SM Scout Bikers.

So, yes, I've done a 180. I don't think the Wrecking Ball qualifies as a weapon for Weapon Destroyed results. It's not a ranged weapon (firing rate isn't affected by speed moved, and it's used in the assault phase not the shooting phase). Since it's mounted on a vehicle, the model can't be locked in combat. Which, to me, means that it's not a CCW either.

Except...
In 40k their are only 2 categories of weapons...CC and Ranged. By the game rules, there are no other types of "weapons".

My point is that since neither the Rolla nor the Wreckin' Ball fulfill the requirements of either 40k weapon category, they are not "weapons" by definition, within the confines of the rules. They are simply vehicle upgrades.

"3 Damage - Weapon Destroyed
One of the vehicle's weapons (chosen by the attacker) is destroyed - ripped off by the force of the attack. If a vehicle has no weapon left, treat this result as an 'immobilised' result instead. This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles. "

The rule clearly states that vehicle upgrades that function as weapons can be destroyed. It does not limit the type of weapon.

But, neither actually funtions as a weapon, beacuse they do not follow weapon rules. Funtioning as a weapon is not the same thing as simply doing dmg, within the context of the 40k rule set. That is where I believe several people are confused.

"Functioning as a weapon" means to perform the same ability or opperation. Since niether upgrade opperates or performs an ability that is equal to either weapon category, I stand by my statement that, within the context of the 40k ruleset, they are not weapons, nor do they function as such.

They are upgrades that can cause dmg.

Dracos wrote:The rule clearly states that vehicle upgrades that function as weapons can be destroyed. It does not limit the type of weapon.

That is correct. Does the Wrecking Ball meet the requirements of being a Weapon in game terms?

It's not a ranged weapon. It's not used in the shooting phase and isn't affected by how far the vehicle moves.

Is it a CCW? It's used in the assault phase. But, the vehicle doesn't have a WS, can't be locked in combat, and it doesn't attack in all assault phases, just its own assault phase. And it has a range, so the vehicle doesn't even need to be in btb with a unit it is attacking. So, I don't think it qualifies as a CCW.

So, if it's not a Ranged Weapon or a CCW, it's not a Weapon in 40k terms.

All Weapons cause damage. Not all events that cause damage are Weapons. There are ways to cause damage in 40k from non-Weapon effects; failed Death or Glory, Ramming, Dangerous Terrain Tests, and vehicles exploding. So, while the Wrecking Ball can cause damage, it's not a Weapon in 40k terms, imho.

So Dietrich...you are changing your mind again, and agreeing with me?

The weapon does not need to follow weapon rules. It is found in your codex and thus it uses its own rules for resolving damage as opposed to those found in the BRB (codex > BRB). It causes damage, and is thus a weapon. Note that it does not use a proper noun to reference a specific rule defining the term weapon, and instead it is simply a generic weapon using the standard definition.

Sorry friend, but this is actually pretty rediculous. Things that cause damage are by definition functioning as weapons, and they are vehicle upgrades. As such, it is covered under the previously quoted rule.

No. Things that cause dmg are NOT automatically weapons in 40k. It is a game with a rule set that defines what are, and what are not, weapons.

By your logic, a weapon destroyed result should actually destroy a Waveserpent, because the Waveserpent can perform a 24"ramming attack...thus doing damage.

Doing damage =/= being (or functioning as) a weapon within the rules of 40k.

The Deff Rolla cannot be a weapon. It pefroms it damages as the result from tanks shocking. It is and upgrade for tank shock. The only way the argument works for it to be a weapon is if all damage done is by a weapon, which as Alerian points out is not the case.

As Alerian point out earlier if it isn't classified as a CCW or a Shooting weapon then it isn't a weapon.

In short the Deff Rolla and Wrecking Ball are by definition weapons, but by the 40K rules not weapons. Simply this is one of those cases where the rules trump logic.

There is a problem with your theory and that is the lack of a proper noun in the description of weapon destroyed. If it used a proper noun, then it would have to fit the definition described in the BRB. Since it does not, you must use the standard definition of weapon.

There are 2 categories of defined weapons in 40k, those are Weapons (p.27) and Close Combat Weapons(p.42). It only says "weapons" in the weapon destroyed result rules.

So either you can take anything fits the standard definition of weapon or it can destroy Weapons (which means you can't destroy a DCCW).

It is worth noting that on p.73 it gives rules in the event that you choose to destroy a walker's DCCW. This is further proof that you use the standard definition of weapon rather than the defined "Weapons" on p.27.

Alerian wrote:So Dietrich...you are changing your mind again, and agreeing with me?

yep.

Initially, I thought it wasn't.
Then, I thought it was - and it was basically 'if the HK is a weapon, why isn't the wrecking ball?'
Then, I came around to, 'there's big differences between the HK and the w-ball'.

This is what happens when you post and work and don't have rulebooks or the codex in front of you.

Dracos wrote:There is a problem with your theory and that is the lack of a proper noun in the description of weapon destroyed. If it used a proper noun, then it would have to fit the definition described in the BRB. Since it does not, you must use the standard definition of weapon.

If we play it your way, that only "Weapons" can be destroyed, then CCW weapons are not Weapons as defined on p.27.

There are 2 categories of defined weapons in 40k, those are Weapons and Close Combat Weapons. It only says weapons in the weapon destroyed result, so either you can take anything that acts like a weapon (using the standard definition of weapon) or it can destroy Weapons (which means you can't destroy a DCCW).

edit: it is worth noting that on p.73 it gives rules in the event that you choose to destroy its DCCW. This is further proof that you use the standard definition of weapon rather than the defined "Weapons" on p.27.

See, you are still mistaken.

A DCCW does indeed "function as" a normal CC weapon, because it follows the rules for CC. A HK Missile or a pintle mounted storm bolter follows the rules for Ranged weapons.

There is nothing in the Wreckin' Ball or Rolla (nor Tau Flechette Dischargers) rules that cause them to "funtion as" or follow the rules for weapons, as defined by the rules of 40k. They do dmg, yes, but then agian so do ramming tanks. To play it your way, where anything that does damage is a weapon, you are forced to declare a tank as a weapon in and of itself. While this may be true in the real world, it is not the case in 40k.

The ruleset clearly defines weapons (and as such, what "functions as" a weapon) and niether of these Orky upgrades technically fall into that category.

Please read the rules before responding again. Allow me to reiterate.

the term "weapons" found in the rules for weapon destroyed is not a proper noun - this means it is using the standard definition and not the one found on p.27.

If you are arguing that you use the definition on p.27, then it cannot destroy a DCCW because it is a "Close Combat Weapon"(p.42) and not a "Weapon"(p.27).

However, it mentions that you can select a DCCW on p.73 to be destroyed means you do NOT use the definition of "Weapon" offered on p.27 (as it does not include DCCW weapons). You have to use the standard definition of the word weapon. That would include your W-ball.

If you disagree please supply rules quotes to refute what I am saying. You arguments seem based on misquotes and lack of understanding of the difference between a noun and a proper noun.

You are still not understaing what I am saying, nor what it means to "funtion as" a weapon, per the rules for destroying weapons on vehicles. Also, your point about proper nouns is pointless, and only serves to derail an actual rules discussion.

I said that a DCCW "funtions as" a weapon, because it opperates in the same manner as a CC weapon...thus it can be destroyed by the result (check the exact wording of the rule). A Rolla, Wreckin' Ball or Flechette Discharger cannot be destroyed, because they do not opperate in the same way as a weapon, therefore they do not "function as" a weapon.

Please, stop simply repeating yourself, and actaully take the time to read what I post, if you want to continue this discussion. No one is argueing about proper nouns...it is a matter of "function".

What you are saying is not correct. Either you can destroy something that fits the definition of "Weapon" presented on p27 (which is for what you are mistakenly referring to as Ranged weapons) which does not include Close Combat Weapons, or you can destroy anything that functions as a weapon using the standard english definition. IF you got with the former, you are directly violating p73 which refers directly to the FACT that you can select a DCCW. Since you can select that type of weapon, and the word weapon in the rules is not a proper noun, you HAVE to use the standard english definition.

Why is it that you refuse to offer proof of the accuracy of your interpretation?

I've clearly refuted your arguement that we need to use the definition of "Weapon" on p.27, and I think that you are avoiding citing actual rules because your interpretation is not backed up by the rules.

edit: IF you want, ill even post the standard english definition for the words "function" and "weapon".

You are hung up on things that don't matter to this discussion...at all. As such, you are ignoring the flaw in your logic. i will not discuss dictionary discussions with you, because the only definitions on which we are allowed to opperate are those given to us by GW.

Standard English definitions don't matter a hill of beans in a game where the designers make up their own definitions of what is and is not a weapon. GW defines weapons, just as they define "disembarking", "skimmers", "beasts", etc. They are free to choose to use the words how they see fit: it is their game. Certainly standard English would define a Tank as a weapon (indeed it does); however, 40k rules do not define a tank as a weapon, and it is those rules alone that matter in a rules discussion.

You cannot have it your way (that causing dmg equals "funtioning as a weapon") without clasifying tanks as weapons. So, if causing dmg equals being a weapon in game terms, then all tanks are weapons and can therefore be destroyed by "weapon destroyed" results. By the wording of the rules, we know that this is not the case.

Since we know that tanks are not detroyed by a single "weapon destroyed" result, then we know that funtioning as a weapon, in game terms, cannot mean simply doing damage. Instead, in game terms, functioning as a weapon must include all things that follow the rules for weapons (whether CC or ranged).

This is why things like DCCW and HK missiles "function as" weapons in game terms; they follow the rules for combat and weapons in general (either CC or ranged).

However, things like Wreckin' Balls, Rollas and Flechette Disgchargers in no way follow the rules for normal combat or weapons, but only do damge, like our ramming tank example.

Think of it this way.

There are weapons, which is the general dictionary definition.

Then there are Weapons, which is a Weapon in the 40k game.

Meltaguns (if they existed) would be weapons and Weapons. Tanks are weapons, but not Weapons. Not all effects that cause damage in 40k are Weapons. Otherwise, some terrain would be a Weapon, since it can cause damage to bikers and jump-pack troops due to a failed Dangerous Terrain test.

2 things that are classed as Weapons in the Ork Codex, but do not follow the standard rules for either ranged or Close-Combat weapons:
Bomb-Squigs
Kustom Force Field.

They are still Weapons, as they appear in the Weapons section of Ork Wargear.

Alerian wrote:You are hung up on things that don't matter to this discussion...at all. As such, you are ignoring the flaw in your logic. i will not discuss dictionary discussions with you, because the only definitions on which we are allowed to opperate are those given to us by GW.

Standard English definitions don't matter a hill of beans in a game where the designers make up their own definitions of what is and is not a weapon. GW defines weapons, just as they define "disembarking", "skimmers", "beasts", etc. They are free to choose to use the words how they see fit: it is their game. Certainly standard English would define a Tank as a weapon (indeed it does); however, 40k rules do not define a tank as a weapon, and it is those rules alone that matter in a rules discussion.

Not true, try reading the BRB without using any standard definitions in the english language. You can't. Some terms are definitely defined, such as "Weapons" (there is no definition of ranged weapon like you keep insinuating, they are simply called "Weapons") and Close Combat Weapons.

When you are trying to read something, the exact meaning of words is crucial. You are choosing to ignore the exact wording and are replacing it with how you think it works. You have yet to provide any textual evidence at all that your interpretation is correct. The lack of capitilization of the word weapon IS important as the meaning is different. This is basic reading comprehension. Proper noun vs noun.

You cannot have it your way (that causing dmg equals "funtioning as a weapon") without clasifying tanks as weapons. So, if causing dmg equals being a weapon in game terms, then all tanks are weapons and can therefore be destroyed by "weapon destroyed" results. By the wording of the rules, we know that this is not the case.

Except that when you interpret it your way you have to destroy a "Weapon" which does not include DCCW weapons. We know from page 73 that you can select them, so you need to be using the standard definition of the word weapon (which is futher supported that a proper noun is not used). A ramming action is a MOVE action and not an attack, although I agree it is not air tight that a vehicle cannot be outright destroyed on the weapon destroyed result.... but we all know RAI is definitely disallowing that.

Since we know that tanks are not detroyed by a single "weapon destroyed" result, then we know that funtioning as a weapon, in game terms, cannot mean simply doing damage. Instead, in game terms, functioning as a weapon must include all things that follow the rules for weapons (whether CC or ranged).

This is why things like DCCW and HK missiles "function as" weapons in game terms; they follow the rules for combat and weapons in general (either CC or ranged).

Again there is no such thing as ranged weapons. There are "Weapons" and "Close Combat Weapons". You can't have it both ways. Either the text is referring to Weapons on p27 or to weapons using the standard definition. The former does not include DCCW, whereas the latter does.We know that you can select DCCW, so it MUST be using the standard English definition.

However, things like Wreckin' Balls, Rollas and Flechette Disgchargers in no way follow the rules for normal combat or weapons, but only do damge, like our ramming tank example.

Again, they do not need to follow "normal" rules for weapons because they are in your codex. Its special rules replace those of "normal weapons"

Again I have to ask, why you refuse to provide textual evidence of your interpretation?

Alerian wrote:However, things like Wreckin' Balls, Rollas and Flechette Disgchargers in no way follow the rules for normal combat or weapons, but only do damge, like our ramming tank example.

Wrecking balls follow some of the rules of normal combat, with a few special-rule exceptions.
They roll to hit.
They have a strength value.
It is disingenuous to say that they "in no way" follow normal combat rules.

simple question.

Vehicles are limited to what weapons they can fire based on movement.

Under those rules when is the wrecking ball counted as a primary or defensive weapon?

If your answer is never, it is prolly because it is not a weapon

Isn't a Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon by definition and name a weapon in any sense of the term?

blaktoof wrote:simple question.

Vehicles are limited to what weapons they can fire based on movement.

Under those rules when is the wrecking ball counted as a primary or defensive weapon?

If your answer is never, it is prolly because it is not a weapon

This rule only applies to ranged weapons that do not have any special rules.
Wrecking balls attack in the Assault phase, and cannot do so if the vehicle has moved over 12" in it's movement phase.

A wreaking ball cannot be used if the vehicle moved 12".

But that is irrelevent, because it is a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon (note it does not need to function as a Weapon, simply a weapon)

Function

1 : to have a function : serve <an attributive noun functions as an adjective>
2 : to carry on a function or be in action : operate

Weapon

1 : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy
2 : a means of contending against another

to replace my claim with the definition...

it is a vehicle upgrade that operates as [..]something used to injure, defeat, or destroy .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gitzbitah wrote:Isn't a Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon by definition and name a weapon in any sense of the term?

A Weapon per p.27 of the rulebook does not include Close Combat Weapons, those are another category. It is however, a weapon (using a standard definition).

I think it can be removed because it opperates to inflict damage seperate from the vehicle. Deff Rollas, Fletchet launchers, etc. cannot be counted as weapons on the vehicle for two reasons:

One: They are more hull upgrades than anything else, like reactive armor on a tank, can only be used as weapons if the vehicle itself is being used. Hence fletchets only operate when the vehicle is attacked, like reactive armor, and deff rollas can only be implimented when you are tank shocking, hense driving the vehicle into something, you would have the same result if you charged the vehicle normally, the deff rolla just gives a bonus.

two: As an integrated part of the vehicle, not an outlying turret or parapet, they cant be removed. A wrecking ball is a turret of sorts, that moves independently from the vehicle and can act on its own regardless of what the mochine its sitting on is doing.

Think of it like this, you have a wrecking ball on a crane, the crane is the vehicle, the wrecking ball the weapon. If the wrecking ball was shot off the crane, say the crane extension was destroyed, the crane could still operate and would essentially fill that weapon destroyed result.

blaktoof wrote:simple question.

Vehicles are limited to what weapons they can fire based on movement.

Under those rules when is the wrecking ball counted as a primary or defensive weapon?

If your answer is never, it is prolly because it is not a weapon

It does not need to be a Primary weapon or Defensive Weapon, simply function as a weapon. And again, not a Weapon as defined on p.27.

Also, keep in mind that the vehicle not being allowed to assault and the vehicle not being locked in cc matter not at all to the wrcekin ball. Its not that the wreckin ball needs to turn the vehicle into a walker somehow. We need to look at the ball itself and see if its a weapon.

The wreckin ball is given a hit mechanism, hitting on a die roll+; it is given a str; and most crucially, it is limited to targets within 2" of the ball...the same distance that modles in cc can use to judge if they can attack or not.

The wreckin ball is extremely odd, but it certainly does in many ways appear to be a weapon.


What we really need to do is look at it solely from the point of view of the weapon destroyed results. Does the ball function as a weapon in game terms?

During the assault phase it rolls to see if it hits, it has a str, it can only hit models within cc range. It inflicts a wound upon a model if these rules are all met.

What criteria is the wreckin ball missing to see if its functioning as a weapon?

There may be something its missing that keeps it from being seen as functioning as a weapon, but if so what?



Sliggoth

PS English definitions dont really help us much here, as 40kese is definitely not english

Alerian wrote:You are still not understaing what I am saying, nor what it means to "funtion as" a weapon, per the rules for destroying weapons on vehicles. Also, your point about proper nouns is pointless, and only serves to derail an actual rules discussion.

<SNIP>

No one is argueing about proper nouns...it is a matter of "function".

I'm not going to bother to side with one faction or the other here. Some of us know what the rules say and some don't. That's good enough for me.

One thing that DOES need pointing out, though:
You don't seem to understand that, within the context of GW rulesets, nouns vs. proper nouns actually makes a difference.
Infantry vs. infantry, for example.

GW takes the time to use proper nouns in places, rather than nouns, for a reason. That difference is important and should be taken into consideration during their "interpretation." Not to do so is a quick way to misunderstand what they've written.


Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dietrich wrote:Think of it this way.

There are weapons, which is the general dictionary definition.

Then there are Weapons, which is a Weapon in the 40k game.

Meltaguns (if they existed) would be weapons and Weapons. Tanks are weapons, but not Weapons. Not all effects that cause damage in 40k are Weapons. Otherwise, some terrain would be a Weapon, since it can cause damage to bikers and jump-pack troops due to a failed Dangerous Terrain test.

You are exactly and 100% correct. Well said.

Do you realize, though, that this example supports the side you're arguing against?

E

MagickalMemories wrote:Do you realize, though, that this example supports the side you're arguing against?

A Wrecking Ball isn't a ranged weapon.

I can see an arguement for it being a CCW. It is used in the Assault phase. It has a Strength value. It has a To Hit value. But, it doesn't go at initiative, can't be engaged, etc. - so it doesn't follow all the rules for Assault. Which, to me, indicates that it's not a CCW either.

So, the Wrecking Ball, imho, is a weapon, but it's not a 'official 40k' Weapon, and can't be Weapon Destroyed.

This arguing from the dictionary is getting silly. By that reasoning, every building could be targetted by abilities that affect a "model." GW does not generally capitalize "model" when refering to their concept of "A game peice that is not terrain, such as an infantryman, tank or cavalry." So do we immediately go to the dictionary and see "Hey, a model is a scaled version fo something else!" and say we can apply rules to anything on the table so long as they affect "models"?