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.

Tri wrote:

Thor665 wrote:Does a horrorfex count as a weapon in your opinion? It doesn't cause direct damage.

Terrafex is a ranged weapon. Horrorfex is the same as Terrafex but with a larger range.

I absolutely agree - but if this is the case clearly causing damage isn't really an absolute gauge for what is or is not a weapon. If we accept that some weapons do not cause damage then why does the ability to cause damage make something a weapon?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dracos wrote:I think the biggest part of the problem is that the rules never define a requirement for what is needed for the vehicle upgrade to function as a weapon. Using the interpretation Tri and I have, it seems to leave open alot of vehicle upgrades that may/may not be considered. Our interpretation is more open and thus presents problems of what exactly fits.

The other interpretation presented is more closed, and thus causes less issues since most vehicle upgrades are not included save those that are obviously weapons like the storm bolters of hunter-killers.

Because the former interpretation requires further defining that exists outside the BGB, and the latter does not, it seems the latter is actually better. While I do not agree that RAW says the latter is necessarily correct over the former, practically speaking it is the better interpretation as less additional defining outside the BGB is needed.

Again, while I see a case for both sides the latter interpretation seems cleaner with less problems associated with it.

Thanks to those that provided cogent arguments and perspectives.

Holy fishsticks! Did we just have a legitimate rules debate with a comfortable ending and a respect for each other's points and reasons?

Someone needs to screencap this quick.

Thor665 wrote:

Tri wrote:

Thor665 wrote:Does a horrorfex count as a weapon in your opinion? It doesn't cause direct damage.

Terrafex is a ranged weapon. Horrorfex is the same as Terrafex but with a larger range.

I absolutely agree - but if this is the case clearly causing damage isn't really an absolute gauge for what is or is not a weapon. If we accept that some weapons do not cause damage then why does the ability to cause damage make something a weapon?

I have never said it is a weapon, Only that it works like a weapon.

I understand that. What I'm driving at is you say if something causes damage then it acts like a weapon. I then countered by offering up a weapon that doesn't cause damage but is a weapon. By casting doubt on whether or not a weapon causes damage I feel it also casts doubt on your claim that if something causes damage it is like a weapon.

I'm still of a belief that the two definitions in the book as to weapons has to be where one draws the basis for if something is like a weapon - and your chosen definition of 'causes damage' doesn't seem to be well supported from that standpoint.

There's lots of things in the game that cause damage but aren't weapons and shouldn't be considered as 'like a weapon'.

Thor665 wrote:There's lots of things in the game that cause damage but aren't weapons and shouldn't be considered as 'like a weapon'.

OK Tau Fletch are a given problem what are the other ones?

There are also from the DE Codex Slave Snares and Scythes which both seem to fall into the questionable area.

Deffrollas, Reinforced Rams, Terrorfex, Horrorfex are 4 just off the top of my head.

"Used" Hunter Killer Missiles also.

The Terrorfex is an infantry option - whether or not something is a weapon on an infantry model is an issue at times with GW's rules but probably better suited for a different discussion. The Reinforced Ram's ability to tank shock is an interesting one, after all a tank shock can directly inflict damage - Torture Amp could then be added to the list of considerations as well.

Hunter Killer one seems like a gaping black hole before us, but it probably is a bit of an issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Off the top of my head - isn't the Particle Whip on the Monolith immune to weapon destroyed for some strange reason? If anyone (*cough*Gwar!*cough*) has that codex right in front of them that might be an interesting wrinkle for the discussion as well.

Slave Snares yes for the same reasons a Deffrolla is like a weapon.
Reinforced Rams & Torture Amps are indeed questionable I would say no since it is the vehicle doing the damage not the upgrade.
Terrorfex & Horrorfex both ranged weapons.
"Used" Hunter Killer Missiles Yes it is still a weapon. (useless but still a weapon)
Tau Fletch & Scythes. Are the trickiest since they do damage but indirectly... sort of like dangerous terrain. These would need much debate but if i was to hazard a guess i would say they are not weapons like. You cannot target an enemy.

Thor665 wrote:Off the top of my head - isn't the Particle Whip on the Monolith immune to weapon destroyed for some strange reason? If anyone (*cough*Gwar!*cough*) has that codex right in front of them that might be an interesting wrinkle for the discussion as well.

Yup, it's immune, because it says it is.

The Flux arc also is immune

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Searchlights do cause damage. Indirectly, but they cause Damage by allowing other Weapons to fire at models they normally would be unable to see. By your logic, that counts as a weapon.

No the weapons firing are causing damage. Not the search light.

But the weapons would not cause damage were it not for the searchlight, thus the searchlight is the upgrade responsible for the damage, thus it is a weapon by Dracos's logic.

.... very well if thats what he said fair enough. I on the other hand haven't.

For an upgrade to count for weapon destroyed it must directly cause damage. Not indirectly. Deffrolla fits this. Red paint doesn't, nor does searchlights. Reinforced Ram is an enigma, by the rules set out it would only be a weapon on trukk since Battle Wagons can already Tank-charge.

Markerlights. They're in the list of weapons, they have a weapon profile, and count as defensive weapons on vehicles. They cause no damage directly. None.

Tri wrote:
Tau Fletch & Scythes. Are the trickiest since they do damage but indirectly... sort of like dangerous terrain. These would need much debate but if i was to hazard a guess i would say they are not weapons like. You cannot target an enemy.

Now that´s interesting. Because nor can you target an enemy with a Deffrolla.
You can target the enemy with a Tank Shock however, and that´s when the Deffrolla enters the picture as it enhances the effects of the Tank Shock. Please note that a Deffrolla cannot do any damage on it´s own. It´s totally dependant of the vehicle it´s mounted on to execute a Tank Shock. If the vehicle in question would be unable to execute a Tank Shock through, say, an Immobilized damage result, this would also exempt the Deffrolla from doing any damage. This is not true of any vehicle-mounted weapon in the game. Ranged weapons can still shoot and DCCWs still do damage in assault, although it requires the enemy to charge the Walker, the weapon fulfil it´s function in the phase it is normally used none the less.
Now, since you can never choose to target anything directly with the Deffrolla (it merely enhances the damage done by the Tank Shock) I´d say that it isn´t a weapon, nor does it act like one, as it´s never used to acctucally target anything with. This, I think, is crucial.

By this logic, then neither do Deffrollas do direct damage, as the vehicle that bought it as an upgrade must fulfil a specific requirement for it to have any effect, very much like the Flechettes and Schytes.

Tri wrote:
Reinforced Rams & Torture Amps are indeed questionable I would say no since it is the vehicle doing the damage not the upgrade.

However, in the chase of the Reinforced Ram, the upgrade enables the vehicle to do damage in the first place.
By this same logic, in the case of Deffrollas it could also be argued that it acctucally is the vehicle doing the damage, the Deffrolla simply enables it to enhance the damage.

So we have decided that an upgrade does not have to BE a weapon, as long as it can ACT LIKE a weapon.

What defines ACTING LIKE a weapon?
Well what do weapons do? In my opinion;
the select targets and deal damage from range (although MarkLights and possibly others show that dealing damage is not a requirement) in the shooting phase;
or they confer special bonuses to attacks in Assault;

Find a WEAPON that is defined as a WEAPON that acts when ramming (or at least in the movement phase) and there might be an argument that a deff rolla acts LIKE that weapon. But (so far) I haven't seen anything that is a weapon for it to act like, then I don't think it can possibly count.

There however could be a slightly stronger argument for Flechette pods or other things that deal damage in the Assault phase, but they don't 'act like' any other conventional weapon so IMO can't be destroyed.

Warboss Tufgrim wrote:

Tri wrote:
Tau Fletch & Scythes. Are the trickiest since they do damage but indirectly... sort of like dangerous terrain. These would need much debate but if i was to hazard a guess i would say they are not weapons like. You cannot target an enemy.

Now that´s interesting. Because nor can you target an enemy with a Deffrolla.
You can target the enemy with a Tank Shock however, and that´s when the Deffrolla enters the picture as it enhances the effects of the Tank Shock. Please note that a Deffrolla cannot do any damage on it´s own. It´s totally dependant of the vehicle it´s mounted on to execute a Tank Shock. If the vehicle in question would be unable to execute a Tank Shock through, say, an Immobilized damage result, this would also exempt the Deffrolla from doing any damage. This is not true of any vehicle-mounted weapon in the game. Ranged weapons can still shoot and DCCWs still do damage in assault, although it requires the enemy to charge the Walker, the weapon fulfil it´s function in the phase it is normally used none the less.
Now, since you can never choose to target anything directly with the Deffrolla (it merely enhances the damage done by the Tank Shock) I´d say that it isn´t a weapon, nor does it act like one, as it´s never used to acctucally target anything with. This, I think, is crucial.

My explanations let me down. Fletch & Scythes require the enemy to attack. That is the only way they activate. you can't drive up and hit people with them.

Tri wrote:
Reinforced Rams & Torture Amps are indeed questionable I would say no since it is the vehicle doing the damage not the upgrade.

However, in the chase of the Reinforced Ram, the upgrade enables the vehicle to do damage in the first place.
By this same logic, in the case of Deffrollas it could also be argued that it acctucally is the vehicle doing the damage, the Deffrolla simply enables it to enhance the damage.

Yes the ram inables the vehicel to tank charge but death or glory victims are killed by the being crushed by the Vehicle. not the ram. The Deffrolla on the other hand deals out D6 Str10 hits.

Trasvi wrote:Find a WEAPON that is defined as a WEAPON that acts when ramming (or at least in the movement phase) and there might be an argument that a deff rolla acts LIKE that weapon. But (so far) I haven't seen anything that is a weapon for it to act like, then I don't think it can possibly count.

Ask and you shall receive "Swooping Hawk Grenade Pack" R: N/A S4 AP5 largeblast (its placed every time swooping hawks deepstike)

Marker lights and horrorfex are two examples of what needs interpreting that made me decide to use the more closed interpretation.

These kinds of vehicle upgrades do not deal damage directly, so if you make them count as weapons (which there is an arguable reason to do) then really almost anything can.

Interpreting that these types of items can be destroyed is impractical, as you would have to go over your list of vehicle upgrades that can be destroyed with each opponent.

That is why I am going to choose to use the more closed interpretation. Its simply more practical to only include things that are obviously weapons like big shootas and storm bolters.

Dracos wrote:Marker lights and horrorfex are two examples of what needs interpreting that made me decide to use the more closed interpretation.

This makes no sense. Marker lights and horrorfex are 100% weapons and have a weapons profile.

These kinds of vehicle upgrades do not deal damage directly, so if you make them count as weapons (which there is an arguable reason to do) then really almost anything can.

No both the horrorfex and the marker lights could cause wounds they just lack the any strength. This can be seen by the Xenospasm which is a version of the Terrorfex that is Range 12" S:3 AP:3 Assault 1.

Interpreting that these types of items can be destroyed is impractical, as you would have to go over your list of vehicle upgrades that can be destroyed with each opponent.

That's not an argument that's an excuses. It like saying you can't spread the wounds round on those Nobs its too complicated.

That is why I am going to choose to use the more closed interpretation. Its simply more practical to only include things that are obviously weapons like big shootas and storm bolters.

??????? They are in fact weapons ... Weapon like is some thing that is not a weapon but similar in some way.

Tri wrote:Weapon like is some thing that is not a weapon but similar in some way.

But therein lies the whole crux of the problem. Weapon-like is never defined by GW. They do define the two different classes of weapons (weapons and close combat weapons) and a couple variants therein. But they don't explain explicitly what they mean by 'weapon like'.

I'm choosing to suppose they meant anything that fits the classification of their two defined types of weapon. So if an upgrade has a weapon profile or something - then it's weapon-like and I count it.
You're choosing that any upgrade that causes direct damage counts as a weapon as well as some other upgrades that you also feel are weapons (for instance I'm not entirely sure how your definition gets a Horrorfex to be a weapon).

The reason I count a Horrorfex as a weapon is I go to the codex - it's listed as a vehicle upgrade so isn't an obvious weapon. I read its entry (which basically says see Terrorfex but with different range.) I go to Terrorfex, a Terrorfex has a weapon stat line as described on pg. 27 of the big rulebook which then specifically defines it as a weapon. So a Horrofex is a vehicle upgrade that is weapon-like because it has a weapon stat line. I'm using weapon-like with 'weapon' using the definitions within the rulebook.

You appear to be using weapon-like in a looser version of "if I looked at the vehicle would I describe this as a weapon." You seem to use weapon-like with weapon defined as it might be in a dictionary or through debate as to whether or not something is a weapon.

Because your version requires more personal interpretation on an individual player level I tend to want to avoid it because it appears more likely to cause confusion and questions during tourneys and other such events. (this, of course, is not to say that GW wouldn't do this though - their track record for avoiding hotly debatable rules is spotty at best) That's why I believe my interpretation, with the deffrolla not being a weapon, is the more correct within the rules.

Thor665 wrote:(for instance I'm not entirely sure how your definition gets a Horrorfex to be a weapon)

Much the same as you its a terrorfex with 18" range; terrorfex is listed as a ranged weapon

As to why I choose the looser, as you would put it, more personal seleting of what counts as being weapon like is simple. If games work shop wanted it to just destroy thing like DCCW, HK missile or storm bolters then they should have just said "...remove any weapons including those take as vehicle upgrades."
Things like marker lights and horrorfex may need some need additional text, stating that ether they are or aren't weapons, but that fine they're old codexs.

Just keep in mind that the term "function as weapons" does tell us one thing, and only one thing. Its an upgrade that is not a full fledged weapon according to the rules, otherwise there would be no need to use that phrase at all. If an upgrade has a full weapons statline and effects listing then its not going to be falling under this line of the rules.

GW just then fails to mention how much like a weapon the upgrade has to be, heh. This is one of the sloppier rules really, since pintle mounted storm bolters are mentioned, but they really are full weapons.......



Sliggoth