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.

Not really, "A vehicle with a wercking ball causes a str9 hit upon one unengaged enemy unit within 2" at the beginning of the assault phase on a roll of a 4+"

Is different from "At the start of each assault phase a vehicle with a wrecking ball rolls to hit against on unengaged enemy unit within 2", on a 4+ that unit suffers a str9 hit." The vehicle doesn't actually make any attacks, there's a set of conditions (<=2", & <12" and a result, there's no assault, which is needed to make close combat attacks unless the wargear states itself 'counts as a close combat attack'. A 'hit' is a generic term where as a "Roll to Hit" is actually a part of the shooting process it's own specific term where "To determine if the firing models have hit their target roll a D6 for each shot that is in range" Page 17 most importantly 'to Hit' rolls rely on BS to determine the result.

It would be like saying anything that happens on a roll of 3,4,5,6+ is an attack because the conditions have been satisfied, which would include which would include things like shock prows and grot riggers and they wouldn't be able to be used when shaken or stunned because they would have a 'Roll to Hit' thus be an attack/weapon of some kind by your reasoning.

In other words, no the wreckin ball isnt actually a weapon by the strict definition of the RAW. But yes, the wreckin ball certainly does seem to be functioning as a weapon.

If the vehicle did make attacks then it would be open and shut...the wreckin ball actually IS a weapon. Since there is nothing saying that the vehicle make attacks, the wreckin ball is merely functioning as a weapon. Hence why the exact wording of the rule on weapon or vehicle upgrade destroyed rule is important.


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:In other words, no the wreckin ball isnt actually a weapon by the strict definition of the RAW. But yes, the wreckin ball certainly does seem to be functioning as a weapon. Since there is nothing saying that the vehicle make attacks, the wreckin ball is merely functioning as a weapon.

...In your opinion.

It doesn't function or read like any weapon defined as a weapon in the rules and isn't defined as a weapon or as functioning like a weapon. The examples given in the rule that "function like" weapons clearly are examples of wargear weapons with full ranged weapon profiles, etc.

Your interpretation opens the door to a host of other extrapolations of the rule. I could easily use the exact same logic to prove that a reinforced ram functions like a weapon, and then on to pretty much anything in the game. It's a slippery slope.

Hence why most people like to stick to the rule definitions provided by the book, in my experience, and not just 'damage=weapon' logic.

Yes, it is in my opinion. Of course the "most people" is your opinion, because many people do go by a kind of rule of thumb that if it looks like a weapon then its something that might function as a weapon. Thats how many years ago we locally came to the ruling that the wreckin ball functions as a close combat weapon.

After all, it has a to hit roll, it has a str, and it can attack a unit within the same 2" range that is used for determining who can fight in a close combat. That made it seem to function as a weapon in the same way that dreadnought cc function, at least to general player at our flgs. And thats why we ruled that way, it is both a viable interpetation fo the RAW and it seemed natural to the average uninformed player.

At least here, most people see the wreckin ball to be functioning in the same manner as the dreadnought weapon.


Talking about a slippery slope is all well and good, but simply because some people may ask further questions is not a good reason to make a ruling that feels wrong to many people.



Sliggoth

So, letting the enemy shoot off every "weapony" upgrade is sort of like giving the vehicle more "wounds". Now when it is immobilized, it will take forever to shoot off all of the upgrades. Just make sure it happens where it can contest an objective!

Homer

Homer S wrote:So, letting the enemy shoot off every "weapony" upgrade is sort of like giving the vehicle more "wounds". Now when it is immobilized, it will take forever to shoot off all of the upgrades. Just make sure it happens where it can contest an objective!

Homer

That depends on whether the part of the rules that allows you to jump to different damage specifies only weapons. If it does then the number of upgrades would have no impact on that.