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.

dietrich wrote:

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.

Right, it is not a Weapon. It is a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon.

STOP SAYING RANGED WEAPON - this is an indication that you have not even attempted to read the rules as there is no definition in the book for this. There are "Weapons" and "Close Combat Weapons" defined in the book. Ranged weapon has no meaning other than in plain english.

I have asked many times for someone to bring an argument based on textual references to refute what I have said. So far, I have conclusions derived from misquotes thrown at me. If I'm incorrect then fine, but the onus is on those who disagree with the TEXTUAL EVIDENCE I have provided to demonstrate why it is not correct, WITH supporting citations.

If you are unable to do so, you must come to the ration conclusion that I am correct.

edit: I feel that I have made my point, and will only be responding further to an accurate (or attempt at a) refutation from the BRB.

I will only be responding further to an accurate (or attempt at a) refutation from the BRB.

Although I think the Wrecking Ball should be considered a Weapon for damage table purposes. I'd like to note that being unable to disprove you with Textual Evidence from the BGB does not actualy mean they must admit your right. They could admit the situation is unresolveable, makeing both answers correct and incorrect.

Saying "If you cannot disprove me, you must conclude I am correct" is a false logic statement. The true statement is "If you cannot disprove me, you must conclude I could be correct."

As a side note, the BRB is useless to this conversation, being the WHFB rulebook. We should be referancing the BGB.

True enough Techpriest.

... Ok one more time "vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon"

what is the function of weapons in 40k? To Hit and Wound or Hit and Penetrate. We are give examples of generic weapons on pages 28-32, 42, 50, and 73. Are these every type of weapon? No each codex contains additional weapons, Some fit snugly into the rules set in BGB. Others for example the eldar vibro cannon work completely differently.

The acid test for whether something is weapon is simply does it attack or enhance an attack? DeffRolla can be compaired with a DCCW both modife an attack. The DCCW turns an attacks into a double strength power weapon attack; the DeffRolla turns the tank charge attack into d6 or 2d6 strength 10 hits. Just because its a large weapon doesn't stop a lucky hit blowing it apart (it was made by orks after all).

And to be frank I don't Know how you can class something that CAN be used to cause a strength 9 hit at the beginning of the assault phase, as any but a weapon.

As I showed out, a Weapon HAS to either have a Full Profile (Strength, AP, Ramng, Type) or be classed as a CCW.

Nothing Else is a weapon

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:As I showed out, a Weapon HAS to either have a Full Profile (Strength, AP, Ramng, Type) or be classed as a CCW.

Nothing Else is a weapon

Your first statement is almost correct (save the part about CCW, as they are not covered under the "Weapon" section starting p27) as it refers to the proper noun.

The second one is not as it refers to the regular noun, invoking the standard english definition.

If anyone is still unclear about the difference between a noun and a proper noun, I suggest doing some revision of your English grammar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And actually, if you read the rules for Weapons it does not state that all those stats are required. It simply says they have "a profile that consists of several elements, for example:"

It then lists what you describes and explains each element. No where does it say that each of those stats is required.

Yes. The Truck isn't hitting the enemy. an armament is striking the enemy unit. With the Deathroller and Boarding plank arguments, the Boarding plank doesn't hit anything, its allows a unit (such as a Nob with a PK) to strike a vehicle, the Boarding plank itself doesn't strike. The Deathroller imho isn't a weapon because it just adds to the tank shock, it doesn't have its own attacks, it simply "upgrades" the tank shock.

The Wrecking Ball can do damage, therefore it is a weapon. And if you arguing about "tank shock does damage"! Well, thats why its called damn tank shock! It's a tank running you over. A Wrecking ball cannot drive itself into you and do damage.

And to Waaaaaaaaagh!'s quote above me, a standard CCW doesn't have a profile for itself, ex. a Knife or Chainsword, does this make the weapon null and void? The weapon gains a profile from its user, but the weapon itself lacks any profile of any kind.

Arguing if the w-ball is or is not a weapon is irrelevent to this discussion, you must demonstrate that it is is a vehicle upgrade that does NOT function as a weapon in order to escape being destroyed by 3- Weapon destroyed results.

Dracos wrote:Arguing if the w-ball is or is not a weapon is irrelevent to this discussion, you must demonstrate that it is is a vehicle upgrade that does NOT function as a weapon in order to escape being destroyed by 3- Weapon destroyed results.

Uhhh, if or if not the wrecking ball is a weapon is the whole point. It's a weapon because the trukk isn't doing the damage, an arnament is. Like a heavy bolter, it can be destroyed because its a weapon, it functions on its own and does damage. Does the LRR Flamestorm Cannon do damage? Yes. Is the LR doing to damage? No. Right there you have proved that the Flamestorm Cannon is a weapon. Lets use that for the Trukk.

Does the Wrecking ball do damage? yes. Is the Trukk doing the damage? No. Weapon.

The reason it is irrelevant is because it is a vehicle upgrade.

the rule, once more,

"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. "

You don't need to prove its a weapon to destroy it - its not. It just has to function like one.

edit: and yes before anyone replies in the same way other posters have, it has to function like a weapon, not a Weapon.

If you don't follow what I'm saying with this post, I suggest reading the thread.

This ongoing debate over Weapon vs weapon is possibly the dumbest, most pointless thing I've ever read in my entire life. Shame on you, Dracos.

There are plenty of times that the BGB references wounds, not Wounds. If I scrape my knee, that's a wound. Does that mean that any tiny bit of damage of any kind to a model causes them to have to save? no. that's why you roll to wound based on str vs toughness.

The book defines wounds (just like it defines weapons!) within the terms of the game. Whether or not the word is put at the beginning of a sentence or not does not in any way, shape or form change how you define it.

The rules are rather unclear on this whole thing, and anyone caught in an argument is best served by simply rolling off for it. All of the silly bickering in the world is not going to make GW print rules that function clearly, so just figure it out with your gaming buddies.

proper noun
 
–noun
Grammar. a noun that is not normally preceded by an article or other limiting modifier, as any or some, and that is arbitrarily used to denote a particular person, place, or thing without regard to any descriptive meaning the word or phrase may have, as Lincoln, Beth, Pittsburgh.

common noun
 
–noun Grammar.
a noun that may be preceded by an article or other limiting modifier and that denotes any or all of a class of entities and not an individual, as man, city, horse, music.

So if it is a proper noun, it is refering to a specific category of weapon, such as denoted on page 27 "Weapons"

If its a common noun, it is not limited to the definition presented there.

People were arguing that in order for the the vehicle upgrade to be destroyed, it needs to function as one of the Weapons described on p27 or a CCW as described on p.42. The language of the rules does not support this claim, as is evident by the use of a common noun.

People keep calling this rediculous, but this is basic reading comprehension. Frankly, I'm surprised so few people are able to grasp this simple concept.

yes its a weapon ...
1...you pay points for it
2...you have to hit with it
3....it has a strength
4...cos....just cos

Dracos wrote:

People were arguing that in order for the the vehicle upgrade to be destroyed, it needs to function as one of the Weapons described on p27 or a CCW as described on p.42. The language of the rules does not support this claim, as is evident by the use of a common noun.

People keep calling this rediculous, but this is basic reading comprehension. Frankly, I'm surprised so few people are able to grasp this simple concept.

Dracos, YMDC is full of obstinate stubborn arses

NO, it's not reading comprehension, it's just stupidity. Let's use your method for reading the rules on a random page in the BGB.
p 63 (vehicle section)
Launching an assault
A unit can assault a vehicle in the Assault phase
oops, unit isn't capitalized, so we don't use unit as defined in the rules
u⋅nit [yoo-nit]
1. a single thing or person.
That's the 1st definition of unit, so I guess only one model (if you want to be rather lax and even allow models to fall under the definition of unit) may assault a vehicle, not Vehicle, though and seeing as that's not capitalized, we don't use vehicles as defined in the rules, we use!
ve⋅hi⋅cle [vee-i-kuhl]
1. any means in or by which someone travels or something is carried or conveyed; a means of conveyance or transport
Clearly, little plastic models of any kind do not count as vehicles, so I guess a unit may only assault a vehicle in the Assault phase if your friend parked his Volts wagon on your playing area. Good luck penetrating it's armor.

An argument based on DRs or WBs counting as weapons because they have srt and do dmg, I will accept, though I also see valid points on the side that says they function differently from weapons.
An argument based on the capitalization of words, however, is sniveling idiocy at best.

unit
–noun
1. a single thing or person.
2. any group of things or persons regarded as an entity: They formed a cohesive unit.
3. one of the individuals or groups that together constitute a whole; one of the parts or elements into which a whole may be divided or analyzed.
4. one of a number of things, organizations, etc., identical or equivalent in function or form: a rental unit; a unit of rolling stock.
5. any magnitude regarded as an independent whole; a single, indivisible entity.
6. Also called dimension. any specified amount of a quantity, as of length, volume, force, momentum, or time, by comparison with which any other quantity of the same kind is measured or estimated.
7. the least positive integer; one.
8. Also called unit's place.
a. (in a mixed number) the position of the first digit to the left of the decimal point.
b. (in a whole number) the position of the first digit from the right of the decimal point.
9. a machine, part, or system of machines having a specified purpose; apparatus: a heating unit.
10. Education. a division of instruction centering on a single theme.
11. Military. an organized body of soldiers, varying in size and constituting a subdivision of a larger body.
12. Medicine/Medical.
a. the measured amount of a substance necessary to cause a certain effect; a clinical quantity used when a substance cannot be readily isolated in pure form and its activity determined directly.
b. the amount necessary to cause a specific effect upon a specific animal or upon animal tissues.
13. Mathematics.
a. an identity element.
b. an element in a group, ring, etc., that possesses an inverse.

You can't selectively dismiss the other meanings of the word without proving why that particular meaning is more accurate.

I'd go with number 2 given the context, and then it works fine.

Seems your reading comprehension needs work

edit: OR did you think that the first entry in a dictionary was the only meaning?

Yeah, And what are you going to tell the person who argues that you should go with the 1st definition? That you're right because it fits better with... I don't know... the rules off the game? But, my good sir, you've already told everyone in this thread over and over that if a noun is lower-cased, then you completely disregard everything that defines that noun within the BGB.

And speaking rather pointedly about selectively dismissing, what's your answer for the vehicle thing? Is any model that counts as a vehicle completely immune to being assaulted because they don't capitalize every third word in the rulebook?

OK, lots of reports coming in on this thread for personal attacks.

EVERYONE has to remember to keep the topic on point, debate the issue, don't attack the individual, etc.

The Eye of Mordor is on this one now...

vehicle

–noun
1. any means in or by which someone travels or something is carried or conveyed; a means of conveyance or transport: a motor vehicle; space vehicles.
2. a conveyance moving on wheels, runners, tracks, or the like, as a cart, sled, automobile, or tractor.
3. a means of transmission or passage: Air is the vehicle of sound.
4. a carrier, as of infection.
5. a medium of communication, expression, or display: The novel is a fitting vehicle for his talents. Language is the vehicle of thought.
6. Theater, Movies. a play, screenplay, or the like, having a role suited to the talents of and often written for a specific performer.
7. a means of accomplishing a purpose: College is a vehicle for success.
8. Rhetoric. the thing or idea to which the subject of a metaphor is compared, as “rose” in “she is a rose.” Compare tenor (def. 3).
9. Pharmacology. a substance, usually fluid, possessing little or no medicinal action, used as a medium for active remedies.
10. Painting. a liquid, as oil, in which a pigment is mixed before being applied to a surface.

I'd go with number 2 again, given the context.

Jesus, If #2 works for you, I would love to see the models you make. Mine mostly just sit there...

It is on tracks, and it moves. It does not have to be self-propelled based on the definition.

edit: Why don't you move your vehicles?

OK, there are basically 2 equally horrifying possibilities here:
1. You really believe you're right on this one. In which case I would absolutely love to hear you explain how buildings and psychers work.
or
2. You know you're wrong and you just feel like you're in too deep to turn back now. In which case, seriously dude, we all make mistakes. It's ok.

I am going to ignore further 'argumentum ad hominem' and only answer direct challenges to the issue at hand. Thanks.

edit: If you wish to continue a discussion of language interpretation in the BGB, how about starting a new thread?

Whatever. I hope that anyone else reading this finds suitable evidence to disregard any rules argument based on the capitalization of words. But if not, I've done all I can.

Should we also ignore punctuation? Where does ignoring language and grammar rules end?

edit: sorry i should not have responded... but.... it needed to be pointed out.

Really, if you only use rules given in the book to define capital words, What is a psyker? They reference psykers in the perils of the warp rule, but Webster seems not to of heard of them. So, if your way of interpreting rules is correct, what are they?

I already told you to start a new thread if you want to continue this discussion as this is not the correct thread to do it in. Apparently your lack of ability to follow grammar rules also extends to forum rules and explicit directions given by the admin. Can we get this locked or something?

Really, if you only use rules given in the book to define capital words, What is a psyker? They reference psykers in the perils of the warp rule, but Webster seems not to of heard of them. So, if your way of interpreting rules is correct, what are they?

Mod:

This thread is generating more complaints.

Please stick to the original topic. If you want to discuss other rules or the way of interpreting the wording in the BGB, start a new topic.

Also avoid attacks on other users -- the proper way to debate is to attack people's arguments not their selves.

There has already been one warning given by another moderator.

Thank you.

Wow, I'm gone for a week....

Anyway, I am of the Opinion that only upgrades that are fully defined as a weapon (either by saying they are a CCW or having a FULL profile [Name, Range, Strength, AP, Type] in the case of a Shooting Weapon) count as one for Weapon Destroyed results.

A Wrecking Ball does not have this.

Gwar! wrote:Wow, I'm gone for a week....

Anyway, I am of the Opinion that only upgrades that are fully defined as a weapon (either by saying they are a CCW or having a FULL profile [Name, Range, Strength, AP, Type] in the case of a Shooting Weapon) count as one for Weapon Destroyed results.

A Wrecking Ball does not have this.

Welcome back. I'd lost intrest in this thread as the other side were just saying it wasn't a weapon no rule. At least I can have a debate with you.

Now this is where every one goes wrong it does not need to be a weapon.

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.

All it wants are vehicle upgrades, that function as weapons. What is the function of a weapon? To attack the enemy. Your arguing that it doesn't have a full profile. Well it depends which phase its used in. Shooting phase must have range, Strength and AP. The Assault Phase never uses the AP value; You ether ignore armour or don't. It is almost identicaly formated to every other CCW in 40k. But wait they can never charge into CC how will they ever use it? Easy it can attack any unlocked unit, within 2" at the start of the assault phase; Like those pesky unit that assualted you last turn (or is about to ... harlequins only have a 3" melta range)

Deffrolla is a more tricky one to define. I think it is unquestionably a weapon as it causes D6-2D6 Strength 10 hits. It is being used like a CCW to modifies the the Tank Charge Attack. And Tank Charge is listed as a Special Attack.

I would love to put some insightful inputs on this, but the simple truth is the line "This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons..." is too ambiguous to make a well informed decision on.

I can see Gwar's side of the discussion in that the add-on is like a weapon but not fully an actual 40k defined weapon as the examples given to us by the rule.

And, I can see Tri's side because you can easily read the rule also that anything that functions like a weapon can be destroyed as one.

This one is a hard nut to crack and for sure does not have too much RAW support either way.

With that said, Tri brought up a great point (I think someone else brought this up too) and that by playing anything that 'functions' like a weapon opens a 'can of worms' in which we have to now must also dictate other 'like' weapons (i.e. deffrolla).

So, this one (to me) is totally a House Rule and perhaps needs to be put in the INAT FAQ's for the Adepticon and other Indy tourneys to call.