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.

 Stephanius wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
By the examples given in the book (pintle-mounted storm bolters, hunter-killer missiles, dozer blades, searchlights, extra armour and smoke launchers) we can determine a "vehicle upgrade is one of the following three things:
A. Only those particular 6 things
B. All Imperium of Man vehicle wargear
C. All vehicle wargear

D. All vehicle wargear you add to the default load-out.

Don't get distracted by the IOM "vehicle upgrades" listed in the BRB. Those are examples. If I buy a 60's VW Beetle and put in power-everything, that is an upgrade (or heresy), if you buy a generic US car that comes with power-everything, that is stock. Not really hard to understand or agree to, unless you really really do not want to agree because you wish it was otherwise.

That would be nice if either were a VW Beettle or an Avalon, but it is neither and your argument doesn't make sense.
Please do not use real world examples, especially when they have no relation to the rules.

 Nilok wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
By the examples given in the book (pintle-mounted storm bolters, hunter-killer missiles, dozer blades, searchlights, extra armour and smoke launchers) we can determine a "vehicle upgrade is one of the following three things:
A. Only those particular 6 things
B. All Imperium of Man vehicle wargear
C. All vehicle wargear

D. All vehicle wargear you add to the default load-out.

Don't get distracted by the IOM "vehicle upgrades" listed in the BRB. Those are examples. If I buy a 60's VW Beetle and put in power-everything, that is an upgrade (or heresy), if you buy a generic US car that comes with power-everything, that is stock. Not really hard to understand or agree to, unless you really really do not want to agree because you wish it was otherwise.

That would be nice if either were a VW Beettle or an Avalon, but it is neither and your argument doesn't make sense.
Please do not use real world examples, especially when they have no relation to the rules.

The rules do not define "Vehicle Upgrade". They list a few items that are "vehicle upgrades", clearly as examples rather than as an exhaustive list.
"Some vehicles come stock with the example vehicle upgrades, therefore all vehicle gear must be upgrades". This claim has no basis in the rules and is illogical. Me pointing out the logical fallacy of your argument using a VW Bug doesn't touch the rules, but your argument isn't rule based in the first place.

 Stephanius wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
By the examples given in the book (pintle-mounted storm bolters, hunter-killer missiles, dozer blades, searchlights, extra armour and smoke launchers) we can determine a "vehicle upgrade is one of the following three things:
A. Only those particular 6 things
B. All Imperium of Man vehicle wargear
C. All vehicle wargear

D. All vehicle wargear you add to the default load-out.

Don't get distracted by the IOM "vehicle upgrades" listed in the BRB. Those are examples. If I buy a 60's VW Beetle and put in power-everything, that is an upgrade (or heresy), if you buy a generic US car that comes with power-everything, that is stock. Not really hard to understand or agree to, unless you really really do not want to agree because you wish it was otherwise.

That would be nice if either were a VW Beettle or an Avalon, but it is neither and your argument doesn't make sense.
Please do not use real world examples, especially when they have no relation to the rules.

The rules do not define "Vehicle Upgrade". They list a few items that are "vehicle upgrades", clearly as examples rather than as an exhaustive list.
"Some vehicles come stock with the example vehicle upgrades, therefore all vehicle gear must be upgrades". This claim has no basis in the rules and is illogical. Me pointing out the logical fallacy of your argument using a VW Bug doesn't touch the rules, but your argument isn't rule based in the first place.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Some of those examples are stock items that cannot be purchased as additional wargear, therefore the definition of a vehicle upgrade being a piece of wargear purchased as an addition to a vehicle, while logical, is false.

It isn't that some vehicles come stock with the example upgrades, it is that some of the examples can only come stock.

 Nilok wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Some of those examples are stock items that cannot be purchased as additional wargear, therefore the definition of a vehicle upgrade being a piece of wargear purchased as an addition to a vehicle, while logical, is false.

It isn't that some vehicles come stock with the example upgrades, it is that some of the examples can only come stock.

Some? You mean (possibly) one, the smoke launchers. Grey Knights have to buy searchlights. I have no idea if some old (current when 6th Edition was published) IOM faction codex has a vehicle that had to - or could - buy smoke launchers. If one out of four vehicle upgrades should really not be purchasable anywhere - does that matter? It would be one out of four items, clearly not much of a trend.

Please read what it says in bold right under "Vehicle Upgrades":
"It is incredibly rare for even two vehicles of the same design to be identical - many are modified by their crews in order to archieve greater battlefield efficiency (or survivability). Accordingly, many vehicles have optional upgrades - the most common of which are listed here."

This makes very clear that the authors are talking about additions to vehicles, literally upgrades as in bought for points and not stock. I think we can forgive them for having added an item that is (maybe) not a literal upgrade to the same section, they are only human after all.

 Stephanius wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Some of those examples are stock items that cannot be purchased as additional wargear, therefore the definition of a vehicle upgrade being a piece of wargear purchased as an addition to a vehicle, while logical, is false.

It isn't that some vehicles come stock with the example upgrades, it is that some of the examples can only come stock.

Some? You mean (possibly) one, the smoke launchers. Grey Knights have to buy searchlights. I have no idea if some old (current when 6th Edition was published) IOM faction codex has a vehicle that had to - or could - buy smoke launchers. If one out of four vehicle upgrades should really not be purchasable anywhere - does that matter? It would be one out of four items, clearly not much of a trend.

Please read what it says in bold right under "Vehicle Upgrades":
"It is incredibly rare for even two vehicles of the same design to be identical - many are modified by their crews in order to archieve greater battlefield efficiency (or survivability). Accordingly, many vehicles have optional upgrades - the most common of which are listed here."

This makes very clear that the authors are talking about additions to vehicles, literally upgrades as in bought for points and not stock. I think we can forgive them for having added an item that is (maybe) not a literal upgrade to the same section, they are only human after all.

Why do we not assume they mean anything that is not the base shell of the vehicle, not including its special rules?
I my knowledge, no codex since 6e came how has had the option to buy Smoke Launchers.

You are getting hung up on the word "Upgrade" and they may have misused it, they are only human after all. And they are also Games Workshop.
Edit:
I find the argument, they messed up and didn't mean the write that, as a poor argument and could be applied to anything in the book to try and prove any argument.

The weapon destroyed rule specifies vehicle upgrades. The section is called vehicle upgrades. The introduction specifies explicitly that these are modifications, literally upgrades and announces some examples.

Are vehicle upgrades additions to the stock loadout?
Yes, the section header says so.
Yes, the section introduction says so.
Yes, three of four examples say so.

By comparison, one example being bad is a very weak argument.

How about "Yes, but only when using it as a shooting weapon."

 Stephanius wrote:
The weapon destroyed rule specifies vehicle upgrades. The section is called vehicle upgrades. The introduction specifies explicitly that these are modifications, literally upgrades and announces some examples.

Are vehicle upgrades additions to the stock loadout?
Yes, the section header says so.
Yes, the section introduction says so.

And then immediately provides examples which prove the opposite. So the answer is no, actually.

Yes, three of four examples say so.

By comparison, one example being bad is a very weak argument.

Actually, it's three of five. When 40% of the examples don't fit with the definition you've interpreted, then your definition is probably wrong.

Now the other interpretation (being synonymous with 'wargear') encompasses 100% of those examples. Seems like that interpretation makes much more sense.

Opps, stopped at four and failed counting to five. Embarassing. =/

What are you counting as not available as upgrade besides smoke launchers? As stated earlier search-lights are optional upgrades for grey knights.
So that'd make it four out of five examples being available as upgrades, not three out of four, a clear majority in either case. The section doubles as place to find the 6th Ed rules for common wargear. My guess is they shoved the search-light in there because it didn't fit elsewhere.

It is a considerable leap from "one example item cannot be bought!" to "all vehicle gear in all of 40k must be meant!". A leap that isn't supported by anything written in the BRB. Steering the discussion to the vehicle upgrade section with it's examples is an attempt to be obtuse what the word "Upgrade" might mean. Not my idea.

The introduction of the vehicle upgrades is as close as the BRB gets to defining vehicle upgrades. It contains a bunch of synonyms for upgrades and thereby eliminates any chance of the author's misuse of the word or a misunderstanding.

I'm not sure what to say man, It isn't like it is a small thing that could have been easily missed, Smoke Launchers take up the right side of the page.

This is Games Workshop, they have shown that English definitions or real world examples don't work for the game. The description seems to point to something optional, yet a major example is something that is only stock.
This leads to two possibilities, that the examples themselves are erroneous, or they mean anything other then the base chassis (wargear).

Using one of your past arguments, it could be equally possible that the word 'optional' is there in error. However, both are the example and description are there, so we have to use both unless we are arguing HYWPI.

Can it fire? Yes, therefore it is a weapon. Can it kill stuff? Yes. I would say it would destroy the entire device as, from my understanding, the sheild and shot would come from the same generator. And kills things therefore it is a weapon, just like the fire tube things in astra militaurum.

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
Can it fire? Yes, therefore it is a weapon. Can it kill stuff? Yes. I would say it would destroy the entire device as, from my understanding, the sheild and shot would come from the same generator. And kills things therefore it is a weapon, just like the fire tube things in astra militaurum.

Yet, none of this logic is actually supported by the rules.

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
Can it fire? Yes, therefore it is a weapon. Can it kill stuff? Yes. I would say it would destroy the entire device as, from my understanding, the sheild and shot would come from the same generator. And kills things therefore it is a weapon, just like the fire tube things in astra militaurum.

Yet, none of this logic is actually supported by the rules.

Exactly, and yet I estimate 50% of the people who voted 'yes' have this as the basis of their arguement.

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
Can it fire? Yes, therefore it is a weapon. Can it kill stuff? Yes. I would say it would destroy the entire device as, from my understanding, the sheild and shot would come from the same generator. And kills things therefore it is a weapon, just like the fire tube things in astra militaurum.

If that was the case, a Tau Fragmentation Discharger would be a weapon, but it is a piece of wargear that can apply hits. It can not be fired and a Non-Walker Vehicle can not fight in CC so it isn't being used as a melee wepon. It can not be twin-linked, or can it re-roll to hit (unless fateweaver).

In order for it to be classified as a weapon, it need to be able to follow all the weapon ruled, which the Serpent Shield dose.

PapaSoul wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
Can it fire? Yes, therefore it is a weapon. Can it kill stuff? Yes. I would say it would destroy the entire device as, from my understanding, the sheild and shot would come from the same generator. And kills things therefore it is a weapon, just like the fire tube things in astra militaurum.

Yet, none of this logic is actually supported by the rules.

Exactly, and yet I estimate 50% of the people who voted 'yes' have this as the basis of their arguement.

The reason people believe the shield can be destroyed is from the Weapon Upgrade part that says non-weapon wargear can be destroyed by Weapon Destroyed if it can be used as a weapon. The contention comes from the fact it says upgrade, yet lists a piece of wargear that can only come stock.
Thus we have a poll.

But smoke launchers are an upgrade. Or they were to the most recently written codex at that point. UPGRADES are the only thing it applies to. Its kind of in the wording.

PapaSoul wrote:
But smoke launchers are an upgrade. Or they were to the most recently written codex at that point. UPGRADES are the only thing it applies to. Its kind of in the wording.

I think you should read through the thread first. If you can find an book that allows you to purchase Smoke Launchers then the argument fails. However, no one has provided evidence to that, to the contrary, they have been stock for the vehicles that have them.

To those arguing that the Serpent Shield is not a weapon upgrade because you didn't purchase it as an addition to the Wave Serpent, I'd like to direct you to Tenet 6 of YMDC:
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out. "

 PrinceRaven wrote:
To those arguing that the Serpent Shield is not a weapon upgrade because you didn't purchase it as an addition to the Wave Serpent, I'd like to direct you to Tenet 6 of YMDC:
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out. "

That makes a lot of sense whenever the BRB offers a definition that conflicts with the meaning or one of the meanings of the word in common English useage.
It makes no sense in this case, where the BRB and the English usage align perfectly:

BRB, p. 87 "Vehicle Upgrades":
"It is incredibly rare for even two vehicles of the same design to be identical - many are modified by their crews in order to archieve greater battlefield efficiency (or survivability). Accordingly, many vehicles have optional upgrades - the most common of which are listed here."

Merriam-Webster:
"up·grade, noun \ˈəp-ˌgrād\
: an area or surface that goes upward : an upward slope
: an occurrence in which one thing is replaced by something better, newer, more valuable, etc.

As the Tenet implies, a 40k definition supercedes a common English definition. Otherwise the rulebook would not work.
However, the only 40k defintion for "vehicle upgrade" explicitly states that optional upgrades, improvements, modifications are meant.

Unless anyone finds a smoke-launcher purchaseable as upgrade, we can agree that the authors went against their stated definition by including the smoke launcher under vehicle upgrades.
What this doesn't do however, is change the definition or invalidate the four other examples - which are upgrades in the sense of the BRB and the English language.

In a RAW argument it is irrelevant what you'd like to see written down in the rules. What matters is what is written down in the official rulebooks.

Please don't break out dictionary definitions. It's generally considered bad form in YMDC. There's more than enough terms in 40k that mean something entirely different than what the dictionary definition states. As has been shown repeatedly in fact, 'upgrade' is one of them!

 Jimsolo wrote:
Please don't break out dictionary definitions. It's generally considered bad form in YMDC. There's more than enough terms in 40k that mean something entirely different than what the dictionary definition states. As has been shown repeatedly in fact, 'upgrade' is one of them!

No such thing has been shown, only claimed by way of assumptions. There isn't one shred of written BRB or Codex evidence for your point of view.
Please show me a passage of text that actually makes statements supporting your point of view.

Wishful thinking aside, the only point brought forward has been the smoke launcher not being available as upgrade. We do not know why it was included in the upgrade section. We can guess, but we cannot know. Assumptions or subjective interpretation do not trump, invalidate or change RAW text.

Stephanius, we have already explained why dictionary definitions do not work and shown why it does not line up. Please stop trying to argue definition.

 Stephanius wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Please don't break out dictionary definitions. It's generally considered bad form in YMDC. There's more than enough terms in 40k that mean something entirely different than what the dictionary definition states. As has been shown repeatedly in fact, 'upgrade' is one of them!

No such thing has been shown, only claimed by way of assumptions. There isn't one shred of written BRB or Codex evidence for your point of view.
Please show me a passage of text that actually makes statements supporting your point of view.

Wishful thinking aside, the only point brought forward has been the smoke launcher not being available as upgrade. We do not know why it was included in the upgrade section. We can guess, but we cannot know. Assumptions or subjective interpretation do not trump, invalidate or change RAW text.

Except that nobody plays by RAW. Nobody. (Unless you are telling me that you play where Flying Monstrous Creatures don't get Relentless or Smash. Or that you play Wraithguard as being unable to make shooting attacks.) What we CAN do is make reasonable inferences. The fact that 40% of the 'upgrades' listed in the upgrades section are almost always stock equipment seems like good evidence to reasonably infer that in context, 'upgrade' probably means 'wargear.'

That seems like a vastly more reasonable viewpoint than the opposing one, wherein a vehicle widely considered to be extremely overpowered anyway becomes even more overpowered by making its most potent weapon indestructible.

All the repetition in the world won't turn reasonable inferences into 'wishful thinking.' I think you might have joined up too late to miss the Fun List of RAW Fun. It wasn't written for the current edition, but the salient take-away from that thread was this: nobody plays by strict RAW. Everyone takes the necessary steps to interpret the rules in a reasonable manner so that we can all play a functional game. And I just can't believe that anyone could look at the rules in question here and think that interpreting them to get indestructible Serpent Shields is reasonable.

 Nilok wrote:
Stephanius, we have already explained why dictionary definitions do not work and shown why it does not line up. Please stop trying to argue definition.

I'm arguing the 40k definition of vehicle upgrade (p.87 BRB), the English definition was only included to show that there is no difference, to counter claims to the contrary.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Please don't break out dictionary definitions. It's generally considered bad form in YMDC. There's more than enough terms in 40k that mean something entirely different than what the dictionary definition states. As has been shown repeatedly in fact, 'upgrade' is one of them!

No such thing has been shown, only claimed by way of assumptions. There isn't one shred of written BRB or Codex evidence for your point of view.
Please show me a passage of text that actually makes statements supporting your point of view.

Wishful thinking aside, the only point brought forward has been the smoke launcher not being available as upgrade. We do not know why it was included in the upgrade section. We can guess, but we cannot know. Assumptions or subjective interpretation do not trump, invalidate or change RAW text.

Except that nobody plays by RAW. Nobody. (Unless you are telling me that you play where Flying Monstrous Creatures don't get Relentless or Smash. Or that you play Wraithguard as being unable to make shooting attacks.) What we CAN do is make reasonable inferences. The fact that 40% of the 'upgrades' listed in the upgrades section are almost always stock equipment seems like good evidence to reasonably infer that in context, 'upgrade' probably means 'wargear.'

That seems like a vastly more reasonable viewpoint than the opposing one, wherein a vehicle widely considered to be extremely overpowered anyway becomes even more overpowered by making its most potent weapon indestructible.

All the repetition in the world won't turn reasonable inferences into 'wishful thinking.' I think you might have joined up too late to miss the Fun List of RAW Fun. It wasn't written for the current edition, but the salient take-away from that thread was this: nobody plays by strict RAW. Everyone takes the necessary steps to interpret the rules in a reasonable manner so that we can all play a functional game. And I just can't believe that anyone could look at the rules in question here and think that interpreting them to get indestructible Serpent Shields is reasonable.

I hear you. However, unlike the examples for shoddy rule writing you provided, the rules in this case are not broken - they work just fine for most wargear, they just don't happen to match your point of view regarding the serpent shield. Reasonable is infering the use of a model's visor, helmet or head instead of non-visible eyes. If visible eyes were actually needed, power armor users would be out of luck too and could not fire.

You haven't revised your 40% stock equipment claim (to account for GK searchlight purchases) or explained how you arrived at it. I can only infer from this that you are not actually interested in valid premises and cling to the desired outcome instead.

In my (limited) experience, a units strength in relation to the point cost has nothing to do with reasonable, even in Codices where Matt Ward is not involved. There is no guaranteed value for points, there are horrible cheesy rules and units that are unfair, undercosted or both. One can try to adjust this with house rules or TO calls, but 40k is just such a horrible mess (even without FW) that it is a futile task, most likely just resulting in a differently skewed faction mix rather than an even one. Therefore RAW resulting in a unit to be subjectively too strong isn't really a valid reason to ignore RAW/RAI.

I was under the impression that the point of this thread was to determine how the serpent shield interacts with the weapon destroyed rule, based on the RAW or inferred RAI.
Your point of view is a HIWPI view, for which you cannot present RAW support. HIWPI is great, but discussing RAW vs HIWPI is futile.

The claim "upgrades" only means "non standard equipment" is proven false by a single counter example.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The claim "upgrades" only means "non standard equipment" is proven false by a single counter example.

That is an opinion. Just like this one:
The claim "upgrades" means "all vehicle war gear" is proven false by the overwhelming majority of valid upgrade examples and the definition at the start of the section.

 Stephanius wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The claim "upgrades" only means "non standard equipment" is proven false by a single counter example.

That is an opinion. Just like this one:
The claim "upgrades" means "all vehicle war gear" is proven false by the overwhelming majority of valid upgrade examples and the definition at the start of the section.

Actually, that isn't an opinion, it's a fact - and it's wrong.

It isn't an opinion to say "2+2 = 3", even if it is wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The claim "upgrades" only means "non standard equipment" is proven false by a single counter example.

This. Basic rule of science. It only takes one proven negative result to invalidate any number of positive results.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The claim "upgrades" only means "non standard equipment" is proven false by a single counter example.

This. Basic rule of science. It only takes one proven negative result to invalidate any number of positive results.

Nice real world example. This isn't science though and how real life results of scientific experiments are treated is something completely different from arguments in a rules debate.

It is entirely possible that there are concrete arguments for either side of an issue. These arguments are then examined and weighted to see which side of the scales has more pull.
In the Red corner, part 2 of the weapon destroyed rule, the vehicle upgrade section headline, it's introduction and four of five if it's examples. In the blue corner, one bad example, which incidentally isn't even relevant to the weapon destroyed rule and is only considered invalid because IOM armies get this option free of charge. Ready to take your hand off the scales?

It's not that they are saying the smoke launcher example means it IS an upgrade, it's more the point that it COULD be classified as an upgrade and as such there is no definitive proof of either argument yet. Until it is FAQed or the rules change it's seem HIWPI or roll off is what's called for.

 Nilok wrote:

PapaSoul wrote:
But smoke launchers are an upgrade. Or they were to the most recently written codex at that point. UPGRADES are the only thing it applies to. Its kind of in the wording.

I think you should read through the thread first. If you can find an book that allows you to purchase Smoke Launchers then the argument fails. However, no one has provided evidence to that, to the contrary, they have been stock for the vehicles that have them.

IG Hellhound, Taurox, Sentinel. Do not come with Smoke Launchers and can purchase them.