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.

Hi

Can a Deffrolla upgrade can be destroy on a "weapon destroyed" result ?

Many thanks

I would say yes. ". . .causes d6 strength 10 hits" so I believe that it would be classified as a weapon.

I am going to say it is not a weapon. Yes it can cause wounds but it is listed under Ork Vehicle Upgrades. If that is true then you could claim your vehicle has quite a few weapons to keep an weapon destroyed turning into an immobilized, red paint job, 'ard case, boarding plank...

I believe that the deffrolla is bought in the upgrades section of the entry and not the weapon section of the entry, so probably no.

This has been debated a number of times in the past.

Some people feel that only upgrades with a weapon statline count. (e.g. pintle storm bolter)
Others would extend this to all upgrades which do damage(e.g. wrecking ball)

I dislike the vague nature of the second rule myself as some people then try to extend it to cover things like boarding planks which are clearly not weapons.

Shas'O Dorian wrote:I would say yes. ". . .causes d6 strength 10 hits" so I believe that it would be classified as a weapon.

But it's certainly not a ranged weapon, since it can't shoot, and it's not a melee weapon since the battlewagon can't melee things, and those are the only weapon types that 40k allows for. I don't think anything can be a weapon unless it fits into one of those categories.

Another circular debate will ensue here.

As for me and mine, we play deffrollas, wrecking balls, et. al. cannot be removed with a weapon destroyed result.

BGB p.61 wrote:Damaged - Weapon Destroyed
One of the vehicle's weapons (chosen by the attacker) is destroyed [...]. This can include vehicle upgrades that functions as weapons [...].

So you can choose vehicle upgrades that function as weapons. I would say it is functioning as a weapon, but some people disagree.

I wouldn't call tau flechette dischargers a weapon, nor would i call a deathrolla a weapon. Both function automatically under specific situations and aren't penalized for the vehicle moving too fast etc.

Ridcully wrote:I wouldn't call tau flechette dischargers a weapon, nor would i call a deathrolla a weapon. Both function automatically under specific situations and aren't penalized for the vehicle moving too fast etc.

Good point IMO, might have to make a backup list with them on all my hammerheads incase I meet someone on the other side of this debate in a game.

Dracos wrote:

BGB p.61 wrote:Damaged - Weapon Destroyed
One of the vehicle's weapons (chosen by the attacker) is destroyed [...]. This can include vehicle upgrades that functions as weapons [...].

Ridcully wrote:I wouldn't call tau flechette dischargers a weapon, nor would i call a deathrolla a weapon. Both function automatically under specific situations and aren't penalized for the vehicle moving too fast etc.

I does not have to be a weapon, just function like one. The thing looks like a weapon, deals out hits like a weapon. I don't see how you can say it is not functioning like a weapon - can you explain that to me? I'm interested in what you think is required in order for the wargear to function as a weapon.

Dracos wrote:

Dracos wrote:

BGB p.61 wrote:Damaged - Weapon Destroyed
One of the vehicle's weapons (chosen by the attacker) is destroyed [...]. This can include vehicle upgrades that functions as weapons [...].

Ridcully wrote:I wouldn't call tau flechette dischargers a weapon, nor would i call a deathrolla a weapon. Both function automatically under specific situations and aren't penalized for the vehicle moving too fast etc.

I does not have to be a weapon, just function like one. The thing looks like a weapon, deals out hits like a weapon. I don't see how you can say it is not functioning like a weapon - can you explain that to me? I'm interested in what you think is required in order for the wargear to function as a weapon.

The thing is a vehicle upgrade that allows it to reroll terrain tests and adds a damaging compontent to the tank shock action in the movement phase.
It's hardly a weapon in the conventional sense, doesn't function like anything defined as a weapon in the rulebook that I know of, and its inclusion in the category set forth by the rule is not at all clear.

Dracos wrote:I does not have to be a weapon, just function like one. The thing looks like a weapon, deals out hits like a weapon. I don't see how you can say it is not functioning like a weapon - can you explain that to me? I'm interested in what you think is required in order for the wargear to function as a weapon.

I can't answer for Ridcully of course, but I can't think of any instance where something is called a weapon but is not a ranged weapon with an appropriate statline or a melee weapon in the core rules.

I think the key to this issue, is the "Optional weapons" entry on page 58 of the BRB which says:

Some vehicles have, among the options of their army list entry, the possibility of buying additional weapons such as one-shot missiles and pintle-mounted guns. Firing one of these additional weapons counts as firing one of the vehicle's normal weapons (unless they are defensive weapons, as described above).

So, if my opponent were to claim his Deffrolla were a weapon, I would expect it's use to count as firing a primary weapon (and as such, when moving at cruising speed, the Deffrolla would not function).

Dracos wrote:I does not have to be a weapon, just function like one. The thing looks like a weapon, deals out hits like a weapon. I don't see how you can say it is not functioning like a weapon - can you explain that to me? I'm interested in what you think is required in order for the wargear to function as a weapon.

I would note that pages 27 and 64 of the rulebook actually do go into the definition of what a weapon is in 5th edition 40k. Also, though I do think your quote of wargear that functions like a weapon is potentially quite relevant I would offer the following checklist;

Does it function like a weapon? (Defrolla)
Can I fire it in the shooting phase? (no)
As per pg. 27 does it have a weapon profile? (no)
Can I use it in the assault phase? (no)
As per page 64, can a vehicle use close combat weapons? (sometimes...but not this vehicle, so no)

I would question how is the deffrolla functioning as a weapon? Per the description in the rulebook it doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria. Doing damage doesn't necessarily mean it's a weapon. A ramming attack can do damage - can I destroy a tank's ability to ram via weapon destroyed? How would this be different?

Way i play it is a upgrade that is like a weapon. Not every one agrees.

A Tank may choose to make a tank charge attack or a ramming attack. The defferoller boost these attacks in the same way that power weapon boosts the attacks a model makes.

Personally it would be nice if GW cleared up what weapon like up grades they wanted to be included. There are many weapon like upgrades that maybe covered by the rule.

No it can't.

It is as much of a weapon as Extra Armour.

Dracos wrote:

Dracos wrote:

BGB p.61 wrote:Damaged - Weapon Destroyed
One of the vehicle's weapons (chosen by the attacker) is destroyed [...]. This can include vehicle upgrades that functions as weapons [...].

Ridcully wrote:I wouldn't call tau flechette dischargers a weapon, nor would i call a deathrolla a weapon. Both function automatically under specific situations and aren't penalized for the vehicle moving too fast etc.

I does not have to be a weapon, just function like one. The thing looks like a weapon, deals out hits like a weapon. I don't see how you can say it is not functioning like a weapon - can you explain that to me? I'm interested in what you think is required in order for the wargear to function as a weapon.

For the reasons people have listed thus far. There's no way i'd force opponent, after they've destroyed all my real weapons and immobilized my vehicle, to use a further weapon destroyed result on my flechette dischargers. They aren't weapons.

I would however let them destroy a seeker missile i've upgraded my hammerhead to have.

If a drednought can loose its DCCW then a Battlewagon can loose its Deffrolla.

The latter may not be covered in the rules whilst the former is but its simple fair extension of the rules. A boarding plank is a much a weapon as a Assault ramps etc, I agree.

Razerous wrote:If a drednought can loose its DCCW then a Battlewagon can loose its Deffrolla.

Errrm... maybe that is because a DCCW is a Close Combat Weapon, while a Deffrolla is a vehicle upgrade that is not a weapon...

Gwar! wrote:

Razerous wrote:If a drednought can loose its DCCW then a Battlewagon can loose its Deffrolla.

Errrm... maybe that is because a DCCW is a Close Combat Weapon, while a Deffrolla is a vehicle upgrade that is not a weapon...

Here is the last thread. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/241947.page Read it make up your own mind. There is a rules argument both ways ... its just one of the plethora of things games workshop should address, but never will.

Technically, any tank able to Ram would pass the function like a weapon test. It can cause damage and it has a strength value (even if it is figured out each time). Still, I don't think anyone would honestly think you can take out the Landraider that just rammed your Trukk into oblivion with a Weapon Destroyed result. Not everything that causes damage is a weapon in 40k.

I briefly had the same thought, fitting with the damage = weapon argument, but a landraider is not a vehicle upgrade. Although a Red Paint Job could be considered in that argument, as it could potentially cause the ram to take place.

Part of the problem is that there is no clear definition of what a vehicle upgrade needs to do in order to be considered to function as a weapon.

Please note that in 40k there are exactly 2 types of weapons defined. "Weapons" on p.27 and "Close Combat Weapons" p.42.

If you are going to interpret that the rule calls upon you to function as weapons defined in the book, then you have to go with the definition on p.27. Unfortunately even that is very lose and inexact.

The BGB defines a single criteria for something to be considered a weapon (people keep calling this category ranged weapons, but please note that there is no definition for ranged weapons, only weapons).

bgb wrote: Every weapon has a profile that consists of several elements, for example:

The BGB does not even have a specific set of elements required in order for the profile to be valid, it just has to have several elements in its profile.

So in order for a vehicle upgrade to work as per the definition on p.27, all it needs is a profile with several elements. Well the Deffrolla has str, range (b2b) and number of hits. That to me is several elements. In the same way, I would consider flechette dischargers, wrecking balls, etc as functioning as weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:while a Deffrolla is a vehicle upgrade that is not a weapon...

Please read the thread. The issue is whether the Deffrolla is functioning as a weapon, not that it is actually a weapon.

It is not a weapon. It is a vehicle upgrade.

So no.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:It is not a weapon. It is a vehicle upgrade.

So no.

...

BGB p.61 wrote: Damaged - Weapon Destroyed
One of the vehicle's weapons (chosen by the attacker) is destroyed [...]. This can include vehicle upgrades that functions as weapons [...].

Why do people keep saying this when its already been refuted? Please, if you are going to add to the thread actually address the point at hand.

What does a vehicle upgrade need to do in order to function as a weapon?

Dracos wrote:So in order for a vehicle upgrade to work as per the definition on p.27, all it needs is a profile with several elements. Well the Deffrolla has str, range (b2b) and number of hits. That to me is several elements.

Several elements of a weapon profile does not a profile make. Also, if the "range" is b2b (which isn't a range and thus means the deffrolla doesn't have the range element either) that would move it from the weapon category to the close combat weapon category.

Also, if you keep reading down page 27, under the heading Type you will see that all weapons in 5th edition are also classified with a variety of names (Rapid Fire, Assault, ect.). Deffrollas aren't defined as such - thus the only potential explanation is to try to define it as the other type of weapon - a close combat weapon. Amongst vehicles only Walkers (and Vect) use close combat, and close combat happens in the Assault Phase.

The only possible argument I see is "well, it *functions* as a weapon because it does damage". If that is so then we need to define how this is different from a regular ram or tank shock attack - as both can cause damage. Are these weapons? All a deffrolla does is enhance one of these attacks. How can an enhancer for an attack be a weapon but the attack itself not be? That is the pit that I cannot hop over to accept deffrollas as weapons.

Well, by the logic that says Deffrollas are weapons, one can say that Smoke Launchers allow my Predator to stay alive to kill an enemy tank next turn. Thus, the Smoke Launchers are directly responsible for that tanks death.

Thus, Smoke Launchers are a weapon!

Similarly, a Searchlight can mean the difference between my Long Fangs seeing and destroying that enemy Wave Serpent and not seeing it and not destoying it. Thus, the Searchlight is the upgrade causing the transport to die, thus Searchlights are a weapon!

And of course, a Land Raider can Tank Shock, thus it is a weapon, thus a Weapon Destroyed result can choose to destroy the land raider!

The deffroller is not a weapon. It will never be a weapon. It is a vehicle upgrade that acts like a weapon. Vehicle upgrades that act like a weapon can be destroyed by weapon destroyed result on the damage table.

@ Thor:
I think where you and I differ Thor is in the reading of "a profile that consists of several elements, for example". When I read that, all it says to me is that it must have several elements. Because the profile listed is just an example, its specific elements are not required. Rather, only "several elements" are required. The requirements of those several elements are never defined (other than some elements being defined as examples).

Most convincing on your side of the wall is that is says "all weapons are classified as either Rapid Fire, Pistol, Assault, Heavy or Ordnance." Interestingly enough, going with this requirement we now come to a point where DCCWs can't be destroyed because they are not classified in this way.

P.73 implies that the DCCW can in fact be chosen, which led me to discarded this as a requirement.

The rules on this are unclear at best, but I think the wording is broad enough to include these types of upgrades.

... btw Thor thanks for actually addressing this as a rules debate and adhering to the tenets so we can have an actual debate, unlike some other posters have chosen to do.