Can Deff Rollas be removed if a weapon destroyed result is rolled?

I've looked all over the forum for the answer and have not been able to find one.

moxintark wrote:Can Deff Rollas be removed if a weapon destroyed result is rolled?

I've looked all over the forum for the answer and have not been able to find one.

Honestly, this has been asked a million times before, and the answers have always been the same.

Yes. No. Maybe. There is no clear answer for yes, no clear answer for no, and a lot of unclear answers for maybe.

Now that deff rollas will crush all vehicles, monoliths, and whatnot in their way it will be harder to argue with a straight face that they are not weapons.

But they're wargear. You don't shoot it, you don't assault with it. The 40k rulebook defines weapon and provides the required fields for being a weapon - which the Deffrolla doesn't do.

olympia wrote:Now that deff rollas will crush all vehicles, monoliths, and whatnot in their way it will be harder to argue with a straight face that they are not weapons.

Dashofpepper wrote:But they're wargear. You don't shoot it, you don't assault with it. The 40k rulebook defines weapon and provides the required fields for being a weapon - which the Deffrolla doesn't do.

And here are the two arguments, in a nutshell.

I'd also like to add that rollas don't do damage themselves, they just add damage to the vehicles tank shock action.
But without a faq... 4+ time.

They aren't weapons, weapons are covered in the weapon section of the codex, they are a vehicle upgrade as covered in the vehicle upgrade section of the codex. If they were weapons, they would be included under weapons, along with the Kil Kannon, the Big Shootas etc.

They find themselves alongside the Wreckin Ball, which also 'attacks' and causes damage, yet remains clearly classified as vehicle upgrade.

The distinction is very clear.

I'm in the yes camp.

No, it doesn't have a profile... but neither do any CCW.

Gwar! has the right of it- there's no RAW answer. It seems a reasonable RAP ruling to count them as... but, again, should be discussed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote: yet remains clearly classified as vehicle upgrade.

The distinction is very clear.

The BRB p71 specifies that vehicle upgrades that function as weapons can be destroyed, too.

It comes down to how you interpret function as weapon. Inflicting d6 S10 hits... seems kind of weaponlike.

either way, it's not near as cut-and-dried as you'd like to depict it being.

Ork Codex:
Wargear Section:

Weapons - Page 89-91: no mention of Deffrolla.

Wargear - Page 93: Deffrolla.

That is as RAW as you can get.

Just blow up the wagon and the DR goes away. Damn. I think most of these complaints/questions about the DR come from people who haven't actually played against them. Even with a KFF, my BWs die/get immobilized all the time because every other army has some plenty of meltas, chainfists, monstrous creatures, what have you (i.e., all the stuff to neutralize vehicles that orks don't have).

Can you read? It doesn't need to be a weapon. The BRB specifies vehicle upgrades can be destroyed if they "function as weapons."

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Ork Codex:
Wargear Section:

Weapons - Page 89-91: no mention of Deffrolla.

Wargear - Page 93: Deffrolla.

That is as RAW as you can get.

By that logic every single weapon in Codex SM that's on a Vehicle cannot be harmed, because they are under "Vehicle Armoury", not "Weapons".

The quote from p71 may be needed here instead of reference.

Uriels_Flame wrote:The quote from p71 may be needed here instead of reference.

my BRB migh be a bad make but i think i have it on pg 61
under '3 Damaged - Weapon Destroyed'
las sentance 'This can include vehicle upgrades that fuction as weapons, ect...'

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Ork Codex:
Wargear Section:

Weapons - Page 89-91: no mention of Deffrolla.

Wargear - Page 93: Deffrolla.

That is as RAW as you can get.

By that logic every single weapon in Codex SM that's on a Vehicle cannot be harmed, because they are under "Vehicle Armoury", not "Weapons".

And what does 'armoury' mean smartypants?

armoury US, armory [ˈɑːmərɪ]
n pl -mouries, -mories
1. (Military) a secure place for the storage of weapons
2. (Military / Arms & Armour (excluding Firearms)) armour generally

I suspect tournament organizers and judges will feel compelled to rule the rolla as a weapon. No matter, I had a 10 minute argument with a jackass about this before it was FAQed. I'm happy enough to count the rollas as a weapon now if makes the dual lash CSM players less moany.

I don't have the rule book in front of me, but if #3 result reads that way, than I'm in the "can be destroyed" camp.

Uriels_Flame wrote:I don't have the rule book in front of me, but if #3 result reads that way, than I'm in the "can be destroyed" camp.

And people in the other camp will equally claim that it doesn't function a weapon. You don't shoot it, you don't assault with it, it doesn't fit into any of the specific BRB weapon definitions, and it doesn't actually do damage itself.

It's a grey area, as the weapon destroyed result is written vaguely and the rolla is defined vaguely. 4+, wait for faq.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Ork Codex:
Wargear Section:

Weapons - Page 89-91: no mention of Deffrolla.

Wargear - Page 93: Deffrolla.

That is as RAW as you can get.

By that logic every single weapon in Codex SM that's on a Vehicle cannot be harmed, because they are under "Vehicle Armoury", not "Weapons".

And what does 'armoury' mean smartypants?

armoury US, armory [ˈɑːmərɪ]
n pl -mouries, -mories
1. (Military) a secure place for the storage of weapons
2. (Military / Arms & Armour (excluding Firearms)) armour generally

And what does Wargear mean then mr Smartypants?

I am also in the "can be destroyed" camp. Have to accept the good with the bad. Besides, counting the Deffrolla as a weapon actually increases the vehicles survivability in case of multiple "Weapon Destroyed"-results.

Wolftaoist wrote:

Uriels_Flame wrote:The quote from p71 may be needed here instead of reference.

my BRB migh be a bad make but i think i have it on pg 61
under '3 Damaged - Weapon Destroyed'
las sentance 'This can include vehicle upgrades that fuction as weapons, ect...'

Take a closer look at that sentence..
"This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles"

It clearly refers to actual "weapons" that can be taken as wargear.

Also from the brb (pg 27)
"Every weapon has a profile that consists of several elements.."
it goes on to list maximum range, strength, AP, Type, and Additional characteristics such as "gets hot" or blast.

By their own definitions, a deffrolla does not meet the criteria for a weapon.

Gwar! wrote:
And what does Wargear mean then mr Smartypants?

Wargear is the section of the book Gwar, under which the Sub-sections of Weapons, Armour and Vehicle Upgrades can all be found, you'll note the differential between weaponry and upgrades.

A-P wrote: I am also in the "can be destroyed" camp. Have to accept the good with the bad. Besides, counting the Deffrolla as a weapon actually increases the vehicles survivability in case of multiple "Weapon Destroyed"-results.

Indeed, but a battle wagon driving around with a big shoota is not much of a threat...
I'll agree that the rolla should count as a weapon for weapon destroyed results.

Ranged Weapons are defined in the rulebook as having certain characteristic profiles, of which the Deff Rolla doesn't have...it certainly isn't a ranged weapon.

And the Deff Rolla is otherwise never defined as (called) a weapon.


So there is absolutely no basis for counting it as a weapon any more than a grabbin klaw, boarding plank, reinforced ram, etc.


In other words, there is no evidence that it is a weapon, so it isn't.

yakface wrote:
Ranged Weapons are defined in the rulebook as having certain characteristic profiles, of which the Deff Rolla doesn't have...it certainly isn't a ranged weapon.

And the Deff Rolla is otherwise never defined as (called) a weapon.


So there is absolutely no basis for counting it as a weapon any more than a grabbin klaw, boarding plank, reinforced ram, etc.


In other words, there is no evidence that it is a weapon, so it isn't.

So say we frakkin all!!

While I'm also in the 'can be destroyed' camp, the rules on this are vague enough that there is certainly some doubt as to RAW.

Just chalk it up as another 'discuss it with your opponent' topic.

Waaaaghmaster wrote:
Also from the brb (pg 27)
"Every weapon has a profile that consists of several elements.."
it goes on to list maximum range, strength, AP, Type, and Additional characteristics such as "gets hot" or blast.

By their own definitions, a deffrolla does not meet the criteria for a weapon.

But that is not exhaustive of all weapons in the 40k universe.

Close Combat Weapons are defined elsewhere, but do not have " maximum range, strength, AP, Type, and Additional characteristics."

Are CCW not weapons?

I think yak is correct in the strictest of RAW readings-- but I also think it's a bit limited to claim that something inflicting hits is not functioning as a weapon.

kartofelkopf wrote:Are CCW not weapons?

Like you said, they are defined elsewhere. A Deffrolla is never defined as a CCW or a Ranged weapon.

kartofelkopf wrote:

I think yak is correct in the strictest of RAW readings-- but I also think it's a bit limited to claim that something inflicting hits is not functioning as a weapon.

Then all vehicles, on ramming or tank-shocking, would be weapons.

It isn't a weapon, it's a vehicle upgrade.

Yes, and, vehicle upgrades that function as weapons may be destroyed.

A ramming vehicle cannot be destroyed as a weapon... as it is neither a weapon, nor an upgrade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:Like you said, they are defined elsewhere. A Deffrolla is never defined as a CCW or a Ranged weapon.

Yes, but the RAW says "EVERY WEAPON has a profile that consists of several elements."

Clearly, this is not the case, as we can cite several weapons that have no such profiles.

kartofelkopf wrote:Clearly, this is not the case, as we can cite several weapons that have no such profiles.

Please cite some then.

Any "Normal" CCW lacks such a profile.

kartofelkopf wrote:Yes, and, vehicle upgrades that function as weapons may be destroyed.

A ramming vehicle cannot be destroyed as a weapon... as it is neither a weapon, nor an upgrade.

Waaaaghmaster wrote:
Take a closer look at that sentence..
"This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles"

It clearly refers to actual "weapons" that can be taken as wargear.

And, so with these two comments, we see that the expansion for 'wargear' covers things described as weapons, storm bolters and missiles.

As Yakface said, in no part of the codex does the deffrolla get described as a weapon. It is an available upgrade to the vehicle.

kartofelkopf wrote:

A ramming vehicle cannot be destroyed as a weapon... as it is neither a weapon, nor an upgrade.

If you define a weapon as "something that can inflict hits", then yes actually, your tank IS a weapon.

So basically, if you claim you are allowed to remove a Deffrolla on a "Weapon Destroyed" result, I claim I am allowed to remove your Land Raider in entirety, as it is clearly something that can inflict hits, and thus a weapon by your definition.

kartofelkopf wrote:Any "Normal" CCW lacks such a profile.

Because it is defined elsewhere.

I've never claimed it -is- a weapon. It clearly isn't.

The question is, does it function as a weapon?

Does it inflict hits, which are then translated into wounds/damage?

That seems to be pretty weapon-like to me.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

kartofelkopf wrote:Yes, and, vehicle upgrades that function as weapons may be destroyed.

A ramming vehicle cannot be destroyed as a weapon... as it is neither a weapon, nor an upgrade.

Waaaaghmaster wrote:
Take a closer look at that sentence..
"This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles"

It clearly refers to actual "weapons" that can be taken as wargear.

And, so with these two comments, we see that the expansion for 'wargear' covers things described as weapons, storm bolters and missiles.

As Yakface said, in no part of the codex does the deffrolla get described as a weapon. It is an available upgrade to the vehicle.

I think you misread my post. I said that by their definition of a weapon, a deffrolla is not a weapon, therefore not subject to weapon destroyed results

BeRzErKeR wrote:

kartofelkopf wrote:

A ramming vehicle cannot be destroyed as a weapon... as it is neither a weapon, nor an upgrade.

If you define a weapon as "something that can inflict hits", then yes actually, your tank IS a weapon.

So basically, if you claim you are allowed to remove a Deffrolla on a "Weapon Destroyed" result, I claim I am allowed to remove your Land Raider in entirety, as it is clearly something that can inflict hits, and thus a weapon by your definition.

Sigh.

ONLY weapons and vehicle upgrades (that function like weapons) may be destroyed.

You're being obtuse to claim my argument is anything otherwise.

kartofelkopf wrote:
Yes, but the RAW says "EVERY WEAPON has a profile that consists of several elements."

Clearly, this is not the case, as we can cite several weapons that have no such profiles.

If something doesn't have a weapon profile and is never called a "weapon" in any way, then why would we ever assume it is a weapon?


Those are the two criteria:

1) Has a weapon profile.
2) Is called a weapon.


Anything else isn't a weapon!


If the Deff Rolla can be destroyed then why can't a boarding plank, grabbin klaw, reinforced ram, etc? How about Red Paint Job? Where is the dividing line?


There can be only one acceptable way to determine whether a vehicle upgrade is a 'weapon' or not, and that is if it falls into one of the two categories I outlined above.


I just don't see any other fair way to handle this.

kartofelkopf wrote:I've never claimed it -is- a weapon. It clearly isn't.

The question is, does it function as a weapon?

Does it inflict hits, which are then translated into wounds/damage?

That seems to be pretty weapon-like to me.

But wait, if inflicting hits is "functioning like a weapon", then isn't your tank still "functioning like a weapon" when it Rams another tank?

At this point I submit that we are having a clearly absurd argument. I would speculate that the argument in favor of destroying Deffrollas is inspired mostly - not entirely, but mostly - by fear of the effect of Deffrollas against vehicles. To alleviate that fear, please read the thread in News and Rumors about the FAQ, where I've run some basic math on Deffrollas. They really aren't game-breaking at all.

BeRzErKeR wrote:But wait, if inflicting hits is "functioning like a weapon", then isn't your tank still "functioning like a weapon" when it Rams another tank?

It may be functioning as a weapon, but the vehicle is not an upgrade to itself.

I would speculate that the argument in favor of destroying Deffrollas is inspired mostly - not entirely, but mostly - by fear of the effect of Deffrollas against vehicles.

Speaking as an Ork player, the argument in favour of destroying the rolla is based simply on the fact that it quacks like a weapon, which is good enough for me.

yakface wrote: Where is the dividing line?

/snip/

I just don't see any other fair way to handle this.

I've already said I don't think it's clear.

I also think it's a tad silly to use a slippery slope argument here-- some things are clearly NOT weapons (No one is asking if they can destroy a Red Paint Job).

Things that function as weapons are in the questionable category.

What is the function of a weapon?

A plain-english reading of this would conclude that actual weapons (i.e., the ones Yak argues are exhaustive of the category) would certainly function as weapons. I'm just trying to point out that other things can function like weapons without being weapons.

I believe a Deffrolla meets this criteria. I also think a wrecking ball does. Flechette Launchers come to mind (not having the codex handy, can't recall exactly) as another potential candidate.

I'm not claiming that RAW is 100% behind it... I'm just trying to point out that a reasonable reading of the RAW allows for one to -also- conclude that some non-weapon upgrades might be susceptible to weapon destroyed results. Otherwise, why even bother with putting in the caveat? If only things defined as weapons can be destroyed, the vehicle upgrade phrasing is superfluous.

kartofelkopf wrote:
I'm not claiming that RAW is 100% behind it... I'm just trying to point out that a reasonable reading of the RAW allows for one to -also- conclude that some non-weapon upgrades might be susceptible to weapon destroyed results. Otherwise, why even bother with putting in the caveat? If only things defined as weapons can be destroyed, the vehicle upgrade phrasing is superfluous.

The caveat defines that internally with examples of vehicle upgrades that are also functioning weapons (such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles)

Where do you draw the line, if we're to follow your interperetation?
Are reinforced rams destroyable? They add the damaging ram and tank shock options to a trukk.
Are boarding planks destroyable? They allow an ork to deal damage from the vehicle.
Why are deffrollas, which add a damaging component to the tank shock action of the vehicle but similarly do no damage themselves, more clearly allowed?

And as been pointed out, vehicles function as weapons - tank shocking and ramming.

I rolled a weapon destroyed result against your land raider. No, I don't want the twin-linked lascannon, just destroy the land raider itself.

There has to be a line somewhere, where things fit on one side or the other. To classify the deffrolla as a weapon, you classify vehicles themselves as weapons - because they both cause hits.

But it fits neither the "weapon" category, nor the CCW category. If you want to classify it as a CCW and let battlewagons conduct assaults, I'm ok with that too.

Dashofpepper wrote:And as been pointed out, vehicles function as weapons - tank shocking and ramming.

I rolled a weapon destroyed result against your land raider. No, I don't want the twin-linked lascannon, just destroy the land raider itself.

There has to be a line somewhere, where things fit on one side or the other. To classify the deffrolla as a weapon, you classify vehicles themselves as weapons - because they both cause hits.

But it fits neither the "weapon" category, nor the CCW category. If you want to classify it as a CCW and let battlewagons conduct assaults, I'm ok with that too.

UGH. Are you daft? It's been pointed out 3 separate times.

NO ONE IS CLAIMING VEHICLES = WEAPONS.

The discussion is about the rules, found on p61, that state that some vehicle upgrades may be destroyed.

Please, read the thread/relevant rules before posting.

That's right, no one's arguing it. That's a closed book.

Still, I am overwhelmed with an urge to try that, just once, just to see the look on the other guy's face.

*ahem* Anyway! Back to our silly argument!

I'd say by RAW, its not a weapon, however by logic it should be.

I don't think vehicles can even have true CCWs, but could be wrong. Regardless, the codex calls it wargear.

kartofelkopf wrote:

The discussion is about the rules, found on p61, that state that some vehicle upgrades may be destroyed.

The rule goes on to list examples of vehicle upgrades which are also weapons, and defined as such, like stormbolters.

'Weapon' is a defined game term. From the RB:

BRB wrote:Every weapon has a profile that consists of several elements, for example:
max range
strength
armour piercing {AP}
Type

Where's the weapon profile of a Deffrolla?

I can look in the back of the book and find the profile for stormbolters, heavy stubbers, hunter killer missiles (ref. krak missile), and multi meltas.

The only thing even close to this I think would be the Dreadnought Close Combat weapon, which has rules that specifically state that one can be destroyed.

Since it takes huge, huge intuitive leaps to get to 'Deffrolla = weapon = can be destroyed', I'm firmly in the RAW=No camp.

Snikkyd wrote:I'd say by RAW, its not a weapon, however by logic it should be.

I don't think vehicles can even have true CCWs, but could be wrong. Regardless, the codex calls it wargear.

Uh, DCCWs?

Also, why is it "logical" that the Deff Rolla be a weapon? It's no more logical than extra armour being a weapon or a Dozer Blade being a weapon, it's a big thing strapped to the vehicle that doesn't fit GWs defnition of a weapon and should be treated the same as any other thing matching that description.

A weapons destroyed result can destroy two separate things:

1) a weapon on a vehicle, so this would be something that is actually defined as a weapon.

2) upgrades for the vehicle that functions as weapons

So its quite clear that there can be some upgrades that are NOT in and of themselves weapons that can be destroyed, as long as the upgrade functions as a weapon.


There are upgrades that quite clearly in this function as a weapon, wrecking ball is clearly something that can be destroyed.

There are upgrades that quite clearly do not function as a weapon, red paint would obviously not be a weapon.




Then there are other upgrades, which since this is ymdc we should attempt to determine whether or not that are wepons. If this isnt the place to try and figure this mess out then there simply is no place else to look.



Well, lets start with what do weapons do?

Both ranged and cc weapons attempt to hit their target, both then try and either wound or inflict hits on their target. Logically, vehicle upgrades that can hit inflict wounds or hits should very seriously be examined to see if they might be functioning as a weapon. If an upgrade cannot in and of itself inflict hits or wounds, then this becomes more of a stretch.


Both RAW and RAI are not crystal clear on this, so we really do need to discuss this a bit.



Sliggoth

The deff rolla is a upgrade that allows a re-roll of a DT that just so happens to have the side effect of tank shocking & ramming. I just don’t see it as a weapon so don’t take my re-roll away from me.

Just to add fuel to the fire, could we not infer from the rules that a Deffrolla has:

Range 0"
Strength 10

While they are not listed out in the traditional sense, you can pull both of those from the description of the alleged weapon.

Green is Best! wrote:Just to add fuel to the fire, could we not infer from the rules that a Deffrolla has:

Range 0"
Strength 10

While they are not listed out in the traditional sense, you can pull both of those from the description of the alleged weapon.

No, because the deff rolla does not have a range of 0, a strength value, or do any hits or damage.

For the upteenth time, the deffrolla does not do damage. The battlewagon does so for having one.

Sliggoth wrote:There are upgrades that quite clearly in this function as a weapon, wrecking ball is clearly something that can be destroyed.

Bad choice of example, I can't speak for everyone in the "Deffrolla isn't a weapon" crowd, but I most certainly would also argue a wrecking ball isn't able to be destroyed. I think it has to be either a ranged weapon or a close combat weapon, or specifically called a weapon, to be eligible.

There are upgrades that quite clearly do not function as a weapon, red paint would obviously not be a weapon.

This is correct, I doubt anyone would dispute that

Both ranged and cc weapons attempt to hit their target, both then try and either wound or inflict hits on their target. Logically, vehicle upgrades that can hit inflict wounds or hits should very seriously be examined to see if they might be functioning as a weapon. If an upgrade cannot in and of itself inflict hits or wounds, then this becomes more of a stretch.

The rulebook though, as said repeatedly indicates all ranged weapons have a ranged weapon profile, and melee weapons can only be used in close combat, so none of these ork upgrades would qualify as that. The issue isn't even "we must determine if this is a weapon or not" it's simply a matter of how people are defining weapons, and given one group is pulling their definitions from the rulebook, instead of a dictionary, I can't see why they don't have more support for RAW.

I'm in the Yes camp, while it is a wargear upgrade, so is a HK Missile, which can be destroyed if one chooses.

Gorkamorka wrote:
No, because the deff rolla does not have a range of 0, a strength value, or do any hits or damage.

For the upteenth time, the deffrolla does not do damage. The battlewagon does so for having one.

So how does "indeed inflict d6 S10 hits against vehicles" not count as S10 hits?

The thing everyone is missing is the deff rolla doesn’t cause the hits it just allows the battle wagon to cause the hits. So there is no way it could be removed by a damaged weapon result.

As orkcommander said, it's "suffers" d6 s10 hits they never even say where they come from other than being tankshocked by a deffrolla equipped BW.

...missing his codcies more each day...

orkcommander wrote:The thing everyone is missing is the deff rolla doesn’t cause the hits it just allows the battle wagon to cause the hits. So there is no way it could be removed by a damaged weapon result.

Well, the FAQ as written would disagree with you:

'The death rolla does indeed inflict d6 S10 hits against vehicles...."

It does not say "The death rolla is an extension of the battlewagon allowing the battlewagon to inflict hits while allowing cunning rules lawyers to dance around the issue of weapon removal."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:As orkcommander said, it's "suffers" d6 s10 hits they never even say where they come from other than being tankshocked by a deffrolla equipped BW.

...missing his codcies more each day...

See above. The FAQ is pretty explicit in where the hits come from.

FACT:
GW FAQs are just house rules.

FACT:
RAW trumps house rules.

FACT:
The Ork FAQ confirms the RAW that is already in the Ork Codex that a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla can affect vehicles.

A quote from Page 55 of the Ork Codex:
“Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit.”

FACT:
The Battlewagon (that just so happens to have a Deff Rolla) is causing the hits not the Deff Rolla.

FACT:
the Deff Rolla is not a weapon.

Please stop all the Ork hate and lets focus on the true enemy:
THE TYRANIDS!

Man, how come this wasn't really an issue before it got ruled by GW that it can affect vehicles? I'm sensing some panic.

Personally, let it count as a weapon; it saves me the trouble of paying points for a Big Shoota just to absorb a weapon destroyed hit as to not get my BW immobilized. My BW need to get stuck in to deliver payload. Darn, I guess I will now need to ask before the game how this is ruled. One rule cleared up, another rears its ugly head.

Green is Best! wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:As orkcommander said, it's "suffers" d6 s10 hits they never even say where they come from other than being tankshocked by a deffrolla equipped BW.

...missing his codcies more each day...

See above. The FAQ is pretty explicit in where the hits come from.

See above for the Codex specific wording.

Thanks Orkcommander for keeping it real.

Sarigar wrote:Man, how come this wasn't really an issue before it got ruled by GW that it can affect vehicles? I'm sensing some panic.

Personally, let it count as a weapon; it saves me the trouble of paying points for a Big Shoota just to absorb a weapon destroyed hit as to not get my BW immobilized. My BW need to get stuck in to deliver payload. Darn, I guess I will now need to ask before the game how this is ruled. One rule cleared up, another rears its ugly head.

It would be nice to use it to absorb a weapon destroyed hit but as much as you want to you can’t by pure RAW.

You don't need to ask before the game how it is ruled. One rule has just been confirmed and everything else is taken care of by RAW.

FACT:
The FAQ clearly states where the hits come from.

The FAQ was designed to clear up an open ended interpretation. You claim that RAW trumps the FAQ, yet prior to the FAQ it was questionable whether rollas could be used on vehicles. Kind of a bit of circular logic to say the brb trumps an faq that clarifies the brb? But I digress...


Let me ask you this then, for I think it would sum up whether the Deffrolla is a weapon or not. In other threads it is already being asked if the Deffrolla hits stack with the regular ram the battlewagon would inflict. How you answer that question?

If the Deffrolla replaces the ramming attack, then it is part of the battlewagon.

If the Deffrolla stacks with the ram, then it should be counted as a weapon since it is doing additional attacks in conjunction with the ram done by the battlewagon.

By your own statment the FAQ was "designed to clear up an open ended interpretation. "
Which was:
"Can you use the Deffrolla when Ramming
vehicles or does it only work when Tank
Shocking non-vehicle units?"
The answer being:
"The death rolla does indeed inflict D6 S10 hits
against vehicles, as Ramming is just a type of
Tank Shock."

See how the bit of clarification actually has nothing to do with the Rolla it's just telling people (again) the Yes a Ramm is a type of Tank-Shock.

What you are doing is wanting to take a piece of the reply and apply it to a different situation while using it as justification for you point, you are performing a contextomy in the form of an appeal to authority.

Green is Best! wrote:
If the Deffrolla replaces the ramming attack, then it is part of the battlewagon.

If the Deffrolla stacks with the ram, then it should be counted as a weapon since it is doing additional attacks in conjunction with the ram done by the battlewagon.

No... no it shouldn't. Neither argument lends any rules support for either interpretation.
The issue is entirely separate, and based entirely on the deff rolla rules not stating that they replace/override/remove the standard ramming hit.

I don't know why we got off on this tangent. It doesn't matter if the Deff Rolla causes the hits or the Battlewagon does.

It isn't a weapon and there isn't any indication that it is. The rule about destroying vehicle upgrades that act as weapons gives examples of what they're talking about: Storm bolters and hunter-killer missiles. Both of these upgrades clearly have a weapon profile.

A Deff Rolla does not, nor is it ever called a weapon, so it isn't.


If you want to claim that it is behaving like a weapon, why? Just because it causes hits? Are exploding vehicles a weapon? Can Tau Flechette Dischargers be destroyed by a weapon destroyed result? Where are you getting this 'definition' from?

What other 'weapon' is ONLY used by a vehicle during a tank shock/ram? There is no precedent in the game for considering this upgrade to be a weapon.


There are two completely definitive ways to identify something that is a weapon in 40K

A) It has a weapon profile as defined in the rules.
B) It is called a 'weapon'.


The Deff Rolla is neither of these things and is therefore not an upgrade that is a weapon.

Green is Best! wrote:FACT:
The FAQ clearly states where the hits come from.

The FAQ was designed to clear up an open ended interpretation. You claim that RAW trumps the FAQ, yet prior to the FAQ it was questionable whether rollas could be used on vehicles. Kind of a bit of circular logic to say the brb trumps an faq that clarifies the brb? But I digress...


Let me ask you this then, for I think it would sum up whether the Deffrolla is a weapon or not. In other threads it is already being asked if the Deffrolla hits stack with the regular ram the battlewagon would inflict. How you answer that question?

If the Deffrolla replaces the ramming attack, then it is part of the battlewagon.

If the Deffrolla stacks with the ram, then it should be counted as a weapon since it is doing additional attacks in conjunction with the ram done by the battlewagon.

First of all it was always RAW if it wasn’t it wouldn’t have been put down as a FAQ but it would have been listed under an errata.

Just because 100,000 people think and interpret that the sky red and not blue doesn’t mean that sky isn’t blue. It just means that 100,000 people got it wrong.

The Deff Rolla can’t stack or replace anything because the Battlewagon is the one causing the hits and not the wargear.

It’s time to let go.

Edited for spelling.

Sarigar wrote:Man, how come this wasn't really an issue before it got ruled by GW that it can affect vehicles? I'm sensing some panic.

Personally, let it count as a weapon; it saves me the trouble of paying points for a Big Shoota just to absorb a weapon destroyed hit as to not get my BW immobilized. My BW need to get stuck in to deliver payload. Darn, I guess I will now need to ask before the game how this is ruled. One rule cleared up, another rears its ugly head.

It's not a new thing, It came up a few months ago, and the same thing happened, although that was when a number of tournaments including (I believe) INAT and the UK GT were ruling that they couldn't be used with Rams, so they weren't particularly popular, whereas we will be seeing them alot more now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

orkcommander wrote:First of all it was always RAW if it wasn’t it wouldn’t have been put down as a FAQ but it would have been listed under an errata.

First of all, he's not saying it's not RAW, he's saying the RAW was questionable, which if you are trying to deny that in light of how extensive the debates were, you are blind. Secondly GW put rules changes in as FAQs all the time, take for instance, the Deffrolla ruling which says a Ram is a Tankshock, and the Dark Eldar ruling which says that Raiders who are allowed to Tankshock aren't allowed to Ram, one of those HAS to be a rules change, but both are printed as FAQs.

Just because 100,000 people think and interpret that the sky red and not blue doesn’t mean that sky isn’t blue. It just means that 100,000 people got it wrong.

but if there's 100,001 people in the world, it means that 1 person got it wrong, and that the sky is red, colour is a construct of people, and is a case where fact is governed purely by what the majority believe.

And when are hits from the Rolla worked out?

Oh yeah, the movement phase...

So, not the shooting phase, not the assault phase...

It really isn't a weapon.

Put the pintle mounted stormbolter down now lads and go out into the sunlight...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drunkspleen wrote:but if there's 100,001 people in the world, it means that 1 person got it wrong, and that the sky is red, colour is a construct of people, and is a case where fact is governed purely by what the majority believe.

Not really the case, I studied the notion of majority perception defining reality waaay back during my sociology A-level. It's true according to social realism or the use of the word red, but the understanding of the colour red remains in error. Back when all those nice ancient folks thought the world was flat, it still wasn't flat.

The majority were wrong.

A-P wrote: I am also in the "can be destroyed" camp. Have to accept the good with the bad. Besides, counting the Deffrolla as a weapon actually increases the vehicles survivability in case of multiple "Weapon Destroyed"-results.

See, it actually would make Deffrolla just better. If DeffRolla is counted as a weapon, then Flechette Dischargers ought, too...

Its not a weapon.

weapons are targeted. even CCW are targeted at the unit. "I am attacking X with Y"

you dont say i'm attacking/targeting unit x with my deff rolla and the battle wagon goes along for the ride. you say i'm tank shocking with my battle wagon and because i did you take....

so basically : its not targeted its not a weapon. fletchettes from tau are the same they are not targeted its an event based on another event.

I do not think it is aa weapon.

But I do think it acts like one, and that is all the rules dictate.

The rules do not say "Weapons purchased as a vehicle upgrade",
they do not say "Vehicle upgrades that are also weapons", they say "Vehicle upgrades that 'act like' a weapon"

I see no need to be able to define the deff rolla as a weapon in order for it to act like a weapon.

I think it is unfortunate that their examples are both of vehicles upgrades that *are* weapons, but that does not change what the rule actually says.

coredump wrote:I do not think it is aa weapon.

But I do think it acts like one, and that is all the rules dictate.

The rules do not say "Weapons purchased as a vehicle upgrade",
they do not say "Vehicle upgrades that are also weapons", they say "Vehicle upgrades that 'act like' a weapon"

I see no need to be able to define the deff rolla as a weapon in order for it to act like a weapon.

I think it is unfortunate that their examples are both of vehicles upgrades that *are* weapons, but that does not change what the rule actually says.

So boarding planks are weapons? Grabba Claws? Flechette Launchers? Frag Assault Launchers?

Where is the imaginary line drawn if the vehicle upgrade doesn't have to actually be a weapon?

For those who keep repeating "its not a weapon". Of COURSE its not a weapon. But...does it function as a weapon?


What do weapons do, how do they function?

There are ranged weapons that have a profile and give a unit an ability to inflict damage/ hits at a distance.

There are cc weapons that enhance a units already innate ability to deal damage/ wounds in cc.



Most vehicle upgrades do nothing for range, the few that do closely mimic weapons so its pretty clear that hunter killer missiles function as weapons.

Now, other weapons merely somehow improve a model's innate ability to deal damage/ hits. Some of these give a model extra attacks, some increase the strength of the attacks, some give new forms of attacks, etc. A dreadnought's ccw increases the strength of the attack to 10, for example.

What does a deffrolla do? It increases the number and strength of the damage/ hits inflicted by the vehicle using the deff rolla.

What does the dreadnought cc weapon do? It increases the strength of the damage/ hits by the dreadnought.


There seems to be a rather strong correspondence here between what the deff rolla and the dreadnought ccw are doing......



Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:For those who keep repeating "its not a weapon". Of COURSE its not a weapon. But...does it function as a weapon?


What do weapons do, how do they function?

There are ranged weapons that have a profile and give a unit an ability to inflict damage/ hits at a distance.

There are cc weapons that enhance a units already innate ability to deal damage/ wounds in cc.



Most vehicle upgrades do nothing for range, the few that do closely mimic weapons so its pretty clear that hunter killer missiles function as weapons.

Now, other weapons merely somehow improve a model's innate ability to deal damage/ hits. Some of these give a model extra attacks, some increase the strength of the attacks, some give new forms of attacks, etc. A dreadnought's ccw increases the strength of the attack to 10, for example.

What does a deffrolla do? It increases the number and strength of the damage/ hits inflicted by the vehicle using the deff rolla.

What does the dreadnought cc weapon do? It increases the strength of the damage/ hits by the dreadnought.


There seems to be a rather strong correspondence here between what the deff rolla and the dreadnought ccw are doing......



Sliggoth

you TARGET weapons.

every weapon and everything that "acts like a weapon" is "targeted".

deff rollas are not "targeted" they are an effect that occurs when this condition is met.

when tankshocking/ramming this effect occurs.
it is not you target a unit with the deff rolla ....

there is a bigger argument that wrecking balls are a weapon than deff rolla because they are targeted.

Sliggoth wrote:For those who keep repeating "its not a weapon". Of COURSE its not a weapon. But...does it function as a weapon?


What do weapons do, how do they function?

There are ranged weapons that have a profile and give a unit an ability to inflict damage/ hits at a distance.

There are cc weapons that enhance a units already innate ability to deal damage/ wounds in cc.



Most vehicle upgrades do nothing for range, the few that do closely mimic weapons so its pretty clear that hunter killer missiles function as weapons.

Now, other weapons merely somehow improve a model's innate ability to deal damage/ hits. Some of these give a model extra attacks, some increase the strength of the attacks, some give new forms of attacks, etc. A dreadnought's ccw increases the strength of the attack to 10, for example.

So by this stretch of a definition, a Sweeping Advance should be counted as a weapon? Can I force you to roll 3 weapon destroyed results before my Dreadnought is immobilised because it can still Sweeping Advance?

There seems to be a rather strong correspondence here between what the deff rolla and the dreadnought ccw are doing......

The Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon has explicit rules for a weapon destroyed result. The Deffrolla does not.

Isnt the pintle mounted storm bolter a vehicle upgrade?

... wow many pages on something that could be yes, no or maybe ...

I've never understood why people don't think things like the deffrolla would be immune to a weapons destroyed result. The argument that it lists the storm bolters and HK missiles so that what it means by weapons has one fault ... They don't act like weapons they are weapons(edit i'm talking about HK and PM.Stormbolters).

Deffrolla IMO cannot be seen to be anything but acting like a weapon ... It only happens if you choose to tank shock (/ram) and it creates D6 Str10 hits to any one the tank hits.

Well, thats what we are discussing here. Does the deff rolla FUNCTION as a weapon, not IS it a weapon.

What the rules require is that it be a vehicle upgrade (so sorry, sweeping advance isnt a vehicel upgrade) and that the vehicle upgrade functions as a weapon.


If one wants to bring up extraneous straw man arguements about things that arent vehicle upgrades, feel free...but thats not whats being discussed here.

If a deff rolla functions as a weapon, then we have explicit rules for it being destroyed. If a deff rolla does not function as a weapin then we do not.

So does a deff rolla function as a weapon in a similar way to things such as a dreadnought ccw? If not, what is the distinction?




Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:
What the rules require is that it be a vehicle upgrade (so sorry, sweeping advance isnt a vehicel upgrade) and that the vehicle upgrade functions as a weapon.

And that's where your argument breaks down because 'Weapon' is a defined game term. 'Does it kill models' is not what defines a Weapon. Sweeping Advance, Deepstrike Mishaps, and Dangerous Terrain would all be Weapons if that's all that the definition entails.

By your definition, a Meltabomb is a Weapon.

Tri wrote:... wow many pages on something that could be yes, no or maybe ...

I've never understood why people don't think things like the deffrolla would be immune to a weapons destroyed result. The argument that it lists the storm bolters and HK missiles so that what it means by weapons has one fault ... They don't act like weapons they are weapons(edit i'm talking about HK and PM.Stormbolters).

Deffrolla IMO cannot be seen to be anything but acting like a weapon ... It only happens if you choose to tank shock (/ram) and it creates D6 Str10 hits to any one the tank hits.

Stormbolters and HK missiles only act as weapons if I choose to shoot them.

The problem is finding a complete class of weapons. Anything that hurts anyone could count. But then could I take off boarding planks and wrecking balls? Anything that hurts people in the shooting and assault phases is wrong. Otherwise guns are not listed in the class of weapons during the movement phase, and cannot be fired even with =I= mystics. Swooping hawk grenade packs wouldnt work either.

By your definition, a Meltabomb is a Weapon.

Why not?

The potential damage inflicted on an enemy unit by a deffrolla occurs as part of a tank shock/ram.

The potential damage is caused by the tank shock/ram, it occurs in the movement phase.

It does not occur in the shooting or assault phases, when weaponry is used.

Let's change the name of the deff rolla for a moment.

Electrified Front Plate: The front of the battlewagon has been supercharged with electrical current causing grievous injury to anyone or anything it connects with.
Any tank shock (including ramming) will cause D6 STR10 hits on the victim unit...death or glory...blah blah etc.

No one would argue that the electrified front plate is a weapon, it's an upgrade to the vehicle that increases it's tank shock potential, damage that occurs in neither the assault nor the shooting phases.

People are fixating on the physicality of the deffrolla, because it's 'attached' to the battlewagon. But it does not function as a weapon.

The wrecking ball, on the other hand, does make an attack in the assault phase. It's inclusion as a wargear as weapon seems far more likely.

The main problem I see with trying to classify a Deff Rolla as being a valid "Weapon Destroyed" target is simple. If you allow it to be destroyed you must allow anything added to a vehicle to be destroyed. Searchlights, Smoke Launchers, Extra Armor, Flechette Launchers, Vectored Thrust Engines... everything. Why?

Because no where does GW give us a complete list of what constitutes a "Weapon" on a vehicle.

People are (rightly so) trying to apply common sense and some things are obvious. Hunter Killers, Storm Bolters, Heavy Stubbers, Disintigrators, Dark Lances, and Railguns all shoot stuff and kill things. But this leads to a grey area... what is the definition of a weapon? Something that shoots projectiles or something that kills stuff? Something that allows something to get killed?

This sometimes leads us to some interesting conclusions. I should be able to use a Weapon Destroyed against a Searchlight for example. Why? I have to buy it as an upgrade (on some vehicles anyway) and it's used during the shooting phase to light up a target. I have to aim it at a specific target. Other things can then kill it so it's indirectly being used to kill something.

In my opinion (and it's just How I Would Play It) the "Weapon Destroyed" result is meant for shooting weapons. Dreads are a special case and have rules that state when a Weapon Destroyed result is obtained a whole arm is blown off. Other vehicle upgrades without a shooting profile are IMHO wargear and not weapons.

Edit for spelling.

Weapon

Range: Range of vehicle its strapped to
hits: d6
str: 10

Fits weapon profile.

If someone really wants to argue that its not a weapon based on the reroll DT. I'd be fine w/ a weap destroy result ONLY having the effect of removing its d6 str 10 hit abilities, and allowing the vehicle to maintain its reroll DT.

If you says its not a weapon, then you can find someone else to play w/ because any reasonably minded individual can make the very simple logical connection that it does have a range, it does have a number of hits, it does have a str.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Green Git wrote:The main problem I see with trying to classify a Deff Rolla as being a valid "Weapon Destroyed" target is simple. If you allow it to be destroyed you must allow anything added to a vehicle to be destroyed. Searchlights, Smoke Launchers, Extra Armor, Flechette Launchers, Vectored Thrust Engines... everything. Why?

Search light, has no str/hit
Smoke launcher, has no str/hit
Extra armor, has no str/hit
Flechette, no str/hit
Engines, has no str/hit

etccccc id say anything that has a str/hit is a weapon if its strapped to a vehicle and can be destroyed.

TopC wrote:Weapon

Range: Range of vehicle its strapped to
hits: d6
str: 10

Fits weapon profile.

Vehicle Explodes

Range: d6
hits: #models within d6"
Str: 3 (outside) 4(inside)

Clearly your 3rd immobilization result on my rhino hasn't wrecked it because my Vehicle Explodes weapon is still functional.

TopC wrote:Weapon

Range: Range of vehicle its strapped to
hits: d6
str: 10

Fits weapon profile.

sweeping advance
range *special* Strength N/A AP 2 Type:special
You may choose to use the Sweeping advance in the assault phase, if you were the winner. both you and the unit you were locked in combat with must each roll D6, and add their initiative to it. The side with the lower result is destroyed, but if the firer loses the the opponent must fall back.

TopC wrote:Weapon

Range: Range of vehicle its strapped to
hits: d6
str: 10

Fits weapon profile.

If someone really wants to argue that its not a weapon based on the reroll DT. I'd be fine w/ a weap destroy result ONLY having the effect of removing its d6 str 10 hit abilities, and allowing the vehicle to maintain its reroll DT.

If you says its not a weapon, then you can find someone else to play w/ because any reasonably minded individual can make the very simple logical connection that it does have a range, it does have a number of hits, it does have a str.

Weapon

Range: Range of vehicle its strapped to
Hits: 1
Str: Special (see ramming rules)

Oh noes, you can destroy reinforced rams.

Range: Range of vehicle its strapped to + 2" (Max 15")
Hits: 4 (nob)
Str: 9 (nob)

Oh noes, you can destroy boarding planks.

Your line is completely arbitrary, includes many items you yourself would claim are not weapons, and is entirely unsupported specifically by the rules.
It's also completely incorrect, as none of the things you claim are characteristics of the rolla upgrade exist (it has no range, it has no str, it deals no hits).

Slippery slope examples are slippery.

For the sweeping advance or vehicle explosion attempts, at what point were either of those purchased as a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon?

Answer that question and you can keep trying to use those as examples.

Brother Ramses wrote:Slippery slope examples are slippery.

For the sweeping advance or vehicle explosion attempts, at what point were either of those purchased as a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon?

Answer that question and you can keep trying to use those as examples.

Insidious phraseology is insidious.

When was the deffrolla purchased as a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon? All we know from the examples cited in the BGB on page 61 (pintle mounted stormbolter and hunter-killer missile) is that both examples are ranged and used in the shooting phase.

The deffrolla neither assaults nor shoots. It is not a weapon, nor is it used as the example vehicle upgrade as weapon examples.

The deffrolla is not a 'vehicle upgrade that counts as a weapon'.

What is suddenly the reason that ork players are rejoicing that deffrollas count towards vehicles then?

It is a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon so per the BRB is can be destroyed.

The examples given are not just upgrades that function as weapons, they are weapons. Why would they function any other way other then as weapons?

I mean you already blew it on page 1 not knowing the rules, but please explain how it does not function as a weapon when it can clearly kill or destroy models/vehicles and is bought as a vehicle upgrade.

Brother Ramses wrote:What is suddenly the reason that ork players are rejoicing that deffrollas count towards vehicles then?

It is a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon so per the BRB is can be destroyed.

The examples given are not just upgrades that function as weapons, they are weapons. Why would they function any other way other then as weapons?

I mean you already blew it on page 1 not knowing the rules, but please explain how it does not function as a weapon when it can clearly kill or destroy models/vehicles and is bought as a vehicle upgrade.

BECAUSE IT ISN'T CALLED A WEAPON!
As I have pointed out, sweeping advances can be called weapons. So ccan dangourus terrain.

Brother Ramses wrote:What is suddenly the reason that ork players are rejoicing that deffrollas count towards vehicles then?

It is a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon so per the BRB is can be destroyed.

The examples given are not just upgrades that function as weapons, they are weapons. Why would they function any other way other then as weapons?

I mean you already blew it on page 1 not knowing the rules, but please explain how it does not function as a weapon when it can clearly kill or destroy models/vehicles and is bought as a vehicle upgrade.

What a little charmer you are, flattery will get you nowhere unfortunately.

It has still not been established that it counts as a weapon. THERE IS NO CLEAR DEFINITION IN THE RULES THAT CITES THE UPGRADES THAT CAN CAUSE WOUNDS ARE CLASSED AS WEAPONS.

The examples given in the rulebook under vehicle destroyed are both ranged and are used in the shooting phase. The deffrolla is an upgrade to ramming/tank shock. Ramming and tank shock are likely to cause wounds anyway, the presence of the deffrolla merely changes the results of the ram or tankshock.

It is NOT used in either shooting or assaulting. It is not an upgrade that works as a weapon. It DOES change how ramming/Tank shock works.

And congratulations on being so charming, do feel free to help yourself to a cup of shut the up.

Klawz wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:What is suddenly the reason that ork players are rejoicing that deffrollas count towards vehicles then?

It is a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon so per the BRB is can be destroyed.

The examples given are not just upgrades that function as weapons, they are weapons. Why would they function any other way other then as weapons?

I mean you already blew it on page 1 not knowing the rules, but please explain how it does not function as a weapon when it can clearly kill or destroy models/vehicles and is bought as a vehicle upgrade.

BECAUSE IT ISN'T CALLED A WEAPON!
As I have pointed out, sweeping advances can be called weapons. So ccan dangourus terrain.

And again, are either of those two examples that you have given purchased as upgrades for a vehicle?

NO! So stop using them for an example when the rule clearly says, VEHICLE UPGRADES THAT FUNCTION AS A WEAPON!

The rule does not require that it be CALLED a weapon. The rule only puts two requirements on the table,

1. VEHICLE UPGRADE
2. FUNCTIONS AS A WEAPON

The deffrolla fulfills both of those requirements.

Please, explain how dangerous terrain or a sweeping advance fulfills BOTH of those requirements.

Brother Ramses wrote:
NO! So stop using them for an example when the rule clearly says, VEHICLE UPGRADES THAT FUNCTION AS A WEAPON!

The rule does not require that it be CALLED a weapon. The rule only puts two requirements on the table,

1. VEHICLE UPGRADE
2. FUNCTIONS AS A WEAPON

The deffrolla fulfills both of those requirements.

Please, explain how dangerous terrain or a sweeping advance fulfills BOTH of those requirements.

THERE IS NO CLEAR DEFINITION OF A VEHICLE UPGRADE FUNCTIONING AS A WEAPON.

The examples given are both used in the shooting phase and have a clearly understood profile to use. They are also both ranged, adding further lack of clarity.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:
NO! So stop using them for an example when the rule clearly says, VEHICLE UPGRADES THAT FUNCTION AS A WEAPON!

The rule does not require that it be CALLED a weapon. The rule only puts two requirements on the table,

1. VEHICLE UPGRADE
2. FUNCTIONS AS A WEAPON

The deffrolla fulfills both of those requirements.

Please, explain how dangerous terrain or a sweeping advance fulfills BOTH of those requirements.

THERE IS NO CLEAR DEFINITION OF A VEHICLE UPGRADE FUNCTIONING AS A WEAPON.

The examples given are both used in the shooting phase and have a clearly understood profile to use. They are also both ranged, adding further lack of clarity.

RRRROOOOAAAARRRR!!!

MeanGreenStompa wrote:THERE IS NO CLEAR DEFINITION OF A VEHICLE UPGRADE FUNCTIONING AS A WEAPON.

Which nicely sums up why the answer is yes, no and maybe ... Wonder when GW will give us a definition of what a weapon is? and more importantly what counts as functioning like one?

Brother Ramses wrote:

Klawz wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:What is suddenly the reason that ork players are rejoicing that deffrollas count towards vehicles then?

It is a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon so per the BRB is can be destroyed.

The examples given are not just upgrades that function as weapons, they are weapons. Why would they function any other way other then as weapons?

I mean you already blew it on page 1 not knowing the rules, but please explain how it does not function as a weapon when it can clearly kill or destroy models/vehicles and is bought as a vehicle upgrade.

BECAUSE IT ISN'T CALLED A WEAPON!
As I have pointed out, sweeping advances can be called weapons. So ccan dangourus terrain.

And again, are either of those two examples that you have given purchased as upgrades for a vehicle?

NO! So stop using them for an example when the rule clearly says, VEHICLE UPGRADES THAT FUNCTION AS A WEAPON!

The rule does not require that it be CALLED a weapon. The rule only puts two requirements on the table,

1. VEHICLE UPGRADE
2. FUNCTIONS AS A WEAPON

The deffrolla fulfills both of those requirements.

Please, explain how dangerous terrain or a sweeping advance fulfills BOTH of those requirements.

The fallacy in your logic is that the BRB does, in fact, define what a weapon is.
The deffrolla does not meet the definition given on page 27.

Additionally..
CCW's do not function as "weapons", the function as "close combat weapons" as defined on page 42.
Dreadnought close combat weapons are not "weapons" they are "dreadnought close combat weapons" as defined on page 73.

Only weapons or dreadnought close combat weapons are subject to "weapon destroyed" results. A deffrolla does not have a weapon profile, and it's not a DCCW.

Show me a brb/codex/faq reference that allows any other vehicle upgrade outside of DCCW's and ranged weapons that are subject to a weapon destroyed result.
Until you can do that, any argument claiming that a deffrolla can be destroyed is unsupported by RAW.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

When was the deffrolla purchased as a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon? All we know from the examples cited in the BGB on page 61 (pintle mounted stormbolter and hunter-killer missile) is that both examples are ranged and used in the shooting phase.

The deffrolla neither assaults nor shoots. It is not a weapon, nor is it used as the example vehicle upgrade as weapon examples.

The deffrolla is not a 'vehicle upgrade that counts as a weapon'.

Weapons exist at times other than the shooting phase. Inquisitorial mystics allow for shooting out of phase. Ork koptas drop bombs in movement, etc...

Your argument is a) incorrect, and b) irrelevant.

Can people please take a deep breath and count to 10 before posting perhaps. We're happy for vigourous debate over issues, but we do ask you to keep it polite, there's no need to make jibes and/or cracks at each other.

Let's remember that what we're talking about is whether or not a giant rolling pin attached to a vehicle driven by violent green fungus can be destroyed. In the future.

Your cooperation in this regards in gratefully recieved.

The examples do not lack clarity. By continuing to cite only those specific examples, you are limiting yourself to not even bothering to look at the rest of the vehicle upgrades that may function as weapons.

The rule does not say vehicle upgrades defined as a weapon, only upgrades that function as a weapon. Per the rule you cannot limit yourself to the defined rules of weapons only used in the assault or shooting since the rule does not say upgrades defined as weapons, only those that function as weapons.

What do weapons do in the game? The deffrolla falls under that category.

Now for the boarding plank argument.

1. Vehicle upgrade? Yes
2. Functions as a weapon? NO!

A boarding plank on a vehicle with no orks in it does absolutely nothing. The "weapon" is the ork using the boarding plank to make his attack with whatever weapon he is equipped with. Without said ork, the boarding plank is just a boarding plank.

The same cannot be said about the deffrolla.

kartofelkopf wrote:
Your argument is a) incorrect, and b) irrelevant.

your response is a) arrogant, and b) the hallmark of a gakker.

Weapons have targets, everything in the game that is a weapon is targeted deff rolla does not have a target.

so first lets read the deff rolla entry.

it is clearly listed as wargear. it clearly does not say it is a weapon in its description.

a deff rolla allows you to re-roll dt tests.

now the important part

"Any Tank Shock made by a battlewagon with a deff rolla causes d6 strength 10 hits on the victim unit. if the unit elects to make a death or glory attack..."

it think its important to note here that the entry says "a battle wagon with a deff rolla" there fore the deff rolla is a wargear that provides a special rule to the equiped battle wagon, it [deff rolla] does not inflict the hits as a weapon it just allows an extra rule during a tank shock.

thus :

event occurs, effect occurs

vs a weapon

target unit, use/fire weapon


this is nearly identical to the slave snares of DE which give a special rule to an equiped unit. slave snares are not destroyable.

Waaaaghmaster wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Klawz wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:What is suddenly the reason that ork players are rejoicing that deffrollas count towards vehicles then?

It is a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon so per the BRB is can be destroyed.

The examples given are not just upgrades that function as weapons, they are weapons. Why would they function any other way other then as weapons?

I mean you already blew it on page 1 not knowing the rules, but please explain how it does not function as a weapon when it can clearly kill or destroy models/vehicles and is bought as a vehicle upgrade.

BECAUSE IT ISN'T CALLED A WEAPON!
As I have pointed out, sweeping advances can be called weapons. So ccan dangourus terrain.

And again, are either of those two examples that you have given purchased as upgrades for a vehicle?

NO! So stop using them for an example when the rule clearly says, VEHICLE UPGRADES THAT FUNCTION AS A WEAPON!

The rule does not require that it be CALLED a weapon. The rule only puts two requirements on the table,

1. VEHICLE UPGRADE
2. FUNCTIONS AS A WEAPON

The deffrolla fulfills both of those requirements.

Please, explain how dangerous terrain or a sweeping advance fulfills BOTH of those requirements.

The fallacy in your logic is that the BRB does, in fact, define what a weapon is.
The deffrolla does not meet the definition given on page 27.

Additionally..
CCW's do not function as "weapons", the function as "close combat weapons" as defined on page 42.
Dreadnought close combat weapons are not "weapons" they are "dreadnought close combat weapons" as defined on page 73.

Only weapons or dreadnought close combat weapons are subject to "weapon destroyed" results. A deffrolla does not have a weapon profile, and it's not a DCCW.

Show me a brb/codex/faq reference that allows any other vehicle upgrade outside of DCCW's and ranged weapons that are subject to a weapon destroyed result.
Until you can do that, any argument claiming that a deffrolla can be destroyed is unsupported by RAW.

At what point did DCCW become a vehicle upgrade?

And again, the rule does not call for a vehicle upgrade to be DEFINED as a weapon, only that it FUNCTIONS as one.

Brother Ramses wrote:
Now for the boarding plank argument.

1. Vehicle upgrade? Yes
2. Functions as a weapon? NO!

A boarding plank on a vehicle with no orks in it does absolutely nothing. The "weapon" is the ork using the boarding plank to make his attack with whatever weapon he is equipped with. Without said ork, the boarding plank is just a boarding plank.

The same cannot be said about the deffrolla.

And again, that is a completely subjective line that you are drawing in your own head that is unsupported specifically in the rulebook.
The non-weapon camp has all of the weapon examples and rules in the book to point to, all you have is what you personally think should make something qualify. That's not something to base a ruling on.

Ramses, please address Lixulanas post.

kartofelkopf wrote:Can you read? It doesn't need to be a weapon. The BRB specifies vehicle upgrades can be destroyed if they "function as weapons."

As far as I can tell this still only makes sense to apply it to weapons with a profile (Such as a HK Missile)
By that method of thinking any vehicle that can ram would be considered a weapon. The mechanics of the deff rolla are based on the ramming/tank shock rules. Ramming/tankshock is not a form of weapon. It has no base stat line, it does not require a BS or WS to use.

Gamer A: "Hey I got a weapon destroyed result on your Land Raider... pull it."
Gamer B: "Pull what?"
Gamer A: "The Land Raider"
Gamer B: "Why? You didn't destroy it, you just destroyed a weapon. Which weapon do you want me to pull?"
Gamer A: "The Land Raider"
Gamer B: "What about it?"
Gamer A: "It's destroyed"
Gamer B: "Why?"
Gamer A: "Because I got a weapon destroyed result"
Gamer B: "Right, so which weapon do you want me to pull?"
Gamer A: "The Land Raider"

and so on and so forth...

If anyone wants to claim that a Deff Rolla is a weapon that can be destroyed then I will use that same argument against them to destroy any vehicle that can ram or tank shock.

While I agree the rules are not crystal clear, an can be confusing, people need to look at the bigger picture of how blanket rules opinions affect the entire game. There are no Easter eggs. Move on.
Last game I played, 2 of the 4 BW's I fielded, (without Deff Rollas), were immobilized by rapid firing deep-strikers with boltguns before I took my first turn.

The BW is a point heavy glass cannon. Is it useful? Yes. Is it invincible? No. Is it broken? No. If it were armor 14 all around I would agree with everyone's complaints about the Deff Rolla.
Everyone is focusing on a piece of wargear that only works or has any effect when the model it is attached to is in B2B. Admittedly, it now has the potential to work really well, but because of the random number of hits it also has the potential to do absolutely nothing.

The deff rolla would be problematic if there was no good, common or easy way for all armies to destroy a BW.

lixulana wrote:so...

slave snares on a dark eldar raider are weapons also? they have nearly identical profile inflict d6 str 4 hits on a unit passed over durnig the movement phase.

vs

tau flechette discharges inflict a wound on a 4+(technically this is equivilent of SX)

vs

deff rolla inflicts d6 str 10 hits on a unit tank shocked/rammed

these are all

event occurs, effect occurs

these are not

target unit weapon is fired.


yes tank shock has a target, but they are the target of a tank shock they are not a target of the deff rolla. the deff rolla just adds a special rule when a tank shock ocurs.

Another case of defining a weapon (in your case via targetting and firing) when that is not the rule. All the above function as weapons and are indeed vehicle upgrades.

At anytime before this new Ork FAQ, you could have chosen to destroy those vehicles upgrades that function as weapons. Until now with the deffrolla FAQ, you actually have a reason to destroy a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon. Until now, there were much better vehicle upgrades that function as weapons to choose to be destroyed instead of a deffrolla.

For example,

Why choose to destroy Slave Nets when you could take the Dark Lance off of it?

Why take Flechette Launchers when you could take the Burst Cannon?

and now with the FAQ empowering the Deffrolla,

Do I take the Deffrolla, the Big Shoota, or the Zap gun?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Doc Rogers wrote:

kartofelkopf wrote:Can you read? It doesn't need to be a weapon. The BRB specifies vehicle upgrades can be destroyed if they "function as weapons."

As far as I can tell this still only makes sense to apply it to weapons with a profile (Such as a HK Missile)
By that method of thinking any vehicle that can ram would be considered a weapon. The mechanics of the deff rolla are based on the ramming rules. Ramming is not a form of weapon. It has no base stat line, it does not require a BS or WS to use.

Gamer A: "Hey I got a weapon destroyed result on your Land Raider... pull it."
Gamer B: "Pull what?"
Gamer A: "The Land Raider"
Gamer B: "Why? You didn't destroy it, you just destroyed a weapon. Which weapon do you want me to pull?"
Gamer A: "The Land Raider"
Gamer B: "What about it?"
Gamer A: "It's destroyed"
Gamer B: "Why?"
Gamer A: "Because I got a weapon destroyed result"
Gamer B: "Right, so which weapon do you want me to pull?"
Gamer A: "The Land Raider"

and so on and so forth...

If anyone wants to claim that a Deff Rolla is a weapon that can be destroyed then I will use that same argument against them to destroy any vehicle that can ram.

While I agree the rules are not crystal clear, an can be confusing, people need to look at the bigger picture of how blanket rules opinions affect the entire game. There are no Easter eggs. Move on.
Last game I played, 2 of the 4 BW's I fielded, (without Deff Rollas), were immobilized by rapid firing deep-strikers with boltguns before I took my first turn.

The BW is a point heavy glass cannon. Is it useful? Yes. Is it invincible? No. Is it broken? No. If it were armor 14 all around I would agree with everyone's complaints about the Deff Rolla.
Everyone is focusing on a piece of wargear that only works or has any effect when the model it is attached to is in B2B. Admittedly, it now has the potential to work really well, but because of the random number of hits it also has the potential to do absolutely nothing.

The deff rolla would be problematic if there was no good, common or easy way for all armies to destroy a BW.

You are making a illogical leap. At no point did you purchase said Land Raider as a vehicle upgrade so trying to claim it is a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon is not valid. Easily pointed out per the BRB why:

1. Vehicle Upgrade? No.
2. Functions as a weapon? Yes

Therefore cannot be chosen as a weapon destroyed result since both rules are not fulfilled.

Brother Ramses wrote:The examples do not lack clarity. By continuing to cite only those specific examples, you are limiting yourself to not even bothering to look at the rest of the vehicle upgrades that may function as weapons.

The rule does not say vehicle upgrades defined as a weapon, only upgrades that function as a weapon. Per the rule you cannot limit yourself to the defined rules of weapons only used in the assault or shooting since the rule does not say upgrades defined as weapons, only those that function as weapons.

What do weapons do in the game? The deffrolla falls under that category.

Now for the boarding plank argument.

1. Vehicle upgrade? Yes
2. Functions as a weapon? NO!

A boarding plank on a vehicle with no orks in it does absolutely nothing. The "weapon" is the ork using the boarding plank to make his attack with whatever weapon he is equipped with. Without said ork, the boarding plank is just a boarding plank.

The same cannot be said about the deffrolla.

I disagree with this as well. The deff rolla is not used as a weapon. The description specifically states that it enhances a BW when it is tank shocking or ramming. This is the same as if you had a dreadnought with tank-hunter or even better an eldar vehicle with guide cast on it. You would't try to remove the tank-hunter skill or the guide ability... Why not? Because it only enhances and existing from of weapon or attack. It is not a weapon. It has no stat-line. It does not attack or target anything. The BW makes the attack and the deff rolla enhances that attack.

well i'm done with this.

weapons have targets not events.

incidently i dont play orks so its all the same to me.

Brother Ramses wrote:

At what point did DCCW become a vehicle upgrade?

And again, the rule does not call for a vehicle upgrade to be DEFINED as a weapon, only that it FUNCTIONS as one.

And again..your logic is flawed.
The BRB does indeed say a weapon or a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon...no argument.
However, you overlook the simple fact that the BRB DEFINES what a weapon is. The Deffrolla does not meet that description.
The DCCW is not an upgrade, it is selected from the weapon options. However, it is the only item of wargear that does not meet the definition of a weapon that is subject to a weapon destroyed result.

So, to review this from a logic perspective.

1. The BRB defines what a weapon is
2. Deffrolla does not fit that definition
3. The BRB allows for DCCW's to be effected by "weapon destroyed"
4. Deffrolla is not a DCCW

Unless you can provide another example of a vehicle upgrade that is not a DCCW or fit the "weapon" definition that is subject to a "weapon destroyed" then there is no logical merit to saying that the deffrolla is.

So do you argue that a Vehicle Explodes result is actually a weapon, but cannot be destroyed via a Weapon Destroyed result because you did not purchase it as a vehicle upgrade?

Brother Ramses wrote:

lixulana wrote:so...

slave snares on a dark eldar raider are weapons also? they have nearly identical profile inflict d6 str 4 hits on a unit passed over durnig the movement phase.

vs

tau flechette discharges inflict a wound on a 4+(technically this is equivilent of SX)

vs

deff rolla inflicts d6 str 10 hits on a unit tank shocked/rammed

these are all

event occurs, effect occurs

these are not

target unit weapon is fired.


yes tank shock has a target, but they are the target of a tank shock they are not a target of the deff rolla. the deff rolla just adds a special rule when a tank shock ocurs.

Another case of defining a weapon (in your case via targetting and firing) when that is not the rule. All the above function as weapons and are indeed vehicle upgrades.

At anytime before this new Ork FAQ, you could have chosen to destroy those vehicles upgrades that function as weapons. Until now with the deffrolla FAQ, you actually have a reason to destroy a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon. Until now, there were much better vehicle upgrades that function as weapons to choose to be destroyed instead of a deffrolla.

For example,

Why choose to destroy Slave Nets when you could take the Dark Lance off of it?

Why take Flechette Launchers when you could take the Burst Cannon?

and now with the FAQ empowering the Deffrolla,

Do I take the Deffrolla, the Big Shoota, or the Zap gun?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Doc Rogers wrote:

kartofelkopf wrote:Can you read? It doesn't need to be a weapon. The BRB specifies vehicle upgrades can be destroyed if they "function as weapons."

As far as I can tell this still only makes sense to apply it to weapons with a profile (Such as a HK Missile)
By that method of thinking any vehicle that can ram would be considered a weapon. The mechanics of the deff rolla are based on the ramming rules. Ramming is not a form of weapon. It has no base stat line, it does not require a BS or WS to use.

Gamer A: "Hey I got a weapon destroyed result on your Land Raider... pull it."
Gamer B: "Pull what?"
Gamer A: "The Land Raider"
Gamer B: "Why? You didn't destroy it, you just destroyed a weapon. Which weapon do you want me to pull?"
Gamer A: "The Land Raider"
Gamer B: "What about it?"
Gamer A: "It's destroyed"
Gamer B: "Why?"
Gamer A: "Because I got a weapon destroyed result"
Gamer B: "Right, so which weapon do you want me to pull?"
Gamer A: "The Land Raider"

and so on and so forth...

If anyone wants to claim that a Deff Rolla is a weapon that can be destroyed then I will use that same argument against them to destroy any vehicle that can ram.

While I agree the rules are not crystal clear, an can be confusing, people need to look at the bigger picture of how blanket rules opinions affect the entire game. There are no Easter eggs. Move on.
Last game I played, 2 of the 4 BW's I fielded, (without Deff Rollas), were immobilized by rapid firing deep-strikers with boltguns before I took my first turn.

The BW is a point heavy glass cannon. Is it useful? Yes. Is it invincible? No. Is it broken? No. If it were armor 14 all around I would agree with everyone's complaints about the Deff Rolla.
Everyone is focusing on a piece of wargear that only works or has any effect when the model it is attached to is in B2B. Admittedly, it now has the potential to work really well, but because of the random number of hits it also has the potential to do absolutely nothing.

The deff rolla would be problematic if there was no good, common or easy way for all armies to destroy a BW.

You are making a illogical leap. At no point did you purchase said Land Raider as a vehicle upgrade so trying to claim it is a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon is not valid. Easily pointed out per the BRB why:

1. Vehicle Upgrade? No.
2. Functions as a weapon? Yes

Therefore cannot be chosen as a weapon destroyed result since both rules are not fulfilled.

You missed my point... I suppose I need a sarcasm button...
You are pointing out that the vehicle itself is not an upgrade, I was saying that the vehicle, not the Deff Rolla, functions as a weapon.

Per the deff rolla rules"

"Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit." <emphasis mine>

I never argued that a vehicle destroyed result is a weapon. That was someone else trying to argue the slippery slope argument by including it along with normal tank shocks. As I mentioned, it does not pass the test for the rule.

1. Vehicle Upgrade? No.
2. Functions as a weapon? Yes.

And again..your logic is flawed.
The BRB does indeed say a weapon or a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon...no argument.
However, you overlook the simple fact that the BRB DEFINES what a weapon is. The Deffrolla does not meet that description.
The DCCW is not an upgrade, it is selected from the weapon options. However, it is the only item of wargear that does not meet the definition of a weapon that is subject to a weapon destroyed result.

So, to review this from a logic perspective.

1. The BRB defines what a weapon is
2. Deffrolla does not fit that definition
3. The BRB allows for DCCW's to be effected by "weapon destroyed"
4. Deffrolla is not a DCCW

Unless you can provide another example of a vehicle upgrade that is not a DCCW or fit the "weapon" definition that is subject to a "weapon destroyed" then there is no logical merit to saying that the deffrolla is.

It doesn't matter that the BRB define what a weapon happens to be, the rule only cares if it functions as a weapon.

The requirements of the rule do not require that it be a defined weapon with any stats at all. It could simply say, "Kills any models in b2b with vehicle" and it is functioning as a weapon because it is causing casualties.

The very fact that the rule itself is "functions as a weapon" and is not "defined as a weapon" allows you to include not only weapons with an established profile, but also those without.

The DCCW has absolutely no bearing to the rule regarding vehicle upgrades and I am at a loss as to why it continues to be brought up as an example.

You are choosing to ignore that GW defines what a weapon is in game terms and then goes on the specify that something must function as a weapon.
The DCCW is an exception to that rule.

Again I will say..

Show us any other examples in any official GW document that allows someone to select something other than what they define as a weapon or a DCCW.
If you can give a single example then your position is somewhat justified. But until you do, your position has no foundation to stand upon.

Brother Ramses wrote:

The requirements of the rule do not require that it be a defined weapon with any stats at all. It could simply say, "Kills any models in b2b with vehicle" and it is functioning as a weapon because it is causing casualties.

The very fact that the rule itself is "functions as a weapon" and is not "defined as a weapon" allows you to include not only weapons with an established profile, but also those without.

The DCCW has absolutely no bearing to the rule regarding vehicle upgrades and I am at a loss as to why it continues to be brought up as an example.

Please define "functions as a weapon". And then provide a logical argument which proves that your definition of "functions as a weapon" is what GW meant. And then provide another logical argument that we should use your interpretation of the RAI in this instance, as opposed to any other interpretation.

Once you've done that, and all your arguments stand, I will agree with you.

I just have a question for all the posters refusing to consider a Deff Rolla a functional weapon:

If all vehicle upgrades that function as weapons are, in fact, weapons (i.e., profile, etc..) then why did GW include the caveat about being able to destroy vehicle upgrades that "function as" weapons as an option to destroy?

If, as you argue, only defined weapons may be destroyed, the verbiage is meaningless, as all weapons are weapons, and there's no need for the phrasing.

If, on the other hand, some vehicle upgrades are -not- weapons, but function in a manner similar to weapons, then the phrasing has a meaning and would be required.

kartofelkopf wrote:I just have a question for all the posters refusing to consider a Deff Rolla a functional weapon:

If all vehicle upgrades that function as weapons are, in fact, weapons (i.e., profile, etc..) then why did GW include the caveat about being able to destroy vehicle upgrades that "function as" weapons as an option to destroy?

If, as you argue, only defined weapons may be destroyed, the verbiage is meaningless, as all weapons are weapons, and there's no need for the phrasing.

If, on the other hand, some vehicle upgrades are -not- weapons, but function in a manner similar to weapons, then the phrasing has a meaning and would be required.

The phrase is included to make it painfully, painfully clear that if you buy a vehicle upgrade with a weapons profile, it can be destroyed. otherwise you would get people (some names come to mind right here on Dakka) arguing that RAW you cannot destroy a pintle-mounted storm bolter because it isn't a "weapon" like a regular storm bolter is, it's a "vehicle upgrade", and this overrides the fact that it has a weapons profile.

In addition, as has been pointed out in other threads before, just because something is redundant doesn't mean it won't find its way into GW rules. The redundancy of certain rules has come up quite a few times in the arguments about Deep Striking, for example.

I'm curious how does the Deffrolla not function as a weapon per the definition of a weapon provided on p.27?

Ha, re-reading it's actually a pretty loose description but still take a look
BRB p61

3 - Damaged - Weapon Destroyed wrote:
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 weapons left, treat this result as an 'immobilized' result instead. This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles.

Now note the statement is not "count as weapons" but rather "function" like a weapon. Since the description of a weapon having a profile is irrelevant we have to look at the functions of the weapon.

Well the Deff Rolla has a Strength value(10) that functions identically to that of the strength of a weapon "when rolling to wound for shooting hits, use the weapon's Strength rather than the firer's." We're using S10 to do these hits instead of the Battlewagon's strength correct? It doesn't have a strength so we must be as the Battlewagon is causing the D6 hits. So that's one instance where it's clearly "functioning like a weapon." We have a maximum range "Base Contact" or 0", it doesn't work if the wagon hasn't made contact with it's target. We don't have an AP value so that's "-". Type is description of the weapon and not really a function of the weapon, but 3 out of 4 are functioning like a weapon"

It's funny, how is it NOT functioning like a weapon? Under the Tank Shock rules it even refer's to the tank being "aimed", with the obvious intent of coming into contact with an enemy unit.

The Wrecking Ball also "functions" like a weapon so could ALSO be removed. I'm confused how it can be argued any other way. That's like arguing with a Judge you can't be charged with "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" for beating someone with your shoe. "Well technically my shoe isn't a weapon" haha The Judge would say, "No, but it functioned like one when you used it to break the guys jaw, nose, orbital socket and cheekbone."

If we can have the people in the last couple pages go back and reread the early pages, perhaps we can skip a few redundant arguements here.


One new one that came up was that weapons have to target something. Thats limiting your options to only ranged weapons....cc weapons do not target anything. Its the model using the ccw that targets something, the ccw simply provides an upgrade to the model's attack. Many many weapons upgrade or set the strength of a models attacks.

A dreadnought ccw has been used as an example several times of a weapon that provides such an upgrade, it was a natural choice since its also attached to a vehicle. But there is no need to pick that as an example. Lets look at a power fist.

A power fist is a weapon. It increases the strength of the hits of the model using the fist. It also has the side effect of slowing the initiative of the model wielding the fist.

Other weapons modify attacks in other ways. Power weapons, poisoned weapons, rending weapons...they all modify how wonds/ hits are inflicted or how they are resolved.



So we see that weapons are a pretty diverse group, they do not need to have a strength (altho many weapons do have or adjust strength) but they all do somehow influence how a model inflicts wounds/ hits. Having two weapons can even increase the number of attacks for models.

So how about some of the straw man upgrades people have presented?

Searchlights.....hmm, doesnt roll to hit, doesnt have any sort of ranged weapons characteristics; hmmm, doesnt seem to involve wounds/ hits in any way. It does negate the night fighting rules in a limited way...but thats not a characteristic of any weapon presented.

Wreckin ball...hmm, this one has a pretty complete profile. Strength of the hit, range, roll needed to hit....but amazingly enough some people think even this isnt enough to qualify as function as a weapon.

Reinforced ram....hmmm, this one has two functions. One is a simple reroll of terrain; but the other function is a ram. Is something that allows a model to ram functioning as a weapon? Without the upgrade the model couldnt ram at all...

Deff rolla....hmm, this one adds a specific number of strength 10 attacks to a model doing a ram...increasing the strength of attacks very much like a power fist or dreadnought ccw....


Weapons can do many things. They all do directly modify attacks however. If one has a problem with that idea...perhaps suggesting some other overarching thread that ties weapons together might be suggested?

I would be thrilled and delighted by a better definition of how weapons function. Please provide such, or at least suggest why this general idea is incorrect.

Sliggoth

Remember the two requirements for a weapon destroyed:

1) Be a vehicle upgrade
2) Function as a weapon. How do weapons function?

So a Vehicle Explodes result is a weapon, by your definition of how a weapon functions?

Sliggoth wrote:How do weapons function?

I just covered that in my post.

@sourclams
A vehicle explodes result is not a weapon, but you have to note that it does FUNCTION like a weapon which is the entire argument regarding

3 - Damaged - Weapon Destroyed wrote:
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 weapons left, treat this result as an 'immobilized' result instead. This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles.

The upgrade does not have to actually be a weapon... merely function like one.
One of the functions of a weapon is replacing the users strength with it's own.

Why argue against this? It's great that the GW finally has something official out there! No more of this back and forth. It works. Yay! 130pt BW here I come.

Which means I can disable the exploding with a weapon destroyed result!

Does Wrecked also count as a Weapon? I mean, it has the same effect as a Horrorfex witht he Pinning tests and all...

Klawz wrote:Which means I can disable the exploding with a weapon destroyed result!

I really wish people would stop trying to bring this up, as it is NOT VALID. A tank exploding is not an upgrade. The "Defrollas function as weapons" crowd has been very careful not to claim that "a weapon" is defined as "something which causes hits".

Which brings up an interesting question; if a weapon is not "something which causes hits", then how is some OTHER, non-weapon thing functioning as a weapon merely by causing hits?


EDIT: And on a related note;

"Please define "functions as a weapon". And then provide a logical argument which proves that your definition of "functions as a weapon" is what GW meant. And then provide another logical argument that we should use your interpretation of the RAI in this instance, as opposed to any other interpretation.

Once you've done that, and all your arguments stand, I will agree with you."

Nobody has done this yet.

@klawz & @gwar
Good work! Your reading comprehension has saved you again!

Lucky for us Exploding and Wrecked are vehicle upgrades, and so are clearly relevant to this discussion.

I keep forgetting I need to use small, concise sentences when @gwar might be involved.

Vehicle upgrades that function as weapons may be removed by a Weapon Destroyed result.

But nowhere does it say the Deff Rolla is a weapon. It doesn't fit the rules for either guns or DCCW, and if you are going to argue that something that only acts like a weapon is a weapon in a game, than I WILL go all rules-lawyer on you!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

paidinfull wrote:@klawz & @gwar
Good work! Your reading comprehension has saved you again!

Lucky for us Exploding and Wrecked are vehicle upgrades, and so are clearly relevant to this discussion.

I keep forgetting I need to use small, concise sentences when @gwar might be involved.

Vehicle upgrades that function as weapons may be removed by a Weapon Destroyed result.

But how does a weapon function?

paidinfull wrote:I'm curious how does the Deffrolla not function as a weapon per the definition of a weapon provided on p.27?

Ha, re-reading it's actually a pretty loose description but still take a look
BRB p61

3 - Damaged - Weapon Destroyed wrote:
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 weapons left, treat this result as an 'immobilized' result instead. This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles.

Now note the statement is not "count as weapons" but rather "function" like a weapon. Since the description of a weapon having a profile is irrelevant we have to look at the functions of the weapon.

Well the Deff Rolla has a Strength value(10) that functions identically to that of the strength of a weapon "when rolling to wound for shooting hits, use the weapon's Strength rather than the firer's." We're using S10 to do these hits instead of the Battlewagon's strength correct? It doesn't have a strength so we must be as the Battlewagon is causing the D6 hits. So that's one instance where it's clearly "functioning like a weapon." We have a maximum range "Base Contact" or 0", it doesn't work if the wagon hasn't made contact with it's target. We don't have an AP value so that's "-". Type is description of the weapon and not really a function of the weapon, but 3 out of 4 are functioning like a weapon"

It's funny, how is it NOT functioning like a weapon? Under the Tank Shock rules it even refer's to the tank being "aimed", with the obvious intent of coming into contact with an enemy unit.

The Wrecking Ball also "functions" like a weapon so could ALSO be removed. I'm confused how it can be argued any other way. That's like arguing with a Judge you can't be charged with "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" for beating someone with your shoe. "Well technically my shoe isn't a weapon" haha The Judge would say, "No, but it functioned like one when you used it to break the guys jaw, nose, orbital socket and cheekbone."

I'm pretty sure there's a section of the book called "Weapons" where they're defined as having a profile and a different section called "Special Close Combat Weapons". Your shoe, if it does anything other than provide you with +1 attack in close combat, is a "Special Close Combat Weapon".

All those things in the "Weapons" part of the book shoot and damage things at range and are defined as having a profile. Note that there is no subset of weapons called "ranged" and not really any support for an argument that the term "weapon" extends to anything other than ranged weapons.

The "functions as a weapon" examples in the vehicle damage description both have profiles, shoot and damage things at range.

The "Special Close Combat Weapons" section covers things that hurt you in close combat. Nothing in this section defines "close combat weapons" (special or otherwise)` as a subset of weapons. There's no support I can see for an argument that says the term "weapons" would include anything other than those things that have profiles. (I also don't think there's any support for inventing a "profile" for a deth-rolla given that they didn't put one in the army book.)

Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons are another separate entity. They're not part of the "Special Close Combat Weapons" group or the "Weapons" group. Their rules in the walkers section of the BRB allow them to be chosen as candidates for weapon destroyed results. There's no support for saying that DCCW are weapons or special close combat weapons.

If you go to the actual ork codex, you'll find that the distinction blurs and the authors list items that don't have profiles and indeed can't be used offensively (KFF) in the Weapons section. They don't put deth-rollas, reinforced rams, wreckin' balls, or any of the other items these arguments are trying to slide into the "weapons" category.


If we said that deth-rollas are weapons because they allow increased effectiveness in tank-shok/ramming, would we say that red paint jobs are too because they let me move farther and tank-shock more targets? If so, then there are a bunch more items in the same category that would suddenly prolong the lifespan of a damaged vehicle vs glancing hits.

If my battlewagon had a kustom force field and you wanted to blow it off with a weapon destroyed result, there would be an argument.

Dice cause wounds as well.
I think in my next game where i get a weapon damaged result, I'm going to tell my opponent that he can't use his dice anymore and thus has lost the game by default.

Preposterous, isn't it?


On a more serious note..
All i see now is people trying to make up their own definition of what "function as a weapon" means in order to support a very tenuous position.
The rules simply do not support that position.

The BRB defines what a weapon is, and how it functions.
The BRB discusses what happens when a player chooses a DCCW as the destroyed weapon.

A deffrolla does not fall within either of those categories.

I admit that there have been many spurious and downright silly comments regarding removing a person's vehicle because it could explode and do damage. I'm really surprised no one has tried to claim that passengers of a transport can be removed because they have weapons.


I've asked 3-4 times already in this thread for anyone to list a single example from an official source showing that something other than a "weapon" or DCCW being subject to a weapon destroyed to support their position. I've yet to see anyone give one.


I understand that people don't like the fact that deffrollas affect vehicles, but come on.
If you feel that a deffrolla running amok is going to be the be all and end all, then adjust your strategies accordingly.
The game evolves and so must you.

@waagh Well, to answer your questio about something other tan a weapon or a dccw being subjct to a weapon destroyed..its rather obvious. A hunter killer missile is listed right in the same paragraph that we are all discussing. And it just so happens that said missile isnt a weapon or a dccw. So what we are trying to do here is determine what other vehicle upgrades would also fall into this category of not being weapon yet still functioning as weapons.

And yes, talking about destroying dice is preposterous, since once again it doesnt belong in this thread. Or did I miss the part where dice are simehow a vehicle upgrade?

@sourclams Sorry to not have responded to you previously, as it seemed most likely that you were making a joke. But since you seem to be serious: UI neither know nor care if a straw man arguement involving an exploding vehicle is a weapon. Its totally irrelevant to the discussion and if you feel that strongly about it you should start a new thread about exploding vehicles



We are still seeing many arguements being raised that are diverting the thread badly...so many that I must wonder if people simply cant come up with good answers so they want to try and derail the thoughts here?



To some extent we do need to determine what constitutes "function as weapons" since it does seem likely that at least the wreckin ball would qualify.


Making ludricous comments that have no bearing on vehicle upgrades is entertaining, but not particularly helpful.



Sliggoth

jshbchnn wrote:
All those things in the "Weapons" part of the book shoot and damage things at range and are defined as having a profile. Note that there is no subset of weapons called "ranged" and not really any support for an argument that the term "weapon" extends to anything other than ranged weapons.

The "functions as a weapon" examples in the vehicle damage description both have profiles, shoot and damage things at range.

^^^^ This.

Rulebook Pg 27 "Every weapon has a profile that consists of several elements, for example: Name, Maximum Range, Strength, AP, Type" and gives the Boltgun stats.

The "functions as a weapon" examples both meet all the profile elements given as an example of a Weapon on pg 27.

Further quote: "All weapons are classified as either Rapid Fire, Pistol, Assault, Heavy, or Ordnance."

Observation: The Storm Bolter and Hunter Killer both have all the requirements of the Weapon section of the book: Name, Max Range, Strength, AP, and Type.

Further Observation: The Tau Flechette launcher, Ork Deff Rolla and Wreckin Ball, and Dark Eldar Slave Snares and Scythes, while causing damage of some sort do not meet the minimum listed requirements of Weapons on pg27 of the Rulebook as they lack one or more of the required profile elements.

Observed Logic Flaw: Equating the lack of a Maximum Range profile element to a vehicle wargear upgrade to Maximum Range profile element of zero inches.
Reason: A profile element is not the profile element value. A profile element is a container in which a value may be stored. The items without a profile element of "Maximum Range" cannot have a "Maximum Range" of zero inches since they lack the profile element to assign the value to. I understand this is not an easy concept for some, but database programmers and accountants will get this. You can't assign a value to a column if the column doesn't exist.

Conclusion: Storm Bolters and Hunter Killers are "function as" Weapon wargear upgrades. Deff Rollas, Wreckin Balls, Flechette Launchers, Slave Snares and Scythes are not.

Sliggoth wrote:@waagh Well, to answer your questio about something other tan a weapon or a dccw being subjct to a weapon destroyed..its rather obvious. A hunter killer missile is listed right in the same paragraph that we are all discussing. And it just so happens that said missile isnt a weapon or a dccw. So what we are trying to do here is determine what other vehicle upgrades would also fall into this category of not being weapon yet still functioning as weapons.

And yes, talking about destroying dice is preposterous, since once again it doesnt belong in this thread. Or did I miss the part where dice are simehow a vehicle upgrade?

@sourclams Sorry to not have responded to you previously, as it seemed most likely that you were making a joke. But since you seem to be serious: UI neither know nor care if a straw man arguement involving an exploding vehicle is a weapon. Its totally irrelevant to the discussion and if you feel that strongly about it you should start a new thread about exploding vehicles



We are still seeing many arguements being raised that are diverting the thread badly...so many that I must wonder if people simply cant come up with good answers so they want to try and derail the thoughts here?



To some extent we do need to determine what constitutes "function as weapons" since it does seem likely that at least the wreckin ball would qualify.


Making ludricous comments that have no bearing on vehicle upgrades is entertaining, but not particularly helpful.



Sliggoth

Wrong.
H-K missiles are single use weapons. They even have a weapon profile.
Your example doesn't hold water


Before anyone tries to claim that an h-k is not a weapon..

pg 58 brb


Optional Weapons
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).


In short, all of the "functions as weapons" listed in the weapon destroyed rule are
defined as optional weapons here.
The only variation from this is a DCCW, which is specifically said to be subject to it.

The Green Git wrote:

jshbchnn wrote:
All those things in the "Weapons" part of the book shoot and damage things at range and are defined as having a profile. Note that there is no subset of weapons called "ranged" and not really any support for an argument that the term "weapon" extends to anything other than ranged weapons.

The "functions as a weapon" examples in the vehicle damage description both have profiles, shoot and damage things at range.

^^^^ This.

Rulebook Pg 27 "Every weapon has a profile that consists of several elements, for example: Name, Maximum Range, Strength, AP, Type" and gives the Boltgun stats.

The "functions as a weapon" examples both meet all the profile elements given as an example of a Weapon on pg 27.

Further quote: "All weapons are classified as either Rapid Fire, Pistol, Assault, Heavy, or Ordnance."

Observation: The Storm Bolter and Hunter Killer both have all the requirements of the Weapon section of the book: Name, Max Range, Strength, AP, and Type.

Further Observation: The Tau Flechette launcher, Ork Deff Rolla and Wreckin Ball, and Dark Eldar Slave Snares and Scythes, while causing damage of some sort do not meet the minimum listed requirements of Weapons on pg27 of the Rulebook as they lack one or more of the required profile elements.

Observed Logic Flaw: Equating the lack of a Maximum Range profile element to a vehicle wargear upgrade to Maximum Range profile element of zero inches.
Reason: A profile element is not the profile element value. A profile element is a container in which a value may be stored. The items without a profile element of "Maximum Range" cannot have a "Maximum Range" of zero inches since they lack the profile element to assign the value to. I understand this is not an easy concept for some, but database programmers and accountants will get this. You can't assign a value to a column if the column doesn't exist.

Conclusion: Storm Bolters and Hunter Killers are "function as" Weapon wargear upgrades. Deff Rollas, Wreckin Balls, Flechette Launchers, Slave Snares and Scythes are not.

The only other things that can be destroyed are DCCW, because they said so.

Klawz wrote:The only other things that can be destroyed are DCCW, because they said so.

Thank you, and yes. There is a specific example of DCCW being selected but of course this is only for Walkers and is an exception.

The Green Git wrote:
Thank you, and yes. There is a specific example of DCCW being selected but of course this is only for Walkers and is an exception.

And this is the strongest argument against removing Deffrollas on a WDR; the norm is that you cannot blow wargear off of a vehicle, and where you are allowed to, it is because a specific rule explicitly allows you to. The Deffrolla has no such rule and is not classified as a weapon.

yakface wrote:

coredump wrote:I do not think it is a weapon.

But I do think it acts like one, and that is all the rules dictate.

The rules do not say "Weapons purchased as a vehicle upgrade",
they do not say "Vehicle upgrades that are also weapons", they say "Vehicle upgrades that 'act like' a weapon"

I see no need to be able to define the deff rolla as a weapon in order for it to act like a weapon.

I think it is unfortunate that their examples are both of vehicles upgrades that *are* weapons, but that does not change what the rule actually says.

So boarding planks are weapons? Grabba Claws? Flechette Launchers? Frag Assault Launchers?

Where is the imaginary line drawn if the vehicle upgrade doesn't have to actually be a weapon?

I agree with your point, it may be a 'cleaner' rule if we only count things that are weapons, or have a weapon stat line. Less grey area, an easier break point. I just don't think it is the best way otherwise.

To me, to 'function' like a weapon basically means it is doing damage to the target.

Boarding plank? No, it just allows a model to attack
Grabba Klaw? No, it holds something still, but to me that is not 'functioning' like a weapon, it does no damage.
Flechette launchers? Yes.
Frag Assault Launchers? No. Again, they do not do damage.

I think if an upgrade is used to damage the enemy, that is the same function as a weapon.

coredump wrote:
To me, to 'function' like a weapon basically means it is doing damage to the target.

Ok, THIS is the crux of the issue. Where in the rules is this definition? Where do you get it from?

BeRzErKeR wrote:

coredump wrote:
To me, to 'function' like a weapon basically means it is doing damage to the target.

Ok, THIS is the crux of the issue. Where in the rules is this definition? Where do you get it from?

Simple, I don't.

The rules are clear, you can remove an upgrade if it 'functions like a weapon'

They rules are not clear, however, on what it means to 'function like a weapon'.

[This happens all the time, for instance the rules are also clear about front side rear armor, but not so clear on how to figure it out. (ala devilfish, etc.)]

So, what the debate *really* should be about, is what *does* it mean for something to "function like a weapon".
Note: this is not the same as *being* a weapon, or meeting the definition of a weapon.

For me, I tried to decide, what is the main function of a weapon? My answer was 'to cause damage to the enemy'.

Does anyone else have a better response?

Double post.

Well, actually, the obvious answer is in fact that something which "functions like a weapon" does so by meeting the criteria for being a weapon.

Failing that, something could "function like a weapon" by doing the same kind of thing that the objects described under "weapons" do. So, for instance, a Weirdboy's Frazzle power "functions like a weapon" because it does exactly the same thing as a weapon. This also brings us back to the point that something can only "function like a weapon", under this definition, by meeting all the criteria for BEING a weapon. . . making it a weapon.

In short, my argument is that "functions like a weapon" is simply clarification text ensuring that nobdoy tries to argue that hunter-killer missiles, pintle-mounted storm bolters, and the like are NOT "weapons", because they are upgrades, and thus cannot be removed on a Weapon Destroyed result. "Functions like a weapon" basically means, in the Warhammer 40k ruleset, "is a weapon".

Why? Becaause we are given no other context in which to interpret the phrase. A "weapon" is defined, along with several similar things that (importantly) are not actually weapons. We know what weapons do. But Deffrollas and similar upgrades don't do the exact same thing! So, how much "like" a "weapon" do you have to be to function "like" a "weapon"? I don't think simply inflicting hits cuts the mustard.

Something important to note; we cannot simply use the dictionary definition of "weapon" here. The dictionary frankly has little to do with Warhammer 40k. A "Weapon" is entirely separate from a "Close-Combat Weapon", which is itself distinct from a "Dreadnought Close-Combat Weapon". Simple English would indicate that the latter two are subtypes, but in Warhammer 40k that's not the case.

You're basing your argument off of your personal interpretation of the rules; that is, your opinion as to the RAI. That's not sufficient. We're looking for RAW here. Since the RAW are unclear, I propose we default to the most literal interpretation which allows the game to proceed; that is, that in order to "function like a weapon" an object must BE a "Weapon".

coredump wrote:
For me, I tried to decide, what is the main function of a weapon? My answer was 'to cause damage to the enemy'.

Does anyone else have a better response?

As has already been explored, if the only criteria for something to be a weapon is whether or not that thing causes damage to an enemy, then dangerous terrain, vehicle explodes results, sweeping advances, and Gets Hot! rolls would all be classified as weapons. Since at least one of these things is quite clearly not a weapon by conventional understanding, there has to be some other component. GW defines that component as a weapon profile.

sourclams wrote:As has already been explored, if the only criteria for something to be a weapon is whether or not that thing causes damage to an enemy, then dangerous terrain, vehicle explodes results, sweeping advances, and Gets Hot! rolls would all be classified as weapons.

But not as Vehicle Upgrades that count as weapons, which is the actual criteria for removal under discussion...

Without weighing in on either side (because frankly, at this point I'm a little undecided as to the best way to play it), that's the thing that seems to be consistently overlooked in this thread. The argument isn't that anything that causes damage can be removed by a Weapon Destroyed result. The argument is that Weapon Destroyed results apply to Weapons and to vehicle upgrades that function as weapons... and that in that context any upgrade that causes damage can be said to be a weapon.

So can we please stop with the claims that this somehow applies to anything that isn't a vehicle upgrade?

insaniak wrote:

But not as Vehicle Upgrades that count as weapons, which is the actual criteria for removal under discussion...

Without weighing in on either side (because frankly, at this point I'm a little undecided as to the best way to play it), that's the thing that seems to be consistently overlooked in this thread. The argument isn't that anything that causes damage can be removed by a Weapon Destroyed result. The argument is that Weapon Destroyed results apply to Weapons and to vehicle upgrades that function as weapons... and that in that context any upgrade that causes damage can be said to be a weapon.

So can we please stop with the claims that this somehow applies to anything that isn't a vehicle upgrade?

Correct on all counts. My counter-argument is that saying that merely causing damage is grounds for saying something "acts like a weapon" is not supported in the rules, and stricter readings are preferable in places where the rules are unclear. The stricter reading is that "weapon" and "acts like a weapon" are redundant, and "acts like a weapon" essentially means "is a weapon". This requires a vehicle upgrade to BE a weapon, as defined in the BRB, in order to be removed by a Weapon Destroyed result.

So you think that they are weapons?

I understand what you're saying; only if it's a vehicle upgrade is it eligible for a Destroyed result, but if we all agree that these things aren't weapons then the premise by which a Deffrolla "functions as a weapon" is equally preposterous.

These effects aren't eligible because they're neither vehicle upgrades nor weapons. The Deffrolla isn't eligible because although it is a vehicle upgrade, it's still not a weapon.

Not sure if I said it or not, but this is a total, "counts as jump infantry" argument.

An unit that is equipped with an item that makes them count as jump infantry is still the unit they were and is never jump infantry. They may count as jump infantry, but are never truly jump infantry.

A vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon, is never a weapon. It may function as a weapon, but it is never truly a weapon.

So while you want to wave in the what weapon profiles are for weapons, do not wave them in the air for a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon. It isn't a weapon, it is a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon.

Now for the storm bolter and missile crowd, read the rule again:

"...functions as a weapon, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles."

That sentence structure is not a definitive of what constitutes a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon. The specific use of "such as" followed by two examples does not limit you to those two examples. With this reasoning, you are saying that the only army that has vehicle upgrades that can function as weapons are Space Marines since no other army has pintle mounted storm bolters and hunter-killer missiles.

BeRzErKeR wrote: My counter-argument is that saying that merely causing damage is grounds for saying something "acts like a weapon" is not supported in the rules, and stricter readings are preferable in places where the rules are unclear. The stricter reading is that "weapon" and "acts like a weapon" are redundant, and "acts like a weapon" essentially means "is a weapon". This requires a vehicle upgrade to BE a weapon, as defined in the BRB, in order to be removed by a Weapon Destroyed result.

Please note that I am in no way limiting the possibilities only to pintle-mounted storm bolters and HK missiles. Big shootas and rokkit launchas fall into this category, as do big gunz and killkannons on Battlewagons, and I do not list examples for other armies only because I am largely unfamiliar with them.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote: My counter-argument is that saying that merely causing damage is grounds for saying something "acts like a weapon" is not supported in the rules, and stricter readings are preferable in places where the rules are unclear. The stricter reading is that "weapon" and "acts like a weapon" are redundant, and "acts like a weapon" essentially means "is a weapon". This requires a vehicle upgrade to BE a weapon, as defined in the BRB, in order to be removed by a Weapon Destroyed result.

Please note that I am in no way limiting the possibilities only to pintle-mounted storm bolters and HK missiles. Big shootas and rokkit launchas fall into this category, as do big gunz and killkannons on Battlewagons, and I do not list examples for other armies only because I am largely unfamiliar with them.

And with your assertation that,

The stricter reading is that "weapon" and "acts like a weapon" are redundant, and "acts like a weapon" essentially means "is a weapon".

is really the downfall of your argument. As I pointed out, the use of "counts as" and "functions as" throughout the BRB has consistently been that they ONLY "count as", but never actually are whatever they are being counted as. So, you cannot use the definitive definition for a weapon when something only "functions as a weapon".

Brother Ramses wrote:Not sure if I said it or not, but this is a total, "counts as jump infantry" argument.

An unit that is equipped with an item that makes them count as jump infantry is still the unit they were and is never jump infantry. They may count as jump infantry, but are never truly jump infantry.

A vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon, is never a weapon. It may function as a weapon, but it is never truly a weapon.

So while you want to wave in the what weapon profiles are for weapons, do not wave them in the air for a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon. It isn't a weapon, it is a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon.

So what does functioning as a weapon mean? The rulebook doesn't define it... so we look at the definitions for weapons, of which a deff rolla meets none, or even any of the many requirements.

The options presented are:
Use the rules in the rulebook for weapons and the examples given to determine whether something is weaponlike enough to count.
Or
Use a completely arbitrary and subjective claim based entirely on qualifications the rules never mention to determine if something is weaponlike enough on a case-by-case basis.

Brother Ramses wrote:Now for the storm bolter and missile crowd, read the rule again:

"...functions as a weapon, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles."

That sentence structure is not a definitive of what constitutes a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon. The specific use of "such as" followed by two examples does not limit you to those two examples. With this reasoning, you are saying that the only army that has vehicle upgrades that can function as weapons are Space Marines since no other army has pintle mounted storm bolters and hunter-killer missiles.

Sure... but what does that sentence mean then? It means that pintle-mounted storm bolters and hunter-killer missles both have common attributes that clue the reader into what "functions like a weapon" really means.

Both have the weapon stat line. Neither are missing anything from the stat line.

I can with 100% certainty say my interpretation of the sentence (all such upgrades must have a complete weapon stat line) is in total harmony with all attributes of the two examples given. Can you say the same about a Deff Rolla, Flechette Launcher or Slave Snare? No.

The Green Git wrote:
Both have the weapon stat line. Neither are missing anything from the stat line.

So, the only way for you to accept this would be if the rule clarifications specifically listed the deffrolla with a stat line?

Does anyone else wonder if the GW authors are trolling these sites, laughing their butts off at all the bickering?

The Green Git wrote:Sure... but what does that sentence mean then? It means that pintle-mounted storm bolters and hunter-killer missles both have common attributes that clue the reader into what "functions like a weapon" really means.

Both have the weapon stat line. Neither are missing anything from the stat line.

I can with 100% certainty say my interpretation of the sentence (all such upgrades must have a complete weapon stat line) is in total harmony with all attributes of the two examples given.

Here's another way of interpreting that:

------------------------------------------------------
What does that sentence mean then? It means that pintle-mounted storm bolters and hunter-killer missles both have common attributes that clue the reader into what "functions like a weapon" really means.

Both can potentially damage an enemy model.

I can with 100% certainty say that interpretation of the sentence (all such upgrades must be capable of damaging enemy models) is in total harmony with the attributes of the two examples given, and with upgrades like the Deff Rolla...
------------------------------------------------------

Again, not saying I agree with that interpretation... but it fits your break-down just as well as your chosen criteria.

No they cry with a mixed combination or glee and pain, the pain for how such a collection of bull-headed poor reading level dopes could try to play their game while at the same time they are so happy because anyone of that level is doomed to continue spending money on them.


My point is there are very very very solid easy to follow arguments for both RaW and RaI.

You are continuing to argue a counter-point without addressing the arguments presented 'no your wrong it's like this' is not addressing a point. your engaging in a shouting match while almost everyone else is engaged in discussion.

Also you still haven't addressed the fact that your original agument was based on a fallacy.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Well, actually, the obvious answer is in fact that something which "functions like a weapon" does so by meeting the criteria for being a weapon.

I disagree. Granted, if it meets the criteria for *being* a weapon, it obviously will function like a weapon. But the reverse is not necessarily true. When I use my hands to drink from a faucet, they 'function' like a cup; my hands don't have to meet the criteria of being a cup, to function like one.

In short, my argument is that "functions like a weapon" is simply clarification text ensuring that nobdoy tries to argue that hunter-killer missiles, pintle-mounted storm bolters, and the like are NOT "weapons", because they are upgrades, and thus cannot be removed on a Weapon Destroyed result. "Functions like a weapon" basically means, in the Warhammer 40k ruleset, "is a weapon

Could be. That is a reasonable interpretation. Though if that was their intent, I think there would be better ways to state it. "Weapons purchased as a vehicle upgrade can also be removed. Such as a...."
But the purposefully used the term 'function like a..." Makes me think they had a somewhat wider meaning.

So, how much "like" a "weapon" do you have to be to function "like" a "weapon"? I don't think simply inflicting hits cuts the mustard.

Ah.... and that is the crux of the question.

What does it mean to 'function' like a weapon?

You're basing your argument off of your personal interpretation of the rules; that is, your opinion as to the RAI. That's not sufficient. We're looking for RAW here. Since the RAW are unclear, I propose we default to the most literal interpretation which allows the game to proceed; that is, that in order to "function like a weapon" an object must BE a "Weapon".

Careful, you state I am using personal interpretation, but then continue to state the RAW is unclear. Therefore no matter what we come up with, it is based on personal interpretation. My interpretation is something can have the function of a weapon, without being a weapon. Your interpretation is that only a weapon can function like a weapon.

To me, when you boil down the purpose of a weapon, when you get to the essence of it function, it is to inflict damage on the enemy. So that is how I view it.

A vehicle upgrade that inflicts damage on the enemy, can also be removed.

Sure... but what does that sentence mean then? It means that pintle-mounted storm bolters and hunter-killer missles both have common attributes that clue the reader into what "functions like a weapon" really means.

Both have the weapon stat line. Neither are missing anything from the stat line.

Yes they have common attributes, the both function to damage the enemy. I really don't see how having a stat line can be equated with what its function is. That may meet a definition, but not its function. Function is what something does and/or how it does it. A stat line is none of those things

I can with 100% certainty say my interpretation of the sentence (all such upgrades must have a complete weapon stat line) is in total harmony with all attributes of the two examples given. Can you say the same about a Deff Rolla, Flechette Launcher or Slave Snare? No

But you are using a circular argument. Of course things defined as a weapon will function like a weapon; but that defeats the entire meaning of the term 'function like a..'

"Everything that functions like a door stop" Surely that includes things that don't meet the definition of a door stop
Things that function as a step stool. Surely that includes things that don't meet the defintion of a step stool
Things that function as a blanket...
etc
etc

Yes, I can guarantee that a blanket will function like a blanket; just like I can guarantee a weapon (pintle mounted storm bolter) will function like a weapon. But a coat can funtion like a blanket, and a deff rolla can function like a weapon.

Brother Ramses wrote:

And with your assertation that,

The stricter reading is that "weapon" and "acts like a weapon" are redundant, and "acts like a weapon" essentially means "is a weapon".

is really the downfall of your argument. As I pointed out, the use of "counts as" and "functions as" throughout the BRB has consistently been that they ONLY "count as", but never actually are whatever they are being counted as. So, you cannot use the definitive definition for a weapon when something only "functions as a weapon".

But we're not discussing things that "count as" weapons. We're discussing things which "act like" weapons. That frustratingly vague language is, in fact, the whole reason the discussion has gone on so long.

Hmm, reading the DCCW rule.....its kind of interesting. There is nothing there that tells us that there is anything unusual about picking the dccw as a weapon destroyed result. So it appears that the BRB is already fine with a dccw being destroyed....the rule on pg 73 in the box is merely to tell us that the entire arm is destroyed.


Sliggoth

So let's leave the rolling pins in the kitchen where they belong and go play some good old fashioned grimdark dakka dakka warhams.

The problem, as I see it, is people are assigning their "real world" interpretation of what a weapon is and how it functions.
That in and of itself violates the rules of ymdc.

The BRB defines what a weapon is and how it functions in game terms. That is the definition that must be used.

Except....it appears that the DCCW on its own may be considered a weapon by the BRB. Read the rules in the box on pg 73, it appears to take for granted that a player can choose the dccw as a weapon destroyed result, its only providing new rules as to what happens to the other weapons in that arm of the dreadnought.

40k unfortunately is not a well written rules set. At points the authors are very sloppy with their terms, there are all too many times that they use words interchangeably just because they seem to feel like it.


Sliggoth

The problem with the argument of trying to define what 'functioning like a weapon' means is that there can be no definitive answer given the rules we currently have. You can try to draw a line in the sand and say: 'well, weapons cause hits so therefore any vehicle upgrade that causes hits is functioning like a weapon' or 'all weapons cause damage, so any vehicle upgrade that cause damage are functioning like a weapon.'

Unfortunately, all of these arguments have no basis to stand on. The fact is, weapons in the game of 40K can do all sorts of crazy things. A weapon could just automatically cause pinning, doing no damage to the enemy, and weapons can certainly have special rules that don't cause hits. In fact, the game designers can write weapon rules that do just about anything and everything...hell, you could even take this to absurdity and say that all weapons involve rolling dice, so therefore any vehicle upgrades that involve rolling dice are functioning as a weapon.


In other words, trying to define what 'functions like a weapon' is a completely and utterly futile adventure and you can only ever accomplish in determining what you feel it means. This feeling is never going to be something concrete that you can ever expect a stranger to agree on without a discussion.

So everyone can feel free to keep arguing this idea for a thousand pages, you aren't going to ever come to any sort of conclusion.


On the other hand, the game does provide us with a clear definition of what 'weapons' are as defined on page 27. So if a vehicle upgrade has a weapon profile we can concretely say that it is functioning as a weapon and nobody can possibly argue that point.

Beyond that, any upgrade (or any other item in the game) that is called a 'weapon' is clearly a 'weapon' from the simple fact that, uh, it is called a 'weapon' and therefore is a weapon (and weapons can be destroyed by a 'weapon destroyed' damage result).


So on one side you have a concept that can never possibly be defined except within one's own personal standards, as technically 'weapons' can function in any possible way in the game of 40K.

On the other side you have a real quantifiable game defined way of telling what is a weapon or not, that no one can possibly have a claim that any of these items aren't weapons.


To me there is no question...one interpretation is essentially unplayable when taken to its logical extreme (except to say that *all* vehicle upgrades are potentially destroyable) and the other interpretation has a very clear delineation of what is/isn't acceptable and falls within the confines of the existing framework of the game.


But continue on...

I do feel, that yakface is correct. I also feel that for the sake of balance, especially if you can just keep going until you stop when ramming, the deffrolla should be destroyable.

Edit: Went back and read the ram rules...I was wrong

Aside from that, I agree with Yakface...continue on, it's entertaining :3

IMO an upgrade that is "Functioning like a weapon" would imply that it can act independantly of the vehicle, both examples given h-k missiles and pm bolter operate entirely on their own. however if a BW is immobilized can you still deal damage with the deffrolla? so i would argue that though the deffrolla is an upgrade it does not "function like a weapon" and that the BW itself is what is "funtioning like a weapon" during the tank shock.

insaniak wrote:Here's another way of interpreting that: <sillyness snipped for brevity>

Yes... but that way of "interpreting" it broadens the interpretation to include items NOT in the examples. My way of interpreting it in no way broadens the examples, and in no way goes contrary to the examples in any aspect.

Your way differs from the examples in potentially many aspects (need not have Maximum range or other aspects of Weapon as defined in the Weapon definition). I'd again remind you that picking merely one aspect of a Weapon as defined in the 40K book does not make other items "function as" weapons. It just makes them share a common single attribute... they do damage.

Example of my logic: All ducks are birds, can fly, have webbed feet, and quack. Ducks are ducks. Chickens are not.

Example of your logic: All ducks are birds, can fly, have webbed feet, and quack. Ducks and chickens are ducks because they are both birds.

Rules wise, there is no indication that a Deff Rolla is a weapon. Stating b/c is inflicts a S10 hit makes it a weapon doesn't cut the mustard. Any tank that rams a vehicle conducts a (insert #)S hit as well. But, it is clear we would not consider the tank a weapon in regards to a 'Weapon Destroyed' result.

Tank peforming a ram does not equate weapon.
Deff Rolla utilized in a ram does not equate weapon.

yakface wrote:To me there is no question...one interpretation is essentially unplayable when taken to its logical extreme (except to say that *all* vehicle upgrades are potentially destroyable) and the other interpretation has a very clear delineation of what is/isn't acceptable and falls within the confines of the existing framework of the game.

My entire reasoning and basis for the assertion that without an outer boundary that is clearly defined we must fall back to what IS clearly defined.

The same reason I don't like powers and other effects occurring to embarked troops... the rules simply do not tell us what happens in certain circumstances, leaving personal opinions and guesswork as the only answers. The simplest and most effective answer is to fall back to a position that the rules DO cover.

Personally, I play with orks. I do not use a deffrolla right now. When I start using rollas, I will leave it up to my opponent to determine if it is destroyable or not. I would let it be his (or her) call at the beginning of the game and then go with it. That way, if there was any controversy later in the game, it was never my decision so I would not have to entertain any whining.

I think the bigger question that needs to be addressed is whether or not the deffrolla hits stack with a ramming attack and in what order are they resolved.

Again... for those in the back, or those who cannot read small print or those who just skim posts waiting for their chance to speak again...

A DEFF ROLLA IS NOT A WEAPON IT DOES NOT DO DAMAGE TO ANYTHING! THE BATTLEWAGON PERFORMS THE TANKSHOCK/RAM AND DOES THE DAMAGE. THE DEFF ROLLA ENHANCES THE DAMAGE DONE BY THE BATTLEWAGON.

PER THE ORK CODEX P.55
Deff Rolla: A Deff Rolla is a great spiked roller that brings the collossal weight of the Battlewagon to bear on anything in its way. A Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla may re-roll Dangerous Terrain tests. Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit. If the unit elects to make a Death or Glory attack, it takes a further D6 Strength 10 hits in addition to the usual effects.

witchcore wrote: both examples given h-k missiles and pm bolter operate entirely on their own.

No they don't. They just act as additional weapons.

The Green Git wrote:Your way ...

I should point out again that it's not actually 'my' way. Just the opposing argument in play. I already said I don't actually entirely agree with it.

Doc Rogers wrote:...stuff in too large a font

Writing it larger doesn't make it any more correct, and just irritates people.

For what it's worth, saying that the Battlewagon causes the damage is still only one way of looking at it. A Space Marine hitting something with a powersword causes a S4 wound on whatever he hits... but the Space Marine is not the thing that actually does the damage. The Space Marine performs the action, but the powersword causes the damage. In the same way, the Battlewagon performs the action (Tank Shock) but it's the Deff Rolla that actually causes the damage.

The statline argument is far more relevant.

Doc Rogers wrote:Again... for those in the back, or those who cannot read small print or those who just skim posts waiting for their chance to speak again...

A DEFF ROLLA IS NOT A WEAPON IT DOES NOT DO DAMAGE TO ANYTHING! THE BATTLEWAGON PERFORMS THE TANKSHOCK/RAM AND DOES THE DAMAGE. THE DEFF ROLLA ENHANCES THE DAMAGE DONE BY THE BATTLEWAGON.

PER THE ORK CODEX P.55
Deff Rolla: A Deff Rolla is a great spiked roller that brings the collossal weight of the Battlewagon to bear on anything in its way. A Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla may re-roll Dangerous Terrain tests. Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit. If the unit elects to make a Death or Glory attack, it takes a further D6 Strength 10 hits in addition to the usual effects.

Seriously, no need to be insulting.

But, the FAQ which "clarified" everything, explicitly states "The deffrolla inflicts d6 S10 hits....." So there!

Well i went through an actually read all the extra walls of txt with people arguing over the price of tea in china...so lets cut to the chase and just post these simple definitions up and then continue this logical debate.


Define Function
Function: "the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists;role."


Synonyms of Function (since this seems to be the word in question)
operation
behave
role
utility

Define Weapon
Weapon: 1. "any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon."

2."anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire. "




Now in the definition of weapon, First definition i would like to point to the words 'any instrument or device' that has very important bearings on a deff rolla.

Second definition id like to point out keywords 'anything used against', this also has very important implications upon the deff rolla as it is an additional object (wargear) being used by said assailant to inflict additional harm to the enemy.

Now that we have taken the pieces of the definition of weapon that allows us to try and bring the deff rolla into the catagory of a 'weapon' let us now continue to evaluate the problem by checking the definition of 'function'.

I would like to highlight the portion towards the end of the definition of function 'something is designed or exists;role' This would include the def rolla because it is a piece of wargear designed to inflict additional damage upon an enemy. so its function is to increase harm.

Thus by its Function, and the definition of weapon we can therefor make the logical conclusion that by written language definitions the deff rolla is a weapon.

Unless someone else wants to try and argue with definitions.

Regardless of the rule issues with the Deff Rolla being removed as a weapon destroyed or not what some people don't get that if it is allowed to be taken out by a WDR the game of 40k becomes broken.

Green is Best! wrote:

But, the FAQ which "clarified" everything, explicitly states "The deffrolla inflicts d6 S10 hits....." So there!

Sir I have already pointed out your fallacy in relation to that comment and you didn't adress it then, would you care to try now?

orkcommander wrote:Regardless of the rule issues with the Deff Rolla being removed as a weapon destroyed or not what some people don't get that if it is allowed to be taken out by a WDR the game of 40k becomes broken.

God forbid we make it stop being the well oiled machine that it currently is......

Either Exploding is a weapon, or a vindicator battlecannon isn't. A battlecannon isn't an upgrade, it comes with the stock tank.

TopC wrote:Well i went through an actually read all the extra walls of txt with people arguing over the price of tea in china...so lets cut to the chase and just post these simple definitions up and then continue this logical debate.


Define Function
Function: "the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists;role."


Synonyms of Function (since this seems to be the word in question)
operation
behave
role
utility

Define Weapon
Weapon: 1. "any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon."

2."anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire. "




Now in the definition of weapon, First definition i would like to point to the words 'any instrument or device' that has very important bearings on a deff rolla.

Second definition id like to point out keywords 'anything used against', this also has very important implications upon the deff rolla as it is an additional object (wargear) being used by said assailant to inflict additional harm to the enemy.

Now that we have taken the pieces of the definition of weapon that allows us to try and bring the deff rolla into the catagory of a 'weapon' let us now continue to evaluate the problem by checking the definition of 'function'.

I would like to highlight the portion towards the end of the definition of function 'something is designed or exists;role' This would include the def rolla because it is a piece of wargear designed to inflict additional damage upon an enemy. so its function is to increase harm.

Thus by its Function, and the definition of weapon we can therefor make the logical conclusion that by written language definitions the deff rolla is a weapon.

Unless someone else wants to try and argue with definitions.

alas people will continue to argue moot cyclical arguments while skipping over this ordered and logical one...i love dakka dakka.

ChrisCP wrote:

Green is Best! wrote:

But, the FAQ which "clarified" everything, explicitly states "The deffrolla inflicts d6 S10 hits....." So there!

Sir I have already pointed out your fallacy in relation to that comment and you didn't adress it then, would you care to try now?

I must have missed it so I am not sure what fallacy you are talking about.

Every statement I have made about this is like I said above, the FAQ clearly states what is inflicting the d6 S10 hits. People are arguing (IN REALLY LOUD VOICES!!!!) that the battlewagon is inflicting the damage and I am simply stating the FAQ does not say that.

To which, I get responses about rules, weapon definitions, etc.

So, I ask you, what part of this statement is false:

The FAQ clearly states that "the deffrolla does indeed inflict d6 S10 hits on vehicles...."

TopC wrote:
Define Function
Function: "the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists;role."


Synonyms of Function (since this seems to be the word in question)
operation
behave
role
utility

Define Weapon
Weapon: 1. "any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon."

2."anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire. "




Now in the definition of weapon, First definition i would like to point to the words 'any instrument or device' that has very important bearings on a deff rolla.

Second definition id like to point out keywords 'anything used against', this also has very important implications upon the deff rolla as it is an additional object (wargear) being used by said assailant to inflict additional harm to the enemy.

Now that we have taken the pieces of the definition of weapon that allows us to try and bring the deff rolla into the catagory of a 'weapon' let us now continue to evaluate the problem by checking the definition of 'function'.

I would like to highlight the portion towards the end of the definition of function 'something is designed or exists;role' This would include the def rolla because it is a piece of wargear designed to inflict additional damage upon an enemy. so its function is to increase harm.

Thus by its Function, and the definition of weapon we can therefor make the logical conclusion that by written language definitions the deff rolla is a weapon.

Unless someone else wants to try and argue with definitions.

So TopC has solved it by his definitions, any and all wargear/vehicle upgrades function as weapons and can be destroyed via a weapons destroyed role, because smoke launchers would aid in defence of the tank, and search lights would aid in an attack, boarding planks aid in attacks ect.....

witchcore wrote:

So TopC has solved it by his definitions, any and all wargear functions as a weapon and can be destroyed via a weapons destroyed role, because smoke launchers would aid in defence of the tank, and search lights would aid in an attack, boarding planks aid in attacks ect.....

Which was my whole point before.

If you believe the Deff Rolla can be destroyed because it functions as a weapon then you have to allow all vehicle upgrades to be destroyed because of the broad definitions being used to formulate this argument.

witchcore wrote:

TopC wrote:
Define Function
Function: "the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists;role."


Synonyms of Function (since this seems to be the word in question)
operation
behave
role
utility

Define Weapon
Weapon: 1. "any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon."

2."anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire. "




Now in the definition of weapon, First definition i would like to point to the words 'any instrument or device' that has very important bearings on a deff rolla.

Second definition id like to point out keywords 'anything used against', this also has very important implications upon the deff rolla as it is an additional object (wargear) being used by said assailant to inflict additional harm to the enemy.

Now that we have taken the pieces of the definition of weapon that allows us to try and bring the deff rolla into the catagory of a 'weapon' let us now continue to evaluate the problem by checking the definition of 'function'.

I would like to highlight the portion towards the end of the definition of function 'something is designed or exists;role' This would include the def rolla because it is a piece of wargear designed to inflict additional damage upon an enemy. so its function is to increase harm.

Thus by its Function, and the definition of weapon we can therefor make the logical conclusion that by written language definitions the deff rolla is a weapon.

Unless someone else wants to try and argue with definitions.

So TopC has solved it by his definitions, any and all wargear functions as a weapon and can be destroyed via a weapons destroyed role, because smoke launchers would aid in defence of the tank, and search lights would aid in an attack, boarding planks aid in attacks ect.....

then this gets taken a step further.... search light can only be used as a weapon for 1 turn (or 100% night fight)
Boarding plank is arguable only a weapon if there are orks in said vehicle because otherwise its just a plank and is not able to be used as a weapon
smoke launchers, yep but after they have been used they are consumed and no longer a defensive system
etc
etc
etc

I was merely trying to point out that by definition a deff rolla does function as a weapon though.. to at least lay that argument to rest

yakface wrote:

If you believe the Deff Rolla can be destroyed because it functions as a weapon then you have to allow all vehicle upgrades to be destroyed because of the broad definitions being used to formulate this argument.

I reject your false choices Sir!

I would say the counter argument would be that because a Deffrolla is a vehicle upgrade that inflicts d6 S10 hits, it is functioning as a weapon. Smoke Launchers, grabbing klaws, et al, while upgrades, do not inflict hits so are not functioning as weapons in a 40k sense.

But again, if we were playing with deffrollas, I would just ask you what your opinion was and go with it. I could care less which way it goes as both results have their pros and cons, just as long as we make a decision (preferably before the game starts) and stick with it.

Green is Best! wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

Green is Best! wrote:

But, the FAQ which "clarified" everything, explicitly states "The deffrolla inflicts d6 S10 hits....." So there!

Sir I have already pointed out your fallacy in relation to that comment and you didn't adress it then, would you care to try now?

I must have missed it so I am not sure what fallacy you are talking about.

Every statement I have made about this is like I said above, the FAQ clearly states what is inflicting the d6 S10 hits. People are arguing (IN REALLY LOUD VOICES!!!!) that the battlewagon is inflicting the damage and I am simply stating the FAQ does not say that.

To which, I get responses about rules, weapon definitions, etc.

So, I ask you, what part of this statement is false:

The FAQ clearly states that "the deffrolla does indeed inflict d6 S10 hits on vehicles...."

The codex states that the BW inflicts d6 S10 hits as a result of having Deff Rolla equipped.

Even though the FAQ is newer then the codex the language in the codex over rules the FAQ since the FAQ isn't official rules.

ChrisCP wrote:By your own statment the FAQ was "designed to clear up an open ended interpretation. "
Which was:
"Can you use the Deffrolla when Ramming
vehicles or does it only work when Tank
Shocking non-vehicle units?"
The answer being:
"The death rolla does indeed inflict D6 S10 hits
against vehicles, as Ramming is just a type of
Tank Shock."

See how the bit of clarification actually has nothing to do with the Rolla it's just telling people (again) the Yes a Ramm is a type of Tank-Shock.

What you are doing is wanting to take a piece of the reply and apply it to a different situation while using it as justification for you point, you are performing a contextomy in the form of an appeal to authority.

There you are. And as Orkcommander has poiunted out for you again <3
And I'll mention to everyone again - Deff Rollas have Always worked against vehicles, and people have been trying to take them for wepon destroyed before now, nothing new and I don't works

Green is Best! wrote:

yakface wrote:

If you believe the Deff Rolla can be destroyed because it functions as a weapon then you have to allow all vehicle upgrades to be destroyed because of the broad definitions being used to formulate this argument.

I reject your false choices Sir!

I would say the counter argument would be that because a Deffrolla is a vehicle upgrade that inflicts d6 S10 hits, it is functioning as a weapon. Smoke Launchers, grabbing klaws, et al, while upgrades, do not inflict hits so are not functioning as weapons in a 40k sense.

But again, if we were playing with deffrollas, I would just ask you what your opinion was and go with it. I could care less which way it goes as both results have their pros and cons, just as long as we make a decision (preferably before the game starts) and stick with it.

Again, not all weapons inflict hits, so your argument is a fallacy.

Also, if you want to play the absurdity game you can say that all weapons involve rolling dice, so all vehicle upgrades that involve rolling dice are functioning as a weapon.


The argument has no foundation in anything quantifiable.

insaniak wrote:

witchcore wrote: both examples given h-k missiles and pm bolter operate entirely on their own.

No they don't. They just act as additional weapons.

The point I was trying to make was that the upgrades GW listed for functioning like weapons seem to have one thing in common, and that is that they can cause damage with out action taken from the BW, (BW stays still or is immobile) weapons can still fire and cause damage. how ever the deff rolla cannot cause damage on its own without an action taken from the battle wagon.

That brings up an interesting question: if bw with a deffrolla is rammed from the front, what does the deffrolla do?

A vehicle being rammed inflicts a hit back on the ramming vehicle....does the deffrolla operate as well? I know under the original codex rules for the deffrolla it would seem to not, but the faq wording changes things a bit.



Sliggoth

insaniak wrote:

The Green Git wrote:Your way ...

I should point out again that it's not actually 'my' way. Just the opposing argument in play. I already said I don't actually entirely agree with it.

Nothing personal mr. Insaniak Mod person, but you are playing semantics here. It's your post, your name on the post, your argument that I addressed. Whether you are playing "Devil's Advocate" or not, it's you that typed the keystrokes.

If it makes you feel any better just pass my argument along to Satan for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sliggoth wrote:That brings up an interesting question: if bw with a deffrolla is rammed from the front, what does the deffrolla do?

RAW, nothing. It says when a BW does the tank shocking it inflicts D6 S10 hits. Says nothing about it receiving a tank shock, and since 40K is a permissive rule set (can't do it unless it says you are allowed to) then it doesn't do anything.

Another point to be cleared up still then: if we are taking vehicle upgrades that function as a weapon to only include those vehicle upgrades with a weapon statline, how much of a statline do we need?


The first question would be the wreckin ball. It has stats for its Str, its range and defines what roll is needed to hit. It operates in the cc phase, so it covers in and of itself all the stats needed for this type of weapon. Is this sufficient for the rule, or is the lack of the word "weapon" going to not allow consideration?



Sliggoth

Doc Rogers wrote:Again... for those in the back, or those who cannot read small print or those who just skim posts waiting for their chance to speak again...

A DEFF ROLLA IS NOT A WEAPON IT DOES NOT DO DAMAGE TO ANYTHING! THE BATTLEWAGON PERFORMS THE TANKSHOCK/RAM AND DOES THE DAMAGE. THE DEFF ROLLA ENHANCES THE DAMAGE DONE BY THE BATTLEWAGON.

PER THE ORK CODEX P.55
Deff Rolla: A Deff Rolla is a great spiked roller that brings the collossal weight of the Battlewagon to bear on anything in its way. A Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla may re-roll Dangerous Terrain tests. Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit. If the unit elects to make a Death or Glory attack, it takes a further D6 Strength 10 hits in addition to the usual effects.

No need to shout.

It's useless to define a Deffroll as not being weapon because it has to be attached to a vehicle to function. The same is true of any other vehicle mounted weapon.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

witchcore wrote:

insaniak wrote:

witchcore wrote: both examples given h-k missiles and pm bolter operate entirely on their own.

No they don't. They just act as additional weapons.

The point I was trying to make was that the upgrades GW listed for functioning like weapons seem to have one thing in common, and that is that they can cause damage with out action taken from the BW, (BW stays still or is immobile) weapons can still fire and cause damage. how ever the deff rolla cannot cause damage on its own without an action taken from the battle wagon.

The same is true of H2H weapons. They only have an effect when a model is moved into assault combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Defining a weapon as something with a statline is slightly dubious because the Tau markerlight has the same statline as a weapon but does not cause damage.

The prime characteristic of a weapon is its ability to cause damage.

I reckon most non-40K players, if asked whether the Deff Rolla is a weapon or not, would say it is, because it is used to inflict damage.

Weapons are not defined by the BGB only the two sub headings ranged weapons and close combat weapons. The only things that tie both groups together are they both hit* and they cause an effect**.

In my view if a vehicle upgrade functions in such a way as to meet both of those criteria then it is functioning like a weapon. Also just because it requires movement to work doesn't stop it from being like a weapon; a model with no attacks cannot use even the best close combat weapon and a model without BS (0/-) always misses (excluding templates and blasts). They would still be weapons even if the model with them could not use them.



* ether hitting automatically or by rolling a d6, normally against WS or BS but some times something else.
** Normally the effect is a wound but some abstract weapons like the terrorfex (which causes a moral test) have other effects on the unit.

Kilkrazy wrote: I reckon most non-40K players, if asked whether the Deff Rolla is a weapon or not, would say it is, because it is used to inflict damage.

I reckon most non-40k players would say a lot of things that might seem true from their experience, but have no ground in 40k. Such is the nature of a game.

Tri wrote:Weapons are not defined by the BGB...

Really? What is the large heading title at the top of page 27?

Tri wrote:

...only the two sub headings ranged weapons and close combat weapons. The only things that tie both groups together are they both hit* and they cause an effect**.

Not only incorrect but irrelevant to the subject of Vehicles and damage. There are Weapons (defined on page 27) and Close Combat Weapons. They work differently and have different characteristics. There is actually a third weapon class, the Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon as defined in the Walkers rules.

Tri wrote:

In my view if a vehicle upgrade functions in such a way as to meet both of those criteria then it is functioning like a weapon.

Pg 27 under heading Type:

"All weapons are classified as either Rapid Fire, Pistol, Assault, Heavy or Ordnance."

If a vehicle upgrade does not meet the requirement of being classified as either Rapid Fire, Pistol, Assault, Heavy or Ordnance it does not meet the requirement of the above rule. Both of the examples given in the vehicle damage description meet this requirement. A Deff Rolla, Flechette Launcher and Slave Snare do not.

Tri wrote:

Also just because it requires movement to work doesn't stop it from being like a weapon;

No, but not have a complete Weapon statline including a Type does keep it from being like a weapon. It makes it a piece of wargear that can do damage.

Tri wrote:
a model with no attacks cannot use even the best close combat weapon and a model without BS (0/-) always misses (excluding templates and blasts). They would still be weapons even if the model with them could not use them.

Actually the first would be a Close Combat Weapon and the second would be a Weapon. The vehicle damage table only allows for Weapons and "Functions as" Weapons. The Walker section allows Dread Close Combat Weapons to be selected as well. No part of the vehicle damage rules allows for Close Combat Weapons to be destroyed.

I will also point ouut the the vindicator's cannon can't be destroyed, because it isn't an upgrade.
Also, are you argueing that the Markerlight isn't a weapon, Killcrazy? Cause if you are, I would seriously fix your argument, if I was you.

Klawz wrote:I will also point ouut the the vindicator's cannon can't be destroyed, because it isn't an upgrade.

It is a weapon, though.

Again, there are two categories for Weapon Destroyed: It has to be a weapon mounted on the vehicle, or it has to be a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon.

Klawz wrote:I will also point out the the vindicator's cannon can't be destroyed, because it isn't an upgrade.

Um.. what? Per the vehicle damage table "One of the vehicle's weapons... " of which the Vindicator cannon is most certainly. It has a Weapon statline including Type, Range, Strength and AP and meets all the stated Weapon criteria as defined on pg 27.

What happened to common sense/fun in a game? i getteh impression that is we were all ina romo there woudl have been a fight by now!

Argue all you want aotu it being an upgrade or wargear or whatever. I can't see how, realistically, you can claim that a huge wheel which causes D6 S10 attacks is anythgin BUT a weapon when it comes to weapon destroyed rolls.

If we're going to eb petty about semantics here's an example: A LR has twin lascannon sponsons. But there is no mention of a "sponson" in the weapons tables, it doesn't have a weapon profle. So how can you destroy the sponson when the TL lascannon is an integral part of it? So surely a TW lascannon sponson cannto be destoyed by a weapon destroyed result?

Nitewolf wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote: I reckon most non-40K players, if asked whether the Deff Rolla is a weapon or not, would say it is, because it is used to inflict damage.

I reckon most non-40k players would say a lot of things that might seem true from their experience, but have no ground in 40k. Such is the nature of a game.

Good luck teaching your next newbie friend that a big iron roller attached to a tank, used to run over and crush an enemy unit, isn't a weapon!!!

Praxiss wrote:Argue all you want aotu it being an upgrade or wargear or whatever. I can't see how, realistically, you can claim that a huge wheel which causes D6 S10 attacks is anythgin BUT a weapon when it comes to weapon destroyed rolls.

Much the same way that many here argued that the wing of a Valkyrie is the "Hull". Looking it up in any dictionary will define it as the fuselage but hey... that's the way the game works. You hit the wing, it's the "hull". You have an upgrade without a weapon statline, it's not a "Weapon" for purposes of destroying it.

The sponson argument is just silly. It's a turret with weapons mounted in it. You're not destroying the sponson, you're destroying the twin linked lascannon.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Nitewolf wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote: I reckon most non-40K players, if asked whether the Deff Rolla is a weapon or not, would say it is, because it is used to inflict damage.

I reckon most non-40k players would say a lot of things that might seem true from their experience, but have no ground in 40k. Such is the nature of a game.

Good luck teaching your next newbie friend that a big iron roller attached to a tank, used to run over and crush an enemy unit, isn't a weapon!!!

Stupid arguments are stupid.

They still work though.

Kilkrazy wrote:They still work though.

No they don't, as there is no RAW that says that, "if it looks like x, it is x".

I'd do it by simply pointing out that:

1. It's not targeted and/or fired, like other weapons, even those that don't do damage or have some other effect in addition to damage

2. It has no weapon profile

3. The examples of upgrades that function as weapons reference things that are actually weapons, like a hunter-killer missile = krak missile

"IT CAUSES WOUNDS" is not a sufficient argument.

The Green Git wrote:

Tri wrote:Weapons are not defined by the BGB...

Really? What is the large heading title at the top of page 27?

GW use the term weapon very loosely ... on page 37 you are told a model with two single handed weapons get an extra attack clearly they are talking about CCW how ever they are not mentioned till page 42 ... there is however no restriction on a model with 2 1handed shooting weapons from also gain +1 attacks since this is never contradicted. This is why i say there are weapons and two subgroups ranged and close combat .... there are other weapons in 40k that fit roughly into these categories but are not perfect. Swooping hawk grenade packs and bigbombz both effect units in the movement phase, these are almost shooting attacks but happen out of sequence.

The Green Git wrote:

Tri wrote:...only the two sub headings ranged weapons and close combat weapons. The only things that tie both groups together are they both hit* and they cause an effect**.

Not only incorrect but irrelevant to the subject of Vehicles and damage. There are Weapons (defined on page 27) and Close Combat Weapons. They work differently and have different characteristics. There is actually a third weapon class, the Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon as defined in the Walkers rules.

No DCCW are just sub class of CCW, no more different then a chain-fist. Also why are you pulling apart my sentence midway through?

The Green Git wrote:

Tri wrote:In my view if a vehicle upgrade functions in such a way as to meet both of those criteria then it is functioning like a weapon.

Pg 27 under heading Type:

"All weapons are classified as either Rapid Fire, Pistol, Assault, Heavy or Ordnance."

If a vehicle upgrade does not meet the requirement of being classified as either Rapid Fire, Pistol, Assault, Heavy or Ordnance it does not meet the requirement of the above rule. Both of the examples given in the vehicle damage description meet this requirement. A Deff Rolla, Flechette Launcher and Slave Snare do not.

Tri wrote:Also just because it requires movement to work doesn't stop it from being like a weapon;

No, but not have a complete Weapon statline including a Type does keep it from being like a weapon. It makes it a piece of wargear that can do damage.

Those are critical parts of a ranged weapon ... thankfully not all weapons are ranged.

The Green Git wrote:

Tri wrote:A model with no attacks cannot use even the best close combat weapon and a model without BS (0/-) always misses (excluding templates and blasts). They would still be weapons even if the model with them could not use them.

Actually the first would be a Close Combat Weapon and the second would be a Weapon. The vehicle damage table only allows for Weapons and "Functions as" Weapons. The Walker section allows Dread Close Combat Weapons to be selected as well. No part of the vehicle damage rules allows for Close Combat Weapons to be destroyed.

So what you're saying is a Walker with a Chainfist could never loose it? cool ... no wait it would fall under a weapon or at worst a vehicle upgrade functioning like a weapon.

Isn't WH40K set up in a permissave manner? Doesn't that mean that you must have permission to do something to do it. I don't see anywhere where it says the Deffrolla is a weapon. The only proof you have that it is is that it deals damage, something several non-weapons also do. Does that mean that DoM's ability is a weapon?

Klawz wrote:Isn't WH40K set up in a permissave manner? Doesn't that mean that you must have permission to do something to do it. I don't see anywhere where it says the Deffrolla is a weapon. The only proof you have that it is is that it deals damage, something several non-weapons also do. Does that mean that DoM's ability is a weapon?

were the DoM ability part of rules for a vehicle upgrade i would say that it was indeed functioning like a weapon ... just like a deffrolla.

witchcore wrote:IMO an upgrade that is "Functioning like a weapon" would imply that it can act independantly of the vehicle, both examples given h-k missiles and pm bolter operate entirely on their own. however if a BW is immobilized can you still deal damage with the deffrolla? so i would argue that though the deffrolla is an upgrade it does not "function like a weapon" and that the BW itself is what is "funtioning like a weapon" during the tank shock.

Here's a good point from p6...

This argument over destroying the DeffRolla wasn't so huge until it was allowed to affect vehicles. It's apparent the "yes" crowd are afraid of the DeffRolla.

So here's my assertion;
Weapons function independently of the vehicle. While a vehicle moving may limit or prevent the use of one or all of it's weapons, moving does not disable the use of a DeffRolla (in fact it is a prerequisite).
Also, when my BW has been immobilized, when you get a weapon destroyed result afterwards- what are they going to target? the ZZap or the rolla? They will target the ZZap because it is still a threat, while the effects of the Rolla have been neutralized.




A DeffRolla is not a weapon because it does not function as a weapon.
> We do not have a RAW definition of what "functions as a weapon" is.
> We know that the BRB describes a weapon as having a distinct profile of range/strength/ap/type/etc.
> The BRB has a separate section addressing close combat weapons. There are no close combat weapons that are bought as vehicle upgrades except for Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons- which have a very specific entry stating that they may be targeted by weapon destroyed results. Close Combat Weapons are not the norm and were specifically listed as a valid weapon destroyed target.
> The BRB goes on to say that a weapon destroyed result can validly target; 1) weapons and 2) vehicle upgrades that function as weapons. It lists Hunter-Killer missiles and pintle-mount stormbolters as reference: both upgrades that have distinct profiles as described by the previous 'BRB definition of a weapon'.
> The BRB does not list any other examples of upgrades that function as weapons. Both examples are explicitly listed as "upgrades that function as weapons"; which means that functioning as a weapon means having a weapon profile.

By these FACTS we can ascertain that;
1) The DeffRolla does not have a weapon profile.
2) Is not a close combat weapon as described by the BRB.
3) Cannot be used as a close combat weapon as described in the BRB.
4) Does not have any text describing/stating/explicitly declaring that the DeffRolla is either a shooting weapon or a close combat weapon.
5) Does not have explicit text saying that it can be targeted by weapon destroyed results. The DCCW has this explicit rule, it stands to reason if it were meant to be destroyed, it would have this same text.
6) A weapon destroyed result cannot target the DeffRolla without the DeffRolla qualifying one of two conditions. The first condition is that the DeffRolla is a weapon- which it definitely is not. The second condition is that it function as a weapon. The two examples given have a weapon profile- but were not explicitly qualified as weapons, but rather vehicle upgrades. Due to this, the DeffRolla does not qualify as "functioning as a weapon" because it does not have similar function to hunter-killer missiles nor pintle-mount stormbolters.
7) There is no explicit statements about upgrades that provide additional effects to a vehicle's action. The vehicle is the one performing the ram and thus the source of the additional hits. The DeffRolla only allows the BW to cause the additional hits. The DeffRolla is never the source.


Let me pull apart this sentence;
vehicle upgrades that function as weapons
The parts of this sentence;
"vehicle upgrades that function as weapons"
-- The DeffRolla is a vehicle upgrade.
-- functioning as would mean that the vehicle upgrade can be "used in a similar fashion to"
-- weapons are very clearly defined by the BRB, with special circumstances for close combat weapons.

So can the DeffRolla be used in a similar fashion to weapons as clearly defined by the BRB?
Short Answer: No.
Long Answer: The DeffRolla cannot be used as a weapon due to the following;
> It does not have a profile.
> It cannot declare targets.
> It does not cause hits/wounds. (don't argue this point, the BattleWagon's ram attack causes the damage)
> It does not enhance the BattleWagon's close combat attack because vehicles (excluding walkers as specified in the BRB) do not participate in assaults.
>>> It does not follow the definition of a weapon nor does it function in a similar fashion to a weapon as defined by the BRB.

Thus- the DeffRolla is not a valid target for weapon destroyed results.



Here's another wonderful way to test this method:
- Does a hunter-killer missile function as a weapon? Yes.
> The hunter-killer missile has a profile, can target enemies, and causes hits/wounds. (It is never clearly defined as a weapon but instead as a vehicle upgrade)

- Does a wreckin ball function as a weapon? Yes.
> The wreckin ball does not have a distinct profile. The wreckin ball itself causes hits/wounds, explicitly stated to have a range, and targets enemies. The wreckin ball is never explicitly stated to be a weapon.

- Does a DeffRolla function as a weapon? No.
> The DeffRolla does not have a profile, is never explicitly stated to have a range, does not cause hits/wounds (the battlewagon does), does not target enemies (the battlewagon's ram attack specifies the target and the hits never originate from the DeffRolla). The DeffRolla is also never explicitly stated to be a weapon.



Did I do a good enough job in pulling all this mess together?

The crowd that wants to destroy the DeffRolla is just terrified of the new change and cannot adapt. If they're so scared, then figure out a way to not get rammed. Simple. Especially the IG and SM players that park their tanks and fire all day. You are not safe, learn to move or die.

ChrisCP wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:By your own statment the FAQ was "designed to clear up an open ended interpretation. "
Which was:
"Can you use the Deffrolla when Ramming
vehicles or does it only work when Tank
Shocking non-vehicle units?"
The answer being:
"The death rolla does indeed inflict D6 S10 hits
against vehicles, as Ramming is just a type of
Tank Shock."

See how the bit of clarification actually has nothing to do with the Rolla it's just telling people (again) the Yes a Ramm is a type of Tank-Shock.

What you are doing is wanting to take a piece of the reply and apply it to a different situation while using it as justification for you point, you are performing a contextomy in the form of an appeal to authority.

There you are. And as Orkcommander has poiunted out for you again <3
And I'll mention to everyone again - Deff Rollas have Always worked against vehicles, and people have been trying to take them for wepon destroyed before now, nothing new and I don't works

First off, the ruling was made because a vast majority said that deffrollas could not be used on vehicles. By clearing this up, they have made several other problems arise. Specifically, this one and whether or not the deffrolla hits stack with the ramming attack. My initial reaction is that if the deffroll replaces the ramming attack, then it should not be destroyable. But, if it is to stack in addition to the ramming attack, then it should be conidered destroyable since it is doing additional damage to the damage being done by the wagon. But, that is a debate for another thread.

As to my original statement, again I ask you, what part of "the FAQ clearly states that the 'deffrolla indeed inflicts d6 s10 hits.....'" is false? Go read the FAQ as many times as it takes, that is what the FAQ states. That sentence makes NO REFERENCE to the rules or interpretation. It is a simple statement of what the FAQ reads and you tell me I am wrong.....?

You are the one that has taken a simple statement of FACT by me and assumed away. You made a claim that the deffrolla does not do damage, rather the battlewagon does. I replied the FAQ would disagree with you -- which it absolutely does. It was meant as a joke and you and OC went off on a rules tangent about this and that, making all these claims about how it does not apply. And again, I kept telling you that is not what the FAQ states. I never made one reference to what is the correct answer as far as gameplay, yet you insult me and insist everything I have said is fallacy.

I could care less which way the ruling goes as long as it was made clear at the beginning of the game. As I have said before, I would let my opponent make the call just to make sure there is no bad blood afterwards. To be perfectly honest, I think there are valid points for it being both destroyable and not. But to stand upon high and lecture people on how there is no possible way is a bit sanctimonious (that applies to numerous posts on this).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

yakface wrote:

Again, not all weapons inflict hits, so your argument is a fallacy.

Also, if you want to play the absurdity game you can say that all weapons involve rolling dice, so all vehicle upgrades that involve rolling dice are functioning as a weapon.


The argument has no foundation in anything quantifiable.

First off, stop with the slippery slope about dice. We both know that is ridiculous.

Second, I am not familiar with all codices. What weapons would not inflict hits? (Serious question, drawing a blank here).
To say this argument has no foundation is a bit of a stretch. As a general rule of thumb, would you not say that the goal of the majority of weapons is to inflict hits? If not, I would ask what is the purpose of the weapon in WH40K?

The basic premise of the argument is that the deffrolla is a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon (which would allow it to be destroyed). Whether it (or anything else) can or can not be destroyed simply comes down to is it an upgrade and what is the definition of 'functions as a weapon?' Saying it needs to have a statline in order to be destroyed would make this cleaner and easier to sort out, but that is not anywhere in the brb that I can find. So really, this entire argument boils down to your definition of 'functions like a weapon.'

So, I think there is a foundation for an argument there. Whether it is upheld or not in the future by GW is another question.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

witchcore wrote:
The point I was trying to make was that the upgrades GW listed for functioning like weapons seem to have one thing in common, and that is that they can cause damage with out action taken from the BW, (BW stays still or is immobile) weapons can still fire and cause damage. how ever the deff rolla cannot cause damage on its own without an action taken from the battle wagon.

Wow. That might be the clincher for me.

Thank you dakka, for brightening the end of a very tiring work day.

I find it hilarious that this only arises now. After all, Tau have had flechette dischargers for ages.

Nightwatch wrote:I find it hilarious that this only arises now. After all, Tau have had flechette dischargers for ages.

But flechette dischargers aren't OMGWTFBBQ OVARPOWERED!!!!1 in the minds of the Internet community.

I know, I was joking.
However, I think that one thing in this argument must be stated, no matter what. If deff rollas may be destroyed, then so too must extra armour, grabbing claws, boarding planks, grot riggers, red paint jobs, and all the rest. Because they're all found in the same place and bought the same way. They are all classified as vehicle upgrades. In fact, it could add quite a bit of hilarity to the game when you strip your friend's vehicle of its red paint and somehow causes it to go slower.

Nightwatch wrote:I know, I was joking.
However, I think that one thing in this argument must be stated, no matter what. If deff rollas may be destroyed, then so too must extra armour, grabbing claws, boarding planks, grot riggers, red paint jobs, and all the rest. Because they're all found in the same place and bought the same way. They are all classified as vehicle upgrades. In fact, it could add quite a bit of hilarity to the game when you strip your friend's vehicle of its red paint and somehow causes it to go slower.

Actually, that makes a very Orky kind of sense. After all, it's the redness that makes it go faster. If the paint has been burned off, it's not red anymore, right?

For sure. My point is, regardless of the end result, we must also treat those other upgrades the way we decide to treat the deff rolla.

Please don't take away the Necrons' ability to glance things to death. They have enough trouble as-is.

For the record, markerlights are just one weapon that doesn't deal damage.

Few misconceptions keep popping up over and over again:

Vehicle upgrades in general cannot be destroyed, they have to function as weapon. Bringing up red paint job just shows that either one hasnt read the thread or one doesnt understand the thread.

The rules on pg73 for dccw are not there to tell us that the dccw can be chosen as a weapon destroyed result. Reread the second paragraph where its mentioned. The rule here is already assuming that we know that the dccw can be chosen, its telling us what happens to the other weapons on the same arm when this occurs.

As to whether or not the bw not being able to move is important....there are other weapons that cannot be used unless the equipped models move. The ork bigbomm can only be used on models that the deffkopta passes over during the movement phase. The eldar swooping hawk grenade pack can only be used on a turn that the hawks deep strike.

The BRB gives us a strict definition of weapons under the ranged weapon part of the book, then proceeds at various other times to call cc weapons a weapon as well. So thanks to the tradition of muddy writing from GW we see that weapons are defined and then the definition broken in the core rules.

Then to just firmly put this to rest, lets look at a codex or two. Lets see, ork codex pg89. Here we see a list of....wow....weapons. Including such things as the power klaw, kustom force field, stikkbomb, and even the bomb squig. Then lets grab another codex here, hmm, SM is on top. Looks like pg 97 says this term weapons again...with things such as chainfist, frag grenades, melta bombs.

So do not limit yourself to thinking that wapons need to be ranged with a statline entries.....they can be many many things.

Sliggoth

You guys are nice and cool when debating this topic here. Today in the store, I over-heard two players arguing about this issue during a game, and they almost got thrown out of the store. The store manager made some suggestions, and it feels rather fair.

He suggested on a friendly game, either roll a dice to resolve a gray area issue, or be generous and let your opponent have it his or her way. On tournament gaming, be sure to contact the tournament organizer for their final ruling.

Sliggoth,

With respect to the bigbomm, that is coming from a jetbike, not a vehicle. So, it does not really apply in this sense since we are talking about vehicle.

I was really on the fence about this until someone pointed out that once the wagon is immobilized, the rolla is no longer functional. At least in my mind, a weapon should be able to operate with the vehicle immobilised, hence the reason for the two separate damage results.

So, with that being said, I would have to say I am now in the "in cannot be destroyed" camp.

But, for the record, the FAQ clearly states that "the deffrolla does indeed inflicts d6 s10 hits."