Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.