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.

I was approached with a question today from a friend of mine about weapon destroyed results on a vehicle that was equipped with a deffrolla. Now can a weapon destroyed result destroy a deffrolla? tell me it aint so???

I don't think it can, but I don't have anything to confirm that...

Over to the FAQ i go!

No. It's a vehicle upgrade and not a weapon, hence it cannot be destroyed.

Use the Search function, please.

Its a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon, same as a HK missile.

Corrode wrote:No. It's a vehicle upgrade and not a weapon, hence it cannot be destroyed.

As stated by nos, vehicle upgrades that function as weapons . And those can indeed be destroyed.

It doesn't function as a weapon. It modifies a tank shock. HK missiles are listed as 'an additional weapon'; Deff Rollas have no such text, and are listed in 'vehicle upgrades', not 'weapons'.

So something that causes D6 (or 2D6) S10 hits on a unit it tankshocks ISNT functioning as a weapon?

You are contending that it therefore has no additional affect, as only weapons cause damage?

And HK missiles aren't listed as weapons either. They are (in older codexes, looking at Daemon Hunters) listed in 'vehicle upgrades, along with smoke launchers, dozer blade and searchlight. In more recent (looking at the IG codex), it's merely listed under 'options', along with dozer blade and extra armor, etc. So it is NOT a matter of how it is listed but rather how it functions. And to me, the Deffrolla functions as a weapon. It's an offensive vehicle upgrade that causes wounds to the enemy. And as the main rules say:

"This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles." vehicle upgrades, and gives two as an example. These are not an complete list, by any means. So it all boils down to how the upgrade functions. Does it kill the enemy by causing wounds? Yes. That, IMO, makes it a weapon. Your opinioin differs, obviously.

So, is the heavy stubber on my IG chimera a weapon? Why? It's listed as an option, not a "weapon". Now apply whatever your answer and line of reasoning is to the deffrolla and see if the same answer applies................

A big part of the problem with this debate, is that there is no defined quality required for a vehicle upgrade to function as a weapon.

Although in many ways it can be said that a deffrollas does act like a weapon, it is not a weapon by any conventional definition in the BGB. If you start playing that some things not specifically falling into the definitions in the BGB are acting enough like a weapon then you have to categorize every single vehicle upgrade. What about things like rams or shock prows? Those allow tank shocks and rams on vehicles not normally able to. How about flechette dischargers for tau?

Its simpler to just say that the vehicle upgrade has to have a weapon profile or be a CCW.

Of course, you can go through all the upgrades available if you like and categorize them if you like. YMMV.

This is a very murky area (yes, another one) in that GW simply says that a destroyed result can include a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon. And then they dont say anything else at all about what that means...anywhere.

There is one thing to keep very clear however: The vehicle upgrade does not need to be a weapon to be destroyed.

That is the clearest part of the rule, but it is very very clear. One more time: a vehicle upgrade does NOT need to have a weapon profile to be destroyed.



Sliggoth

PS Sorry if this seems to hit the same point too many times, but its an extremely common misunderstanding.

don_mondo wrote:And HK missiles aren't listed as weapons either. They are (in older codexes, looking at Daemon Hunters) listed in 'vehicle upgrades, along with smoke launchers, dozer blade and searchlight. In more recent (looking at the IG codex), it's merely listed under 'options', along with dozer blade and extra armor, etc. So it is NOT a matter of how it is listed but rather how it functions. And to me, the Deffrolla functions as a weapon. It's an offensive vehicle upgrade that causes wounds to the enemy. And as the main rules say:

"This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles." vehicle upgrades, and gives two as an example. These are not an complete list, by any means. So it all boils down to how the upgrade functions. Does it kill the enemy by causing wounds? Yes. That, IMO, makes it a weapon. Your opinioin differs, obviously.

So, is the heavy stubber on my IG chimera a weapon? Why? It's listed as an option, not a "weapon". Now apply whatever your answer and line of reasoning is to the deffrolla and see if the same answer applies................

Part of the HK text describes it as 'an additional weapon.'

nos, no, it's not a weapon, in the same way that a Shock Prow is not a weapon - it gives an additional effect to a tank shock, but it's not a weapon.

But it is a weapon, and even in my egg-nog enduced haze, I can argue this by proof.

Deffrolla is a type of weapon that hits automatically. It inflicts a random number of S10 hits.

Flamers are a type of weapon that hits automatically. It inflicts a variable number of S X hits, where X is the S of the flamer weapon.

Based on the above premises, how is the deffrola not a weapon?

It has no range and no "type"

nos: does that mean the Wrecking ball is also a weapon then?

liam0404 wrote:But it is a weapon, and even in my egg-nog enduced haze, I can argue this by proof.

Deffrolla is a type of weapon that hits automatically. It inflicts a random number of S10 hits.

Flamers are a type of weapon that hits automatically. It inflicts a variable number of S X hits, where X is the S of the flamer weapon.

Based on the above premises, how is the deffrola not a weapon?

your an egg-nog induced haze.... my haze might be causing interference


anyway i agree

The wrecking ball actually is even closer to a weapon than the deffrolla. The wreckin ball has a range, a strength, and hits on a 4+ in the assault phase. So the wrekin ball pretty much has a weapon statline.

But once again: THESE VEHICLE UPGRADES DO NOT HAVE TO BE WEAPONS.


If a vehicle upgrade is a weapon (ie it has a weapon statline) then there is no reason to even look at the rule in question, the upgrade would already be able to be destroyed simply by being a weapon. So this rule is there to cover upgrades that arent quite weapons, but still function as weapons.


And that is the key question: what type of vehicle upgrades function as weapons?



Sliggoth

My thinking behind it would be that a target for the weapon destroyed result would have to actually have a profile a.k.a in the weapons codex

Str x Ap x type x

thats what i was thinking.

Except it doesnt have to be, it just has to function "as" one.

It has range: base contact. S:10 Special: D6 hits

It most definitely functions as a weapon and so can be destroyed.

Corrode - part of the HK fluff does. It is, however, listed as an option.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except it doesnt have to be, it just has to function "as" one.

It has range: base contact. S:10 Special: D6 hits

It most definitely functions as a weapon and so can be destroyed.

Corrode - part of the HK fluff does. It is, however, listed as an option.

Go and read the HK entry in 5th ed C: SM. Nothing to do with.fluff.

And it also doesnt stop the DR acting as a weapon. Because it does.

A shock prow does now function as a weapon - what is its strength?

There is something that distinguishes a Deff Rolla from say a hunter killer missile and that is that it is not shot in the shooting phase. Remember all weapons that are shot in the shooting phase count as weapons that vehicle fires ENTIRELY.
I.e. they count towards the maximum number of possible weapons that can be fired and so count as a weapon in all respects.

This makes it not a weapon as far as the rules are concerned and so a weapon destroyed result cannot destroy it.

First and foremost, remember that the upgrade doesnt have TO BE A WEAPON.

Before we get too much farther along on this discussion, lets look at what is considered a weapon in 40k tho. How? Well, we can look at the ork codex to see what is called a weapon in there:

From pg 89 we see that orks consider many things to be weapons; hmm, choppas are weapons, shootas are weapons, stikkbombs are weapons.....tankbusta bombs are weapons, bomb squigs and even the kff is a weapon.

So we can discard the idea that a weapon has to have much of a profile at all. The bomb squig is actually a lot like the deff rolla in a lot of ways in that it has a str, a range and a roll to hit. Stikbombs etc have a bit less, while the kff of course hardly seems a weapon at all, except that the orks have made it a weapon.


So at the very least, it seems that the orks are fairly flexible with what would be called weapons....or functions as a weapon.




Sliggoth

Corrode - so what about close combat weapons? Are they not weapons? Bladevanes hurt you during the mvoement phase. As does the Bomm on a deff copter. None of these is during the shooting phase.

You definition is too narrow.

A weapon DOES DAMAGE. A deff rolla does damage.

A deff rolla functions as a weapon.

nosferatu1001 - your definition is too wide. None of the weapons you list can be destroyed with a weapon destoryed result as non of them are mounted on vehicles. So based on that would you consider shock prows and reinforced rams in the list of destroyable weapons seen as those do damage?

As for dred and titan close combat weapons the exception that allows them to be destroyed using the weapon destroyed result can be found in the rule book and the apoc book respectively (p73 and p96).

There is no exception that allows ALL vehicle upgrades to be destroyed by the weapon destroyed result only those like pintle mounted storm bolters and hunter killer missiles, i.e. those that can be shot in the shooting phase and are counted amongst the vehicles armamants.

"Function as a weapon" does not mean "has a weapon statistic".

The rules on page 73 does not make allowance for having weapon destroyed, only states what exactly happens when that happens since the Dreadnought CC weapon is rather special.

ceorron wrote:This makes it not a RANGED weapon as far as the rules are concerned.

Fixed that for you. Or are you also going to claim that a dread's DCCW is not a weapon because it cannot be fired in the shooting phase?

Again, it causes wounds by attacking enemy models. How is that NOT a weapon?

"Any tank shock made by a deff-rolla equipped BW inflicts" ~pg 55 from memory.
Loose qoute but the ork codex is quite clear that a DR does no damage itself.

For furthur evidence look at the armoury section where DR islisted under 'vehicle upgrades' and is conspiciously absent from the 'weapons' section where very other type of weapon attachable to a BW is listed.

I can see some ambiguity here.

That being said, the example of the Dreadnought Close Combat weapon indicates to me that it isn't a statline that makes a weapon.

The distinction between the "vehicle upgrades" and "Weapons" sections in the unit entries sounds like a pretty good argument for a distinction. But the 5th ed codices (I'm looking at the DE, BA, SW and IG right now) all mix weapons and other types of upgrades together in the "vehicle armoury" section ("vehicle equipment" in the BA 'dex). The IG army list section in the back of the dex does list "weapons" separately from other upgrades in the individual unit entries, although the newer codices don't distinguish them the same way. For example, in the Blood Angel and Space Wolf books a gun upgrade for the turret of a Pred and a Hunter Killer missile are both listed under "Options".

I'm not convinced that there is a clear distinction between weapons and other vehicle upgrades based on how they are listed or described in the codices. Especially in the newer codices , they seem to increasingly be mixed together. And I'm not convinced that you can draw such an easy categorical line between weapons and upgrades even in the older books, given that an HK missile is listed alongside stuff like extra armor and-smoke launchers, but certainly seems to be a weapon by anyone's standards.

I'm leaning toward thinking that Nos is on the right track here. If it causes wounds, inflicts damage results on vehicles, or enhances the vehicle's ability to do so, it's probably a weapon. And thus subject to Weapon Destroyed results.