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.

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?