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.

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."

Nightwatch wrote:I find it hilarious that this only arises now. After all, Tau have had flechette dischargers for ages.

It's not 'only arising now'...

This thread from last November, this one from last August and this one from last May all discussed vehicle upgrades and Weapon Destroyed results.

The FAQ has simply brought it back to the surface.

Green is Best! wrote: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."

it is still there, its still a weapon. Its just that the vehicle its attached to can no longer move. The defrolla is essentially a CCW for a battle wagon. (kind of)

1. No attack characteristic
2. No to-hit roll
3. Variable effect based on defender response
4. No classification as a Close Combat Weapon, Special Close Combat Weapon, or Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon

You're right, it's just like a CCW for a battle wagon! (kind of not at all)

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.

I repeat my previous stupid argument.

Ask a reasonable person the following questions.

1. This tank has a big iron roller on the front which is used to squash enemy troops and vehicles. Is the roller a weapon?

2. The tank has a red stripe on it which makes it go faster. Is the red paint a weapon?

Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

I repeat my previous stupid argument.

Ask a reasonable person the following questions.

1. This tank has a big iron roller on the front which is used to squash enemy troops and vehicles. Is the roller a weapon?

2. The tank has a red stripe on it which makes it go faster. Is the red paint a weapon?

That has no place in RAW or RAI...

I'm with @KillKrazy.

The "No it can't be removed camp" is basing there answer on the logic "it's not defined as a weapon", which isn't really the issue.

The phrase "This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons," is really the issue.

If it was as clear as the "No Camp" is claiming it is, meaning only weapons, may be removed, why not say "This can include weapons that are vehicle upgrades"? That would be the correct logic to support the "No Camp" but it doesn't say that.

The only point of contention is what does "function as a weapon" entail? All these points about "profile" and other "hit or miss" are irrelevant. The RAW is a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon may be removed. Hitting something with a rolling pin, a shoe, a pipe, or a rock are using something that would not be considered a "weapon" but the intent and act of using it in such a way to cause harm is absolutely a function of a weapon.

The battlewagon is aiming it's Tank Shock/Ram move at an enemy, hence a target.
p68
Once the vehicle has been 'aimed' and the speed declared,

Then from the FAQ
Q. Can you use the Deffrolla when Ramming vehicles or does it only work when Tank Shocking non-vehicle units?
A. The death rolla does indeed inflict D6 S10 hits against vehicles, as Ramming is just a type of Tank Shock.

As the enemy unit is targeted by the vehicle performing the tank shock, hence the "aiming" part, when it performs the move and conducts "hits" at a strength, with the intent to do "damage", it's pretty far fetched anyone is arguing the function of the deffrolla in this instance is not as a weapon, even though the rolla may or may not actually be... a weapon.

Klawz wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

I repeat my previous stupid argument.

Ask a reasonable person the following questions.

1. This tank has a big iron roller on the front which is used to squash enemy troops and vehicles. Is the roller a weapon?

2. The tank has a red stripe on it which makes it go faster. Is the red paint a weapon?

That has no place in RAW or RAI...

It does.

The problem arises because the rules do not provide a complete definition a weapon. They define some different things and say they are weapons. In other cases, weapons are mentioned which do not fit the definition -- CCW is the obvious example.

When we are unable to derive the meaning of a word because the designer did not specify it, we can rely on normal usage.

Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

I repeat my previous stupid argument.

Ask a reasonable person the following questions.

1. This tank has a big iron roller on the front which is used to squash enemy troops and vehicles. Is the roller a weapon?

2. The tank has a red stripe on it which makes it go faster. Is the red paint a weapon?

Have you ever watched Goldfinger?

Kilkrazy wrote:
When we are unable to derive the meaning of a word because the designer did not specify it, we can rely on normal usage.

So the wing on a Valkyrie isn't the Hull? Sweet.

Source: Webster.com

Main Entry: 1hull
Pronunciation: \ˈhəl\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hulu; akin to Old High German hala hull, Old English helan to conceal — more at hell
Date: before 12th century

1 a : the outer covering of a fruit or seed b : the persistent calyx or involucre that subtends some fruits (as a strawberry)
2 a : the frame or body of a ship or boat exclusive of masts, yards, sails, and rigging b : the main body of a usually large or heavy craft or vehicle (as an airship or tank)

Just a couple of questions to some of the no camp here.

Are you denying that the deffrolla doesn't function as a weapon since GW doesn't define what function as weapon consists of or are you denying that the deffrolla is not functioning as a weapon when it is used inflicts casualties?

I can understand the stance that GW does not have a clear definition of what "functions as a weapon" but to not even acknowledge that a deffrolla is bought and used to inflict d6 str10 hits and subsequent wounds on either infantry or vehicles, functioning as a weapon seems pretty obtuse. I mean does some of the no camp know it is functioning as a weapon, but won't admit it since GW doesn't have a "functioning as a weapon" section in the BRB?

The Green Git wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
When we are unable to derive the meaning of a word because the designer did not specify it, we can rely on normal usage.

So the wing on a Valkyrie isn't the Hull? Sweet.

Source: Webster.com

Main Entry: 1hull
Pronunciation: \ˈhəl\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hulu; akin to Old High German hala hull, Old English helan to conceal — more at hell
Date: before 12th century

1 a : the outer covering of a fruit or seed b : the persistent calyx or involucre that subtends some fruits (as a strawberry)
2 a : the frame or body of a ship or boat exclusive of masts, yards, sails, and rigging b : the main body of a usually large or heavy craft or vehicle (as an airship or tank)

I don't grasp the relevance of that to Deff Rollas.

If I put a Reinforced Ram onto my Battlewagon, do I get an extra Weapon Destroyed result before my Battlewagon becomes immobilized?

When you forget to use quotes and don't read the whole thread, you tend to make a fool of yourself very quickly.

RAW doesn't say it's a weapon. RAI says it's a weapon. Auto Damage on hit(i.e. ram/tank shock) what other weapons or upgrades (from any codex) perform this as well? Perhaps a better ruling could be made based off of other related items.

Red9 wrote:http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2010/02/40k-news-updated-ork-tyranid-faqs.html

Please read and eat your words. Thank you all for your attention.

Er... who are you referring to, and what is your point?

We know about the FAQ. It's also in English now. It's what spawned this debate (this time around) in the first place, so pointing out that there's a Spanish version of it that was around first doesn't seem to add anything productive to the thread.

Kilkrazy wrote:

The problem arises because the rules do not provide a complete definition a weapon. They define some different things and say they are weapons. In other cases, weapons are mentioned which do not fit the definition -- CCW is the obvious example.

When we are unable to derive the meaning of a word because the designer did not specify it, we can rely on normal usage.

I can use the exact same structure of your argument to show that melta bombs are special close combat weapons and models with meltabombs must use them in CC and cannot gain an extra attack unless they are equipped with two meltabombs.

Please do, I would like to see that.

sourclams wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

The problem arises because the rules do not provide a complete definition a weapon. They define some different things and say they are weapons. In other cases, weapons are mentioned which do not fit the definition -- CCW is the obvious example.

When we are unable to derive the meaning of a word because the designer did not specify it, we can rely on normal usage.

I can use the exact same structure of your argument to show that melta bombs are special close combat weapons and models with meltabombs must use them in CC and cannot gain an extra attack unless they are equipped with two meltabombs.

That in itself does not invalidate my argument.

It merely proves that GW occasionally let an error slip into the rules.

Kilkrazy wrote:

The Green Git wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
When we are unable to derive the meaning of a word because the designer did not specify it, we can rely on normal usage.

So the wing on a Valkyrie isn't the Hull? Sweet.

Source: Webster.com

Main Entry: 1hull
Pronunciation: \ˈhəl\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hulu; akin to Old High German hala hull, Old English helan to conceal — more at hell
Date: before 12th century

1 a : the outer covering of a fruit or seed b : the persistent calyx or involucre that subtends some fruits (as a strawberry)
2 a : the frame or body of a ship or boat exclusive of masts, yards, sails, and rigging b : the main body of a usually large or heavy craft or vehicle (as an airship or tank)

I don't grasp the relevance of that to Deff Rollas.

We're given a definition of weapons. We're also given examples of 'functioning as a weapon'. The only resemblance a Deffrolla has to a pintle-mounted stormbolter is that it's used in the game 40k. You've been given your definition.

The definition given on p.27 (small rulebook) is contradicted by the section on CCW. This means we cannot rely on it, or at best we can only use it for shooting weapons.

Examples are not a definition, they are supplemental and can't be relied upon in themselves.

A Deff Rolla resembles a pintle mount machine gun in that it is bought as a vehicle upgrade and is used to deal damage to enemy vehicles.

I still don't understand what relevance the wings of a Valkyrie have to Deff Rollas.

Kilkrazy wrote:The definition given on p.27 (small rulebook) is contradicted by the section on CCW. This means we cannot rely on it, or at best we can only use it for shooting weapons.

No, it's not.

Weapon is defined to be what you or I would call a "ranged weapon". The section on "Close Combat Weapons" has nothing to do with the section on Weapons, and a Close Combat Weapon is not a sub-category of Weapon. Before you bring it up, DCCW are different again, and have their own unrelated section of rules.

The problem lies in defining what "functions as a weapon" means and entails.

It is quite obvious (and has been for a few pages) that people don't agree.

I wonder if the only reason this has been allowed to go on for as long as it has, is because a mod has been involved.
Any other thread would, in my experience, have been locked ages ago due to the circular arguments.

Time to end this one methinks.

I agree, let's lock it.