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 know that there is a huge debate whether or not the Deffrolla can destroy vehicles, but my main question is if there is a Weapon Destroyed result, can I remove it? I've played against orks a few times and wasn't quite sure if it was actually considered a weapon or if it was just a vehicle upgrade like the vindicators siege shield.

This is another moot point.

Odds are, you should discuss it with your opponent.

question is it a vehicle upgrade that functions like a weapon ... I think so but just like 'deffrollas vs vehicles' you can debate ether way the is no definitive answer

A bit from an old discussion, RAW no deffrollas are not wepons as the don't have a profile (needed for ranged wepons) and they also don't have a CC weapon type.


"So I looked up weapon(s) pg. 73 "Every weapon has a profile that consits of several elements, for example...." Which doesn't fit the bill for a deffrolla imo, not being convinced went on to look at CC stuff on pgs. 43, 73 and 58 (vehicles & shooting) there is no mention of a weapon type that will fit for a deffrolla. And repeated mentions of profiles and other more weapon types etc.

I'm getting the feeling that it can be called a weapon in the same way that a bullbar for a car could be called a weapon. In itself it's not a weapon but could be used as one with the right intent ie. driving through a squad of things that go squish. I do feel "ripped off by the force of the attack" could lend some creadence to the matter, but at the same time if an attack ripped off a bullbar I think that'd need a vehical immobilised result (as anyone whos ever hit a bison etc would know). It part of the vehical that just happens to allow you to hurt stuff your driving into. The extension of this I feel would be if one can take a deffrolla off then one could take a ramm off as well..."

Things do not actually have to be weapons to be removed by weapon destroyed results. As odd as that seems.

Page 61: "This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons" being the phrase that causes debate and makes it worth discussing with your opponent.

yea, before i play if im using them ill see how they want ot play it, as a weapon or a decorative element, if its a weapon its part of the hull and gives me an extra 2" of vehicle for deploying off of, and if its a decorative element i just rotate it up on top of the wagon for disembarking my guys within 2" of the actual hull. also measure from hull if deco.

@kirsanth: That quote was actually written with the page 61 quote already brought up, in the context of functioning as a weapon.

And yes it essentially broils down to
'Yeah yeah we all know the score what do _you_ my opposition want to do about it'
'Well I feel it'd help me if we played it this way.'
'So what are we going to change to help _me_ then.'
'....errr nothing I reckon your stuff is bs overpowerd played RAW so you don't get nothing in compensation for playing stuff my way'

And this is why my locals play RAW and it works super-dooper good like as they are all careful at reading and we often have group discussions on the matters at hand.

ChrisCP wrote:And this is why my locals play RAW and it works super-dooper good like as they are all careful at reading and we often have group discussions on the matters at hand.

If it was so easy for everyone to read and understand the RAW, then you wouldn't need to have a discussion about it.

Saying that you "play RAW" is meaningless. Plenty of rules are written without much thought of the consequences or not written at all. Truly playing "RAW" would result in never placing your models during deployment since there are no rules dictating how they can or cannot be placed, anything without 'eyes' cannot shoot their weapons since they can never draw LOS, Leman Russ Battle Tanks don't have Battle Cannons, Bjorn has an invulnerable save he can never use, etc, etc.

This being said, group discussions with the folks at your FLGS are great and can lead to many very helpful House Rules that can help to treat the instances of unplayable RAW as playable RAI.

And for the record, I put my chips in with the Deffrolla being a "vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon" but YMMV.

DoW

You can't remove the deff rolla it's not a weapon.

Sorry about that, sarcasm was intended with the super-dooper I don't feel playing raw is meaningless, it stops the saying of 'I feel it should be done this way' in the middle of a game when often there are clear ways of solving the issue (slapping with a small rulebook the first time ...big one the second). A discussion and sharing the decision is for - feelings- the have no place on the table-top (oft quoted talk about it before the game)

We don't play at the FLGS our players (about 12 from the 80's and onwards) are all degenerate uncouth reprobates and not socially acceptable (in all honesty the FLGS staff are bullies etc etc, not the nicest of environments - not really important but we don't play at stores)

But the only time I can think of us having to play RAI atm is with trukks and the ramshackle not actually triggering as the rules are worded.


@Orkcommader, but it is it inflicts wounds and destroys models how could that not be a weapon? A weapon basically being something used against an opponent or victim - it doesn't even need to be causing harm really.

orkcommander wrote:You can't remove the deff rolla it's not a weapon.

See, here's the thing. Why isn't it a weapon? In the context of "40k rules as written", which is what we're discussing.

It's a perfectly sensible and reasonable house rule to say that only things with profiles that include a strength and so on are weapons, for example, but I don't see anything in the rules that says that.

I don't see anything in the rules that specifies just what a weapon is.

Roll dice and with 4+ it's a weapon.

Problem solved.

Er every time this debate comes up people get mixed up It does not need to be a weapon only to function like one. If it has a weapons profile then guess what ... it is a weapon, not a vehicle up grade that functions like one.

Are arguments for are ...
... it cause Strength 10 hits during a tank charge.

Are arguments against are ...
... it is not a weapon and it happens in movement phase.

As i said early you can debate ether way but as kirsanth said sort it out before the game.

kirsanth wrote:Things do not actually have to be weapons to be removed by weapon destroyed results. As odd as that seems.

Page 61: "This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons" being the phrase that causes debate and makes it worth discussing with your opponent.

It can send many enemies to kingdom come and krumps rhino's like it's popeye set loose in a spinach can factory, sounds more than enough to label it as "an upgrade that functions like a weapon".

It does not function as a weapon because it does not affect vehicles. My S2 grot can roll to hit and penetrate a Land Raider AV14 and will fail every time, but at least the little thing can attempt to harm it. According to INAT and most tournaments, a deff rolla can never affect a vehicle. Therefore is does not "function as a weapon."

olympia wrote:It does not function as a weapon because it does not affect vehicles. My S2 grot can roll to hit and penetrate a Land Raider AV14 and will fail every time, but at least the little thing can attempt to harm it. According to INAT and most tournaments, a deff rolla can never affect a vehicle. Therefore is does not "function as a weapon."

that's the worst argument I've ever heard. without ranting the INAT is a document for answering disputes in tournaments (though not all use it). It has not been officially backed by games workshop. Some of the rules are changed because they are over/under powered or simply don't work.

Next "It does not effect vehicles", I do wish there were more people that agreed with this. Unfortunately It does not take into account weapons like the DE Terrorfex which doesn't effect tanks ether. Also there are weapons that only effect vehicles do these not count as weapons because they cannot effect infantry? (or the fact in 4th it definitely did effect vehicles)

Trouble is there is no black and white answer we all know what is a weapon its some thing that can be used at range and/or in close combat. Weapon like could mean anything and we are expected to work it out ourselves.

Seems like there are some very important things being missed here?

Page 27 of the rulebook defines a weapon. It then goes on for 6 pages talking about weapon types. The most important part is probably this:

"Every weapon has a profile that consists of several elements..." Then it provides an example of a weapon with those required elements, which are as follows: Name, maximum range, strength, armour piercing, and type. IE, a weapon has been defined and has five mandatory categories to be filled.

If you turn to page 61 under the weapon destroyed result, it says, "This can include vehicles upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles" Both of those are weapons, and fit into the definition that the 40k rulebook has outlined for being a weapon.

A deffrolla does not have a maximum range, an AP value, nor a type. Both page 27 and 61 support the same categorization of a weapon, and the Deffrolla does not fit those requirements.

Dashofpepper wrote:Seems like there are some very important things being missed here?

"Every weapon has a profile that consists of several elements..." Then it provides an example of a weapon with those required elements, which are as follows: Name, maximum range, strength, armour piercing, and type. IE, a weapon has been defined and has five mandatory categories to be filled.

and if it has all those things it is a weapon and It is not a vehicle upgrade functioning as a weapon.

Tri wrote:It has not been officially backed by games workshop.

But was used by GW in the US Ard Boyz finals........................................

Dashofpepper wrote:Page 27 of the rulebook defines a weapon. It then goes on for 6 pages talking about weapon types. The most important part is probably this:

"Every weapon has a profile that consists of several elements..." Then it provides an example of a weapon with those required elements, which are as follows: Name, maximum range, strength, armour piercing, and type. IE, a weapon has been defined and has five mandatory categories to be filled.

If you turn to page 61 under the weapon destroyed result, it says, "This can include vehicles upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles" Both of those are weapons, and fit into the definition that the 40k rulebook has outlined for being a weapon.

A deffrolla does not have a maximum range, an AP value, nor a type. Both page 27 and 61 support the same categorization of a weapon, and the Deffrolla does not fit those requirements.

Interesting, because a Powerfist does not have a maximum range, a Strength rating, an AP score, or a type. I guess Powerfists are not weapons...

Anyhoo, something I'd point out is that it might be something to link the two questions about Deff Rollas: If you play it as though it affects vehicles, then you should play it as though it was a weapon (which means +1 Weapon Destroyed result before a Battlewagon can be destroyed). If you play it as though it does not affect vehicles, then you should not play it as a weapon.

Nurglitch wrote:
Interesting, because a Powerfist does not have a maximum range, a Strength rating, an AP score, or a type. I guess Powerfists are not weapons...

Got to shoot you down there. It is a Close Combat weapon, which does not have a range, Strength is defined as "double the wielder's characteristic," and it is defined as a power weapon, which has special rules of it's own regarding armor saves. The type is a Special Close Combat Weapon.

That is an Offical BAD ARGUMENT.

Mattlov:

I see you missed the argument. Let me sketch it out for you:

(1) The Deff Rolla is not a weapon, because it lacks x, y, and z properties.
(2) The Powerfist likewise lacks x, y, and z properties.
(3) Therefore the Powerfist is not a weapon.
(4) But the Powerfist is a weapon.
(5) Therefore the argument that the Deff Rolla is not a weapon because it lacks x, y, and z properties is a bad argument.

A Deff Rolla is vehicle wargear, which does not have a range, and its Strength is defined as 10, and has special rules of its own regarding when it hits. The type is "Deff Rolla".

Nurglitch wrote:Mattlov:

I see you missed the argument. Let me sketch it out for you:

(1) The Deff Rolla is not a weapon, because it lacks x, y, and z properties.
(2) The Powerfist likewise lacks x, y, and z properties.
(3) Therefore the Powerfist is not a weapon.
(4) But the Powerfist is a weapon.
(5) Therefore the argument that the Deff Rolla is not a weapon because it lacks x, y, and z properties is a bad argument.

A Deff Rolla is vehicle wargear, which does not have a range, and its Strength is defined as 10, and has special rules of its own regarding when it hits. The type is "Deff Rolla".

The strength of the rolla is not defined as 10, the strength of the hits a tank shocking tank equipped with a deff rolla can deal is defined as 10. The rolla does not even do damage, the tank shock action of a vehicle with a rolla is what does the damage.

It fits no definition of weapon provided in the rulebook.
People that say it 'functions' like a weapon have no rules base to stand on, just their opinion that certain characteristics are 'weaponlike' enough to make it count. The sentence they point to even goes on to only give upgrades that are clearly meet the books definitions of weapons, like storm bolters, as the only examples.

Gorkamorka:

It's interesting that you should mention that Deff Rollas don't have S10, and that only their hits have S10, because Powerfists don't have a Strength, and it's the hits caused by a model in close combat that have the bearer's Sx2.

I'm not saying it is a weapon. I'm saying that arguing it's not a weapon because it lacks properties commonly associated with ranged weapons is a bad argument.

Now, if you could find all the ways in which the rulebook defines weapons, either explicitly or by use, and then showed that the Deff Rolla shares none of these properties, then you might have a good argument.

In the meantime my suggestion stands: either treat it as weapon if you're going to use it on vehicles, or treat it as not a weapon if you aren't going to use it on vehicles.

Tank shocks don't do damage. They cause a leadership check and can cause units to move.

Ordznik wrote:Tank shocks don't do damage. They cause a leadership check and can cause units to move.

Yes, yes they do.
"Any tank shock made by a battlewagon with a Deff Rolla inflicts D6 S10 hits..."
Tank shock is inflicting that damage, not the deff rolla.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Ordznik wrote:Tank shocks don't do damage. They cause a leadership check and can cause units to move.

Yes, yes they do.
"Any tank shock made by a battlewagon with a Deff Rolla inflicts D6 S10 hits..."
Tank shock is inflicting that damage, not the deff rolla.

then why do you need the deffrolla ... look a model attacks in close combat not the weapon, All the weapon does is boost the models attacks; This is much the same as how the deffrolla works.

Tri said:
"then why do you need the deffrolla"

Because it looks sick on a battlewagon.

- Inappropriate image removed by moderator. -

1) "My defrolla does d6 S10 hits on vehicles"
2) "My defrolla can't be removed by weapon destroyed."
3) "Wow, this game store / tournament sure is unfriendly."

It's like stepping in to every semantic RAW / RAI question at once.