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.

As the Deff Rolla has spawned a fresh wave of controversy and nerdrage since the FAQ came out, it seemed appropriate to run a poll and see what Dakkaites think of the Deff Rolla and Weapon Destroyed results.

I play it as Option Five: I agree with you if you buy me a Drink and Disagree if you do not.

I woudl have to say yes. it is an add-on that can be used as a weapon - ergo it can be weapon destroyed.

I'd go with option 6, which is a definite 'Maybe'...

I've been convinced by the other thread that the RAW is 'no'... but am undecided as to how to actually play it.

Nothing like a poll to definitively solve a rules debate!

>.>'

I said no it is not destroyable. (But I would let it go either way if it caused a problem). On the other thread, it was pointed out that if the BW is immobilised, the Deffrolla is effectively destroyed as well (unless someone wants to run headfirst into the stationary 'rolla and take the hits). Since it cannot funtion without a mobile wagon, it is part of the wagon and not destroyable.

Thank you Gwar!, for the warning. Let that be a precaution and disclaimer to us all.
Now, I chose 4. Because it does not go BANG BANG dakkadakkadakka nor is it used in close combat. Therefore it is not a weapon as such, but an extension of the vehicle. However, I would let my opponent choose to destroy it anyway, especially if I was immobilized already.

RAW, I also say no. Since immobilization would also effectively neutralize this piece of wargear, there is an exit strategy However, it does look like a weapon.

No, because it does not have weapon stats.

In a way, its role is similar to that of extra armour plates, or even grot riggers. You buy it, and it helps the vehicle in some way that could or could not directly link to actual combat. If you can blow up a rolla, it stands to reason that you can blow up riggers or armour plates too. I have nothing against this.

In the Ork Codex, it's quite clear. "Weapons," even those for vehicles are listed under "Weapons" (Ork codex, p.89). Ork "Vehicle Upgrades" are listed on page 93. Deffrolla is listed under "Upgrades," not "Weapons," along with the wreckin' ball (can also hit units) and boardin' plank (can be used to hit units). The damage table is "weapon destroyed," not "upgrade destroyed." End of story, as far as I'm concerned. There is no place where it is listed as a weapon, regardless of how it acts in the game. It can't be taken off any more than I can blast off your Daemonic Possession, Dozer Blade, Extra Armour, Star Engines, Holo-Fields, whatever else is listed under Options or Vehicle Armoury.

~80% 'No's after almost 40 votes... starting to look pretty definitive.

No for all the reasons I stated in another thread.

sourclams wrote:Nothing like a poll to definitively solve a rules debate!

Given that the poll is asking who we would play it, I would say the intention is not so much to 'solve' the debate as to simply determine how players are choosing to play it.

I voted no.
* It is not a weapon.
* On page 61 of the BGB, the weapon destroyed result mentions vehicle upgrades that act as a weapon, they cite the pintle mounted stormbolter and the hunter-killer missile. Both of these examples have clear profiles found in reference.
* Both cited examples are ranged weapons.
* Both cited examples are used in the Shooting Phase.
* The Deff Rolla's effect does not occur in either the Shooting Phase, nor the Assault Phase.
* The Deff Rolla has no written profile, anywhere.
* The Deff Rolla does not attack, it enhances the results of a ram/tank shock, an action taken by a vehicle in the movement phase.
* The Deff Rolla conforms to no description of a weapon anywhere in the BGB.
* If the results for a Deff Rolla enhanced ram/tank shock were carried out by an upgrade called 'electrified front armour', this identical upgrade would cause none of this argument. People are saying it's a weapon because it is represented on the model physically.

The Deff Rolla is not a weapon.

Few points that people are missing:

Not all weapons have a full statline: Power klaws are weapons, stikkbombs are weapons, for that matter bombsquigs are weapons!

There are two requirements for it to be able to be weapons destroyed

1) It must be a vehicle upgrade
2) It must function as a weapon. Not be a weapon, it must function as a weapon functions.


So no, it doesnt have to be a ranged weapon.

So no, it doesnt have to be used in the shooting phase.


The deff rolla actually operates in much the same manner as the big bomm, since both are used in the movement phase.

As far as a profile, the deff rolla has a strength, it has automatically hits, it has a range and it has fixed number of hits.




It isnt as open and shut as many people keep loudly claiming.


Sliggoth

It has no profile. It has an effect, but that effect isn't a strength attribute or a range attribute. The Battlewagon gets D6 attacks when ramming. That's the effect.

sourclams wrote:Nothing like a poll to definitively solve a rules debate!

>.>'

Debates in real life end with a vote. The winning vote decides the alternative to be picked.

Of course it only works because people join in the debate with good faith that both sides will abide by the decision.

In rules arguments there always are a few holdouts who say that GW FAQs are just house rules, or something, so the best you can do is to find out the spread of opinions on the matter.

I am fairly surprised that so far the majority consider the Deff Rolla not to be something which functions as a weapon. However, if it is not counted as a weapon, the tank can absorb less damage, so it should balance out.

Pika_power wrote:It has no profile. It has an effect, but that effect isn't a strength attribute or a range attribute. The Battlewagon gets D6 attacks when ramming. That's the effect.

... at S10

@Pika Yes, it does have a str...str10. yes, it has a range, the range just happens to require being in btb (or contact if you prefer that form of the measurement) And yes, the faq tells us that the deffrolla is doing the hits, not the bw.

The deffrolla has more of a profile than many of the other weapons listed in the ork codex.


Sliggoth

BlueDagger wrote:

Pika_power wrote:It has no profile. It has an effect, but that effect isn't a strength attribute or a range attribute. The Battlewagon gets D6 attacks when ramming. That's the effect.

... at S10

No, it gives the battlewagon the ability to deal D6 attacks when ramming. No where is it stated that the Deffrolla is

Deffrolla

S10 AP- Range 0" D6 Tank Shock*

*may only be fired when vehicle is Tank Shocking, fires 2D6 shots when a Death or Glory attempt is made on the Tank shock. It does not suffer the -1 penetration penalty for AP-.

Even if the effect of the Deffrolla can be summarised as that, there's no reason to. It makes as much sense as the below RPJ summary.

Red Paint Job

S0 Range 0" AP- 0 Assault*

The Red Paint Job cannot be fired. It allows the vehicle to move 1" extra with no penalties in the movement phase. If it is destroyed, the vehicle loses this benefit.

No, simply its under the Vehicle Upgrades section in the codex, not under the weapon section. A deff-rolla cannot be destroyed, nor can ´Ard case, Armour plates, Boarding plank, Grabbin klaw, Grot riggers, RPJ, Reinforced ram, Stikkbomb shukka and the wrecking ball be destroyed.

@ Pika Im sorry, but it does indeed say str 10. If we only stop at that point right there then we have one single stat for the deffrolla, and we know that the deffrolla causes str 10 hits. That is just as much information as we have from the rule listing for the bomb squigs...which we know are weapons. Not all weapons are listed in a neat tidy little form where all of the stats are laid out in profile form. So while it would be nice if the rules gave us all of a weapons stats in a nice profile form, but GW doesnt choose to do that.


And again, its not the bw thats dealing the hits, the faq tells us that its the deffrolla itself dealing the str 10 hits.

Sliggoth



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ a94 Except the rule has two steps. It has to be a vehicle upgrade and it has to be functioning as a weapon. If nothing under the vehicle upgrade section of a codex counted, then the seismic hammer wouldnt be able to be destroyed for the SM. Its not as simple as many people try and make it.

Sliggoth

The 73% majority disagrees with your loose interpretation.

In other words, if it is indeed ambiguous, 3 in every 4 people agree on the more restrictive interpretation regarding weapon classification.

@Sliggoth: Bomb squigs are not weapons either, as they are done instead of shooting and do not have a profile. Sure, it's under the weapons section, but IIRC, as someone else stated, if we use that as a ruling, nothing in the SM armoury is a weapon (or some similar problem that I can't go into detail about). Also, if we use that as our definition, a KFF also counts as a weapon, meaning that our standard for weapons is anything with a block of text.

How about we keep this thread to the original question, which was how you choose to actually play it?

There is another thread running for the actual rules debate.

I would let them destroy my deff rolla if I can destroy their extra armour, etc...

2 off-topic posts removed.

Once again: This thread is about how you would play the Deff Rolla. Not a discussion of the RAW.

Keep it on topic, and keep the rules discussion to the other thread.

Option 1.

If you want to use it to inflict casualties on my army, you are using it as a weapon. If you only want to use it for dangerous terrain tests and not the d6 str10 aspect, ie, not as a weapon, then I won't consider it a weapon.

Nightwatch wrote:I would let them destroy my deff rolla if I can destroy their extra armour, etc...

Why would you want to? Counting more upgrades as weapons makes their vehicles harder to destroy...