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.

Tri wrote:The deffroller is not a weapon. It will never be a weapon. It is a vehicle upgrade that acts like a weapon. Vehicle upgrades that act like a weapon can be destroyed by weapon destroyed result on the damage table.

But how do you define what "acts like a weapon is"? You can claim a Searchlight is a Weapon or Extra Armour is a Weapon, because both allow the tank to kill things it might not normally be able to.

Gwar, if you want to add to the thread why don't you actually add to it by examining the question of what is required to act as a weapon yourself? All you've done here is offer sarcastic answers. Please adhere to the tenets and offer rules quotes that support your position.

Dracos wrote:Most convincing on your side of the wall is that is says "all weapons are classified as either Rapid Fire, Pistol, Assault, Heavy or Ordnance." Interestingly enough, going with this requirement we now come to a point where DCCWs can't be destroyed because they are not classified in this way.

A DCCW is classified as a close combat weapon (pg. 42) That is the second category of weapons. There are weapons, and close combat weapons. Yes, a Close Combat weapon, as a type of weapon, can be destroyed.

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:The deffroller is not a weapon. It will never be a weapon. It is a vehicle upgrade that acts like a weapon. Vehicle upgrades that act like a weapon can be destroyed by weapon destroyed result on the damage table.

But how do you define what "acts like a weapon is"? You can claim a Searchlight is a Weapon or Extra Armour is a Weapon, because both allow the tank to kill things it might not normally be able to.

Do they directly cause damage? Extra armour? no. Search light? No. DeffRolla? Hell Yes!

The definition of weapon (p.27) for 40k does not include close combat weapons.

If "all weapons are classified as either Rapid Fire, Pistol, Assault, Heavy, or Ordnance." then anything without that, can't be a weapon. This includes DCCW despite it being a CCW, is not a weapon by the BGB definition.

Tri wrote:The deffroller is not a weapon. It will never be a weapon. It is a vehicle upgrade that acts like a weapon. Vehicle upgrades that act like a weapon can be destroyed by weapon destroyed result on the damage table.

It's a vehicle upgrade that enhances a type of attack. What part of a ram attack makes it a weapon? Weapons are defined in the rulebook and I just don't see how the deffrolla fits either definition. A Red Paint Job, by allowing a vehicle to move further, can also enhance a ram - how do you define the difference between this and a deffrolla?

Dracos wrote:Gwar, if you want to add to the thread why don't you actually add to it by examining the question of what is required to act as a weapon yourself? All you've done here is offer sarcastic answers. Please adhere to the tenets and offer rules quotes that support your position.

So pointing out a flaw in a persons logic is sarcastic now? Lovely.

Coming from the person who says that DCCW are not Close Combat Weapons...

Gwar! wrote:Coming from the person who says that DCCW are not Close Combat Weapons...

Please quote where I stated that.

See you can't, because I did not.

I did however submit that if a weapon is required to have a classification as above, then a DCCW can't be considered a weapon (while still being a CCW ... CCWs are never included in the definition of weapon either btw).

Dracos wrote:The definition of weapon (p.27) for 40k does not include close combat weapons.

If "all weapons are classified as either Rapid Fire, Pistol, Assault, Heavy, or Ordnance." then anything without that, can't be a weapon. This includes DCCW despite it being a CCW, is not a weapon by the BGB definition.

You are correct. But the rulebook also allows for a second category of weapons. There are weapons (ranged)[defined on page 27] and close combat weapons [defined on page 64]. Since both definitions use the term weapon we can presume there are two categories of weapon. Deffrollas do not fit either classification. If you can get them to fit either definition then they are weapons and can be destroyed via a weapon destroyed result.

I will happily admit GW could have chosen to write it all better - but I don't think there's anyone in this thread who would take the opposite standpoint. (in other words - please don't ask me to defend their grammar, I refuse)

Searlight does not function as a weapon because it does not cause damage.

Extra armor does not function as a weapon because it does not cause damage.

Spotlight does not function as a weapon because it does not cause damage.

Deffrolla does function as a weapon because it does cause damage.

Do you see how your "flaw" in the logic fails? One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just isn't the same...


@ thor..

Well I think the language does not remove deffrollas from the category of upgrades that function as weapons. Its really a matter of interpretation here - I think both sides have RAW points. When I play this over the board, I play by whatever way my opponent wants.

Dracos wrote:Please quote where I stated that.

See you can't, because I did not.

You did, but then you edited it out.

-Shrug- I shall have no further part in this charade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dracos wrote:Searlight does not function as a weapon because it does not cause damage.

Extra armor does not function as a weapon because it does not cause damage.

Spotlight does not function as a weapon because it does not cause damage.

Deffrolla does function as a weapon because it does cause damage.

Do you see how your "hole" in logic fails? One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just isn't the same...

Searchlights do cause damage. Indirectly, but they cause Damage by allowing other Weapons to fire at models they normally would be unable to see. By your logic, that counts as a weapon.

Gwar! wrote:Searchlights do cause damage. Indirectly, but they cause Damage by allowing other Weapons to fire at models they normally would be unable to see. By your logic, that counts as a weapon.

No the weapons firing are causing damage. Not the search light.

Deffrollas aren't weapons, they're vehicle upgrades. A Deffrolla has no profile for use as a ranged weapon nor any rules for use as a close combat weapon, so is not a weapon. It's a vehicle upgrade that can cause damage.

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Searchlights do cause damage. Indirectly, but they cause Damage by allowing other Weapons to fire at models they normally would be unable to see. By your logic, that counts as a weapon.

No the weapons firing are causing damage. Not the search light.

But the weapons would not cause damage were it not for the searchlight, thus the searchlight is the upgrade responsible for the damage, thus it is a weapon by Dracos's logic.

I wouldnt say a deff rolla is a weapon, its just an extra spiky roll on the front of the wagon, part of the actual structure of the vehicle in my mind rather than a weapon that's added on.

So I don't think a deff rolla can be destroyed on a 'Weapon Destroyed' result.

You accusations are humorous at best, sad at worst.

Either way, its still not the searchlight doing the damage making it not functioning as a weapon.

His answers are sarcastic because the answer is ENTIRELY BLEEDING OBVIOUS.

The Deff Rolla fails the "Is it a weapon" test, because it does not fulfill all requirements of the Weapon profile, specified on pg. 27. Let's run down the checklist.

Name: Deff Rolla
Max Range; You might say base-to-base, but that isn't actually a valid range. The Deff Rolla FAILS this part of the profile, and thus is NOT a weapon.
Strength; 10
AP: Um. . . what? It isn't "-", although arguing over that veers perilously close to the dreaded ramming debate. It isn't 0, because that isn't a valid AP value, and it isn't 2+ or any other number, for that matter, because it allows armor saves. The Deff Rolla FAILS this part of the profile, and thus isn't a weapon.
Type; Tell me if you figure this one out. It isn't Rapid Fire, because it deals out d6 hits. It isn't a Pistol, obviously. In fact it has no range at all, so it can't be ANY of the ranged weapon types. And it isn't a CCW because it does not act in the assault phase. The Deff Rolla FAILS this portion of the profile, and thus is NOT a weapon.

In short, the only parts of the profile you have are Name and Strength. Not nearly enough in my book.

And the profile isn't the only reason the Deff Rolla can't be a weapon! Check out page 73, the summary chart at the bottom. A Battlewagon is neither Fast nor a Walker, so if it moves at Cruising Speed it CAN'T USE WEAPONS; but it CAN use a Deffrolla. Hence, a Deffrolla is not a weapon. QED.

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Searchlights do cause damage. Indirectly, but they cause Damage by allowing other Weapons to fire at models they normally would be unable to see. By your logic, that counts as a weapon.

No the weapons firing are causing damage. Not the search light.

But the weapons would not cause damage were it not for the searchlight, thus the searchlight is the upgrade responsible for the damage, thus it is a weapon by Dracos's logic.

.... very well if thats what he said fair enough. I on the other hand haven't.

For an upgrade to count for weapon destroyed it must directly cause damage. Not indirectly. Deffrolla fits this. Red paint doesn't, nor does searchlights. Reinforced Ram is an enigma, by the rules set out it would only be a weapon on trukk since Battle Wagons can already Tank-charge.

Does a horrorfex count as a weapon in your opinion? It doesn't cause direct damage.

Thor665 wrote:
It's a vehicle upgrade that enhances a type of attack. What part of a ram attack makes it a weapon? Weapons are defined in the rulebook and I just don't see how the deffrolla fits either definition. A Red Paint Job, by allowing a vehicle to move further, can also enhance a ram - how do you define the difference between this and a deffrolla?

QFT- By the same token, Extra Armor enhances a vehicles ability to Tank Shock, as it allows the vehicle to Tank Shock when it normally would not be able to. Deffrolla only enhances an existing action, it poses no threat on its own. Tank Shock is perfectly capable of destroying units that fail morale checks too close to the board's edge.

Would you regard a Reinforced Ram on a Trukk as a weapon?

I would not.

BeRzErKeR wrote:His answers are sarcastic because the answer is ENTIRELY BLEEDING OBVIOUS.
...........rant............. Hence, a Deffrolla is not a weapon. QED.

It doesn't need to be a weapon. It can be a weapon or it could be a vehicle upgrade that acts like a weapon.

Tri wrote:For an upgrade to count for weapon destroyed it must directly cause damage. Not indirectly. Deffrolla fits this. Red paint doesn't, nor does searchlights. Reinforced Ram is an enigma, by the rules set out it would only be a weapon on trukk since Battle Wagons can already Tank-charge.

This is how I interpret the rule. I agree with Tri on this one.

That being said, I recognize that Thor has provided some evidence to support his interpretation as well. I don't feel like the evidence for this interpretation has been refuted so I can see arguments for both.

Tri wrote:
For an upgrade to count for weapon destroyed it must directly cause damage. Not indirectly. Deffrolla fits this.

That would be fine if your definition was supported by the definitions given for weaponry in the rulebook.

Thor665 wrote:Does a horrorfex count as a weapon in your opinion? It doesn't cause direct damage.

I'm not sure about this one. On the one hand it causes pinning which is a trait of weapons, but on the other hand it is not causing damage, I'm leaning towards no but I can see a case for it.

Tri wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:His answers are sarcastic because the answer is ENTIRELY BLEEDING OBVIOUS.
...........rant............. Hence, a Deffrolla is not a weapon. QED.

It doesn't need to be a weapon. It can be a weapon or it could be a vehicle upgrade that acts like a weapon.

Fine. Define "Acts like a weapon". How much does it need to act like a weapon? And where in the rulebook does it say so?

I submit that that line, "vehicle upgrade that acts like a weapon", refers only to vehicle upgrades that actually have a weapon profile; bolt-on big shootas, pintle-mounted storm bolters, hunter-killer missiles, etc.

Thor665 wrote:Does a horrorfex count as a weapon in your opinion? It doesn't cause direct damage.

Terrafex is a ranged weapon. Horrorfex is the same as Terrafex but with a larger range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Tri wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:His answers are sarcastic because the answer is ENTIRELY BLEEDING OBVIOUS.
...........rant............. Hence, a Deffrolla is not a weapon. QED.

It doesn't need to be a weapon. It can be a weapon or it could be a vehicle upgrade that acts like a weapon.

Fine. Define "Acts like a weapon". How much does it need to act like a weapon? And where in the rulebook does it say so?

I submit that that line, "vehicle upgrade that acts like a weapon", refers only to vehicle upgrades that actually have a weapon profile; bolt-on big shootas, pintle-mounted storm bolters, hunter-killer missiles, etc.

big shootas, pintle-mounted storm bolters, hunter-killer missiles are all weapons.

Tri wrote:

Thor665 wrote:Does a horrorfex count as a weapon in your opinion? It doesn't cause direct damage.

Terrafex is a ranged weapon. Horrorfex is the same as Terrafex but with a larger range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Tri wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:His answers are sarcastic because the answer is ENTIRELY BLEEDING OBVIOUS.
...........rant............. Hence, a Deffrolla is not a weapon. QED.

It doesn't need to be a weapon. It can be a weapon or it could be a vehicle upgrade that acts like a weapon.

Fine. Define "Acts like a weapon". How much does it need to act like a weapon? And where in the rulebook does it say so?

I submit that that line, "vehicle upgrade that acts like a weapon", refers only to vehicle upgrades that actually have a weapon profile; bolt-on big shootas, pintle-mounted storm bolters, hunter-killer missiles, etc.

big shootas, pintle-mounted storm bolters, hunter-killer missiles are all weapons.

Exactly; and they are also vehicle upgrades. in other words, they are vehicle upgrades that act like weapons. A Deff rolla is not; it acts like a weapon in no sense; it is not fired, it has no profile, it does nothing in either the shooting or assault phases, which is when all weapons are used.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Exactly; and they are also vehicle upgrades. in other words, they are vehicle upgrades that act like weapons.

your point? They're not acting as anything they are weapons. Deff Rolls cause damage. That is acting like a weapon in my book. (weird 2 posts then only one)

I think the biggest part of the problem is that the rules never define a requirement for what is needed for the vehicle upgrade to function as a weapon. Using the interpretation Tri and I have, it seems to leave open alot of vehicle upgrades that may/may not be considered. Our interpretation is more open and thus presents problems of what exactly fits.

The other interpretation presented is more closed, and thus causes less issues since most vehicle upgrades are not included save those that are obviously weapons like the storm bolters of hunter-killers.

Because the former interpretation requires further defining that exists outside the BGB, and the latter does not, it seems the latter is actually better. While I do not agree that RAW says the latter is necessarily correct over the former, practically speaking it is the better interpretation as less additional defining outside the BGB is needed.

Again, while I see a case for both sides the latter interpretation seems cleaner with less problems associated with it.

Thanks to those that provided cogent arguments and perspectives.

Tri wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:Exactly; and they are also vehicle upgrades. in other words, they are vehicle upgrades that act like weapons.

your point? They're not acting as anything they are weapons. Deff Rolls cause damage. That is acting like a weapon in my book.

But not in the rulebook.