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.

Any "Normal" CCW lacks such a profile.

kartofelkopf wrote:Yes, and, vehicle upgrades that function as weapons may be destroyed.

A ramming vehicle cannot be destroyed as a weapon... as it is neither a weapon, nor an upgrade.

Waaaaghmaster wrote:
Take a closer look at that sentence..
"This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles"

It clearly refers to actual "weapons" that can be taken as wargear.

And, so with these two comments, we see that the expansion for 'wargear' covers things described as weapons, storm bolters and missiles.

As Yakface said, in no part of the codex does the deffrolla get described as a weapon. It is an available upgrade to the vehicle.

kartofelkopf wrote:

A ramming vehicle cannot be destroyed as a weapon... as it is neither a weapon, nor an upgrade.

If you define a weapon as "something that can inflict hits", then yes actually, your tank IS a weapon.

So basically, if you claim you are allowed to remove a Deffrolla on a "Weapon Destroyed" result, I claim I am allowed to remove your Land Raider in entirety, as it is clearly something that can inflict hits, and thus a weapon by your definition.

kartofelkopf wrote:Any "Normal" CCW lacks such a profile.

Because it is defined elsewhere.

I've never claimed it -is- a weapon. It clearly isn't.

The question is, does it function as a weapon?

Does it inflict hits, which are then translated into wounds/damage?

That seems to be pretty weapon-like to me.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

kartofelkopf wrote:Yes, and, vehicle upgrades that function as weapons may be destroyed.

A ramming vehicle cannot be destroyed as a weapon... as it is neither a weapon, nor an upgrade.

Waaaaghmaster wrote:
Take a closer look at that sentence..
"This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles"

It clearly refers to actual "weapons" that can be taken as wargear.

And, so with these two comments, we see that the expansion for 'wargear' covers things described as weapons, storm bolters and missiles.

As Yakface said, in no part of the codex does the deffrolla get described as a weapon. It is an available upgrade to the vehicle.

I think you misread my post. I said that by their definition of a weapon, a deffrolla is not a weapon, therefore not subject to weapon destroyed results

BeRzErKeR wrote:

kartofelkopf wrote:

A ramming vehicle cannot be destroyed as a weapon... as it is neither a weapon, nor an upgrade.

If you define a weapon as "something that can inflict hits", then yes actually, your tank IS a weapon.

So basically, if you claim you are allowed to remove a Deffrolla on a "Weapon Destroyed" result, I claim I am allowed to remove your Land Raider in entirety, as it is clearly something that can inflict hits, and thus a weapon by your definition.

Sigh.

ONLY weapons and vehicle upgrades (that function like weapons) may be destroyed.

You're being obtuse to claim my argument is anything otherwise.

kartofelkopf wrote:
Yes, but the RAW says "EVERY WEAPON has a profile that consists of several elements."

Clearly, this is not the case, as we can cite several weapons that have no such profiles.

If something doesn't have a weapon profile and is never called a "weapon" in any way, then why would we ever assume it is a weapon?


Those are the two criteria:

1) Has a weapon profile.
2) Is called a weapon.


Anything else isn't a weapon!


If the Deff Rolla can be destroyed then why can't a boarding plank, grabbin klaw, reinforced ram, etc? How about Red Paint Job? Where is the dividing line?


There can be only one acceptable way to determine whether a vehicle upgrade is a 'weapon' or not, and that is if it falls into one of the two categories I outlined above.


I just don't see any other fair way to handle this.

kartofelkopf wrote:I've never claimed it -is- a weapon. It clearly isn't.

The question is, does it function as a weapon?

Does it inflict hits, which are then translated into wounds/damage?

That seems to be pretty weapon-like to me.

But wait, if inflicting hits is "functioning like a weapon", then isn't your tank still "functioning like a weapon" when it Rams another tank?

At this point I submit that we are having a clearly absurd argument. I would speculate that the argument in favor of destroying Deffrollas is inspired mostly - not entirely, but mostly - by fear of the effect of Deffrollas against vehicles. To alleviate that fear, please read the thread in News and Rumors about the FAQ, where I've run some basic math on Deffrollas. They really aren't game-breaking at all.

BeRzErKeR wrote:But wait, if inflicting hits is "functioning like a weapon", then isn't your tank still "functioning like a weapon" when it Rams another tank?

It may be functioning as a weapon, but the vehicle is not an upgrade to itself.

I would speculate that the argument in favor of destroying Deffrollas is inspired mostly - not entirely, but mostly - by fear of the effect of Deffrollas against vehicles.

Speaking as an Ork player, the argument in favour of destroying the rolla is based simply on the fact that it quacks like a weapon, which is good enough for me.

yakface wrote: Where is the dividing line?

/snip/

I just don't see any other fair way to handle this.

I've already said I don't think it's clear.

I also think it's a tad silly to use a slippery slope argument here-- some things are clearly NOT weapons (No one is asking if they can destroy a Red Paint Job).

Things that function as weapons are in the questionable category.

What is the function of a weapon?

A plain-english reading of this would conclude that actual weapons (i.e., the ones Yak argues are exhaustive of the category) would certainly function as weapons. I'm just trying to point out that other things can function like weapons without being weapons.

I believe a Deffrolla meets this criteria. I also think a wrecking ball does. Flechette Launchers come to mind (not having the codex handy, can't recall exactly) as another potential candidate.

I'm not claiming that RAW is 100% behind it... I'm just trying to point out that a reasonable reading of the RAW allows for one to -also- conclude that some non-weapon upgrades might be susceptible to weapon destroyed results. Otherwise, why even bother with putting in the caveat? If only things defined as weapons can be destroyed, the vehicle upgrade phrasing is superfluous.

kartofelkopf wrote:
I'm not claiming that RAW is 100% behind it... I'm just trying to point out that a reasonable reading of the RAW allows for one to -also- conclude that some non-weapon upgrades might be susceptible to weapon destroyed results. Otherwise, why even bother with putting in the caveat? If only things defined as weapons can be destroyed, the vehicle upgrade phrasing is superfluous.

The caveat defines that internally with examples of vehicle upgrades that are also functioning weapons (such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles)

Where do you draw the line, if we're to follow your interperetation?
Are reinforced rams destroyable? They add the damaging ram and tank shock options to a trukk.
Are boarding planks destroyable? They allow an ork to deal damage from the vehicle.
Why are deffrollas, which add a damaging component to the tank shock action of the vehicle but similarly do no damage themselves, more clearly allowed?

And as been pointed out, vehicles function as weapons - tank shocking and ramming.

I rolled a weapon destroyed result against your land raider. No, I don't want the twin-linked lascannon, just destroy the land raider itself.

There has to be a line somewhere, where things fit on one side or the other. To classify the deffrolla as a weapon, you classify vehicles themselves as weapons - because they both cause hits.

But it fits neither the "weapon" category, nor the CCW category. If you want to classify it as a CCW and let battlewagons conduct assaults, I'm ok with that too.

Dashofpepper wrote:And as been pointed out, vehicles function as weapons - tank shocking and ramming.

I rolled a weapon destroyed result against your land raider. No, I don't want the twin-linked lascannon, just destroy the land raider itself.

There has to be a line somewhere, where things fit on one side or the other. To classify the deffrolla as a weapon, you classify vehicles themselves as weapons - because they both cause hits.

But it fits neither the "weapon" category, nor the CCW category. If you want to classify it as a CCW and let battlewagons conduct assaults, I'm ok with that too.

UGH. Are you daft? It's been pointed out 3 separate times.

NO ONE IS CLAIMING VEHICLES = WEAPONS.

The discussion is about the rules, found on p61, that state that some vehicle upgrades may be destroyed.

Please, read the thread/relevant rules before posting.

That's right, no one's arguing it. That's a closed book.

Still, I am overwhelmed with an urge to try that, just once, just to see the look on the other guy's face.

*ahem* Anyway! Back to our silly argument!

I'd say by RAW, its not a weapon, however by logic it should be.

I don't think vehicles can even have true CCWs, but could be wrong. Regardless, the codex calls it wargear.

kartofelkopf wrote:

The discussion is about the rules, found on p61, that state that some vehicle upgrades may be destroyed.

The rule goes on to list examples of vehicle upgrades which are also weapons, and defined as such, like stormbolters.

'Weapon' is a defined game term. From the RB:

BRB wrote:Every weapon has a profile that consists of several elements, for example:
max range
strength
armour piercing {AP}
Type

Where's the weapon profile of a Deffrolla?

I can look in the back of the book and find the profile for stormbolters, heavy stubbers, hunter killer missiles (ref. krak missile), and multi meltas.

The only thing even close to this I think would be the Dreadnought Close Combat weapon, which has rules that specifically state that one can be destroyed.

Since it takes huge, huge intuitive leaps to get to 'Deffrolla = weapon = can be destroyed', I'm firmly in the RAW=No camp.

Snikkyd wrote:I'd say by RAW, its not a weapon, however by logic it should be.

I don't think vehicles can even have true CCWs, but could be wrong. Regardless, the codex calls it wargear.

Uh, DCCWs?

Also, why is it "logical" that the Deff Rolla be a weapon? It's no more logical than extra armour being a weapon or a Dozer Blade being a weapon, it's a big thing strapped to the vehicle that doesn't fit GWs defnition of a weapon and should be treated the same as any other thing matching that description.

A weapons destroyed result can destroy two separate things:

1) a weapon on a vehicle, so this would be something that is actually defined as a weapon.

2) upgrades for the vehicle that functions as weapons

So its quite clear that there can be some upgrades that are NOT in and of themselves weapons that can be destroyed, as long as the upgrade functions as a weapon.


There are upgrades that quite clearly in this function as a weapon, wrecking ball is clearly something that can be destroyed.

There are upgrades that quite clearly do not function as a weapon, red paint would obviously not be a weapon.




Then there are other upgrades, which since this is ymdc we should attempt to determine whether or not that are wepons. If this isnt the place to try and figure this mess out then there simply is no place else to look.



Well, lets start with what do weapons do?

Both ranged and cc weapons attempt to hit their target, both then try and either wound or inflict hits on their target. Logically, vehicle upgrades that can hit inflict wounds or hits should very seriously be examined to see if they might be functioning as a weapon. If an upgrade cannot in and of itself inflict hits or wounds, then this becomes more of a stretch.


Both RAW and RAI are not crystal clear on this, so we really do need to discuss this a bit.



Sliggoth

The deff rolla is a upgrade that allows a re-roll of a DT that just so happens to have the side effect of tank shocking & ramming. I just don’t see it as a weapon so don’t take my re-roll away from me.

Just to add fuel to the fire, could we not infer from the rules that a Deffrolla has:

Range 0"
Strength 10

While they are not listed out in the traditional sense, you can pull both of those from the description of the alleged weapon.

Green is Best! wrote:Just to add fuel to the fire, could we not infer from the rules that a Deffrolla has:

Range 0"
Strength 10

While they are not listed out in the traditional sense, you can pull both of those from the description of the alleged weapon.

No, because the deff rolla does not have a range of 0, a strength value, or do any hits or damage.

For the upteenth time, the deffrolla does not do damage. The battlewagon does so for having one.

Sliggoth wrote:There are upgrades that quite clearly in this function as a weapon, wrecking ball is clearly something that can be destroyed.

Bad choice of example, I can't speak for everyone in the "Deffrolla isn't a weapon" crowd, but I most certainly would also argue a wrecking ball isn't able to be destroyed. I think it has to be either a ranged weapon or a close combat weapon, or specifically called a weapon, to be eligible.

There are upgrades that quite clearly do not function as a weapon, red paint would obviously not be a weapon.

This is correct, I doubt anyone would dispute that

Both ranged and cc weapons attempt to hit their target, both then try and either wound or inflict hits on their target. Logically, vehicle upgrades that can hit inflict wounds or hits should very seriously be examined to see if they might be functioning as a weapon. If an upgrade cannot in and of itself inflict hits or wounds, then this becomes more of a stretch.

The rulebook though, as said repeatedly indicates all ranged weapons have a ranged weapon profile, and melee weapons can only be used in close combat, so none of these ork upgrades would qualify as that. The issue isn't even "we must determine if this is a weapon or not" it's simply a matter of how people are defining weapons, and given one group is pulling their definitions from the rulebook, instead of a dictionary, I can't see why they don't have more support for RAW.

I'm in the Yes camp, while it is a wargear upgrade, so is a HK Missile, which can be destroyed if one chooses.

Gorkamorka wrote:
No, because the deff rolla does not have a range of 0, a strength value, or do any hits or damage.

For the upteenth time, the deffrolla does not do damage. The battlewagon does so for having one.

So how does "indeed inflict d6 S10 hits against vehicles" not count as S10 hits?

The thing everyone is missing is the deff rolla doesn’t cause the hits it just allows the battle wagon to cause the hits. So there is no way it could be removed by a damaged weapon result.

As orkcommander said, it's "suffers" d6 s10 hits they never even say where they come from other than being tankshocked by a deffrolla equipped BW.

...missing his codcies more each day...

orkcommander wrote:The thing everyone is missing is the deff rolla doesn’t cause the hits it just allows the battle wagon to cause the hits. So there is no way it could be removed by a damaged weapon result.

Well, the FAQ as written would disagree with you:

'The death rolla does indeed inflict d6 S10 hits against vehicles...."

It does not say "The death rolla is an extension of the battlewagon allowing the battlewagon to inflict hits while allowing cunning rules lawyers to dance around the issue of weapon removal."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:As orkcommander said, it's "suffers" d6 s10 hits they never even say where they come from other than being tankshocked by a deffrolla equipped BW.

...missing his codcies more each day...

See above. The FAQ is pretty explicit in where the hits come from.

FACT:
GW FAQs are just house rules.

FACT:
RAW trumps house rules.

FACT:
The Ork FAQ confirms the RAW that is already in the Ork Codex that a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla can affect vehicles.

A quote from Page 55 of the Ork Codex:
“Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit.”

FACT:
The Battlewagon (that just so happens to have a Deff Rolla) is causing the hits not the Deff Rolla.

FACT:
the Deff Rolla is not a weapon.

Please stop all the Ork hate and lets focus on the true enemy:
THE TYRANIDS!

Man, how come this wasn't really an issue before it got ruled by GW that it can affect vehicles? I'm sensing some panic.

Personally, let it count as a weapon; it saves me the trouble of paying points for a Big Shoota just to absorb a weapon destroyed hit as to not get my BW immobilized. My BW need to get stuck in to deliver payload. Darn, I guess I will now need to ask before the game how this is ruled. One rule cleared up, another rears its ugly head.