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 suppose anything that causes a wound can be considered being a weapon.

or is there a specific rule that allows you to weapon destroy a DCCW?

I was looking for support and all I found was on page 27 (all weapons are classified as ....) it only goes over shooting weapons.

Corrode - ok, so how about the DE upgrade that causes S4 hits to units it moves over?

How is THAT not a weapon?

jdjamesdean- the rule can be found on p73 of the BRB in the box.

As was pointed out succinctly, the tank shock inflicts the damage not the deff rolla.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Corrode - so what about close combat weapons? Are they not weapons? Bladevanes hurt you during the mvoement phase. As does the Bomm on a deff copter. None of these is during the shooting phase.

You definition is too narrow.

A weapon DOES DAMAGE. A deff rolla does damage.

A deff rolla functions as a weapon.

A ram does damage. A deffrolla increases the damage of the ram. Therefore, the deffrolla is a weapon.
A ram does damage. A higher front armor increases the damage of the ram. Therefore, front armor is a weapon.

Does that really seem logical? I think any arguement about a deffrolla being a weapon can also be applied to front armor.

I sympathize with the thought that it IS a weapon...but then consider that without it the tank can still ram...so by that logic a tank itself is a weapon.

I agree with Heffling. Ramming makes the tank itself a weapon. Imagine the surprise on my opponent's face when the next time I get a weapon destroyed result I tell him I'll take the tank...or the front armor.

You can swing a DCCW. You can't swing a deff rolla...no more than you swing your front armor. It's more like a dozer blade for a vindicator...except for mowing cover it's mowing enemies...which you can do without the rolla.

A model can do damage to another model without a weapon.

As noted, a vehicle can Ram without a weapon.

If you read the assault rules, you'll see that there is no requirement for a model to have a weapon to fight in assault. A Dreadnought can still wound and kill models even if it has lost its Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon.

If you accept that a DCCW is a weapon, there is no reason not to accept that a Deffrolla is a weapon. The Deffrolla is actually MORE of a weapon, to be honest. It allows the model to deal wounds which it would othewise not be able to. A DCCW doesn't let the Dread do a greater number of wounds.

Does this now mean i can shoot off a land raiders extra armor? Or a vindicators dozer blade?

Do they cause wounds or damage results on vehicles, or enhance the model's ability to deal wounds or inflict damage results on vehicles?

I think that's a much more useful definition for "weapon" on a vehicle than one which leaves out Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons.

Given neither EA or Dozer Blades ever, under any circumstances, deal wounds - no.

It's bad enough that most ork players will claim that the deffrolla is not part of the vehicle (not target-able/ doesn't count for assault or range measurments). Now they are gonna claim it isn't a weapon. I got one friend who models his BW w/ the deffrolla in place of the front wheels (and then claims it isn't part of the vehicle as above.

I would have to agree that GW needs to be a bit better about certain definitions in game.

Mannahnin wrote:Do they cause wounds or damage results on vehicles, or enhance the model's ability to deal wounds or inflict damage results on vehicles?

I think that's a much more useful definition for "weapon" on a vehicle than one which leaves out Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons.

Again, though, Front Armor could be considered a weapon by this definition, as it increases the strength of a ram.

The best definition of a "weapon" would be that it is an item that requires either a ballistic skill test on the to-hit shooting chart, a weapon skill test on the close combat chart, or follows the template (blast or flamer) rules. Items that are noted as always hitting are treated as automatically passing the relevant roll.

So, a bolter is a weapon because you have to roll to hit with it using your BS.
A DCCW is a weapon because you have to roll to hit with it using your WS.
A Zzap gun is a weapon because it is fired in the shooting phase and includes the phrase "automatically hits".
A Big Bomb is a weapon because it uses the blast rules for template allocation.
A Deff Rolla is not a weapon, because as its rules states, it does not roll against WS or BS, nor does it use the template rules. It also does not include the "automatic hit" type description in its rules.

By the same arguements you make for using weapon destroyed on a Deff Rolla, I could make for a Ram, or even for Front Armor Value.

But there is a clear difference between a Tank Shock and a Ram Attack. Under the Ramming section it says, "Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal." The Deffrolla is only usable during a tank shock per its entry. Armor values are only used in a ramming attack. The deffrolla cannot making a ramming attack, again per its entry. There are no rules for destroying a piece of armor on a vehicle, you'd be instead attacking the vehicle outright. The argument that the front armor is a weapon doesn't apply here because it would be a ram not a tank shock. Also a deffrolla does NOT increase the damage of a ram because it doesn't increase the FA value, it increases the damage of a Tank Shock.

As stated above, "Items that are noted as always hitting are treated as automatically passing the roll." In the deffrolla entry it says, "...causes D6 strength 10 hits" which would mean it auto hits when it successfully tanks shocks the unit. So even by that definition it would be a weapon.

As mentioned earlier about the Tau tank discharger things (I forgot the actual name) They can possibly cause wounds to anything assaulting that vehicle. It could be argued that its not a "weapon" because the attacker is choosing to assault that vehicle and if he/she didn't want to risk the effects of that wargear they should not assault it. A squad getting tank shocked can't choose to ignore the effects of the deffrolla because the ork player is attacking him with it, as a weapon.

Instead of arguing that this isn't a weapon, see the advantage in the fact that you have another weapon to be destroyed before being immobilized.

This is a weapon, pure and simple.

Brennus43 wrote:The deffrolla cannot making a ramming attack, again per its entry.
Also a deffrolla does NOT increase the damage of a ram because it doesn't increase the FA value, it increases the damage of a Tank Shock

Yes, you can use the DR during a Ram. Ramming is a type of tank shock. See the Ork FAQ where this is stated explicitly.

Brennus43 wrote:As mentioned earlier about the Tau tank discharger things (I forgot the actual name) They can possibly cause wounds to anything assaulting that vehicle. It could be argued that its not a "weapon" because the attacker is choosing to assault that vehicle and if he/she didn't want to risk the effects of that wargear they should not assault it. A squad getting tank shocked can't choose to ignore the effects of the deffrolla because the ork player is attacking him with it, as a weapon.

I find this argument bizarre, frankly. There is no more "choice" in the dischargers than the DR. A player could simply choose to stay out tank shock range. If the DR is a weapon then so are FDs.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Brennus43 wrote:The deffrolla cannot making a ramming attack, again per its entry.
Also a deffrolla does NOT increase the damage of a ram because it doesn't increase the FA value, it increases the damage of a Tank Shock

Yes, you can use the DR during a Ram. Ramming is a type of tank shock. See the Ork FAQ where this is stated explicitly.

Aha, I missed that, thanks for pointing that out.

As far as my other argument, I have picked a very poor example but could literally not come up with a different one. In fact I'm starting to believe that FDs are INDEED a weapon based on your counter-point.

Personally, I would go with the argument that if it isn't something you shoot in the shooting phase or use as a CCW it's not a weapon.

You need to be consistent with either interpretation though. (for example, I would not consider chain-snares a weapon but they should be considered weapons under your interpretation)

I think that RAW, since it's not listed as a "weapon", deffrolla is not a weapon and threfore cannot be destroyed.
I also would like to point out that this is, in my opinion, necessary for game balance. If you suffer a "weapon destroyed" your "normal" vehicle is prevented from shooting with that weapon. In the same way you lose your deffrolla if your vehicle is immobilized (you can't tank shock or ram anything if you can't move).
So ther is on tha damage chart 1 result that, we coudl say, "destroy" the deffrolla as any other weapon.
For this reason I think that also RAI the deffrolla shouldn't be destroyed as a weapon because it already have 1 result in the damage chart that substancially renders it useless.

punkow wrote:I think that RAW, since it's not listed as a "weapon"

it does not need to be one to be destroyed.

punkow wrote:I also would like to point out that this is, in my opinion, necessary for game balance.

The same can be said about the other side of the debate.

punkow wrote:the deffrolla shouldn't be destroyed as a weapon because it already have 1 result in the damage chart that substancially renders it useless.

At least 2 more results will render any weapon useless--either Destroyed. Why would that affect anything?

Yes. It should be able to be removed with WD results.

you don't understand my point....
Weapon destroyed: renders useless a range weapon but do not affect Deffrolla
Immobilized: renders useless the deffrolla but do not affect(to a large extent) range weapons
Destroyed: obviously renders useless both
shaken-stunned are for 1 turn only so, even if we can say that they affect range weapons and not deffrollas (if you have extra armour) I think they matter less.
Btw
This is a personal opinion absolutely not supported by something written...
The thing I can support is the fact that deffrollas aren't listed as weapons so they can't be destroyed with WD...
Fluff-wise also... deffrollas are giant spiked cylinders not guns or cannons with vulnerable spots... if the shot is strong enough to damage them it's strange that the BW remains unscathed....

punkow wrote:a range weapon

This is the main part that I have issue with. I understood your point, however.
1. The fact that the weapon has no range does not matter. (See: DCCW)
2. The fact that something is not a weapon does not matter. (See the rules as the also allow things that function as one)

The fluff bits are just odd. Of course there are weak spots--hit the joints or somesuch.
How is it stranger that a basilisk can survive its main gun's destruction and yet an optional attachment that is jury-rigged onto the front of an Ork vehicle should be too stable to remove?!

A five minute conversation to hash out what was intended and what is most balanced for the game overall and this codex specifically. Another five minutes to run down to the web dev team and tell them to write the answer on their own website. An eternity of the problem solved and people being able to know how things should be handled.

I will never, ever fail to be impressed at how truly piss-poor a company GW really is.

SumYungGui wrote:A five minute conversation to hash out what was intended and what is most balanced for the game overall and this codex specifically. Another five minutes to run down to the web dev team and tell them to write the answer on their own website. An eternity of the problem solved and people being able to know how things should be handled.

I will never, ever fail to be impressed at how truly piss-poor a company GW really is.

Hehehe, course, if we did that, ie did something silly and asked the author what his intent was and then went with what the codex author said, wewouldn't be able to ram with it................. But yeah, I'm am constantly amazed at how poor GW is in the FAQ department.

Thaylen wrote: I got one friend who models his BW w/ the deffrolla in place of the front wheels (and then claims it isn't part of the vehicle as above.

I believe the proper response to this calim is "The feth it ain't." , followed by shooting the crap out of his BW. If he then persists, the proper response to "Want to play a game?" is a kick in the nuts.

yes... in reality you're right... looking at the ork dex that's older of the new ones, this lack of clear distinction between weapons and other stuff isn't so clear...
Btw I think that there isn't a "right" answer cause any of the two choice maybe supported by facts...
Anyway I always prefer a solution based on reason, game balance and, sometimes, fluff than on obscure grammar or stretched comparisons... I think that disallowing deffrollas being destroyed by WD is somewhat balanced for reasons aforementioned...
But probably you'll have to discuss this previously with TO or your friends, finding a solution to the problem... maybe even a totally arbitrary one...

Okay along the same lines as the def rolla, would flechette launchers from the Tau be counted as weapons that can be destroyed?

And what about Chain Snares?

They deal wounds. If we're using that as the standard (which I think may be the more consistent & logical way to go), then they would.

The Deffrolla isnt inflicting the damage - Battlewagons equipped with them conducing a tank shock or ramming attack inflict damage. Its an upgrade not a weapon. CrisCP has it right.

I hate how many people in these threads ignore the rulebook saying

RB wrote:This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapon

And justify themselves saying

kaiservonhugal wrote:Its an upgrade not a weapon

The only question is what is required of a vehicle upgrade for it to function as a weapon. That is the ambiguous part of the rule.

Whats the context of your rulebook quote?