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.

Green is Best! wrote:
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.

See above for the Codex specific wording.

Thanks Orkcommander for keeping it real.

Sarigar wrote: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.

It would be nice to use it to absorb a weapon destroyed hit but as much as you want to you can’t by pure RAW.

You don't need to ask before the game how it is ruled. One rule has just been confirmed and everything else is taken care of by RAW.

FACT:
The FAQ clearly states where the hits come from.

The FAQ was designed to clear up an open ended interpretation. You claim that RAW trumps the FAQ, yet prior to the FAQ it was questionable whether rollas could be used on vehicles. Kind of a bit of circular logic to say the brb trumps an faq that clarifies the brb? But I digress...


Let me ask you this then, for I think it would sum up whether the Deffrolla is a weapon or not. In other threads it is already being asked if the Deffrolla hits stack with the regular ram the battlewagon would inflict. How you answer that question?

If the Deffrolla replaces the ramming attack, then it is part of the battlewagon.

If the Deffrolla stacks with the ram, then it should be counted as a weapon since it is doing additional attacks in conjunction with the ram done by the battlewagon.

By your own statment the FAQ was "designed to clear up an open ended interpretation. "
Which was:
"Can you use the Deffrolla when Ramming
vehicles or does it only work when Tank
Shocking non-vehicle units?"
The answer being:
"The death rolla does indeed inflict D6 S10 hits
against vehicles, as Ramming is just a type of
Tank Shock."

See how the bit of clarification actually has nothing to do with the Rolla it's just telling people (again) the Yes a Ramm is a type of Tank-Shock.

What you are doing is wanting to take a piece of the reply and apply it to a different situation while using it as justification for you point, you are performing a contextomy in the form of an appeal to authority.

Green is Best! wrote:
If the Deffrolla replaces the ramming attack, then it is part of the battlewagon.

If the Deffrolla stacks with the ram, then it should be counted as a weapon since it is doing additional attacks in conjunction with the ram done by the battlewagon.

No... no it shouldn't. Neither argument lends any rules support for either interpretation.
The issue is entirely separate, and based entirely on the deff rolla rules not stating that they replace/override/remove the standard ramming hit.

I don't know why we got off on this tangent. It doesn't matter if the Deff Rolla causes the hits or the Battlewagon does.

It isn't a weapon and there isn't any indication that it is. The rule about destroying vehicle upgrades that act as weapons gives examples of what they're talking about: Storm bolters and hunter-killer missiles. Both of these upgrades clearly have a weapon profile.

A Deff Rolla does not, nor is it ever called a weapon, so it isn't.


If you want to claim that it is behaving like a weapon, why? Just because it causes hits? Are exploding vehicles a weapon? Can Tau Flechette Dischargers be destroyed by a weapon destroyed result? Where are you getting this 'definition' from?

What other 'weapon' is ONLY used by a vehicle during a tank shock/ram? There is no precedent in the game for considering this upgrade to be a weapon.


There are two completely definitive ways to identify something that is a weapon in 40K

A) It has a weapon profile as defined in the rules.
B) It is called a 'weapon'.


The Deff Rolla is neither of these things and is therefore not an upgrade that is a weapon.

Green is Best! wrote:FACT:
The FAQ clearly states where the hits come from.

The FAQ was designed to clear up an open ended interpretation. You claim that RAW trumps the FAQ, yet prior to the FAQ it was questionable whether rollas could be used on vehicles. Kind of a bit of circular logic to say the brb trumps an faq that clarifies the brb? But I digress...


Let me ask you this then, for I think it would sum up whether the Deffrolla is a weapon or not. In other threads it is already being asked if the Deffrolla hits stack with the regular ram the battlewagon would inflict. How you answer that question?

If the Deffrolla replaces the ramming attack, then it is part of the battlewagon.

If the Deffrolla stacks with the ram, then it should be counted as a weapon since it is doing additional attacks in conjunction with the ram done by the battlewagon.

First of all it was always RAW if it wasn’t it wouldn’t have been put down as a FAQ but it would have been listed under an errata.

Just because 100,000 people think and interpret that the sky red and not blue doesn’t mean that sky isn’t blue. It just means that 100,000 people got it wrong.

The Deff Rolla can’t stack or replace anything because the Battlewagon is the one causing the hits and not the wargear.

It’s time to let go.

Edited for spelling.

Sarigar wrote: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.

It's not a new thing, It came up a few months ago, and the same thing happened, although that was when a number of tournaments including (I believe) INAT and the UK GT were ruling that they couldn't be used with Rams, so they weren't particularly popular, whereas we will be seeing them alot more now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

orkcommander wrote:First of all it was always RAW if it wasn’t it wouldn’t have been put down as a FAQ but it would have been listed under an errata.

First of all, he's not saying it's not RAW, he's saying the RAW was questionable, which if you are trying to deny that in light of how extensive the debates were, you are blind. Secondly GW put rules changes in as FAQs all the time, take for instance, the Deffrolla ruling which says a Ram is a Tankshock, and the Dark Eldar ruling which says that Raiders who are allowed to Tankshock aren't allowed to Ram, one of those HAS to be a rules change, but both are printed as FAQs.

Just because 100,000 people think and interpret that the sky red and not blue doesn’t mean that sky isn’t blue. It just means that 100,000 people got it wrong.

but if there's 100,001 people in the world, it means that 1 person got it wrong, and that the sky is red, colour is a construct of people, and is a case where fact is governed purely by what the majority believe.

And when are hits from the Rolla worked out?

Oh yeah, the movement phase...

So, not the shooting phase, not the assault phase...

It really isn't a weapon.

Put the pintle mounted stormbolter down now lads and go out into the sunlight...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drunkspleen wrote:but if there's 100,001 people in the world, it means that 1 person got it wrong, and that the sky is red, colour is a construct of people, and is a case where fact is governed purely by what the majority believe.

Not really the case, I studied the notion of majority perception defining reality waaay back during my sociology A-level. It's true according to social realism or the use of the word red, but the understanding of the colour red remains in error. Back when all those nice ancient folks thought the world was flat, it still wasn't flat.

The majority were wrong.

A-P wrote: I am also in the "can be destroyed" camp. Have to accept the good with the bad. Besides, counting the Deffrolla as a weapon actually increases the vehicles survivability in case of multiple "Weapon Destroyed"-results.

See, it actually would make Deffrolla just better. If DeffRolla is counted as a weapon, then Flechette Dischargers ought, too...

Its not a weapon.

weapons are targeted. even CCW are targeted at the unit. "I am attacking X with Y"

you dont say i'm attacking/targeting unit x with my deff rolla and the battle wagon goes along for the ride. you say i'm tank shocking with my battle wagon and because i did you take....

so basically : its not targeted its not a weapon. fletchettes from tau are the same they are not targeted its an event based on another event.

I do not think it is aa weapon.

But I do think it acts like one, and that is all the rules dictate.

The rules do not say "Weapons purchased as a vehicle upgrade",
they do not say "Vehicle upgrades that are also weapons", they say "Vehicle upgrades that 'act like' a weapon"

I see no need to be able to define the deff rolla as a weapon in order for it to act like a weapon.

I think it is unfortunate that their examples are both of vehicles upgrades that *are* weapons, but that does not change what the rule actually says.

coredump wrote:I do not think it is aa weapon.

But I do think it acts like one, and that is all the rules dictate.

The rules do not say "Weapons purchased as a vehicle upgrade",
they do not say "Vehicle upgrades that are also weapons", they say "Vehicle upgrades that 'act like' a weapon"

I see no need to be able to define the deff rolla as a weapon in order for it to act like a weapon.

I think it is unfortunate that their examples are both of vehicles upgrades that *are* weapons, but that does not change what the rule actually says.

So boarding planks are weapons? Grabba Claws? Flechette Launchers? Frag Assault Launchers?

Where is the imaginary line drawn if the vehicle upgrade doesn't have to actually be a weapon?

For those who keep repeating "its not a weapon". Of COURSE its not a weapon. But...does it function as a weapon?


What do weapons do, how do they function?

There are ranged weapons that have a profile and give a unit an ability to inflict damage/ hits at a distance.

There are cc weapons that enhance a units already innate ability to deal damage/ wounds in cc.



Most vehicle upgrades do nothing for range, the few that do closely mimic weapons so its pretty clear that hunter killer missiles function as weapons.

Now, other weapons merely somehow improve a model's innate ability to deal damage/ hits. Some of these give a model extra attacks, some increase the strength of the attacks, some give new forms of attacks, etc. A dreadnought's ccw increases the strength of the attack to 10, for example.

What does a deffrolla do? It increases the number and strength of the damage/ hits inflicted by the vehicle using the deff rolla.

What does the dreadnought cc weapon do? It increases the strength of the damage/ hits by the dreadnought.


There seems to be a rather strong correspondence here between what the deff rolla and the dreadnought ccw are doing......



Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:For those who keep repeating "its not a weapon". Of COURSE its not a weapon. But...does it function as a weapon?


What do weapons do, how do they function?

There are ranged weapons that have a profile and give a unit an ability to inflict damage/ hits at a distance.

There are cc weapons that enhance a units already innate ability to deal damage/ wounds in cc.



Most vehicle upgrades do nothing for range, the few that do closely mimic weapons so its pretty clear that hunter killer missiles function as weapons.

Now, other weapons merely somehow improve a model's innate ability to deal damage/ hits. Some of these give a model extra attacks, some increase the strength of the attacks, some give new forms of attacks, etc. A dreadnought's ccw increases the strength of the attack to 10, for example.

What does a deffrolla do? It increases the number and strength of the damage/ hits inflicted by the vehicle using the deff rolla.

What does the dreadnought cc weapon do? It increases the strength of the damage/ hits by the dreadnought.


There seems to be a rather strong correspondence here between what the deff rolla and the dreadnought ccw are doing......



Sliggoth

you TARGET weapons.

every weapon and everything that "acts like a weapon" is "targeted".

deff rollas are not "targeted" they are an effect that occurs when this condition is met.

when tankshocking/ramming this effect occurs.
it is not you target a unit with the deff rolla ....

there is a bigger argument that wrecking balls are a weapon than deff rolla because they are targeted.

Sliggoth wrote:For those who keep repeating "its not a weapon". Of COURSE its not a weapon. But...does it function as a weapon?


What do weapons do, how do they function?

There are ranged weapons that have a profile and give a unit an ability to inflict damage/ hits at a distance.

There are cc weapons that enhance a units already innate ability to deal damage/ wounds in cc.



Most vehicle upgrades do nothing for range, the few that do closely mimic weapons so its pretty clear that hunter killer missiles function as weapons.

Now, other weapons merely somehow improve a model's innate ability to deal damage/ hits. Some of these give a model extra attacks, some increase the strength of the attacks, some give new forms of attacks, etc. A dreadnought's ccw increases the strength of the attack to 10, for example.

So by this stretch of a definition, a Sweeping Advance should be counted as a weapon? Can I force you to roll 3 weapon destroyed results before my Dreadnought is immobilised because it can still Sweeping Advance?

There seems to be a rather strong correspondence here between what the deff rolla and the dreadnought ccw are doing......

The Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon has explicit rules for a weapon destroyed result. The Deffrolla does not.

Isnt the pintle mounted storm bolter a vehicle upgrade?

... wow many pages on something that could be yes, no or maybe ...

I've never understood why people don't think things like the deffrolla would be immune to a weapons destroyed result. The argument that it lists the storm bolters and HK missiles so that what it means by weapons has one fault ... They don't act like weapons they are weapons(edit i'm talking about HK and PM.Stormbolters).

Deffrolla IMO cannot be seen to be anything but acting like a weapon ... It only happens if you choose to tank shock (/ram) and it creates D6 Str10 hits to any one the tank hits.

Well, thats what we are discussing here. Does the deff rolla FUNCTION as a weapon, not IS it a weapon.

What the rules require is that it be a vehicle upgrade (so sorry, sweeping advance isnt a vehicel upgrade) and that the vehicle upgrade functions as a weapon.


If one wants to bring up extraneous straw man arguements about things that arent vehicle upgrades, feel free...but thats not whats being discussed here.

If a deff rolla functions as a weapon, then we have explicit rules for it being destroyed. If a deff rolla does not function as a weapin then we do not.

So does a deff rolla function as a weapon in a similar way to things such as a dreadnought ccw? If not, what is the distinction?




Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:
What the rules require is that it be a vehicle upgrade (so sorry, sweeping advance isnt a vehicel upgrade) and that the vehicle upgrade functions as a weapon.

And that's where your argument breaks down because 'Weapon' is a defined game term. 'Does it kill models' is not what defines a Weapon. Sweeping Advance, Deepstrike Mishaps, and Dangerous Terrain would all be Weapons if that's all that the definition entails.

By your definition, a Meltabomb is a Weapon.

Tri wrote:... wow many pages on something that could be yes, no or maybe ...

I've never understood why people don't think things like the deffrolla would be immune to a weapons destroyed result. The argument that it lists the storm bolters and HK missiles so that what it means by weapons has one fault ... They don't act like weapons they are weapons(edit i'm talking about HK and PM.Stormbolters).

Deffrolla IMO cannot be seen to be anything but acting like a weapon ... It only happens if you choose to tank shock (/ram) and it creates D6 Str10 hits to any one the tank hits.

Stormbolters and HK missiles only act as weapons if I choose to shoot them.

The problem is finding a complete class of weapons. Anything that hurts anyone could count. But then could I take off boarding planks and wrecking balls? Anything that hurts people in the shooting and assault phases is wrong. Otherwise guns are not listed in the class of weapons during the movement phase, and cannot be fired even with =I= mystics. Swooping hawk grenade packs wouldnt work either.

By your definition, a Meltabomb is a Weapon.

Why not?

The potential damage inflicted on an enemy unit by a deffrolla occurs as part of a tank shock/ram.

The potential damage is caused by the tank shock/ram, it occurs in the movement phase.

It does not occur in the shooting or assault phases, when weaponry is used.

Let's change the name of the deff rolla for a moment.

Electrified Front Plate: The front of the battlewagon has been supercharged with electrical current causing grievous injury to anyone or anything it connects with.
Any tank shock (including ramming) will cause D6 STR10 hits on the victim unit...death or glory...blah blah etc.

No one would argue that the electrified front plate is a weapon, it's an upgrade to the vehicle that increases it's tank shock potential, damage that occurs in neither the assault nor the shooting phases.

People are fixating on the physicality of the deffrolla, because it's 'attached' to the battlewagon. But it does not function as a weapon.

The wrecking ball, on the other hand, does make an attack in the assault phase. It's inclusion as a wargear as weapon seems far more likely.

The main problem I see with trying to classify a Deff Rolla as being a valid "Weapon Destroyed" target is simple. If you allow it to be destroyed you must allow anything added to a vehicle to be destroyed. Searchlights, Smoke Launchers, Extra Armor, Flechette Launchers, Vectored Thrust Engines... everything. Why?

Because no where does GW give us a complete list of what constitutes a "Weapon" on a vehicle.

People are (rightly so) trying to apply common sense and some things are obvious. Hunter Killers, Storm Bolters, Heavy Stubbers, Disintigrators, Dark Lances, and Railguns all shoot stuff and kill things. But this leads to a grey area... what is the definition of a weapon? Something that shoots projectiles or something that kills stuff? Something that allows something to get killed?

This sometimes leads us to some interesting conclusions. I should be able to use a Weapon Destroyed against a Searchlight for example. Why? I have to buy it as an upgrade (on some vehicles anyway) and it's used during the shooting phase to light up a target. I have to aim it at a specific target. Other things can then kill it so it's indirectly being used to kill something.

In my opinion (and it's just How I Would Play It) the "Weapon Destroyed" result is meant for shooting weapons. Dreads are a special case and have rules that state when a Weapon Destroyed result is obtained a whole arm is blown off. Other vehicle upgrades without a shooting profile are IMHO wargear and not weapons.

Edit for spelling.

Weapon

Range: Range of vehicle its strapped to
hits: d6
str: 10

Fits weapon profile.

If someone really wants to argue that its not a weapon based on the reroll DT. I'd be fine w/ a weap destroy result ONLY having the effect of removing its d6 str 10 hit abilities, and allowing the vehicle to maintain its reroll DT.

If you says its not a weapon, then you can find someone else to play w/ because any reasonably minded individual can make the very simple logical connection that it does have a range, it does have a number of hits, it does have a str.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Green Git wrote:The main problem I see with trying to classify a Deff Rolla as being a valid "Weapon Destroyed" target is simple. If you allow it to be destroyed you must allow anything added to a vehicle to be destroyed. Searchlights, Smoke Launchers, Extra Armor, Flechette Launchers, Vectored Thrust Engines... everything. Why?

Search light, has no str/hit
Smoke launcher, has no str/hit
Extra armor, has no str/hit
Flechette, no str/hit
Engines, has no str/hit

etccccc id say anything that has a str/hit is a weapon if its strapped to a vehicle and can be destroyed.

TopC wrote:Weapon

Range: Range of vehicle its strapped to
hits: d6
str: 10

Fits weapon profile.

Vehicle Explodes

Range: d6
hits: #models within d6"
Str: 3 (outside) 4(inside)

Clearly your 3rd immobilization result on my rhino hasn't wrecked it because my Vehicle Explodes weapon is still functional.

TopC wrote:Weapon

Range: Range of vehicle its strapped to
hits: d6
str: 10

Fits weapon profile.

sweeping advance
range *special* Strength N/A AP 2 Type:special
You may choose to use the Sweeping advance in the assault phase, if you were the winner. both you and the unit you were locked in combat with must each roll D6, and add their initiative to it. The side with the lower result is destroyed, but if the firer loses the the opponent must fall back.

TopC wrote:Weapon

Range: Range of vehicle its strapped to
hits: d6
str: 10

Fits weapon profile.

If someone really wants to argue that its not a weapon based on the reroll DT. I'd be fine w/ a weap destroy result ONLY having the effect of removing its d6 str 10 hit abilities, and allowing the vehicle to maintain its reroll DT.

If you says its not a weapon, then you can find someone else to play w/ because any reasonably minded individual can make the very simple logical connection that it does have a range, it does have a number of hits, it does have a str.

Weapon

Range: Range of vehicle its strapped to
Hits: 1
Str: Special (see ramming rules)

Oh noes, you can destroy reinforced rams.

Range: Range of vehicle its strapped to + 2" (Max 15")
Hits: 4 (nob)
Str: 9 (nob)

Oh noes, you can destroy boarding planks.

Your line is completely arbitrary, includes many items you yourself would claim are not weapons, and is entirely unsupported specifically by the rules.
It's also completely incorrect, as none of the things you claim are characteristics of the rolla upgrade exist (it has no range, it has no str, it deals no hits).

Slippery slope examples are slippery.

For the sweeping advance or vehicle explosion attempts, at what point were either of those purchased as a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon?

Answer that question and you can keep trying to use those as examples.

Brother Ramses wrote:Slippery slope examples are slippery.

For the sweeping advance or vehicle explosion attempts, at what point were either of those purchased as a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon?

Answer that question and you can keep trying to use those as examples.

Insidious phraseology is insidious.

When was the deffrolla purchased as a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon? All we know from the examples cited in the BGB on page 61 (pintle mounted stormbolter and hunter-killer missile) is that both examples are ranged and used in the shooting phase.

The deffrolla neither assaults nor shoots. It is not a weapon, nor is it used as the example vehicle upgrade as weapon examples.

The deffrolla is not a 'vehicle upgrade that counts as a weapon'.

What is suddenly the reason that ork players are rejoicing that deffrollas count towards vehicles then?

It is a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon so per the BRB is can be destroyed.

The examples given are not just upgrades that function as weapons, they are weapons. Why would they function any other way other then as weapons?

I mean you already blew it on page 1 not knowing the rules, but please explain how it does not function as a weapon when it can clearly kill or destroy models/vehicles and is bought as a vehicle upgrade.