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.

Brother Ramses wrote: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.

BECAUSE IT ISN'T CALLED A WEAPON!
As I have pointed out, sweeping advances can be called weapons. So ccan dangourus terrain.

Brother Ramses wrote: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.

What a little charmer you are, flattery will get you nowhere unfortunately.

It has still not been established that it counts as a weapon. THERE IS NO CLEAR DEFINITION IN THE RULES THAT CITES THE UPGRADES THAT CAN CAUSE WOUNDS ARE CLASSED AS WEAPONS.

The examples given in the rulebook under vehicle destroyed are both ranged and are used in the shooting phase. The deffrolla is an upgrade to ramming/tank shock. Ramming and tank shock are likely to cause wounds anyway, the presence of the deffrolla merely changes the results of the ram or tankshock.

It is NOT used in either shooting or assaulting. It is not an upgrade that works as a weapon. It DOES change how ramming/Tank shock works.

And congratulations on being so charming, do feel free to help yourself to a cup of shut the up.

Klawz wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote: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.

BECAUSE IT ISN'T CALLED A WEAPON!
As I have pointed out, sweeping advances can be called weapons. So ccan dangourus terrain.

And again, are either of those two examples that you have given purchased as upgrades for a vehicle?

NO! So stop using them for an example when the rule clearly says, VEHICLE UPGRADES THAT FUNCTION AS A WEAPON!

The rule does not require that it be CALLED a weapon. The rule only puts two requirements on the table,

1. VEHICLE UPGRADE
2. FUNCTIONS AS A WEAPON

The deffrolla fulfills both of those requirements.

Please, explain how dangerous terrain or a sweeping advance fulfills BOTH of those requirements.

Brother Ramses wrote:
NO! So stop using them for an example when the rule clearly says, VEHICLE UPGRADES THAT FUNCTION AS A WEAPON!

The rule does not require that it be CALLED a weapon. The rule only puts two requirements on the table,

1. VEHICLE UPGRADE
2. FUNCTIONS AS A WEAPON

The deffrolla fulfills both of those requirements.

Please, explain how dangerous terrain or a sweeping advance fulfills BOTH of those requirements.

THERE IS NO CLEAR DEFINITION OF A VEHICLE UPGRADE FUNCTIONING AS A WEAPON.

The examples given are both used in the shooting phase and have a clearly understood profile to use. They are also both ranged, adding further lack of clarity.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:
NO! So stop using them for an example when the rule clearly says, VEHICLE UPGRADES THAT FUNCTION AS A WEAPON!

The rule does not require that it be CALLED a weapon. The rule only puts two requirements on the table,

1. VEHICLE UPGRADE
2. FUNCTIONS AS A WEAPON

The deffrolla fulfills both of those requirements.

Please, explain how dangerous terrain or a sweeping advance fulfills BOTH of those requirements.

THERE IS NO CLEAR DEFINITION OF A VEHICLE UPGRADE FUNCTIONING AS A WEAPON.

The examples given are both used in the shooting phase and have a clearly understood profile to use. They are also both ranged, adding further lack of clarity.

RRRROOOOAAAARRRR!!!

MeanGreenStompa wrote:THERE IS NO CLEAR DEFINITION OF A VEHICLE UPGRADE FUNCTIONING AS A WEAPON.

Which nicely sums up why the answer is yes, no and maybe ... Wonder when GW will give us a definition of what a weapon is? and more importantly what counts as functioning like one?

Brother Ramses wrote:

Klawz wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote: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.

BECAUSE IT ISN'T CALLED A WEAPON!
As I have pointed out, sweeping advances can be called weapons. So ccan dangourus terrain.

And again, are either of those two examples that you have given purchased as upgrades for a vehicle?

NO! So stop using them for an example when the rule clearly says, VEHICLE UPGRADES THAT FUNCTION AS A WEAPON!

The rule does not require that it be CALLED a weapon. The rule only puts two requirements on the table,

1. VEHICLE UPGRADE
2. FUNCTIONS AS A WEAPON

The deffrolla fulfills both of those requirements.

Please, explain how dangerous terrain or a sweeping advance fulfills BOTH of those requirements.

The fallacy in your logic is that the BRB does, in fact, define what a weapon is.
The deffrolla does not meet the definition given on page 27.

Additionally..
CCW's do not function as "weapons", the function as "close combat weapons" as defined on page 42.
Dreadnought close combat weapons are not "weapons" they are "dreadnought close combat weapons" as defined on page 73.

Only weapons or dreadnought close combat weapons are subject to "weapon destroyed" results. A deffrolla does not have a weapon profile, and it's not a DCCW.

Show me a brb/codex/faq reference that allows any other vehicle upgrade outside of DCCW's and ranged weapons that are subject to a weapon destroyed result.
Until you can do that, any argument claiming that a deffrolla can be destroyed is unsupported by RAW.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

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'.

Weapons exist at times other than the shooting phase. Inquisitorial mystics allow for shooting out of phase. Ork koptas drop bombs in movement, etc...

Your argument is a) incorrect, and b) irrelevant.

Can people please take a deep breath and count to 10 before posting perhaps. We're happy for vigourous debate over issues, but we do ask you to keep it polite, there's no need to make jibes and/or cracks at each other.

Let's remember that what we're talking about is whether or not a giant rolling pin attached to a vehicle driven by violent green fungus can be destroyed. In the future.

Your cooperation in this regards in gratefully recieved.

The examples do not lack clarity. By continuing to cite only those specific examples, you are limiting yourself to not even bothering to look at the rest of the vehicle upgrades that may function as weapons.

The rule does not say vehicle upgrades defined as a weapon, only upgrades that function as a weapon. Per the rule you cannot limit yourself to the defined rules of weapons only used in the assault or shooting since the rule does not say upgrades defined as weapons, only those that function as weapons.

What do weapons do in the game? The deffrolla falls under that category.

Now for the boarding plank argument.

1. Vehicle upgrade? Yes
2. Functions as a weapon? NO!

A boarding plank on a vehicle with no orks in it does absolutely nothing. The "weapon" is the ork using the boarding plank to make his attack with whatever weapon he is equipped with. Without said ork, the boarding plank is just a boarding plank.

The same cannot be said about the deffrolla.

kartofelkopf wrote:
Your argument is a) incorrect, and b) irrelevant.

your response is a) arrogant, and b) the hallmark of a gakker.

Weapons have targets, everything in the game that is a weapon is targeted deff rolla does not have a target.

so first lets read the deff rolla entry.

it is clearly listed as wargear. it clearly does not say it is a weapon in its description.

a deff rolla allows you to re-roll dt tests.

now the important part

"Any Tank Shock made by a battlewagon with a deff rolla causes d6 strength 10 hits on the victim unit. if the unit elects to make a death or glory attack..."

it think its important to note here that the entry says "a battle wagon with a deff rolla" there fore the deff rolla is a wargear that provides a special rule to the equiped battle wagon, it [deff rolla] does not inflict the hits as a weapon it just allows an extra rule during a tank shock.

thus :

event occurs, effect occurs

vs a weapon

target unit, use/fire weapon


this is nearly identical to the slave snares of DE which give a special rule to an equiped unit. slave snares are not destroyable.

Waaaaghmaster wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Klawz wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote: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.

BECAUSE IT ISN'T CALLED A WEAPON!
As I have pointed out, sweeping advances can be called weapons. So ccan dangourus terrain.

And again, are either of those two examples that you have given purchased as upgrades for a vehicle?

NO! So stop using them for an example when the rule clearly says, VEHICLE UPGRADES THAT FUNCTION AS A WEAPON!

The rule does not require that it be CALLED a weapon. The rule only puts two requirements on the table,

1. VEHICLE UPGRADE
2. FUNCTIONS AS A WEAPON

The deffrolla fulfills both of those requirements.

Please, explain how dangerous terrain or a sweeping advance fulfills BOTH of those requirements.

The fallacy in your logic is that the BRB does, in fact, define what a weapon is.
The deffrolla does not meet the definition given on page 27.

Additionally..
CCW's do not function as "weapons", the function as "close combat weapons" as defined on page 42.
Dreadnought close combat weapons are not "weapons" they are "dreadnought close combat weapons" as defined on page 73.

Only weapons or dreadnought close combat weapons are subject to "weapon destroyed" results. A deffrolla does not have a weapon profile, and it's not a DCCW.

Show me a brb/codex/faq reference that allows any other vehicle upgrade outside of DCCW's and ranged weapons that are subject to a weapon destroyed result.
Until you can do that, any argument claiming that a deffrolla can be destroyed is unsupported by RAW.

At what point did DCCW become a vehicle upgrade?

And again, the rule does not call for a vehicle upgrade to be DEFINED as a weapon, only that it FUNCTIONS as one.

Brother Ramses wrote:
Now for the boarding plank argument.

1. Vehicle upgrade? Yes
2. Functions as a weapon? NO!

A boarding plank on a vehicle with no orks in it does absolutely nothing. The "weapon" is the ork using the boarding plank to make his attack with whatever weapon he is equipped with. Without said ork, the boarding plank is just a boarding plank.

The same cannot be said about the deffrolla.

And again, that is a completely subjective line that you are drawing in your own head that is unsupported specifically in the rulebook.
The non-weapon camp has all of the weapon examples and rules in the book to point to, all you have is what you personally think should make something qualify. That's not something to base a ruling on.

Ramses, please address Lixulanas post.

kartofelkopf wrote:Can you read? It doesn't need to be a weapon. The BRB specifies vehicle upgrades can be destroyed if they "function as weapons."

As far as I can tell this still only makes sense to apply it to weapons with a profile (Such as a HK Missile)
By that method of thinking any vehicle that can ram would be considered a weapon. The mechanics of the deff rolla are based on the ramming/tank shock rules. Ramming/tankshock is not a form of weapon. It has no base stat line, it does not require a BS or WS to use.

Gamer A: "Hey I got a weapon destroyed result on your Land Raider... pull it."
Gamer B: "Pull what?"
Gamer A: "The Land Raider"
Gamer B: "Why? You didn't destroy it, you just destroyed a weapon. Which weapon do you want me to pull?"
Gamer A: "The Land Raider"
Gamer B: "What about it?"
Gamer A: "It's destroyed"
Gamer B: "Why?"
Gamer A: "Because I got a weapon destroyed result"
Gamer B: "Right, so which weapon do you want me to pull?"
Gamer A: "The Land Raider"

and so on and so forth...

If anyone wants to claim that a Deff Rolla is a weapon that can be destroyed then I will use that same argument against them to destroy any vehicle that can ram or tank shock.

While I agree the rules are not crystal clear, an can be confusing, people need to look at the bigger picture of how blanket rules opinions affect the entire game. There are no Easter eggs. Move on.
Last game I played, 2 of the 4 BW's I fielded, (without Deff Rollas), were immobilized by rapid firing deep-strikers with boltguns before I took my first turn.

The BW is a point heavy glass cannon. Is it useful? Yes. Is it invincible? No. Is it broken? No. If it were armor 14 all around I would agree with everyone's complaints about the Deff Rolla.
Everyone is focusing on a piece of wargear that only works or has any effect when the model it is attached to is in B2B. Admittedly, it now has the potential to work really well, but because of the random number of hits it also has the potential to do absolutely nothing.

The deff rolla would be problematic if there was no good, common or easy way for all armies to destroy a BW.

lixulana wrote:so...

slave snares on a dark eldar raider are weapons also? they have nearly identical profile inflict d6 str 4 hits on a unit passed over durnig the movement phase.

vs

tau flechette discharges inflict a wound on a 4+(technically this is equivilent of SX)

vs

deff rolla inflicts d6 str 10 hits on a unit tank shocked/rammed

these are all

event occurs, effect occurs

these are not

target unit weapon is fired.


yes tank shock has a target, but they are the target of a tank shock they are not a target of the deff rolla. the deff rolla just adds a special rule when a tank shock ocurs.

Another case of defining a weapon (in your case via targetting and firing) when that is not the rule. All the above function as weapons and are indeed vehicle upgrades.

At anytime before this new Ork FAQ, you could have chosen to destroy those vehicles upgrades that function as weapons. Until now with the deffrolla FAQ, you actually have a reason to destroy a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon. Until now, there were much better vehicle upgrades that function as weapons to choose to be destroyed instead of a deffrolla.

For example,

Why choose to destroy Slave Nets when you could take the Dark Lance off of it?

Why take Flechette Launchers when you could take the Burst Cannon?

and now with the FAQ empowering the Deffrolla,

Do I take the Deffrolla, the Big Shoota, or the Zap gun?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Doc Rogers wrote:

kartofelkopf wrote:Can you read? It doesn't need to be a weapon. The BRB specifies vehicle upgrades can be destroyed if they "function as weapons."

As far as I can tell this still only makes sense to apply it to weapons with a profile (Such as a HK Missile)
By that method of thinking any vehicle that can ram would be considered a weapon. The mechanics of the deff rolla are based on the ramming rules. Ramming is not a form of weapon. It has no base stat line, it does not require a BS or WS to use.

Gamer A: "Hey I got a weapon destroyed result on your Land Raider... pull it."
Gamer B: "Pull what?"
Gamer A: "The Land Raider"
Gamer B: "Why? You didn't destroy it, you just destroyed a weapon. Which weapon do you want me to pull?"
Gamer A: "The Land Raider"
Gamer B: "What about it?"
Gamer A: "It's destroyed"
Gamer B: "Why?"
Gamer A: "Because I got a weapon destroyed result"
Gamer B: "Right, so which weapon do you want me to pull?"
Gamer A: "The Land Raider"

and so on and so forth...

If anyone wants to claim that a Deff Rolla is a weapon that can be destroyed then I will use that same argument against them to destroy any vehicle that can ram.

While I agree the rules are not crystal clear, an can be confusing, people need to look at the bigger picture of how blanket rules opinions affect the entire game. There are no Easter eggs. Move on.
Last game I played, 2 of the 4 BW's I fielded, (without Deff Rollas), were immobilized by rapid firing deep-strikers with boltguns before I took my first turn.

The BW is a point heavy glass cannon. Is it useful? Yes. Is it invincible? No. Is it broken? No. If it were armor 14 all around I would agree with everyone's complaints about the Deff Rolla.
Everyone is focusing on a piece of wargear that only works or has any effect when the model it is attached to is in B2B. Admittedly, it now has the potential to work really well, but because of the random number of hits it also has the potential to do absolutely nothing.

The deff rolla would be problematic if there was no good, common or easy way for all armies to destroy a BW.

You are making a illogical leap. At no point did you purchase said Land Raider as a vehicle upgrade so trying to claim it is a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon is not valid. Easily pointed out per the BRB why:

1. Vehicle Upgrade? No.
2. Functions as a weapon? Yes

Therefore cannot be chosen as a weapon destroyed result since both rules are not fulfilled.

Brother Ramses wrote:The examples do not lack clarity. By continuing to cite only those specific examples, you are limiting yourself to not even bothering to look at the rest of the vehicle upgrades that may function as weapons.

The rule does not say vehicle upgrades defined as a weapon, only upgrades that function as a weapon. Per the rule you cannot limit yourself to the defined rules of weapons only used in the assault or shooting since the rule does not say upgrades defined as weapons, only those that function as weapons.

What do weapons do in the game? The deffrolla falls under that category.

Now for the boarding plank argument.

1. Vehicle upgrade? Yes
2. Functions as a weapon? NO!

A boarding plank on a vehicle with no orks in it does absolutely nothing. The "weapon" is the ork using the boarding plank to make his attack with whatever weapon he is equipped with. Without said ork, the boarding plank is just a boarding plank.

The same cannot be said about the deffrolla.

I disagree with this as well. The deff rolla is not used as a weapon. The description specifically states that it enhances a BW when it is tank shocking or ramming. This is the same as if you had a dreadnought with tank-hunter or even better an eldar vehicle with guide cast on it. You would't try to remove the tank-hunter skill or the guide ability... Why not? Because it only enhances and existing from of weapon or attack. It is not a weapon. It has no stat-line. It does not attack or target anything. The BW makes the attack and the deff rolla enhances that attack.

well i'm done with this.

weapons have targets not events.

incidently i dont play orks so its all the same to me.

Brother Ramses wrote:

At what point did DCCW become a vehicle upgrade?

And again, the rule does not call for a vehicle upgrade to be DEFINED as a weapon, only that it FUNCTIONS as one.

And again..your logic is flawed.
The BRB does indeed say a weapon or a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon...no argument.
However, you overlook the simple fact that the BRB DEFINES what a weapon is. The Deffrolla does not meet that description.
The DCCW is not an upgrade, it is selected from the weapon options. However, it is the only item of wargear that does not meet the definition of a weapon that is subject to a weapon destroyed result.

So, to review this from a logic perspective.

1. The BRB defines what a weapon is
2. Deffrolla does not fit that definition
3. The BRB allows for DCCW's to be effected by "weapon destroyed"
4. Deffrolla is not a DCCW

Unless you can provide another example of a vehicle upgrade that is not a DCCW or fit the "weapon" definition that is subject to a "weapon destroyed" then there is no logical merit to saying that the deffrolla is.

So do you argue that a Vehicle Explodes result is actually a weapon, but cannot be destroyed via a Weapon Destroyed result because you did not purchase it as a vehicle upgrade?

Brother Ramses wrote:

lixulana wrote:so...

slave snares on a dark eldar raider are weapons also? they have nearly identical profile inflict d6 str 4 hits on a unit passed over durnig the movement phase.

vs

tau flechette discharges inflict a wound on a 4+(technically this is equivilent of SX)

vs

deff rolla inflicts d6 str 10 hits on a unit tank shocked/rammed

these are all

event occurs, effect occurs

these are not

target unit weapon is fired.


yes tank shock has a target, but they are the target of a tank shock they are not a target of the deff rolla. the deff rolla just adds a special rule when a tank shock ocurs.

Another case of defining a weapon (in your case via targetting and firing) when that is not the rule. All the above function as weapons and are indeed vehicle upgrades.

At anytime before this new Ork FAQ, you could have chosen to destroy those vehicles upgrades that function as weapons. Until now with the deffrolla FAQ, you actually have a reason to destroy a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon. Until now, there were much better vehicle upgrades that function as weapons to choose to be destroyed instead of a deffrolla.

For example,

Why choose to destroy Slave Nets when you could take the Dark Lance off of it?

Why take Flechette Launchers when you could take the Burst Cannon?

and now with the FAQ empowering the Deffrolla,

Do I take the Deffrolla, the Big Shoota, or the Zap gun?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Doc Rogers wrote:

kartofelkopf wrote:Can you read? It doesn't need to be a weapon. The BRB specifies vehicle upgrades can be destroyed if they "function as weapons."

As far as I can tell this still only makes sense to apply it to weapons with a profile (Such as a HK Missile)
By that method of thinking any vehicle that can ram would be considered a weapon. The mechanics of the deff rolla are based on the ramming rules. Ramming is not a form of weapon. It has no base stat line, it does not require a BS or WS to use.

Gamer A: "Hey I got a weapon destroyed result on your Land Raider... pull it."
Gamer B: "Pull what?"
Gamer A: "The Land Raider"
Gamer B: "Why? You didn't destroy it, you just destroyed a weapon. Which weapon do you want me to pull?"
Gamer A: "The Land Raider"
Gamer B: "What about it?"
Gamer A: "It's destroyed"
Gamer B: "Why?"
Gamer A: "Because I got a weapon destroyed result"
Gamer B: "Right, so which weapon do you want me to pull?"
Gamer A: "The Land Raider"

and so on and so forth...

If anyone wants to claim that a Deff Rolla is a weapon that can be destroyed then I will use that same argument against them to destroy any vehicle that can ram.

While I agree the rules are not crystal clear, an can be confusing, people need to look at the bigger picture of how blanket rules opinions affect the entire game. There are no Easter eggs. Move on.
Last game I played, 2 of the 4 BW's I fielded, (without Deff Rollas), were immobilized by rapid firing deep-strikers with boltguns before I took my first turn.

The BW is a point heavy glass cannon. Is it useful? Yes. Is it invincible? No. Is it broken? No. If it were armor 14 all around I would agree with everyone's complaints about the Deff Rolla.
Everyone is focusing on a piece of wargear that only works or has any effect when the model it is attached to is in B2B. Admittedly, it now has the potential to work really well, but because of the random number of hits it also has the potential to do absolutely nothing.

The deff rolla would be problematic if there was no good, common or easy way for all armies to destroy a BW.

You are making a illogical leap. At no point did you purchase said Land Raider as a vehicle upgrade so trying to claim it is a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon is not valid. Easily pointed out per the BRB why:

1. Vehicle Upgrade? No.
2. Functions as a weapon? Yes

Therefore cannot be chosen as a weapon destroyed result since both rules are not fulfilled.

You missed my point... I suppose I need a sarcasm button...
You are pointing out that the vehicle itself is not an upgrade, I was saying that the vehicle, not the Deff Rolla, functions as a weapon.

Per the deff rolla rules"

"Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit." <emphasis mine>

I never argued that a vehicle destroyed result is a weapon. That was someone else trying to argue the slippery slope argument by including it along with normal tank shocks. As I mentioned, it does not pass the test for the rule.

1. Vehicle Upgrade? No.
2. Functions as a weapon? Yes.

And again..your logic is flawed.
The BRB does indeed say a weapon or a vehicle upgrade that functions as a weapon...no argument.
However, you overlook the simple fact that the BRB DEFINES what a weapon is. The Deffrolla does not meet that description.
The DCCW is not an upgrade, it is selected from the weapon options. However, it is the only item of wargear that does not meet the definition of a weapon that is subject to a weapon destroyed result.

So, to review this from a logic perspective.

1. The BRB defines what a weapon is
2. Deffrolla does not fit that definition
3. The BRB allows for DCCW's to be effected by "weapon destroyed"
4. Deffrolla is not a DCCW

Unless you can provide another example of a vehicle upgrade that is not a DCCW or fit the "weapon" definition that is subject to a "weapon destroyed" then there is no logical merit to saying that the deffrolla is.

It doesn't matter that the BRB define what a weapon happens to be, the rule only cares if it functions as a weapon.

The requirements of the rule do not require that it be a defined weapon with any stats at all. It could simply say, "Kills any models in b2b with vehicle" and it is functioning as a weapon because it is causing casualties.

The very fact that the rule itself is "functions as a weapon" and is not "defined as a weapon" allows you to include not only weapons with an established profile, but also those without.

The DCCW has absolutely no bearing to the rule regarding vehicle upgrades and I am at a loss as to why it continues to be brought up as an example.

You are choosing to ignore that GW defines what a weapon is in game terms and then goes on the specify that something must function as a weapon.
The DCCW is an exception to that rule.

Again I will say..

Show us any other examples in any official GW document that allows someone to select something other than what they define as a weapon or a DCCW.
If you can give a single example then your position is somewhat justified. But until you do, your position has no foundation to stand upon.

Brother Ramses wrote:

The requirements of the rule do not require that it be a defined weapon with any stats at all. It could simply say, "Kills any models in b2b with vehicle" and it is functioning as a weapon because it is causing casualties.

The very fact that the rule itself is "functions as a weapon" and is not "defined as a weapon" allows you to include not only weapons with an established profile, but also those without.

The DCCW has absolutely no bearing to the rule regarding vehicle upgrades and I am at a loss as to why it continues to be brought up as an example.

Please define "functions as a weapon". And then provide a logical argument which proves that your definition of "functions as a weapon" is what GW meant. And then provide another logical argument that we should use your interpretation of the RAI in this instance, as opposed to any other interpretation.

Once you've done that, and all your arguments stand, I will agree with you.

I just have a question for all the posters refusing to consider a Deff Rolla a functional weapon:

If all vehicle upgrades that function as weapons are, in fact, weapons (i.e., profile, etc..) then why did GW include the caveat about being able to destroy vehicle upgrades that "function as" weapons as an option to destroy?

If, as you argue, only defined weapons may be destroyed, the verbiage is meaningless, as all weapons are weapons, and there's no need for the phrasing.

If, on the other hand, some vehicle upgrades are -not- weapons, but function in a manner similar to weapons, then the phrasing has a meaning and would be required.

kartofelkopf wrote:I just have a question for all the posters refusing to consider a Deff Rolla a functional weapon:

If all vehicle upgrades that function as weapons are, in fact, weapons (i.e., profile, etc..) then why did GW include the caveat about being able to destroy vehicle upgrades that "function as" weapons as an option to destroy?

If, as you argue, only defined weapons may be destroyed, the verbiage is meaningless, as all weapons are weapons, and there's no need for the phrasing.

If, on the other hand, some vehicle upgrades are -not- weapons, but function in a manner similar to weapons, then the phrasing has a meaning and would be required.

The phrase is included to make it painfully, painfully clear that if you buy a vehicle upgrade with a weapons profile, it can be destroyed. otherwise you would get people (some names come to mind right here on Dakka) arguing that RAW you cannot destroy a pintle-mounted storm bolter because it isn't a "weapon" like a regular storm bolter is, it's a "vehicle upgrade", and this overrides the fact that it has a weapons profile.

In addition, as has been pointed out in other threads before, just because something is redundant doesn't mean it won't find its way into GW rules. The redundancy of certain rules has come up quite a few times in the arguments about Deep Striking, for example.

I'm curious how does the Deffrolla not function as a weapon per the definition of a weapon provided on p.27?

Ha, re-reading it's actually a pretty loose description but still take a look
BRB p61

3 - Damaged - Weapon Destroyed wrote:
One of the vehicle's weapons(chosen by the attacker) is destroyed - ripped off by the force of the attack. If a vehicle has no weapons left, treat this result as an 'immobilized' result instead. This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles.

Now note the statement is not "count as weapons" but rather "function" like a weapon. Since the description of a weapon having a profile is irrelevant we have to look at the functions of the weapon.

Well the Deff Rolla has a Strength value(10) that functions identically to that of the strength of a weapon "when rolling to wound for shooting hits, use the weapon's Strength rather than the firer's." We're using S10 to do these hits instead of the Battlewagon's strength correct? It doesn't have a strength so we must be as the Battlewagon is causing the D6 hits. So that's one instance where it's clearly "functioning like a weapon." We have a maximum range "Base Contact" or 0", it doesn't work if the wagon hasn't made contact with it's target. We don't have an AP value so that's "-". Type is description of the weapon and not really a function of the weapon, but 3 out of 4 are functioning like a weapon"

It's funny, how is it NOT functioning like a weapon? Under the Tank Shock rules it even refer's to the tank being "aimed", with the obvious intent of coming into contact with an enemy unit.

The Wrecking Ball also "functions" like a weapon so could ALSO be removed. I'm confused how it can be argued any other way. That's like arguing with a Judge you can't be charged with "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" for beating someone with your shoe. "Well technically my shoe isn't a weapon" haha The Judge would say, "No, but it functioned like one when you used it to break the guys jaw, nose, orbital socket and cheekbone."

If we can have the people in the last couple pages go back and reread the early pages, perhaps we can skip a few redundant arguements here.


One new one that came up was that weapons have to target something. Thats limiting your options to only ranged weapons....cc weapons do not target anything. Its the model using the ccw that targets something, the ccw simply provides an upgrade to the model's attack. Many many weapons upgrade or set the strength of a models attacks.

A dreadnought ccw has been used as an example several times of a weapon that provides such an upgrade, it was a natural choice since its also attached to a vehicle. But there is no need to pick that as an example. Lets look at a power fist.

A power fist is a weapon. It increases the strength of the hits of the model using the fist. It also has the side effect of slowing the initiative of the model wielding the fist.

Other weapons modify attacks in other ways. Power weapons, poisoned weapons, rending weapons...they all modify how wonds/ hits are inflicted or how they are resolved.



So we see that weapons are a pretty diverse group, they do not need to have a strength (altho many weapons do have or adjust strength) but they all do somehow influence how a model inflicts wounds/ hits. Having two weapons can even increase the number of attacks for models.

So how about some of the straw man upgrades people have presented?

Searchlights.....hmm, doesnt roll to hit, doesnt have any sort of ranged weapons characteristics; hmmm, doesnt seem to involve wounds/ hits in any way. It does negate the night fighting rules in a limited way...but thats not a characteristic of any weapon presented.

Wreckin ball...hmm, this one has a pretty complete profile. Strength of the hit, range, roll needed to hit....but amazingly enough some people think even this isnt enough to qualify as function as a weapon.

Reinforced ram....hmmm, this one has two functions. One is a simple reroll of terrain; but the other function is a ram. Is something that allows a model to ram functioning as a weapon? Without the upgrade the model couldnt ram at all...

Deff rolla....hmm, this one adds a specific number of strength 10 attacks to a model doing a ram...increasing the strength of attacks very much like a power fist or dreadnought ccw....


Weapons can do many things. They all do directly modify attacks however. If one has a problem with that idea...perhaps suggesting some other overarching thread that ties weapons together might be suggested?

I would be thrilled and delighted by a better definition of how weapons function. Please provide such, or at least suggest why this general idea is incorrect.

Sliggoth

Remember the two requirements for a weapon destroyed:

1) Be a vehicle upgrade
2) Function as a weapon. How do weapons function?

So a Vehicle Explodes result is a weapon, by your definition of how a weapon functions?