888
Post by: Primarch
Ok, in a tournament today, I was playing Dash-of-Pepper. Good game, good guy, but a question did arise.
Now, to preface, before this game, I wouldn't have questioned this process, however I had never seen it in action. When I did see it, it looked and felt so wrong, that I questioned it. Now, it wasn't worth arguing over, so I let it go, but I did mention it.
Here is the question;
Can you place the narrow end of the Flamer template on the front edge of a Deff Rolla, and flame a unit? If so, then I would have to assume you can model your Grabbing Klaw to stick out 90 degrees from the wagon at a Right angle, and then place the narrow end of the Flamer Template on the edge of the Klaw. Also, since you can deploy 2 inches from the edge of a Deffrolla, then you also can deploy 2 inches from the very tip of a Grabbing Klaw?
If I knew how to post a picture here from Vassal to show you exactly what I mean, then I would, someone else will have to do that, and Dash can chime in as needed.
Thanks,
Clay
24528
Post by: I grappled the shoggoth
I think its strictly from the hull where firing is measured from. Look at it this way. Was the deffrolla counted when it came to shooting at his wagon? If only the rolla was in range would it have been hit?
888
Post by: Primarch
I'm not asking for an unfair advantage when shooting at a BW, or when the other guy moves it or anything else. I am asking that if the Deffrolla is considerd part of the "hull" and as open topped you can fire from the edge of it, then you must also count other wargear bought the same way.
I also play Orks, so again, not looking to screw the Orks over here, just looking for some insight.
Clay
24528
Post by: I grappled the shoggoth
Thats what im saying. I dont think it works because, if I measure range and only have the deff rolla I am not in range of the wagon? So if I try shooting a melta gun at it and am only within 6 of the rolla, not the hull, I dont get the bonus. By extent then he shouldnt be able to measure range from it.
25220
Post by: WarOne
The question to ask is what is considered the hull of a Battlewagon.
Here is a wikipedia answer on a hull for an armoured vehicle-
A armoured fighting vehicle's chassis (hull) comprises the bottom part of the AFV, which includes the tracks, engine, driver's seat, and crew compartment. This describes the lower hull, although common usage of might include the upper hull to mean the AFV without the turret. Chassis often serve as basis for platforms on tanks, armored personnel carriers, combat engineering vehicles, etc.
Now GW probably has a different definition of the hull-
They state in the rulebook on page 56 of the mini book:
...for measuring distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements).
This is where you are contesting dashofpepper is wrong by stating a deff rolla is not a part of the hull. It is implied that burna templates must measure from the hull and that anything resembling the items omitted from the hull cannot be used for measuring from.
Weapons such as a deff rolla may fall under a different category.
23575
Post by: Waaaaghmaster
I would lean towards the defrolla not being considered part of the vehicle hull.
5436
Post by: NaZ
I play 3 battlewagons, and honestly they are not weedy builds like the official kit. Mine were built before it came out so I don't worry about how the new one looks but I digress.
In all 3 cases the deffrolla is a substantial part of the model. Several inches thick and trying to disembark off the front, accurately measure ranges to and from, etc and NOT count it as part of the hull DOES NOT WORK in regular gameplay. it is clunky to say the least
I have always played it that the rolla counts as part of the hull, and enforce that evenly. ranges to shoot the BW, disembark, firing from the vehicle, etc. it has never been an issue with any of my opponents.
NaZ
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
I voted the same way. When I played Orks I always measured everything from the front of the hull which included my Deffrolla. This is because my models would not be able to deploy to the front of my wagon if the deffrolla wasn't part of my model. Of course I clearly defined it as part of the hull before the game started so that my opponent knew that if he could range the rolla then he was in range of the wagon and vice versa.
20046
Post by: Eos Rahh
No the deff rolla does not count as part of the hull. Even the examples given from the rulle book a few post up clearly indicate to be so. The dozer blade being one that really sticks out. When vets get out of a chimera with a dozer blade..were do you measure from? and a deff rolla VERY much ats like a dozer blade just with an added bonues.
Just ask google to define "hull" for you.
"the frame or body of ship"
Its pretty clear.
Plus...It just doesnt make any sense.
4308
Post by: coredump
If a dozer blade does not count as part of the hull, I don't see how/why a deff rolla would be.
Just because there is no room to disembark, does not mean you can just decide the def rolla is part of the hull. Disembark on the side, or turn the battle wagon.
411
Post by: whitedragon
Sounds like something that should have been cleared up before the game began.
60
Post by: yakface
Look at the diagram on page 3 of the rulebook which shows how to measure distance to a unit.
The diagram clearly shows that the reinforced ram on a Trukk is ignored when measuring distance.
I don't know how someone could honestly claim that the Deff Rolla should be treated differently from the reinforced ram in this situation.
So in short, Deff Rolla does not equal 'hull'.
26380
Post by: Geemoney
My deff rollas are custom jobs and also stick out a few inches from the hull. For movement and shooting I measure from the end of the rolla. Also for disembarking I disembark two inches from the end of the rolla. I do this for simplicity (plus I don't gain or lose any distance). But when I shoot I shoot from the hull because that just makes sense. Most people I play don't say anything about it.
But I have a question then, if I measure distance from the hull how do I resolve tank shock? Because if I measure distance from from the hull I possibly gain a 2 to 3 inch range?
Disembarking also would be tough because then I would be forced to disembark on top of the rolla, which is awkward (which some one mentioned).
7849
Post by: Webbe
When you tank shock you don't measure if you are in contact or not, so if any part including the hull, weapons, antennas and deffrollas come in contact with a model they are tank shocked.
Slightly OT just to satisfy my curiosity. I'm interested if the standard GW deffrolla stick out more than 2" in front of the hull of the standard GW Battlewagon.
60
Post by: yakface
Geemoney wrote:My deff rollas are custom jobs and also stick out a few inches from the hull. For movement and shooting I measure from the end of the rolla. Also for disembarking I disembark two inches from the end of the rolla. I do this for simplicity (plus I don't gain or lose any distance). But when I shoot I shoot from the hull because that just makes sense. Most people I play don't say anything about it.
But I have a question then, if I measure distance from the hull how do I resolve tank shock? Because if I measure distance from from the hull I possibly gain a 2 to 3 inch range?
Disembarking also would be tough because then I would be forced to disembark on top of the rolla, which is awkward (which some one mentioned).
Yes, by the rules you should not be gaining any additional disembarking range by disembarking from the Deff Rolla. You should technically be setting the models on top of the Deff Rolla, or if they won't sit up there, off to the side using the 'wobbly model syndrome' rules.
But you are correct in that if you're using the Deff Rolla to measure your normal movement (and you include it when deploying the vehicle) then you're not gaining anything from it, which most opponents should be able to recognize and let you do.
But FYI, when it comes to vehicle shooting, range is measured from the tip of the gun barrel.
And with Tank Shocking, again you should technically be measuring range to the vehicle's hull, which doesn't include the Deff Rolla. However if you play the entire game (including deployment) measuring your distances including the Deff Rolla then it should be fine to include it as part of the hull form a friendly stand-point.
Webbe wrote:When you tank shock you don't measure if you are in contact or not, so if any part including the hull, weapons, antennas and deffrollas come in contact with a model they are tank shocked.
This is incorrect. Per the Tank Shocking rules you measure your movement distance to the unit being Tank Shocked and only if it is within this range is the unit actually Tank Shocked. And as with all ranges measured to and from the vehicle this is done to the hull, which doesn't include the Deff Rolla.
26380
Post by: Geemoney
yakface wrote:
But FYI, when it comes to vehicle shooting, range is measured from the tip of the gun barrel.
And with Tank Shocking, again you should technically be measuring range to the vehicle's hull, which doesn't include the Deff Rolla. However if you play the entire game (including deployment) measuring your distances including the Deff Rolla then it should be fine to include it as part of the hull form a friendly stand-point.
Okay when I said shooting, I meant shooting embarked units such as burnas, or lootas.....I should of been more clear.
And the other question I had was assuming you played the game measuring from the hull, how do you resolve tank shock? I can't place my BW in contact with the enemy vehicle as the deff rolla is now in the way (this problem is the biggest reason I just call the rolla the hull).
5436
Post by: NaZ
I see where you are coming from yakface, and by RAW I'd agree with you. It is just impractical when a deffrolla is 2-3" thick. to not count it as part of the hull creates a lot of difficulty, counting it streamlines the whole process. why would you argue raw in this case only to make the situation in game more complicated?
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
This is a case where RAW and RAP may well disagree. The rules are quite clear that a 'rolla is not part of the hull. However, that creates a problem.
For example, if driving up to but not tank shocking an enemy unit then the hull should be 1" away - that means the rolla is jammed well into the unit.
Or when disembarking, it makes disembarking to the front impossible.
Or when being assualted, it's impossible to assault the front hull of the wagon forcing attackers to move further (or it may make it impervious to assault if it's sandwiched between other units.
For playability I would suggest that rollas, dozers, etc should be part of the hull for all measuring purposes.
7849
Post by: Webbe
yakface wrote:
Webbe wrote:When you tank shock you don't measure if you are in contact or not, so if any part including the hull, weapons, antennas and deffrollas come in contact with a model they are tank shocked.
This is incorrect. Per the Tank Shocking rules you measure your movement distance to the unit being Tank Shocked and only if it is within this range is the unit actually Tank Shocked. And as with all ranges measured to and from the vehicle this is done to the hull, which doesn't include the Deff Rolla.
While I have big respect for your opinion and I'm sure I'm wrong where does it say you measure to the unit tank shocked?
You declare the distance and direction you want to travel. You then move that distance and if you before completing that distance come into contact (you never need to measure contact) with an enemy non vehicle unit you tank shock it following the rules for DoG and so forth.
60
Post by: yakface
Scott-S6 wrote:This is a case where RAW and RAP may well disagree. The rules are quite clear that a 'rolla is not part of the hull. However, that creates a problem.
For example, if driving up to but not tank shocking an enemy unit then the hull should be 1" away - that means the rolla is jammed well into the unit.
Or when disembarking, it makes disembarking to the front impossible.
Or when being assualted, it's impossible to assault the front hull of the wagon forcing attackers to move further (or it may make it impervious to assault if it's sandwiched between other units.
For playability I would suggest that rollas, dozers, etc should be part of the hull for all measuring purposes.
Well, if you were playing this way (the Deff Rolla not counting as the hull) then models would be able to move on top of the Deff Rolla in order to contact the vehicle, just like if you play the opened doors on a Drop Pod don't count as part of the hull.
I think ultimately it just depends on how the players want to handle it during the game and then making sure to stay consistent.
If you want to play with it as part of the hull, because it is generally easier to do so, then obviously you need to take it into account during deployment, all movement, etc. And you would definitely want to 'okay' this with your opponent because it *isn't* the RAW and you don't want them to think you're somehow 'cheating' when you fire flamer templates from the Deff Rolla, as the OP clearly felt.
And on the other side, if you're going to go with the idea that it *isn't* part of the hull, then you (again) need to discuss it with your opponent and make sure he understands that point and what it means. It also means you can deploy the vehicle with the Deff Rolla hanging out of the deployment zone, for example. And you'll both have to understand that models will be able to move on top of the Deff Rolla...and be ready to use the 'wobbly model syndrome' to compensate for this.
Ultimately communication and consistency are the keys...but going back to the OP's question: No the Deff Rolla isn't technically part of the vehicle's hull, but it is often easier to play with it as part of the hull and if you do that, then yes it would be fine to place flamer templates fired from embarked models touching the front of the Deff Rolla.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
Unless you consider the Deffrolla as being part of the hull, the BW is unassaultable from the front.
So would a Vindicator with a Dozerblade.
While RAW is my go-to-guy, sometimes you just need to work it out.
19640
Post by: Tantras
I feel quite positive about the 'problem' that some people have mentioned regarding a Deffrolla blocking front disembarking. Maybe it's just the price you pay for having such a powerful weapon on the front of your battlewagon? Although certainly it should've been specified in the rules if that was the case.
I would certainly side with the Deffrolla not counting as part of the hull... to do otherwise would leave everything wide open for 'modelling for advantage'.
23045
Post by: radical bob
I always thought you measured range from the turret/barrel on a vehicle? So, I guess in that case if the burna was glued to the deffrolla, then yes?
If it was a model embarked in the BW firing, I would think that logic would dictate it is measured from the hull [where the model is presumably located].
Of course, the image of an Ork logjammin' on the deffrolla trying to backpedal whilst it moved & shooting from atop the 'rolla is not entirely out of line for typical Ork mentality?
Just my opinion, of course...
25305
Post by: Zain60
bob,
Firing vehicle mounted weapons you do measure from the barrel/turret. Burnas are embarked and per the rules, you measure from the hull on open topped vehicles for shooting their weapons.
In a closed top vehicle, you measure from the fire points.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
Tantras wrote:I feel quite positive about the 'problem' that some people have mentioned regarding a Deffrolla blocking front disembarking. Maybe it's just the price you pay for having such a powerful weapon on the front of your battlewagon? Although certainly it should've been specified in the rules if that was the case.
I would certainly side with the Deffrolla not counting as part of the hull... to do otherwise would leave everything wide open for 'modelling for advantage'.
You do realize that following that logic you cannot assault a BW from the front, right?
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
As Yakface has pointed out, attacking models can stand on the rolla - it's quite a hassle though.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Where's Dash?
I love to hear his take on this.
As much as I think it is bad form to have fired a bunch of burnas from the Death Rolla, I'd want to hear his side of all this.
888
Post by: Primarch
Couple of things. There was NO animosity during the game, and it wasn't an argument or anything like that. He is out of town at a relatives house, which is what allowed him to attend this tournament in Atlanta.
Like I said though, if the deff rolla is used to place the narrow end of your Burna template, or deploy 2 inches from, then the Grabbing Klaw can be used the same exact way. That makes things a bit more complicated than some of you are making it out to be. If one is legal, then so is the other.
Clay
13790
Post by: Sliggoth
One thing most people arent realizing is that the usual procedure for a BW with burna boyz is to have a full unit of 15 burnas in there. So when the template is placed thats actauuly 15 templates being placed at that spot. So any fluff idea has to stretch to fit all 15 boyz dancing out there on that rolla while laying down their flame templates.....
Since dozer blade is one of the items specifically mentioned as not being part of the hull then it is pretty clear that the rolla isnt part of the hull either, and yes that means that models wishing to occupy that space have a bit of a problem.
One could place the models on top of the rolla, except then we run into the problem that we cannot place a model on top of another model. Its not a limit of just not being able to place a model on top of a hull, its a limit of not being able to be placed on top of any model. So yes there is a problem with assaulting a vehicle from the front or disembarking from the front.
Its not just limited to deff rollas tho, because a substantial dozer blade would do the same thing.
It also then does raise questions as to whether or not wreckin balls or grabbin claws would also allow for this extension of range for the burnas. If it works for the rolla, then why doesnt it work for the others?
Sliggoth
6589
Post by: Boss GreenNutz
I count mine as part of the hull for simplicity sake. Otherwise deploying from the front of it would be a major pain. As long as you use the Deffrolla for measuring movement and range (going both ways) there is no issue if you count it or not.
As for the grabbin klaw that is a strawman argument at best. It is not be the way for purposes of movement or shooting as the Deffrolla is due to size and location on the vehicle. The Grabbin Klaw will only make it more complicated if someone decides to.
25305
Post by: Zain60
RAW: Rolla isn't part of the hull.
RAI: Who knows.
RAa lot of people play it to simplify disembarking and assaulting, and being shot at and assaulted as well: Rolla is part of the hull.
No one I've EVER seen suggests 'making a leap' to dozer blades, grabbin klaws, planks, or things of that nature that are specifically decoration by RAW. Using that to undermine simplifying a weird application of RAW is a bit of a stretch in my book. In my opinion it both hurts and helps the player and the opponent equally and therefore has no bearing on the game, as well as making play easier.
However, this is the part that needs to be clear, if you don't talk to your opponent about it, then it's RAW is law and you shouldn't do it. In fact, that would lead to wobbly model syndrom disembarks or disembarking wholly from the sides and as some remarked, could call into question being able to assault the tank from the front.
888
Post by: Primarch
First off, it's not a strawman argument. If vehicle upgrades are going to be included as part of the "hull" then so be it, but you can't just draw an imaginary line that suits you on what that applies to.
If the Deffrolla counts, so does everything else, period. It's pretty simple, but it also looks wrong, and feels wrong in play. I am not suggesting we start using those things like some of you seem to use the Rolla, I am suggesting we don't use any of it in this manner, as that is specifically ruled against in the book.
Clay
19640
Post by: Tantras
Steelmage99 wrote:Tantras wrote:I feel quite positive about the 'problem' that some people have mentioned regarding a Deffrolla blocking front disembarking. Maybe it's just the price you pay for having such a powerful weapon on the front of your battlewagon? Although certainly it should've been specified in the rules if that was the case.
I would certainly side with the Deffrolla not counting as part of the hull... to do otherwise would leave everything wide open for 'modelling for advantage'.
You do realize that following that logic you cannot assault a BW from the front, right?
No, following that logic you cannot assault a BW equipped with a Deffrolla from the front, which I'm fine with.
25305
Post by: Zain60
Tantras wrote:Steelmage99 wrote:Tantras wrote:I feel quite positive about the 'problem' that some people have mentioned regarding a Deffrolla blocking front disembarking. Maybe it's just the price you pay for having such a powerful weapon on the front of your battlewagon? Although certainly it should've been specified in the rules if that was the case.
I would certainly side with the Deffrolla not counting as part of the hull... to do otherwise would leave everything wide open for 'modelling for advantage'.
You do realize that following that logic you cannot assault a BW from the front, right?
No, following that logic you cannot assault a BW equipped with a Deffrolla from the front, which I'm fine with.
And no one could disembark from the deff rolla side (ie the front) of a BW either. That would definitely dork up assaulting meganobz, etc.
20173
Post by: kowbasher
Ok...thought it double posted, but apparently the internet ate it's twin...anyway,
whitedragon wrote:Sounds like something that should have been cleared up before the game began.
I run 4 wagons in most of my lists and I always, ALWAYS, mention that I measure from the hull of my wagons and never count the deff-rollas. Mine are actually removable with magnets so that when I disembark I just pop them off real quick.
Now I can see that some battlewagons not being able to remove their rollas which makes disembarking quite difficult. In those cases it makes sense to count the deff-rolla as part of the hull, and your opponent should be notified of this before the game starts. Just common courtesy.
24528
Post by: I grappled the shoggoth
Heres the problem I have with this. Deffrollas are clearly not part of the hull of ork vehicles. The same way dozer blades and those little spines on wave serpents arent. So therefore you cannot measure shooting from it, to or from. However, I dont think you can legally claim "well i count it as part of the hull for all purposes". It doesnt work that way, its not part of the hull. If you claim it as part of the hull only when it benefits you that is blatanly cheating. But I do feel that this does legally prevent charges out of the front of the tank. To claim otherwise for your vehicle is breaking the rules. If you wish to house rule that way its fine, but there is no legal precedent for deffrollas being part of the hull.
20173
Post by: kowbasher
Zain60 wrote:Tantras wrote:Steelmage99 wrote:Tantras wrote:I feel quite positive about the 'problem' that some people have mentioned regarding a Deffrolla blocking front disembarking. Maybe it's just the price you pay for having such a powerful weapon on the front of your battlewagon? Although certainly it should've been specified in the rules if that was the case.
I would certainly side with the Deffrolla not counting as part of the hull... to do otherwise would leave everything wide open for 'modelling for advantage'.
You do realize that following that logic you cannot assault a BW from the front, right?
No, following that logic you cannot assault a BW equipped with a Deffrolla from the front, which I'm fine with.
And no one could disembark from the deff rolla side (ie the front) of a BW either. That would definitely dork up assaulting meganobz, etc.
Following this logic about open topped vehicles is odd to me. I've always made the assumption that the occupants of the vehicle when disembarking enjoy a quicker and less restrictive way of bailing out of the vehicle. One would assume that in the same exact time frame as a bunch of marines carefully exiting a rhino thru the hatches ducking to avoid gonking their heads, 20 ork boyz could flip over the side of their wagon and walk around a bit to get in front of their transport. I never assumed the boyz physically exited the transport from the deff-rolla or even the physical front of the vehicle! (heck Dark Elder would have the same issue with their raiders as there are no physical exits in that beaky part!)
So in short, yea even with deff-rollas the boyz can still deploy in front of a vehicle and a deff-rolla as long as that deff-rolla has been measured from the entire game. If not, then yes your opponent is suddenly cheating my gaining a free inch or two when disembarking! 
*edited after quoting the wrong post  *
5436
Post by: NaZ
I think yakface hit on an important point. You must stay consistent during ALL games about how the models are handled. to say that it counts in some situations but not others would just be beardy.
I have always played that mine count as part of the hull, because they are 30% of the length of the model. to not do so creates more problems than it solves.
I could see people arguing that it didnt count, but that could create issues where assaulting could be blocked etc.
I aimed for a way to play it that is consistent, fair to both players, and doesn't create any issues. I measure the front of the deffrolla for movement (it affects how far onto the board I can come from reserve) I count it for disembarking, for assaulting the BW, for shooting to or from it, etc.
because I have always shown that consistency, it has never been a problem with any of the people I play with, or in any of the ard boyz tournaments I've attended.
NaZ
24528
Post by: I grappled the shoggoth
I generally play if you can reach the hull you can base upgrades.
Take the giant dozer blade on a vindicator. The hull of my vindy can reach your trukk, but only the blade can touch. If the hull reaches the ram still happens. Same if you charge me. If you can reach the hull but can only touch the blade then whatever.
25305
Post by: Zain60
Exactly how I play it as well, Shoggoth-grappler.
Kowbasher: I completely agree that the rules for open-topped vehicles mean what you say, but the decoration (rolla, dozer blade, plank) is not part of the hull and if you can't put yourself within 2" of the hull then it's the same as blocking a portion of an entry point with impassable terrain or another model. There's just no way to put a model down next to the front hull. Taking the decoration off is an interesting way to handle it... I'm not sure that'd be acceptable in tournaments to be 'modifying' the dimensions of a model mid-game. I would probably be cool with it if I was told beforehand as you said.
20079
Post by: Gorechild
It's pretty clear rolla's aren't part of the hull, the rule book says you don't count ram's as part of the hull, and that's what a deff rolla is, a big cylindrical ram .
I don't think you should be able to measure disembarking distance or place templates from it either. The orks inside the BW would fire over it from where they are transported, so the template would be placed from the hull, over the rolla, to the target. Thats just logical, and going by the rules I think that is what was intended.
Continuing looking at it logically (and as I assume the rules would have been intended) orks wouldn't disembark either on it or in front of it (you wouldn't climb over a big spiky rolling pin, you'd go around it). Its a fair price to pay for having such a cheap and good anti tank upgrade on a vehicle. following that same way of thinking you shouldn't be able to assault through it as you have to be within 2" of the HULL, its not reasonable to assume you could make the BW explode by sinking a powerfist through a battering ram.
24528
Post by: I grappled the shoggoth
Gorechild wrote:
Continuing looking at it logically (and as I assume the rules would have been intended) orks wouldn't disembark either on it or in front of it (you wouldn't climb over a big spiky rolling pin, you'd go around it). Its a fair price to pay for having such a cheap and good anti tank upgrade on a vehicle. following that same way of thinking you shouldn't be able to assault through it as you have to be within 2" of the HULL, its not reasonable to assume you could make the BW explode by sinking a powerfist through a battering ram.
I use the example given above for this.
19640
Post by: Tantras
Zain60 wrote:Tantras wrote:Steelmage99 wrote:Tantras wrote:I feel quite positive about the 'problem' that some people have mentioned regarding a Deffrolla blocking front disembarking. Maybe it's just the price you pay for having such a powerful weapon on the front of your battlewagon? Although certainly it should've been specified in the rules if that was the case.
I would certainly side with the Deffrolla not counting as part of the hull... to do otherwise would leave everything wide open for 'modelling for advantage'.
You do realize that following that logic you cannot assault a BW from the front, right?
No, following that logic you cannot assault a BW equipped with a Deffrolla from the front, which I'm fine with.
And no one could disembark from the deff rolla side (ie the front) of a BW either. That would definitely dork up assaulting meganobz, etc.
Not really, you can pivot for free and then exit from the side. Problem solved.
Anyway, as the OP has pointed out, if you're going to allow people to scramble over the Deffrolla to assault, the very same agreement allows them to tip-toe along the grabba arm and gain some inches there too.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Tantras wrote:Not really, you can pivot for free and then exit from the side. Problem solved.
Actually, you can't, as pivoting means that the transport counts as moving for the unit inside, meaning they cannot then move their 6", which they can do if the vehicle does not pivot.
26631
Post by: valas4444
It seems pretty clear that wargear is not part of the hull. Now the real problem is that it mucks up other aspects of the game, like charging and such, but I do not think it is fair to extend the range of the flamers for the orc player just to make the game more simple. The more we allow someone to extend the size of any open top vehicle, the more it allows them to be able to cover more ground, especially with flame templates.
Mark
19640
Post by: Tantras
Gwar! wrote:Tantras wrote:Not really, you can pivot for free and then exit from the side. Problem solved.
Actually, you can't, as pivoting means that the transport counts as moving for the unit inside, meaning they cannot then move their 6", which they can do if the vehicle does not pivot.
Well, this is situational of course, depending on which order things were done. He could travel full distance and then pivot on turn one, then disembark, move and assault on turn two. Alternatively if he was close enough he could disembark, not 'move' and then just assault in the assault phase... but we digress 
6589
Post by: Boss GreenNutz
You aren't extending the range of flamers for Orks if you count it as part of the hull. During setup it will be placed inside your DZ and measured from during movement so the template will be no closer than it would be if you measured from the front of the vehicle itself.
Either way as long as you are consistent there really isn't an issue and in fact is more of a detriment to the Ork player than a benefit. You are getting an extra 3-4" of AV12 side armor to shoot at.
And yes comparing the DR to a Klaw is a strawman. The DR is stationary on the FRONT of the vehicle so you will ALWAYS know the location. A claw mounted on a rotatable turret can be on the left side one turn, the right side the second and the rear or front the next turn.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
You are if your DeffRolla is significantly larger than standard, as it presents a much greater threat radius after the game starts.
26380
Post by: Geemoney
valas4444 wrote:It seems pretty clear that wargear is not part of the hull. Now the real problem is that it mucks up other aspects of the game, like charging and such, but I do not think it is fair to extend the range of the flamers for the orc player just to make the game more simple. The more we allow someone to extend the size of any open top vehicle, the more it allows them to be able to cover more ground, especially with flame templates.
Mark
You do understand that if I count the rolla as the hull (consistently) I don't gain any distance in my movement phase. Also I usually flame out of the front anyway, and if I'm not moving any farther during the movement phase, I am not gaining any range from the rolla. Last, if the whole vehicle is the hull, you can draw range from any part of it aswell. So if I am gaining two inches of range during my shooting phase so do you when you try to shoot at.
And to everyone who cries overpowered, let me emphasize the deff rolla has the range of 13" period. Most of your vehicles can move 12", it is not difficult to stay out of range. Just pay attention.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Geemoney - you are actually, as if you move backwards you dont need to move as far back - as your deffrolla equipped vehicle is larger than the normal vehicles.
23983
Post by: mon-keigh slayer
This is why i magnetize my deffrollaz, i can just swivel them up to sit on top of the battlewagons hull and disembark off the front of the wagon, saves all the trouble invovled with this.
24528
Post by: I grappled the shoggoth
Moving a vehicle like that mid game is at best questionable. What if I had telescoping flying bases for my fire prisms, so I could move them up to shoot and drop them back down afterword?
23983
Post by: mon-keigh slayer
except that were told to ignore decorative elements for ingame purposes... and if a deff rolla isnt a piece of the hull its a deco element.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
kowbasher wrote:
Mine are actually removable with magnets so that when I disembark I just pop them off real quick.
mon-keigh slayer wrote:This is why i magnetize my deffrollaz, i can just swivel them up to sit on top of the battlewagons hull and disembark off the front of the wagon, saves all the trouble invovled with this.
Not if you play with people who care about modeling for an advantage or anywhere using the INAT faq. mon-keigh slayer wrote:except that were told to ignore decorative elements for ingame purposes...
No we aren't. We're told to ignore them in a few specific scenarios, such as measurements. That doesn't mean they aren't part of the model.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
@Nos
I don't think you get it. If it's played as the front from deployment on there is no advantage. Your measuring from the same spot all game. So your not gaining any advantage. It's actually easier on the opponent to as long as you talk about it before hand. Playing a huge deffrolla as not part of the hull can lead to a lot more arguments than having it as the hull.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Hulksmash, I *do* get it.
You have still made the vehicle larger than normal, meaning that when you move forwards, your back is not as far forwards as a normal sized vehicle would be - so when you want to move backwards, to flame that deepstriking unit that jumped in behind you, you dont need to move as far back. Because the back is further into your deplpyment zone than a normal sized BW would be.
Get it? the vehicle has a larger area, therefore when measuring ranges from it you *do* gain advantages
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
So by making a vehicle larger which in turn makes it:
-harder to hide
-harder to get a coversave on
-increasing the sides and ease of going for av12 vs. av14
-decreasing the chance of a blast weapons scattering off
I'm in fact helping myself? Got it.....all to save me 2" for when someone deepstrikes behind me.
888
Post by: Primarch
Boss GreenNutz wrote:You aren't extending the range of flamers for Orks if you count it as part of the hull. During setup it will be placed inside your DZ and measured from during movement so the template will be no closer than it would be if you measured from the front of the vehicle itself.
Either way as long as you are consistent there really isn't an issue and in fact is more of a detriment to the Ork player than a benefit. You are getting an extra 3-4" of AV12 side armor to shoot at.
And yes comparing the DR to a Klaw is a strawman. The DR is stationary on the FRONT of the vehicle so you will ALWAYS know the location. A claw mounted on a rotatable turret can be on the left side one turn, the right side the second and the rear or front the next turn.
I never said anything about a rotating turret with a Grabbing Klaw on it. Have you put those on your BWs yet Ollie? If not, then let me explain it to you, its far to heavy to just stick it on there and let it rotate. I glued mine down at about a 45 degree angle sticking off the hull. If I choose to glue one at a 90 degree angle, and it stays that way the whole game, then its the same as your Deff rolla.
These are the facts, either vehicle upgrades count as part of the hull or they don't. It's a pretty simple stance I think.
Clay Automatically Appended Next Post: Hulksmash wrote:So by making a vehicle larger which in turn makes it:
-harder to hide
-harder to get a coversave on
-increasing the sides and ease of going for av12 vs. av14
-decreasing the chance of a blast weapons scattering off
I'm in fact helping myself? Got it.....all to save me 2" for when someone deepstrikes behind me.
Increases it's ability to block LoS to other stuff.......there are benefits as well.....
Clay
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Hulksmash wrote:So by making a vehicle larger which in turn makes it:
-harder to hide
-harder to get a coversave on
-increasing the sides and ease of going for av12 vs. av14
-decreasing the chance of a blast weapons scattering off
I'm in fact helping myself? Got it.....all to save me 2" for when someone deepstrikes behind me.
- increases the range of the KFF toting mek inside it, therefore making it easier to cover the other BWs or Trukks around you
- by making a wiiiide DR you *decrease* the side arcs, making it harder to get AV12
- make it far easier to hide other models / units behind it
Try making balanced comments, yeah? I take it you finally (finally!) concede the measurement point, after 3 attempts?
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
That was the short list Clay 
I realize that there are pro's and con's to a larger vehicle. But to be honest the con's far outweigh the pro's in this case.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
My Vote? It is definitely not the hull.
I'd love to see Dash in here though.
9217
Post by: KingCracker
It depends really.
Normally Id say no way its not the hull. BUT if your using it to measure from, when measuring for movement and for disembarking AND allowing it to count as the front hull when being attacked, then I guess that would be fine. Its weird seeing flamer templates stick out of it like that, but if its been used with all the prementioned stuff, then it is basically just being the front of the BW.
Now if the player uses it for movement, not allowing you to count it as the front hull but still wants to put templates on the front, then no thats total cheating right there.
6589
Post by: Boss GreenNutz
Too bad I'm too lazy to do the search, but I'm betting that those who scream that it isn't part of the hull are the same ones that said you couldn't use it on vehicles.
So if it isn't part of the vehicle when you move forward to tank shock or ram, do you measure from the end of the DeffRolla for distance travelled or do you totally ignore it and measure ramming and tankshocking distances to the hull?
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
Boss GreenNutz wrote:Too bad I'm too lazy to do the search, but I'm betting that those who scream that it isn't part of the hull are the same ones that said you couldn't use it on vehicles.
So if it isn't part of the vehicle when you move forward to tank shock or ram, do you measure from the end of the DeffRolla for distance travelled or do you totally ignore it and measure ramming and tankshocking distances to the hull?
Interesting, because I argued for it working on vehicles it for months and I don't think it's part of the hull. Nice generalization there. Read the rules, it's almost exactly the same as most of the examples given for non-hull elements and isn't ever defined as part of the hull. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply with your measuring claim... you always measure to and from the hull. Ramming specifies contact between the models for its effects, not a measurement to the target.
6589
Post by: Boss GreenNutz
OK so where do you measure distance and impact for tank shock and ramming? Noticed you did gloss over that question.
888
Post by: Primarch
In my opinion by allowing deployment, and firing from the front edge of a Deff rolla, you are opening up other things for abuse. That's pretty much my entire point.
Clay
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
Boss GreenNutz wrote:OK so where do you measure distance and impact for tank shock and ramming? Noticed you did gloss over that question.
I edited it in right away, actually. What distances are you talking about? The total distance moved for the ram? Because that doesn't change depending on where you measure from, all parts of the tank moved the same distance. If you're talking about measuring distances to the target to check if they're affected, then you're doing it wrong.
23983
Post by: mon-keigh slayer
hes saying to check to see if you actually make it into contact, if the deff rolla isnt hull then you need to move an extra 2" to get the actual "hull" in contact.
6589
Post by: Boss GreenNutz
It does matter. There is an oppontent tank in front of my BW. I claim I will move 13" and ram it.
The DR on my Forge World BW sticks out about 3". Currently building my GW one so not sure how far it will protrude. If an opponent's tank is 14" away from the hull of my BW then it is too far away to ram even with RPJ. However that same tank would only be 11" away from the edge of my DR thus putting it within the distance needed to ram.
And Clay it is only abuse by those that choose to abuse it. Like firing a Burna from a GK or putting an IC in with Snikrot.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
Boss GreenNutz wrote:It does matter. There is an oppontent tank in front of my BW. I claim I will move 13" and ram it.
The DR on my Forge World BW sticks out about 3". Currently building my GW one so not sure how far it will protrude. If an opponent's tank is 14" away from the hull of my BW then it is too far away to ram even with RPJ. However that same tank would only be 11" away from the edge of my DR thus putting it within the distance needed to ram.
mon-keigh slayer wrote:hes saying to check to see if you actually make it into contact, if the deff rolla isnt hull then you need to move an extra 2" to get the actual "hull" in contact.
No, you don't. That is not what contact between models is. Contact is not a 0" measurement to the hull, it is actual physical contact between the models, of which the rolla is a part. Read the tank shock and ramming rules, you actually move the tank along the path and tankshock/ram any units it physically comes into contact with. What part of this is so difficult to understand?
6589
Post by: Boss GreenNutz
So the DR is part of the vehicle but isn't part of the vehicle. Interesting concept.
25220
Post by: WarOne
Going to reiterate the quote from GW WH 40k rulebook:
...for measuring distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements).
I believe GW intended weapons and fluff items not to count in the belief that a "hull" would be a common sense definition with little need for clarification (i.e. the hull is NOT a gun barrel, a deff rolla, a grot oiler sticking off the side of a wagon, corpses of space marines strung like a curtain off the side of your tank, smoke plumes, fire made by painting glue, extra spikes you plasce on there for amusement...)
So basically anything sticking out of the main portion of the vehicle constitutes a nonhull item IMO, including weapons and deffrollas.
6589
Post by: Boss GreenNutz
I would agree except that you get the extra D6 hits with the deffrolla so adding it to the vehicle makes it part of the hull. Otherwise as was stated earlier you can not DoG a Tankshock since your models can't make contact with the hull. The DR is in the way.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
Boss GreenNutz wrote:I would agree except that you get the extra D6 hits with the deffrolla so adding it to the vehicle makes it part of the hull. Otherwise as was stated earlier you can not DoG a Tankshock since your models can't make contact with the hull. The DR is in the way.
Boss GreenNutz wrote:So the DR is part of the vehicle but isn't part of the vehicle. Interesting concept.
You are making no sense and blatantly ignoring the rules involved. Something can be part of a model, and not be part of the hull. This entire discussion is about such objects. Tank shocking and ramming make no mention of requiring contact with the hull, just the vehicle. What is so confusing about this? Are there rules you are reading that contradict it somewhere? Or are you just being difficult/trolling? 
25305
Post by: Zain60
Hull is pretty easy to tell. 'Contact' with the model is pretty easy to tell. I didn't even think we were talking about that anymore.
20173
Post by: kowbasher
WarOne wrote:Going to reiterate the quote from GW WH 40k rulebook:
...for measuring distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements).
I believe GW intended weapons and fluff items not to count in the belief that a "hull" would be a common sense definition with little need for clarification (i.e. the hull is NOT a gun barrel, a deff rolla, a grot oiler sticking off the side of a wagon, corpses of space marines strung like a curtain off the side of your tank, smoke plumes, fire made by painting glue, extra spikes you plasce on there for amusement...)
So basically anything sticking out of the main portion of the vehicle constitutes a nonhull item IMO, including weapons and deffrollas.
Key word in there: Common Sense. I really don't get why we are discussing this at this length. (3 pages...really?) That line that Warone pulled out of the rule book sums it up. Remaining consistent in your measuring and letting your opponent know before the game removes all possible issues. That or we all play with pefectly measured symmetrical wooden rectangles to avoid all possible conflicts.
As for the issue of disembarking troops out the front of a wagon with a death-rolla that cannot be removed and hasn't been used as a point of reference for measuring I would just do a balancing act and would "count as" being under the decorative death-rolla. Treat it just like if some of your models can't stand on the lip of that crater without sliding into the center, they are technically on the lip, but you know: gravity.  Those orks are probably gonna be moving in the assult phase in about a minute anyway!
Consistent Common Sense. 
6589
Post by: Boss GreenNutz
Tank shocking and ramming make no mention of requiring contact with the hull, just the vehicle.
See with this you would be looking for an unfair advantage. Not counting the DR as part of the hull means you get to place it 3" closer during deployment. This can make all the difference between a turn 2 Ram or not.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Common Sense is as common as Hens Teeth.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Tank shocking and ramming make no mention of requiring contact with the hull, just the vehicle.
See with this you would be looking for an unfair advantage. Not counting the DR as part of the hull means you get to place it 3" closer during deployment. This can make all the difference between a turn 2 Ram or not.
What are you talking about? How is following the rules unfair? People with dozer blades and so on can, and do, do the exact same thing. It is entirely legal. kowbasher wrote: As for the issue of disembarking troops out the front of a wagon with a death-rolla that cannot be removed and hasn't been used as a point of reference for measuring I would just do a balancing act and would "count as" being under the decorative death-rolla. Treat it just like if some of your models can't stand on the lip of that crater without sliding into the center, they are technically on the lip, but you know: gravity. Those orks are probably gonna be moving in the assult phase in about a minute anyway! Consistent Common Sense.
Except they can't 'count as' being on top of or under the rolla, because the model is impassable terrain.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
So to avoid abusing one set of rules we're going to abuse a different one. How often do you think it's gonna be ok when you line up against someone and place the deffrolla over 12" from the table edge?
People will generally be far more pissed about this than flamer's from the front of the tank. You can look at them and say, sorry, it doesn't count as part of the vehicle and watch how much fun your game is gonna be when it starts out that way.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
Hulksmash wrote:So to avoid abusing one set of rules we're going to abuse a different one. How often do you think it's gonna be ok when you line up against someone and place the deffrolla over 12" from the table edge?
People will generally be far more pissed about this than flamer's from the front of the tank. You can look at them and say, sorry, it doesn't count as part of the vehicle and watch how much fun your game is gonna be when it starts out that way.
Again, how is following the rules somehow abusing them? I think it's going to be okay 100% of the time, if you'd really like to know. The situation goes: "Mind if I play with my deffrollas as part of the hull?" "No, I'd rather you didn't and used them as a decorative element as implied in the rulebook." "Okay". *place tank so entirety of hull is within deployment zone* or "Mind if I play with my deffrollas as part of the hull?" "Sure, I don't mind." "Okay". *place tank so entirety of hull is within deployment zone* What am I 'abusing' exactly?
24528
Post by: I grappled the shoggoth
I thought ram was measured from hull of the vehicle, and as such it wouldnt matter where the rolla is.
6589
Post by: Boss GreenNutz
Except they can't 'count as' being on top of or under the rolla, because the model is impassable terrain.
Mind pointing me out a page in the BRB that says a DR is impassible terrain? I couldn't find it and would like to since that would mean a dangerous terrain test as well when a unit gets out of the way since they are now in impassible terrain.
In essence you are saying you can not do anything from/to the front of a BW with a DR except TS and Ram since you can't deploy off the front, fire a template from the front or an enemy unit can't even DoG since they can't make contact with the hull (remember you said the DR is impassible terrain and you can't move through impassible terrain).
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Except they can't 'count as' being on top of or under the rolla, because the model is impassable terrain.
Mind pointing me out a page in the BRB that says a DR is impassible terrain? I couldn't find it
You couldn't find page 13, the 'Guidelines on categorizing terrain' under the 'Terrain' heading, where the things that count as impassable terrain (such as other models) are described? Where did you look, exactly? Mind showing me where DoG requries contact to the hull, if we're trading jabs about the rules? Or how a unit that allows a tank to pass through it 'as if it were not there', or is moved if the tank would end up where it is, is somehow inside the vehicle and suddenly in 'dangerous' terrain?
6589
Post by: Boss GreenNutz
So part of my own open topped vehicle is now impassible terrain to a unit of my models that is getting out of it.
Maybe I wasn't clear. Mind showing me a page reference where a model can disembark anywhere from an OT vehicle unless it has a DR on it?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Boss GreenNutz wrote:So part of my own open topped vehicle is now impassible terrain to a unit of my models that is getting out of it.
Maybe I wasn't clear. Mind showing me a page reference where a model can disembark anywhere from an OT vehicle unless it has a DR on it?
How about:
The part where it says you have to be 2" of the hull.
The part where it says extra bits are not hull.
The part where it says models are impassible terrain.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
Boss GreenNutz wrote:So part of my own open topped vehicle is now impassible terrain to a unit of my models that is getting out of it.
Maybe I wasn't clear. Mind showing me a page reference where a model can disembark anywhere from an OT vehicle unless it has a DR on it?
I just showed you one, read it. Perhaps page 14's 'models may not be placed in impassable terrain', or a perusal of the disembarking rules on page 67 would help. Protip: Your entire open topped vehicle is always impassable terrain to a unit of models that is getting out of it. You can't disembark on top of your rolla just like you can't disembark on top of the rest of the battlewagon model. Maybe if you understood the rules better, or read the pages provided, you'd know that already.
6589
Post by: Boss GreenNutz
OK I"ll type slowly so you can understand. If as you claim the DR is impassible terrain, how can you disembark a unit from the front of a BW? Perhpas you failed to read the section on OT vehicles and disembarking. I also relooked the entry for the Deffrolla. Oddly enough I didn't find anything there that stated a unit may not disembark from the front of a DR equipped BW.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
Boss GreenNutz wrote:OK I"ll type slowly so you can understand. If as you claim the DR is impassible terrain, how can you disembark a unit from the front of a BW? Perhpas you failed to read the section on OT vehicles and disembarking. I also relooked the entry for the Deffrolla. Oddly enough I didn't find anything there that stated a unit may not disembark from the front of a DR equipped BW.
You disembark them from the front exactly like you do for any other transport using the open topped disembarking rules. The ones me and Gwar both referenced for you to read which you then failed to do. Lets go through the rule... You can disembark within 2" of any point on the vehicle. Okay? That 2", like all distance measurements involving a vehicle per p56, is to the hull. With me so far? If the deffrolla sticks out 2", then you cannot disembark models in that part of the battlewagons front arc because there is nowhere to put them that is not impassable deff rolla vehicle model. All set? What, exactly, is confusing you? Quote the rules rather than just blathering about how you looked at them.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
Still waiting for Dash to speak up, since he's online now...
26380
Post by: Geemoney
Page 4 under "models in the way" states that a model cannot occupy the space of another model represented by the base or the hull. So if the deff rolla is not the hull then models can occupy that space, therefore I can in fact deploy models on it, you can assault on top of it. If its not the hull the whole issue is avoided.
--->start of page four do I win something?
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
Geemoney wrote:Page 4 under "models in the way" states that a model cannot occupy the space of another model represented by the base or the hull. So if the deff rolla is not the hull then models can occupy that space, therefore I can in fact deploy models on it, you can assault on top of it. If its not the hull the whole issue is avoided.
My page 4 is 'Unit Types'. Are you referring to 11? Yes, you cannot 'move into or through' the space outlined by the hull of vehicle during movement. You also can't normally move into/onto/across impassable terrain, which the entirety of the model including the rolla represents. This rule does not change or override that.
26380
Post by: Geemoney
Gorkamorka wrote:Geemoney wrote:Page 4 under "models in the way" states that a model cannot occupy the space of another model represented by the base or the hull. So if the deff rolla is not the hull then models can occupy that space, therefore I can in fact deploy models on it, you can assault on top of it. If its not the hull the whole issue is avoided.
My page 4 is 'Unit Types'. Are you referring to 11?
Yes, you cannot 'move into or through' the space outlined by the hull of vehicle during movement.
You also can't normally move into/onto/across impassable terrain, which the entirety of the model including the rolla represents. This rule does not change or override that.
Yeah page 11.
It doesn't change anything it is a clarification of what counts as a model and what doesn't, the model of the vehicle is represented by the hull. So if it is the hull it is the model, if its not the hull its not the model. So on page 13 when it says a model is impassible terrain, based on the definition on the previous page that means that the hull represents the model, the deff rolla is not the hull and does not represent the model.
Your interpretation allows for a contradiction of what a model is; which really makes no sense.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
Geemoney wrote:
Yeah page 11.
It doesn't change anything it is a clarification of what counts as a model and what doesn't, the model of the vehicle is represented by the hull. So if it is the hull it is the model, if its not the hull its not the model. So on page 13 when it says a model is impassible terrain, based on the definition on the previous page that means that the hull represents the model, the deff rolla is not the hull and does not represent the model.
Your interpretation allows for a contradiction of what a model is; which really makes no sense.
No, it's a definition of the space occupied by a model for this specific rule. If it was the general definition of a model, then any non-vehicle 'model' is just its base (and I'd love to see you draw line of site like that). Oh wait, the LOS rules also 'define' model to include the 'body' for their specific rule. A model is the entire model, or 'citadel miniature' or 'individual playing piece'. See page 3.
26380
Post by: Geemoney
So one rule says you can move through anything but the hull of the vehicle but the next rule says that any part of the vehicle is impassible terrain and you can't move through that either. So why bother with the first rule, since your interpretation seems to include every bit that is glued to the vehicle?
LOS is different then movement. Vehicles are different then infantry. LOS on a vehicle is also defined as "seeing" the hull or turret (which a deff rolla is not), so if my deff rolla is sticking out you can't shoot at it. If anything that supports my claim that a vehicle occupies only the space that includes the hull. Whenever the space occupied by the vehicle is defined, it is defined as the hull. Why is it different in this one instance? A deff rolla is not impassible, its not even really terrain.
24528
Post by: I grappled the shoggoth
I must agree with gorkamorka here
For the following logical reason
The janitor from scrubs is cooler then spiderman
as such his argument is more valid then geemoney's
20173
Post by: kowbasher
Actually that's Deadpool. I can see Geemoney's reasoning considering that deff-rollas are defined as decorative and to be ignored there is no qualms if one's models technically disembarked on top of it considering that for game play purposes it does not exist.
This is why I never measure from the thing! Way too many arguments arise from it. Measure from the hull, treat the deff-rolla as decorative: problems solved.
*edited for spelling and such*
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
kowbasher wrote:Actually that's Deathpool.
/facepalm kowbasher wrote:I can see Geemoney's reasoning considering that deff-rollas are defined as decorative and to be ignored there is no qualms if one's models technically disembarked on top of it considering that for game play purposes it does not exist.
This is why I never measure from the thing! Way too many arguments arise from it. Measure from the hull, treat the deff-rolla as decorative: problems solved.
It's a large (and rulebreaking) jump to go from what the book defines as 'decorative' and what that means to 'this part of the model does not exist in game so I can stand models on it'. It's almost just as rulebreaking to model it so that it is removable mid-game solely so you don't have to disembark around it and can replace it afterwards.
20173
Post by: kowbasher
Gorkamorka wrote:kowbasher wrote:Actually that's Deathpool.
/facepalm
It's 2:30 am here, you'll have to excuse me as my brain is shutting down.
I guess I'm missing the argument in general then. If I measure from the hull the entire game for everything, and treat my deff-rolla as purely decrotive (much the same way as the way boarding planks and grabbin' claws work) then I cannot ignore the deff-rolla for disembarking. Instead I have to treat it as if I had been measuring it from it the entire game?
Apparently I broke the quote feature and did it to my own post. Going to bed now...wow. 
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
kowbasher wrote:
I guess I'm missing the argument in general then. If I measure from the hull the entire game for everything, and treat my deff-rolla as purely decrotive (much the same way as the way boarding planks and grabbin' claws work) then I cannot ignore the deff-rolla for disembarking. Instead I have to treat it as if I had been measuring it from it the entire game?
As I've explained... at least 3 times now. The deffrolla is not part of the hull. This is true. You measure to the hull. Also true. That does not mean that the deffrolla does not exist or is not part of the model. Models are defined as impassable terrain in/on which you cannot place other models. You cannot stand models on your deffrolla any more than you can stand them elsewhere on the battlewagon when they disembark.
60
Post by: yakface
Primarch wrote:In my opinion by allowing deployment, and firing from the front edge of a Deff rolla, you are opening up other things for abuse. That's pretty much my entire point.
Clay
But your point doesn't make any sense.
As long as the Deff Rolla is played completely consistently and with your full knowledge of how it will be played, it should have absolutely no impact on the game (or so minimal that it isn't even worth thinking about).
So YES a Deff Rolla isn't part of the hull...*BUT* if both you and your opponent recognize that it will be kind of a pain to try to stand models on top of the Deff Rolla when you're disembarking and/or attacking the Battlewagon in CC, then you can BOTH AGREE to play with the Deff Rolla as part of the hull in all instances.
This doesn't mean that you can suddenly go out and convert a giant grabbin klaw and use it to fire embarked flamers from. The point is, both you and your opponent can recognize the value of playing the Deff Rolla as part the hull and play it that way right from the start of the game and then no big whoop!
And P.S. to everyone else: Why the heck should it matter what Dash has to say about the matter? Its pretty clear from many of the comments already posted that many people choose to play with the Deff Rolla as part of the hull as it is far easier to play that way, so what is he going to say that is going to enlighten the situation any?
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
yakface wrote:both you and your opponent recognize that it will be kind of a pain to try to stand models on top of the Deff Rolla when you're disembarking
It's mostly a pain because it's an illegal action, what with the rolla being impassable... as I've been trying to explain for 2 pages...
19640
Post by: Tantras
Hah, who'd have thought that after one Deffrolla problem was banished back to the warp after the recent FAQ, we'd find another one so soon!
60
Post by: yakface
Gorkamorka wrote:yakface wrote:both you and your opponent recognize that it will be kind of a pain to try to stand models on top of the Deff Rolla when you're disembarking
It's mostly a pain because it's an illegal action, what with the rolla being impassable... as I've been trying to explain for 2 pages...
Le sigh.
ANYWAY, the whole point is, in order to play the game both players need to agree to play it one way or the other. Whether that means allowing models to stand on top of the Deff Rolla just like players play models can stand on top of opened Drop Pod doors in order to play that the Deff Rolla is *not* part of the hull, or whether you play that the Deff Rolla *is* part of the hull so you don't need to stand models on top of it, as long as you are completely consistent one way or another the entire game there should be no issues!
So the point of this post was:
A player did this to me, is this legal? And can I therefore use the ruling to create even more outlandish scenarios?
And the answer is:
While it was not strictly 'legal' you can see from this thread that many people *choose* to play this way, not from any desire to abuse the rules, but because it is easier to play that way.
The key is, all players need to recognize that when there are bits of stuff hanging off the edges of vehicles that aren't considered part of the hull, this can create a gameplay issue when it comes to moving models off the vehicle and also when attacking it in CC.
When you see this possible issue on your opponent's models (or on your own) then you need to be proactive and decide how exactly you want to play those things...not in order to gain some crazy advantage, but just to make the game EASIER TO PLAY FOR BOTH OF YOU.
And if you make that decision and apply it universally, the effects of the ruling, either way, should end up having almost zero impact on your game.
So seriously, what more is there really to keep arguing about?
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
yakface wrote:
ANYWAY, the whole point is, in order to play the game both players need to agree to play it one way or the other. Whether that means allowing models to stand on top of the Deff Rolla just like players play models can stand on top of opened Drop Pod doors in order to play that the Deff Rolla is *not* part of the hull, or whether you play that the Deff Rolla *is* part of the hull so you don't need to stand models on top of it, as long as you are completely consistent one way or another the entire game there should be no issues!
I completely understand the RAP arguments, I do, and I often compromise on this very issue. Nearly everyone compromises on drop pod doors, but that's mostly because the model is nigh unplayable otherwise. I just don't understand why 'not part of the hull and you can't stand on it' doesn't appear to be a logical option for you in this case and you appear to insist on a compromise. The model is entirely playable in every way in such a RAW fashion, it breaks/changes no rules, and it isn't even especially complicated or difficult. You measure to the actual hull, the deff rolla is still part of the model... it's exactly the same as for every other similar element, like rams or dozer blades. The assault rules don't specify hull contact, and the shooting rules specify that you ignore decorative items... what is so unplayable about this that people are trying to avoid by instating house rules? The only thing that is different is that the rolla is large enough to deny disembarking in an area around the wagon. It does so clearly and simply by the RAW, and it does so exactly as rams and dozers do... it's just larger. Why insist that it fits into the decorative category and then arbitrarily treat it differently because of its size? I just don't understand it.
60
Post by: yakface
Gorkamorka wrote:
I completely understand the RAP arguments, I do, and I often compromise on this very issue. Nearly everyone compromises on drop pod doors, but that's mostly because the model is nigh unplayable otherwise.
I just don't understand why 'not part of the hull and you can't stand on it' doesn't appear to be a logical option for you in this case and you appear to insist on a compromise.
The model is entirely playable in every way in such a RAW fashion, it breaks/changes no rules, and it isn't even especially complicated or difficult. You measure to the actual hull, the deff rolla is still part of the model... it's exactly the same as for every other similar element, like rams or dozer blades.
The assault rules don't specify hull contact, and the shooting rules specify that you ignore decorative items... what is so unplayable about this that people are trying to avoid by instating house rules? I just don't understand it.
The biggest issue would continue to be the fact that you have an area of the vehicle that embarked models cannot really disembark onto...and that happens to the most coveted disembarking area for any open-topped vehicle (the front of it). So yeah, playing that the Deff Rolla isn't part of the hull AND can't be moved on top of creates just as many issues as playing that the doors on a drop pod can't be moved on top of.
And if you want to try to take the literal assault rules and apply them to vehicles, then assaulting models are supposed to attempt to get into 'base contact' with the vehicle (the vehicle assault rules say we are supposed to reference back to the regular assault rules for moving assaulting models and what constitutes 'engaged').
All you have to do is take something like the reinforced ram, which sits a bit off the table to have a situation where the assaulting models are unable get into 'base contact' with the vehicle from the front, because they 'hit' the Reinforced Ram which doesn't count as the hull, and their bases don't actually 'contact' any part of the vehicle model.
There are all kinds of little absurdities like this that you can run into if you start trying to apply the vehicle rules absolutely 100% literally because of the really wide range of vehicle sizes and shapes...the drop pod and Valkyrie/Vendetta included.
When it comes down to it, playing consistently one way or another and agreeing upon how you want to play it before the game is the only way you're going to end up with a sane, argument-free game.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
yakface wrote:
The biggest issue would continue to be the fact that you have an area of the vehicle that embarked models cannot really disembark onto...and that happens to the most coveted disembarking area for any open-topped vehicle (the front of it). So yeah, playing that the Deff Rolla isn't part of the hull AND can't be moved on top of creates just as many issues as playing that the doors on a drop pod can't be moved on top of.
But how is that an 'issue' with the rules that requires changing, and not simply the upgrade having a downside within the rules? The drop pod is a common compromise because you often physically cannot disembark from one with the doors open or fire the internal gun with them shut, as examples, and you are left with a major aspect of the model that it would appear was intended to be functional being impossible to use. The Valk was similarly unplayable... a transport with no fire points that you could not embark/dismembark into/from. The fact that you are blocked from disembarking in a certain place by the bulk of the rolla is entirely different from it being impossible to do so completely. The battlewagon isn't in a situation where the rules are making the model unplayably broken and worthy of serious intervention here. It isn't like I'm biased for my opinion and arguing a crazy unintended rules point or anything here... I'd love it if I could disembark from the front, but that's simply not how the RAW works. This isn't some lame minutia about how you can't get into base contact with the wagon because the rolla is a cylinder and happens to touch your model before the base, this is the extremely fundamental model/terrain/disembarking rules and they are pretty clear here. We'll have to agree to disagree, but I'm still completely confused as to why people are so eager to hand me several extra inches of disembarking because they think its simpler for me or don't like me deploying the rolla forward. After years of the dang things not working on vehicles, I'll take what I can get I suppose.
60
Post by: yakface
Gorkamorka wrote:
But how is that an 'issue' with the rules that requires changing, and not simply the upgrade having a downside within the rules?
The drop pod is a common compromise because you often physically cannot disembark from one with the doors open or fire the internal gun with them shut, as examples, and you are left with a major aspect of the model that it would appear was intended to be functional being impossible to use. The Valk was similarly unplayable... a transport with no fire points that you could not embark/dismembark into/from.
The fact that you are blocked from disembarking in a certain place by the bulk of the rolla is entirely different from it being impossible to do so completely. The battlewagon isn't in a situation where the rules are making the model unplayably broken and worthy of serious intervention here.
It isn't like I'm biased for my opinion and arguing a crazy unintended rules point or anything here... I'd love it if I could disembark from the front, but that's simply not how the RAW works. This isn't some lame minutia about how you can't get into base contact with the wagon because the rolla is a cylinder and happens to touch your model before the base, this is the extremely fundamental model/terrain/disembarking rules and they are pretty clear here.
We'll have to agree to disagree, but I'm still completely confused as to why people are so eager to hand me several extra inches of disembarking because they think its simpler for me or don't like me deploying the rolla forward. After years of the dang things not working on vehicles, I'll take what I can get I suppose.
I'm not eager to hand you anything...
The point I've been trying to make is that if you play with the Deff Rolla as part of the hull from deployment on, then you generally aren't getting any extra distance out of the Deff Rolla.
While Nosferatu (I believe) did properly point out that if you reverse directions or even pivot you are technically 'gaining' extra distance by playing the Deff Rolla this way, the reality is that you're likely to accidentally add or lose more distance throughout the course of the game through human error during movement then you are really going to 'gain' any movement in this way...it really is very slight.
But getting back to your point, the disconnect that so many players have with the way you're trying to argue is the idea of having a whole facing of an open-topped vehicle be effectively 'off-limits' for disembarking hasn't had any other similar precedents in the game so far, isn't identified in any of the rules examples and generally doesn't make 'sense' to most people.
The whole point of GW making these extraneous bits not 'count' in the rules would seem to be because they want to make them not count. The general principle is that you're supposed to measure distances to the vehicle's hull and to most this makes sense that (when assaulting) moving the model into 'base contact' with the vehicle is part of his measurement.
And again, if you want to go fully literal with the assault rules, then you're supposed to move into 'base contact' with the vehicle, so if a Deff Rolla is positioned slightly off the table, the bases of the assaulting models won't get into 'contact' with the vehicle making the front of the Battlewagon un-assaultable.
At the end of the day, if you play the game either one way or the other (treat the Deff Rolla like it doesn't exist for the game, so models can move on top of it if needed to contact the vehicle OR treat the Deff Rolla as part of the vehicle's hull so models can disembark and assault to/from it) then you don't run into any inconsistent situations where the vehicle behaves one way in one situation and differently in another situation.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
yakface wrote:
The point I've been trying to make is that if you play with the Deff Rolla as part of the hull from deployment on, then you generally aren't getting any extra distance out of the Deff Rolla.
But you do, and that's part of the point I'm trying to make. If you play it as part of the hull, then you deploy with it at the edge and disembark out 2" straight in front and gain distance there. If you play it as not part of the hull but stand-on-able then you deploy with it out a few inches and can deploy 2" straight in front (on top of the rolla) and gain distance there. Both give you extra disembarking distance over playing it towards the RAW and having to deploy to the sides. Even if it's only an inch, (and it's at least that, with a good lineup) then it's already worth almost 5pts on every ork vehicle. yakface wrote:
But getting back to your point, the disconnect that so many players have with the way you're trying to argue is the idea of having a whole facing of an open-topped vehicle be effectively 'off-limits' for disembarking hasn't had any other similar precedents in the game so far, isn't identified in any of the rules examples and generally doesn't make 'sense' to most people.
The whole point of GW making these extraneous bits not 'count' in the rules would seem to be because they want to make them not count. The general principle is that you're supposed to measure distances to the vehicle's hull and to most this makes sense that (when assaulting) moving the model into 'base contact' with the vehicle is part of his measurement.
But why cater to those people any more than other people who are misinformed about a particular rule? Why does them feeling entitled to the ability to disembark a certain way make them worthy of a rules changing house rule any more than any other situation that breaks from the expected norm or precedent? Why should something that is the same ruleswise (a decorative object) be treated differently ruleswise (it isn't part of the model for disembarking or is part of the hull)... or why should something that is different (rolla, sizewise) be expected to work the same way gameplay wise (can deploy in front of it, as if it were a smaller decorative object or simply didn't exist as part of the model). If anything it's breaking precedent entirely to change the rules for a single upgrade that's already classified and has rules written for it already. Why does moving a model until it contacts another necessitate a hull measurement when one is never called for all of a sudden? These people playing the game incorrectly doesn't mean they're fixing broken rules, or the majority play that way, or anything else that would lead to a faq answer or house rule or other similar solution. And GW doesn't make them 'not count' for anything but a few specific instances, measuring distances and determining LOS and so on. The 'spirit' here is that they are still part of the model and exist, as far as I can tell... and there are no rules that say or even strongly imply otherwise. yakface wrote:
And again, if you want to go fully literal with the assault rules, then you're supposed to move into 'base contact' with the vehicle, so if a Deff Rolla is positioned slightly off the table, the bases of the assaulting models won't get into 'contact' with the vehicle making the front of the Battlewagon un-assaultable.
I'm not sure why you've brought this up to me twice. Noone is trying to get extremely 'literal' on the assault rules here... in fact my point was that you can assault one from the front regardless of the chosen rolla playstyle (contrary to several posters earlier in the thread who claimed that it not being hull broke this aspect of the game entirely). I don't think playing by the rules where the rolla is involved, model/terrain and disembarkingwise, is being overly literal or asinine here. I'm not sure what you want to get across with this statement. At the end of the day we'll all go play it in a workable way that makes sense, I just want to be completely clear that the RAW way is one of those ways in this case. I don't see 'Well people naturally think they should be able to disembark from the front' as an issue with the rules or a reason to change them at the drop of a hat.
13790
Post by: Sliggoth
If you play the rolla as part of the hull all the way through the game then the only effect is to make the BW 3ish" longer than normal. For most vehicles this would perhaps be a bit more of a disadvantage than an advantage.
For a BW (open top) with burnas a bigger footprint is definitely a plus.
For a BW (any flavor) with a big mek w/ KFF a bigger footprint is a huge advantage.
So yes, there are reasons to be wanting a larger footprint BW as an ork player. Moving 13", pivoting to just keep that truk within KFF range and still being able to drop templates onto those troops is much easier with a larger footprint. The idea that a larger footprint makes it HARDER to get a cover save is hilarious. With a piece of wargear such as the KFF every extra millimeter of extra model size is a plus.
Im just personally lucky to be in the spot where Im expanding my orks from small (two blackreach boxes) size up to a larger level, so lets get all this hammered out so that I know how to build up my BWs and burna fleet Two big meks are looking like definite musts....so the forge world rollas may be bigger than the gw rollas? hmmmm
Sliggoth
8471
Post by: olympia
Yakface has summarized the issues succinctly. The Deff Rolla has the same status as the doors of a drop pod, to wit--no status whatsoever for measuring range to and from; nor is it impassible because it is clearly a 'decorative' element and as such beyond what is defined a model. Yakface referenced the illustration of the ork trukk with a reinforced ram and I'd encourage people to review that. Of course post Deff Rolla FAQ there will be some who want to gimp battlewagons by taking away the ability to assault off the front. This position, however, is not supported by the rules.
6589
Post by: Boss GreenNutz
OK Gork one last question. Well actually 3. You are in a game and your opponent has all his guys in Drop Pods. When they land and the petals open do you allow him to place his minis on them? If yes how is that different than disembarking on a DeffRolla since they are both parts of the base model. If no, how does the squad or Dread get out? If he has to keep the doors shut do you allow LOS through it and can he fire the internal weapon?
13790
Post by: Sliggoth
For drop pods the doors are not being considered part of the hull, or for that matter anything other than part of the terrain for game purposes (not actually owning any pods Im a little uncertain if its common practice to ignore them for ALL purposes.
For the deff rolla, it matters a great deal how its being considered. If its part of the hull then the BW footprint has been expanded significantly, meaning that two KFF can give a cover save to about another 40some" square of the battlefield. And the threat range of the burnas inside has been increased as well. If its not part of the hull, then can the rolla be set up extending the ramming range of the BW by about 3"? If it cant be set up across the line then is the assault/ firing range of the unit inside cut down by those same 3"?
If one models the rolla a bit higher on the front then cant boyz disembark partially under the rolla, just far enough to get the back edge of their base to within 2" of the hull?
Lots of questions, which will have a huge impact on tactics and how BW are played.
Sliggoth
6589
Post by: Boss GreenNutz
You are correct Slig. But in the world according to Gork, any part of a model that is not the hull is impassible terrain (his words not mine). Therefore in his ruleset, if the doors are down you can't stand on them. If they are up you can't disembark from a DP since there is no way to get out. Granted one or two guys may be able to get out between the doors but a Dread doesn't stand a chance. By his interpretation of the ruleset anyone coming in from a DP is dead as they can't disembark and the rules for a DP state you have to.
The options as I see them are; you either have to count the DR as part of the hull, you allow models to stand on it or you build it so it is removable and either flip it up or take it off when you want to disembark from the front.
19754
Post by: puma713
olympia wrote:Yakface has summarized the issues succinctly. The Deff Rolla has the same status as the doors of a drop pod, to wit--no status whatsoever for measuring range to and from; nor is it impassible because it is clearly a 'decorative' element and as such beyond what is defined a model. Yakface referenced the illustration of the ork trukk with a reinforced ram and I'd encourage people to review that. Of course post Deff Rolla FAQ there will be some who want to gimp battlewagons by taking away the ability to assault off the front. This position, however, is not supported by the rules.
Man. . .wish I as an Eldar player had something that made one of the most prominent faces of my tank un-assaultable.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
puma713 wrote:
Man. . .wish I as an Eldar player had something that made one of the most prominent faces of my tank un-assaultable.
The front is not the most prominent facing of a BW.
It might not seem like a big issue, but I am kinda tired of hearing; "But it is mounted on an armour 14 vehicle!" from the anti-Deffrolla crowd, when the BW has a huge armour 12 side facing (x2).
888
Post by: Primarch
yakface wrote:Primarch wrote:In my opinion by allowing deployment, and firing from the front edge of a Deff rolla, you are opening up other things for abuse. That's pretty much my entire point.
Clay
But your point doesn't make any sense.
As long as the Deff Rolla is played completely consistently and with your full knowledge of how it will be played, it should have absolutely no impact on the game (or so minimal that it isn't even worth thinking about).
So YES a Deff Rolla isn't part of the hull...*BUT* if both you and your opponent recognize that it will be kind of a pain to try to stand models on top of the Deff Rolla when you're disembarking and/or attacking the Battlewagon in CC, then you can BOTH AGREE to play with the Deff Rolla as part of the hull in all instances.
This doesn't mean that you can suddenly go out and convert a giant grabbin klaw and use it to fire embarked flamers from. The point is, both you and your opponent can recognize the value of playing the Deff Rolla as part the hull and play it that way right from the start of the game and then no big whoop!
And P.S. to everyone else: Why the heck should it matter what Dash has to say about the matter? Its pretty clear from many of the comments already posted that many people choose to play with the Deff Rolla as part of the hull as it is far easier to play that way, so what is he going to say that is going to enlighten the situation any?
In response to this and a later post of yours.
No, my point was not "Someone did this to me, and now I want to abuse it in other ways" Not a direct quote, but basically what you think I am saying.
My point is that after seeing this in action, and not arguing the point in the game, the thought occurred to me that if a Deffrolla is considered part of the hull, then other vehicle upgrades can be used similarly. My stance is that in no way should this happen, but by allowing one, how can I tell my next opponent who tries to flame me from the tip of his Grabbing Klaw that one thing is ok, and the other isnt?
The main advantages that I can see by using the DR as part of the Hull, is when you pivot 90 degrees using the center point of the vehicle, then move/tank shock off in another direction. You certainly are gaining an advantage by lengthening your vehicle. I thought we fixed all this "you can use modeling to your advantage" crap, but where is the line now Yak? Can I make my home made DR wider? Can I make my BW wider, so that flank shots aren't as easy? I am sure I can rig up some Boarding planks that extend the width of my vehicle....Then of course, the extra distance covered by the KFF Big Mek. No explanation needed.
Also, I talked to Dash on the phone today, he is traveling back home, but I let him know we had a big discussion about this going on, so I am sure he will chime in. Keep in mind, there was no animosity during the game over this, nor is there now. It's a question I had, and it could have been anyone on the other side of the table and I would have voiced it just the same. The fact that it was Dash was just fluke luck.
Clay
19754
Post by: puma713
Steelmage99 wrote:puma713 wrote:
Man. . .wish I as an Eldar player had something that made one of the most prominent faces of my tank un-assaultable.
The front is not the most prominent facing of a BW.
It might not seem like a big issue, but I am kinda tired of hearing; "But it is mounted on an armour 14 vehicle!" from the anti-Deffrolla crowd, when the BW has a huge armour 12 side facing (x2).
Really? The front AV14 facing that people will painstakingly make sure is facing you, not to mention the facing that you see bearing down on you as the orks are getting ready to pile out? That facing isn't prominent? Sure, the side is bigger, but if you're assaulting the front or the side, you're still assaulting the back. If my Falcon is 6" away, you can touch the front and assault the tank. If my BW is 6" away, you've got to go around the front to assault it, apparently. That is an advantage whether the front is the "most" prominent facing or not.
But either way, let me rephrase my former post:
Man. . .I wish as an Eldar player I had something that made ANY of the faces of my tank un-assaultable. Better?
11558
Post by: Uriels_Flame
25305
Post by: Zain60
I think I have to agree with Yakface on everything he posted.
The RAW are clear how to play it. It's even more clear, and even less acknowledged, how crazy assaulting some vehicles would be if we actually read and used the rules this way. (or assaulting out of them in this case as well)
I had a friend who used to scratch build EVERY vehicle he used in his speed freaks list. His battlewagons were two (old style) rhino chassis hulls 'orked' together front-to-back and if he attached a Deff Rolla in front that I couldn't get to contact to the hull with it would technically be unassaultable from the front. We used to use wobbly model (basically the 3rd edition style anyway) to assume a model was where it couldn't stand if it wasn't just an issue of a boarding plank jutting out and adjusting my model to turn a gun so i could fit a model in base contact-ish.
In 5th edition, a different friend has the new Battlewagons from GW with the jawlike ram-style structure in front. Technically, as Yak pointed out, I can't assault that tank from the front if I can't get through that. But it's decoration, so as a deff rolla, we'd just play that as long as I 'COULD' measure 6" to the actual hull with the model then I just put it as close as I can (read: right up to the jawlike thing) and it is in fact 'base-to-base'
This argument stopped being about if the deff rolla is part of the hull. It isn't. Everyone agrees on that. The rules for decorations and the rules for model composition don't synch particularly well here so people have made common sense solutions and in most cases those solutions neither hurt, nor help either party.
26380
Post by: Geemoney
What we are talking about is what space the vehicle occupies for in game situations. And in every case in which it is defined that space is the hull, which in terms of RAW does not include the deffrolla, or droppod doors, or rams, or dozer blades. There is no reason to assume sometimes it is the hull and not the hull in other cases.
I do agree with Yakface that the most important thing is that the hull is well defined and remains consistent. I think the minor benefits of having a wagon 2" longer are canceled by the disadvantages, such as it is easier to shot at and harder to hide (when not taking a kff, which I don't always anyway being that it is expensive(85pt total), and sometimes I like having two warbosses).
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Hey folks!
I'm only on page two so far, but thought I would post since I imagine the next 3-4 pages are more repetitions of what I've read so far.
This was the first tournament (and also the first games) that I've used deffrollas since the ruling just came out that they work. For the tournament I was at this weekend, I counted my Deffrollas as part of the hull. When I deployed, I measured 12" up (see my battle reports over in the battle report section, including pictures), and put my deffrollas behind the deployment line. I measured to and from my deffrollas, and when I rotated - instead of rotating on the spot centermass (and getting extra inches) I measured from a point and moved whatever distance I was going to move to make sure I didn't cheat in movement with the Deffrolla.
It never occurred to me to not count them as part of the hull, because it creates so many problems in the game. The burna unit that flamed Primarch's orks from the deffrolla were counting it as part of the hull because I was measuring shooting to and from my battlewagon from the deffrolla as well. It wouldn't have made a difference here - instead of tank shocking 6" into his unit and flaming from the deffrolla, I would have just rolled 6" up alongside and flamed from the hull - the result would have been the same (the entire unit wiped out). The problem here is that if I choose to tank shock into a unit...do they have to get out of the way of the deffrolla, or do we pretend it isn't there?
I've always played that the simplest answer that breaks the least number of rules and causes the least number of problems is the right one - which is why I never used deffrollas before; wasn't worth the arguments.
I honestly don't care what happens either way, as long as there is consistency. Either it counts as part of my hull and you measure to and from it, and I deploy it behind appropriate lines, or we don't count it as part of the hull, in which case a lot of problems are going to arise in a game.
IE...the deffrolla blocks LOS to the front of my battlewagons. Since it isn't the hull, I guess I get a 3+ cover save whenever someone shoots at my front armor now?
IE...I tank shock into a unit, but the deffrolla is invisible wargear; we have problems now with model placement.
IE...I ram a vehicle, but can never get within 1" of it because the deffrolla is in the way.
IE...I can't actually deploy out of my open-topped battlewagon and keep coherency on either side without a conga-line around the back....which will break coherency when I try moving up *anyway* if I don't roll well for potential difficult terrain.
There's just too many problems - but I'm happy to play it however - I tend to go with the flow.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
Boss GreenNutz wrote:You are correct Slig. But in the world according to Gork, any part of a model that is not the hull is impassible terrain (his words not mine). Therefore in his ruleset, if the doors are down you can't stand on them. By his interpretation of the ruleset anyone coming in from a DP is dead as they can't disembark and the rules for a DP state you have to.
The options as I see them are; you either have to count the DR as part of the hull, you allow models to stand on it or you build it so it is removable and either flip it up or take it off when you want to disembark from the front.
Why are the actual rules, the ones written in the BRB that you havn't contested, suddenly some sort of strange subjective 'Gork's world'? Yes, according to the rules, that is how DP work: They don't playably, so people compromise and change the rules. That doesn't mean that battlewagons don't work, they do, entirely. All that happens is you can't deploy in front of a rolla wagon because there is a model in the way, which is clearly how the rules work. And, again, why are only these two houserule options the viable choices? Why not the  perfectly playable RAW answer? What is so difficult about the object working like every other similar one? Do you stand models on your rams and dozer blades to get extra deployment room too? And why are you, and others, encouraging people to blatantly model for an advantage? There's a reason the INAT specifically ruled against this practice for tournaments. Automatically Appended Next Post: Dashofpepper wrote:
The problem here is that if I choose to tank shock into a unit...do they have to get out of the way of the deffrolla, or do we pretend it isn't there?
IE...the deffrolla blocks LOS to the front of my battlewagons. Since it isn't the hull, I guess I get a 3+ cover save whenever someone shoots at my front armor now?
IE...I tank shock into a unit, but the deffrolla is invisible wargear; we have problems now with model placement.
IE...I ram a vehicle, but can never get within 1" of it because the deffrolla is in the way.
There's just too many problems - but I'm happy to play it however - I tend to go with the flow.
If you finish reading the thread and the involved rules, you'd know that all of these problems are nonexistant within the RAW. A point I've been trying to make. Contact with a model does not necessitate some 0" hull measurement. Rams, assaults, and so on work perfectly fine to/from the rolla. The rules also specifically state that decorative non-hull elements are ignored for LOS. And I can't understand why people still can't grasp the fact that something can be part of a model and exist, and not be part of the main hull that you measure to. There are specific rules for such items, and I can't fathom how shocking into people with the 3" rolla and then assuming it's not there when you deploy on top of it makes more sense to people. Playing the model by the rules creates a grand total of zero actual rules issues that I've found, and one slightly uncomfortable but completely playable gameplay issue (dozens and dozens of which exist). Why such a rush to fix what ain't broke? I can understand the 'hull' ruling, as it is actually simpler... but the 'you can stand on it' ruling is just nonsensical in the extreme.
888
Post by: Primarch
Dashofpepper wrote:Hey folks!
I'm only on page two so far, but thought I would post since I imagine the next 3-4 pages are more repetitions of what I've read so far.
This was the first tournament (and also the first games) that I've used deffrollas since the ruling just came out that they work. For the tournament I was at this weekend, I counted my Deffrollas as part of the hull. When I deployed, I measured 12" up (see my battle reports over in the battle report section, including pictures), and put my deffrollas behind the deployment line. I measured to and from my deffrollas, and when I rotated - instead of rotating on the spot centermass (and getting extra inches) I measured from a point and moved whatever distance I was going to move to make sure I didn't cheat in movement with the Deffrolla.
It never occurred to me to not count them as part of the hull, because it creates so many problems in the game. The burna unit that flamed Primarch's orks from the deffrolla were counting it as part of the hull because I was measuring shooting to and from my battlewagon from the deffrolla as well. It wouldn't have made a difference here - instead of tank shocking 6" into his unit and flaming from the deffrolla, I would have just rolled 6" up alongside and flamed from the hull - the result would have been the same (the entire unit wiped out). The problem here is that if I choose to tank shock into a unit...do they have to get out of the way of the deffrolla, or do we pretend it isn't there?
I've always played that the simplest answer that breaks the least number of rules and causes the least number of problems is the right one - which is why I never used deffrollas before; wasn't worth the arguments.
I honestly don't care what happens either way, as long as there is consistency. Either it counts as part of my hull and you measure to and from it, and I deploy it behind appropriate lines, or we don't count it as part of the hull, in which case a lot of problems are going to arise in a game.
IE...the deffrolla blocks LOS to the front of my battlewagons. Since it isn't the hull, I guess I get a 3+ cover save whenever someone shoots at my front armor now?
IE...I tank shock into a unit, but the deffrolla is invisible wargear; we have problems now with model placement.
IE...I ram a vehicle, but can never get within 1" of it because the deffrolla is in the way.
IE...I can't actually deploy out of my open-topped battlewagon and keep coherency on either side without a conga-line around the back....which will break coherency when I try moving up *anyway* if I don't roll well for potential difficult terrain.
There's just too many problems - but I'm happy to play it however - I tend to go with the flow.
Well, it wouldn't have made a difference EXCEPT that I wouldn't have moved almost 9 inches forward so that you could easily get to me and flame me from that Rolla......
I already stated, or should have, that you didn't break any rules, and I would have even played it that way, right up until I saw it in action. Then the questions arose.
Clay
26205
Post by: wana10
So with everyone debating the advantage of an extra 2 inches on the front...how would you regard battlewagons that aren't the official gw model? A lor of ork players have kitbashed models from before the official model was released and their shapes vary wildly. Look at Adrian Wood's wagon (pictured in the last ork codex, i couldn't find a pic online and don't know if scanning the page would be allowed). It has a deffrolla tucked under the crew cab, so dismounting to the front would still be within 2 inches. Is that ok?
11058
Post by: Lost Boyz
Here's the thing - the rulebook seems pretty clear about 'dozer blades', but DeffRollas are just too big to be ignored & dismissed as 'not there'.
I have 2 Wagons with Rollas. One is a GW Wagon with a big, beautiful 2-3" Rolla sticking out in the front, the 2nd is a properly Orked up Landraider. The LR Rolla is tucked in between the tank treads and only protrudes maybe 1/2 to 1/4 inch. I can see that it is weird to have a flamer template coming off of a steamroller tube - but consider that I had to contain ALL of my vehicle behind my deployment zone. I am looking at my GW wagon (with the nice 3" Rolla) and it now has a 3" 'distance penalty' during deployment - my Burnas can't do their job.
Hey - my opponents want to attack my Wagon by assaulting the front corner of the Rolla (they do), and they want to use it as a target to measure their missile shots (they have), and they want me to keep it contained in my deployment zone (I do), and use it as the front edge of my vehicle as I enter from reserve --- well then I should be able to use it as the 'base' from which to measure fire from my vehicle. It's just too big to be dismissed as an "antenna". If it gets the penalties, it should get the bonuses.
I think that by acting as if it was 'not part of the vehicle' opens up a bigger can of worms. I mean, how realistic is it to combine 15 flamethrowers into one template anyway?! (That would be a scrum.) The idea is to make it fair and measurable. If I account for the entire vehicle in deployment, and it is a valid target, I should be able to use my entire vehicle to measure range.
Of course to avoid issues, my Burnas can ride in the LR Battlewagon with the stealth Rolla from now on. Good thing about Orks is we can do some creative modelling!
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Guys, the simple solution is to mount the Deffrolla on the top of the Battlewagon, since it will work no matter where it is.
25220
Post by: WarOne
Gwar! wrote:Guys, the simple solution is to mount the Deffrolla on the top of the Battlewagon, since it will work no matter where it is.
How about add a 2 foot pole to the BW from the front and then attach the DF to it! Or have something akin to a garbage trukk design, with little arms coming out of the BW holding the Deff Rolla up so models can be smushed under eet.
20173
Post by: kowbasher
WarOne wrote:Gwar! wrote:Guys, the simple solution is to mount the Deffrolla on the top of the Battlewagon, since it will work no matter where it is.
How about add a 2 foot pole to the BW from the front and then attach the DF to it! Or have something akin to a garbage trukk design, with little arms coming out of the BW holding the Deff Rolla up so models can be smushed under eet.
That's what mine do with their magnetic arms.
13790
Post by: Sliggoth
The really significant mix of the rules is what happens if we would say: the deffrolla isnt a part of the hull and rams occur when any part of the vehicle comes into contact with the target vehicle.
This would mean that the deffrolla isnt counted when measuring where the vehicle is at, but since it would be the first part of the BW to come into contact with another vehicle, it does trigger a ram.
Since measurements are made from the hull.....the deffrolla could be protruding several inches out of the deployment zone.
No matter what is decided about the rolla, the same problem exists for a dozer blade or reinforced ram. Both of which we know are not part of the hull from the brb.
Sliggoth
9423
Post by: Kevin Nash
Gwar! wrote:Guys, the simple solution is to mount the Deffrolla on the top of the Battlewagon, since it will work no matter where it is.
Sad but true. This is a very simple solution.
The GW deffrollas do not need to be glued on. They just snap onto the front of the hull. I'm considering just removing them on deployment so there is no confusion in upcoming tournaments.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
Big no-no that can't find the specific page but yeah explicitly forbidden to change the shape/position of legs etc, once the game has started.
9423
Post by: Kevin Nash
ChrisCP wrote:Big no-no that can't find the specific page but yeah explicitly forbidden to change the shape/position of legs etc, once the game has started.
If you could site that I'd appreciate it. That rule makes zero sense since decorative stuff doesn't count for purposes of LOS or actual gameplay.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
Kevin Nash wrote:That rule makes zero sense since decorative stuff doesn't count for purposes of actual gameplay.
Why do people keep saying this like its true or supported by the rules...
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Gorkamorka wrote:Kevin Nash wrote:That rule makes zero sense since decorative stuff doesn't count for purposes of actual gameplay.
Why do people keep saying this like its true or supported by the rules...
The same reason people think FAQ are rules I guess, General Ignorance.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Gwar! wrote:The same reason people think FAQ are rules I guess, General Ignorance.
I keep saying that I'll play however, as long as it is consistent.
Gwar, if I'm to understand the rules correctly (you weren't online last night for me to pester), lets use a pitched battle scenario to elaborate: I should deploy with my hull at the edge of the 12" mark. The deffrolla should extend 3" or whatever beyond that mark. For shooting purposes, I will measure from the hull, and instruct my opponent to ignore the deffrolla for shooting and assaulting purposes, and instead to measure to my hull.
I'm a little fuzzy on tank shocking/ramming here - Do I ram/tank shock from the Deffrolla, or from my hull?
I'm a little fuzzy on assaults here - Do I get assaulted on my deffrolla or on my hull?
Honestly, I plan on ordering three deffrolla kits from GW; they are probably lighter than the PVC pipe behemoths that I use now, and would probably lend themselves to modeling easier on my battlewagons - I can just anchor them in the "up" position and tell my opponent to ignore them for all game purposes - although that will be troublesome when they're trying to see if they have LOS and all they can see of my front is a deffrolla mounted on top of my battlewagon.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
Dashofpepper wrote:
Gwar, if I'm to understand the rules correctly (you weren't online last night for me to pester), lets use a pitched battle scenario to elaborate: I should deploy with my hull at the edge of the 12" mark. The deffrolla should extend 3" or whatever beyond that mark.
Yes, good so far. Dashofpepper wrote:
For shooting purposes, I will measure from the hull, and instruct my opponent to ignore the deffrolla for shooting and assaulting purposes, and instead to measure to my hull.
All correct aside from assaulting. Assaulting requries only that the assaulting models base is moved into contact with the vehicle (which is not a measurement, and does not otherwise specify hull-only). Contact with any part of the model, including the rolla, is sufficient. Dashofpepper wrote:
I'm a little fuzzy on tank shocking/ramming here - Do I ram/tank shock from the Deffrolla, or from my hull?
I'm a little fuzzy on assaults here - Do I get assaulted on my deffrolla or on my hull?
See above, the ramming/shocking rules also require only physical contact between models. Basically: The rolla is not used for measurements, LOS, opentopped shooting, and so on because it is not part of the hull and these rules specify that they use the hull or do not use decorative non-hull elements. The rolla is still a part of the model and exists in game in all other respects, and is thus used for ramming/assaulting contact and is impassable terrain you cannot stand on.
13790
Post by: Sliggoth
We mainly need to hammer out which way its going to be, part of the hull or not part of the hull.
Either way it gives an ork BW a nice edge. If its not part of the hull then the bw can be deployed at the edge of the deployment zone, with the rolla protruding 3" out of the deployment zone...giving the bw an extra 3" of ram reach from the start.
If it is part of the hull, then in the games that the ork player will be going first (with 5/6th odds at least of going first) the BWs can be deployed parallel and adjacent to the edge of the deployment zone. Then on the first turn, the BWs pivot (going several inches as their noses swing out of the deployment zone) and then move. With the rolla extending the hull another 3" this would give the BW an extra 1.5" of reach towards the opponent as they pivot, overall the BW gains almost 4" in reach this way? (my GW deff rolla kits havent arrived yet so Im trying to estimate here). The pivot move has been around a long time, but in 5th one can be fairly certain of getting the first turn so it becomes a much safer tactic. And with the length of the BW in this rules scenario it becomes rather interesting.
Either way this is decided its going to have a major impact on BW tactics, so we do need to get this clearly decided.
Sliggoth
6589
Post by: Boss GreenNutz
Gorkamorka wrote:
The rolla is still a part of the model and exists in game in all other respects, and is thus used for ramming/assaulting contact and is impassable terrain you cannot stand on.
For someone who claims the rules are the only way to play the game why do you allow opponents with Drop Pods to disembark? If you are a stirct RAW player you either use them evenly across the board or for no one. The way I see it is I built the damn thing so as far as I'm concerned the DR on my BW is part of the hull. The hull of my BW just happens to have a round cylinder with spiky bitz on the end of it. I call it a "conversion". Perfrectly legal by the rules. The DR on my BW is actaully a little rivet looking protrusion on the roof. I painted it green so you can tell the difference between the actual DR and a normal rivet.
8471
Post by: olympia
Gorkamorka wrote:
Basically:
The rolla is not used for measurements, LOS, opentopped shooting, and so on because it is not part of the hull and these rules specify that they use the hull or do not use decorative non-hull elements.
/\
|
From this...
This space is occupied by a black hole of inferential befuddlement
to this...
|
\/
Gorkamorka wrote:The rolla is still a part of the model and exists in game in all other respects, and is thus used for ramming/assaulting contact and is impassable terrain you cannot stand on.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Something being "hull" or not has no impact on the fact it is still part of the Model.
So, anytime you deal with "the mdoel", you count the Deff Rolla.
Anytime you deal with the "hull", you *don't* include the Deff rolla.
It's really kinda simple here, not sure why everyone seems confused by what Gorka issaying.
Bos GreenNutz - try reading Gorkas posts, your "point" has already been answered. It *isnt* part of the hull and no, conversions arent actually allowed by the rules.
8471
Post by: olympia
nosferatu1001 wrote:Something being "hull" or not has no impact on the fact it is still part of the Model.
So, anytime you deal with "the mdoel", you count the Deff Rolla.
Anytime you deal with the "hull", you *don't* include the Deff rolla.
It's really kinda simple here, not sure why everyone seems confused by what Gorka issaying.
Bos GreenNutz - try reading Gorkas posts, your "point" has already been answered. It *isnt* part of the hull and no, conversions arent actually allowed by the rules.
My rule book states that decorative elements are not included in what constitutes a model for gameplay purposes. The problem is that the rule book example of measuring to a trukk shows you to ignore this for purposes of assault range (or anything else). The other problem is, of course, that gork seems to imply that you play it one way for drop pods and another way for deff rollas, y'know, just because...
963
Post by: Mannahnin
I comprehend the concept they're advocating, but I disagree with the fundamental principles underlying it, when you’re dealing with a physical part of the model large enough to interfere with easy measurement from or access to the hull.
To determine where a model is in play and what units it interacts with, it should not have TWO functional sizes, one for purposes of measuring, and a different one for putting other models into contact with it.
IMO the much cleaner solution is to treat the deffroller for all purposes as part of the hull. It's got both advantages and disadvantages, and it keeps measurements and movement consistent.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Mannahnin wrote:
IMO the much cleaner solution is to treat the deffroller for all purposes as part of the hull. It's got both advantages and disadvantages, and it keeps measurements and movement consistent.
This. Especially since many players have conversions that build the deffrolla actually into the hull by mounting it between parts of the tracks and such.
This whole standing, not standing on the deffrolla or dragging impassable terrain around the table is hogwash and a mess. It would be so easy to say:
*Measure to and from the deffrolla as part of the hull for movement.
*Measure to and from the deffrolla as part of the hull for shooting/effects distances.
*Measure to and from the deffrolla as part of the hull for assaulting and disembarking.
As long as you are consistant, it is fine. The only two game impacts are extending the range of KFFs and extending the length of a BW to take advantage of pivot distances. If you measure to the roller as hull for all purposes, then you can shoot it and be shot from it, you can assault it and be disembarked from it.
6589
Post by: Boss GreenNutz
nosferatu1001 wrote: Bos GreenNutz - try reading Gorkas posts, your "point" has already been answered. It *isnt* part of the hull and no, conversions arent actually allowed by the rules.
So what you are saying is that even though it is in the DEX, I can not add a Biker Boss to my list since GW does not make a model of one. I guess BWs as a whole were not legal until the GW model came out even though they were in the DEX for years. Same thing goes with Grotzookas. Until last week there wasn't a GW made representation. PIcked up my pile of CODECCI and found way too many "illegal" options of wargear allowed that GW doesn't sell with that particular model. You mean that every one of those you see on the table is an illegal mini? If conversions are illegal why does GW have an entire set of tips for converting minis on their website? I just happen to have converted a BW by extending the hull with something that looks like a DR.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
olympia wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:Something being "hull" or not has no impact on the fact it is still part of the Model.
So, anytime you deal with "the mdoel", you count the Deff Rolla.
Anytime you deal with the "hull", you *don't* include the Deff rolla.
It's really kinda simple here, not sure why everyone seems confused by what Gorka issaying.
Bos GreenNutz - try reading Gorkas posts, your "point" has already been answered. It *isnt* part of the hull and no, conversions arent actually allowed by the rules.
My rule book states that decorative elements are not included in what constitutes a model for gameplay purposes. The problem is that the rule book example of measuring to a trukk shows you to ignore this for purposes of assault range (or anything else). The other problem is, of course, that gork seems to imply that you play it one way for drop pods and another way for deff rollas, y'know, just because...
Where does the rulebook state that? What page? What paragraph? Mine states specifically that they are ignored for a few specific actions, and never states that they somehow are not part of the model for any other general gameplay purpose. What example image are you talking about, because I can't find it. I can find one where a space marine is measuring distance to a trukk, on page 3, and doing so correctly to the hull. I cannot find one on measuring assaulting distance to a vehicle... probably because it is something that doesn't exist, as you move assaulting models a set distance to see if you can reach contact, you don't measure distances to the opposing models first to check. How are drop pod doors, where people agree not that the doors are not part of the hull, but that they DO NOT EXIST at all in any in-game terms to make the model at all playable, similar to the battlewagon's completely RAW playable non-hull rolla? Why does changing the rules in the extremely rare edge case of the unplayable drop pod necessitate changing them in this completely different and playable situation? Mannahnin wrote:To determine where a model is in play and what units it interacts with, it should not have TWO functional sizes, one for purposes of measuring, and a different one for putting other models into contact with it.
IMO the much cleaner solution is to treat the deffroller for all purposes as part of the hull.
That's fine and dandy, and a fair RAP solution, but it is not what the rules say to do. The rules set up exactly the two-size system you want to avoid, and do so rather clearly.
9423
Post by: Kevin Nash
Gorkamorka wrote:Kevin Nash wrote:That rule makes zero sense since decorative stuff doesn't count for purposes of actual gameplay.
Why do people keep saying this like its true or supported by the rules...
I wasn't necessarily arguing the original point. I asked for a citation about whether we can remove decorative elements during gameplay.
To the other point how does decorative stuff count for actual gameplay?
I can't use my opponent's daemon prince wings to determine whether I have LOS to the daemon prince. According to RAW the deffrolla basically doesn't exist in terms of measuring anything since it's not part of a hull (just like a reinforced ram or dozer blade isn't either).
So I ask again: Why can't I show my opponent a deffrolla on my vehicles to comply with WYSIWYG standards and then remove them before deployment so it doesn't completely complicate gameplay?
If I cannot then GW should either re-think what constitutes the hull of a vehicles or re-think removing of decorative elements to make gameplay easier, because the current standard where the deffolla is not part of the hull but needs to stay on the table and is essentially ignored for measuring is incredibly sloppy for actual gameplay since you suffer from confusing measurements and wobbly model syndrome.
17491
Post by: phillosmaster
I'm still not sure why the argument Yak was giving isn't the answer. I believe he is correct. He was acknowledging what the RAW answer was and then told you how he would play it to make the game alot less complicated.
If all the measurements are consistent we are only talking about changes to turning radius, and footprint changes to the model. Though may I remind everyone that GW doesn't include dimensions with every unit in the codex(just like it doesn't list base sizes in the unit description in the codex). Why they don't do this is anyones guess since most modern wargames do these things to clear up these types of issues. In any event lets say for example someone is using the old ork truck model in a current game. Is this person cheating becuase there is a slight difference in model length between the old GW ork model and the new one(about 1/2 inch IIRC)? what if I used my looted rhino or LR as a BW? Would I be cheating?
BTW longer models means more area for assaulting units to get into BtB contact and means more vehicle side armor exposed that needs to be protected so I do believe that in the end it's just a wash. Of course someone can present a hyperbolic, modeling for advantage example, but in the end what is and isn't reasonable needs to be discussed between the two parties before the game.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Boss GreenNutz wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote: Bos GreenNutz - try reading Gorkas posts, your "point" has already been answered. It *isnt* part of the hull and no, conversions arent actually allowed by the rules.
So what you are saying is that even though it is in the DEX, I can not add a Biker Boss to my list since GW does not make a model of one. I guess BWs as a whole were not legal until the GW model came out even though they were in the DEX for years. Same thing goes with Grotzookas. Until last week there wasn't a GW made representation. PIcked up my pile of CODECCI and found way too many "illegal" options of wargear allowed that GW doesn't sell with that particular model. You mean that every one of those you see on the table is an illegal mini? If conversions are illegal why does GW have an entire set of tips for converting minis on their website? I just happen to have converted a BW by extending the hull with something that looks like a DR.
Yes, as a matter of fact none of them are allowed.
The RULES state you play the game using Citadel Miniatures. That is it - the only permission to use models at all is right there.
What you quoted above is, esenitially, rubbish. Nothing in there are actual rules, but I assume you knew that - however if you want to disagree in a rules context, some rules to backup your position would have been slightly more useful that a load of irrelevancies.
17491
Post by: phillosmaster
nosferatu1001 wrote:The RULES state you play the game using Citadel Miniatures. That is it - the only permission to use models at all is right there.
GW has had modelling and converting sections in their rulebooks for as long as I can remember, and they have tons of conversion tutorials on their website. I think you are confusing GW with Privateer Press or Wyrd where a statement like that would make some sense. How constructive is this statement in a game where base sizes can change overnight (like in the case of the Killakans). Or vehicle dimensions can change from model revision to model revison. That doesn't even get into the issue that a large percentage of the units in the codex have no Citadel Model to represent it. If base size and model dimensions were specific in the rules like in other game's rulesets this would make some sense. As it stands now that statement makes a good majority of people's armies unplayable. In any event I don't think we are arguing RAW anymore. It's pretty clear to me that DRs are decorative for WYSWYG just like a trucks ram and are not part of the hull therefore have no impact RAW in measure distances to or from anything. Yak settled that on like page 1. What we've been arguing for pages is "how would you play it".
12265
Post by: Gwar!
phillosmaster wrote:GW has had modelling and converting sections in their rulebooks for as long as I can remember, and they have tons of conversion tutorials on their website.
So? RaW you cannot convert miniatures.
17491
Post by: phillosmaster
I didn't read that anywhere in the rules
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Looks like we've gone past the point of constructive discussion. Locking.
If anyone feels they have anything new to add, they can stil start a new thread.
|
|
