Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, I know this was hammered on a few years ago, but with the recent Deffrolla discussion, I just want to make sure I have it clear.


Being that the Deffrollas out there are not all the same size, and people are using both the GW one, and home made, the question about the pivot then move/tank shock/fire from the edge of the Rolla came up in a recent game.


Now, while I agree that if you measure from the front of the Rolla at the start of the game for all instances, then it should work out ok, however, when you take into consideration the pivot then move scenario, you are certainly gaining extra movement, extra distance on your tank shock, and in fact, around an 8-9 inch move, and then Burna flames from the front of the DR.


So how does it work, or does it need to be talked about at all? For the record, I have BWs, and DRs, they are all the GW models, so I really need to know what's fair, and what's legal here.

It feels wrong to pivot a BW, move it 6 inches(it will have now moved around 8-9 inches depending on DR size), then place one flamer template on the front edge of my DR and kill a unit. Also, if this is allowed, then I can glue my Grabbing Klaw on my BW sticking out at a 90 degree, right angle, and not only place the narrow end of the flamer template on the tip of the GK, but I can also deploy 2 inches from the edge of the tip of the GK.

The other thread got locked, so let's try and keep this one clean so we can get through it please.


Clay

Allowing the roller to count as hull during the game does not automatically allow counting other upgrades or weapons which stick out from the vehicle to count as hull. I would be comfortable with the roller, but not with disembarkation or template placement off a grabbin' klaw.

The RAW answer is you do all movement/deployment measurements from the hull. All open top unit fire should be measured from the hull not the mounted weapons. In the previous thread there was a proposal to treat the DR as part of the hull for simplicity(you would need to move over or deploy on the DR in some situations RAW which creates wobbly model sydrome which is covered in the rules but is a pain in the backside to keep track of), but it did make a difference in some example (pivoting for instance). You should never be measuring open top fire from the grabba klaw. That clearly isn't part of the hull.

the easiest/fairest solution is to make all your DRs detactable and play RAW.

I can see that, however, how can you explain a difference? Both are used against other models, both stick out and effectively "extend" the hull. If one counts, why not the other? My stance is that NEITHER should count, so I don't want to give the wrong impression on that. However, I would have a hard time telling any opponent that one worked and not the other, as I would have no justification for it.


Clay


Automatically Appended Next Post:

phillosmaster wrote:The RAW answer is you do all movement/deployment measurements from the hull. All open top unit fire should be measured from the hull not the mounted weapons. In the previous thread there was a proposal to treat the DR as part of the hull for simplicity(you would need to move over or deploy on the DR in some situations RAW which creates wobbly model sydrome which is covered in the rules but is a pain in the backside to keep track of), but it did make a difference in some example (pivoting for instance). You should never be measuring open top fire from the grabba klaw. That clearly isn't part of the hull.

Right, but neither is the DR....



Clay

Primarch wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

phillosmaster wrote:The RAW answer is you do all movement/deployment measurements from the hull. All open top unit fire should be measured from the hull not the mounted weapons. In the previous thread there was a proposal to treat the DR as part of the hull for simplicity(you would need to move over or deploy on the DR in some situations RAW which creates wobbly model sydrome which is covered in the rules but is a pain in the backside to keep track of), but it did make a difference in some example (pivoting for instance). You should never be measuring open top fire from the grabba klaw. That clearly isn't part of the hull.

Right, but neither is the DR....



Clay

I agree, which is why RAW you shouldn't be measuring deployment/movement from the DR.

The only justification for the DR compromise presented in the previous thread was simplicity since it creates alot of wobbly model syndrome/LOS problems, but it does introduce some changes to the model footprint. Though you'd get the same issues if someone came to the battle with a converted/scratch built BW. Though none of this is RAW so don't do it if you think your opponent will be uncomfortable with altering the rules. You won't have a leg to stand on arguing your point.

Primarch wrote:I can see that, however, how can you explain a difference? Both are used against other models, both stick out and effectively "extend" the hull. If one counts, why not the other? My stance is that NEITHER should count, so I don't want to give the wrong impression on that. However, I would have a hard time telling any opponent that one worked and not the other, as I would have no justification for it.

It’s a matter of physical logistics. The sheer size and shape of the deffrolla (including the ones GW & forgeworld make and sell, not just people’s personal conversions) makes it awkward or impossible to normally-access the front of the vehicle for deployment, assault, or in some cases even LOS. The size and shape of the deffrolla can even create LOS-blocking issues where one could have a firing model looking directly at the front of the BW but unable to see anything except rolla (due to terrain or something obscuring other bits), and therefore unable to shoot. The size and shape of the rolla creates these issues, and justifies treating it much differently than a grabbin’ klaw, which doesn’t interfere with normal interaction with the model. FWIW, I treat the siege shield on a current-model Vindicator in exactly the same way.

There is one other possible problem with the rolla not being part of the hull: deployment.

Since all measurements are made from the hull of the vehicle, one would be able to place the BW right on the deployment line...with the rolla protruding 3" beyond the deployment line. Now that wouldnt really be a problem if we ignored the rolla for all game considerations, but there is a good arguement that we dont.

The ram rules kick in when the ramming model comes into contact. It doesnt say the hull of the ramming vehicle....it just says contact. So in theorey a rolla gives a BW and extra 3" of rammming reach from deployment.


While its certainly is not RAW, making the rolla count as hull would remove a lot of problems. It does give the BW the advantage of an extra 1.5" on the pivot move but at least that seems to be the only problem, unlike the complications if its not treated as hull.




Sliggoth

Another problem, what about all the ork players who have kustom battlewagons? Are they not allowed to use them now because gw finally pulled there finger out and made an official model? If people are so willing to debate the merit of an extra inch from pivoting with a rolla attached what would they say about wagons with different dimensions entirely?
This applies to more than orks by the way. When gw finally releases a tervigon model will all those cool conversions in the painting subforum be forbidden? When the storm raven comes out will conversions made for that be forbidden?

Our gaming group decided that any vehicle upgrades altering the 'footprint' of vehicle will count as part of the hull in all respects. So things like Deff Rollas, Dozer Blades, et cetra are included in this. This seems to nullify any problems we previously had regarding hull measurements.

As far as extra movement from pivoting, we first measure the distance (typically up to 6"/12") from the hull BEFORE pivoting/moving; this gives us a 'movement bubble' around the vehicle that we know the vehicle can't move past. This way the vehicle can be be moved to end up in any direction desired as long as no point of the hull exceeds that initial 'bubble radius'.

Triplare, I am glad to see someone else believes that most people are really playing it wrong when they want to pivot, and gain free movement. A vehicle should be able to move its distance from there starting point, and they can make as many turns as they want at no charge, but they should not gain movement. You end up with situations where a unit fires at your land raider and is at 12.1 inches and is out of range, but then the raider pivots and can tank shock the unit, that is just crazy that people think that is how it should be played.


Valas

Them's the rules, though.

I agree, if it changes the foot print of the vehicle, it needs to count as hull. Because...

Generally, we see Kustom Deffrollas as huge, but nothing states the grabbin' claw couldn't be equally huge and mount on the front in the same fashion as a Deffrolla. This could cause similar problems. So be carfeul how you phrase this.

valas4444 wrote:Triplare, I am glad to see someone else believes that most people are really playing it wrong when they want to pivot, and gain free movement. A vehicle should be able to move its distance from there starting point, and they can make as many turns as they want at no charge, but they should not gain movement. You end up with situations where a unit fires at your land raider and is at 12.1 inches and is out of range, but then the raider pivots and can tank shock the unit, that is just crazy that people think that is how it should be played.


Valas

Unfortunately, the way that the rules state it is that you turn then move, IIRC. Therefore, they technically move a little farther.

jw7007 wrote:I agree, if it changes the foot print of the vehicle, it needs to count as hull. Because...

Generally, we see Kustom Deffrollas as huge, but nothing states the grabbin' claw couldn't be equally huge and mount on the front in the same fashion as a Deffrolla. This could cause similar problems. So be carfeul how you phrase this.

I suppose, but this would start to look like modeling for advantage. Whereas given the size of the official ones, it’s hard to complain about a large deffrolla.

There are some homemade ones out there that are bigger though.



Genetics I guess?



Clay

At my gaming group we all play that extensions such as Deff Rollas and dozer blades don't count as hulll for resisting shooting, but I think for some of the bigger stuff we've ruled that it does count for moving, though I can't quite remember.

Mannahnin wrote:

jw7007 wrote:I agree, if it changes the foot print of the vehicle, it needs to count as hull. Because...

Generally, we see Kustom Deffrollas as huge, but nothing states the grabbin' claw couldn't be equally huge and mount on the front in the same fashion as a Deffrolla. This could cause similar problems. So be carfeul how you phrase this.

I suppose, but this would start to look like modeling for advantage. Whereas given the size of the official ones, it’s hard to complain about a large deffrolla.

And that is why I think we need to be careful with how this is defined. I am not proposing that anyone model for advantage. But some people have been playing Orks for quite a while and may have a lot custom/kitbashed/scratchbuilt vehicles. I have scene grabbin' claws modeled on a battlewagons bumper that are very large. This is nothing more than the way the creator envisioned them. Not for advantage. Also, on the same note, are you supposed to model for disadvantage? If you are going to take the time to model a battlewagon/looted vehicle, should you not take into account turret placement, vehicle size, etc?

And before anyone brings up the model for advantage discussion, a few things should be brought to light. Most players have a one-sided bias in this type of discussion, generally leaning towards the side that favours their army without thinking about it. So, to add a little objectivity, please read the examples below below.



Double wide Battlewagon/Deffrolla
Advantage: Chance to target more than one unit with tank shock/ram
Wider threat area for Burnas/KFF

Disadvantage: Presents larger target for opponent
More difficult to achieve hull-down
Harder to maneuver in dense terrain



Deffrolla counts as Hull
Advantage: Increases Burna range (theoretically, but not really*)
Troops may be able to disembark farther (theoretically, but not really*)

Disadvantage: Presents larger target for opponent
More difficult to achieve hull-down
Harder to maneuver in dense terrain


*Note: If the Deffrolla counts as Hull then the Deffrolla would be in the same position at the start of the game as would normally be the front of the Battlewagon. The Battlewagon would still have to move X inches from the starting position, in order to come into contact with enemy troops. Making the front longer doesn't necessarily effect the distance needed to travel, since the new front would start in the same place as the old front. What it does do is increase the vehicles footprint. Also, since people make their own battlewagons, you can do this much easier and more effective than using the deffrolla. Whenever it comes to kitbashed/scratchbuilt models, you always have the option of not playing against it in a friendly game. In tournament you can always complain.


40K is a game of strategy not stat lines and computer code. The most OP units and rules can be defeated with sound strategy. Every advantage gained from modelling has inherent disadvantages. No player should intentionally, design a vehicle that presents an unfair advantage. But only an idiot would expend the hours to make a really cool conversion/kitbash/scratchbuild and not think about the most effective way to assemble it; in accordance with their play style.

Just a few thoughts.

BTW, Orks are supposed to be fun.

jw7007 wrote:*Note: If the Deffrolla counts as Hull then the Deffrolla would be in the same position at the start of the game as would normally be the front of the Battlewagon. The Battlewagon would still have to move X inches from the starting position, in order to come into contact with enemy troops. Making the front longer doesn't necessarily effect the distance needed to travel, since the new front would start in the same place as the old front. What it does do is increase the vehicles footprint. Also, since people make their own battlewagons, you can do this much easier and more effective than using the deffrolla. Whenever it comes to kitbashed/scratchbuilt models, you always have the option of not playing against it in a friendly game. In tournament you can always complain.

not necessarily true. if you start the battlewagon sideways at the edge of the deployment zone and pivot forward before moving (sensible if you have first turn and won't reliably get shot before moving), you get a few extra inches of quasi-movement because of the deffrolla exagerating the basic rectangular shape of the battlewagon to begin with. considering it's opentopped also, this accomplishes BOTH of the most important functions of the battlewagons: bringing the boyz into close combat sooner and getting into range sooner (considering most ork weapons are 24" and under). this is an (un)forseen consequence of the rolla. if you use a soup can-like deff rolla like dash of pepper's, it should easily give you an extra 3" of quasi movement when you pivot. so, that sets up a turn one greater than 24" charge... and that's not including the fudge factor added in for all that movement where ork player tend to deploy 2 and a 1/4 inches, charge 6 1/4 inches, etc. now factor in post turn 1 charges that have an additional waagh fleet move (or ghaz's 6" fleet), and you have a 30+ inch threat area.

pivot with deffrolla 3", move 13" with red paint job, disembark 2.5" (to the front of the models base), charge 6"

warboss wrote:

jw7007 wrote:*Note: If the Deffrolla counts as Hull then the Deffrolla would be in the same position at the start of the game as would normally be the front of the Battlewagon. The Battlewagon would still have to move X inches from the starting position, in order to come into contact with enemy troops. Making the front longer doesn't necessarily effect the distance needed to travel, since the new front would start in the same place as the old front. What it does do is increase the vehicles footprint. Also, since people make their own battlewagons, you can do this much easier and more effective than using the deffrolla. Whenever it comes to kitbashed/scratchbuilt models, you always have the option of not playing against it in a friendly game. In tournament you can always complain.

not necessarily true. if you start the battlewagon sideways at the edge of the deployment zone and pivot forward before moving (sensible if you have first turn and won't reliably get shot before moving), you get a few extra inches of quasi-movement because of the deffrolla exagerating the basic rectangular shape of the battlewagon to begin with. considering it's opentopped also, this accomplishes BOTH of the most important functions of the battlewagons: bringing the boyz into close combat sooner and getting into range sooner (considering most ork weapons are 24" and under). this is an (un)forseen consequence of the rolla. if you use a soup can-like deff rolla like dash of pepper's, it should easily give you an extra 3" of quasi movement when you pivot. so, that sets up a turn one greater than 24" charge... and that's not including the fudge factor added in for all that movement where ork player tend to deploy 2 and a 1/4 inches, charge 6 1/4 inches, etc. now factor in post turn 1 charges that have an additional waagh fleet move (or ghaz's 6" fleet), and you have a 30+ inch threat area.


pivot with deffrolla 3", move 13" with red paint job, disembark 2.5" (to the front of the models base), charge 6"

That is a very good point. You could deploy your BW sideways and then pivot. Although, it seems a little bit like a loophole to me. You can do the same with a landraider, althought not to the same effect. I do not believe that is how the game is intended to be pleayed. If someone pulled an exploit like that in a friendly game, I probably would have reservations about playing them again. In tournament play it's different. So in that case.

Let's say you deploy your BW sideways, using the 'pivot exploit' you are able to gain a few extra inches, which could get you closer to enemy lines. On the downside, if your opponent goes first, your BW starts out with the weaker side Armour exposed to a good majority of your opponents long-ranged heavy weapons. And if your opponent is really lucky, he may be able to pop off a shot at your rear armour.

For my final thoughts on the matter. People that play the game using exploits of this nature, ruin the spirit of the game.

agreed, but that's why i said if you have first turn. a 1 in 6 chance of getting it stolen is worth it for an ork army to get a first turn charge. if your opponent has the first turn, you'd be an idiot to try it. in the end, it's not cheating (a bit unsportsmanlike though) and i expect we'll see it in a bunch of battlereports now that GW has made the deffrolla better officially.

True, it isn't cheating. I just hope I don't have to deal with it.

As an Ork Player, you won't see me exploiting this.

I recently played in a local shop tournament with the interpretation that someone posted above with the pivotting movment thing. The TOs saw a bunch of deff rollaed battlewagons and stated at the star that when you pivot a vehicle with intention of movement, the front of your vehicle could not extend beyond where your original footprint had been located. Though technically a rule change, it seemed to be the best interpretation I've ever seen. Only the ork players were upset by this ruling, and a lot of them grumbled about it. This implies to me at least that they full well knew the advantages of increased movment that pivoting brings with it.

Lunchmoney wrote:I recently played in a local shop tournament with the interpretation that someone posted above with the pivotting movment thing. The TOs saw a bunch of deff rollaed battlewagons and stated at the star that when you pivot a vehicle with intention of movement, the front of your vehicle could not extend beyond where your original footprint had been located. Though technically a rule change, it seemed to be the best interpretation I've ever seen. Only the ork players were upset by this ruling, and a lot of them grumbled about it. This implies to me at least that they full well knew the advantages of increased movment that pivoting brings with it.

And they should be. The TO Changed a rule at the last second with absoloutly no reason to do so. If It were me, I would ask for my Tournie entry fee and leave, as the TO would have proven themselves to be completely incompetent.

Lunchmoney wrote:I recently played in a local shop tournament with the interpretation that someone posted above with the pivotting movment thing. The TOs saw a bunch of deff rollaed battlewagons and stated at the star that when you pivot a vehicle with intention of movement, the front of your vehicle could not extend beyond where your original footprint had been located. Though technically a rule change, it seemed to be the best interpretation I've ever seen. Only the ork players were upset by this ruling, and a lot of them grumbled about it. This implies to me at least that they full well knew the advantages of increased movment that pivoting brings with it.

How did that play, exactly? Did you measure from the side of the hull and then pivot and move? Is it supposed to represent the vehicle wheeling backwards, something the rules specifically say isn't representative of 40k movement?
Almost every vehicle in the game is longer than it is wide, and even a non-rolla wagon performing something as simple as a perfectly normal 90 degree turn-> drive straight loses 2" of distance (wagons are what, 8x4ish?) if played in this manner.

If I were any player at the tournament, ork or not, I'd consider packing up in protest at such an odd and last minute change (and one that affects the movement of every vehicle, often significantly).

The 'benefits of increased movement that pivoting brings' should be well known by every player with a grasp of geometry or experience and a tape measure... I'm confused as to why your tone appears to be blaming the ork players for being unsportsmanlike for expecting the rules in the rulebook to stand rather than be changed arbitrarily after they'd unpacked their armies and were setting up?

I don't think there's an official regular, non-extended model where I'd have a problem with it if used against me as long as it isn't the first turn. As a matter of fact, even in the first turn the only time a pivot-to-gain-extra-movement would seem more than just slightly wonky would be with DE Raiders.

So I see absolutely no problem with doing this during the game, as I fully expect it to be used against me. When you stop and think about it it does seem to stretch realism a bit, but it gains more than it loses because it makes the rules a lot simpler.

That said, I don't do this during setup, even in no-comp tournies.

That also said, I do think it is sort of cheap that non-stock and extended Ork vehicles get extra movement distance that is not represented in their vehicle cost.

But as long as you can measure to their hulls in the same place they have to step out, and they don't pull the deploying sideways on the first turn crap with non-standard vehicles, I see no problem as long as the battlewagons aren't the shape of pencils or anything.

This is why if I ever get a BW, I'm going to model the hull to be over the rolla.

Pika_power wrote:This is why if I ever get a BW, I'm going to model the hull to be over the rolla.

I may be doing just that. Jack the thing up about half an inch and drop the Deffrolla under the carriage in place of the front wheels. That would solve a lot of arguments at the table.

I agree with the comment about a grabba claw.

At issue: "extras" are not part of the hull

I do believe this is true and should be followed

however:

my deffrollas are as wide as my battlewagons, and several inches thick. I didn't build these scratch builds and they've received lots of modeling comments not accusations of modeling for advantage.

in an attempt to make sure that there is no extra movement, pivot, firing distance, etc discrepencies I have ALWAYS played that the deffrolla corners form the front of the footprint for the battlewagons. that way it counts from the moment they hit the table to the moment they leave. I have never used it in an attempt to gain extra movement, closer firing range, etc as a one sided effort. if I can shoot from the edge of the deffrolla and assault off the front, than they can measure to that edge for all shooting and assault issues. it also extends the rectangle a bit, making it somewhat easier to get a side armor shot.

In 2 ard boyz tournaments, multiple local tournaments it has always been perceived compromise to otherwise very strict rules because it is consistent and fair to both players.

that is completely different from modeling for advantage and trying to pull stuff like burna templates off of a boarding plank or something.

yes this was argued to death, some people feel my perspective must be some attempt to gain advantage on the opponents. but if played from an ethical angle, there is never a problem.

NaZ

If I get first turn, I can deploy all of my trukks and battlewagons with their side armor agains the deployment zone edge.
Then, in my movement phase, I turn them all 90*, which gives them a couple inches for free, then zoom ahead 19" for a trukk or 13" for a wagon.

Adding a deffrolla as hull gives some advantage, but can also cause problems if it isn't counted as hull.
So talk with your opponent before the game.

@ NAZ:

@ In_Theory: That's why the rest of us have trouble. EXPLOITS like that!