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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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?

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!

Guys, the simple solution is to mount the Deffrolla on the top of the Battlewagon, since it will work no matter where it is.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".