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.

I'm in the process of converting a land raider to a battle wagon. My question is would you allow an ork army playing against you to use the frag assault launchers mounted on the converted land raider as a "counts as" deff rolla, or would you wanna see the customary spiked rolling pin? And if using a land raider as a "counts as" battlewagon makes your spine crawl then let me know that too.

It just seems really lazy in my eyes. Land raider conversions are good as long as you actually convert it - don't just stick a Grot head on the gunner marine and throw a few glyphs on.

frag grenade = stikkbombs for orks. The fact that you can put stikkbomb launchers on some vehicles means no, I'd not counts as. Sorry.

The Land Raider to Battlewagon has been a fairly common conversion since 3rd edition, so you shouldn't have any problems on that score.

I think the Frag Launcher idea is ok, but would be less potentially confusing if you altered them a bit. Replace the grenade tubes with rokkits, for example.

No, I wouldn't be happy about it.

A deffrolla is a big spiked drum of deff. Grenade launchers cannot compare.

Good 'counts as' is fine, but lazy 'counts as' is not. This isn't more effort to model, it's just being lazy, so no.

haha well in the interest of not appearing lazy (although I am) I've modeled a big spikey roller of deff for my battleraider. here's a mostly finished but unpainted (except for my previous salamander paintjob) photo of it http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/78127-Land%20Raider%20Battlewagon%20Conversion.html

Very nice. I'd be happy to play against that.

To the original suggestion of using frag launchers, I wouldn't mind as long as it was made clear but it would be on the same level in my mind as using soft drink bottles for drop pods and so on. As long as it is not confusing, though, I probably wouldn't mind.

To the picture you posted - hell yes. That's exactly what I think when deff rollas are mentioned. Well, that and the words 'rules headache' come to mind...

I'd allow it, but not like it.
especially when there is a nice cheap, easily available deathrolla sprue for your convenience.

I like the one he's converted, though the size of it and what counts as the hull will likely give you fits.

marv335 wrote:I'd allow it, but not like it.
especially when there is a nice cheap, easily available deathrolla sprue for your convenience.

Just a quick question, do you have any converted models in your army?

Gwar! wrote:

marv335 wrote:I'd allow it, but not like it.
especially when there is a nice cheap, easily available deathrolla sprue for your convenience.

Just a quick question, do you have any converted models in your army?

I assumed he was talking about the frag launchers still, and not the relatively nicely converted deff rolla.

willydstyle wrote:I like the one he's converted, though the size of it and what counts as the hull will likely give you fits.

Are you saying the size will give me fits or the people I'm playing? (that was the whole point of the OP, i'm trying my best to avoid that)

If its the people I'm playing is it the fact that on a GW Battlewagon with FW deffrolla, the rolla doesn't "counts as" the hull, so you cant disembark troops out the front? (i don't actually know this to be the case because mine is still in the mail and i've never seen one before, but i had my suspicions) If that's the case then I'll just not let them disembark out the front (i'm going for a fun, inexpensive, ork army, not a series of cheesy conversions). If it's some other reason let me know.

Correct, if the deff rolla is more than 2" wide, it would prevent disembarking on the other side of it. Also, big battlewagons give the embarked unit a lot more flexibility in what direction they want to assault in, and increases the amount of area that a KFF protects.

I guess yes, it might give some of the people you are playing fits. For most vehicles size is a disadvantage because it becomes harder to find cover, though you get advantage from better LoS for your weapons.

For a tank that generates its own cover and doesn't have any weapons to shoot, size is nothing but an advantage.

A local player was using some battlewagons that had oddly shaped hulls and were about 9x12". It was a huge advantage for him, and even if you thought you were pretty clearly in the side arc of what you were shooting at, his definition of what was the "hull" seemed to constantly change to put you in the front arc.

Sure--sound great. Post pics.

I voted no, simply because if you're converting a LR to be A BW wif Deff Rolla, Convert the damn thing; it doesn't have to actually be a giant spiked rolling pin, but it SHOULD appear reasonably deadly.

Afraid not skip. A Deff Rolla seriously changes what you can and can't worry about in your opponents army, and the Frag Launchers just aren't meaty enough to remind me!

I'm normally pretty relaxed on 'counts as' stuff, but I'm afraid this is one of the cases where I wouldn't allow it.

i voted "no" for the exact same reason lordhat wrote.
would i play you if you used the launchers? of course... would i give you gak about it... most definitely

i really like your conversion. i cant imagine what youve done being much bigger if at all than the BW.

usernamesareannoying wrote:i voted "no" for the exact same reason lordhat wrote.
would i play you if you used the launchers? of course... would i give you gak about it... most definitely

i really like your conversion. i cant imagine what youve done being much bigger if at all than the BW.

A land raider is significantly larger than a BW, and has more friendly dimensions for side armor shots as well.

willydstyle wrote:
A land raider is significantly larger than a BW, and has more friendly dimensions for side armor shots as well.

GW LR: about 6.5"length, 5" width, 2.5" height
GW BW: about 6.5"length, 4" width, 2.5" height

Did I miss something? Is the width of the BW being about 1" difference really a significant enough of a size difference that people have issues? While I know there are 3rd edition customwagons out there that are absurd sizes, I didn't think LR or Forgeworld BWs were already being removed from general play due to size differences yet.

It is one inch. In 40k however, 1" is pretty significant. I'm not saying that I'll never play anyone that has a slightly-too-big battle wagon, or even a significantly too big battle wagon, but the size definitely gives measurable in-game advantages to the player of the battle wagon.

Guys, you forget, now that Citadel have produced a Battlewagon model, your Scratch Built ones are now illegal! (They weren't legal to begin with anyway, but that's not the point).

Rabble rabble rabble!

Gwar! wrote:Guys, you forget, now that Citadel have produced a Battlewagon model, your Scratch Built ones are now illegal! (They weren't legal to begin with anyway, but that's not the point).

Rabble rabble rabble!

What page of the rulebook is that on? I can't find it in mine.

As far as I know, rules requiring official, current edition models is an 'event specific' requirement of official GW events and not a rule from any rulebook.

Are we implying that WYSIWYG applies to vehicle footprint/stock model or that pg3 bases applies to vehicle footprint/stock model?

While Events totally have the right to allow/disallow any models it wishes... it is not because they are illegal and break a rule, it is because GW is pushing the event to be a commercial for thier products.

nkelsch wrote:What page of the rulebook is that on? I can't find it in mine.

Page 3, first line.

Where on that line does it say current edition models or unconverted models?

nkelsch wrote:Where on that line does it say current edition models or unconverted models?

Well, a Converted model is by definition no longer a Citadel Miniature.

And I never said Old Edition models were forbidden. I myself have a 2nd edition unit of Grey Hunters.

No.

lordrevege wrote:No.

To what? Life? The Universe? Chocolate Silk Pie is tasty?

I think you would be a lot better just gluing some choppas on to a like 1" diameter pvc pipe cheap and it gets the point across pretty well.

Wait.... at what point did we stop being able to use converted or scratch built models?

Don't they have a whole page about it on their website where they use phrases like "we at Games Workshop are unique in feeling that customization adds to our game world, so we encourage scratch built and converted models as long as you use official games workshop materials or forgeworld materials, green stuff, and plasticard in the construction" amidst all the screaming about intellectual property?