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.

This is a quest to get an idea of how people are handling the deff rolla. We can only expect to see more rollas over the next few months, and while by RAW it seems pretty clear that the rolla is not part of the hull this creates serious complications in other rules. So how are people playing it, and any opinions on what works with the rollas?

At adepticon, I explained the issue to my opponents before the games, so that we wouldn't have issues come up later. In each case, we opted to simply remove the rolla for gaming purposes and measure to the hull for everything as the rules suggest.

It's as much a part of the hull as a Dozer blade is in my opinion. If it causing so much grief, just model it in the "Passenger" section pointing up. Nothing says it has to be at the front.

While removing the rolla or doing a conversion to the kit would certainly fix the problem, Im hoping to more find out how people are handling a BW with the GW kit normally attached, since that going to most likely be the common set up. Out in front, blocking a lot of space and glued in place.

Work around builds are nice, but there are a lot of people who just build the kits the way they are presented by GW.


Sliggoth

Playing it by the rules (not hull) introduces absolutely zero in game rules problems.
If the raw ain't broken, don't fix it.

yeah, I don't see how treating it as not being hull causes any problems for the rules, sure there are arguably disadvantages to having a fething great crushing device stuck to the front of your truck, much like there are disadvantages for all sorts of different model options.

The only argument I've really seen for why it should be hull, is "it makes it hard/impossible to disembark out the front" if you can demonstrate how the rules "break" with it not being hull I'd be interested to hear it.

Well, with it not being hull there is the problem of how do you assault it from the front? The wobbly model rule only applies to terrain, not to a portion of a model. So do we somehow allow assaults over/ through the rolla?

And of course there is the deploying from the front, same sort of difficulty.

And then there is the problem that if the rolla isnt part of the hull then we dont use it for measurements...which means that the BW can deploy its hull on the edge of the deployment zone, with the rolla sticking out 3 ish inches towards the opponents deployment zone. Meaning that the ram (since ram is only dependent upon contact between models, not hulls) is 3" closer to happening.

And then there is tracing LOS. How much of the front hull does the rolla block, isnt it much easier for the rolla to then get a cover save from other terrain/ units.

All of those are topics at our FLGS about the rolla from ork players, Im sure we havent hit upon all the problems so far.

Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:Well, with it not being hull there is the problem of how do you assault it from the front? The wobbly model rule only applies to terrain, not to a portion of a model. So do we somehow allow assaults over/ through the rolla?

You can assault the deff rolla even though it isn't hull; you just need to be in range of the actual hull as well.

Sliggoth wrote:
And of course there is the deploying from the front, same sort of difficulty.

You could model it differently.

Sliggoth wrote:
And then there is the problem that if the rolla isnt part of the hull then we dont use it for measurements...which means that the BW can deploy its hull on the edge of the deployment zone, with the rolla sticking out 3 ish inches towards the opponents deployment zone. Meaning that the ram (since ram is only dependent upon contact between models, not hulls) is 3" closer to happening.

You might as well try to ban the pivot trick.

Sliggoth wrote:
And then there is tracing LOS. How much of the front hull does the rolla block, isnt it much easier for the rolla to then get a cover save from other terrain/ units.

Would you give a Vindicator with a Siege Shield a cover save just for having a shield?

Sliggoth wrote:Well, with it not being hull there is the problem of how do you assault it from the front? The wobbly model rule only applies to terrain, not to a portion of a model. So do we somehow allow assaults over/ through the rolla?

And of course there is the deploying from the front, same sort of difficulty.

And then there is the problem that if the rolla isnt part of the hull then we dont use it for measurements...which means that the BW can deploy its hull on the edge of the deployment zone, with the rolla sticking out 3 ish inches towards the opponents deployment zone. Meaning that the ram (since ram is only dependent upon contact between models, not hulls) is 3" closer to happening.

And then there is tracing LOS. How much of the front hull does the rolla block, isnt it much easier for the rolla to then get a cover save from other terrain/ units.

All of those are topics at our FLGS about the rolla from ork players, Im sure we havent hit upon all the problems so far.

Sliggoth

If you'd read any number of previous threads on the topic, you'd know none of these are actually a rules issue.
Assaulting the rolla works perfectly fine. Contact with the model and a 0" measurement are not synonymous... you can achieve contact with the rolla and thus assault it. You cannot normally stand on/move over the rolla in any case, it is impassable as it is model.

The rolla is ignored for all LOS purposes, as it is a decorative element. It creates no LOS issues.

The deployment/disembarking are not a problem, they are situations that the rules clearly allow/require and don't break anything.

Not playing it as hull only helps the Ork player.

If it is not hull, then it can stick out past the deployment zone, putting it 3 or so inches closer for a Ram.

I use Rollas in my lists, and our group plays it as hull, because nothing states that it isn't - it is an integral part of the model, if the new kit is used.
It simply makes the hull longer...which can only be a negative, as it increases the length of side armor and footprint of the model. Why people try to pretend that it isn't part of the hull is beyond me.. anythign that freaking big is not just decorative

I agree with alerian. that following RAW and saying it doesnt count would actually be an advantage I could use tactically as an ork player.

I have always counted them as part of the hull. to do otherwise since they are steamroller style models would be impractical. I tried to follow strict raw on the issue for a few games and it created a ton of problems.

playing it as part of the hull is in many ways a disadvantage, but it is consistent for both players.

so I play it as A, I count it as part of the hull. this applies from the moment it hits the table or comes on from a board edge. it counts for all movement and range measuring.

this has worked for all players I have played with, without a single rules challenge or even inquiry on the matter. it is just more practical to do it this way.

I don't understand why people are trying to force a way of playing that would be more difficult and unwieldly for both players.

NaZ

It not being hull means you cannot assault over it - well boohoo, that means you have a disadvantage to one of the biggest no-brainers in the Ork codex. Deal with it.

As for deploying over the line - a LR gains 1.5" with the pivot trick, raiders even more. do we ban that as well?

It isnt hull, it is a decorative element EXACTLY like the examples given.

Gorkamorka touched on most of this, but I would just like to expand on that a bit further for clarity's sake.

Sliggoth wrote:Well, with it not being hull there is the problem of how do you assault it from the front? The wobbly model rule only applies to terrain, not to a portion of a model. So do we somehow allow assaults over/ through the rolla?

The vehicle assault rules state "A unit can assault a vehicle in the Assault phase. The assault move is conducted just the same as assaulting other enemy units. As normal, all engaged models will attack."(Assaulting Vehicles - page 63, BRB)

The referenced rules here state "Move the model into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being assaulted ... If possible, the model must move into base contact with any enemy model within reach..." (Moving Assaulting Models - page 34, BRB) and "the following models are said to be 'engaged' and must fight: ... Models in base contact with any enemy models; Models within 2" of at least one model in their unit that is in base contact with any enemy models." (Who Can Fight? - Page 35, BRB).

As you can see, none of these call for a measurement, and as such, the vehicle rule stating all measurements are made to the hull never comes into play, simply the act of moving into contact with any part of the vehicle, be it hull or not, is enough to engage it in Melee. Enemy units can assault the Deffrolla part of a Battlewagon to engage it in Melee.

They could not move on top of it because other models are Impassable Terrain.

And of course there is the deploying from the front, same sort of difficulty.

This I already touched on in my earlier post, while I understand it is a disadvantage of having the Deffrolla, I don't think it's cause enough to say there are rules issues with the Deffrolla being not hull, and there definitely isn't a problem with the RAW of it, simply, models cannot stand on top of the Deffrolla so if it is 2" or more from back to front, then yes, it blocks part of your deployment area, much the same way the barrels of the lascannons on a Land Raider could block a model from being deployed.

And then there is the problem that if the rolla isnt part of the hull then we dont use it for measurements...which means that the BW can deploy its hull on the edge of the deployment zone, with the rolla sticking out 3 ish inches towards the opponents deployment zone. Meaning that the ram (since ram is only dependent upon contact between models, not hulls) is 3" closer to happening.

I'm not sure on this one, because the deployment rules are decidedly vague. It's clear that you would be correct for 'Pitched Battle' which says "He then deploys his force in his half of the table, with all models more than 12" away from the table's middle line" (Page 92, BRB). Since it is a measurement, with regards to vehicles it is only concerned with Hulls, and even if the Deffrolla is beyond the 12" limit, it is still within the half of the table that you were told to deploy your force in. However in Spearhead it says "He then deploys his force in one of the two table quarters on his side the table[sic], more than 12" away from the centre of the table" (Page 93, BRB) which would allow you once again, to be within 12" of the centre of the table with your Deffrolla, but not beyond your declared quarter. Further in Dawn of War it states "He then can deploy ... in his half of the table"(Page 93, BRB) so in this case, I think no model could be outside that table half, hull or no hull, without breaking the rules.

Admittedly though, this is just my interpretation, the Deployment rules are some of the worst in the rulebook, and I can't really find as strong a RAW case for this as I did for the other "issues".

And then there is tracing LOS. How much of the front hull does the rolla block, isnt it much easier for the rolla to then get a cover save from other terrain/ units.

The rules regarding this say "At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (i.e. its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models" (Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets - Page 62, BRB). Obviously the Deffrolla cannot constitute intervening terrain or models as it is part of the Battlewagon itself.

All of those are topics at our FLGS about the rolla from ork players, Im sure we havent hit upon all the problems so far.

Sliggoth

Drunkspleen wrote:

And then there is tracing LOS. How much of the front hull does the rolla block, isnt it much easier for the rolla to then get a cover save from other terrain/ units.

The rules regarding this say "At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (i.e. its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models" (Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets - Page 62, BRB). Obviously the Deffrolla cannot constitute intervening terrain or models as it is part of the Battlewagon itself.

P60, shooting at vehicles, also says to ignore decorative elements for drawing LOS to the hull.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It not being hull means you cannot assault over it - well boohoo, that means you have a disadvantage to one of the biggest no-brainers in the Ork codex. Deal with it.
.

But, the Rolla not counting as Hull is not a disadvantage for Orks..that is my point...Not counting it as hull is actually an advantage, when you look at the math.

BWs are open topped, so the boys can disembark 2" from any part of the hull. If you don't play the BW as hull, the boys still disembark 3/4 way (or more if a 40mm Based Warboss embarked with them) up the side of the Rolla anyway. Not a real loss.

However, if the Rolla is not hull, then it cannot be counted for the purpose of range when shooting at the BW, while the BW maintains the advantage of having the Rolla 3" closer to the enemy for Ramming/tank shocks. Combine that extra 3" of vehicle length (that cannot be targeted by shooting) with a 13" tankshcok/ram and suddenly you have a major range advantage as an Ork player. Additionallt, if it is not hull, then the Rolla may start outside of the Ork deployment zone, thus gaining an initial 3" advantage.

However, if you count the Rolla as hull, the Ork player loses his 3" advantage versus shooting, he loses the advantage of sticking his Rolla past his Deployment zone, and he is stuck with a larger footprint, as well as longer side armor....while gaining very little in assault distance, since the hull must start in his deployment zone, whether you count the Rolla as hull or not.

OK, the thoughts on this are all over the place.

The assault problem isnt quite as clear as some people think, the rules were quoted but not fully considered: "Models in base contact". This means that the base has to be in contact, not the rest of the model. I havent built a deff rolla equipped bw as of yet, but one local player has attached a couple. And his are not resting on the ground, there is in fact enough room under them that a base can slide under there and not contact the rolla. So infantry models along the front of his rolla never get into base contact with anything. Now he did add the rollas onto old BWs, so if correctly attached is the rolla normally close enough to the ground that a base comes into contact with the rolla?

If one model can get into base contact then any model within 2" of that model can assault as well...but in order to trigger the 2" rule one model has to get into base contact.




The LOS I didnt personally think was going to be a problem until several of the other players pointed out the view that ignoring the vehicles gun barrels, decorative banner poles etc is quite a different list of things to ignore than the list dentoing what is hull for the vehicle. Dozer blades are mentioned on the not hull list, but solid pieces like that are not on the list for los purposes....

Yes this is a problem for dozer blades as well if one twists ones logic around to this point of view.

One other view locally was that the ignore meant that the rolla couldnt be taken into consideration when determining the percentage of the facing blocked, but that one could only consider the part of the facing visible over the top of the rolla when one looked at the model to see if enough was blocked by other units/ terrain. In other words, the bw facing to the front is only the portion of the bw that protrudes above the rolla is all thats considered when one is looking at the bw from the front. So the front facing of the bw is much smaller with the rolla attached. While I could point out thats not what the rules mean, there is a very strong appeal to the idea that the rolla cant be shot through freely. It shouldnt be a rules problem, but it is going to be a confusion problem for some people it appears.




Deployment from the front shouldnt be allowed from the raw, but there are still a number of ork players who want to do just that. If one plays with the rolla it may just be possible to install the rolla so that a base can slide under the rolla and stick back far enough to just barely get within 2" of the hull.

That modelling tactic gives the best of both worlds to the ork player, being able to deploy from the front while guaranteeing that no enemy model can get into base contact from the front.



So yes, there look to be a few things here that need to be discussed.


Sliggoth

Except it states the *model* can get in contact, base contact is not the only requrement.

The model getting into contact is only a requirement in the moving into assault part of the rules, its the "who can fight?" rules on pg 35 that limit models in base contact or within 2" of another model in base contact to engaged models.

So while the rules tell us to move models into contact, they cant attack unless they are in base contact (or 2" from another model who is).


Sliggoth

Clearly it's not part of the hull. The deff rolla from the kit swings up. When assaulting from the front of the battlewagon you just swing up the deff rolla.

It uses the term "base contact" very loosely, and equates "in contact" and "base contact" at numerous times.

Playing it as not part of the hull has the advantage of consistency with the rules...

If ALL of the deff rolla is part of the hull, then when you deploy, make damn sure that ALL the deff rolla is within 12" of your table edge.

If it is not part of the hull, then make damn sure you are measuring from the front of your vehicle for tank shocks and such very carefully.

I don't care what my opponent does so long as:

1. We agree at the beginning of the game.
2. He plays is consistantly. Deployment, movement, tank shock, and so on.

Alerian wrote:But, the Rolla not counting as Hull is not a disadvantage for Orks..that is my point...Not counting it as hull is actually an advantage, when you look at the math.

You keep saying this, while several people in the thread repeatedly mention the main disadvantage.
You cannot deploy to the front of the wagon, in almost the entire front arc. You are restricted to deploying to one side of the wagon unless you daisy chain models around the back. You lose at least 2" of straight on assault range...
You also gain several inches of pivoting at the deployment line movement, probably 3". You can fire burnas out the front...
There are disadvantages and advantages to either approach, often major ones. Stop trying to divert this into a fairness argument and not a playability/rules argument.

Sliggoth wrote:
The assault problem isnt quite as clear as some people think, the rules were quoted but not fully considered: "Models in base contact". This means that the base has to be in contact, not the rest of the model. I havent built a deff rolla equipped bw as of yet, but one local player has attached a couple. And his are not resting on the ground, there is in fact enough room under them that a base can slide under there and not contact the rolla. So infantry models along the front of his rolla never get into base contact with anything. Now he did add the rollas onto old BWs, so if correctly attached is the rolla normally close enough to the ground that a base comes into contact with the rolla?

This is a problem with dozens of models in the game, not just the rolla. Most SM tanks, with their triangular projecting fronts, have this problem with large models for example.
This is not a reason to play the rolla differently, it's a reason to play that specific rule differently if it's becoming a problem.

Sliggoth wrote:
The LOS I didnt personally think was going to be a problem until several of the other players pointed out the view that ignoring the vehicles gun barrels, decorative banner poles etc is quite a different list of things to ignore than the list dentoing what is hull for the vehicle. Dozer blades are mentioned on the not hull list, but solid pieces like that are not on the list for los purposes....

Yes this is a problem for dozer blades as well if one twists ones logic around to this point of view.

One other view locally was that the ignore meant that the rolla couldnt be taken into consideration when determining the percentage of the facing blocked, but that one could only consider the part of the facing visible over the top of the rolla when one looked at the model to see if enough was blocked by other units/ terrain. In other words, the bw facing to the front is only the portion of the bw that protrudes above the rolla is all thats considered when one is looking at the bw from the front. So the front facing of the bw is much smaller with the rolla attached. While I could point out thats not what the rules mean, there is a very strong appeal to the idea that the rolla cant be shot through freely. It shouldnt be a rules problem, but it is going to be a confusion problem for some people it appears.

The decorative elements list is quite similar, and the rule specifically mentions the hull/turret as the only LOS that matters. If you want to get extremely anal about the fact that it doesn't include dozer blades, then the entire argument is pointlessly circular as the original list doesn't strictly include rollas.

As was pointed out above, 50% of the entire facing must be 'hidden by intervening terrain or models', of which the rolla is niether. The rolla does not block the facing in either rule, or somehow lower the facing's footprint.

Sliggoth wrote:
Deployment from the front shouldnt be allowed from the raw, but there are still a number of ork players who want to do just that. If one plays with the rolla it may just be possible to install the rolla so that a base can slide under the rolla and stick back far enough to just barely get within 2" of the hull.

That modelling tactic gives the best of both worlds to the ork player, being able to deploy from the front while guaranteeing that no enemy model can get into base contact from the front.

Players that model for an advantage are not a rules or playability problem, they are a player problem.

kronk wrote:
If it is not part of the hull, then make damn sure you are measuring from the front of your vehicle for tank shocks and such very carefully.

2. He plays is consistantly. ...tank shock, and so on.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, as you seem to be implying that he should not use the normal tank shocking rules to please you.
You measure the distance to move from the hull, but do not measure range to targets and any models contacted by the rolla are tank shocked.

Alerian wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:It not being hull means you cannot assault over it - well boohoo, that means you have a disadvantage to one of the biggest no-brainers in the Ork codex. Deal with it.
.

But, the Rolla not counting as Hull is not a disadvantage for Orks..that is my point...Not counting it as hull is actually an advantage, when you look at the math.

BWs are open topped, so the boys can disembark 2" from any part of the hull. If you don't play the BW as hull, the boys still disembark 3/4 way (or more if a 40mm Based Warboss embarked with them) up the side of the Rolla anyway. Not a real loss.

However, if the Rolla is not hull, then it cannot be counted for the purpose of range when shooting at the BW, while the BW maintains the advantage of having the Rolla 3" closer to the enemy for Ramming/tank shocks. Combine that extra 3" of vehicle length (that cannot be targeted by shooting) with a 13" tankshcok/ram and suddenly you have a major range advantage as an Ork player. Additionallt, if it is not hull, then the Rolla may start outside of the Ork deployment zone, thus gaining an initial 3" advantage.

However, if you count the Rolla as hull, the Ork player loses his 3" advantage versus shooting, he loses the advantage of sticking his Rolla past his Deployment zone, and he is stuck with a larger footprint, as well as longer side armor....while gaining very little in assault distance, since the hull must start in his deployment zone, whether you count the Rolla as hull or not.

Also as an advantage for counting the DR as part of the Hull for the Ork players. If you are facing north on the table, then pivot and turn east, then move 6 inches, you have actually moved about 9 inches, then you place the narrow end of the Burna template on the front edge of the DR(as you are counting it as hull of course) and put 15 flame templates onto an enemy unit, pretty much wiping them out. You have GAINED 3 inches of movement for your BW full of Burnaz. I'd say that was a bit of an advantage for counting it as hull.....


Clay

Do we really have to have this argument all over again?

Geemoney wrote:Do we really have to have this argument all over again?

Agreed.

Just model it so the the arms are in the air and would be coming down during the crushing time. Problem solved.

I saw an excellent conversion where the "Deff Rolla" was really a chipper built into the front of the Battlewagon's nose.

It was awesome, looked convincing and was conveniently built into the body of the Battlewagon. It didn't extend the thing much if any beyond it's original footprint.

This seems to be a very split poll. In a tournament game I have to go with the RAW and thus the Deff Roller is not a part of the Hull. Does this give Orks an advantage? Yeah, it does for many reasons.

From a fluff perspective it is a very interesting situation. I am willing to bet that the Death Roller doesn't have AV 14 like the front of the Battle Wagon. If I'm shooting at the Front Armor I'm obviously hitting the actual Front Armor and not the Deff Roller. That said, I think you need to measure to the front of the vehicle, not the Deff Roller, for shooting attacks. This does not hold true for assaulting the Battle Wagon because when you assault a vehicle you Always hit Rear Armor. So it doesn't matter where you make contact with the vehicle. If you reach the Deff Roller you can swing in.

This covers targeting into the Battle Wagon but what about targeting out? Well, for the purposes of Ramming it seems obvious that you would ram when the Deff Roller hits its target. Similarly, for using a boarding plank an Ork inside the Wagon would drop the plank from the front armor, across the Deff Roller, and to the enemy vehicle. For jumping out of the Battle Wagon though, since you can get out on all sides, it seems silly to let Orks stand on top of the Deff Roller. Let's face it, that thing is spinning really fast and is likely going to tear apart any greenskin who touches it (which is why they have a boarding plank). This shouldn't pose a huge problem for disembarking though. Shooting is the same situation. All shooting, fluff-wise, should be from the troop compartment, not the deff roller. Orks shooting can not stand on the spinning deff roller unless they want to be ded.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It not being hull means you cannot assault over it - well boohoo, that means you have a disadvantage to one of the biggest no-brainers in the Ork codex. Deal with it.

As for deploying over the line - a LR gains 1.5" with the pivot trick, raiders even more. do we ban that as well?

It isnt hull, it is a decorative element EXACTLY like the examples given.

Actually, I personally don't like the "pivot trick," and I believe it's exploiting a hole in the rules. I wish we could ban it. I play DE and I never use the "pivot trick" with my Raiders.

Its part of the hull. But, to be far, I dont count the flimsy little dozer blade on razorbacks and rhinos. Those are too small to count as anything. The Vindicator and Chimera ones are counted on the hull, but not the rhino ones.