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.

RAW: Rolla isn't part of the hull.
RAI: Who knows.
RAa lot of people play it to simplify disembarking and assaulting, and being shot at and assaulted as well: Rolla is part of the hull.

No one I've EVER seen suggests 'making a leap' to dozer blades, grabbin klaws, planks, or things of that nature that are specifically decoration by RAW. Using that to undermine simplifying a weird application of RAW is a bit of a stretch in my book. In my opinion it both hurts and helps the player and the opponent equally and therefore has no bearing on the game, as well as making play easier.

However, this is the part that needs to be clear, if you don't talk to your opponent about it, then it's RAW is law and you shouldn't do it. In fact, that would lead to wobbly model syndrom disembarks or disembarking wholly from the sides and as some remarked, could call into question being able to assault the tank from the front.

First off, it's not a strawman argument. If vehicle upgrades are going to be included as part of the "hull" then so be it, but you can't just draw an imaginary line that suits you on what that applies to.


If the Deffrolla counts, so does everything else, period. It's pretty simple, but it also looks wrong, and feels wrong in play. I am not suggesting we start using those things like some of you seem to use the Rolla, I am suggesting we don't use any of it in this manner, as that is specifically ruled against in the book.



Clay

Steelmage99 wrote:

Tantras wrote:I feel quite positive about the 'problem' that some people have mentioned regarding a Deffrolla blocking front disembarking. Maybe it's just the price you pay for having such a powerful weapon on the front of your battlewagon? Although certainly it should've been specified in the rules if that was the case.

I would certainly side with the Deffrolla not counting as part of the hull... to do otherwise would leave everything wide open for 'modelling for advantage'.

You do realize that following that logic you cannot assault a BW from the front, right?

No, following that logic you cannot assault a BW equipped with a Deffrolla from the front, which I'm fine with.

Tantras wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Tantras wrote:I feel quite positive about the 'problem' that some people have mentioned regarding a Deffrolla blocking front disembarking. Maybe it's just the price you pay for having such a powerful weapon on the front of your battlewagon? Although certainly it should've been specified in the rules if that was the case.

I would certainly side with the Deffrolla not counting as part of the hull... to do otherwise would leave everything wide open for 'modelling for advantage'.

You do realize that following that logic you cannot assault a BW from the front, right?

No, following that logic you cannot assault a BW equipped with a Deffrolla from the front, which I'm fine with.

And no one could disembark from the deff rolla side (ie the front) of a BW either. That would definitely dork up assaulting meganobz, etc.

Ok...thought it double posted, but apparently the internet ate it's twin...anyway,

whitedragon wrote:Sounds like something that should have been cleared up before the game began.

I run 4 wagons in most of my lists and I always, ALWAYS, mention that I measure from the hull of my wagons and never count the deff-rollas. Mine are actually removable with magnets so that when I disembark I just pop them off real quick.

Now I can see that some battlewagons not being able to remove their rollas which makes disembarking quite difficult. In those cases it makes sense to count the deff-rolla as part of the hull, and your opponent should be notified of this before the game starts. Just common courtesy.

Heres the problem I have with this. Deffrollas are clearly not part of the hull of ork vehicles. The same way dozer blades and those little spines on wave serpents arent. So therefore you cannot measure shooting from it, to or from. However, I dont think you can legally claim "well i count it as part of the hull for all purposes". It doesnt work that way, its not part of the hull. If you claim it as part of the hull only when it benefits you that is blatanly cheating. But I do feel that this does legally prevent charges out of the front of the tank. To claim otherwise for your vehicle is breaking the rules. If you wish to house rule that way its fine, but there is no legal precedent for deffrollas being part of the hull.

Zain60 wrote:

Tantras wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Tantras wrote:I feel quite positive about the 'problem' that some people have mentioned regarding a Deffrolla blocking front disembarking. Maybe it's just the price you pay for having such a powerful weapon on the front of your battlewagon? Although certainly it should've been specified in the rules if that was the case.

I would certainly side with the Deffrolla not counting as part of the hull... to do otherwise would leave everything wide open for 'modelling for advantage'.

You do realize that following that logic you cannot assault a BW from the front, right?

No, following that logic you cannot assault a BW equipped with a Deffrolla from the front, which I'm fine with.

And no one could disembark from the deff rolla side (ie the front) of a BW either. That would definitely dork up assaulting meganobz, etc.

Following this logic about open topped vehicles is odd to me. I've always made the assumption that the occupants of the vehicle when disembarking enjoy a quicker and less restrictive way of bailing out of the vehicle. One would assume that in the same exact time frame as a bunch of marines carefully exiting a rhino thru the hatches ducking to avoid gonking their heads, 20 ork boyz could flip over the side of their wagon and walk around a bit to get in front of their transport. I never assumed the boyz physically exited the transport from the deff-rolla or even the physical front of the vehicle! (heck Dark Elder would have the same issue with their raiders as there are no physical exits in that beaky part!)

So in short, yea even with deff-rollas the boyz can still deploy in front of a vehicle and a deff-rolla as long as that deff-rolla has been measured from the entire game. If not, then yes your opponent is suddenly cheating my gaining a free inch or two when disembarking!


*edited after quoting the wrong post *

I think yakface hit on an important point. You must stay consistent during ALL games about how the models are handled. to say that it counts in some situations but not others would just be beardy.

I have always played that mine count as part of the hull, because they are 30% of the length of the model. to not do so creates more problems than it solves.

I could see people arguing that it didnt count, but that could create issues where assaulting could be blocked etc.

I aimed for a way to play it that is consistent, fair to both players, and doesn't create any issues. I measure the front of the deffrolla for movement (it affects how far onto the board I can come from reserve) I count it for disembarking, for assaulting the BW, for shooting to or from it, etc.

because I have always shown that consistency, it has never been a problem with any of the people I play with, or in any of the ard boyz tournaments I've attended.

NaZ

I generally play if you can reach the hull you can base upgrades.

Take the giant dozer blade on a vindicator. The hull of my vindy can reach your trukk, but only the blade can touch. If the hull reaches the ram still happens. Same if you charge me. If you can reach the hull but can only touch the blade then whatever.

Exactly how I play it as well, Shoggoth-grappler.

Kowbasher: I completely agree that the rules for open-topped vehicles mean what you say, but the decoration (rolla, dozer blade, plank) is not part of the hull and if you can't put yourself within 2" of the hull then it's the same as blocking a portion of an entry point with impassable terrain or another model. There's just no way to put a model down next to the front hull. Taking the decoration off is an interesting way to handle it... I'm not sure that'd be acceptable in tournaments to be 'modifying' the dimensions of a model mid-game. I would probably be cool with it if I was told beforehand as you said.

It's pretty clear rolla's aren't part of the hull, the rule book says you don't count ram's as part of the hull, and that's what a deff rolla is, a big cylindrical ram .


I don't think you should be able to measure disembarking distance or place templates from it either. The orks inside the BW would fire over it from where they are transported, so the template would be placed from the hull, over the rolla, to the target. Thats just logical, and going by the rules I think that is what was intended.

Continuing looking at it logically (and as I assume the rules would have been intended) orks wouldn't disembark either on it or in front of it (you wouldn't climb over a big spiky rolling pin, you'd go around it). Its a fair price to pay for having such a cheap and good anti tank upgrade on a vehicle. following that same way of thinking you shouldn't be able to assault through it as you have to be within 2" of the HULL, its not reasonable to assume you could make the BW explode by sinking a powerfist through a battering ram.

Gorechild wrote:

Continuing looking at it logically (and as I assume the rules would have been intended) orks wouldn't disembark either on it or in front of it (you wouldn't climb over a big spiky rolling pin, you'd go around it). Its a fair price to pay for having such a cheap and good anti tank upgrade on a vehicle. following that same way of thinking you shouldn't be able to assault through it as you have to be within 2" of the HULL, its not reasonable to assume you could make the BW explode by sinking a powerfist through a battering ram.

I use the example given above for this.

Zain60 wrote:

Tantras wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Tantras wrote:I feel quite positive about the 'problem' that some people have mentioned regarding a Deffrolla blocking front disembarking. Maybe it's just the price you pay for having such a powerful weapon on the front of your battlewagon? Although certainly it should've been specified in the rules if that was the case.

I would certainly side with the Deffrolla not counting as part of the hull... to do otherwise would leave everything wide open for 'modelling for advantage'.

You do realize that following that logic you cannot assault a BW from the front, right?

No, following that logic you cannot assault a BW equipped with a Deffrolla from the front, which I'm fine with.

And no one could disembark from the deff rolla side (ie the front) of a BW either. That would definitely dork up assaulting meganobz, etc.

Not really, you can pivot for free and then exit from the side. Problem solved.

Anyway, as the OP has pointed out, if you're going to allow people to scramble over the Deffrolla to assault, the very same agreement allows them to tip-toe along the grabba arm and gain some inches there too.

Tantras wrote:Not really, you can pivot for free and then exit from the side. Problem solved.

Actually, you can't, as pivoting means that the transport counts as moving for the unit inside, meaning they cannot then move their 6", which they can do if the vehicle does not pivot.

It seems pretty clear that wargear is not part of the hull. Now the real problem is that it mucks up other aspects of the game, like charging and such, but I do not think it is fair to extend the range of the flamers for the orc player just to make the game more simple. The more we allow someone to extend the size of any open top vehicle, the more it allows them to be able to cover more ground, especially with flame templates.




Mark

Gwar! wrote:

Tantras wrote:Not really, you can pivot for free and then exit from the side. Problem solved.

Actually, you can't, as pivoting means that the transport counts as moving for the unit inside, meaning they cannot then move their 6", which they can do if the vehicle does not pivot.

Well, this is situational of course, depending on which order things were done. He could travel full distance and then pivot on turn one, then disembark, move and assault on turn two. Alternatively if he was close enough he could disembark, not 'move' and then just assault in the assault phase... but we digress

You aren't extending the range of flamers for Orks if you count it as part of the hull. During setup it will be placed inside your DZ and measured from during movement so the template will be no closer than it would be if you measured from the front of the vehicle itself.

Either way as long as you are consistent there really isn't an issue and in fact is more of a detriment to the Ork player than a benefit. You are getting an extra 3-4" of AV12 side armor to shoot at.

And yes comparing the DR to a Klaw is a strawman. The DR is stationary on the FRONT of the vehicle so you will ALWAYS know the location. A claw mounted on a rotatable turret can be on the left side one turn, the right side the second and the rear or front the next turn.

You are if your DeffRolla is significantly larger than standard, as it presents a much greater threat radius after the game starts.

valas4444 wrote:It seems pretty clear that wargear is not part of the hull. Now the real problem is that it mucks up other aspects of the game, like charging and such, but I do not think it is fair to extend the range of the flamers for the orc player just to make the game more simple. The more we allow someone to extend the size of any open top vehicle, the more it allows them to be able to cover more ground, especially with flame templates.
Mark

You do understand that if I count the rolla as the hull (consistently) I don't gain any distance in my movement phase. Also I usually flame out of the front anyway, and if I'm not moving any farther during the movement phase, I am not gaining any range from the rolla. Last, if the whole vehicle is the hull, you can draw range from any part of it aswell. So if I am gaining two inches of range during my shooting phase so do you when you try to shoot at.
And to everyone who cries overpowered, let me emphasize the deff rolla has the range of 13" period. Most of your vehicles can move 12", it is not difficult to stay out of range. Just pay attention.

Geemoney - you are actually, as if you move backwards you dont need to move as far back - as your deffrolla equipped vehicle is larger than the normal vehicles.

This is why i magnetize my deffrollaz, i can just swivel them up to sit on top of the battlewagons hull and disembark off the front of the wagon, saves all the trouble invovled with this.

Moving a vehicle like that mid game is at best questionable. What if I had telescoping flying bases for my fire prisms, so I could move them up to shoot and drop them back down afterword?

except that were told to ignore decorative elements for ingame purposes... and if a deff rolla isnt a piece of the hull its a deco element.

kowbasher wrote:
Mine are actually removable with magnets so that when I disembark I just pop them off real quick.

mon-keigh slayer wrote:This is why i magnetize my deffrollaz, i can just swivel them up to sit on top of the battlewagons hull and disembark off the front of the wagon, saves all the trouble invovled with this.

Not if you play with people who care about modeling for an advantage or anywhere using the INAT faq.

mon-keigh slayer wrote:except that were told to ignore decorative elements for ingame purposes...

No we aren't. We're told to ignore them in a few specific scenarios, such as measurements. That doesn't mean they aren't part of the model.

@Nos

I don't think you get it. If it's played as the front from deployment on there is no advantage. Your measuring from the same spot all game. So your not gaining any advantage. It's actually easier on the opponent to as long as you talk about it before hand. Playing a huge deffrolla as not part of the hull can lead to a lot more arguments than having it as the hull.

Hulksmash, I *do* get it.

You have still made the vehicle larger than normal, meaning that when you move forwards, your back is not as far forwards as a normal sized vehicle would be - so when you want to move backwards, to flame that deepstriking unit that jumped in behind you, you dont need to move as far back. Because the back is further into your deplpyment zone than a normal sized BW would be.

Get it? the vehicle has a larger area, therefore when measuring ranges from it you *do* gain advantages

So by making a vehicle larger which in turn makes it:

-harder to hide
-harder to get a coversave on
-increasing the sides and ease of going for av12 vs. av14
-decreasing the chance of a blast weapons scattering off

I'm in fact helping myself? Got it.....all to save me 2" for when someone deepstrikes behind me.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:You aren't extending the range of flamers for Orks if you count it as part of the hull. During setup it will be placed inside your DZ and measured from during movement so the template will be no closer than it would be if you measured from the front of the vehicle itself.

Either way as long as you are consistent there really isn't an issue and in fact is more of a detriment to the Ork player than a benefit. You are getting an extra 3-4" of AV12 side armor to shoot at.

And yes comparing the DR to a Klaw is a strawman. The DR is stationary on the FRONT of the vehicle so you will ALWAYS know the location. A claw mounted on a rotatable turret can be on the left side one turn, the right side the second and the rear or front the next turn.

I never said anything about a rotating turret with a Grabbing Klaw on it. Have you put those on your BWs yet Ollie? If not, then let me explain it to you, its far to heavy to just stick it on there and let it rotate. I glued mine down at about a 45 degree angle sticking off the hull. If I choose to glue one at a 90 degree angle, and it stays that way the whole game, then its the same as your Deff rolla.

These are the facts, either vehicle upgrades count as part of the hull or they don't. It's a pretty simple stance I think.


Clay


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hulksmash wrote:So by making a vehicle larger which in turn makes it:

-harder to hide
-harder to get a coversave on
-increasing the sides and ease of going for av12 vs. av14
-decreasing the chance of a blast weapons scattering off

I'm in fact helping myself? Got it.....all to save me 2" for when someone deepstrikes behind me.

Increases it's ability to block LoS to other stuff.......there are benefits as well.....



Clay

Hulksmash wrote:So by making a vehicle larger which in turn makes it:

-harder to hide
-harder to get a coversave on
-increasing the sides and ease of going for av12 vs. av14
-decreasing the chance of a blast weapons scattering off

I'm in fact helping myself? Got it.....all to save me 2" for when someone deepstrikes behind me.

- increases the range of the KFF toting mek inside it, therefore making it easier to cover the other BWs or Trukks around you
- by making a wiiiide DR you *decrease* the side arcs, making it harder to get AV12
- make it far easier to hide other models / units behind it

Try making balanced comments, yeah? I take it you finally (finally!) concede the measurement point, after 3 attempts?

That was the short list Clay

I realize that there are pro's and con's to a larger vehicle. But to be honest the con's far outweigh the pro's in this case.