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.

@ Gorkamorka In the future, please do not attribute quotes to me that are made by others. This is quite unacceptable. The lead quote (yes, the start of your last post) was made by Alerian, not by me. Im not sure how you managed to manipulate the quote mechanism to have my name listed but if you pay a bit more attention to the thread perhaps you can keep from making that sort of error again.


The whole reason to do this sort of poll was to find out how people were handling the deff rolla. And instead what was discovered was that many people are firmly convinced that there are no difficulties with the deff rolla in any way...even tho many people hold diametrically opposed views.




Sliggoth

olympia wrote: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.

You really really really are not allowed to do this.

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

Wouldn't that be modeling for advantage now would it?

My gaming group has decided that any upgrades that alter the 'footprint' of a vehicle are counted as part of the hull in all respects (which includes things such as a Deff Rolla and a Dozer Blade). This has cleared up any issues we had regarding LoS, (dis)embarking, assaulting the vehicle, tank shock/ramming, targeting the vehicle, et cetra. Makes everything a lot smoother for our games and we haven't seen any downsides to playing it as such.

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

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.

When you assault a vehicle, you move into base contact with the model. But you're told to ignore vehicle decorations for measuring and modeling purposes. By your logic, a lance sticking 12" out of a vehicle mounted for fun purposes that counts for nothing except the hilarity of attempting to impale enemy vehicles would be assaultable.

WHen you assault into a unit (your reference) you don't move into contact with the model (or any part of it) you move into base contact with it, ignoring attenae, wargear, swords....You need to touch the base.

triplare wrote: Makes everything a lot smoother for our games and we haven't seen any downsides to playing it as such.

Since simple and consistent makes life easier, I would love it to work this way as this just seems like a headache to mess with explaining measure to 'model' vs 'hull' for each situation. I think more players will assume I am 'cheating' or 'exploiting' by playing by the RAW than if I just followed the 'part of the hull for all purposes' line when I start raising deffrollas or putting it over the deployment zone or ramming with the extra 3"

If I could choose how I think everyone 'should' play it and not how the RAW is, I would say just count it as part of the hull and move on because it is easy and simple and everyone will be able to understand it.

And pivoters are gonna pivot regardless what you do... that is a player problem which shouldn't impact deffrolla modeling.

ChrisCP wrote:

olympia wrote: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.

You really really really are not allowed to do this.

Are you allowed to open the doors of a drop pod? Case dismissed.

If it was part of the hull, it would be in the main kit.
You have to buy it as an option, says it should be classed as a weapon.

As for orks disembarking from the front, pivot it up out of the way.

I am just wondering if people are this passionate about scratch built Battlewagons that are larger then the GW kit. The major premise is that the altered footprint gives the ork player an advantage. So.... do you disallow scratch builts that do not conform to GW's exacting standards?

Counting it as the hull in all aspects seems to make for easier gaming all around. Others obviously disagree. I wonder, do the "not counts as hull" camp argue the same for the 1/2" ram that does come in the kit? Theoretically, you should be clamoring about that as well. It is an upgrade. It alters the footprint. Etc.

There is no "clamouring", just slight bewilderment that it is such a big deal that it "should" be part of the hull.

It clearly fits the definition of "non hull" decorative items, so for the sake of consistency it should be classified as such. This creates no *rules* issues, and a slight disadvantage to the Ork player in that, if they use the standard GW kit, they cannot disembark out the front.

Counting it as hull in all respects was like people in 4th ed classifying hills as area terrain. It made things easier, but it was *wrong* and led to some of the stupidities prevalent in 4th ed.

Olympia - yes, as you are told to do so. You are never given general permission to at will change the shape of a model in game. Case dismissed with predjudice.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Olympia - yes, as you are told to do so. You are never given general permission to at will change the shape of a model in game. Case dismissed with predjudice.

So if I show up with the deff rolla glued upright it's all good.

It all seems pretty clear to me. The Deffrolla is an upgrade just like smoke launchers or dozer blades are on some vehicles. It is part of the model and not part of the hull. I think the three points that are coming up are:

1) Deployment. In the deployment rules it says things like, 'deploy your models 12" away from the centre of the table.' I read this that all parts of the model are at least that distance in that instance.

2) Shooting at it. Shooting goes to the hull, the opponent needs to be able to reach those extra couple of inches.

3) Ram/tank shock. It only says that the vehicle needs to be in contact, with no mention of the relative location of the hull. Seems to me that you need to have the front of the deffrolla touch the target for it to work.

Basically, unless the rule directly states using the hull, I intepret it as speaking to the vehicle as a whole. You can game this by modelling for an advantage, but it is generally frowned upon.

nosferatu1001 wrote:There is no "clamouring", just slight bewilderment that it is such a big deal that it "should" be part of the hull.

You know a severe majority of players have no idea how many rules work and don't even know what the concept of RAW is. ALl they know is they moved in range of your battlewagon with thier multimelta (they thought) and I am now saying 'Nuh huh... you have to measure to the hull which is 3" back, you can't hit me!'

And then next turn, I ram a model he thought was out of range and he is surprised again as I say 'Nuh huh, It says measure to the model! It isn't the same as the hull!'

Now he thinks I am a cheater because he doesn't understand the rules as RAW and feels like I am rule lawyering the difference between 'measure to model' and 'measure to hull' which he sees as the same thing.

This player can only understand one thing... and he will want it to be consistent and equal for all instances of the rules...

And if you think this is not the case and these people are stupid, then watch the videos of players at the TOP table at Adepticon clearly flubbing basic rules like falling back and wrecks are terrain and other things. Even competitive tourney players who win games at large events fail to grasp a full understanding of all the rules.

olympia wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Olympia - yes, as you are told to do so. You are never given general permission to at will change the shape of a model in game. Case dismissed with predjudice.

So if I show up with the deff rolla glued upright it's all good.

You are not given permission to convert models, therefore your model is illegal. This is simply applying the rules by the way...

Nkelsch - so when there is an explicit rule people shouldnt follow that rule becuase it's too hard? Uh, no.

Yes, people make mistakes - however they should start from a "this is what we should be doing" perspective as much as possible, This is one area where this IS posssible.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Nkelsch - so when there is an explicit rule people shouldnt follow that rule becuase it's too hard? Uh, no.

Yes, people make mistakes - however they should start from a "this is what we should be doing" perspective as much as possible, This is one area where this IS posssible.

No, I am "bewildered" why you are "bewildered" by it. We all know the RAW makes things that are clear to some, inconsistent rule bullying to others. Some will want it to be simple and consistent.

And on the flip side we all know why ork players want it as part of the hull, Disembarking, pure and simple. Piling 20 shoota boyz out the front of a BW is hard if the deffroller is taking up space and you are not allowed to remove it pre-game. It means you have to expose your side armor and the pivot will probably 'reduce' assault distance for most BWs. If the Deffrolla is hull, then disembarks become glorius piles of fun off the front of the BW. And since I have a KFF, I really couldn't care if you get a slight advantage of shooting my roller as hull.

One game it may be an advantage, the next, playing by RAW will get you strug up and called a cheater. It sucks. And now with all this 'modify the deffrolla in play, the issue becomes even more absurd as ork players raise deffrollas to not lose disembark space. If INAT released a correct 'how to RAW with deffrollas' then I think people would be more prone to play the RAW if it is explicitly explained. Right now, the ideas in this thread are even more 'madness' than 'you can't shoot me with your multimelta'

This is one of those areas where the rules are hideously clear, as is the intent - but one race feels it needs to be special.

Dozer blades etc have *for years* extended the fot print of the vehilce, but have never counted as hull - and there has never been any complaints.

Ork players want this to count as hull for the MANY advantages it brings (flaming and disembarking) but I dont particularly care - the DR is NOT HULL and there is NO reason apart from wanting the advantage to make it hull - the rules, like every other addon to vehicles in the history of 40k, work perfectly well without it counting as hull.

I have to admit, as a long-time ork player, I think this is all stupidity, and wish we could go back to the days when there wasn't an official GW battlewagon and I could convert mine however the hell I wanted without some asshat trying to claim that I'm seeking an advantage somehow.

These are some of my old pre-new-kit battlewagons:




Is there really some huge advantage in this, or do they just look cool and less identical than having a ton of new ones.

Fearspect wrote:It all seems pretty clear to me. The Deffrolla is an upgrade just like smoke launchers or dozer blades are on some vehicles. It is part of the model and not part of the hull. I think the three points that are coming up are:

1) Deployment. In the deployment rules it says things like, 'deploy your models 12" away from the centre of the table.' I read this that all parts of the model are at least that distance in that instance.

2) Shooting at it. Shooting goes to the hull, the opponent needs to be able to reach those extra couple of inches.

3) Ram/tank shock. It only says that the vehicle needs to be in contact, with no mention of the relative location of the hull. Seems to me that you need to have the front of the deffrolla touch the target for it to work.

Basically, unless the rule directly states using the hull, I intepret it as speaking to the vehicle as a whole. You can game this by modelling for an advantage, but it is generally frowned upon.

Well in this case the rules for disembarking out of an open topped vehicle state that a model may embark/disembark 2" away from any point of the "vehicle". It never mentions the hull. So by that logic I can disembark 2" from the rolla.

@Redbeard I like your BW's

Geemoney wrote:
Well in this case the rules for disembarking out of an open topped vehicle state that a model may embark/disembark 2" away from any point of the "vehicle". It never mentions the hull. So by that logic I can disembark 2" from the rolla.

@Redbeard I like your BW's

You're measuring a 2" distance involving a vehicle, see page 56.

I understand that Gorkamorka I was just commenting on what Fearspect wrote.

You all seem to have missed the page 3 illustration in the BRB, where the addon blades on the front of the trukk is clearly not counted as part of the hull.

i have the GW deff rolla on all my wagons and it only adds about 1 and a half inch to the front of my wagon so i dont see how it stops me from deploying out the front.

As long as every model can get within 2", it may mean you have to lap around the side -unless it si a smallish nob squad.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As long as every model can get within 2", it may mean you have to lap around the side -unless it si a smallish nob squad.

That makes no sense if its impassable terrain like people are saying then you shouldn't be able to go over it no matter how big it is. It also means you shouldn't be able to deploy out of the front of a trukk or a BW with a reinforced ram as those are impassable as well. In fact if there are any bits hanging off of your open topped vehicles you shouldn't be able to deploy out of those sections either, as apparently everything glued to the vehicle is automatically impassible. Unless of course the have jump packs (but I don't think they can enter vehicles anyway...don't quote me on that though).

Geemoney wrote:
That makes no sense if its impassable terrain like people are saying then you shouldn't be able to go over it no matter how big it is. It also means you shouldn't be able to deploy out of the front of a trukk or a BW with a reinforced ram as those are impassable as well. In fact if there are any bits hanging off of your open topped vehicles you shouldn't be able to deploy out of those sections either, as apparently everything glued to the vehicle is automatically impassible. Unless of course the have jump packs (but I don't think they can enter vehicles anyway...don't quote me on that though).

What is so hard to understand about the entire model always being impassable? It's clearly stated in the rulebook.

And what makes you think disembarkings 'deploy within 2"' means 'make a movement through the vehicle model to get there' somehow?
You can't deploy ON the rolla. If you have room, you can deploy in front of it.

Please, provide pages or quotes on what is confusing you.

@ Gorka: You always seem angry....its prolly just your avatar(it makes me feel like you want to choke me).
So where does the rule book define that "deploy" is different then moving? Or even define what "deploy is? If what your saying is true I can park my truck next to a impassable wall that is infinitely high but only an 1 1/2" thick and I can deploy my orks on the opposite side of the wall. Is that correct? Or even if the wall is exactly 2" thick as the two inches is measured from the rear of the models base (p67).

The wall would have to be less than 2", as your base has to be *within* 2"

Nothing states "deploy" is movement, so it isnt.

K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple... uh... Sir.
I deploy the whole thing properly, I can disembark 2" from the whole thing, I fire from the whole thing, my KFF extends from the whole thing, you can assault the whole thing and you can target the whole thing.

Everything else is just being fussy (in my opinion) and obfuscating what should be just a simple vehicle with an easily seen footprint.

I eschew obfuscation.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The wall would have to be less than 2", as your base has to be *within* 2"

Nothing states "deploy" is movement, so it isnt.

I'll try that next time I come up against impassable terrain that is <2" thick; and see what my opponent says.

You do that.

Sorry, "rules" are rules, how people decide to play them is something entirely different.

For example hardly anyone plays by the rule that only allows you to use Citadel models, meaning no scratch built models - doesnt mean it isnt in the rulebook.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You do that.

Sorry, "rules" are rules, how people decide to play them is something entirely different.

For example hardly anyone plays by the rule that only allows you to use Citadel models, meaning no scratch built models - doesnt mean it isnt in the rulebook.

Right....I will. If some one try's to tell me that the rolla is impassable terrain but i can deploy in front of it but not on top it,I'm gonna start jumping over walls. I'm not trying to be an hole but I want consistency in the game. Why can a SM deploy out of a drop pod, even though the doors are apart of the model, and according to you that makes them impassable. Why do SM get a break but orks don't? Couldn't the SM just stay inside and shoot stuff? Or can't they just be a troop choice that lands on an objective? Those options are playable and don't conflict with your interpretation of the RAW.