How to determine the rear armor of a Defiler?

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.

**Sir Arun**

Does the rear armor of a Defiler change depending on how you position its hind legs during assembly?

See figs. A and B.

**Captyn_Bob**

For the sake of sanity I would use the main body and ignore the legs.

**Kriswall**

Per the core rulebook, legs are included when measuring to and from a Vehicle. I would imagine they'd be included for determining arcs as well.

**Captyn_Bob**

Whilst that is true, the rule for arcs says to draw imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle,. Obviously for weird shaped vehicles we have to use our imagination for corners, but the torso of the defiler is nice and rectangular, whereas the legs most definitely aren't.

**Yarium**

I modelled my Defiler to be multi-posable. Was that wrong? I always measured facing using the body (corner to corner), regardless of the positions of the legs.

**chaosmarauder**

I would play it as imagining a square on the ground that encompasses the whole model including the legs.

Then just use that square.

**Captyn_Bob**

chaosmarauder wrote:
I would play it as imagining a square on the ground that encompasses the whole model including the legs.

Then just use that square.

Whilst that works if the defiler is assembled as shown on the box, as the op points out, you can assemble the legs any old way and can even rearrange them without gluing.

Whilst I'm all for artistic license in modelling, if you are changing a model from that shown on the box, in a way that effects the rules of the model, that can be seen as modelling for advantage.

If you were doing this deliberately , then it would be cheating.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just using the rectangular hull avoids these nasty issues.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
In the worst case example, with both legs pointing directly back , the defiled would have almost no rear arc at all....

**Sir Arun**

Captyn_Bob wrote:
and can even rearrange them without gluing.

For some reason this only worked for the front two claws of my Defiler. The actual four legs would pop out of the ball joint if they werent glued...

**SRSFACE**

Something a few friends of mine do is take out the mini-rule book and utilize it's rectangle shape for determining firing arcs against unusually shaped models where it's not quite so easy to determine. Works well for Imperial Knights, at least.

**Cheex**

To retain or sanity when using models like Defilers and Soul Grinders, my group uses simple 90° arcs. It's not RAW, but it keeps things easy.

**Captyn_Bob**

These are both pretty good ways to play it. The fact that the rulebook assumes all vehicles are rectangular really doesn't help! 90 degree arcs would be so much easier.

**DJGietzen**

90 degrees arcs from what though? The center point on a model isn't always that easy to determine either.

**Desubot**

Personal pref is to just imagine a circle around the whole thing and just 90 degree off that

if people complain than just deal with it. its not worth the headache.

**Captyn_Bob**

All pretty Good points. I know this has been hashed over before for knights, who have the fun task of being oval and having to declare a facing every turn.

But for the defiler , I would say the best rules solution would be for you to always assemble it as shown on the box. And if you any artistic reason you don't, do not try and claim an advantage for it.

And use the rectangular hull. But it's hard to say treating the whole footprint as a square is 'wrong' as the rules are so vague .. so each to their own.

**Cheex**

DJGietzen wrote:
90 degrees arcs from what though? The center point on a model isn't always that easy to determine either.

I also have them mounted on 130mm bases for the purposes of making just about every other rule much easier to apply. This has the added benefit of providing a consistent centre for the model