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.

Page 4 under "models in the way" states that a model cannot occupy the space of another model represented by the base or the hull. So if the deff rolla is not the hull then models can occupy that space, therefore I can in fact deploy models on it, you can assault on top of it. If its not the hull the whole issue is avoided.

--->start of page four do I win something?

Geemoney wrote:Page 4 under "models in the way" states that a model cannot occupy the space of another model represented by the base or the hull. So if the deff rolla is not the hull then models can occupy that space, therefore I can in fact deploy models on it, you can assault on top of it. If its not the hull the whole issue is avoided.

My page 4 is 'Unit Types'. Are you referring to 11?

Yes, you cannot 'move into or through' the space outlined by the hull of vehicle during movement.
You also can't normally move into/onto/across impassable terrain, which the entirety of the model including the rolla represents. This rule does not change or override that.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Geemoney wrote:Page 4 under "models in the way" states that a model cannot occupy the space of another model represented by the base or the hull. So if the deff rolla is not the hull then models can occupy that space, therefore I can in fact deploy models on it, you can assault on top of it. If its not the hull the whole issue is avoided.

My page 4 is 'Unit Types'. Are you referring to 11?

Yes, you cannot 'move into or through' the space outlined by the hull of vehicle during movement.
You also can't normally move into/onto/across impassable terrain, which the entirety of the model including the rolla represents. This rule does not change or override that.

Yeah page 11.
It doesn't change anything it is a clarification of what counts as a model and what doesn't, the model of the vehicle is represented by the hull. So if it is the hull it is the model, if its not the hull its not the model. So on page 13 when it says a model is impassible terrain, based on the definition on the previous page that means that the hull represents the model, the deff rolla is not the hull and does not represent the model.
Your interpretation allows for a contradiction of what a model is; which really makes no sense.

Geemoney wrote:
Yeah page 11.
It doesn't change anything it is a clarification of what counts as a model and what doesn't, the model of the vehicle is represented by the hull. So if it is the hull it is the model, if its not the hull its not the model. So on page 13 when it says a model is impassible terrain, based on the definition on the previous page that means that the hull represents the model, the deff rolla is not the hull and does not represent the model.
Your interpretation allows for a contradiction of what a model is; which really makes no sense.

No, it's a definition of the space occupied by a model for this specific rule. If it was the general definition of a model, then any non-vehicle 'model' is just its base (and I'd love to see you draw line of site like that). Oh wait, the LOS rules also 'define' model to include the 'body' for their specific rule.

A model is the entire model, or 'citadel miniature' or 'individual playing piece'. See page 3.

So one rule says you can move through anything but the hull of the vehicle but the next rule says that any part of the vehicle is impassible terrain and you can't move through that either. So why bother with the first rule, since your interpretation seems to include every bit that is glued to the vehicle?
LOS is different then movement. Vehicles are different then infantry. LOS on a vehicle is also defined as "seeing" the hull or turret (which a deff rolla is not), so if my deff rolla is sticking out you can't shoot at it. If anything that supports my claim that a vehicle occupies only the space that includes the hull. Whenever the space occupied by the vehicle is defined, it is defined as the hull. Why is it different in this one instance? A deff rolla is not impassible, its not even really terrain.

I must agree with gorkamorka here

For the following logical reason

The janitor from scrubs is cooler then spiderman

as such his argument is more valid then geemoney's

Actually that's Deadpool. I can see Geemoney's reasoning considering that deff-rollas are defined as decorative and to be ignored there is no qualms if one's models technically disembarked on top of it considering that for game play purposes it does not exist.

This is why I never measure from the thing! Way too many arguments arise from it. Measure from the hull, treat the deff-rolla as decorative: problems solved.

*edited for spelling and such*

kowbasher wrote:Actually that's Deathpool.

/facepalm

kowbasher wrote:I can see Geemoney's reasoning considering that deff-rollas are defined as decorative and to be ignored there is no qualms if one's models technically disembarked on top of it considering that for game play purposes it does not exist.

This is why I never measure from the thing! Way too many arguments arise from it. Measure from the hull, treat the deff-rolla as decorative: problems solved.

It's a large (and rulebreaking) jump to go from what the book defines as 'decorative' and what that means to 'this part of the model does not exist in game so I can stand models on it'.

It's almost just as rulebreaking to model it so that it is removable mid-game solely so you don't have to disembark around it and can replace it afterwards.

Gorkamorka wrote:

kowbasher wrote:Actually that's Deathpool.
/facepalm

It's 2:30 am here, you'll have to excuse me as my brain is shutting down.


I guess I'm missing the argument in general then. If I measure from the hull the entire game for everything, and treat my deff-rolla as purely decrotive (much the same way as the way boarding planks and grabbin' claws work) then I cannot ignore the deff-rolla for disembarking. Instead I have to treat it as if I had been measuring it from it the entire game?

Apparently I broke the quote feature and did it to my own post. Going to bed now...wow.

kowbasher wrote:
I guess I'm missing the argument in general then. If I measure from the hull the entire game for everything, and treat my deff-rolla as purely decrotive (much the same way as the way boarding planks and grabbin' claws work) then I cannot ignore the deff-rolla for disembarking. Instead I have to treat it as if I had been measuring it from it the entire game?

As I've explained... at least 3 times now.

The deffrolla is not part of the hull. This is true.
You measure to the hull. Also true.
That does not mean that the deffrolla does not exist or is not part of the model.
Models are defined as impassable terrain in/on which you cannot place other models. You cannot stand models on your deffrolla any more than you can stand them elsewhere on the battlewagon when they disembark.

Primarch wrote:In my opinion by allowing deployment, and firing from the front edge of a Deff rolla, you are opening up other things for abuse. That's pretty much my entire point.



Clay

But your point doesn't make any sense.

As long as the Deff Rolla is played completely consistently and with your full knowledge of how it will be played, it should have absolutely no impact on the game (or so minimal that it isn't even worth thinking about).


So YES a Deff Rolla isn't part of the hull...*BUT* if both you and your opponent recognize that it will be kind of a pain to try to stand models on top of the Deff Rolla when you're disembarking and/or attacking the Battlewagon in CC, then you can BOTH AGREE to play with the Deff Rolla as part of the hull in all instances.


This doesn't mean that you can suddenly go out and convert a giant grabbin klaw and use it to fire embarked flamers from. The point is, both you and your opponent can recognize the value of playing the Deff Rolla as part the hull and play it that way right from the start of the game and then no big whoop!



And P.S. to everyone else: Why the heck should it matter what Dash has to say about the matter? Its pretty clear from many of the comments already posted that many people choose to play with the Deff Rolla as part of the hull as it is far easier to play that way, so what is he going to say that is going to enlighten the situation any?

yakface wrote:both you and your opponent recognize that it will be kind of a pain to try to stand models on top of the Deff Rolla when you're disembarking

It's mostly a pain because it's an illegal action, what with the rolla being impassable... as I've been trying to explain for 2 pages...

Hah, who'd have thought that after one Deffrolla problem was banished back to the warp after the recent FAQ, we'd find another one so soon!

Gorkamorka wrote:

yakface wrote:both you and your opponent recognize that it will be kind of a pain to try to stand models on top of the Deff Rolla when you're disembarking

It's mostly a pain because it's an illegal action, what with the rolla being impassable... as I've been trying to explain for 2 pages...

Le sigh.


ANYWAY, the whole point is, in order to play the game both players need to agree to play it one way or the other. Whether that means allowing models to stand on top of the Deff Rolla just like players play models can stand on top of opened Drop Pod doors in order to play that the Deff Rolla is *not* part of the hull, or whether you play that the Deff Rolla *is* part of the hull so you don't need to stand models on top of it, as long as you are completely consistent one way or another the entire game there should be no issues!


So the point of this post was:

A player did this to me, is this legal? And can I therefore use the ruling to create even more outlandish scenarios?


And the answer is:


While it was not strictly 'legal' you can see from this thread that many people *choose* to play this way, not from any desire to abuse the rules, but because it is easier to play that way.

The key is, all players need to recognize that when there are bits of stuff hanging off the edges of vehicles that aren't considered part of the hull, this can create a gameplay issue when it comes to moving models off the vehicle and also when attacking it in CC.

When you see this possible issue on your opponent's models (or on your own) then you need to be proactive and decide how exactly you want to play those things...not in order to gain some crazy advantage, but just to make the game EASIER TO PLAY FOR BOTH OF YOU.

And if you make that decision and apply it universally, the effects of the ruling, either way, should end up having almost zero impact on your game.


So seriously, what more is there really to keep arguing about?

yakface wrote:
ANYWAY, the whole point is, in order to play the game both players need to agree to play it one way or the other. Whether that means allowing models to stand on top of the Deff Rolla just like players play models can stand on top of opened Drop Pod doors in order to play that the Deff Rolla is *not* part of the hull, or whether you play that the Deff Rolla *is* part of the hull so you don't need to stand models on top of it, as long as you are completely consistent one way or another the entire game there should be no issues!

I completely understand the RAP arguments, I do, and I often compromise on this very issue. Nearly everyone compromises on drop pod doors, but that's mostly because the model is nigh unplayable otherwise.

I just don't understand why 'not part of the hull and you can't stand on it' doesn't appear to be a logical option for you in this case and you appear to insist on a compromise.
The model is entirely playable in every way in such a RAW fashion, it breaks/changes no rules, and it isn't even especially complicated or difficult. You measure to the actual hull, the deff rolla is still part of the model... it's exactly the same as for every other similar element, like rams or dozer blades.

The assault rules don't specify hull contact, and the shooting rules specify that you ignore decorative items... what is so unplayable about this that people are trying to avoid by instating house rules?
The only thing that is different is that the rolla is large enough to deny disembarking in an area around the wagon. It does so clearly and simply by the RAW, and it does so exactly as rams and dozers do... it's just larger.

Why insist that it fits into the decorative category and then arbitrarily treat it differently because of its size? I just don't understand it.

Gorkamorka wrote:
I completely understand the RAP arguments, I do, and I often compromise on this very issue. Nearly everyone compromises on drop pod doors, but that's mostly because the model is nigh unplayable otherwise.

I just don't understand why 'not part of the hull and you can't stand on it' doesn't appear to be a logical option for you in this case and you appear to insist on a compromise.
The model is entirely playable in every way in such a RAW fashion, it breaks/changes no rules, and it isn't even especially complicated or difficult. You measure to the actual hull, the deff rolla is still part of the model... it's exactly the same as for every other similar element, like rams or dozer blades.

The assault rules don't specify hull contact, and the shooting rules specify that you ignore decorative items... what is so unplayable about this that people are trying to avoid by instating house rules? I just don't understand it.

The biggest issue would continue to be the fact that you have an area of the vehicle that embarked models cannot really disembark onto...and that happens to the most coveted disembarking area for any open-topped vehicle (the front of it). So yeah, playing that the Deff Rolla isn't part of the hull AND can't be moved on top of creates just as many issues as playing that the doors on a drop pod can't be moved on top of.

And if you want to try to take the literal assault rules and apply them to vehicles, then assaulting models are supposed to attempt to get into 'base contact' with the vehicle (the vehicle assault rules say we are supposed to reference back to the regular assault rules for moving assaulting models and what constitutes 'engaged').

All you have to do is take something like the reinforced ram, which sits a bit off the table to have a situation where the assaulting models are unable get into 'base contact' with the vehicle from the front, because they 'hit' the Reinforced Ram which doesn't count as the hull, and their bases don't actually 'contact' any part of the vehicle model.

There are all kinds of little absurdities like this that you can run into if you start trying to apply the vehicle rules absolutely 100% literally because of the really wide range of vehicle sizes and shapes...the drop pod and Valkyrie/Vendetta included.


When it comes down to it, playing consistently one way or another and agreeing upon how you want to play it before the game is the only way you're going to end up with a sane, argument-free game.

yakface wrote:
The biggest issue would continue to be the fact that you have an area of the vehicle that embarked models cannot really disembark onto...and that happens to the most coveted disembarking area for any open-topped vehicle (the front of it). So yeah, playing that the Deff Rolla isn't part of the hull AND can't be moved on top of creates just as many issues as playing that the doors on a drop pod can't be moved on top of.

But how is that an 'issue' with the rules that requires changing, and not simply the upgrade having a downside within the rules?
The drop pod is a common compromise because you often physically cannot disembark from one with the doors open or fire the internal gun with them shut, as examples, and you are left with a major aspect of the model that it would appear was intended to be functional being impossible to use. The Valk was similarly unplayable... a transport with no fire points that you could not embark/dismembark into/from.

The fact that you are blocked from disembarking in a certain place by the bulk of the rolla is entirely different from it being impossible to do so completely. The battlewagon isn't in a situation where the rules are making the model unplayably broken and worthy of serious intervention here.

It isn't like I'm biased for my opinion and arguing a crazy unintended rules point or anything here... I'd love it if I could disembark from the front, but that's simply not how the RAW works. This isn't some lame minutia about how you can't get into base contact with the wagon because the rolla is a cylinder and happens to touch your model before the base, this is the extremely fundamental model/terrain/disembarking rules and they are pretty clear here.

We'll have to agree to disagree, but I'm still completely confused as to why people are so eager to hand me several extra inches of disembarking because they think its simpler for me or don't like me deploying the rolla forward. After years of the dang things not working on vehicles, I'll take what I can get I suppose.

Gorkamorka wrote:
But how is that an 'issue' with the rules that requires changing, and not simply the upgrade having a downside within the rules?
The drop pod is a common compromise because you often physically cannot disembark from one with the doors open or fire the internal gun with them shut, as examples, and you are left with a major aspect of the model that it would appear was intended to be functional being impossible to use. The Valk was similarly unplayable... a transport with no fire points that you could not embark/dismembark into/from.

The fact that you are blocked from disembarking in a certain place by the bulk of the rolla is entirely different from it being impossible to do so completely. The battlewagon isn't in a situation where the rules are making the model unplayably broken and worthy of serious intervention here.

It isn't like I'm biased for my opinion and arguing a crazy unintended rules point or anything here... I'd love it if I could disembark from the front, but that's simply not how the RAW works. This isn't some lame minutia about how you can't get into base contact with the wagon because the rolla is a cylinder and happens to touch your model before the base, this is the extremely fundamental model/terrain/disembarking rules and they are pretty clear here.

We'll have to agree to disagree, but I'm still completely confused as to why people are so eager to hand me several extra inches of disembarking because they think its simpler for me or don't like me deploying the rolla forward. After years of the dang things not working on vehicles, I'll take what I can get I suppose.

I'm not eager to hand you anything...

The point I've been trying to make is that if you play with the Deff Rolla as part of the hull from deployment on, then you generally aren't getting any extra distance out of the Deff Rolla.

While Nosferatu (I believe) did properly point out that if you reverse directions or even pivot you are technically 'gaining' extra distance by playing the Deff Rolla this way, the reality is that you're likely to accidentally add or lose more distance throughout the course of the game through human error during movement then you are really going to 'gain' any movement in this way...it really is very slight.


But getting back to your point, the disconnect that so many players have with the way you're trying to argue is the idea of having a whole facing of an open-topped vehicle be effectively 'off-limits' for disembarking hasn't had any other similar precedents in the game so far, isn't identified in any of the rules examples and generally doesn't make 'sense' to most people.

The whole point of GW making these extraneous bits not 'count' in the rules would seem to be because they want to make them not count. The general principle is that you're supposed to measure distances to the vehicle's hull and to most this makes sense that (when assaulting) moving the model into 'base contact' with the vehicle is part of his measurement.

And again, if you want to go fully literal with the assault rules, then you're supposed to move into 'base contact' with the vehicle, so if a Deff Rolla is positioned slightly off the table, the bases of the assaulting models won't get into 'contact' with the vehicle making the front of the Battlewagon un-assaultable.


At the end of the day, if you play the game either one way or the other (treat the Deff Rolla like it doesn't exist for the game, so models can move on top of it if needed to contact the vehicle OR treat the Deff Rolla as part of the vehicle's hull so models can disembark and assault to/from it) then you don't run into any inconsistent situations where the vehicle behaves one way in one situation and differently in another situation.

yakface wrote:
The point I've been trying to make is that if you play with the Deff Rolla as part of the hull from deployment on, then you generally aren't getting any extra distance out of the Deff Rolla.

But you do, and that's part of the point I'm trying to make.
If you play it as part of the hull, then you deploy with it at the edge and disembark out 2" straight in front and gain distance there.
If you play it as not part of the hull but stand-on-able then you deploy with it out a few inches and can deploy 2" straight in front (on top of the rolla) and gain distance there.
Both give you extra disembarking distance over playing it towards the RAW and having to deploy to the sides. Even if it's only an inch, (and it's at least that, with a good lineup) then it's already worth almost 5pts on every ork vehicle.

yakface wrote:
But getting back to your point, the disconnect that so many players have with the way you're trying to argue is the idea of having a whole facing of an open-topped vehicle be effectively 'off-limits' for disembarking hasn't had any other similar precedents in the game so far, isn't identified in any of the rules examples and generally doesn't make 'sense' to most people.

The whole point of GW making these extraneous bits not 'count' in the rules would seem to be because they want to make them not count. The general principle is that you're supposed to measure distances to the vehicle's hull and to most this makes sense that (when assaulting) moving the model into 'base contact' with the vehicle is part of his measurement.

But why cater to those people any more than other people who are misinformed about a particular rule?
Why does them feeling entitled to the ability to disembark a certain way make them worthy of a rules changing house rule any more than any other situation that breaks from the expected norm or precedent?

Why should something that is the same ruleswise (a decorative object) be treated differently ruleswise (it isn't part of the model for disembarking or is part of the hull)... or why should something that is different (rolla, sizewise) be expected to work the same way gameplay wise (can deploy in front of it, as if it were a smaller decorative object or simply didn't exist as part of the model). If anything it's breaking precedent entirely to change the rules for a single upgrade that's already classified and has rules written for it already.

Why does moving a model until it contacts another necessitate a hull measurement when one is never called for all of a sudden? These people playing the game incorrectly doesn't mean they're fixing broken rules, or the majority play that way, or anything else that would lead to a faq answer or house rule or other similar solution.

And GW doesn't make them 'not count' for anything but a few specific instances, measuring distances and determining LOS and so on. The 'spirit' here is that they are still part of the model and exist, as far as I can tell... and there are no rules that say or even strongly imply otherwise.

yakface wrote:
And again, if you want to go fully literal with the assault rules, then you're supposed to move into 'base contact' with the vehicle, so if a Deff Rolla is positioned slightly off the table, the bases of the assaulting models won't get into 'contact' with the vehicle making the front of the Battlewagon un-assaultable.

I'm not sure why you've brought this up to me twice. Noone is trying to get extremely 'literal' on the assault rules here... in fact my point was that you can assault one from the front regardless of the chosen rolla playstyle (contrary to several posters earlier in the thread who claimed that it not being hull broke this aspect of the game entirely).

I don't think playing by the rules where the rolla is involved, model/terrain and disembarkingwise, is being overly literal or asinine here. I'm not sure what you want to get across with this statement.

At the end of the day we'll all go play it in a workable way that makes sense, I just want to be completely clear that the RAW way is one of those ways in this case.
I don't see 'Well people naturally think they should be able to disembark from the front' as an issue with the rules or a reason to change them at the drop of a hat.

If you play the rolla as part of the hull all the way through the game then the only effect is to make the BW 3ish" longer than normal. For most vehicles this would perhaps be a bit more of a disadvantage than an advantage.

For a BW (open top) with burnas a bigger footprint is definitely a plus.

For a BW (any flavor) with a big mek w/KFF a bigger footprint is a huge advantage.

So yes, there are reasons to be wanting a larger footprint BW as an ork player. Moving 13", pivoting to just keep that truk within KFF range and still being able to drop templates onto those troops is much easier with a larger footprint. The idea that a larger footprint makes it HARDER to get a cover save is hilarious. With a piece of wargear such as the KFF every extra millimeter of extra model size is a plus.

Im just personally lucky to be in the spot where Im expanding my orks from small (two blackreach boxes) size up to a larger level, so lets get all this hammered out so that I know how to build up my BWs and burna fleet Two big meks are looking like definite musts....so the forge world rollas may be bigger than the gw rollas? hmmmm



Sliggoth

Yakface has summarized the issues succinctly. The Deff Rolla has the same status as the doors of a drop pod, to wit--no status whatsoever for measuring range to and from; nor is it impassible because it is clearly a 'decorative' element and as such beyond what is defined a model. Yakface referenced the illustration of the ork trukk with a reinforced ram and I'd encourage people to review that. Of course post Deff Rolla FAQ there will be some who want to gimp battlewagons by taking away the ability to assault off the front. This position, however, is not supported by the rules.

OK Gork one last question. Well actually 3. You are in a game and your opponent has all his guys in Drop Pods. When they land and the petals open do you allow him to place his minis on them? If yes how is that different than disembarking on a DeffRolla since they are both parts of the base model. If no, how does the squad or Dread get out? If he has to keep the doors shut do you allow LOS through it and can he fire the internal weapon?

For drop pods the doors are not being considered part of the hull, or for that matter anything other than part of the terrain for game purposes (not actually owning any pods Im a little uncertain if its common practice to ignore them for ALL purposes.

For the deff rolla, it matters a great deal how its being considered. If its part of the hull then the BW footprint has been expanded significantly, meaning that two KFF can give a cover save to about another 40some" square of the battlefield. And the threat range of the burnas inside has been increased as well. If its not part of the hull, then can the rolla be set up extending the ramming range of the BW by about 3"? If it cant be set up across the line then is the assault/ firing range of the unit inside cut down by those same 3"?

If one models the rolla a bit higher on the front then cant boyz disembark partially under the rolla, just far enough to get the back edge of their base to within 2" of the hull?

Lots of questions, which will have a huge impact on tactics and how BW are played.


Sliggoth

You are correct Slig. But in the world according to Gork, any part of a model that is not the hull is impassible terrain (his words not mine). Therefore in his ruleset, if the doors are down you can't stand on them. If they are up you can't disembark from a DP since there is no way to get out. Granted one or two guys may be able to get out between the doors but a Dread doesn't stand a chance. By his interpretation of the ruleset anyone coming in from a DP is dead as they can't disembark and the rules for a DP state you have to.

The options as I see them are; you either have to count the DR as part of the hull, you allow models to stand on it or you build it so it is removable and either flip it up or take it off when you want to disembark from the front.

olympia wrote:Yakface has summarized the issues succinctly. The Deff Rolla has the same status as the doors of a drop pod, to wit--no status whatsoever for measuring range to and from; nor is it impassible because it is clearly a 'decorative' element and as such beyond what is defined a model. Yakface referenced the illustration of the ork trukk with a reinforced ram and I'd encourage people to review that. Of course post Deff Rolla FAQ there will be some who want to gimp battlewagons by taking away the ability to assault off the front. This position, however, is not supported by the rules.

Man. . .wish I as an Eldar player had something that made one of the most prominent faces of my tank un-assaultable.

puma713 wrote:

Man. . .wish I as an Eldar player had something that made one of the most prominent faces of my tank un-assaultable.

The front is not the most prominent facing of a BW.
It might not seem like a big issue, but I am kinda tired of hearing; "But it is mounted on an armour 14 vehicle!" from the anti-Deffrolla crowd, when the BW has a huge armour 12 side facing (x2).

yakface wrote:

Primarch wrote:In my opinion by allowing deployment, and firing from the front edge of a Deff rolla, you are opening up other things for abuse. That's pretty much my entire point.



Clay

But your point doesn't make any sense.

As long as the Deff Rolla is played completely consistently and with your full knowledge of how it will be played, it should have absolutely no impact on the game (or so minimal that it isn't even worth thinking about).


So YES a Deff Rolla isn't part of the hull...*BUT* if both you and your opponent recognize that it will be kind of a pain to try to stand models on top of the Deff Rolla when you're disembarking and/or attacking the Battlewagon in CC, then you can BOTH AGREE to play with the Deff Rolla as part of the hull in all instances.


This doesn't mean that you can suddenly go out and convert a giant grabbin klaw and use it to fire embarked flamers from. The point is, both you and your opponent can recognize the value of playing the Deff Rolla as part the hull and play it that way right from the start of the game and then no big whoop!



And P.S. to everyone else: Why the heck should it matter what Dash has to say about the matter? Its pretty clear from many of the comments already posted that many people choose to play with the Deff Rolla as part of the hull as it is far easier to play that way, so what is he going to say that is going to enlighten the situation any?

In response to this and a later post of yours.


No, my point was not "Someone did this to me, and now I want to abuse it in other ways" Not a direct quote, but basically what you think I am saying.


My point is that after seeing this in action, and not arguing the point in the game, the thought occurred to me that if a Deffrolla is considered part of the hull, then other vehicle upgrades can be used similarly. My stance is that in no way should this happen, but by allowing one, how can I tell my next opponent who tries to flame me from the tip of his Grabbing Klaw that one thing is ok, and the other isnt?


The main advantages that I can see by using the DR as part of the Hull, is when you pivot 90 degrees using the center point of the vehicle, then move/tank shock off in another direction. You certainly are gaining an advantage by lengthening your vehicle. I thought we fixed all this "you can use modeling to your advantage" crap, but where is the line now Yak? Can I make my home made DR wider? Can I make my BW wider, so that flank shots aren't as easy? I am sure I can rig up some Boarding planks that extend the width of my vehicle....Then of course, the extra distance covered by the KFF Big Mek. No explanation needed.


Also, I talked to Dash on the phone today, he is traveling back home, but I let him know we had a big discussion about this going on, so I am sure he will chime in. Keep in mind, there was no animosity during the game over this, nor is there now. It's a question I had, and it could have been anyone on the other side of the table and I would have voiced it just the same. The fact that it was Dash was just fluke luck.



Clay

Steelmage99 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Man. . .wish I as an Eldar player had something that made one of the most prominent faces of my tank un-assaultable.

The front is not the most prominent facing of a BW.
It might not seem like a big issue, but I am kinda tired of hearing; "But it is mounted on an armour 14 vehicle!" from the anti-Deffrolla crowd, when the BW has a huge armour 12 side facing (x2).

Really? The front AV14 facing that people will painstakingly make sure is facing you, not to mention the facing that you see bearing down on you as the orks are getting ready to pile out? That facing isn't prominent? Sure, the side is bigger, but if you're assaulting the front or the side, you're still assaulting the back. If my Falcon is 6" away, you can touch the front and assault the tank. If my BW is 6" away, you've got to go around the front to assault it, apparently. That is an advantage whether the front is the "most" prominent facing or not.

But either way, let me rephrase my former post:

Man. . .I wish as an Eldar player I had something that made ANY of the faces of my tank un-assaultable. Better?

I think I have to agree with Yakface on everything he posted.

The RAW are clear how to play it. It's even more clear, and even less acknowledged, how crazy assaulting some vehicles would be if we actually read and used the rules this way. (or assaulting out of them in this case as well)

I had a friend who used to scratch build EVERY vehicle he used in his speed freaks list. His battlewagons were two (old style) rhino chassis hulls 'orked' together front-to-back and if he attached a Deff Rolla in front that I couldn't get to contact to the hull with it would technically be unassaultable from the front. We used to use wobbly model (basically the 3rd edition style anyway) to assume a model was where it couldn't stand if it wasn't just an issue of a boarding plank jutting out and adjusting my model to turn a gun so i could fit a model in base contact-ish.

In 5th edition, a different friend has the new Battlewagons from GW with the jawlike ram-style structure in front. Technically, as Yak pointed out, I can't assault that tank from the front if I can't get through that. But it's decoration, so as a deff rolla, we'd just play that as long as I 'COULD' measure 6" to the actual hull with the model then I just put it as close as I can (read: right up to the jawlike thing) and it is in fact 'base-to-base'

This argument stopped being about if the deff rolla is part of the hull. It isn't. Everyone agrees on that. The rules for decorations and the rules for model composition don't synch particularly well here so people have made common sense solutions and in most cases those solutions neither hurt, nor help either party.