Librarium Online Forums banner

Defilers.. Base and Hull

5K views 23 replies 11 participants last post by  CharnelLord666 
#1 ·
I'm an ork player who, on more than one occasion, has come across the issue of what constitutes as the base and hull for a defiler.

My chaos friend (with friends like that who needs.. oh never mind) has two defilers modeled. One of which has a clear imaginary square outlined by its legs which led me to think that this square that extended to its feet would be its base (for purposes of assault, etc.) but then he informed me that the front two legs were actually arms for the defiler and to prove this showed me his other defiler that is modeled in a way that the front two arms are twisted inwards (eventually to be holding an ork warboss in a rather sick looking conversion), which then makes sense for the base to not extend to the front two legs as these are just arms. In the same way I can't shoot his daemon prince just because I can see his sword is sticking out over a small building or something to that effect.

Along with assault this also came up in shooting. For example, my dakkaguns might be in range to shoot the arms in front (or for the sake of argument perhaps the legs on the side), but didn't actually reach the main core of the defiler where the guns and engine are. In theory, I can still immobilize, wreck, etc. a walker if I blow out its legs, right? But what if a blast fell in between those legs and/or arms. We were lost and couldn't come up with a solution that satisfied both of us. Rolling off each time we have a problem seems potentially unfair to either one of us and we'd ideally like to play the game based on rules used in Grand Tournaments (would be a shame to get to a GT only to look like a cheat/fool).

Also, deep striking and drifting close to the defiler might one day (though it hasn't yet) prove to be an issue. If the unit lands in between the arms/legs is it a mishap? Mind you, this ruling would also apply to the shooting thing. If it's mishap then shooting at these arms/legs would have to be ok and blasts would be at full strength here. Whereas, if it isn't mishap then shots don't hit and blasts would be half strength here.

Eventually, we came to three possible solutions, but have yet to truly decide upon something that makes sense to us both. These solutions are as follows:

1) The Defiler has a square shaped base that encompasses all six arms/legs as if the model was put together with all six on the ground. Blasts that land within this square are full strength and any shot reaching the square is in range.

2) The front two arms are not included in the base but from the front of the main body all the way to the back legs and all the way out on both sides is a smaller rectangular base that is treated the same way as the base above, only smaller.

or 3) The only base the model has is the main body where the battle cannon, dreadnaught weapons, etc. are mounted. If the range of the gun doesn't reach here it doesn't hit and unless the hole of the blast marker covers this part of the model it is only half strength if it hits at all.

One viewpoint is to see the arms/legs as extra appendages (like the daemon prince's sword from above) and shouldn't make the defiler itself more vulnerable to fire just because it's bigger. On the other hand, it kind of acts like terrain blocking movement, breaking line of sight, etc. and generally getting in the way, thus meaning that the appendages should then suffer the detriments of its size as well as reap the benefits.

Needless to say, we're stuck. Please help? :)
 
See less See more
#2 ·
What me and my friends do is just make sure the legs dont move in the game. So I will measure distance for assaulting/shooting with my defilers and likewise, I will be shot or assaulted with the same parameters. So long as the legs/arms dont move a whole lot, there shouldn't be any problems.
 
#3 ·
From the rules standpoint, all scatters are taken literally on whether or not they are directly over the model (bearing in mind that only the center of the blast marker is full strength against vehicles, whereas the rest of the marker is half-strength). So, if the center of the marker lands over a leg, then yes, the defiler has been hit with the full strength of the weapon. If the center of the marker lands in between two legs, then the defiler would not take full damage, but only half damage (assuming part of the defiler remains still under the blast marker).


LoS for shooting purposes: Unfortunately, all legs, heads, arms, etc count for visibility, with 'obscured' rules still in effect when applicable. Banners and extreme accessories are generally excluded; however, defiler legs certainly fall in the category of an 'arm.' Thus, a legal target. In your example with the dakkagun, you would indeed be capable of shooting at the defiler if you can only reach the defiler's front legs.

Deepstrike: Remember, you CANNOT come within 1" of an enemy unit when deepstriking. Hence, if you can actually fit a model between the defiler's claws and still be farther than an inch from the defiler, then sure, you can do that.
 
#4 ·
Me and my friend had this same problem last week, it really came down to the wire in a match between my Chaos and his Nids.

It was the last turn, if we measured from the legs i assaulted his last 2 warriors and probably won the game, if from the hull where the battle cannon lies, then i didn't get to assault and he might win. We rolled on it to see but like you said this felt like it was probably being unfair to one person.

I've since started to think that it probably should count the legs as part of the model, as Rabbit said. I think I read it somewhere in the rulebook about it, if I can find what I read I'll be sure to post it up...

This seems unfair though as then I can model the Defiler so that it's frontal claws out as far as possible, potentially giving it a few more inches of assault distance.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this seemingly grey area of the rules?
 
#11 · (Edited)
This seems unfair though as then I can model the Defiler so that it's frontal claws out as far as possible, potentially giving it a few more inches of assault distance.
Decior, I don't really see this as a problem, because regardless of whether the claws are counted, your minimum distance to an enemy upon deployment would still be based off the farthest legal reaching point of the model (whether claw or hull). Hence, you'd still be 'x' inches from the enemy.


In the end, it's probably more important to be consistent with your rulings than whether or not the claws actually count towards viable targets.

The way me and my friends play, its to the Central hull, since its believable that the Defiler would "Curl up" behind cover to avoid enemy fire, and would move and retract its feet and claws accordingly. Just like if the Avatar held its spear by the very end, with the tip 3-4 inches off the base, so could the defiler... but in order to actually be effective in combat, he would still need to be right next to the enemy. Same with the Defiler, in order for it to fight effectively, and for the enemy to fight against it, they would need to be against the center hull.
Let's not lump ranged fire and close combat in the same category for the purposes of determining legal targets. For one thing, on p.72 BGB, it states that when you're shooting at a walker, legs are included for measuring distance. Therefore, a defiler could not 'curl up' behind cover to avoid enemy fire. The defiler counts as modeled; it 'is' as it 'is.'

Second, just to point out the obvious, there's no Core Book answer on how one should consider legs and extension when dealing with close combat, unlike range. Some gaming groups count legs and arms... some don't.

The front claws are weapons/wargear therefore are not targets or block LoS.
I understand your argument. However, the front claws are not technically a weapon upgrade option. They are part of the base model. To be fair, if we're actually going to have a defiler with two additional close combat weapons, then we should be modeling them with two additional front legs, on top of the two already present on the base model.
 
#5 ·
The way me and my friends play, its to the Central hull, since its believable that the Defiler would "Curl up" behind cover to avoid enemy fire, and would move and retract its feet and claws accordingly. Just like if the Avatar held its spear by the very end, with the tip 3-4 inches off the base, so could the defiler... but in order to actually be effective in combat, he would still need to be right next to the enemy. Same with the Defiler, in order for it to fight effectively, and for the enemy to fight against it, they would need to be against the center hull.

This rule actually came from me and my friend "subbing" in various models with paper cutouts before buying many of our models.
 
#7 ·
More to the point: all of the weapons are mounted on the main body anyway. All distances for shooting are measured from their barrels (Which is negible, in most cases) so its not like your getting an extra 3" for shooting because the guns are mounted on the claws. If you converted it as such, that might make the rules a little more cloudy.
 
#8 ·
What you guys are saying makes sense but I still think theres shady areas.

Like if a squad is assaulting the defiler head on between its claws. Even it it's claws are wrapped around the unit, models that are within 2 inches of a model in contact with the claw arms but not within 2 inches of a model in contact with the actual hull, do these guys get any attacks? It would be difficult for all the models in the unit to get into ocntact with the hull for a large squad of Orks for example.

Or if the Defiler is assaulting a Land Raider, if it's modelled so that the Land Raider will not fit in between it's claws, does it gain an extra few inches of assault range because it will just have to measure from its forward claw arms?
 
#9 ·
What you guys are saying makes sense but I still think theres shady areas.

Like if a squad is assaulting the defiler head on between its claws. Even it it's claws are wrapped around the unit, models that are within 2 inches of a model in contact with the claw arms but not within 2 inches of a model in contact with the actual hull, do these guys get any attacks? It would be difficult for all the models in the unit to get into ocntact with the hull for a large squad of Orks for example.
Those claws wouldn't stay there, they would be tearing Orks apart, showering the models below with blood and gore. This means, however, that the Orks can stand under the claws, under the legs, and can move past the claws and legs without provoking Attacks of Opportunity... I mean, without difficulty. Its just like attacking any other vehicle or model... if the assaulting unit is too big to cram everyone in 2" of the front line, the unit is too big to fight. Natural downside of large units...

Or if the Defiler is assaulting a Land Raider, if it's modelled so that the Land Raider will not fit in between it's claws, does it gain an extra few inches of assault range because it will just have to measure from its forward claw arms?

Nope, measure from Hull to Hull. Remember, all hits on the LR are taken on the Rear armor, so this is basiclly the Defiler running up, and clawing at the top, sides, rear, ect. Remember, the claws would move in combat, and the enemy would have to be inside the Defilers range of motion to be able to hurt something. The Defilers clas reach out several inches, yes, but he's not going to hurt anything by poking it! It needs to get in close, to claw at it, and be able to bring some force to bear on it.
 
#12 ·
Why not make a base for the defiler. That way everything is clear, you mesure mouvement from the base and shooting from the weapons. If anybody assaults you they have to reach the base, just like a dreadnaught.

A base as large as that is a perfect place to make a great looking base that gives story to your model.

What I would do is make the end of the legs fit on the edge of the base so that the curve in the legs is a little out of the base (compensates for the space in betwean the legs). And tha base stretch a little bit past the body in the front to make room for the claws.

My defilers are not glued in place so the way I play them is you reach any part of it good you can charge or shoot it, but I can always move my legs and claws the way I want it during my movement phase so that If I want you to get a charge I extend the legs in your direction if not they curl up so you will miss your charge. When I mesure for movement I use the body as reference since it's the only piece that can't move. So far no opponents have complained, I tell them beforehand. Since I can only move my model during my movement phase they know what to expect on there turn.

(I'm thinking of doing the base on my defiler myself to stop playing around with my multi-part defiler before each game getting it to stay in one piece)
 
#13 · (Edited)
we use the actuall hull. when assulting/shooting everything. so if you can hit it's foot but not it's hull you can't shoot it. it follows from this rule in RB

pg 60. when a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see it's hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles etc)...
I read this as you ignore everything sticking out of it's actuall hull. so for measuring charge with the defiler measure from the hull to your target, when moving from the hull. when shooting from the barrel of the gun, when shot at, from the hull.

when you ignore the legs it makes things easier.
Let's not lump ranged fire and close combat in the same category for the purposes of determining legal targets. For one thing, on p.72 BGB, it states that when you're shooting at a walker, legs are included for measuring distance. Therefore, a defiler could not 'curl up' behind cover to avoid enemy fire. The defiler counts as modeled; it 'is' as it 'is.'
i just read pg 72 and no where does it say legs are included. in shooting at walkers it says "work out which of it's armor value you would use as you would for any other vehicle, based on the position of it's body"
no where in there does it mention legs. and in fact as it says "body" i am more inclined to say you ignore the legs.
 
#14 ·
Upon thorough reading:

"Measuring Ranges, Page 72:

Uf a walker has a base, measure ranges and distances to and from its base, as you would for an infantry model. If the walker does not have a base (Like the Chaos Defiler), measure to and from its hull (including its legs and other limbs), as normal for vehicles."

So there you have it, open to exploit by both sides. I think my group will keep our houserule, I.e. to the actual hull/body. But for tourney play, legs and claws count.
 
#16 ·
Honestly, I think this rule is pretty badely thought out. Unlike the rules for infantry or ther vehicles, this rule makes the aestetic choice of how you model the defiler into a game mechanics choice. As it is now, the smaller its "Foot print", the better for the player, making it easier to hide in cover.

As I said, I'm sticking with the "Hull only" rule unless I got to a tourney. The Defiler is just about the only vehicle that would be affected by this, except the Soul Grinder... which I dunno any Deamon players around where I like anyway. Hopefully GW sees fit to release a "5.5" edition.
 
#17 ·
Yeah I guess youre right Rabbit, it works both ways so makes no odds really...

Tribesman found the page i was talking about but couldnt find! I guess that pretty muchs ends the debate then yeah?

I agree, it is a strange rule... the 'from the hull' rule would have made more sense.
 
#19 ·
Lets be fair... some of us probably have a far better grasp of technology/science then the people at GW. Their job is to deliver a fun game system, with great models, and wrap it in the fluff. If they fell short on any 1 thing, I would rather it be the fluff... but then, this is them messing up the game system, so hopefully they will look at this sometime :p
 
#20 · (Edited)
- all parts of all models can obscure line of sight

- You cant shoot at a vehicle or squad unless you can see 50% of it.

- vehicles do not have bases (with the exception of smaller walkers like dreadnoughts and flying vehicles), therefore you merely have to deepstrike 1 inch away from any part (or the "hull") of the vehicle.

- When measuring to move a vehicle, always make sure that the part you measured from is on the destination you measured to.

as for the debate on whether he should be allowed to move the parts to his liking, i say just tell him to glue the bigger parts so they dont move, it makes things way easier. My defiler can only move his battle cannon and "fingers" for lack of better words
 
#22 ·
Page 62 in the Rulebook. 50% of the vehicle buys you a 4+ cover save. If its arguable (40% of the model?) 5+. Being in area terrain doesn't matter, just as long as the shooting models (The ones that can hurt the tank, ones that can't are ignored) can see 50% of the armor facing.
----------
This does bring up an interesting question that's been rolling in the back of my mind for a while now, but Inever addressed... cover no longer blocks shots. a Lascannon threatens 72" around it, regardless of how much area terrain is in the way. Is this the correct interpertation of the rules? Doesn't seem right... but then, maybe I'm just stuck on 3rd Ed, which you couldn't fire through more then 6" of terrain total.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top