If a unit of grots is behind an aegis defence line can they still fire the quad gun even though they cannot see over the wall? I thought there was some rules about this on the aegis in the rulebook but couldn't find any

True line of sight, if they can't see, they can't shoot.

They cannot as line of sight is traced from the firing model's eyes.

put them on a box

Funny, I've seen imperial guard units shoot from behind ADLs, I mean the heavy weapon guys and it was never deemed wrong.

because the gunner on the heavy weapon can see above the dips in the long sections or through the firing slits.

Easy fix.

Have one peeking round the corner.

Shoot the gun with him, and return fire can only kill one grot, as the others can't be seen to be shot.

Grots are tall enough to see through the slits and the dips. and should see any fliers easily.

If the people you are playing with are really making a stink about it, then get some of those cool decorative bases that add a 1/2" and put the grots on them most people have them now days so if they complain about the grots, make them remove theirs as well.

Johnnytorrance wrote:
Funny, I've seen imperial guard units shoot from behind ADLs, I mean the heavy weapon guys and it was never deemed wrong.

Some players are quite happy to ignore the LOS rules where shooting from behind the ADL is concerned, on the assumption that models taking up position behind the wall would put themselves somewhere they can see over it, despite this not actually being a part of the rules.


I have no idea how you determine in that situation just how close to the ADL the unit has to be to be able to see over it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Grots are tall enough to see through the slits and the dips. and should see any fliers easily.

Fairly sure we've established in previous ADL discussions that this is not actually true without creative modelling.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Grots are tall enough to see through the slits and the dips. and should see any fliers easily.

Fairly sure we've established in previous ADL discussions that this is not actually true without creative modelling.

I've got plain grots, and the ADL and they can see through it.

The proof is in the pudding though, once it's on the table and the game has begun take out your laser pointer and light up what they can see. Shine the light from the head of the grots, through the slits, and the dips, and above the wall.

Table design and terrain will make things way to variable for absolute statements.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I've got plain grots, and the ADL and they can see through it.

Then they're not plain Grots.


The two on the left are the proper Big Gunz Krew, supplied with the kannon model. The one on the right is from the plastic grot kit. All three are mounted on the bases they were supplied with.
Shot was taken as close to level as possible, this was to avoid any "creative angles" that might make the grot appear bigger/smaller.

From their eye level they cannot see over the wall, through the dips or slots. Even from the top of their heads (which is wrong) they still cannot see. Any Grit model that could see over that wall is NOT a proper GW 40k grot model, definitely not a appropriate crew model.

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I've got plain grots, and the ADL and they can see through it.

Then they're not plain Grots.


The two on the left are the proper Big Gunz Krew, supplied with the kannon model. The one on the right is from the plastic grot kit. All three are mounted on the bases they were supplied with.
Shot was taken as close to level as possible, this was to avoid any "creative angles" that might make the grot appear bigger/smaller.

From their eye level they cannot see over the wall, through the dips or slots. Even from the top of their heads (which is wrong) they still cannot see. Any Grit model that could see over that wall is NOT a proper GW 40k grot model, definitely not a appropriate crew model.

They can see over the wall though, they're looking at a up angle, but they can see over it. same with the window slits. If you scoot them back from the wall a bit that angle get's lower.

Any space marine up next to the wall will be easily seen. Fliers can be easily seen. Put some marines behind the wall and you'll see you can draw LOS to them. Nearby models & elevated models can be seen. So you can't just say they can't see over the wall. The only way to know for sure what they can see is to look and get a models eye view of what they can see during the game.

Fair enough, they can't see anything useful over the wall.
The angle and distance required to see a space marine likely means they are getting no cover save from the wall, but the marine will.
Seeing a flyer would only matter if it was hovering, as artillery can never make snap shots.
In practical terms the wall is a hindrance to this unit far more than a benefit.

I dont think there is any rule that prohibits you using some decorative rocks to raise them to a greater height and then allowing them to see (and be seen)

The BRB only says antennae etc. dont count for LoS, and that you can't take your cover with you.

 grendel083 wrote:
Fair enough, they can't see anything useful over the wall.
The angle and distance required to see a space marine likely means they are getting no cover save from the wall, but the marine will.
Seeing a flyer would only matter if it was hovering, as artillery can never make snap shots.
In practical terms the wall is a hindrance to this unit far more than a benefit.

But the quad gun can shoot at the fliers And that seems to be the big selling point for ork players. one grot to intercept fliers, the rest to man the big guns in the shooting phase.

You can also greatly improve its usefulness by deploying it at the bottom of a slope, then the grots behind it are also slightly higher in relation to the wall. Or maybe you want to be completely out of LOS with a troop choice sitting on an objective.

How useful it is, is really left up to the person fielding it and how they're using it.

 Sir Arun wrote:
I dont think there is any rule that prohibits you using some decorative rocks to raise them to a greater height and then allowing them to see (and be seen)

The BRB only says antennae etc. dont count for LoS, and that you can't take your cover with you.

And there is no rule saying I can't place my scoring units back on the board near my objectives after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it.

The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do and you are not allowed to do anything else.

Is there a rule saying you can use some decorative rocks to raise them to a greater height?

If not then you can not do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
You can also greatly improve its usefulness by deploying it at the bottom of a slope,

Remember that fortifications have to be at least 3 inches from other terrain pieces.

 DeathReaper wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
You can also greatly improve its usefulness by deploying it at the bottom of a slope,

Remember that fortifications have to be at least 3 inches from other terrain pieces.

True, but if you board already has built in hills and slopes, then those aren't usually considered terrain pieces. It's usually just open ground and the 3" rule doesn't apply.

Aegis is useful to Grots IF you can find a hill that's exactly the right height, in exactly the right position.
Easy

Isn't there a FW grot standing on tiptoes that can see over?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Isn't there a FW grot standing on tiptoes that can see over?

Or stick grot heads on marine bodies. I'm sure no one will mind...

 grendel083 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Isn't there a FW grot standing on tiptoes that can see over?

Or stick grot heads on marine bodies. I'm sure no one will mind...

"Why do you always wear your helmet, Brother?"

 grendel083 wrote:
Aegis is useful to Grots IF you can find a hill that's exactly the right height, in exactly the right position.
Easy

Especially if you make your own board, make your own hills, or use the realm of battle boards. Most of the boards I've seen have some sorts of slopes built into them.

It's easier than you think.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Isn't there a FW grot standing on tiptoes that can see over?

There is and he can plainly see over it. Of course now you will see folks chime in here that official GW minis used in a GW released game utilizing GW written rules will tell you he can not ge used. There is another thread or 2 on the boards about this very same subject.

lol... why does this come up every damn week?

put on grot off the the side who can see through, and bam, you can shoot the quad gun ...

better yet, you can waste a whole shooting turn of your opponents if he decides to shoot the one grot he can see....


far more advantageous to be completely out of LOS behind the aegis for the grots then it is to be in LOS.

you can also put grots on top of the aegis/quad gun they fit and balance just fine.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
There is and he can plainly see over it.

Which is fine... if you're using that model.

Place the grots physically on the quad gun. Its terrain and gives a 4+ cover. Blue tack the bastards if you have to. You can technically deepstrike a single model unit on top of the quad gun as long as its 1" away from enemy models.

Or your opponent can stop being a tool and just let you shoot it.

 Ravenous D wrote:
Or your opponent can stop being a tool and just let you shoot it.

So not allowing someone to shoot when they don't have LOS is 'being a tool' now?

That's going to lead to some interesting games...

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Isn't there a FW grot standing on tiptoes that can see over?

There is and he can plainly see over it. Of course now you will see folks chime in here that official GW minis used in a GW released game utilizing GW written rules will tell you he can not ge used. There is another thread or 2 on the boards about this very same subject.

Ah, that would be the fantasy artillery crew, yes?

Is it ok to use a steamtank in 40k games as a leman russ? After all, its an official GW mini used in a GW released game...or what about the Epic scale Avatar in 40k?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Is it ok to use a steamtank in 40k games as a leman russ?

Whether or not it's 'ok' to use it is rather irrelevant to the issue at hand.

If you use it, it will have a different LOS to a 'normal' Leman Russ... because that's how LOS works in 40K.

If you are using models that can physically see over the ADL, then those models can see over the ADL. If you are using models that can't see over the ADL, then those models can't see over the ADL.

It's that simple.

I am aware of that distinction. The context of the partial quote is that just saying "Its a GW official mini for a GW official game" deos not mean it is always an appropriate mini, and that that mini cannot have other effects

Using fantasy models in 40k to gain an advantage you would not otherwise have is more than just using a GW mini in a GW game...

Personally I use GW's Ork barricade set. Same length as an Aegis, but grots can see over it.
Makes sense that they build a wall that's actually usefull, rather than just having everything Imperial. I mean being useful is the point after all.
I just clear it with my opponent or TO beforehand and use as is. I'd be willing to count it as stock, as long as it's agreed before hand, but I've never had to. Everyone's been happy to play it as is, because it makes more sense they'd build it that way.

Grendel083,
My largest complaint when it comes to Stronghold Assault, and in general for buildings, is the lack of verity as there should be at least two structures per faction. Each Codex should have at least one bunker and wall combination within it, and the possibility of a third structure that is either a weapon platform or comes with some other rule designed to be useful during the game. Even if they did their usual 'humans are diverse,' giving them as many buildings as they have tanks, having two for each other faction would at least make us non-hummies happy. Though I do underline the narrative potential of having a utilitarian structure designed to give some unique bonus to the controlling side.

Till that day, and likely afterwards if the conversion is fair, I will never deny an opponent wanting to use something more fitting to their faction.

JinxDragon wrote:
My largest complaint when it comes to Stronghold Assault, and in general for buildings, is the lack of verity

I'm not overly bothered by lack of variety in models, as I enjoy a lot of conversion and scratch builds. But releasing the odd Xenos building, or at least guidelines would be great.

What does bother me is the lack of variety in the rules.
Look at the "Honoured Imperium" fortification in Stronghold. That one really annoyed me.
It only applies to a Imperial armies. No corrupted version, no Necron monument, no Ork Idol (Honoured Gork ).
Would it have been so hard to make it "Honoured [insert race here]", so that every army could take it? I'd have loved to have modelled a giant Ork statue.

Isn't there a Grot with a periscope from FW I think...?

JinxDragon wrote:
Till that day, and likely afterwards if the conversion is fair, I will never deny an opponent wanting to use something more fitting to their faction.

Absolute support this one.
Modelling and conversions is a great aspect of the hobby. Making a force unique and stand out.

Slight tweets to make it practically for the race purchasing it makes perfect sense.
Let's face it, the Grots probably had to build the wall, no Ork would do it! It only makes sense that they would build it so they can see over.

A well done, practical conversion will get my approval every time.

Grendel083,
Technically there are some unique rules that could be applied to that Statue once it has been Chaosed up a bit, on page 105 I think, but we both identified the same problem with everything being Imperial. What would come with buildings designed specifically for factions is that they would contain rules designed for that faction. Some of them might be very basic, permission to take different Weapon Emplacements for a Defense Line for example, but some of them would have to be unique to that faction's style of combat and deployment. That is why I would like at least one utilitarian building a side, a structure that can contain triggers such as 'Models taken from the Codex: X gain...' much like the above mentioned Statue, for both Narrative and Rule purposes.

Did get a laugh over a quick image that came from Grot constructed walls:
One standing beside it, hand resting on top and measuring to his chest while he gives the thumb up to another slightly bigger Grot acting as the 'foreman,' neither realizing chest high to an Ork is completely different.

Grots, if concealed by ther aegis are concealed by it, they cant shoot and cant be shot at.

The Quad gun however is an installation, it also has its own sighting mechanism on the model, it doesn't matter what the grot can see if the grot can see the quad gun the quad gun can fire at what the quad gun can see, which is pretty much everything in open skies.

Grots get a good deal here as you cant easily pick off the gunner if he is below the level of the aegis line, and any shooting would have to count as indirect fire.

Orlanth,
Incorrect as page 105 informs us how a model firing a Weapon Emplacement goes about doing so in lue of their own weapon. This page contains instructions to follow all the rules for shooting, which are located over on page 12 and contain Restrictions on both shooting Units and Models. These included a requirement that the firing unit has line of sight to the target being shot at in order to even make the shot in the first place. Which Model Can Fire, on page 13, contains an additional requirement informing us that Models which do not have at least one target visible and in range of their weapons are also Restricted from firing. As the model on the Weapon Emplacement is firing it in lue of their own weapon and that model does not have Line of Sight to a target: It can not fire the Weapon Emplacement during that Shooting Phase.

 Orlanth wrote:
Grots, if concealed by ther aegis are concealed by it, they cant shoot and cant be shot at.

The Quad gun however is an installation, it also has its own sighting mechanism on the model, it doesn't matter what the grot can see if the grot can see the quad gun the quad gun can fire at what the quad gun can see, which is pretty much everything in open skies.

Grots get a good deal here as you cant easily pick off the gunner if he is below the level of the aegis line, and any shooting would have to count as indirect fire.

That's not how the rules work. The gun itself never fires, you never take line of sight from the gun.
The grot fires as if armed with the gun.
So the Grot absolutley needs Line of Sight.

Use this "grot[s]"

While that would work, if he's the only one not hidden by the wall, all wounds must be allocated to that one model.

Unless you buy 12 of them, in which case fair play, and damn that would be expensive!

 grendel083 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Grots, if concealed by ther aegis are concealed by it, they cant shoot and cant be shot at.

The Quad gun however is an installation, it also has its own sighting mechanism on the model, it doesn't matter what the grot can see if the grot can see the quad gun the quad gun can fire at what the quad gun can see, which is pretty much everything in open skies.

Grots get a good deal here as you cant easily pick off the gunner if he is below the level of the aegis line, and any shooting would have to count as indirect fire.

That's not how the rules work. The gun itself never fires, you never take line of sight from the gun.
The grot fires as if armed with the gun.
So the Grot absolutley needs Line of Sight.

In fairness to the thread the RAW is very badly written.

The rules for gun emplacements say the firing model uses 'followes the normal rules for shooting'. Page 105

However the Quad Gun is part of a Fortifcation and the fortifications rules on page 96 clarify that manned guns use the LOS of the weapon.

Quad guns have their own 'eye' for LOS so there is a logical case here with RAWE to back it up.

I am not saying you are 'wrong' I am saying the rules are sloppy, they imply both ways. We should not be surprised that GW have dropped the ball yet again.

 Orlanth wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Grots, if concealed by ther aegis are concealed by it, they cant shoot and cant be shot at.

The Quad gun however is an installation, it also has its own sighting mechanism on the model, it doesn't matter what the grot can see if the grot can see the quad gun the quad gun can fire at what the quad gun can see, which is pretty much everything in open skies.

Grots get a good deal here as you cant easily pick off the gunner if he is below the level of the aegis line, and any shooting would have to count as indirect fire.

That's not how the rules work. The gun itself never fires, you never take line of sight from the gun.
The grot fires as if armed with the gun.
So the Grot absolutley needs Line of Sight.

In fairness to the thread the RAW is very badly written.

The rules for gun emplacements say the firing model uses 'followes the normal rules for shooting'. Page 105

However the Quad Gun is part of a Fortifcation and the fortifications rules on page 96 clarify that manned guns use the LOS of the weapon.

Quad guns have their own 'eye' for LOS so there is a logical case here with RAWE to back it up.

I am not saying you are 'wrong' I am saying the rules are sloppy, they imply both ways. We should not be surprised that GW have dropped the ball yet again.

The quad gun is quite clearly (in the rules for the Aegis) a Gun Emplacement. So you must use the normal rules for shooting which requires the firing model to have LOS. There is nothing ambiguous or sloppy about this.

 Orlanth wrote:
In fairness to the thread the RAW is very badly written.

The rules for gun emplacements say the firing model uses 'followes the normal rules for shooting'. Page 105

However the Quad Gun is part of a Fortifcation and the fortifications rules on page 96 clarify that manned guns use the LOS of the weapon.

Quad guns have their own 'eye' for LOS so there is a logical case here with RAWE to back it up.

I am not saying you are 'wrong' I am saying the rules are sloppy, they imply both ways. We should not be surprised that GW have dropped the ball yet again.

I've only got the iPad version of the rulebook on me, so the page numbers don't help me here.

But are you confusing Gun Emplacements with Emplaced Weapons?
The Quad Gun on an Aegis line is a Gun Emaplacement, so as you correctly state 'followes the normal rules for shooting'.

I'm pretty sure Emplaced Weapons is the rule on page 96. These are very different from Gun Emplacements (terrible naming though). These are the weapons found on buildings, and follow completly different rules. The one on the Aegis for example cannot Auto Fire.

Orlanth:
What you are referencing is two completely differently named terminologies, Gun Emplacements and Emplaced Weapons, and they are not interchangeable. The reason they have different names and cause confusion when read as the same entity is because they represent two completely different set of Rules. Which set of Rules we follow is listed within the terrain itself, for example: The weapon built into a Defense Line is labeled as a Gun Emplacement, Page 114, and that limits the Rules we use to just Gun Emplacements. Weapons built into buildings themselves are described as Emplaced Weapons, and use those rules when it comes about firing.

I have ranted in the past on how a good editor should not of let two very similar sounding terminologies be put into play, Emplaced and Emplacement, because it is a common misconception but here is something to consider:
Stronghold Assault has a Rule designed for one purpose; to change weapons on the battlements to Emplaced Weapons instead of a Gun Emplacement.

JinxDragon wrote:
I have ranted in the past on how a good editor should not of let two very similar sounding terminologies be put into play, Emplaced and Emplacement, because it is a common misconception.

This has to be THE most common mistake people make, and 6th has been out for a while. You're dead right, it's a terrible choice of names for something that is so similar.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I am aware of that distinction. The context of the partial quote is that just saying "Its a GW official mini for a GW official game" deos not mean it is always an appropriate mini, and that that mini cannot have other effects

Using fantasy models in 40k to gain an advantage you would not otherwise have is more than just using a GW mini in a GW game...

See your problem there is you open up a steamtank and it says,,,,,,,gasp..... Steamtank...... you look at the mounting tab on the tippytoe grot and guess what his mounting tab says? Hint it starts with a G and ends with and N. Now take a look at any of the mounting tabs on other metal grots and guess what the tab says. Hint it begins with a G ends with an N and has the same number and type of letters in between. If you want to house rule that the same type of model can not be used you are free to do so. I prefer to play by the rules.

Funny thing is I have the model and I have several AGLs. I don't use one with my Orks though since it doesn't fit the theme of how I play the army. I do however, see that it would be perfectly legal for someone with orks to use that mini, or any other Grot mini for that matter to fire a weapon since he can see over it.

Using a fantasy model to gain and advantage over the standard 40k model is not "playing by the rules", its cheating.

I dont know why people get upset when some players decide to pay some extra attention to their basing and model some decorative rocks for their miniatures to be standing on.

If some creative basing causes a model to get higher, it doesnt necessarily give the owner an advantage - because if his model can see, it can also be seen by the opponent, and thus shot at.

Except they ARE gaining an advantage or they wouldn't be doing it.

I asked in the previous 3 threads that go on for 5 pages before they get locked and have yet to have anyone do it. Prove that the tippytoe grot in question was never ever ever sold in a blister. Then and only then can you claim it is a WHFB model only.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Except they ARE gaining an advantage or they wouldn't be doing it.

So are you saying, everyone using decorative bases ARE trying to cheat by gaining an advantage?

I was thinking about it and came up with this, is it legal and how would I get him there in the game. The grot is half on the quad gun so he is still in base contact but even though he is completely exposed I beleive he is still in area terrain so he gets the 4+ cover save any thoughts?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Except they ARE gaining an advantage or they wouldn't be doing it.

So are you saying, everyone using decorative bases ARE trying to cheat by gaining an advantage?

Nope, but if your using those decorative bases to gain in-game advantages such as allowing models to see over an ADL, I'm calling you a cheater.

 Alienoid wrote:
I was thinking about it and came up with this, is it legal and how would I get him there in the game. The grot is half on the quad gun so he is still in base contact but even though he is completely exposed I beleive he is still in area terrain so he gets the 4+ cover save any thoughts?

I mentioned it early, its totally legal as the gun is terrain. You can even still have the grots legs behind the ADL. The point is you can do it so there isn't much point making a fuss over it. If it can shoot you you can shoot it. Just simply agree on that.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Except they ARE gaining an advantage or they wouldn't be doing it.

The debate can go both ways. I could say that by default, they can never be shot at due to lack of LoS and thus they are a (scoring?) unit that, unless outflanked or assaulted, can never be taken out by the enemy from afar until the end of the game.

 Alienoid wrote:
I was thinking about it and came up with this, is it legal and how would I get him there in the game. The grot is half on the quad gun so he is still in base contact but even though he is completely exposed I beleive he is still in area terrain so he gets the 4+ cover save any thoughts?

I think that is not allowed as your Grot's base is balancing on top of the ADL. And even if it were okay, the ADL is never area terrain and even if it were, you'd only be getting a 5+ cover save (unless he has a special rule that gives him +1 to his cover saves)

 BarBoBot wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Except they ARE gaining an advantage or they wouldn't be doing it.

So are you saying, everyone using decorative bases ARE trying to cheat by gaining an advantage?

Nope, but if your using those decorative bases to gain in-game advantages such as allowing models to see over an ADL, I'm calling you a cheater.

Any model on a decorative base has a slightly higher height and a better field of view. Don't be a hypocrite about it, if it's cheating for grots to have them, then it's cheating for anyone to have them.

If you had your dred on a rock so that 2 autocannons could shoot over a rhino I would say the same thing.

If your using it to gain advantage your cheating.

Next you'll tell me that its ok to model your vindicator with a ten inch barrel on the demolisher cannon so you can shoot further...

 Ravenous D wrote:

 Alienoid wrote:
I was thinking about it and came up with this, is it legal and how would I get him there in the game. The grot is half on the quad gun so he is still in base contact but even though he is completely exposed I beleive he is still in area terrain so he gets the 4+ cover save any thoughts?

I mentioned it early, its totally legal as the gun is terrain. You can even still have the grots legs behind the ADL. The point is you can do it so there isn't much point making a fuss over it. If it can shoot you you can shoot it. Just simply agree on that.

The gun is terrain, but not Area Terrain.

The grot can fire but can also be shot with no cover save.

I wanted to correct your assertion on this earlier but you original comment hads been buried under a half page worth of other discussion.

 BarBoBot wrote:
If you had your dred on a rock so that 2 autocannons could shoot over a rhino I would say the same thing.

If your using it to gain advantage your cheating.

Next you'll tell me that its ok to model your vindicator with a ten inch barrel on the demolisher cannon so you can shoot further...

What kind of nonsense are you talking about now?

You're the one claiming only grots on decorative bases is cheating, yet any other decorative bases are not done for sake of cheating. which is a really hypocritical thing to say. Any decorative base adds to the height of the model which can create a in game advantage for any model, by seeing over walls, or looking through the windows of ruins, or seeing over vehicles.

I'm saying, if you can have models on decorative bases and it's not cheating, then it's not cheating for grots to do it either. a consistent and fair thing to say. Or if decorative bases are considered cheating for any unit, then no one should use them. Another consistent and fair thing to say.

Next you'll be telling me it's ok for you to extend your guns, but if orks do it, it's cheating.

Try to find some elevated terrain. There is a good deal of leeway placing forts. I agree with nos... It's very straight forward.

Sirlynchmob, I'll explain it one more time as simply as possible and see if you can grasp it...

When you elevate grots to see over an ADL, your knowingly trying to gain an advantage. Your intent is to abuse that advantage every game by sticking your grots behind that ADL.

Someone who takes the time and effort to create a scenic base which just happens to also on RARE occasions cause that model to see over something, is not even remotely the same thing.

Fact is most people would be happy to ignore the advantage they may get with their cool scenic base because they are not trying to cheat.

When you intentionally elevate your model so you can continually gain an advantage your a cheater.

Are we on the same page yet?

 BarBoBot wrote:


When you intentionally elevate your model so you can continually gain an advantage your a cheater.

Are we on the same page yet?

I get what you're saying. everyone with decorative bases are cheaters.

Gotcha.

And anyone who tries to justify their cheating while calling others a cheater are hypocrites.

You just assume the ork player is doing it to cheat and not just Someone who takes the time and effort to create a scenic base.

Right, the guy who has his HQ on an elevated base that on occasion MIGHT cause an advantage is equal to the guy who in every game sticks his elevated grots behind an ADL so he can have an advantage.... Laughable

 BarBoBot wrote:
Right, the guy who has his HQ on an elevated base that on occasion MIGHT cause an advantage is equal to the guy who in every game sticks his elevated grots behind an ADL so he can have an advantage.... Laughable

Did the guy with his elevated HQ use the base it was supplied with? no, ergo pg 3 says he's cheating.

What if his HQ is behind a ADL on the quad gun, is he cheating now?

wouldn't it be safe to assume that if grots are on decorative bases then the rest of the ork army is probably on the same decorative bases?

If you allow decorative bases, then you allow them for everyone. If you pick and choose who is cheating for something that is allowed, that makes you a hypocrite.

Are we on the same page yet?

so is this considered a decorative base?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Right, the guy who has his HQ on an elevated base that on occasion MIGHT cause an advantage is equal to the guy who in every game sticks his elevated grots behind an ADL so he can have an advantage.... Laughable

Did the guy with his elevated HQ use the base it was supplied with? no, ergo pg 3 says he's cheating.

What if his HQ is behind a ADL on the quad gun, is he cheating now?

wouldn't it be safe to assume that if grots are on decorative bases then the rest of the ork army is probably on the same decorative bases?

If you allow decorative bases, then you allow them for everyone. If you pick and choose who is cheating for something that is allowed, that makes you a hypocrite.

Are we on the same page yet?

Sorry but intent says alot. The guy who puts his dred on a rock so that both guns can shoot over the rhino in front of it, and runs it like that every game is a cheater. Same with someone elevating grots to see over their ADL every game.

The guy who models his dread on a scenic elevated base but DOESN'T choose to abuse it is not a cheater. It the rule of cool.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
I asked in the previous 3 threads that go on for 5 pages before they get locked and have yet to have anyone do it. Prove that the tippytoe grot in question was never ever ever sold in a blister. Then and only then can you claim it is a WHFB model only.

And the reason that people keep ignoring it is that it is a ridiculous argument.

Your opponent doesn't need to 'prove' that the model you are using is not the 'correct' model. He just has to refuse to play against you if he doesn't approve of the models you are using.

You are a absolutely correct there. Though I can say that in over 20 years of gaming I have never had anyone refuse to play a game when I field all GW models in the roles that the models were built and made for and use GW rules in a game produced by GW.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
You are a absolutely correct there. Though I can say that in over 20 years of gaming I have never had anyone refuse to play a game when I field all GW models in the roles that the models were built and made for and use GW rules in a game produced by GW.

So using a fantasy model in 40k is the role they were built and made for?

Only when you prove it was never sold in a 40k blister or show me where a model with gretchin on his mounting tab is different from another.....wait for it....... model with gretchin on his mounting tab.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Only when you prove it was never sold in a 40k blister or show me where a model with gretchin on his mounting tab is different from another.....wait for it....... model with gretchin on his mounting tab.

Thats not how it works.

We can prove it is a model sold for WHFB so we can use it for Fantasy.

You have to Prove it is a model sold for 40K if you want to use it in a 40K game.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Only when you prove it was never sold in a 40k blister or show me where a model with gretchin on his mounting tab is different from another.....wait for it....... model with gretchin on his mounting tab.

Odd, I could have sworn it was permissive. So it is! Show proof it is a 40k model. Do you have any? Or just more of your trolling behaviour on this topic?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Only when you prove it was never sold in a 40k blister or show me where a model with gretchin on his mounting tab is different from another.....wait for it....... model with gretchin on his mounting tab.

Odd, I could have sworn it was permissive. So it is! Show proof it is a 40k model. Do you have any? Or just more of your trolling behaviour on this topic?

You do remember they took WYSIWYG out of the rules right? There are also no rules telling you that you can use a ork boy as a ork boy in the rules. Or that the names on the packages mean anything game wise. RAW speaking, Even though 99% of people will make that logic connection.

If you want to buy 30 grots and field them as a unit of ork boys, There are no rules against it, just like there are no rules saying if you buy 30 citadel miniatures of ork boys you can use them as ork boys in the game. (wheres the permission)? this is why scratch built models are accepted, as any rules saying just ork boy citadel miniatures can be used as ork boys would remove all creative scratch built models, and conversions.

so any model you buy to represent a gretchin is fine. And we should feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size (if you wish)

As long as both players agree with it, and/or the TO, you could even use a blob of clay on a bottlecap as any model you want.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Only when you prove it was never sold in a 40k blister or show me where a model with gretchin on his mounting tab is different from another.....wait for it....... model with gretchin on his mounting tab.

Odd, I could have sworn it was permissive. So it is! Show proof it is a 40k model. Do you have any? Or just more of your trolling behaviour on this topic?

So you are saying a permissive ruleset does not allow a model with a mounting tab that say gretchin to be used as a ....oh I don't know. ....oh I got it. A gretchn. Those are some pretty odd house rules you use at the LGS. Let me guess you don't allow IG players to use LRMBTs as a LRMBT either since this house rule you have doesnt give you permission to

A fantasy model is a fantasy model no matter how many times you claim it isn't.

Hasn't it been pointed out several times how ridiculous your arguement is?

 BarBoBot wrote:
A fantasy model is a fantasy model no matter how many times you claim it isn't.

Hasn't it been pointed out several times how ridiculous your arguement is?

so you can't use fantasy demons for 40k demons either right?

That was my next question. When playing against a Daemon army do the houserulers here demand to see the box those bloodleters came out of to see if it says WHFB or 40K on it? Oh wait the box doesn't, it says Bloodletters. Gee I'll bet those Daemon players are disheartened when you tell them they have an illegal army since there is no WHFB or 40k box separately marked.

The demons packaging clearly says 40k and warhammer right on the box. In fact, the packaging for demons is not the same as other fantasy or 40k models. Its unique to demons, so what makes you think they are "fantasy" only demons?

Really? Out of curiosity is this guy a WHFB or 40k mini?

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1300009a

I have a few of these as well. None of them the packaging denoted 40k or Fantasy on it.

I'm have several boxes of demons that I'm looking at in my hands now, and they have the logos for 40k and fantasy on them.

And my grot has gretchin on his tab just like all my other grots.

Interesting that a bloodletter is a bloodletter and a screamer is a screamer but a gretchin is not a gretchin

 BarBoBot wrote:
The demons packaging clearly says 40k and warhammer right on the box. In fact, the packaging for demons is not the same as other fantasy or 40k models. Its unique to demons, so what makes you think they are "fantasy" only demons?

Being a permissive rule set though, which models do we have permission to use in 40k? Can you point to these rules you keep claiming exist that further define which models are and which models are not allowed?

I see we do have permission to use citadel miniatures and refer to them as models in the rules. aren't fantasy models citadel miniatures? This is the only critera in the BRB about what models we can use. Any other statements about models and how to use them are house rules.

There's the permission to use fantasy gretchins as 40k gretchins. And if were going to start drawing hard RAW lines then Scratch built models are illegal, and conversions are illegal.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
That was my next question. When playing against a Daemon army do the houserulers here demand to see the box those bloodleters came out of to see if it says WHFB or 40K on it? Oh wait the box doesn't, it says Bloodletters. Gee I'll bet those Daemon players are disheartened when you tell them they have an illegal army since there is no WHFB or 40k box separately marked.

Ta da. Your argument is silly and now defunct.

Now look at the metals. Or do you not allow them to be used?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here you go. Fantasy or 40k?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Old-style-Bloodletters-of-Khorne-new-in-blister-Warhammer-Daemons-of-Chaos-/251375862017

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Now look at the metals. Or do you not allow them to be used?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here you go. Fantasy or 40k?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Old-style-Bloodletters-of-Khorne-new-in-blister-Warhammer-Daemons-of-Chaos-/251375862017

Considering metals are replaced by Finecast, I'm sure you meant this style of model. Because, hey, looky there: Warhammer and Warhammer 40k right there on the pack. Now stop arguing such a needless, futile point. No one's going to make a stink about Chaos Demon players because the models are intentionally designed to be used by both systems. A Goblin/Snotling crewman from Fantasy is not the same as a Grot/Gretchin for 40k. Just give it a rest; this topic comes up all the time and your camp has yet to be convincing to the contrary.

Odd i say the same thing. Now if the mounting tab said Snotling you would have a point but since it says Gretchin your point is mute. Good one though you didnt answer the question.

Your question isn't worth answering. Your arguement is silly.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Odd i say the same thing. Now if the mounting tab said Snotling you would have a point but since it says Gretchin your point is mute. Good one though you didnt answer the question.

So you would be fine with me using an Epic scale Avatar in a regular game, just so I could get better cover from an ADL?

 BarBoBot wrote:
Your question isn't worth answering. Your arguement is silly.

Says the one without being able to quote a single rule to prove his case.

you're also projecting again.

we have permission in the rules to use any citadel miniature in the game.

You have no argument to make otherwise.

 Happyjew wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Odd i say the same thing. Now if the mounting tab said Snotling you would have a point but since it says Gretchin your point is mute. Good one though you didnt answer the question.

So you would be fine with me using an Epic scale Avatar in a regular game, just so I could get better cover from an ADL?

Depends. Since I haven't seen one in a box does it say Epic on it? If it only says it is a Games Workshop model and does not denote a game system then your opponent has no say if you can or can not use it. He can only decide whether or not to play you using it.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Odd i say the same thing. Now if the mounting tab said Snotling you would have a point but since it says Gretchin your point is mute. Good one though you didnt answer the question.

The tab on your WHFB goblin does not say 'Gretchin'.

And the word you're looking for is 'moot'.

Oh geee a typo. Say it isn't so. No recovering from that one.

Would this do?

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Odd i say the same thing. Now if the mounting tab said Snotling you would have a point but since it says Gretchin your point is mute. Good one though you didnt answer the question.

So you would be fine with me using an Epic scale Avatar in a regular game, just so I could get better cover from an ADL?

Depends. Since I haven't seen one in a box does it say Epic on it? If it only says it is a Games Workshop model and does not denote a game system then your opponent has no say if you can or can not use it. He can only decide whether or not to play you using it.

This is where you lose any credibility that your arguement may have had.

If your reasoning for allowing fantasy models in 40k would allow for an epic model to be used in 40k, you show just how flawed your logic is.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Odd i say the same thing. Now if the mounting tab said Snotling you would have a point but since it says Gretchin your point is mute. Good one though you didnt answer the question.

So you would be fine with me using an Epic scale Avatar in a regular game, just so I could get better cover from an ADL?

Depends. Since I haven't seen one in a box does it say Epic on it? If it only says it is a Games Workshop model and does not denote a game system then your opponent has no say if you can or can not use it. He can only decide whether or not to play you using it.

So NOW you are worried aout which game system it says on the box?

The old epic Avatar(or Knight, or warhound) has the name of those models on the tab.

Since system does not matter, only name on the tab these are legal models in your claims

This thread again? I love it.

It's also not about what it says on the box. Nobody would begrudge you for using a Devastator with Heavy Bolter (from the Devastators box) as a Tactical Marine with a Heavy Bolter, because there is no real difference. On the other hand, replacing all of my Chaos Terminators with the Chaos Terminator Lord model (who comes on an elevated rock base) specifically so that they can get LOS over something they wouldn't before is not okay.

A more sensible example would be Chaos Raptors. They're modelled like they're flying/landing/taking off, and are quite a bit taller than normal Marines because of it. Giving a Space Marine a meltagun from the Raptors box is fine, but replacing a Tactical Squad's legs with Raptor legs is not. Not because they're not from the same army (the majority of my CSMs are made from Loyalist kits, including my Land Raider), but because it confers a specific advantage. If you weren't doing this to gain an advantage, you'd have no problem with measuring LOS as if they weren't taller. I'm working on a Raptor who is on one knee, fist to the ground. If there was ever a problem with LOS/cover because of this, I wouldn't argue against it.

If you've got a model on a scenic base that allows them LOS over something they wouldn't otherwise get, you should have no problem with your opponent not allowing you to do this. If you do have a problem with it, then you're definitely modelling for advantage.

I don't know why I bothered to even reply to this, because I know it's futile.

I use an epic daemon as a herald of slaanesh. It's a grater daemon, and has a snake-like body. Roughly the size of a daemonette.

Some of the coolest armies I have seen include minis from other ranges, fantasy and 40k combined, etc.

I have seen armies that have own awards at armies on parade-an official GW event- that have both 40k and fantasy models used together.

I know people who have some sweet Thousand Sons conversions made with probably 40-50% tomb kings parts.

There is a guy in my area with a savage orks 40k army. He uses arachnarok spiders as vehicles (don't remember if it's trucks or battle wagons) and uses fantasy savage orcs with 40 k weapons on them.

Are you telling me all of these things are illegal?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My point is this-who gets to draw the line where conversions are ok, and what is the deciding factor?

The line is when you're clearly doing it deliberately to get an in-game advantage instead of simply having a cool conversion.
Case in point: Using fantasy grots to see over an ADL.
This line is widely accepted by the community.

Kind of surprised to see this thread again, but more surprised yet at some of the outlandish arguments being presented. "We can use any citadel miniature in our games"? At this point the game you're looking for is Calvinball.

My feelings on this:

1.) If you modify a base or model to make it look cool, it's OK. If you modify a base or model to give in a rules advantage, like gluing it on tall rocks so it can see over stuff, it's MFA and cheating. The test for this, as another poster has said previously: will you swap your model out with a stock unmodified model? If not, you're probably cheating. It's like gluing tall grass on a base and claiming your dudes have a cover save they take with them.

2.) Normally modeled and based grots cannot see over an ADL. Nonetheless I'd allow normal grots to have LOS anyway because it's kind of dumb.

3.) If you broke out that arrer launcher WHFB grot, a decorative FW grot, or some other ridiculous way to try and say it's got LOS, I'd immediately pack up and play someone else; because you've immediately established playing with you will not be fun.

The rule is a bit vague:

‘Page 3 - Models and Base Sizes
The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with. Sometimes, a player may have models in his collection on unusually modelled bases. Some models aren’t supplied with a base at all. In these cases (which are, in all fairness, relatively few and far between) you should always feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of similar type as guidance.’

I'd assume this rule is more about allowing old Avatars on square bases/Terminators on 25mm bases while also allowing re-basing, but still looks like it gives permission to use different bases than supplied. But of course who judges what is and isn’t an appropriate size?

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Odd i say the same thing. Now if the mounting tab said Snotling you would have a point but since it says Gretchin your point is mute. Good one though you didnt answer the question.

So you would be fine with me using an Epic scale Avatar in a regular game, just so I could get better cover from an ADL?

Depends. Since I haven't seen one in a box does it say Epic on it? If it only says it is a Games Workshop model and does not denote a game system then your opponent has no say if you can or can not use it. He can only decide whether or not to play you using it.

I thought game system did not matter, only that it was a GW model?

You're not being inconsistent are you?

Prove your fantasy model, made for fantasy, is a 40k model. Burden is in YOU in this.

 nolzur wrote:
Are you telling me all of these things are illegal?

Yes. No. Maybe.

The game rules don't really come right out and say 'You can only use the correct Citadel model to represent the unit that you want to put on the table.' They're just written under the assumption that the model you use is appropriate for its purpose. Although there is a perception that conversions or 3rd-party models are technically illegal, but tolerated so long as they are not abusive.

My point is this-who gets to draw the line where conversions are ok, and what is the deciding factor?

You and your opponent, or the TO in the case of organised play, draw that line. So exactly where it is drawn is going to vary from game to game.

In general practice, the less a conversion or stand-in differs in profile from the original model, the more widely accepted it will be, although there is also a certain amount of leeway from some players to account for the 'cool' factor - ie: a conversion may be considerably different to the original model, but accepted just because it is awesome...

For the specific example under discussion here, regular gretchin can't see over an ADL. Allowing big gunz to park behind an ADL and shoot over it is therefore something that many players are going to see as no more acceptable than, say, allowing a tactical marine to shoot over a rhino. And so a conversion that allows the gretchin to shoot over the wall (whether it be using models that are taller than the standard gun crew, or tall bases, or modelling a shorter wall) is likewise going to be unacceptable. To re-use the previous example, it would be akin to modelling your tactical marines in 1" stilts so that they can stand behind their transport and shoot over it...

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Odd i say the same thing. Now if the mounting tab said Snotling you would have a point but since it says Gretchin your point is mute. Good one though you didnt answer the question.

So you would be fine with me using an Epic scale Avatar in a regular game, just so I could get better cover from an ADL?

Depends. Since I haven't seen one in a box does it say Epic on it? If it only says it is a Games Workshop model and does not denote a game system then your opponent has no say if you can or can not use it. He can only decide whether or not to play you using it.

I thought game system did not matter, only that it was a GW model?

You're not being inconsistent are you?

Prove your fantasy model, made for fantasy, is a 40k model. Burden is in YOU in this.

There was nothing inconsistent in what I said. I'll type this slowly so you can keep up this time. If you show me a Games Workshop model who has an identying mark, mounting tab, word whatever, that denotes it as a unit that is listed in the Dex the owner is going to use it for and I have no way of proving that that model was not intended to be used as such then yes the owner may legally use it as far as I am concerned. Now I may choose not to play that individual if I do not want to or feel the army is illegal. As far as I' am concerned I have proven it. When you face an IG player do you make him show you the box his Russ came out of? Afterall there is now no way to prove it is an actual 40k model anymore. When you see your opponent put Devastators on the table do you make him show you the video where only the ones out of that box are put in that squad when they are assembled and painted? Afterall you are being inconsistent idf you allow a Tac marine to be a Devastator since thay are different models. Do you take paint samples from opponents and have them analyzed to make sure they are only GW paints?

The inconsistency is that you asserted the box it came out of didn't matter, and then when asked about the Epic Avatar, the box it came out of suddenly matters.

Did you even read it? You'll have to show me where I said it matters. What I said was does the box this "epic" Avatar came out of have the word Epic on it? Having never played Epic Eldar I would not know since I have never purchased one. So as far as I am concerned if you put an Avatar on the table and it is out of a GW box that has no game system written on it then you may use it in any of the GW game systems where a model of that name is allowed.

As I have never played WHFB O&G and have never purchased any used Gretchin there can be no way any of the 60-70 + Grots I own could have come out of a box or blister labeled for Fantasy.

5 pages just like the last three threads on this subject. Say what you will again and again. I'm done here.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Depends. Since I haven't seen one in a box does it say Epic on it? If it only says it is a Games Workshop model and does not denote a game system then your opponent has no say if you can or can not use it

Boss GreenNutz wrote:There was nothing inconsistent in what I said.

Incorrect. I have bold'ed the section where you are being inconsistent, as apparently you are unable to correctly remember what you type, even when it is quoted in your own reply.

Boss GreenNutz wrote: I'll type this slowly so you can keep up this time.

Reported for rule 1 violation

Boss GreenNutz wrote: If you show me a Games Workshop model who has an identying mark, mounting tab, word whatever, that denotes it as a unit that is listed in the Dex the owner is going to use it for and I have no way of proving that that model was not intended to be used as such then yes the owner may legally use it as far as I am concerned.

Yet JUST above the system mattered. Hence you being inconsistent. Can you now agree that your position is flipping more often than a frying pan on Shrove Tuesday?

So, again - an Eldar avatar from Epic, saying "Epic" on the box - can this or can this NOT be used in a 40k game?

 Ouze wrote:
Kind of surprised to see this thread again, but more surprised yet at some of the outlandish arguments being presented. "We can use any citadel miniature in our games"? At this point the game you're looking for is Calvinball.

My feelings on this:

1.) If you modify a base or model to make it look cool, it's OK. If you modify a base or model to give in a rules advantage, like gluing it on tall rocks so it can see over stuff, it's MFA and cheating. The test for this, as another poster has said previously: will you swap your model out with a stock unmodified model? If not, you're probably cheating. It's like gluing tall grass on a base and claiming your dudes have a cover save they take with them.

2.) Normally modeled and based grots cannot see over an ADL. Nonetheless I'd allow normal grots to have LOS anyway because it's kind of dumb.

3.) If you broke out that arrer launcher WHFB grot, a decorative FW grot, or some other ridiculous way to try and say it's got LOS, I'd immediately pack up and play someone else; because you've immediately established playing with you will not be fun.

Read the first rule on pg 2, it's the only hint at what models are allowed in the game. But please show me these rules that grant permission or establish guide lines on what models we can use in the game?
What is calvin ball and is it fun?

1. Grots on bases: cheaters, anyone else: rule of cool. Surely we should look at each converted grot before making blanket statements about the fielders character? I would swap them if I was fielding the modified grots, but I would think you were being TFG. And if my grots were on decorative bases then my entire army would have been put on them as well.

2. Grots can see over the ADL, this has been established.

3) and I would think the same thing of anyone who throws a fit over grots.

most ork players are in it for the fun, if they were WAAC people they would have jumped ship for Tau/Eldar.

If people are so upset about grots on decorative bases, then the only fair thing to do is not allow decorative bases. Because if they can create such a huge advantage for grots, and the person using them to be instantly labeled a cheater, then they can create the same advantage for any other model in the game. OMG what huge advantage They can see over a wall that they can do as it is, But it also lets them be seen behind a ADL so they can be shot at, instead of being completely out of LOS. You'd think you'd want more orks to put them on bases so you can get rid of them quicker instead of happily hiding out of LOS firing barrages the entire game.

sirlynchmob wrote:
2. Grots can see over the ADL, this has been established.

This is misleading.

Any model in the game can partially see over the ADL, but some models, such as grots, will not be able to see over it at any useful angle.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
2. Grots can see over the ADL, this has been established.

This is misleading.

Any model in the game can partially see over the ADL, but some models, such as grots, will not be able to see over it at any useful angle.

grots can see over the ADL, this is true, it's not as misleading as just saying they can't see over the wall which is demonstrably untrue.

The usefulness of the anger can only be determined in game when actually drawing LOS to something.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
2. Grots can see over the ADL, this has been established.

This is misleading.

Any model in the game can partially see over the ADL, but some models, such as grots, will not be able to see over it at any useful angle.

grots can see over the ADL, this is true, it's not as misleading as just saying they can't see over the wall which is demonstrably untrue.

The usefulness of the anger can only be determined in game when actually drawing LOS to something.

What is misleading about the statement is that it makes it seem like you are talking about horizontal view.

The Grots cannot see over the ADL to models on the same Linear Plane; they *Could* see over the ADL to models at Higher elevation depending on their placement

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
2. Grots can see over the ADL, this has been established.

This is misleading.

Any model in the game can partially see over the ADL, but some models, such as grots, will not be able to see over it at any useful angle.

grots can see over the ADL, this is true, it's not as misleading as just saying they can't see over the wall which is demonstrably untrue.

The usefulness of the anger can only be determined in game when actually drawing LOS to something.

What is misleading about the statement is that it makes it seem like you are talking about horizontal view.

The Grots cannot see over the ADL to models on the same Linear Plane; they *Could* see over the ADL to models at Higher elevation depending on their placement

I never said anything about horizontal view.
The angle of elevation depends on how far back the grot is from the wall. the ADL also has slits that can be seen through with a lower elevation. the closer the grot is, the higher the anger, the further back, the lower the angle. And that's just on a pure flat table, there are to many variables in determining the rise of the angle to just say no.

to just say they can't see over the wall, makes it sound like you are saying they can never draw LOS to anything on the other side of the wall. which is misleading and untrue.

Can grots see over the wall? Yes
Can the see the marines at the other side of the table? well take a look and determine LOS.

Did I really type anger? wow there's a Freudian slip. My fingers must be trying to tell me something
But no matter the rise of the angle I bet it's acute one

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
2. Grots can see over the ADL, this has been established.

This is misleading.

I never said anything about horizontal view.

And that is exactly why it is misleading.

Had you said Grots can sometimes see over the ADL at things that are not on the same level as them.

Then it would have been vague enough to not be misleading, but the way you said it seems absolute, when that is just not true.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
2. Grots can see over the ADL, this has been established.

This is misleading.

I never said anything about horizontal view.

And that is exactly why it is misleading.

Had you said Grots can sometimes see over the ADL at things that are not on the same level as them.

Then it would have been vague enough to not be misleading, but the way you said it seems absolute, when that is just not true.

I answered a misleading statement which is false with a statement that is true. just because people are assuming angles does not make my statement untrue and it is absolutely true Grots can see over the wall.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I answered a misleading statement which is false with a statement that is true. just because people are assuming angles does not make my statement untrue and it is absolutely true Grots can see over the wall.

The statement was a true as yours.
Sometimes they can see something over, somethimes they can't. Both right, both wrong.
Do we really need 20 posts where everyone states they were right? It's pointless, doesn't nothing to further the debate at hand.
Forget trying to win an internet argument and move on to something constructive.

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I answered a misleading statement which is false with a statement that is true. just because people are assuming angles does not make my statement untrue and it is absolutely true Grots can see over the wall.

The statement was a true as yours.
Sometimes they can see something over, somethimes they can't. Both right, both wrong.
Do we really need 20 posts where everyone states they were right? It's pointless, doesn't nothing to further the debate at hand.
Forget trying to win an internet argument and move on to something constructive.

the statement that has been used though is "grots can't see over walls" which is demonstrably wrong and untrue.
as grots can see over walls which is demonstrably true.

so why just direct this at me and not the others as well?

it's not about winning the intranetz, it's about making correct statements in a RAW forum. so when people say something demonstrably wrong and untrue, they should be corrected.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I answered a misleading statement which is false with a statement that is true. just because people are assuming angles does not make my statement untrue and it is absolutely true Grots can see over the wall.

The statement was a true as yours.
Sometimes they can see something over, somethimes they can't. Both right, both wrong.
Do we really need 20 posts where everyone states they were right? It's pointless, doesn't nothing to further the debate at hand.
Forget trying to win an internet argument and move on to something constructive.

the statement that has been used though is "grots can't see over walls" which is demonstrably wrong and untrue.
as grots can see over walls which is demonstrably true.

so why just direct this at me and not the others as well?

it's not about winning the intranetz, it's about making correct statements in a RAW forum. so when people say something demonstrably wrong and untrue, they should be corrected.

Because it wasn't wrong and untrue.
The statement did not say they can not see over the wall at all times. What was missing was the specifics.
Can a Grot right behind the wall see a marine at the far end of the board, when all are on level ground? No, so in this case the statement was true.

At times they can't, at times they can.
BOTH statements were both true and false. Both depend on the situation.
So saying it's "demonstrably wrong and untrue" is infact not correct. It can be demonstrated to be true at times.

This is directed at both sides. Both satements were misleading, as they can both be true and false.
So instead of argueing "who was right" (neither), how about we instead add something constructive.

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I answered a misleading statement which is false with a statement that is true. just because people are assuming angles does not make my statement untrue and it is absolutely true Grots can see over the wall.

The statement was a true as yours.
Sometimes they can see something over, somethimes they can't. Both right, both wrong.
Do we really need 20 posts where everyone states they were right? It's pointless, doesn't nothing to further the debate at hand.
Forget trying to win an internet argument and move on to something constructive.

the statement that has been used though is "grots can't see over walls" which is demonstrably wrong and untrue.
as grots can see over walls which is demonstrably true.

so why just direct this at me and not the others as well?

it's not about winning the intranetz, it's about making correct statements in a RAW forum. so when people say something demonstrably wrong and untrue, they should be corrected.

Because it wasn't wrong and untrue.
The statement did not say they can not see over the wall at all times. What was missing was the specifics.
Can a Grot right behind the wall see a marine at the far end of the board, when all are on level ground? Get a models eye view and determine LOS

At times they can't, at times they can.
BOTH statements were both true and false. Both depend on the situation.
So saying it's "demonstrably wrong and untrue" is infact not correct. It can be demonstrated to be true at times.

This is directed at both sides. Both satements were misleading, as they can both be true and false.
So instead of argueing "who was right" (neither), how about we instead add something constructive.

Fixed that for you.

Moving forward though, what rules in a permissive rule set, say what models are allowed to be used in the game? I can find one, but there must be more that I'm missing since it seems to me, that people are picking a choosing what models they like and therefore allowed based on opinions, with no rules support.

RAW what page tells me what models can be used as grots?