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.

Hi,
Played against orks yesterday with my crons and managed to immobilise a mega dread using scarabs with Disruption fields. However my opponent repaired it during his next shooting phase using grot riggers despite still being locked in combat with scarabs. I thought this a little dodgy but went with it as there was nothing in the FAQ or codex saying it couldn't. What do you fine people reckon? Does it have to have an option to shoot in order to use the riggers or do they fix it despite being in combat?

Mek tools make a repair action opposed to shooting. Riggers are a vehicle upgrade and I don't believe the vehicle has to forgo shooting to repair himself.

Disregard this I sucks at (blank)
And yes they can do it in the shooting phase even if in close combat.

Hmm good question. Grot Riggers are used to repair an immobilized result instead of shooting. If a walker with a WS is locked in CC it can't shoot.

Yet you can run while shaken

You can repair as, although you cannot shoot you still choose to perform an action in the shooting phase.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Hmm good question. Grot Riggers are used to repair an immobilized result instead of shooting. If a walker with a WS is locked in CC it can't shoot.

I am not sure it says 'instead of shooting'. Grot Riggers are not Mek Tools.

What is the rule quote if anyone has a rulebook handy of Mek tools and Riggers.

wording for grot riggers

"an immobalized ork vehicle with grot riggers may roll a dice durring the ork shooting phase - on a 4+ the immobalized result is negated. the vehicle is abel to start moving next turn"

per the wording I would say that yes he can roll to remove the immobalized effect as it is done in the shooting phase, btu is not in fact shooting, it is an ability of wargear....

thats where the positive parts stop fo rthe ork player, as the ork vehicle is able to start moving "next turn" he's still going to count as immobalized for the round of close combat following the roll even if he passes

G00fySmiley wrote:wording for grot riggers

"an immobalized ork vehicle with grot riggers may roll a dice durring the ork shooting phase - on a 4+ the immobalized result is negated. the vehicle is abel to start moving next turn"

per the wording I would say that yes he can roll to remove the immobalized effect as it is done in the shooting phase, btu is not in fact shooting, it is an ability of wargear....

thats where the positive parts stop fo rthe ork player, as the ork vehicle is able to start moving "next turn" he's still going to count as immobalized for the round of close combat following the roll even if he passes

The immobilized effect is negated immediately so walkers can benefit in assault. He is not 'counts as immobilized' he just can't move which has different effects in close combat.

the wording of "able to start moving next turn" implicitly says it can move... next turn.

G00fySmiley wrote:the wording of "able to start moving next turn" implicitly says it can move... next turn.

Moving and Immobilized are different mechanics and have different effects. Walkers have penalties associated with Immobilization in CC where a walker who 'can't move' is not penalized the same way as one which is 'immobilized'.

So it immediately becomes un-immobilized, but may not MOVE until next turn. It is not 'counts as immobilized' until next turn. They have very different impacts on the CC.

Don't have my Ork DEX here at the office but if it doesn't say "instead of shooting" I don't see the issue of using Grot riggers while locked.

nkelsch wrote:

G00fySmiley wrote:the wording of "able to start moving next turn" implicitly says it can move... next turn.

Moving and Immobilized are different mechanics and have different effects. Walkers have penalties associated with Immobilization in CC where a walker who 'can't move' is not penalized the same way as one which is 'immobilized'.

So it immediately becomes un-immobilized, but may not MOVE until next turn. It is not 'counts as immobilized' until next turn. They have very different impacts on the CC.

yes it does in fact have impacts on cc, but as the unit cannot move unit next turn they cannot for example attempt to chase a unit ssould the walker win close combat, cannot ocnsolidate after combat or makepile in movements... as that would entail "moving"

it also gets one less close combat attack to a minimum of one,

also should the opponent be attacking with grenades they do it on a comparison of weapon skill instead of hitting on 6's

G00fySmiley wrote:

yes it does in fact have impacts on cc, but as the unit cannot move unit next turn they cannot for example attempt to chase a unit ssould the walker win close combat, cannot ocnsolidate after combat or makepile in movements... as that would entail "moving"

it also gets one less close combat attack to a minimum of one,

also should the opponent be attacking with grenades they do it on a comparison of weapon skill instead of hitting on 6's

All wrong... he is not immobilized or 'counts as' immobilized. He is as if he didn't move. Sweeps require an I test, and he is not immobilized so he loses no attacks nor does he get hit with grenades easier.

had to reread it several times.. but I was concentrating on

"the vehicle is abel to start moving next turn"

not the first part

"on a 4+ the immobalized result is negated"

feel kind of dumb now as it should have popped out but you are correct, immobalised is negated immediatly so all the effects shoudl go away...

my appologies nkelsch , I am man enough to admit when I am wrong /bow

so to the OP yes it is negated for all intents and purposes, my initial translation of the reading was incorrect

Thanks for clearing that up.