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.

Artillery units consist of a number of crew models and the gun models themselves. These units are quite complex as they can include several different Types of models. Eldar support platforms are even more tricky because you have the option to model one or two crew members mounted on the weapon itself and sharing its base, as shown by the assembly guide.

If shooting at an Artillery unit, any wounds that are caused are still allocated to the closest model first. Therefore if a support platform modelled with one or both crew members on the gun is shot at, I imagine we would use random allocation because the book says:

"At times, you will not be able to tell which model is closest. This usually happens when two or more models are equidistant from the shooting unit, but can also occur if the position of the attacker is unclear...
In these instances, randomly determine which model is treated as being the closest - that model remains the closest until the attack ends or the model is slain. If the model is slain and there are still wounds left to allocate, simply randomise again if needs be. If two or more models are equidistant from a firing unit, randomise only between those equidistant models."

That seems pretty clear cut, but what about marker attacks and beam/line attacks? Would each of these inflict 2 or 3 hits if they touch the base depending on how many crew members are mounted on the gun? Also, would any of the modelling options, that is zero, one or two crew members on the gun base, be considered modelling for advantage or illegal under the rules?

looks like the weapon would take the wound first until it dies in that case unless you have another crewman in front. Toughness goes from the artillery piece reguardless in shooting so don't worry about it too much. if someone wants to complain just put another base out there and tell him thats the guy or something. you could always just add another model on the base to cound as the model on the gun as well.

and you cant be modelling for advantage in this particular case. its an option to model the platform that way, not going beyond its intended design to create the advantage.

players are still allowed use 2nd edition Nids models and its not modelling for advantage, and if you've seen how small those carnifex's are, you wouldn't be worried about a guy behind a gun.

I would put the gunners on separate bases. It is one of the legal ways to assemble the model and creates the least amount of confusion.

No need to rip apart finished models, of course, as modeling the gunners on the platform is also legal.

The rules don't adequately cover the situation, I guess that will happen when a codex and it's models are 2 editions old though.

I think the most reasonable way is to just treat it that any object modelled onto the gun's base is a separate game piece who has an identical base that is coexisting with the weapon itself, this would mean they are always equidistant and thus require wounds be randomized between them as you have suggested, and they would both separately receive a hit from a blast weapon, this also makes sense because even if a blast is only over a single base, it is over the base which belongs to the guardian crew member, and also over the base which belongs to the weapon itself, making it 2 models "with [their] base fully or partially beneath the blast marker".

Given you play that way I don't see how it could be Modelling for Advantage, indeed I think keeping them separate would offer the greater advantage, allowing you better control over wound allocation by standing ablative crew members in front of the more valuable guns.

Drunkspleen wrote:
Given you play that way I don't see how it could be Modelling for Advantage, indeed I think keeping them separate would offer the greater advantage, allowing you better control over wound allocation by standing ablative crew members in front of the more valuable guns.

Shooting attacks always use the Toughness of the gun. Great fun with my Grot Guns with loads of extra crew standing in front of the Kannons!

The new Eldar artillery pieces are extremely idoitic and do not adhere to the rules for the codex. I understand they are prob sculpted for the new dex rule, but seeing as though that is a year minimum away, it was not smart on GW's part. Field another guardian with the team as a 2nd crew memember and ignore the guardian sitting on the gun.


IMO thr old platforms look 100% better anyhoo. Eldar wouldn't sit on a artillery gun, it would be remotely controlled. You know, low in numbers dieing race and all.