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.

I am looking at bringing a defense line with big guns behind it. Can the ammo runts with the big guns reroll the Icarus las cannon?

Yes they can.
It's the grot crew from the Big Gunz unit that is firing, and he can make use of the Runtz.

first question is can those big guns actually see over the line to begin with?

secondly, what does the ammo runt rule say? if its unit specific or states that the model with the runt can re-roll a shot with one of it's weapons then the answer is no as the lascanon is not one of the models' weapons.

It allows the re-roll of one dice of a Shooting Attack.
It's not specific to any of the model's weapons.

then that would be all gravy for a re-roll then.

although the original question of can they see would still remain....

 nutty_nutter wrote:
although the original question of can they see would still remain....

That's one that cannot be answered here.
Without know the table layout, the target etc...
Can any unit hit anything? Only by checking can you find out.

I got grots that on top of each other shoulders. They can see over the defense line thanks forgeworld crew. Plus you can stick a crewman off the end of the line with the gun.

 skkipper wrote:
I got grots that on top of each other shoulders. They can see over the defense line thanks forgeworld crew. Plus you can stick a crewman off the end of the line with the gun.

Forgeworld Grots are part of the 'vehicle mounted weapons' which don't have a ground-based 'crewed' alternative. There is not a single 'big gun' which has those models as crew. If you want to 'counts as' grot crew, they should be similar size and profile, which that 'one' is not.

If you are going to want that advantage, enjoy paying 40$ per model to get it and the arguments and dirty looks which comes with MFA.

Those models are listed as gretchin crew nothing that they are vehicle crew. You sir are making up stuff

 skkipper wrote:
Those models are listed as gretchin crew nothing that they are vehicle crew. You sir are making up stuff

Crew for weapons only mountable on vehicles. As soon as you field a Big Zzap gun or have rules for multi-wound grots with 2 models per base, feel free to field that model. It is literally stacking two of the same model on top of each other for height and calling it one. If I did that with any other unit in the game, people would question it.

Maybe you should be fielding Buzzgob's grot oiler as a big guns crew too? Sometimes models are cinematic embellishments, Especially grots for vehicles. It doesn't mean you can field them as something else simply because you want to. Those are clearly released as vehicle-mounted models which mean they are part of the gun or grot riggers. Show me where I can put two of a model on a single base?

Even if your opponent is ok with this model use, it only takes one sniper shot to remove the "tall grot".

be sure that the grot can see over the wall if the icarus is behind it.

There was a huge multi page thread here a week or so ago about how grots cant se over the wall to shoot.

They are models released by GW for use as crew. Call it lame or cheesy or what ever I guess I could bring screamer star to the tourney instead. Nobody will complain and for the guy who does. Big deal I will make sure I have grots on the side as well.

It is a model released by GW for use as VEHICLE crew. As given on the webpage.

Of course you could use the FW grots as ammo runts and whatnot, they arent for vehicles only. Many of those would be cool as big gunz krew. No where does it states its for vehicles only, they can be used as ammo runtz, oilers, riggers, big gunz krew, coolness, one or two might qualify as an orderly etc. I dont think I will ever meet a person in RL that would have a problem with be fielding the wrench wielding grot as a grot oiler for instance.
FW sells "Gretchen crew" Big Gunz comes with "Grot krew" and may buy additional "Grot krew" thats close enough for me. http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Orks/ORK_INFANTRY_AND_WALKERS/GRETCHIN-CREW.html

Fair enough that people wont stand for the 2grot tall model, but dont disallow ALL those grots.

I would personally just place the ADL Gun in B2B with the line at the corner, that way I could have a single grot beside the Icarus out in the open shooting with it. If my opponent were to shoot it down, Id just move another one forward in my turn. He cant shoot the rest if he cant see them. The runtherd would try to hide behind the gun itself. (as he is too big too hide behind the ADL. Granted this tactic works alot better with grot mobs than big gunz.

Yes, and all the pictures show them crewing....vehicles.

I don't recall a list in the rulebook saying which model to use for which unit. Or pictures on websites being considered rules.

So you can only discuss it with your opponent/TO to find out whether you can use model X for unit Y.

So the name, which isnt the name in the codex, isnt sufficient?

Nope.. otherwise a lot of codices could not use units since they have no models that bear the exact name in the codex' unit entry.

Take Sisters of Battle for instance which didn't have Celestian, Retributor and Dominion models but only models of 'Battle Sisters'.

(although I just noticed GW has added 1-click bundles for this army's units which are repackaged Battle Sisters with a new name..)

I'll just throw gasoline on this thread by repeating my assertion from the previous thread that there's nothing wrong with an Ork player who designed a customized ADL that Grots could see over.

Murrdox wrote:
I'll just throw gasoline on this thread by repeating my assertion from the previous thread that there's nothing wrong with an Ork player who designed a customized ADL that Grots could see over.

Nothing wrong, apart from Modelling For Advantage, which while it isnt a rule is a player convention, and part of the social contract of the game.

Rule of cool does play a factor, but if all youre doing is trying to claim "but fluff", when we all know how little orks care for grots...yeah, but no.

I use this one myself. Mainly because it's Orky and not Imperial.
Same overall length as the normal Aegis, less flexible though without the small sections.
Grots can see over, but harder to get a cover save for vehicles like looted tanks.
Pros and Cons.
No playere or tournament has argued with me using it yet.
Did I mention it's more Orky that the Imperial one?

 grendel083 wrote:


I use this one myself. Mainly because it's Orky and not Imperial.
Same overall length as the normal Aegis, less flexible though without the small sections.
Grots can see over, but harder to get a cover save for vehicles like looted tanks.
Pros and Cons.
No playere or tournament has argued with me using it yet.
Did I mention it's more Orky that the Imperial one?

And MFA... If it was the same size, then there would be no difference to how it interacts with the rules. 'Pros/cons' is a bullcrap defense because you say 'Oh, Looted wagons get less cover' and then you never use a looted wagon with them. You maximize your undeserved PROD and mitigate the theoretical CON. Getting less cover for something you can simply not take or use it with in order to get a unit who can't see over an ADl the ability to see over is a game-breaking advantage.

I have seen those brought to tourneys and forced to be replaced with a 'stock' ADL because those were considered abusive. If I saw you using them with Grots explicitly trying to gain an undeserved advantage, I would report you to the TO in a second and offer to let you use a stock ADL stand-in.

Now if you were to use these: http://www.mrdandy.com/wargamma-linked-barricades/

I have some of these and they are almost the exact measurements of the stock ADL, but if people question it, especially at tourneys, I whip out the stock ADL.

nkelsch wrote:
And MFA... If it was the same size, then there would be no difference to how it interacts with the rules. 'Pros/cons' is a bullcrap defense because you say 'Oh, Looted wagons get less cover' and then you never use a looted wagon with them. You maximize your undeserved PROD and mitigate the theoretical CON. Getting less cover for something you can simply not take or use it with in order to get a unit who can't see over an ADl the ability to see over is a game-breaking advantage.

Judging by your own Ork army (very cool by the way) you take pride in your theme and appearance. As do I.
As I stated I take it because it more Orky. Not to gain any advantage.

I leave that for my opponents and/or Tournament official to decide.

I have seen those brought to tourneys and forced to be replaced with a 'stock' ADL because those were considered abusive.

I've never had that with opponents or Tournament Officials. Those at GW's own Throne of Skulls are more than happy for me to use it, this is why I pre-check before a game or Tournament. I do have an imperial one just in case, but not once have I been asked to replace it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
Now if you were to use these: http://www.mrdandy.com/wargamma-linked-barricades/

Sadly not an option for me. Other than local club tournies, Throne of Skulls is the nearest major one. That would not be allowed purely because it's not a GW model.

Then the best thing you can do is play 'as if' it was the stock ADL, which means take away no advantages. I would totally be fine with someone using a cinematic or creative model which was different as long as they were not intending to explicitly exploit an advantage out of it.

The second they are having a differently-sized stand-in model and they quickly play with tactics or explicit efforts to maximize that advantage from the difference from the stock model, then the game ends.

In 5th, 60mm ghaz stand-ins were common. The second someone used a 60mm warboss to increase assault distance from disembarking, the game ended.

Lots of people have unique or oversized BWs, as soon as they use that to do funky LOS blocking, rotating for extra distance or extending measurement ranges like KFF aura, the game ends.

It is simple enough to simply 'not take advantage'. Orks already have a bad reputation due to inconsistent modeling, and all it takes is one person abusing things to force TOs to come down hard. I do everything I can to be creative within the size limits of stock models for consistency and fairness to my opponents.

nkelsch wrote:
Then the best thing you can do is play 'as if' it was the stock ADL

If a TO has cleared the model, then it's good to go.
If my opponent wishes me to use it "as if" then that's fine (as long as they bring this up before deployment).
This is why I stressed the importance of checking before the game or tournament.

I've always endevoured to make my conversions and counts-as as close to stock size as possible.

I would say modeled for disadvantage. if i have y DL around an objective with the gun sitting on the edge where a single run can walk over to fire it each turn, I DONT want my runts to be seen. Remember, if they cant see you, you cant see them and their puny lil peashooters are useless at long range anyway.
End of game comes, I got to fire the gun each turn while at most losing only the single grot that could be seen (not enough for a leadership test) and claim the objective to boot. I DONT want my grots to see over it.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I would say modeled for disadvantage. if i have y DL around an objective with the gun sitting on the edge where a single run can walk over to fire it each turn, I DONT want my runts to be seen. Remember, if they cant see you, you cant see them and their puny lil peashooters are useless at long range anyway.
End of game comes, I got to fire the gun each turn while at most losing only the single grot that could be seen (not enough for a leadership test) and claim the objective to boot. I DONT want my grots to see over it.

That assumes you are using grots + ADL for the gun only.

9 Kannons is a pretty effective use of points and one of the more decent HS. If crew could see over and shoot with 9 kannons, and ADL would be effective cover as well as allowing re-rolls for the interceptor gun via ammo runts.

I know the 50pt kannon unit with one guy poking out to fire the gun is nice, but if grots were ork-sized, the ADL would be a great tactic with a Big Gunz heavy list.

But they can't, so it isn't. It is at best a dubious argument and at worst, 9 kannons who can't shoot. Hence when you see a big gunz heavy list with an ADL, you can suspect some MFA to make it viable as a tactic.

That is true. This is why it is good to know the official ruling. that way, if your runts cant see over the wall to fire the cannons, you will k to set th,em up somewhere else instead and us the wall in a ore effective manner such as I demonstrated. If you know you cant fire the cannons over the wall and dont feel them worth buying, then that is more points to spend on something else that is more useful or just as useful.
Does this mean that I agree with those who cry MFA if you so much as have a different number of rivets? No, I feel the players who cry MFA over every little only trying to twist the rules for their benefit and if the roles were reversed, they would be fine with it. In other words exhibit every sign of being "TFG". Of course, that is only my view of the behavior and not necessarily my view towards anyone in particular, just the overall behavior.
Knowing that I may be facing TFG who would cry MFA, i avoid the issue and find other ways to win.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Does this mean that I agree with those who cry MFA if you so much as have a different number of rivets?

Exaggerating your opponents point doesn't make your argument stronger. Unless you're actually saying there's no difference between 23 rivers vs 24 and models that can't normally see over one seeing over just fine.