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.

Knowingly making false statements is lying. Being the person lying makes you a liar.

You are asking to prove something which cannot be proved because it would require me to know the status of every metal model for the history of. GW models.

I can tell you that model was never sold as a 40k model. That is fact. The 5th edition spear chuckerhad 2 crew, one bench pressing a bolt, and one reaching up to pull a lever on the bolt thrower. It has only ever been sold as a fantasy model and with that kit. To claim "you can't prove it was never sold as a 40k model" is absurdity. This model was never repurposed from another kit the way other kits were. It has only ever been released as a fantasy bolt thrower kit. You never got one in a 40k Gretchen blister. To say you did is a lie.

You goal to find one model to see over the aDL so in turn all your models can is cheating.

So you state you can not prove something yet in the same sentence state that which you knowingly can not prove as fact and someone asking you to prove it is the one lying. Good one. I'll let you post again so you can get the last word in as that seems to be so important to you.

models in base to base with the Agis can fire over it

 Lemartes12 wrote:
models in base to base with the Agis can fire over it

Citation needed because I can not find that rule anywhere in the book.

That rule is for WHFB walls, not 40K. 40K 's walls and barricades don't mention it, nor do Defense Lines (which are walls and barricades with +2 cover if you GtG behind them)

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Lemartes12 wrote:
models in base to base with the Agis can fire over it

Citation needed because I can not find that rule anywhere in the book.

ill see if i can find it a bit later. I thought i read something about it, ill post if i do find it.

 Lemartes12 wrote:
ill see if i can find it a bit later. I thought i read something about it, ill post if i do find it.

You won't find it.

Rapture wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
So again around we go. I look at the tab on the model it says what? "Gretchin". I look at the Dex entry and guess what it says to use? spoiler alert; the word begins with a g and ends with an n.

Now since you have evidently missed the question more than once, please show me anywhere in any rulebook, hell I'll even accept a previous edition rulebook, that using an unmodified model as it is labeled in a role that it is called for in the Codex is cheating. If I were to sink to your level of maturity, but since I won't , I'd say that the way I see it is you are the cheater and TFG for not allowing it.

And just out of curosity here would you mind pointing to a post where I've said I have actually purchased the tippytoe grot in a blister? I have asked you several times to show me proof that said tippytoe grot was never sold in a blister but you can not do so as you'd rather resort to petty name calling and childish antics.

I purchased some Space Marine models from Forgeworld. My SM codex says that the models are "space marines." So I can use them in a game to represent models in my units, right? They are all clearly labeled "space marine," after all.

By the way, each is 6" tall...
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Modelling-Supplies/IMPERIAL-SPACE-MARINE.html

We all know which models are sold to be used for each unit. It is not difficult.

Sure, use them. But they better be WYSIWYG and painted .

A better example would have been the infamous Epic Whirlwind in a 40K Marine army...

Infamous? Is there an amusing tale to tell?

It was a discussion from a couple of editions back... Someone pointed out that since there was nothing in the book specifying that you had to use 40K models, you could use an Epic Whirlwind to make it easier to hide behind terrain or other models.

 Lemartes12 wrote:
ill see if i can find it a bit later. I thought i read something about it, ill post if i do find it.

You're probably thinking of 5th edition, where a rule like that did exist. It does not exist in 6th.

This is not a contribution to the official argument but highly related.

I have been thinking about this and in the casual setting, I've thought of what I feel would be a neat house rule using a lot of the discussion in this thread. The rule would be if a model can't see at eye level over the barricade/adl/etc, if they're in base contact they can still shoot over but only snap shots to represent holding the gun over and spraying at your enemy without really having a good view. How many times have we seen this kind of scene in movies/tv, or playing laser tag, or playing paintball? What do you guys think?

If we are talking house rules, they should have just kept the 5th edition rules for barriers. It would quickly resolve any LoS issues with a blanket abstraction. Right now, it really screws "prone" heavy weapons teams for no real reason.

But house rules and issues with 6th is a different discussion.

 insaniak wrote:
It was a discussion from a couple of editions back... Someone pointed out that since there was nothing in the book specifying that you had to use 40K models, you could use an Epic Whirlwind to make it easier to hide behind terrain or other models.

I do have a bunch of Epic Land Raiders...

a lot of people (and shops) put their buildings on tiles to add support to the building and add debri around it to make it look realistic.
if you have done this, there is nothing to stop you from setting it up behind the wall so that if you put the grot on the tile it could possibly see over. of course, then, people will accuse you of MFA on the buildings as the tile did not come as part of the actual building in the box set lol.
There would also be setting it up on or in front of a hill slope so that what is behind the wall is slightly higher.
someone else, I believe also mentioned setting the gun up at one of the ends of the wall so that a single grot can stand out to the side of the wall with an unobstructed view and still be in base contact with the gun.

A side note, I always stick the gun behind the wall because itjust seems kinda the right thing to do. However, I have seen players set the gun up in totally different places even up inside of ruins because the faq says the wall sections have to touch but not the gun. What is the official view on this? If it is legal, you could just set the gun up in a ruin or behind something lower that a grot CAN see over so it can fire it.

 EVIL INC wrote:
a lot of people (and shops) put their buildings on tiles to add support to the building and add debri around it to make it look realistic.
if you have done this, there is nothing to stop you from setting it up behind the wall so that if you put the grot on the tile it could possibly see over.

Actually there is, Terrain needs to be at least 3 inches form fortifications or other terrain, so this will limit this kind of setup.

 EVIL INC wrote:
A side note, I always stick the gun behind the wall because itjust seems kinda the right thing to do. However, I have seen players set the gun up in totally different places even up inside of ruins because the faq says the wall sections have to touch but not the gun. What is the official view on this? If it is legal, you could just set the gun up in a ruin or behind something lower that a grot CAN see over so it can fire it.

RAW the gun can be anywhere in your half of the table and more than X" from any other fortification (note that it is part of the same fortification as the ADL wall, so this only refers to enemy fortifications or double FOC). As you noticed, the rule on having sections forming a single unbroken chain applies only to the wall, not to the gun, and there are no rules, other than the universal ones which apply to all fortifications, that cover placing the gun.

However, many people feel that this is a mistake in the rules and will object if you place the gun "too far away" according to their personal opinion of how far is "reasonable". And of course you can never set the gun up in a ruin because fortifications are placed before terrain is on the table and the gun will obviously count as part of a fortification for measuring the minimum distance between terrain and fortifications.

 Peregrine wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
A side note, I always stick the gun behind the wall because itjust seems kinda the right thing to do. However, I have seen players set the gun up in totally different places even up inside of ruins because the faq says the wall sections have to touch but not the gun. What is the official view on this? If it is legal, you could just set the gun up in a ruin or behind something lower that a grot CAN see over so it can fire it.

RAW the gun can be anywhere in your half of the table and more than X" from any other fortification (note that it is part of the same fortification as the ADL wall, so this only refers to enemy fortifications or double FOC). As you noticed, the rule on having sections forming a single unbroken chain applies only to the wall, not to the gun, and there are no rules, other than the universal ones which apply to all fortifications, that cover placing the gun..

This is not true at all.

The gun is an upgrade for the ADL, it must be placed with the ADL in base contact, just like any other part of the ADL.

Unless you are saying that I can put my Land Raider Lascannons anywhere on the table...

So to summarise that little tangent - there are two schools of thought as to how the gun is placed. Until GW decide to finish writing the rules for Fortifications, you'll have to discuss it with your opponent.

There's really no need to dredge up the whole 'upgrades do/do not have to be touching the thing they upgrade' argument. The simple fact is we can only guess at where GW intended us to be able to place the gun.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The gun is an upgrade for the ADL, it must be placed with the ADL in base contact, just like any other part of the ADL.

Then why did GW have to write specific rules for the ADL that explicitly require physical contact between the wall sections? If all parts of the ADL have to be in contact because they're part of the same fortification then the ADL-specific rule (and later FAQ) are completely redundant. The fact that this specific rule was necessary is a pretty decisive argument that fortifications function like units and their components are separate "models".

Unless you are saying that I can put my Land Raider Lascannons anywhere on the table...

That's a completely different situation and you know it. The LCs are a weapon that is part of a model, so they must be attached to that model as shown in the instructions for assembling the model. The gun on an ADL is a separate "model" that is part of a "unit".

 Peregrine wrote:
Then why did GW have to write specific rules for the ADL that explicitly require physical contact between the wall sections?

Because without it people assumed that the wall section could be placed independantly of each other.

Whether or not that was technically correct has little bearing on whether or not people thought they could do it.

We had players putting 2 sections over here, another 2 over there and a large section in the middle great distances apart. When they wrote the rules originally, I am assuming that they had simply not taken into account that players would do that and fixed it in the FAQ.

if you look at the example in the book, you will notice that the gun is not touching the wall sections at all.and it would be harder to picture it for the book if they had deployed it somewhere else. PERSONALLY, I place it behind the wall because the wall gives it better protection than a wooded area and I can just have who ever is manning the walls fire it as well.

Good call on the terrain being 3 inches away. I had overlooked that because the tables are usually pre set at the shop when I playthere and they are lax on it.

 earlofburger wrote:
Total bummer man, anyway around this travesty?

Play with a reasonable player, allow the grots to shoot over the ADL and in turn allow them to be shot at.

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:

 earlofburger wrote:
Total bummer man, anyway around this travesty?

Play with a reasonable player, allow the grots to shoot over the ADL and in turn allow them to be shot at.

So following the rules is being an unreasonable player?

Interesting, incorrect, but still interesting.

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:
Play with a reasonable player, allow the grots to shoot over the ADL and in turn allow them to be shot at.

Surely the 'reasonable' player is the one who doesn't expect his opponent to ignore the LOS rules just so he can shoot over an obstacle that is taller then the models he is trying to shoot with...?

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:

 earlofburger wrote:
Total bummer man, anyway around this travesty?

Play with a reasonable player, allow the grots to shoot over the ADL and in turn allow them to be shot at.

So my marines can fire over the bastion in front of them? After all, it's crazy for them to bring a fortification they can't shoot over....

you might want to keep in mind that th bastion is a separate fortification. it is a building that can be entered and fired out of (as far as I know even grots may fire out of the specified locations or 'man" the heavy bolters but you may want to check the rules on that becausethey may be too short). likewise fortifications such as the fortress of redemption and the landing pad and so forth are all separate fortifications all with their own individual rules and specs.

 EVIL INC wrote:
you might want to keep in mind that th bastion is a separate fortification. it is a building that can be entered and fired out of (as far as I know even grots may fire out of the specified locations or 'man" the heavy bolters but you may want to check the rules on that becausethey may be too short). likewise fortifications such as the fortress of redemption and the landing pad and so forth are all separate fortifications all with their own individual rules and specs.

His Point is that the grots have no LOS at all, and to grant them LOS should allow me(or him, or whatever) to fire over LOS blocking terrain as well.


The reason it is not unreasonable to hold grots an prone models to TLOS is 2-fold:
1; they should not be able to shoot and not be shot at; which is the logical extension.
2; You had full control over where those models were deployed, you are just trying to gain a benefit.

I don't know if you are allow shoot over three story building instead if your opposition try shoot over less than 18mm tall wall while they are kneeling or prone include this cute gretchin.. That would be massive daft ever I've heard.