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.

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.