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.

The rulebook supports it.  But would people get mad?

why would you want to? per the BGB, "...you can mount them on something bigger if you wish, but not something smaller."

To make the grot screen bigger.
People will get bent over anything they percieve as 'unfair' or 'cheesey'.
I say do it.

Really, it is in bad taste, wouldn't you say?

In fact, since you're asking, I think you already know the answer...

"In fact, since you're asking, I think you already know the answer..."

Hey, that's my line!

I guess I really should have asked "how many people will get mad". I suppose that's really more in line with what I'd like to know.

Depends on how many people you play.

Personally, I'd simply pity you.

Hey with the way the orks are right now go ahead. They need help.
However I do suggest wearing protection when your angry opponent kicks you in the junk.

Meh. I seriously doubt that too many people would waste their energy getting mad over toy soldiers on ridiculously large bases.

You create as many problems with this set up as you solve. I'd be more than happy to play against it, at least once.

Yep, agree with Insaniak. Dreadnought bases would tend to "push back" the Orks several inches back, potentially meaning it will take even longer to get into combat.

Mounting Grots on Calvary bases would be much more sneaky.


And yes, I would personally not care to play with someone who used this tactic even though it is perfectly legal.

Would you even need to put grotz on larger bases?  The version 4 Ork FAQ says that you can make your grot save if the shot passes 'through' the grotz.  Our group never really took that to mean that the shot has to pass through the bases, but rather the unit.  So, you can set them up 2" away from each other per coherency rules, and if the shot passes through the area between the two outside border models, then it fulfills the rule right?

- Oaka

Yeah I'm not seeing the point. You don't gain any movement with them on the bigger bases, you're doing nothing but pushing your Orks back further and if you use the 20 sized mob which you pretty much need to, you're going to have trouble staying in your deployment zone on cleanse missions. What exactly is the point? To block LOS when (if?) they get into CC ahead of your Boyz?

I don't think it would help much, but knock your socks off, it's legal.

But even I'd zero you for it.

Now THAT is saying something!

I think you've got your answer now...

Posted By Oaka on 05/21/2006 7:17 PM
Would you even need to put grotz on larger bases?  The version 4 Ork FAQ says that you can make your grot save if the shot passes 'through' the grotz.  Our group never really took that to mean that the shot has to pass through the bases, but rather the unit.  So, you can set them up 2" away from each other per coherency rules, and if the shot passes through the area between the two outside border models, then it fulfills the rule right?

- Oaka

You are correct, but if the grots are on larger bases, then they can cover a much larger total area (one unit can cover half the board easily).

This is pretty funny! Can you imagine 30 grots mounted on dreadnaught bases? LOL!

From a tactical standpoint, cavalry bases would be better. They would spread the grots out into a much larger area, side to side, but wouldn't push your orcs back farther from charge range as you move towards your opponent.

Sal

You should spend more time playing the game & less time playing the rules.

The game is the rules stupid.

No.

The rules are part of the game. The game is not just the rules.
Play the game not the rules.

You can play the game without the rules I suppose. My kids do it all the time with their GI Joes.

What you mean to say is "Play the Game and ignore the rules you don't like, even if they're clear". So just say that instead so we understand you and you don't seem quite so foolish.

Its almost funny just how sad your life must be.

No matter how sad my life ever gets, it's not going to change the fact that "play the game, not the rules" is an idiot's musings.

 

I think it is more of a phrase indicating to play "fair" and not exploit the rules/

Besides, a win on bad merits only leaves a sour taste in everybody's mouth.

Better to win on good merits, because then you actually earned something.

So play the game, not the rules. Play fair, have an effective army list, think tactically about where your models are going, keep the objectives in mind, and try not to screw with people with random poorly writen rules. You may actually enjoy yourself.

But isn't the definition of "playing fair": playing by the rules?

If not, what is it?

What he's saying is that he doesn't like the rules and wants you to just follow his. That's because his "game" doesn't need and is somethign other than the "rules".

I'm sure that attitude works wonderfully at tournaments.

If we ever play just remind me at the start you don't want to play by the rules and we'll have alot more fun.

 

Well, since this thread has completely de-railed I feel safe to join in.

I hate to knock Kimmonarez when he's not even here but I have to agree that that phrase has never made sense to me. It's like saying "Drive to work, but don't use a car." Even at my drunkest, I can't make that work. Maybe the phrase would be better as "Don't get bogged down in the rules, just enjoy the game." Even then though, it seems like it's okay to ignore rules that don't suit the user at their whim. Did I spell whim right? Anyways, the whole thing sounds like fortune cookie sayings which continue to annoy me more and more as time goes on. Like "Be gentle as a flower, yet hard as stone." That sounds pretty cool, but it don't mean a darn thing! Even that blind dude from Kung Fu had a confused look on his face when I said that. So maybe the moral of the thread should be:

Hey, sometimes the rules leave things open to be abused. Sometimes they completely contradict themselves. Still other times they make no sense at all. But, if that ever makes us stop playing than we should all be ashamed of ourselves because the great ones will find a way. They will stand up and say I'm going to place my drop pod on my own troops dammit! I'm going to fire my battle cannon and force my opponent to remove casualties! And you better believe I'm going to teleport my terminators within 6" of a rhino carrying a model with a homer! I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!

Well, I'm real glad people posted, thanks for all the replies.

So let me get this straight.

Here's something that's specifically and clearly stated in the rulebook as being legal.  But people would still have a problem with someone doing it.  They wouldn't get mad at the people that wrote the admittedly defective rules in the first place.  They would be mad at the people that FOLLOWED the rules.  They would refuse to play them.  They would call them names.  They would call them bad sportsmen/womyn.

Hm.

Isn't that interesting.

Your comments, please!

(not trolling; this really IS pretty interesting to me.  Fascinating, even.)

"They wouldn't get mad at the people that wrote the admittedly defective rules in the first place. They would be mad at the people that FOLLOWED the rules. "

i'm always mad at GW!
it's part of the hobby for me!
and i wouldn't say what you're suggesting is "following" the rules.
feels more abusive than that.

What I don't get is the people saying "play the rules" are saying they would zero comp/not play someone who was following the rules. Why punish people for doing what you strongly state that everyone should be doing instead of playing to have fun?

What I don't get is the people saying "play the rules" are saying they would zero comp/not play someone who was following the rules. Why punish people for doing what you strongly state that everyone should be doing instead of playing to have fun?

Speaking only for myself (and not considering myself someone who always says: "play the rules"):

Because there can and will always exist grey areas in the rules. A sportsmanlike player takes the interpretation less advantageous position in these cases. the unsportsmanlike player does not.

As an opponent dealing with completely subjective concepts like sportsmanship/army composition it is every player's right to decide to dock their opponents if they see fit.

So is mounting your models on large bases with the express purpose of gaining an advantage not clearly given in the rules cheating? Of course not.

Is it poor sportsmanship? In most player's eyes (which is all that matters for sportsmanship), it clearly is.