Gubbins Rebel grot wind surf board question. If their mast breaks, do they count as immobilized? I know they have rules for using them as surfboards, but I feel like rolling on the permanent damage table might be much since they are only 1 toof. Love the idea behind them though.
Gorkamorka FAQ
- Thread starter Flamekebab
- Start date
So an update to my eariler question. Da krusha has both plus attack entries in question and says they attack at his regular str of 4, implying they do infact use the base str. Since his only weapon in cc, his claw arm, is str 6.
From the way it's worded (an extra S4 attack), I can't really tell whether the author actually remembered how HTH combat works in Gorkamorka or not.
You don't really have such a thing as 'a S4 attack'. You have an extra attack dice. Then one portion of any hits have to be resolved at S4.
(It does look as if, RAI, these extra attacks/hits are at base S though. Makes sense I guess.)
You don't really have such a thing as 'a S4 attack'. You have an extra attack dice. Then one portion of any hits have to be resolved at S4.
(It does look as if, RAI, these extra attacks/hits are at base S though. Makes sense I guess.)
Last edited:
I was thinking that too, I think they confused it with 3rd 40k which orks bionic arm added an extra attack at base str. But I brought it up due to it kinda addressing my eariler question.
The odd thing (imho) is that if you have A3 and a choppa, then you can do all your hits with the choppa. But if you then added a bionic leg (extra attack) you'd do have to do half of your hits at base S, even though it's only one of your four attack dice. I guess it would be too good if you only needed to resolve every fourth hit at base S though.
Minor thing, sorry if its covered. But I discovered they don't explicitly mention who rolls with muties vs rebel grots. I assume its lowest mob? Interesting to note, it also doesn't say orks vs ither mob, implying against orks rebel grots and muties always roll. Always played it lowest mob rolls, but just noticed this now.
In the Orks/Diggas vs Orks/Diggas line, it specifies the mob with the lower rating (which is the usual rule).
In the lines concerning Rebel Grotz and Muties, there's no mention of that. I would assume the omission means that Rebel Grotz always get to roll when fighting Orks/Diggas, regardless of mob rating.
(You're right that it doesn't specify who rolls in Rebel Grotz vs Muties, or indeed Rebel Grotz vs Rebel Grots. In those case, I would go with the standard rule of mob with the lowest rating.)
In the lines concerning Rebel Grotz and Muties, there's no mention of that. I would assume the omission means that Rebel Grotz always get to roll when fighting Orks/Diggas, regardless of mob rating.
(You're right that it doesn't specify who rolls in Rebel Grotz vs Muties, or indeed Rebel Grotz vs Rebel Grots. In those case, I would go with the standard rule of mob with the lowest rating.)
Add on to that, the pogo stik unit, as cool as I see it, I cant figure out the best way to handle them skill and equipment wise, treat them like some mordheim units that don't gain exp? Treat them like normal grots but their starting equipment is an exception? Both the pogo sticks and boards sound really cool, but I see why they aren't mentioned much, outside of one off games they seem incomplete. Only asking because I was going to include them.
Forgive me if this has been asked, but is it possible to charge and attack the vehicle directly similar to how it's done in modern Necromunda, or does the charger have to attack crew/drivers?
Also what there is no point mounting melee oriented ork on a bike I presume, given the fact that vehicles can't charge to initiate close combat?
Also what there is no point mounting melee oriented ork on a bike I presume, given the fact that vehicles can't charge to initiate close combat?
Possible, yes, but not under those circumstances. If a warrior has the Wrecka skill they can do this (see page 62 of Da Uvver Book) and if the vehicle is empty they can do this (bottom right of page 44 of Da Roolz). Otherwise no, they either fight the crew (the defender nominates who fights who) or they do nothing if there's no one available to fight (because they're all fighting someone else).
Correct. They'd be better at defending themselves from boarders but that'd be about it.
1). Since fights are 1v1, does this mean that excessive boarders get to attack the vehicle itself?
2). How many hits does a 'wrecker' make on the vehicle given how vehicle does not actually roll attacks back to defend and number of hits in melee combat is based on comparative score?
2). How many hits does a 'wrecker' make on the vehicle given how vehicle does not actually roll attacks back to defend and number of hits in melee combat is based on comparative score?
That's what I meant by they do nothing. The original rules don't cover it (it looks like they meant to and got distracted - see the top of page 44 of Da Roolz.
The vehicle has an effective combat score of 0.
Reading this, I thought 'is that really right?' The idea that they simply stand around and do nothing seems a bit odd.
I had a look at Da Roolz. As often the case, they're not entirely clear and it may be that something elsewhere in the book changes things. But, according to p. 44, "A warrior who finds himself unopposed on a vehicle can attempt to damage the vehicle itself should he so wish".*
I think 'unopposed' here is open to interpretation. One interpretation is that a model is only unopposed if they are no models from the other side on the same vehicle. (This seems to be how you're reading it.) However, another interpretation is that a model is unopposed if he is not matched up with an opposing model.
On the latter interpretation, then if three people board a trukk that only has two models (driver and one passenger), it means that two of them would fight the crew and the third boarder would be unopposed, and thus able to attack the vehicle itself.
I'm not sure which of these was intended by the writers - quite possibly the first interpretation - but the second seems to make more sense than standing around and doing nothing.
*One caveat to that (further illustrating my point about the rules writing) is that this is under a heading about damaging a stationary vehicle. However, despite that heading, nothing in the text under seems to mention the vehicle being stationary. Therefore, it's not really clear whether or how it applies to a moving vehicle.
There are certainly a few things on that page that don't make a lot of sense.
If you're on a mobile vehicle and manage to remove all the crew, including driver, then you can automatically immobilize the vehicle (left hand column, para 5). But if you're on a stationary vehicle, even with no crew, then you still need to roll armour penetration as usual (final para).
If you're on a mobile vehicle and manage to remove all the crew, including driver, then you can automatically immobilize the vehicle (left hand column, para 5). But if you're on a stationary vehicle, even with no crew, then you still need to roll armour penetration as usual (final para).
Nice catch! I never spotted that. We always just used the "Vehicles Without a Driver" rules on pg 34 and let them swerve around until they crash into something or run off the board.
The auto-immobilize vs. make AP rolls difference could sort of make sense. Immobilize- you grab the steering wheel, jump on he brakes before you wreck yourself. Attacking stationary vehicles-you are actually just hacking away on bits trying to damage it.
I can see the "unopposed" both ways. I bet GRC would love it to mean extra models not engaged in melee. (green evil smiley)
