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.

So I am positive this is somehwo wrong, but i can't find the txt to prove it. a new player put together an ork list. He included Mad DOk who pe rhis special rule allows any unit to have a cybork body. he then took 4 deff dreds which he gave cybork bodies . where i play people usually ask me about ork rules and i said while i don't think you can I couldn't find in the rules where he couldn't but said I'd ask dakka about it.

the mad doc special rule reads " any unit in an army including grotsnik may upgrage its members to have cybork bodies for +5 points per model"

I think it falls under dred being a vehicle but couldn't find in writing where a walker is not also a unit

little help would be appreciated

i will say it was a very interesting list the kid came up with 4 dreds big mek leading nob bikers and just grots for troops

Well the Closest thing I can find is this FAQ entry:

Q. How many units in an army with Mad Dok Grotsnik
can be upgraded to have cybork bodies? Are there any
restrictions (apart from non-vehicle) or can it even be
Gretchin or Independent Characters? (p59)

A. Any number of units can be upgraded. This includes
Gretchin (Super-Gretchin! Cool conversions, but a bit
expensive at 8 pts per model!) and Independent
Characters (except for unique characters), effectively
giving them a 5 pt discount on the cybork body
upgrade.

You will notice the question asks if any restrictions are involved aside from the unit being non-vehicle; the answer then says no restrictions but does not refer back to correct the "Non-Vehicle" portion.

Per the straight RAW; Vehicles are Units, and nothing in the Cybork body, nor Grotsnik special rule state anything about the unit being required to be non-vehicle. you have a rule that specifies any unit may have Cybork body, and no rules that specify vehicle may not have Cybork body... therefore they may take cybork body(and even benefit from it as the Cybork body rules specify that models with it get a 5+ invulnerable; and we already have precedent for how that works on vehicles).

I agree with Kel but I would ask my opponent or TO if they're good with that before hand because you may get a lot of dirty looks doing so.

Yeah I forgot to state that.

at the very least you can take Cybork instead of grot riggers, then if your opponent/TO disagrees with taking Cybork you simply swap it for riggers.

I would add to the above that even if one can get an opponent or TO to agree with this RAW interpretation, one should expect any army built around this obvious RAI ommission to be nerfed by an FAQ.

I agree it is cheap but so is slipping Ghaz in with snikrot... still fun to do sometimes and yea oprobably not somethign to be done in anythign but a friendly fun game. I can see if it made it into a tournament list it being faq'd off real quick


if this actually works... i am so making a kan list with cyborks and big mek so there can be a dred then mek w/ sag for kicks , groups of rokkit buggies and one group of grots for second troop... kinda a all but one unit having AV list and cybork ... bad strat i know but different

lindsay40k wrote:I would add to the above that even if one can get an opponent or TO to agree with this RAW interpretation, one should expect any army built around this obvious RAI ommission to be nerfed by an FAQ.

You know what... how do you know that's RAI???

@anyone... wouldn't it be "orky" to cybork up vehicle and walkers???? How would that be modeled???

Can you imagine a completely cybork'ed KanWall list??? Talk about over-powered...

Not saying I'd do it, but I find it strange that with the multiple Ork FAQs in the last year or so, that not once this has been addressed.

This is answered in the FAQ, in a strange way.

The QUESTION in the FAQ regarding Mad Doc assumes, and even specifically states that it assumes that vehicles are a restriction on Cybork bodies.

If vehicles were NOT a restriction for being Cyborked, the Answer to the FAQ question would have corrected this, and would have said that Vehicles could benefit. But it doesn't.

Anyone who tries to pull this off deserves getting hit with a Dreadsock. It's obviously not RAI. When the Ork Codex was written, there was no such thing as a Vehicle that had an invulnerable save, and there was nothing in the BRB that indicated a vehicle could ever GET an invulnerable save. Thus, it wasn't necessary at the time of the codex's writing to explicitly state that vehicles can't benefit from Cybork Body.

Then Games Workshop got lazy and started tossing Invulnerable saves to vehicles in future codexes, even though the BRB never says a vehicle can take it.

whembly wrote:

lindsay40k wrote:I would add to the above that even if one can get an opponent or TO to agree with this RAW interpretation, one should expect any army built around this obvious RAI ommission to be nerfed by an FAQ.

You know what... how do you know that's RAI???

@anyone... wouldn't it be "orky" to cybork up vehicle and walkers???? How would that be modeled???

Can you imagine a completely cybork'ed KanWall list??? Talk about over-powered...

Not saying I'd do it, but I find it strange that with the multiple Ork FAQs in the last year or so, that not once this has been addressed.

it is definatly orky. I'd probably only play it once or twice to show the obserdity of rule exploiting. but hey if the kid keeps showing up and wants to use it then i'll jsut show the latest faq . as for vehicle president bjorn or whatever that MEQ is tha thas an inv on his dreadnaught ... but that is a special character... who knows... kida odd imo but who am i to judge

bjorn isnt the only model with an invul save , DE raiders can get flicker fields which gives them a 5++.Several forgeworld vehicle come with invul saves like the megadread and the Caetus assault ram.If a dread can get the cybork what about a wagon or a trukk?

It would be very odd indeed if the rule clearly intended to represent how largely cyber-bodies are harder to kill than almost entirely organic bodies were also intended to represent a situation in which a pilot having a similar body would prevent fuel tanks from exploding, weapons malfunctioning and motors failing.

However, to be devil's advocate, there IS a FW megadred thingie with experimental rules that include a 5++ for ablative armour, which fluff-wise isn't a million miles away from the idea behind cybork bodies...

Murrdox wrote:The QUESTION in the FAQ regarding Mad Doc assumes, and even specifically states that it assumes that vehicles are a restriction on Cybork bodies.

If vehicles were NOT a restriction for being Cyborked, the Answer to the FAQ question would have corrected this, and would have said that Vehicles could benefit. But it doesn't.

This is it in a nutshell. While there is no specific restriction stated in the rules, it is quite clearly implied by the FAQ entry.

insaniak wrote:

Murrdox wrote:The QUESTION in the FAQ regarding Mad Doc assumes, and even specifically states that it assumes that vehicles are a restriction on Cybork bodies.

If vehicles were NOT a restriction for being Cyborked, the Answer to the FAQ question would have corrected this, and would have said that Vehicles could benefit. But it doesn't.

This is it in a nutshell. While there is no specific restriction stated in the rules, it is quite clearly implied by the FAQ entry.

I brought that up in my first post; the FAQ answer does not confirm nor deny the "(apart from non-vehicle)" portion of the question. if you apply this reading of the FAQ to deny vehicles cybork bodies then you must apply the same reading to other FAQ questions and Answers(such as never allowing SM squads held in reserve to combat squad upon reserve deployment, and other stupid extensions of FAQ "dialogs")

Kommissar Kel wrote:if you apply this reading of the FAQ to deny vehicles cybork bodies then you must apply the same reading to other FAQ questions and Answers(such as never allowing SM squads held in reserve to combat squad upon reserve deployment, and other stupid extensions of FAQ "dialogs")

Can you provide an actual example of this being a problem?

Besides the Half combat squad in reserve half on table question that is simply answered: "A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may
not break down into combat squads." and this one?

Yes, several others.

But this one in particular from the new BRB FAQs:
Q: Does a unit with the Scout special rule pass it on to
any vehicle it is embarked in? (p76)
A: No.

As a DT is one of "any vehicle it is embarked in"; and the Scout rule specifically states that DT deployed or held in reserve with their unit that has scouts gains scouts. The reading of Grotsniks dialog to state that the inclusion of "(apart from non-vehicle)" means that Non-vehicle units are the only units available must equate to a reading that DTs do not gain the Scouts rule from their unit, and that any 10-man SM squads held in reserve can never split into combat squads

Kommissar Kel wrote:Besides the Half combat squad in reserve half on table question that is simply answered: "A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may
not break down into combat squads." and this one?

I'm not seeing the problem with that one.

But this one in particular from the new BRB FAQs:
Q: Does a unit with the Scout special rule pass it on to
any vehicle it is embarked in? (p76)
A: No.

Not seeing a problem with that one either. Scouts don't pass the rule on to 'any' vehicle they are embarked on... just to dedicated transports.

The reading of Grotsniks dialog to state that the inclusion of "(apart from non-vehicle)" means that Non-vehicle units are the only units available must equate to a reading that DTs do not gain the Scouts rule from their unit, and that any 10-man SM squads held in reserve can never split into combat squads

It really doesn't, since it's a completely different issue.

I don't think it's very orky to cyberize your mechanical chickens, but I do think it's very orky to think you can. Could perhaps the fact Cybork Bodies isn't listed in the vehicle upgrade section of the codex put to rest something that seem so silly? Being that Dreds are already an Ork sewn into the cockpit of a mechanical body, or Grots for Kans, there's nothing left to bork. How would this discussion look if it was a Scorcha or battlewagon? I know it can be hard to decipher when the RAW and FAQ don't further address the loopholes simply due to lazy wording, but fluff wise my input is that a Dred with cybork body is not RAI.

If you argue RAW that you can have cybork bodies, then I will argue RAW that vehicles can't actually take invulnerable saves and all invuns on vehicles except Bjorn 'don't work.'

If you argue RAI that vehicles should be able to take invun saves, then I will argue RAI is that vehicles are not intended to be cyborked.

Problem solved.

Bububut the Codex can be interpreted to say my genius brain surgeon can replace bits of mechanisms with other mechanical bits and thus give vehicles a 5++ for 5pts!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If anyone wants to get OCD semantic about it, RAW actually state that 'unit members' can be upgraded; that rules out any vehicle that can't be taken as a squadron :p

lindsay40k wrote:If anyone wants to get OCD semantic about it, RAW actually state that 'unit members' can be upgraded; that rules out any vehicle that can't be taken as a squadron :p

That doesn't work. A model that is a part of a single-model unit is still a unit member. Grammatically, the plural just covers every member of the unit, it doesn't require there to actually be more than one unit member.

You don't need to make silly counter-arguments to counter silly RAW. People are quite capable of making up their own minds whether or not to let it fly. Personally, I think the idea of trying to give a cybork body to a battlewagon is silly enough to dismiss it out of hand regardless of what the RAW appears to say on the issue.

ChocorateMirk wrote:I don't think it's very orky to cyberize your mechanical chickens, but I do think it's very orky to think you can. Could perhaps the fact Cybork Bodies isn't listed in the vehicle upgrade section of the codex put to rest something that seem so silly?

Keep in minds though, Cybork Body isn't listed as an allowable upgrade on Grots, Boyz, Lootaz and dozens of OTHER units in the Ork Codex, but Grotsnik overrides that restriction on ANY ork unit.

I don't agree with it as per RAI, but there is nothing in the RAW that seems to restrict it.

I would feel as dirty as hail pulling this in a tourney, but it IS kind of funny in its own way.

I might have to pull this against my buddy who always plays his DE with Flickerfields... and there is NOTHING more frustrating than getting that ONE elusive 6+ HTH hit with a Power Klaw on a fast moving Raider, only to have it mysteriously 'bonk' off and be negated by some crazy 'invulnerable save.

nkelsch wrote:
If you argue RAI that vehicles should be able to take invun saves, then I will argue RAI is that vehicles are not intended to be cyborked.

Problem solved.

This. Invulnerable saves can be taken against wounds, per the rulebook. Vehicles never suffer wounds, and nothing in Cybork Body allows invulnerable saves to be taken against pen/glancing hits.

Thus, you're free to buy Cybork Body upgrades for your Kan wall, but you're simply burning 5 ppm.

sourclams wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
If you argue RAI that vehicles should be able to take invun saves, then I will argue RAI is that vehicles are not intended to be cyborked.

Problem solved.

This. Invulnerable saves can be taken against wounds, per the rulebook. Vehicles never suffer wounds, and nothing in Cybork Body allows invulnerable saves to be taken against pen/glancing hits.

Thus, you're free to buy Cybork Body upgrades for your Kan wall, but you're simply burning 5 ppm.

Well you better break it to the DE players that their Flickerfields don't work.

Invulnerable saves work on Vehicles.

No, I don't think you can. It says fairly clearly in the FAQ "Are there any restrictions (apart from non-vehicle)".

I'm an Ork player, I'd love a 5+ save Deff Dread, but I think it's taking the piss.

Miraclefish wrote:No, I don't think you can. It says fairly clearly in the FAQ "Are there any restrictions (apart from non-vehicle)".

I'm an Ork player, I'd love a 5+ save Deff Dread, but I think it's taking the piss.

Lol, If it said Non-Vehicles it would be ridiculous, giving Trukks a 5+ inv would be great, just as good as a raider! And for 5 points!

So then from that faq what are the vehicle restrictions, though the fact states that there are restrictions it does not say what said restrictions are.

bwraith12 wrote:So then from that faq what are the vehicle restrictions, though the fact states that there are restrictions it does not say what said restrictions are.

The restriction implied by the FAQ is simply that it doesn't apply to vehicles.

where does it say that in the fact that the restriction for cyborg body is that it cannot be used on vehicles

That's what has just been discussed for the past couple of pages...

The FAQ question asks if there are any restrictions on whio can take the Cybork body other than not being a vehicle... which since it isn't corrected by the answer suggests that GW (or at least whoever wrote the FAQ) believes that only non-vehicle models can take the Cybork body.

Q. How many units in an army with Mad Dok Grotsnik
can be upgraded to have cybork bodies? Are there any
restrictions (apart from non-vehicle) or can it even be
Gretchin or Independent Characters? (p59)

Actually they are asking who is restricted but are instead asking how many units so apart from wanting to know how many vehicles