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.

You can't draw any sort of conclusion from it, but it can set a precedence on how things are laid out in the army list entries. Like I have said above, there is no real absolute here.

I agree Yak, that there are a lot of little issues in the book that I hope were also caught. A precedence has been set in the past about this type of thing were some other pdfs were out, and little changed for the final product. I hope they catch a bit more of this. It does look a lot tighter than a lot of codexes in the past. That is part of my issue with it. On something that seems so strongly worded in other parts of the codex, it seems odd that something that ambiguous is there. It really stands out, and thus seems to be one of two options.

I am curious though, mine is actually dated for July. Is there another September copy floating about?

I don't think there's much in the wording of the rule to be "quite sure" about. It's not that your interpretation is wrong, it's just that it's not unequivocally right.

There's nothing that says, directly, that the Orks must all make the replacement if any do. It could be viewed, as some people are, that this rule simply replaces all sluggas and choppas in the mob with shootas.

It's also worth noting that as long as you're being extremely RAW about it, the rules don't specify an exchange rate for sluggas and choppas when replaced with shootas. Is it 1 for 1? Does each Ork end up with 2 Shootas, getting one for his slugga and one for his choppa?

Since many people think that the right way to approach things is by the RAW and in the fashion that gives the least advantage, then it'd seem that any number of sluggas and choppas would always be exchanged for just two shootas. After all, 2 shootas would be the least advantageous way to interpret "shootas."

Some folks have hinted at it, but I think it's worth saying: The problem isn't clear, unambiguous rules (obviously). Even if they don't match the fluff or "make sense," if they're clear and unambiguous you can at least play by them. The problem is ambiguous rules, and the slugga/shoota rule clearly is, regardless of the surety of certain non-native English speakers.



Yes, but the rules of physics state that you can't drive a bus into outer space, so you're cheating, and I'm quite sure of that.



In theory, couldn't the mob be killed down to the Slaver, then, on his own, he might be called upon to Waagh?



Mine says August 2nd. Strange.

In my head, what I'm going to pretend is that GW decided to get clever, figure out who is leaking, and use the date stamp on the file to ID the copies they give to various people. And then it turns out that all the dates show up, cause EVERYONE is leaking.

Posted By Polonius on 10/31/2007 6:02 PM

Posted By Slave on 10/31/2007 5:58 PM

Posted By Orock on 10/31/2007 5:46 PM
Well lets all take the wording literally for the whole game then.  Lets see, you can only score glancing hits on skimmers.  So that means If I hit, its a glancing hit, no need to roll for penetration.  Every hit is a glance! So even IG with there lazguns can down falcons.  Sweet take that smeldar.  You can only score glancing hits on skimmers that move over 6 inches.  Man my games are going to be so much easier against eldar/tau now. 

Exactly.  This type of nonsense is what ruined 40K in the first place.

Obviously, if armed wit ha BP and a bolter, the marine can shoot the damn BP and assault.

Rules lawyers just like to squeez as mush as they can out of the rules.


On topic:

The most important rule I am seeing that is gone, is the mob up rule.

ouch.

Look, I don't think you'll find too many people that'll actually prevent you from taking your BP shots and then assaulting, but calling people names isn't the answer to your anger.

You can't break tight rules, and loopholes only exist until official rulings are released.  Don't be mad because somebody with an eye for detail and a deep understanding of the rules pointed out that the designers either made a mistake, or intentionally made a unit less good than you would like.  Be mad at the designers, not for making a mistake, but for refusing to answer a simple bloody question.

Uh, who is angry, and who called anybody a name?

Posted By Slave on 10/31/2007 9:56 PM

Uh, who is angry, and who called anybody a name?

My apologies.  what I should have said is that while you may find the actions of rules lawyers distasteful, it's not their fault if the rules are, as this case is, truly ambigous.

Posted By yakface on 10/31/2007 7:49 PM

It is also important to note that there are at least several major typos found in this PDF

Well that's for sure!  For instance, it's spelled T-E-E-T-H, not T-E-E-F.  And there are even more typos like this throughout the book!  Jeez, learn how to use spellcheck, ya knuckleheads!

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 11/01/2007 12:50 AM

Posted By yakface on 10/31/2007 7:49 PM

It is also important to note that there are at least several major typos found in this PDF

Well that's for sure!  For instance, it's spelled T-E-E-T-H, not T-E-E-F.  And there are even more typos like this throughout the book!  Jeez, learn how to use spellcheck, ya knuckleheads!

oh boy...

Posted By Deadshane1 on 10/30/2007 5:28 PM

...then you need to look closer.  When they say THE ENTIRE MOB does that not include the Nob?  He IS part of the Mob after all, it doenst specify boyz, it just says the entire mob.  Therin lies the problem.  The nob doesnt have a choppa anymore, therefore the ENTIRE MOB cant trade in their sluggaz and CHOPPAS for shootas.

For your interpretation to be true, wouldn't there have to be some sort of exclusionary language?  Something along the lines of, "This can only be done if every model can do so,"  or "The entire mob must trade their choppas for shootas."

You seem to be operating under the assumption that if every model in the mob does not have a choppa to trade, none can, and I don't understand where you are getting that from.

Are you sure this is not just wishful thinking on your part?  Because, at the moment, it sure looks like wishful thinking to me.

New question. Is there a statement anywhere that sets what the maximum Ld value can be?

Weirdboy gets mob rules, and when put with a unit of boyz 11 or over his ld for all psychic tests becomes what? 10? Higher?

It states that they are fearless when over that size.

Fearless is irrelevant for the question Toreador asked. Fearless doesn't automatically mean you pass psychic tests.

You're right Toreador. It was an oversight. I assume leadership is capped at ten like all other stats, but they forgot to say so in the Mob Rule section.

My reading is that once they reach Ld 10 it stops, above that is Fearless but it doesn't keep adding to their Leadership. It's definitely not explicit though.

Yep, Fearless has no bearing. Until I reread the rule I didn't even catch the part about substituting mob size for leadership value. I don't have my rulebook here, but I remember in one of the older editions they had a cap or max on certain attributes. Nothing in the codex sets down a limit, and if there is none, they could never lose a test such as mind war when in a mob of 15 boyz...or ever be blocked by a psychic hood!

The entire mob MAY exchange there sluggas and choppas for shootas for free.

MAY as in do not have to. There is no sentence that says if one model in the mob does then the rest all have to as well, if we want to take this literally this means in a mob of 10 4 may trade in for shootas, but the other 6 dont feel like it. If we take it the way the rules lawyers keep trying to push on everyone, than this means you can have any split of weaponry in the mob you like. If it were worded "If one model takes a shoota in trade for his slugga/choppa, then the whole mob must do so" then these arguements would be valid.

As it is written though, not only is there a stronger arguement FOR the nob to be able to get a powerklaw in a sea of shoota boyz, but you could have ANY mix of shootas and sluggas/choppas that you desired.

Posted By skyth on 10/31/2007 5:55 PM

What does everyone think about a pair of warp-heads leading the army? You have above a 50% a chance to Waagh each turn in addition to the army waagh...Killing power would be with the PK nobs...

Throw in some Kans and you have a Tyranidic Ork list

Yeah, I was thinking about something like that, tho I was thinking Lootas, Warpeads and Slugga boyz. You'll need to pull the Psykers out of the mobs after the first few turns tho to avoid an accidental Deep Strike. Zogwart is rather intriguing. It says he can turn any Independent Character into a Squig. I assume that a Monstrous Creature that is also an IC would be vulnerable, tho I foresee much nashing of teeth when someone has it happen to them for the first time.

You skip entirely skip over the word ENTIRE in that argument.

ENTIRE mob MAY exchange...

It's like with Nobz. The entire mob may be upgraded to Nob Bikers. This means all of them are, or aren't.

the hardest part will be trying to protect that squig i would imagine... otherwise they are giving up pts. thats just plain mean.

Lets hope it's an oversight. I'm going to run sluggas in my test lists. It's a slight drop in power and versitility but it's not too bad. it's a shame though because I liked the idea of the shoota armed orks being in the majority, it made more sense.
Without a powerclaw a mob is just too vunerable to big nasties and armoured troops to make it viable.

Posted By Toreador on 11/01/2007 9:48 AM
You skip entirely skip over the word ENTIRE in that argument.

ENTIRE mob MAY exchange...

It's like with Nobz. The entire mob may be upgraded to Nob Bikers. This means all of them are, or aren't.

It does not say if one does that all have to.  It can just as easily be argued that may is the only key word.  The entire mob has the CHOICE yes, but some MAY choose not to.  Since this arguement is a wash, and neither side would win in a debate that would go on forever, I would suggest letting the nob in the shoota boy mob have his claw, as the points cost is broken down for him to take it in the same sqaud. 

 

It does not say the entire mob MUST.  MAY and MUST are two very different words. 

Let me ask you something since you seem to feel so strongly about it.  If you were in a GT, and were playing an ork player and the winner of the match went on to the final table but because of a small error a shoota boy squad moves up and wipes out your chances of winning because of the klaw (say a tank on one of your 2 table quarters controlled vs his 2 and the shootas were at less than half str, but blows up the tank) would you then argue with a judge to have his list thrown out for an illegal build?

Posted By Toreador on 11/01/2007 9:48 AM
You skip entirely skip over the word ENTIRE in that argument.

ENTIRE mob MAY exchange...

It's like with Nobz. The entire mob may be upgraded to Nob Bikers. This means all of them are, or aren't.

See, the way I read it, it means that you switch out all the choppas in the unit.  If the Nob no longer has a choppa, then it doesn't switch.

I see no reason to interpret it to mean all of them are, or none of them can.

Your argument seems to hinge on words that are not present, like "only if."

Posted By Orock on 11/01/2007 10:02 AM

Posted By Toreador on 11/01/2007 9:48 AM
You skip entirely skip over the word ENTIRE in that argument.

ENTIRE mob MAY exchange...

It's like with Nobz. The entire mob may be upgraded to Nob Bikers. This means all of them are, or aren't.

It does not say if one does that all have to.  It can just as easily be argued that may is the only key word.  The entire mob has the CHOICE yes, but some MAY choose not to.  Since this arguement is a wash, and neither side would win in a debate that would go on forever, I would suggest letting the nob in the shoota boy mob have his claw, as the points cost is broken down for him to take it in the same sqaud. 

 

It does not say the entire mob MUST.  MAY and MUST are two very different words.

It says the 'entire mob may'. The entire mob is the subject of the may.

Wherever an option is for any 'models' then other codices are always quite explicit about that, using wording that makes it clear that 'any number of models may' (rough riders) or 'any number of firewarriors may' (firwarriors) take the upgrade. Where an upgrade applies to a whole unit you see wording like this ork mob.

Don't lump me in with feeling strongly about it. I don't mind either way, I am just staying there is proof either way. One thing I am not saying is that if a shoota nob takes a PK the mob can't take shootas. What I do say is that the wording is ambiguous. There would be no reason for it to be worded that way unless they either made a mistake, or the meant that a mob upgrades to shootas before a nob can upgrade to a PK, thus making it an invalid option for him. They are very explicit throughout the book in wording, and that is what makes me wonder. If I faced an army either way I wouldn't care. I might joke about it, but that is as far as it would go.

And if you start using may that way, then only a few boyz need take stikkbomz to give the mob the effect, or you could have nobz on and off of bikes in the same unit.

I did find the passage in the book referencing maxes. The scale is from 0 - 10, which would I think limit the Ld to 10 for all tests that orks would have to make.

it's on page 12.

The "Official" codex is still 2 months away and there is already rule-dissection going on.

Ahhhh.... Dakka

-Jmz

Yep, but primarily because I am playing Apoc this weekend with the new Ork list

I have to work the bugs out before we even get there.

I've gotta say, after looking over this Codex some, I think some extremely powerful builds can be put together.

Stormboyz strike me as being so nasty as to border on broken.

Boyz in Trukks are solid, extremely cheap, and a Troops choice.

With these guys as your core, whatever you put around them in support is going to start off on the right foot.

Time will tell as the metagame evolves, but I won't be surprised if Orks start winning a lot of tournaments.

So how does the codex look if you wanted to, say, make a Goff list with boyz and nobz?

Posted By malfred on 11/01/2007 6:46 PM
So how does the codex look if you wanted to, say, make a Goff list with boyz and nobz?

It looks much better than it used to, that's for sure.

You can buy so many more boys then you used to (more ablative wounds for the PK Nobs) and now that you can 'Waaagh' (fleet one turn) you actually have a chance of getting your boyz into combat.

 

One big disappointment with this Codex is the Boss. Still no way to build a truly tuff Boss. Most of the HQ choices are more points liability than value add.

It doesn't seem like it, but can anyone comment on whether or not the "add on" guys like Badrukk, Snikrot and Zagstruk count as HQ choices?

They don't take up a HQ choice.

The Boss on Bike was never going to be the same kind of monster a DP or Tyrant Was. He never had the initiative to do it.

Wow, the codex isn't even out yet and the munchkins are already trying to break it. How about that?

*looks over the thread*

Munchkins? Where?