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.

I saw in the latest White Dwarf that Phil Kelly fielded a squad of Shoota Boyz with a nob sporting a power klaw.

- G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I saw in the latest White Dwarf that Phil Kelly fielded a squad of Shoota Boyz with a nob sporting a power klaw.

- G

It dosent matter how much evidence you show, some people just will not let it go. Frankly I think they have nightmares at night of losing badly in grand tourneys to hundreds of power klaw armed orks.

LOL! Well I will say that Phil did write the new codex... maybe that is something. ; )

- G

Plenty of people seem to have avoided registering dissent.

I think that it's a typo of sorts. A Nob should be able to replace whatever he is carrying for upgraded equipment. I've taken my shoota squads and "DenNobbed" them since this debate has started just in case, but I'm really pretty certain it'll come out that you can.

I'm looking forward to the FAQ, but also dreading it. I'm really worried they'll take something we're all happy with and make it bathroom material again when people who've had cheese on their crackers for the last seven years start whining.............I'm already hearing it in some of the games I've played.



wOOkie

just played a game at a local GW.. nobody had an issue with the klaw nob in my shoota boyz everyone was cool with it

NaZ

sugarwookie wrote:
I'm looking forward to the FAQ, but also dreading it. I'm really worried they'll take something we're all happy with and make it bathroom material again when people who've had cheese on their crackers for the last seven years start whining.............I'm already hearing it in some of the games I've played.

Given the fact that they haven't released a FAQ for the Eldar, DA or Chaos codex, there is a chance we'll never see an Ork FAQ and if we do who knows how long it will be?

There isn't a need for an FAQ. The codex is pretty self explanatory. GW even included a map to the army list entries so people could understand the scheme they were using.

I really think that this can go to rest now, having seen the latest White Dwarf.

The guy that WROTE the codex, Phil Kelly, included a power klaw and slugga armed Nob in a mob of shoota boyz. HE WROTE THE CODEX. If it was something that is not allowed, would he do it, and who would be best to know?

That's right.

Let's just let it go.

What about the guy that had Chaos not be entangled from a destroyed Rhino in White Dwarf?

I would think that is a main rulebook rule, and I doubt that he alone wrote the main rulebook. I could see something like that being missed - i would forget that part since I played more games back before Entanglement than with it being part of the ruleset.

I would find it hard to understand how the guy that wrote the codex was writing up his army list and got to that point where he's choosing how to arm a nob and just said "I can cheat out this little part here".

If he did it, then he meant it to work a certain way. I'll use that as my argument any day, and if I have to carry that White Dwarf around with me to slap down this argument should it come up when I play, then so be it.

Grimteef: It's not unknown for designers to misuse their own designers. After all the finished product is only one of a number of designers that the designer considered and still clutters up their head!

That said the rules published in the codex agree with the army composition in the White Dwarf battle report. The entire unit may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas. If a Nob has replaced its slugga or its choppa the Nob no longer has a slugga and choppa to trade in.

Nurglitch wrote:

That said the rules published in the codex agree with the army composition in the White Dwarf battle report.

Er, i don't understand...I just don't see why they agree. I mean, the codex says the shoota-nob can't have a claw, the battle report-nob has one...
Please explain to me why it agrees, i just do't see it :S

Nurglitch wrote:

The entire unit may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas. If a Nob has replaced its slugga or its choppa the Nob no longer has a slugga and choppa to trade in.

Yes, but that just happened in the report, why do you state that here?

Please don't feel offrended, i just feel confused

I am with Grimteef. It's very simple really.

- G

FuzzyOrb wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:

That said the rules published in the codex agree with the army composition in the White Dwarf battle report.

Er, i don't understand...I just don't see why they agree.

I mean, the codex says the shoota-nob can't have a claw, the battle report-nob has one...
Please explain to me why it agrees, i just do't see it :S

The reason they agree is because the Codex allows a Shoota Nob to have a Klaw, as in the battle report. If you don't understand, read the thread completely, focusing on my comments and Nurglitch's comments.

I doubt anybody has any interest in explaining the thing again, when it should be clear to a reader of standard English.

Well, i read the thread (again) and i understand all of your arguments.
I agree (and am happy with the fact) that the E-Klaw on the shoota nob is possible,
ASSUMING that the usage of the term "Valid" is right here.

But that leads us to another question:
How is the Nob with S&C (and nothing more) possible in a shoota mob? (<--As seen in the codex)
When the mob exchanges its S&Cs to shootas, the nob is "valid" (having S&C).
So why doesn't he exchange his weaponary?

I hope some of you still have fun with discussing after all this thread .
Thanks for all suggestions!

Ork players have a common bond of brotherhood in wackyness. If one of our boyz was disqualified at a GT for an illegal list citing the shotty wording on the klaw rules, a mighty waagh would summon all of the boyz in da room, until the judge overturned his ruling else be washed away in the angry green tide!

Seriously though in a friendly game it shouldnt matter, and at any tournament where more than a win loss streak is on the line, I cant ever see that being a DQ. At my lfgs and the slightly longer drive GW store, they agree the wording is bad, but nobs being able to have klaws in shoota boy mobs is clearly intended. Knowing ahead of time I wont be penalized because someone tries to slick talk the organizer is good enough for me.

Thats not the point of the discussion at this time Orock I beleive everyone is willing to play with 'agreed on' terms. Such as the flamer issue. Such as the 'multi wounds issues' and other less RAW and more RAI issues. This discussion is certainly just trying to come to a complete concensus on RAW for the sake of RAW alone.

Modus Ponens:

A1. If A then B
A2. A
C. Therefore B (1 & 2, MP)

Conjunction:

A1. A
A2. B
C. Therefore A & B (1 & 2, Conj)

The Ork Codex:

Rule: Exchange Slugga and Choppa for a Shoota:
A1. If (A & B) then C

Condition: Boyz have Slugga and Choppa:
A2. A & B

Consequence: Boyz have Shootas
C. Therefore C

Nob
Rule: Exchange Slugga and Choppa for a Shoota:
A1. If (A & B) then C

Condition 1: Nob has Slugga and Power Klaw
A2. A & D

Consequence: Nob does not upgrade Slugga and Power Klaw for a Shoota
C. Therefore not C.

Ok, i got this one.
As i said, i totally agree.

but once again, how is the Nob with S&C in a shoota-mob possible?
It seems to me that it is against your logic.

How does it seem against my logic?

Technically, I think it's not possible for Nob to have S&C when the Boyz exchange for Shootas.

The entire Mob is supposed to exchange S&C for Shootas, and the Nob is part of the Mob armed with S&C. So he should be obliged to swap for Shoota as well.

The only way around this is if a Nob isn't part of the Mob, or if the exchange rule were to say "all Boyz may exchange".

Nob
Rule: Exchange Slugga and Choppa for a Shoota:
A1. If (A & B) then C

Condition: Nob does not upgrade Choppa for Power Klaw, so Nob has Slugga and Choppa:
A2. A & B

Consequence: Nob has Shoota
C. Therefore C

I am thinking of a veteran sergeant in a Space Marine squad that can take options as an analogy.


- G

I love the people still arguing against the point when the designer himself has left clues all through the codex and White Dwarf of the intended structure of the rule.

Some people don't give up. I guess it denotes a level of perseverence...but if your not careful where you push you might end up falling off a cliff.

I don't know, I wouldn't bring "pictures in the book" as
evidence of much. I do prefer the RAW attempts to untangle
the codex as pictures can be deceiving.

At least that's what I'm reading when you say that they
left "clues." A rulebook shouldn't have clues. It should have
rules.

I was going to say that exactly. I wish it had been worded less ambigously.

That is all fine and dandy...and when they get the rules nice and crisp then we will have those...

But until then we use what we have. I'm of the camp that follows the rules they way they are implemented, and every implementation of them so far has been for the PK Nob in Shoota squad. Until there is a crisp rule saying otherwise we don't have much to go on.

Either way you look at it, people are streching "intent" to match their opinion.

I'll follow the footsteps of the designer, as he gives examples in 2 places. I guess you can blame it on my major in History. You can only use what evidence exists. When there is nothing but small bits of information to use as a basis for opinions you don't have much of a choice. Even with a small base of information you cannot form definitives. There is no such thing as a "fact" in history. Anything can be argued. That is the point we are at right now. We have extremely limited knowledge, from which, some very serious opinions must be formed.

To debate the point of this thread, if you intend on doing it seriously, you cannot discard the images in the codex and White Dwarf. If you do so you lose all credibility for your argument. You don't have to agree with what you see...but you cannot disregard it. Ignoring it would be like blaming the American Civil War on slavery and slavery alone. You are forgetting the struggle for resources, the different social structures of the north and south and the conflict that caused, and many other factors. They are all evidence of what was to come. You cannot disregard one factor of the problem simply because it does not agree with your point of view.

I am by no means saying that the PK Nob in a Shoota squad is a definitive fact. I just choose to form my opinion from the illustraded intent of the designer. It is all the solid evidence we have at this moment in time.<shrug>

Edited: Looked like monkeys had beaten my keyboard in an attempt to convey a message. Had to make it readable

The people who say the nob cannot take a power klaw have been playing with semantics throughout this thread.

- G

JohnHwangDD wrote:Technically, I think it's not possible for Nob to have S&C when the Boyz exchange for Shootas.

The entire Mob is supposed to exchange S&C for Shootas, and the Nob is part of the Mob armed with S&C. So he should be obliged to swap for Shoota as well.

The only way around this is if a Nob isn't part of the Mob, or if the exchange rule were to say "all Boyz may exchange".

So suppose there was a unit that contained undefined numbers of grogs and gribs. Gribs start with levers, while grogs start with nuts and bolts. Now, if this unit had an option for the entire unit to exchange their nuts and bolts for eggs, then it wouldn't be a problem for the gribs because, although part of the unit, the entire unit, and nothing but the unit, they do not meet the necessary and sufficient condition for that transaction. That transaction requires that a model be a part of the unit and that the model has the things being exchanged.

Similarly if a player upgrades their Nob's Choppa to a Power Klaw, then when it comes time to upgrade the entire unit to shootas the Nob lacks a necessary condition to being upgraded to having a Shoota, having a Choppa.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Nob
Rule: Exchange Slugga and Choppa for a Shoota:
A1. If (A & B) then C

Condition: Nob does not upgrade Choppa for Power Klaw, so Nob has Slugga and Choppa:
A2. A & B

Consequence: Nob has Shoota
C. Therefore C

Here I'm going to have to point out that yes, if the Nob has a Slugga and a Choppa, and the entire unit exchanges Slugga and Choppa for a Shoota, then the Nob makes the exchange and now has a Slugga. However, as you will notice it does not contradict the original schema showing how a Nob that has exchanged its Choppa for a Power Klaw does not have a Slugga and Choppa and thus does not exhange his Slugga and Choppa for a Shoota when the Shoota upgrade is applied.

Rule: The Nob may exchange Choppa for Power Klaw
A1. If B then D

Rule: All models with a Slugga and Choppa may exchange Slugga and Choppa for a Shoota:
A2. If (A & B) then C

Condition: All models in the unit, Boyz and Nobz, initially have a Slugga and Choppa
A3. A & B

Condition: The Nob has a Choppa since all models in the unit have one.
4. B (3. Simplification)

Consequence: The Nob has a Slugga and Power Klaw
5. D (1 & 4, Modus Ponens)

Consequence: The Boyz have Shootas
6. C (2 & 3, Modus Ponens)

If you really want to be rigorous about it then you need to add in the modal operators to cover "may" (<> for 'it is possible that', [] for 'it is actually the case that') and the quantifiers to cover the difference between the entire mob (U for univeral or entire) and one model in the mob (the Nob, E for existential or not entire).

A1. <>(Ex)(Nm & Bx) → [](Ex)(Nb & Dx)
A2. <>(Ux)(Uy)(My & (Ax & Bx)) → [](Ex)(Ey)(My & Cx)
A3. [](Ux)(Uy)(My & (Ax & Bx))
4a. [](Ux)(Uy)(My & (Ax & Bx)) (3, Commutation)
4b. [](Ux)(Uy)((My & Bx) & Ax) (4a, Association)
4c. [](Ux)((Nm & Bx) & Ax) (4b, Universal Instantiation)
4d. [](Ux)(Nm & Bx) (4c, Simplification)
4e. [](Ex)(Nm & Bx) (4d, Universal Weakening)
4f. <>(Ex)(Nm & Bx) (4e, Modal Weakening)
5. [](Ex)(Nb & Dx) (1 & 4, Modus Ponens)
6a. <>(Ux)(Uy)(My & (Ax & Bx)) (3, Modal Weakening)
6b. [](Ex)(Uy)(My & Cx) (2 & 3, Modus Ponens)
6c. [](Ex)(Bm & Cx) (6b, Universal Instantiation)

Since we know that Nobz are not Boyz we know that:

Boyz models are not Nobz models
A7. Bm ≠ Nm

And that if a Nob has a Power Klaw then it is not a Boy and does not have a Shoota
8. [](Ex)(Nb & Dx) → ~[](Ex)(Bm & Cx)

Astute readers will notice that how this argument works is a classic feature of linear logics, the consumption of material. Since the upgrade to the Nob happens first, the Nob is not upgraded when the entire mob is upgraded. Conversely had we applied the upgrade to the entire mob first, then the Nob would have been upgraded to a Shoota instead of a Power Klaw (or Big Choppa). Since the order to upgrades is Characters first (since "...additional options depending on whether an associated character is taken" applies to the associated character, the Nob, taken) and upgrades may only be given to models that have it available (the upgrades apply to the model and not exclusive of each other like Mega-Armour and Bikes) where the Nob is upgraded first it does not meet the conditions for upgrading to a Shoota when the entire mob does.