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 will agree to your statement even if it is against intent. personally i hope they fix it in the final print even though people aren't supposed to be "playing" with the dex now. I have been playing with orks since 98 so i admit i'm a bit touchy on the subject.

if shoota mobs are intended to never carry a PK or BC nob thats fine. But GW should at least phrase it so a player cannot possibly phase out the shoota option if they first take the big shoota or rokkit on regular mobs.

Wait, so your whole argument has basically been, "You guys are right, but I wish it weren't so and I hope they'll change it in a FAQ"? You could have just said that and most people would have agreed with you.

I would in a heartbeat, thats for sure.

Shane, you can stop posting the same thing over and over and over again. We get that you think slugga mobs can't take a powerklaw. It doesn't mean you need to post it in every single thread. Many people disagree with you. . .so be it. It's practically getting to the point where it almost seems as if you're trolling for trouble.


And your argument still hangs on the logical fallacy that if the entire mob doesn't have sluggas and choppas then they cannot replace their weapons for the shoota which is simply untrue.

As I said before, if you have a classroom with kids, half with pencils and half with a piece of chalk and you say: "the entire class may replace their pencils with pens" all that means is that the kids with pencils would replace them with pens. The fact that some kids in the class have chalk (and don't get to exchange it) would not prevent the exchange from occuring.

There is absolutely nothing in the rules to suggest that you cannot exchange all of the sluggas and choppas in the mob for shootas if some of the models in the mob don't have a slugga and choppa. You seem to wish this rule exists, but it simply does not.

Posted By yakface on 11/04/2007 11:42 AM


As I said before, if you have a classroom with kids, half with pencils and half with a piece of chalk and you say: "the entire class may replace their pencils with pens" all that means is that the kids with pencils would replace them with pens. The fact that some kids in the class have chalk (and don't get to exchange it) would not prevent the exchange from occuring.

It would probably result in half the class asking what they should do.

[edit: actually I don't disagree with what you said. My argument has based on ordering - ie you woud have to do that first, so it will exchange all boyz. ]

These are just cheezer players crying because shoota boyz with power klaws are more dead ard than many of there close combat specialists.  If we want to play the word game to pee on someones cornflakes the way they design there army, we could just as easily bold and highlight one part of the sentence to change the whole meaning.

The entire mob MAY exchange there sluggas and choppas for shootas.  Suddenly EVERY boy has the option to do so or not do so.  See what I can do with just as valid word games?  Now my 30 strong squad not only can exchange for bigger weapons/power klaws, but I may have a mix of whatever I desire.  So I think Ill take 20 shootas, and 10 sluggas.  The shootas can used ranged to soften em up and aslo absorb the incoming shots for my better in meelee guys to slog across the board unscathed and unleash there 4 attacks each (2 base 2 weapons and charge).  So anyone who wants to argue with me in some tourney about his opinion being law will find himself argueing with me and a judge for the rest of the game.

Posted By yakface on 11/04/2007 11:42 AM

Shane, you can stop posting the same thing over and over and over again. We get that you think slugga mobs can't take a powerklaw. It doesn't mean you need to post it in every single thread. Many people disagree with you. . .so be it. It's practically getting to the point where it almost seems as if you're trolling for trouble.


And your argument still hangs on the logical fallacy that if the entire mob doesn't have sluggas and choppas then they cannot replace their weapons for the shoota which is simply untrue.

As I said before, if you have a classroom with kids, half with pencils and half with a piece of chalk and you say: "the entire class may replace their pencils with pens" all that means is that the kids with pencils would replace them with pens. The fact that some kids in the class have chalk (and don't get to exchange it) would not prevent the exchange from occuring.

There is absolutely nothing in the rules to suggest that you cannot exchange all of the sluggas and choppas in the mob for shootas if some of the models in the mob don't have a slugga and choppa. You seem to wish this rule exists, but it simply does not.

Maybe I'm just trying to be heard.

Originally, I myself planned on the big shoota-boy squad with PK Nob, I dont see those mobs as a safe buy now, $-wise, not point wise.  Not when you'll be picking up 120-180 boys possibly of one type in an army.  10 boys per box, we'll say 30 dollars a box 360 bucks worth of WORTHLESS boys if things dont go your way and you dont want to use them anymore, converting and rebuilding aside.

YAK-Your arguement still hangs on the logical fallacy that if the entire mob doesnt have sluggas and choppas that they cannot replace their weapons for the shoota which is simply untrue.

How so?  How is this a logical fallacy?  What does "entire mob" mean in this context?  Its seems just as simple to me to make the rule "All models with sluggas and choppas may replace them with shootas"   Same number of words and less confusion.  "All students with pencils may replace them with pens" (by the way, GW doesnt run our schools so that example should be thrown out, but I'll humour it since I can turn it around to serve me)  If the kids are young children, your example would indeed confuse them, tell me some these 8 year olds with chalk wouldnt raise their hands wondering what they should do.  You cant assume that children are going to know what to do.  GW has to hand hold us through rules since half of the time they make no sense thanx to bad wording.  They have to treat US like children because they're speaking a different language half of the time with poorly written rulebooks. 

DAKKA seems most of the time to be all about RAW.  Right down to bashing people who want to charge after firing a bolt pistol.  If you follow the strict wording of the rule in question, you cant switch over to shootas after the pk Nob happens assuming you upgrade out of order of the entries as you're suggesting.  Strict wording, Entire Mob, Nob is part of the mob, same as if he would HAVE to buy stikbombs if you wanted them ("The entire mob may take stikkbombs"-actual rule)  No logical fallacy, just anal interpretation.

Posted By Orock on 11/04/2007 12:52 PM

The entire mob MAY exchange there sluggas and choppas for shootas.  Suddenly EVERY boy has the option to do so or not do so. 

I dont see how you come to that conclusion.  It still says entire mob, all highlighting the MAY did was accent the fact that the entire mob has a choice, not each individual ork has a choice, as in..."up to 30 orks may exchange their sluggas and choppas for shootas" as is done for multiple options IN EVERY OTHER CODEX.

Soooo.... did burnas act as power weapons / blowtorches in the previous codex?

Burnas were power weapons and flamers AND added 2d6 to armor penetration in CC.

Posted By Deadshane1 on 11/04/2007 1:08 PM

Posted By Orock on 11/04/2007 12:52 PM

The entire mob MAY exchange there sluggas and choppas for shootas.  Suddenly EVERY boy has the option to do so or not do so. 

I dont see how you come to that conclusion.  It still says entire mob, all highlighting the MAY did was accent the fact that the entire mob has a choice, not each individual ork has a choice, as in..."up to 30 orks may exchange their sluggas and choppas for shootas" as is done for multiple options IN EVERY OTHER CODEX.

NO, each boy has a choice to replace his slugga and choppa with a shoota.  Orks can run mixed mobs unlike every other codex out there.  I can have half the boyz in the mob with slugga and choppa's and half with shootas.  Just because everyone likes to run mobs with all the same weapons doesn't mean they  have to.  

Posted By morfangdakka on 11/04/2007 3:57 PM
NO, each boy has a choice to replace his slugga and choppa with a shoota.  Orks can run mixed mobs unlike every other codex out there.  I can have half the boyz in the mob with slugga and choppa's and half with shootas.  Just because everyone likes to run mobs with all the same weapons doesn't mean they  have to.  

As said before, the may is indicating you have an option. The option being entire mob exchanges X for Y. you can't choose not to exchange some.

Whether you can take the option where some boyz don't have X, tempted to agree with Yak on that, you could possibly do that. But certainly not choose to not exchange some boyz whilst doing others.

Posted By yakface on 11/04/2007 11:42 AM

As I said before, if you have a classroom with kids, half with pencils and half with a piece of chalk and you say: "the entire class may replace their pencils with pens" all that means is that the kids with pencils would replace them with pens. The fact that some kids in the class have chalk (and don't get to exchange it) would not prevent the exchange from occuring.

If some of the kids aren't exchanging, it isn't the entire class exchanging it.

I was thinking on this...Say you have a special rule called 'Stasis' which prevents a single model from moving for any reason whatsoever (Including other special rules).

Say you have a unit that has a special rule that says that the entire unit may move exactly 12" in the same direction.

If you hit one model in that unit with Stasis, then would the rest of the unit be able to move using their special rule, leaving the one model behind, or would the whole unit be unable to use that rule?

Yes, the "mob" has the option to replace their weapon. Either the mob chooses that option or it does not.

If it chooses to do so, then any models in the unit that have a slugga and choppa would exchange it for a Shoota. Models that don't have a slugga and choppa wouldn't exchange anything.

Posted By skyth on 11/04/2007 4:40 PM

Posted By yakface on 11/04/2007 11:42 AM

As I said before, if you have a classroom with kids, half with pencils and half with a piece of chalk and you say: "the entire class may replace their pencils with pens" all that means is that the kids with pencils would replace them with pens. The fact that some kids in the class have chalk (and don't get to exchange it) would not prevent the exchange from occuring.

If some of the kids aren't exchanging, it isn't the entire class exchanging it.

I was thinking on this...Say you have a special rule called 'Stasis' which prevents a single model from moving for any reason whatsoever (Including other special rules).

Say you have a unit that has a special rule that says that the entire unit may move exactly 12" in the same direction.

If you hit one model in that unit with Stasis, then would the rest of the unit be able to move using their special rule, leaving the one model behind, or would the whole unit be unable to use that rule?

If every kid in the class who has the specified item exchanges it, then yes the entire class has exchanged their one item for the other.

Your "stasis" example is extremely flawed because there are all sort of other rules in the game from preventing what you describe from happening (the coherency rules and the rules about moving at the rate of the slowest model, for example).

No, if they didn't have it then they didn't exchange it and thus only half the class exchanged them, not the entire class.

Posted By skyth on 11/04/2007 4:48 PM
No, if they didn't have it then they didn't exchange it and thus only half the class exchanged them, not the entire class.

The entire class did exchange the item. Some students in the class didn't, but the class as a whole still did.



 

Yakface is right, "New Orleans was completely flooded.", now was ALL of it flooded? No, but it was enough to claim that New Orleans, as a whole, was flooded.
Same thing with "Transformers was a complete success.", Im sure there were some people who didn't like transformers, but as a whole, it was a complete success.

Posted By skyth on 11/04/2007 4:40 PM

Posted By yakface on 11/04/2007 11:42 AM

As I said before, if you have a classroom with kids, half with pencils and half with a piece of chalk and you say: "the entire class may replace their pencils with pens" all that means is that the kids with pencils would replace them with pens. The fact that some kids in the class have chalk (and don't get to exchange it) would not prevent the exchange from occuring.

If some of the kids aren't exchanging, it isn't the entire class exchanging it.

I was thinking on this...Say you have a special rule called 'Stasis' which prevents a single model from moving for any reason whatsoever (Including other special rules).

Say you have a unit that has a special rule that says that the entire unit may move exactly 12" in the same direction.

If you hit one model in that unit with Stasis, then would the rest of the unit be able to move using their special rule, leaving the one model behind, or would the whole unit be unable to use that rule?

If a unit of 3 killa kans advances, but one is immobalized, and the other 2 advance, it is treated as destroyed after it gets out of unit coherancy.  There is a rule for that.  And there are rules against moving mobs in units as an opponent different amounts.  This means no moving your opponents mekboy 6 inches and the grot oilers only 3 so he cannot use them for bonuses to fix vehicles.

Posted By yakface on 11/04/2007 4:56 PM

The entire class did exchange the item. Some students in the class didn't...

That's utterly contradictory. Note the difference in the wording for Big shotas and Rokkits.

I'll wait for the FAQ thanks, I think it will allow Power Klaws in Shoota mobs but not because the rulebook wording supports it, just because it's a dumb ruling. Assuming that this is the final wording we've been reading, which it may not be.

Posted By George Spiggott on 11/04/2007 5:39 PM
I'll wait for the FAQ thanks,

Meanwhile, those of us wanting to play with the new Orks before hell freezes over will need to come up with a generally accepted ruling on the issue.

Sure, and how many Orks are you dealing with when you have to walk there? Obviously this is nothing that we can put a hard number to, but even with a Waagh move, you're looking at a lot of turns of walking, and a lot of dead Orks. How many do you have to start your walk with, to end up with 72?

One way to look at it is to ask what a Trukk costs. Mine cost about 9 Boyz worth, but could easily cost less. You're virtually guaranteed a turn 2 assault that way, and you're also adding a Rokkit and a Wreckin Ball. You've got inches to spare to hide behind cover, get into the backfield after more costly units, etc.

It's not like a KFF is cheap, either. You're paying quite a bit for it, plus a relatively useless HQ to carry it. It costs about 14 Boyz worth. And it can't kill anything.

Actually, that creates one fairly direct way to look at it: The Mek is basically a Glorified Nob based on statline, so deduct that cost from his total, and just factor in the cost of the KFF and his extra points, that leaves about 12 Boyz worth of points being used up to field one KFF. If the KFF is going to get its points back, it's going to protect those same 12 Boyz. And if it saves 12 Boyz by giving them a 5+ save, then one assumes that 24 other Boyz will have died.

So, where does that leave things? A Trukk Mob gets you 12 Boyz and a Trukk. For the same basic price, you can get a foot Mob of about 20-22 Boyz with Klawnob. I dunno. Maybe I'm not proving that footsloggers are weaker, so much that the KFF might be a waste of points (and you'd have to factor in Kans, etc. etc. with the KFF).

Regardless, there's no way footsloggers should be assaulting before turn 3, and really, it's not hard to push that off to turn 4. That's two extra turns of shooting they have to walk through. Not only that, but they're doing it in more or less a straight line. I can see Trukks using cover the whole way in, and in some cases taking no shooting at all.



You're right here, I should probably temper my certainty somewhat. Your points on morale are very valid, but they point me more back towards Stormboyz (20 man Mobs) than to footsloggers, IMO, especically given the huge losses you'd have to take to make a KFF worth buying.

Even so, it all comes down to if you're taking morale tests, and when. I haven't played my Orks a ton, but I play them as footsloggers with 2 KFFs and one Trukk. The Trukk Mob was always getting the charge, always winning the combat, and never really needing to test morale. By comparison, the Boyz were getting hacked apart by shooting, 5+ saves or not. That gives me a predisposition to assume that Trukk Boyz won't be losing combats as you suggest, but I only run one Trukk, I might just be hitting juicy targets with it. Things might change when everything is Trukks.

Honestly, I hope you're right about all of this, I've got a footslogging mob painted up already, and could be playing it under the new rules with little or no changes.



Exactly. I get tired of watching people debate ambiguous rules. If it wasn't ambiguous, one side could probably prove their case.

Posted By Deadshane1 on 11/04/2007 4:20 AM

Posted By mauleed on 11/03/2007 5:07 PM

What Yak said.

I'm thinking the new staple unit of any ork army is 20-30 shootas with a klaw. 6 or those creates a real problem for the enemy.

Now if I can just figure out how to crack a monolith with this new list, I'll be all set.

Shoota Boyz Nobs cannot get powerklaws.

 

....I may make this my sig, I just find it funny to repeat, this must be like the 9th time.

You need to go check what the word 'may' means. I think you have it confused with 'must'. Every boyz squad nob can clearly take a klaw.

If I say 'the entire class may stop using a pencil and start using a pen' it doesn't mean everyone has to actually us a pen or no one can, just that the entire class has the option. Technically, as written one can argue that you can mix and match shootas and sluggas all you like.

But this doesn't belong here.

Posted By Phryxis on 11/04/2007 5:48 PM
Regardless, there's no way footsloggers should be assaulting before turn 3,

Waagh on turn 1 and turn 2 plus charge = average 25" movement.

Dual warpheads has >50% chance of getting a waagh turn 1.

Posted By mauleed on 11/04/2007 5:55 PM

You need to go check what the word 'may' means. I think you have it confused with 'must'. Every boyz squad nob can clearly take a klaw.

...and you, mauleed, need to go check what the word 'must' means. Since if the rule stated "the entire mob MUST trade thier choppas and sluggas for shootas" then there would be no such thing as slugga boys.  Every boyz squad cannot CLEARLY take a Klaw under the current exact wording.

...right now the poll on this subject stands at 15 to 6, between a third to 1/2 agree with my point.  Thats enough for me to say that every nob taking a claw is NOT a clear matter.

I don't care if 99 out of 100 agree with you if the 1 that doesn't is the smartest.

Knock yourself out debating it, but so far I'm completely unimpressed with your stance.

 

Posted By mauleed on 11/04/2007 6:41 PM

I don't care if 99 out of 100 agree with you if the 1 that doesn't is the smartest.

Knock yourself out debating it, but so far I'm completely unimpressed with your stance.

 

....and I suppose you'd be that one.

....thats a portion of the reason for posting in a forum, debate.  So yes, I'll continue to enjoy debating it.

...I'm also unconcerned with impressing you my friend, unlike so many others that we see here often, validation by mauleed is not the highest goal that I have in posting here....quite the contrary in fact.

Yeah, I'd agree that argument could be made, which only goes to show how ambiguous the rule is.

I mean, you could say that Shootas can't have a Klaw. You could say they can. You could say you can mix and match Shoota and Sluggas. You could even argue, as I pointed out elsewhere, that you always end up with only two Shootas if you make the exchange.

There are about six distinct interpretations I've seen that have reasonable support in the RAW. THAT is what I'd call ambiguous.

at least we can all agree that the rule is quite ambigious enough to warrant that they change it either definitely one way or another. As to limit how many interpretations can be made

Cool, so I may have a unit of nobz on foot with some on bikes then, also I may only take a few stikkbomz on a few guys in a unit.

The one thing that actually has me worried, and I have been looking through the book, is that trukkboyz can get royally nailed as they speed across the board now. Any pen hit makes them disembark, and they get no better save now from what I can find, and actually any disembarking from the trukk when you are going over 12" wounds 50% of the mounted orks, and can pretty much make the unit ineffective. Anyone else see anything that effects them, because in a sense that makes them a heck of a lot worse than they used to be.