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.

Can Independent unique characters benefit from his upgrade of 5 points for Cybork armour?

Warbosses and Big Meks already have Cybork bodies as a wargear option.

I suspect his implication is for the unique characters - like, say, Ghaz or Snikrot.

I don't have my Ork codex in front of me, but they do pretty much all state for unique characters that they must be fielded with the wargear they're listed with, and cannot have any additional wargear. Since Cybork is a wargear upgrade I would submit that would block it unless the Ork unique characters lacked that rules addendum.

Yeah the problem is it just says Any unit. So can Snikrot etc take it? It's also not a purchasing of wargear its just a special rule the guy has.


THat's pretty much it.

Well, you got me to dig out my Codex.

Okay, firstly - yes, the added Cybork bodies are wargear. It is a special rule that allows the wargear to be purchased, but it doesn't change it from being wargear.

Second - there's no rule in the 5th edition Ork codex about unique characters only having their set equipment, and the Doc's rules allow any 'unit' in the army to get the upgrade. Since an IC is officially a 'unit' then it can equip the Cybork body.

So, yeah, unless somebody knows something I don't I think you can have a Cybork Snikrot or Zogwort if you so desire.

Yeah, the whole spiel about special characters and being used exactly as listed has been phased out it appears. I suppose because of the new style of listing unit options and the disappearance of the armoury meaning that except in very rare cases where one model allows other models to take upgrades, it's not an issue anymore.

In this case I think the RAW would definitely be in support of them having access to the cybork bodies, although I think alot of opponents wouldn't like it.

Yeah - my problem is I play so much DE and Space Wolves I'm sort of on automatic for the old unique character wargear lockdown. Mea culpa, I suppose.

Snikrot alone could not have Cybork, but the entire unit (Snikrot plus commandos) can do.

Unique characters simply do not have any normal options, this is not a "usual" upgrade however!

Hollismason wrote:Yeah the problem is it just says Any unit. So can Snikrot etc take it? It's also not a purchasing of wargear its just a special rule the guy has.


THat's pretty much it.

HQ's get cybork bodies for 5 pts instead of 10

any unit can have cybork bodies ( 30 ard boys with 4+/5+ and FNP yeah!)

You cannot give one model a cybork body you have to upgrade the unit.

Yup, Special Characters can buy it. There is nothing preventing them from benefiting, so they can

30 man grot squads with Cybork armor. Lol.


No he had Ghaz and Mad Doc and gave Gaz a cybork armour so I dunno.

He's great for accompanying a unit of Mega Armoured Nobz, giving them the Cybork upgrade they need, and the Feel No Pain they can use. And they provide a Battlewagon for everyone to ride in.

Hollismason wrote:30 man grot squads with Cybork armor. Lol.


No he had Ghaz and Mad Doc and gave Gaz a cybork armour so I dunno.

Well, Ghaz has a Cybork body anyway...

Nurglitch wrote:He's great for accompanying a unit of Mega Armoured Nobz, giving them the Cybork upgrade they need, and the Feel No Pain they can use. And they provide a Battlewagon for everyone to ride in.

And most importantly for them he confers fearless so the expensive meganobz don't get tankshocked and fail their mediocre moral!

The FAQ prohibits unique characters from taking the upgrade (well, it limits unique ICs specifically-- it's implied that other unique characters cannot, either).

kartofelkopf wrote:The FAQ prohibits unique characters from taking the upgrade (well, it limits unique ICs specifically-- it's implied that other unique characters cannot, either).

With all due respect, the FAQ means Sweet feth All. If they wanted it to not apply to Special Characters, they should have put it in the errata. The RaW is clear, ANY unit can take it. Deny it to Special Characters and you are breaking that rule of ANY unit.

The FAQ on this is clear:

FAQ wrote:Any number of units can be upgraded. This
includes Gretchin ... and independent characters (except for
unique characters).

GW says that FAQ are "studio house rules,' but that's GW being spineless ("there is no right and wrong answer..." - Bull Crap! You're a game company! Write the rules, dangit!) when they should be explicit. If your opponent is the type to try to cybork a unique character despite this FAQ - shake his hand and walk away. Life is too short.

D'Ork wrote:GW says that FAQ are "studio house rules,' but that's GW being spineless ("there is no right and wrong answer..." - Bull Crap! You're a game company! Write the rules, dangit!) when they should be explicit. If your opponent is the type to try to cybork a unique character despite this FAQ - shake his hand and respect him for playing by the actual rules.

Fix'd

Gwar! wrote:Fix'd

You'll waste hours playing against an unreasonable person. Someone who does this - to gain a minuscule advantage in clear violation of the FAQ - is not worth playing against. I see the logic behind your position, Gwar, but you miss the point.

D'Ork wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Fix'd

You'll waste hours playing against an unreasonable person. Someone who does this - to gain a minuscule advantage in clear violation of the FAQ - is not worth playing against. I see the logic behind your position, Gwar, but you miss the point.

This is where you and me differ. This person is not being "Unreasonable", in fact, you are the one being unreasonable for denying him a perfectly legal option.

If you have agreed beforehand to use the FAQs then by all means go ahead, but do not try and enforce them as rules.

GW have always maintained that unique characters don't get funky benefits from things. The FAQ reinforces that.

So, those that wrote the game said no.

Then they released a FAQ and again said no.

The disclaimer that FAQs are just house rules can be afforded precisely the same weight as the statement at the beginning of the rulebook that you can invent rules and roll D6s for things. Either accept the FAQs as statement of intent from GW or allow all rules as mutable.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The disclaimer that FAQs are just house rules can be afforded precisely the same weight as the statement at the beginning of the rulebook that you can invent rules and roll D6s for things. Either accept the FAQs as statement of intent from GW or allow all rules as mutable.

1,000 times THIS. This is what I meant when I said GW was being spineless.

What a bizarre world it must be where one can dismiss rules clarifications from the people that wrote the rules as meaningless to a discussion of what the rules are.

That aside, it's useful information to give the OP in case he does go to, well, -any- tournament, which is almost certain to use the GW-provided FAQs.

Gork forbid we try to be helpful...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:GW have always maintained that unique characters don't get funky benefits from things. The FAQ reinforces that.

[Citation Needed]

So, those that wrote the game said no.

[Citation Needed]



Automatically Appended Next Post:

kartofelkopf wrote:What a bizarre world it must be where one can dismiss rules clarifications from the people that wrote the rules as meaningless to a discussion of what the rules are.

Who then turn around and say "But they don't actually count". If GW had said "These FAQ's are how it is supposed to be played", then fine, I can live with that, but they have explicitly stated that the FAQ's are a bunch of rubbish.

A bunch of rubbish...

"They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments "

... that happens to be A) Useful, B) Widely used, C) Written by The Powers That Be.

Yes, it's "soft" material-- but TPTB feel that way about -all- of their rules.

http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/differences-of-opinion/

^Has a really good description from Gav Thorpe about GW's approach to rules.


All that aside, the point remains that it is helpful to let OP know about FAQs (especially when they are near-universal in pick-up and tourney play)

kartofelkopf wrote: A) Useful

As a chocolate Teapot, as they leave 99% of the REAL rules questions unanswered and are poorly written and editied (See: Space Marine FAQ with wrong numbers and Blank Page for nearly a year now)

B) Widely used,

Again, debatable

. C) Written by The Powers That Be.

Apart from the ones they were too fething lazy to write and got yakface to write them

MeanGreenStompa wrote:GW have always maintained that unique characters don't get funky benefits from things. The FAQ reinforces that.

I somewhat agree with this - heck, it's how I started the thread. But I would note that a lot of the newer codices have clearly stepped back from the old ban on wargear for uniqur ICs - they just avoid giving them any sort of access to the armory (of course they're doing that for almost everything nowadays) My DE and Space Puppies still have that rule, but a lot of newer books, including the Orks, don't. If they don't have the rule then...well...they don't have the rule, and you probably shouldn't infer from older codex books.

The problem with using the FAQs is it's very much like the YMDC Tenents in this forum. Some of the tenets are ways to "clarify the Dakka Rules and some of them are guidelines..." The Moderation Staff can use the tenets as "moderation guidelines in this forum."

So, as a member of this forum (Dakka x2) and the sub forum (YMDC) I have some rules (as in rules in a rulebook) that I should obey and then some tenets that include some clarifications of the rules (perhaps to be read as errata...?) and then some moderation guidelines which means, I suppose, things they suggest I go with, but are indeed tenets (read perhaps house rules...?) and not rules themselves, else they would be rules.

It's reasonable to point to the FAQs and note that they suggest that, say, Zogwort cannot get a cybork body. However, since it's not errata nor a rule it's also perfectly and *equally* reasonable for your opponent to walk up with his Cybork Zogwort and challenge you to a rousing game of ye olde 40k.

Till GW grows a set I see no reason to pretend they're a stud is what I suppose I'm driving at.

@Thor

No one's contesting that (in fact, Cyb-Zogwort would be a fun conversion.... hmm....). Heck, if you're so inclined, you can play games with nothing but Super-heavies or mixed armies of IG and SM! (Wait... what's this "Apocalypse" you speak of?)

Just pointing out that the FAQ exists (I doubt OP would've created a thread if he'd read the FAQ)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TO their credit, the IG FAQ doesn't suck.

Still some unanswered questions, but several major issues were addressed.

All of these rules interpretations need to be based on how the game is played in a tournament setting (RTT GT) otherwise you can just play the game however you feel like and any of the rules could easily be disputed. However if you use the rules as if you were playing in a tourney then by default you have to use the FAQ's as rules. I have never seen any RTT or GT that did not use the FAQ's as definitive rules. Even non GW tournamnents use the FAQ's as fact. So using the argument that FAQ's mean squat is really not valid because one could easily say any of the other rules mean squat also, because in the BRB GW specifically mentions that you can feel free to use the rules as is, adjust them as you see fit or come up with new ones. So as stated before if you answering rules questions based upon tournament regulations is the best way. Otherwise you may just say Ill pick and choose what rules I want to use and ignore the ones GW says I can ignore, even if it specifically adresses problems.

da gob smaka wrote:All of these rules interpretations need to be based on how the game is played in a tournament setting (RTT GT)

An interesting thought, but there has been substantial vocal support for the concept of including HYWPI (or whatever the acronym is - how you would play it) in the forum. That said, i agree, I have no problem with the FAQ being discussed, I was personally just sounding off on the concept of those who suggest the FAQ = rules - which it clearly does not.