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.

Normally for an ork Warboss, it costs a certain amount to give him a cybork body (we'll say, X points).

Mad Dok Grotsnik has a rule that says he can give a cybork body to any unit in his army for a cost of Y points, where Y happens to be half of X. (Y=X/2)

Does this mean the Warboss can take the cybork body for half the cost he normally could if Grotsnik is in the army? Or does he still have to take it at the original cost listed in the codex?

Thanks!

Yes, the Warboss may take Cybork Armor at the reduced cost.

In the situation described, the warboss has the option of paying the original cost or the new "Grotsnik special 1 day only everything must go!" price for a cybork body. Your choice.

-GK

I believe this is cover in the FAQ . . . technically raw is that you can buy both the expensive and cheap Cybork Armour.

But there is no reason to buy both. It only saves Y points (Boy do I hate math that uses letters...) so it's only a factor in really small builds. Cybork body is one of the more useful Ork assets though.

RaW you may buy both sets.
RaW you may buy the Mad Doc Speshul instead of the normal.
RaW you can even buy Special Characters the cheap Mad Doc Speshul.

Gwar! wrote:RaW you may buy both sets.
RaW you may buy the Mad Doc Speshul instead of the normal.
RaW you can even buy Special Characters the cheap Mad Doc Speshul.

FAQ says (except for unique characters)

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:RaW you may buy both sets.
RaW you may buy the Mad Doc Speshul instead of the normal.
RaW you can even buy Special Characters the cheap Mad Doc Speshul.

FAQ says (except for unique characters)

FAQ is wrong.

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:RaW you may buy both sets.
RaW you may buy the Mad Doc Speshul instead of the normal.
RaW you can even buy Special Characters the cheap Mad Doc Speshul.

FAQ says (except for unique characters)

FAQ is wrong.

One point of view

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:RaW you may buy both sets.
RaW you may buy the Mad Doc Speshul instead of the normal.
RaW you can even buy Special Characters the cheap Mad Doc Speshul.

FAQ says (except for unique characters)

FAQ is wrong.

One point of view

If they wanted special characters not to buy it, they should have made it errata.

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:RaW you may buy both sets.
RaW you may buy the Mad Doc Speshul instead of the normal.
RaW you can even buy Special Characters the cheap Mad Doc Speshul.

FAQ says (except for unique characters)

FAQ is wrong.

One point of view

If they wanted special characters not to buy it, they should have made it errata.

There are a lot of things they should have done ...

I hate to say it, but they DO SAY that the codex rules are taken above other rules EVEN THE RULE BOOK. So Gwar is right you COULD buy that on them.

KingCracker wrote:I hate to say it, but they DO SAY that the codex rules are taken above other rules EVEN THE RULE BOOK. So Gwar is right you COULD buy that on them.

Add to that GW say the FAQs don't actually mean anything, and there ya go

And naturally, if you are playing with a group of people that is so focused on the letter of the rules that they ignore a FAQ there is already a problem.

ph34r wrote:And naturally, if you are playing with a group of people that is so focused on the letter of the rules that they ignore a FAQ there is already a problem.

What about a group who use the FAQ's when they actually clarify unclear rules, rather than change clear ones?

Im with GWAR. I only use the FAQ when it actually clears up a problem or like Ive said a few times, tells you THIS page stats are wrong, and need to be like THAT page stats. Other then that, I dont care if the word hierarchy was misspelled

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:And naturally, if you are playing with a group of people that is so focused on the letter of the rules that they ignore a FAQ there is already a problem.

What about a group who use the FAQ's when they actually clarify unclear rules, rather than change clear ones?

Then that's them. I'll be playing with the rules as they were meant to be played, the failure of the designers to properly put what they mean into words in the codex will not stop me from playing by what they mean when a FAQ is released.

ph34r wrote:Then that's them. I'll be playing with the rules as they were meant to be played

You mean, by the rules that the Writers Wrote?

Protip: The Devs did not write half the FAQs.

Because if they would have, we'd have even MORE rules confusion.

"Add to that GW say the FAQs don't actually mean anything"

Insofar as they also say that the BRB's rules don't mean anything, this might be correct...

Their entire philosophy in re: rules is that they are all 'soft' material.

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:Then that's them. I'll be playing with the rules as they were meant to be played

You mean, by the rules that the Writers Wrote?

Protip: The Devs did not write half the FAQs.

I mean the rules that the Writers tried to write, but according to intense nit-picking and extremely literal and illogical interpretations did not. You see GW rules writers are often awful at writing rules in such a way that they can be understood by those without common sense, or those that choose to ignore common sense. When your RAW interpretations mean that a rule does effectively nothing, you know that you are doing it wrong. This particular case is not as bad, but often RAW is.

ph34r - I presume you use "common sense" to fix Thornback then? Of course by RAW it does nothing, just wonder what you think the "RAI" would be there.

Unfortunately for you, you presume wrong. Thornback doesn't do anything under any interpretation of the rules in 5th edition.

ph34r wrote:Unfortunately for you, you presume wrong. Thornback doesn't do anything under any interpretation of the rules in 5th edition.

So? You didn't say anything about rules, you said common sense. So please, tell us what your "common sense" tells you to do.

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:Unfortunately for you, you presume wrong. Thornback doesn't do anything under any interpretation of the rules in 5th edition.

So? You didn't say anything about rules, you said common sense. So please, tell us what your "common sense" tells you to do.

I can give a BS common sense answer it should make you test for falling back at LD-1 because that is what it worked to do in the last codex (through out numbering to mind)

There seems to be no rules set in stone which prevent this, so i'd go with yes, allthough, most ork characters have it allready or a variation)

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:Unfortunately for you, you presume wrong. Thornback doesn't do anything under any interpretation of the rules in 5th edition.

So? You didn't say anything about rules, you said common sense. So please, tell us what your "common sense" tells you to do.

I can give a BS common sense answer it should make you test for falling back at LD-1 because that is what it worked to do in the last codex (through out numbering to mind)

But -1Ld is far more powerful in this edition than the last, and much easier to get, so perhaps a points increase is in order?

See, common sense just doesn't work.

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:Unfortunately for you, you presume wrong. Thornback doesn't do anything under any interpretation of the rules in 5th edition.

So? You didn't say anything about rules, you said common sense. So please, tell us what your "common sense" tells you to do.

I can give a BS common sense answer it should make you test for falling back at LD-1 because that is what it worked to do in the last codex (through out numbering to mind)

But -1Ld is far more powerful in this edition than the last, and much easier to get, so perhaps a points increase is in order?

See, common sense just doesn't work.

you asked for common sense its fair to assume it would do something similar. That being said who knows what the next codex will bring .... other then 8-9 special characters. To be fair i've no interest in common sense. After all this is the grim dark future, where people don't believe in science.

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:Unfortunately for you, you presume wrong. Thornback doesn't do anything under any interpretation of the rules in 5th edition.

So? You didn't say anything about rules, you said common sense. So please, tell us what your "common sense" tells you to do.

I can give a BS common sense answer it should make you test for falling back at LD-1 because that is what it worked to do in the last codex (through out numbering to mind)

But -1Ld is far more powerful in this edition than the last, and much easier to get, so perhaps a points increase is in order?

See, common sense just doesn't work.

you asked for common sense its fair to assume it would do something similar. That being said who knows what the next codex will bring .... other then 8-9 special characters. To be fair i've no interest in common sense. After all this is the grim dark future, where people don't believe in science.

They believe in Techno-Magi-Science

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:Unfortunately for you, you presume wrong. Thornback doesn't do anything under any interpretation of the rules in 5th edition.

So? You didn't say anything about rules, you said common sense. So please, tell us what your "common sense" tells you to do.

Sorry, I just laughed out loud at the idea of you seriously typing "tell us what your 'common sense' tells you to do." I'll try to take you seriously.
If you think that a rule being made non-functional due to a fundamental change in the rules and a rule being made non-functional hot from the presses with no change in rules affecting it are the same, then I honestly have no idea what to tell you.
EDIT: In case it was not painfully obvious the new rules I am referring to are all the completely ridiculous Space Wolves RAW "problems". If you cannot understand how GW rules work due to small wording inconsistencies then I don't think wargaming is for you. Hopefully you can see how adhering to your beloved "RAW" for everything is a completely awful idea.