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.

No, they're asking how many, and then if there are any restrictions on which units they can be, aside from not being vehicles.

Right in the middle of the question "Are there any restrictions (apart from non-vehicle) or can it even be Gretchin or Independent Characters?" is the concept that vehicles are not legal choices for the Cybork Body upgrade.

Remember that GW composes/edits the questions in the FAQs, and in many cases does so deliberately to give more information to the players/cover multiple issues in the same Q&A. In this one, as noted, the Question makes implicit that vehicles cannot take the upgrade, and by the fact that the Answer does not contradict or correct this assumption, it confirms that it is correct.

That sentence structure implies that being a vehicle is a restriction.

Being a vehicle is a restriction. The deff dredd is a vehicle, so no cybork body for it.

Although, I would be willing to entertain the thought that the dredd is a heavy duty cybork body. No more saves, though.

-cgmckenzie

Since when does assumption or implies which has been the main argument against equals RAW hands down I agree that RAI is that vehicles do not get cyborg bodies but when going talking about this issue the question may imply that vehicles have some sort of restriction which it does not state and the answer does not back it up in anyway.

So hey, who is gonna go to a convention and ask about this one in person rather than dream up wild excuses?! lol

i think it's funny people will complain about a big meks KFF giving a 4+ as opposed to 5 but with restrictions like 6 inches and for 50 points as opposed to 5 points per model and unlimited range invunerable saves.

I agree with the people who would have shame even thinking this. I would point you to the fact the ork codex is fairly old compared to the DE and GK. Perhaps the terminology or the intention of the game is changing but in the older days of this game it was much more segregated.

Vehicles had very certain rules

Infantry had very certain rules

Monstrous creatures had very certain rules

They still do today but they also had equipment only THEY could take.

Look to the older edition codexs, Tau being a great example. Or last edition Chaos.

I just think you are wishful thinkers and will enjoy my time being and ork rather than a mouse trap good sirs

bwraith12 wrote:Since when does assumption or implies which has been the main argument against equals RAW hands down I agree that RAI is that vehicles do not get cyborg bodies but when going talking about this issue the question may imply that vehicles have some sort of restriction which it does not state and the answer does not back it up in anyway.

If a rule is implicit it is still RAW. If I make a rule that (as an example) "Walkers may do x", then there's no need to ask if Skimmers can do x. Their being unable is implicit. Just as with the question "other than not being a vehicle, are there any restrictions on taking the cybork body upgrade?"

bwraith12 wrote:Since when does assumption or implies which has been the main argument against equals RAW hands down I agree that RAI is that vehicles do not get cyborg bodies but when going talking about this issue the question may imply that vehicles have some sort of restriction which it does not state and the answer does not back it up in anyway.

What Mannahnin said.

I would also point out that RAW isn't always the most useful end point of a rules discussion. Quite a lot of the time, you have to look beyond the RAW because it leads to silly places, and look at how the game is best actually played.

"Q. How many units in an army with Mad Dok Grotsnik
can be upgraded to have cybork bodies? Are there any
restrictions (apart from non-vehicle) or can it even be
Gretchin or Independent Characters? (p59) "

I like it. shows it doesn't work for vehicles at least. and as a walker is a vehicle this could work for disproving. he was only doing it to dreds/kans , which i still think is clever and you take a mediocre hq for the honor. as it doens't outright say you can't though I'm not sure how to approach it. I dont' think they should but it is very orky that they would. I'd now definatly say not to buggies and trukks and bw's but kans/dreds while vehicles have a body inside controlling it. I'll have to keep reading aruments made and print this thread as a "well here goes" and if they disagree D6 it. its about fun and the kid has a very non competative fluff list and is a pretty nice guy so I'm willing to throw slack at him nobody says he's waac. hell he fields a SAG cause he thinks tis funny to blow up either side (double 1's or 6's)

I also do think it'd be unacceptable in a tournament even if nto implicitly denied i doubt a ref or tournament organisor would accept it and make you take a different upgrade or omit your points compltetly

It does outright say that you can't get cybork bodies for vehicles. The answer does not contradict the question, which is silent consent. There is no room for interpretation, if you could have put them on vehicles this exact answer must have said so.

Every single description, every picture and every model of cybork bodies clearly indicates non-vehicle. Every single ork vehicle with a 5++ invul save does not have a cybork body, and most of them are walkers.

If anyone wants walkers with 5++ saves they should save up some money and get mega/mekka dreads from IA:8. They are more awesome than shady rules exploits anyways.