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.

The ork FAQ says that the mad doc can give any number of units cybork bodies. My friend and I were wondering if this includes dreads? The FAQ says units so we are a little unsure if that includes walkers. What do you guys think? It doen't bother me one way or the other but he wants to make a list he can play in friendly games at home as well as stores.

Well technically invulnerable saves can only be taken against wounds so giving an ork vehicle an invulnerable save does nothing... But no, the FAQ implies vehicles need not apply in the asking of the question.

nkelsch wrote:Well technically invulnerable saves can only be taken against wounds so giving an ork vehicle an invulnerable save does nothing... But no, the FAQ implies vehicles need not apply in the asking of the question.

Thats not really true, DE flicker fields are invul saves, and Bjorn the fell handed has one too and they are vehicles.

Mr. S Baldrick wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Well technically invulnerable saves can only be taken against wounds so giving an ork vehicle an invulnerable save does nothing... But no, the FAQ implies vehicles need not apply in the asking of the question.

Thats not really true, DE flicker fields are invul saves, and Bjorn the fell handed has one too and they are vehicles.

Bjorn work because it explicitly says it can be taken against glances and pens. Technically flicker fields do nothing but are allowed to work because of an FAQ.

Regardless, RAI implied by the faq is that grotsnik cannot give vehicles invuns. If you argue RAW that he can give them invuns then RAW is that invuns do nothing and only work against wounds... So it solves itself very nicely by plotting absurdity vs absurdity.

The FAQ has the answer to your question built in. It can only be given to a non-vehicle. (underline and bold mine)

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)
A. Any number of units can be upgraded. This includes
Gretchin (Super-Gretchin! Cool conversions, but a bit
expensive at 8 pts per model!) and Independent
Characters (except for unique characters), effectively
giving them a 5 pt discount on the cybork body
upgrade.

Vehicles have access to their own special wargear selections in the Codex. Unless the Cybork body is listed under the Vehicle wargear section, they cannot make that selection. There is a specific list of selections for wargear (not weapon options) that the vehicles are allowed to make on that page of the codex (can't find my codex at the moment to give you the exact page), but as Cybork bodies are not listed under that list, a vehicle cannot make a selection of infantry wargear.

kmdl1066 wrote:The FAQ has the answer to your question built in. It can only be given to a non-vehicle. (underline and bold mine)

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)
A. Any number of units can be upgraded. This includes
Gretchin (Super-Gretchin! Cool conversions, but a bit
expensive at 8 pts per model!) and Independent
Characters (except for unique characters), effectively
giving them a 5 pt discount on the cybork body
upgrade.

Cool that works for us, thanks

As noted the FAQ does not restrict it, it just assumes that you cant give it to vehicles - the answer never confirms it.

RAI is that youcant give them cybork, RAW is you can as vehicles are models.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As noted the FAQ does not restrict it, it just assumes that you cant give it to vehicles - the answer never confirms it.

RAI is that youcant give them cybork, RAW is you can as vehicles are models.

The answer does confirm it by not denying. As both the question and the answer are written by the same person, that restriction is intentionally confirmed by not saying anything else.

No, the question has an assumption that is not denied but neither is it confirmed. The rules 100% allow it.

(You also dont know, for sure, that the same person wrote the question and answer)

The only possible scenario where the restriction posted in the question would not be true, were if the author of the answer missed it.

As the FAQ is not an actual dialogue, but IP of GW, you can assume that the author of question and answer are the same. Even if they weren't this exact question has been in multiple revisions of the FAQ and was never changed nor clarified, making an honest misunderstanding impossible.

Since one interpretation is all but impossible, the other one must be RAW. Vehicles may not purchase cybork.

Again- there is an assumed restriction given by the question asker, and no comment from the person answering it. Therefore the general permission granted by the codex still holds.

I wouldnt assume much when it comes to gw forgetting to update questions, they left guard with a retinue ccs long after the 5th ed codex was released!

The answer to this question is No. Saw this many years ago at a GW event in London. Judges said no.

Jidmah wrote:As the FAQ is not an actual dialogue, but IP of GW, you can assume that the author of question and answer are the same. Even if they weren't this exact question has been in multiple revisions of the FAQ and was never changed nor clarified, making an honest misunderstanding impossible.

SitW FAQ shows us that regardless of the amount of time an incorrect answer is there, it can be incorrect.

This is why I said th FAQ implies it which gives RAI.

If you say RAW that grotsnik can give vehicles invun, then RAW also says invuns can only be taken against wounds which makes bjorn the only working save and flicker fields do nothing.

So you make something clearly intended to work (FF) fail to work because of a badly written FAQ for a different army?

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you make something clearly intended to work (FF) fail to work because of a badly written FAQ for a different army?

Only when someone argues they have a cyborked battle wagon... If you gonna take RAW that the FAQ confirms nothing, then we can play RAW where invuns can only be taken against wounds except where noted like bjorn.

Since I don't play dark eldar, and my opponent arguing would have to be playing orks, it solves itself very nicely.

rigeld2 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:As the FAQ is not an actual dialogue, but IP of GW, you can assume that the author of question and answer are the same. Even if they weren't this exact question has been in multiple revisions of the FAQ and was never changed nor clarified, making an honest misunderstanding impossible.

SitW FAQ shows us that regardless of the amount of time an incorrect answer is there, it can be incorrect.

Even if an answer is incorrect, it's still rules.

Good job this isnt rules then - just an assumption that is not congruent with the rules in the codex

Our question arose out of the fact that the wording is so vague. I think it whole problem comes from the word “units”. I guess it all really depends on how you define units. I don’t think the rule book does. I have seen some people look at it as anything on the table, others only models with wounds. In a game among friends I would say sure go for it, it is not really that big of an advantage. Besides it is fare because the Ork vehicle upgrades are kind of crap anyway. Of course in a game with a stranger or a tournament it’s not worth the argument so I wouldn’t even try.

I think, arguing semantics aside, the general answer you are going to get is no. I know that in tourny if a player pulled this on me I would call the TO and if the TO sided with him im walking out of the store and never looking back.

Giving ork vehicles 5+ invun for 5pts a model is amazingly good for a dredbash and BWBash lists. It can remove the need for a KFF and give a huge protection against CC attacks.

It would drastically change the metagame of that codex if it was legal...

The problem with a rules dispute like this, is it modifies the roster which means if the TO approves or disapproves the person has an invalid list and is out of the tourney, opposed to simply rolling a 4+ on a rules dispute. So such a list would need to be approved long before.

How come everyone forgets sisters of Battle? everything they have has an invulnerable save. including vehicles.

yes by raw they don't work, But since FF got FAQ'ed i am going to say they work just fine.

on the Doc question, never really occurred to me that you could cause at the time no vehicle at the time had an invulnerable save at all. SW was not around and DE did not have FF doing what it did now iicr.

but if more and more vehicles are getting invulnerable saves then why not orks to?

on a side note the KFF is better? (course not withstanding the 5pt upgrade for an invulnerable save.)

so by raw Dok Grotsnik can give vehicles cybork. Do they work that's up for future publications to decide.

Cause if 6th edition says invulnerable work for vehicles going to see a lot of Grotsnik and less of KFF

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:How come everyone forgets sisters of Battle? everything they have has an invulnerable save. including vehicles.

yes by raw they don't work, But since FF got FAQ'ed i am going to say they work just fine.

You make an excellent point.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:

Cause if 6th edition says invulnerable work for vehicles going to see a lot of Grotsnik and less of KFF

The FAQ till provides a quasi-Raw statement his upgrade does not work which is basically going to make it the lay of the land for every major event out there. So it is not like you can play with this intepretation anywehre but int he dark of your own home or in a game with a closed group of people who institute house rules.

And one FAQ for one codex doesn't extend to other codexes, so FF working does nothing for orks.

Today seems like the 'let's exploit the ork codex' day in YMTC

nkelsch wrote:And one FAQ for one codex doesn't extend to other codexes, so FF working does nothing for orks.

Was referring to the SOB when i was talking about FF, Whether or not it works for orks i am not saying it does or does not.


could swear at one point in time someone said that FAQ's for one for similar situations work well with other similar situations. now i need to dig for that, or not.

I am definitely leaning to the side that you can take it now. The fact that there are already vehicles that have invul saves means that issue is kind of moot and vehicles can have them. Page 3 of the small rule books says:
“A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but it can be a single, very large or powerful model, such as a battle tank, a monstrous alien creature or lone hero.”

Grotsnik’s rule says “any unit”, so if you want argue RAW vehicles are units according to the rule book.

Mr. S Baldrick wrote:I am definitely leaning to the side that you can take it now. The fact that there are already vehicles that have invul saves means that issue is kind of moot and vehicles can have them. Page 3 of the small rule books says:
“A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but it can be a single, very large or powerful model, such as a battle tank, a monstrous alien creature or lone hero.”

Grotsnik’s rule says “any unit”, so if you want argue RAW vehicles are units according to the rule book.

And RAW says those invunerables do nothing as well unless specified like in Bjorn's special rules.

And the FAQ implies it doesn't work for any unit.

Just because some vehicles have functioning and non functioning invuns aves doesn't mean orks would. You can't pick and choose RAW interpretations and mix them with RAI when it suits you.

nkelsch wrote:
Just because some vehicles have functioning and non functioning invuns aves doesn't mean orks would. You can't pick and choose RAW interpretations and mix them with RAI when it suits you.

Who has a non-functioning invun save?

SOB lol