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.

Hey I hope this is in the right place, just wanted to ask if it's possible to field a list with under 1500 with both buzzgob in his big Mek stompa and a regular stompa?

Idk, can you not just do the math really quick?

Yes, but CrownAxe is right: it isn't hard to do the maths.

Just be aware that you're exploiting an obvious typo by doing it. Buzzgob's Stompa is supposed to be much more expensive, the printed point cost was for an older custom Stompa that started with nothing and had to pay for all of its weapons/upgrades (bringing the final cost up to the same level as every other Stompa). Don't be a TFG and exploit obvious typos to build overpowered lists.

 Peregrine wrote:
Just be aware that you're exploiting an obvious typo by doing it. Buzzgob's Stompa is supposed to be much more expensive, the printed point cost was for an older custom Stompa that started with nothing and had to pay for all of its weapons/upgrades (bringing the final cost up to the same level as every other Stompa). Don't be a TFG and exploit obvious typos to build overpowered lists.

Wait what? Explain?

A friend of mine has been using the cheap Buzzgob Stompa and I've seen it's entry so I never questioned it.

 mrhappyface wrote:
Wait what? Explain?

A friend of mine has been using the cheap Buzzgob Stompa and I've seen it's entry so I never questioned it.

The original list in IA8 had a custom Stompa option. You started with the base hull with no weapons or special rules, and you had to pay separately for each component. +100 points for that gun, +200 for the other one, +10 per secondary gun, etc. The end result was that you had a lot of choices in how to build your Stompa (including weapon/upgrade combinations that no other Stompa could take), but unless you did something ridiculous like a stripped-down Stompa armed only with a single shoota you were going to end up paying around the same point total as every other Stompa. Buzzgob originally let you buy one of these.

The IA8 pdf update kept the same cheap point cost for buying Buzzgob's personal Stompa, presumably under the assumption that you bought the base hull in Buzzgob's unit entry and then paid for the upgrades as normal. But at the same time a bunch of the Stompa variant names were changed and Buzzgob's unit entry ended up pointing to one of the normal already-built Stompas. There's no conceivable reason why taking a particular HQ should let you get a LoW that takes up no FOC slot and costs hundreds of points less than buying it the normal way, so the obvious conclusion is that FW forgot to change the point cost for buying it in Buzzgob's unit rules when the rules for the Stompa itself changed.

The obvious correct rule is that Buzzgob may purchase the listed Stompa at its normal price, ignoring the incorrect point cost that slipped through editing.

However ITC allows Buzzgob's Discount Stompa under tournament rules because Orks need the boost...

 Waaagh Junkie wrote:
Hey I hope this is in the right place, just wanted to ask if it's possible to field a list with under 1500 with both buzzgob in his big Mek stompa and a regular stompa?

Can you field an ork Codex stompa in a 1500 list.?
Yes just take a CAD and fill the LoW slot with the stompa easy there are no dubious rulings needed.

Can you field a kustom stompa* in a 1500 list.
* this is the cool stompa that you really want to field it is decently costed and has really nice customization options
Yes same as above but only if your opponent allows the oop book IA8 and allow the deleted FW LoW document that declares this to be a LoW.

Can you field a Big mek stompa* in a 1500 list.
yes just take the appocalypse imprerial armour book instead of the IA8 book. But why would you this stompa is quite dull and expensive in point cost.

Can you field big mek stompa in a 1500 list with the buzzob's 400 point discount shenanigan.
Yes if you play ITC rules just use the LoW slot, but only if you use a 100% pure ork army. As soon as you use any allies they no longer support it. The community voted that this was the correct way to play it so it is now the way to play it in the ITC.
NO! if you play any other set of rules and you are sensible. Here are the reasons why you can't
1. FW made clear that it was a typo. They used the kustom stopma price but wrote the Big mek stompa reference
2. The document allowing this trick is the famous Ia8 update pdf document this document was meant for the 6th edition and is removed form the FW site.
3. The documents only allows you to use this trick in "appocalypse or other large games" and no sane person would argue that a 1500 pt game is a apocalypse scaled large game.

Does any of this change if you go unbound ?
no



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 GreenShoes wrote:
However ITC allows Buzzgob's Discount Stompa under tournament rules because Orks need the boost...

They should have allowd the kustom stompa that the ITC has banned instead if they wanted to boost orks. Or you know just reduce the point cost of regular orks etc. Allowing you this dirty trick doesn't boost ork armies, unless you field the ITC discount stompa.

 GreenShoes wrote:
However ITC allows Buzzgob's Discount Stompa under tournament rules because Orks need the boost...

And this is one of the reasons why ITC is a joke.

 Peregrine wrote:
, but unless you did something ridiculous like a stripped-down Stompa armed only with a single shoota you were going to end up paying around the same point total as every other Stompa..

The kustom stompa is actually priced a lot lower than the current stompa in the ork codex if you equip it with roughly the same gear.

 Peregrine wrote:

 GreenShoes wrote:
However ITC allows Buzzgob's Discount Stompa under tournament rules because Orks need the boost...

And this is one of the reasons why ITC is a joke.

It's not exactly like the orks are steamrolling the top 30 here. The codex stompa is over 800 points. It's why the codex is a joke.

 slip wrote:
It's not exactly like the orks are steamrolling the top 30 here. The codex stompa is over 800 points. It's why the codex is a joke.

And allowing an obvious typo to give a several hundred point discount to a unit is an unbelievably stupid way to "fix" a weak codex.

 Peregrine wrote:

 slip wrote:
It's not exactly like the orks are steamrolling the top 30 here. The codex stompa is over 800 points. It's why the codex is a joke.

And allowing an obvious typo to give a several hundred point discount to a unit is an unbelievably stupid way to "fix" a weak codex.

It's a type but it still is RAW

 CrownAxe wrote:
It's a type but it still is RAW

And this is why trying to play by strict RAW, without even correcting obvious mistakes, is insane. It's the same kind of RAW argument that prevented models with helmets from shooting (no "eyes" to draw LOS from), made the demolisher cannons on Vindicators a single-shot weapon (GW forgot to add "large blast" to the stat line), etc.

 Peregrine wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
It's a type but it still is RAW

And this is why trying to play by strict RAW, without even correcting obvious mistakes, is insane. It's the same kind of RAW argument that prevented models with helmets from shooting (no "eyes" to draw LOS from), made the demolisher cannons on Vindicators a single-shot weapon (GW forgot to add "large blast" to the stat line), etc.

ITC doesn't follow strict RAW, buzzgob is one of the instances where they (and the players who voted for it) thought it was better

 Peregrine wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
It's a type but it still is RAW

And this is why trying to play by strict RAW, without even correcting obvious mistakes, is insane. It's the same kind of RAW argument that prevented models with helmets from shooting (no "eyes" to draw LOS from), made the demolisher cannons on Vindicators a single-shot weapon (GW forgot to add "large blast" to the stat line), etc.

I don't think it's strictly raw. I think it's so the ork players bother to show up. Frankly, the stompa is still overpriced, even with the typo. Luckily we can just take renegade Knights now so the only people this affects are the fluffy walker armies and waaagh ghaz armies.

 CrownAxe wrote:
ITC doesn't follow strict RAW, buzzgob is one of the instances where they (and the players who voted for it) thought it was better

And it's a stupid decision by ITC. It isn't reasonable RAW. It isn't RAI. It isn't a reasonable way to balance a weak codex. It's an inexcusable poor decision by ITC, and an example of why they shouldn't be taken seriously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 slip wrote:
I think it's so the ork players bother to show up.

If your entire motivation for ork players is to allow an obvious typo involving a single unit then there is something badly wrong with your approach to balance. Calling this a "fix" for balance problems just pushes ork players into one viable list and acts as an excuse to avoid giving them a proper buff to their codex.

It doesn't push them. It's still not a competitive tactic lol.

 Peregrine wrote:


And it's a stupid decision by ITC. It isn't RAW. It isn't RAI. It isn't a reasonable way to balance a weak codex. It's an inexcusable poor decision by ITC, and an example of why they shouldn't be taken seriously.

That's just your opinion

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


And it's a stupid decision by ITC. It isn't reasonable RAW. It isn't RAI. It isn't a reasonable way to balance a weak codex. It's an inexcusable poor decision by ITC, and an example of why they shouldn't be taken seriously.

That's just your opinion

No, it's fact. ITC screwed up here and this is no reasonable justification for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 slip wrote:
It doesn't push them. It's still not a competitive tactic lol.

Then it's a failure of a balance fix, the "orks need a buff" excuse fails, and there is no excuse for keeping the typo instead of correcting it to the intended point cost.

 Peregrine wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


And it's a stupid decision by ITC. It isn't reasonable RAW. It isn't RAI. It isn't a reasonable way to balance a weak codex. It's an inexcusable poor decision by ITC, and an example of why they shouldn't be taken seriously.

That's just your opinion

No, it's fact. ITC screwed up here and this is no reasonable justification for it.

This is one the more milder issues from ITC. I get you don't like ITC but you're being a bit ridiculous

 Peregrine wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


And it's a stupid decision by ITC. It isn't reasonable RAW. It isn't RAI. It isn't a reasonable way to balance a weak codex. It's an inexcusable poor decision by ITC, and an example of why they shouldn't be taken seriously.

That's just your opinion

No, it's fact. ITC screwed up here and this is no reasonable justification for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 slip wrote:
It doesn't push them. It's still not a competitive tactic lol.

Then it's a failure of a balance fix, the "orks need a buff" excuse fails, and there is no excuse for keeping the typo instead of correcting it to the intended point cost.

Stop being rude. It is literally your opinion, and that is all.
They decided to go with RAW, whether or not it was RAI. It doesn't affect you, and you are being off topic here. If their gaming group has no problems with it, then who cares?

For OP, I would suggest getting battlescribe, and trying to put a list together that way? if not, pen and paper it up as you go, and then use a calculator to add up the final cost.
I am sure a cheap HQ and some grot troops wouldn't come to many points.

 Rippy wrote:
They decided to go with RAW, whether or not it was RAI.

And it was an inexcusably bad decision, on the same level as "going with RAW" in previous editions and banning models with helmets from shooting or charging.

It doesn't affect you, and you are being off topic here. If their gaming group has no problems with it, then who cares?

You know that ITC is used as a standard tournament format, right? One that many events, including events that I may play in or wish to play in, are run under? The ITC ruling is not just some random guy's house rule that I'm picking on.

Has anyone actually gotten Peregrine to concede on... Well Anything? It's best to really not get into an argument.

Considering that Buzzgob lists don't exactly top ITC tournaments, its clear that even such an advantage doesn't make up for the rest of the fact that the entire codex is practically trash.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
They decided to go with RAW, whether or not it was RAI.

And it was an inexcusably bad decision, on the same level as "going with RAW" in previous editions and banning models with helmets from shooting or charging.

It doesn't affect you, and you are being off topic here. If their gaming group has no problems with it, then who cares?

You know that ITC is used as a standard tournament format, right? One that many events, including events that I may play in or wish to play in, are run under? The ITC ruling is not just some random guy's house rule that I'm picking on.

ITC "fix" many things, unfortunately if you don't like it, the only thing you can do it not attend, or send them an email and explain why you don't like something.
In my opinion though, just because one thing isn't taken as RAW, doesn't mean they need to do everything not as RAW if it enhances the experience for the majority.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Has anyone actually gotten Peregrine to concede on... Well Anything?

I do believe I have, but he only does that when he is wrong (which is not often).

While he is... strongly worded, he is not wrong. ITC keeping the typo Stompa is not a proper fix. It is akin to to extinguishing a fire by throwing soaking wet cats at it. Yes, the fire is not getting any bigger from it, but there are better ways to achieve your goal.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Considering that Buzzgob lists don't exactly top ITC tournaments, its clear that even such an advantage doesn't make up for the rest of the fact that the entire codex is practically trash.

It's not just about power level, it's about whether the change makes sense. Typos should be fixed, period, and this should be done independently from any balance fixes. If orks are bad then give them a proper balance fix that makes the codex as a whole good, but this has nothing to do with the issue here.

Exactly.

Once it's intended, is it still an error?

 slip wrote:
Once it's intended, is it still an error?

It was never intended. It was a typo that slipped through editing (as confirmed by FW in unofficial replies), and the only reason it wasn't fixed was GW's ridiculous policy of "we don't do FAQs" at the time. It's no different from the 5th edition C:SM having Vindicators with single-shot demolisher cannons (the printed stat line was missing "large blast") for a long time before the typo was finally corrected. In both cases it's an obvious mistake, and it's insane to stubbornly keep playing with the typo.