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.

I didn't know where to really post this, but here is the new looted wagon rules for anyone who wanted to know.

Probably in General Discussion, or maybe YMDC. Not here.

I believe you can report your own post to have it moved.

Translation: run looted vehicles as a "counts as"

Meet the new Games Workshop. Same as the old Games Workshop.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Meet the new Games Workshop. Same as the old Games Workshop.

Well, they have very good legal reasons for doing so. They have to protect their IP. However, what I think they should do is let you take any other vehicle, set its BS and WS to 5+, and pay the points/power for it as you normally would. It loses all abilities and any faction keywords it had and gains the Ork and <<Klan>> keywords, and gains the Ramshackle ability. This means you are still working entirely within their own IP, and gives the Orks some ridiculous stuff. They'll be paying a premium for this stuff though, and it'll often be worse than the regular version.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Meet the new Games Workshop. Same as the old Games Workshop.

Yeah, this is a disappointing turn of events

If nothing else, Looted wagons formed a cool niche unit between a trukk and a battlewagon. I've always wanted to include a looted leman russ and hellhound in my army, in the style of the ones often shown in the codexes and here on Dakka. I was hoping GW would do what they did in 7th and add in a datasheet via White Dwarf or somesuch.

I'll be sure to follow their "New GW" philosophy and let them know though! Any of a similar mind should give them a shout - if they are listening as they say they are, and if enough of us ask for some distinct rules for Looted Wagons, we might be able to influence their decision making in the future.

Shame that this is the direction they went. Like yarium said they could have easily just have you replace the keywords, kick the BS down, and keep it at the same points for a "Looted" version of a vehicle.

It's not like doing that is particularly hard either.

 Yarium wrote:

Well, they have very good legal reasons for doing so. They have to protect their IP. However, what I think they should do is let you take any other vehicle, set its BS and WS to 5+, and pay the points/power for it as you normally would. It loses all abilities and any faction keywords it had and gains the Ork and <<Klan>> keywords, and gains the Ramshackle ability. This means you are still working entirely within their own IP, and gives the Orks some ridiculous stuff. They'll be paying a premium for this stuff though, and it'll often be worse than the regular version.

I don't think I buy that - the last looted wagon unit entry did a pretty good job of being a catch-all while still having some interesting options, and they can't seriously be that worried about 'protecting their IP' in this case - there are loads of non-GW alternative models out there that are directly targeted at Warhammer 40k that DO have models in the line, there are entire companies that still do this!

I don't think anyone was expecting to go back to 3rd-edition pick-a-unit-entry-from-somebody's-codex looted wagons, but a bit of rules to make them a bit more different than battlewagons would have been nice. Don't Press Dat - Waaaagh!

I still like the idea of Looted Wagons appearing in the Ork Codex under a Narrative Play section that has rules for creating Looted Wagons

if GW was smart they'd release a series of rules for distinct looted vehicles.

like datacards for a "Looted Lemen Russ" "Looted Land Raider" "Looted Hellhound" "Looted Predator" etc.

BunkhouseBuster wrote:I still like the idea of Looted Wagons appearing in the Ork Codex under a Narrative Play section that has rules for creating Looted Wagons

BrianDavion wrote:if GW was smart they'd release a series of rules for distinct looted vehicles.

like datacards for a "Looted Lemen Russ" "Looted Land Raider" "Looted Hellhound" "Looted Predator" etc.

These are both really solid ideas - I'm hesitantly hopeful that we will see something in the future codex. Especially if we push some of these ideas up to "New GW"

BrianDavion wrote:
if GW was smart they'd release a series of rules for distinct looted vehicles.

like datacards for a "Looted Lemen Russ" "Looted Land Raider" "Looted Hellhound" "Looted Predator" etc.

They should also come up with a "looted sprue" filled with Orky grubbins to accompany that.

Imagine something like the Ravenwing Upgrade sprue but with Orky bits and are compatible with most imperial, eldar and tau vehicles.

the old looted wagon was basically... open topped rhino that might have a big shoota or flamer. also it might have a big gun

release a conversion spru for the rhino boom, job done

I think it would be cool if looted wagon was an army special rule (or maybe clan special rule) when the codex releases that allows the ork army to take an auxiliary detachment consisting of a vehicle from any army then a statement saying treat the vehicle as WS 5+ and BS 5+.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Meet the new Games Workshop. Same as the old Games Workshop.

How people want to vindicate their own narrative. Because the world works in absolutes. All or nothing. Is impossible to make things better, even if some others remain the same.
One could argue that some new GW politics are worse. Personally I can't think of any, but I'm pretty sure some will post a big text full of how GW is still the old Kirby-Grintchz that piss in their cereals!

the problem with WS BS 5+ as i see it is balance... take a land raider. it is tough, expensice,e, and has 2 TL lascannons hitting on 3+ as well as a tl heavy bolter on 3+ so 4 lascannon shots, 6 heavy bolter shots.

space marine would hit statistically with 2.64 lascannon shots, and 3.96 heavy boler shots

meanwhile the looted orks would hit with 1.32 lascannon shots and 1.98 heavy bolter.

I am all for being able to loot things but it would be pretty complex to balance them properly. maybe GW can make a couple looted vehicle sprue and specify a few models that can be "looted heavy" , "looted medium" and "looted light"

The 'take another vehicle but make it BS 5' could easily be broken. So I take a heldrake with baleflamer and its exactly the same? I really think they just need its own datasheet.

Sorry GW, I don't want my rhino chasis vehicle to have the point cost and durability of a land raider. Isn't that also modeling for advantage? Why take battlewagons at all if I can take a bunch of 'counts as' rhinos that can easily hide behind cover? 40k chaos lords on demonic steeds have 8th edition rules, no models officially, but they were put in because they were a staple of chaos space marines. Looted wagons have been in the game forever and we don't get the same treatment?

I'm still salty about it. I guess we can wait for the ork codex in 2 years, but as an ork player I'm used to dissapointment.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
the problem with WS BS 5+ as i see it is balance... take a land raider. it is tough, expensice,e, and has 2 TL lascannons hitting on 3+ as well as a tl heavy bolter on 3+ so 4 lascannon shots, 6 heavy bolter shots.

space marine would hit statistically with 2.64 lascannon shots, and 3.96 heavy boler shots

meanwhile the looted orks would hit with 1.32 lascannon shots and 1.98 heavy bolter.

I am all for being able to loot things but it would be pretty complex to balance them properly. maybe GW can make a couple looted vehicle sprue and specify a few models that can be "looted heavy" , "looted medium" and "looted light"

Nah, it would be fine, it would just be worse, as a penalty for the flexibility for taking something from any army. There will always be better options for the slot. Taking a looted Land Raider Redeemer would be much better for orks than taking a Godhammer. Having it this way would also frown upon looted Walkers like knights.

In the end I'm fine with the original army being better with their vehicle than an ork looted vehicle.

I was considering allowing for ork upgrades on the vehicle but that is really where I think you might run into trouble. But you could probably allow the melee options without too much trouble in balancing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Don Savik wrote:
The 'take another vehicle but make it BS 5' could easily be broken. So I take a heldrake with baleflamer and its exactly the same? I really think they just need its own datasheet.

Sorry GW, I don't want my rhino chasis vehicle to have the point cost and durability of a land raider. Isn't that also modeling for advantage? Why take battlewagons at all if I can take a bunch of 'counts as' rhinos that can easily hide behind cover? 40k chaos lords on demonic steeds have 8th edition rules, no models officially, but they were put in because they were a staple of chaos space marines. Looted wagons have been in the game forever and we don't get the same treatment?

I'm still salty about it. I guess we can wait for the ork codex in 2 years, but as an ork player I'm used to dissapointment.

Why would it be broken if you pay the same cost as the original army and get downgraded? Sure everything with flamers would be better, but things like the heldrake would be worse because it is WS3 for CSM. So it would be same points, -1 Command point, and worse WS and BS. I cannot think of any circumstance where this would be better for orks than it would be in its native army. If you left the rules as written on the vehicles, no transport could transport orks, so it would be just for gun-boats really.

So yeah a heldrake, or a Helhound, a redeemer.

 Don Savik wrote:
The 'take another vehicle but make it BS 5' could easily be broken. So I take a heldrake with baleflamer and its exactly the same? I really think they just need its own datasheet.

Not quite. I also said it would lose its abilities. That means it'd lose its 5+ Inv (Daemonic), its Infernal Regeneration, and, funnily enough, its Crash and Burn.

This is OK. My looted Medusa is now a battlewagon. Why not? Easy.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/…/dda792e97392e5040d4b4362cd77cf…
You guys realize that you basically just said "Its okay to use models that aren't what they're meant for" right? Like I get why you don't wanna put out rules for models you don't have in your line, but you basically just told everyone its okay to go get third party stuff and swap it into GW games because you don't care about things being the official kit.

Just posted this to their facebook page; lets see how they sing it

 jeff white wrote:
This is OK. My looted Medusa is now a battlewagon. Why not? Easy.

I'd advise against it. The smaller model really doesn't sit well with a lot of other players. I plan to use them as counts as vehciles when the new forgeworld book comes out. Plus looted wagon have been really crap for a while, FW makes them a lot better.

 Novelist47 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
This is OK. My looted Medusa is now a battlewagon. Why not? Easy.

I'd advise against it. The smaller model really doesn't sit well with a lot of other players. I plan to use them as counts as vehciles when the new forgeworld book comes out. Plus looted wagon have been really crap for a while, FW makes them a lot better.

I think it is less of an issue now. Than it used to be, especially when weapon locations don't matter. You could also add conversion parts to it to make it similar in size if you really wanted.

I think there's a bunch of ways a 3rd Ed. style Looted vehicle could work.

The first thing that comes to mind is making them auxiliary detachments, so including any reducing of BS, you loose a CP.

Then of course you could limit them to vehicles with the Imperium Keyword.

Personally, I'm a fan of making Looted refer to equipment options rather than a specific vehicle chassis. So rather than a Looted Wagon, you have Looted Gubbinz.

So you could have an Orkanaut with Floaty Bitz if you wanted to make a Looted Dreadknight, a Battlewagon with a "Big Skorchy Laser" which could ambiguously represent either a Looted Doomsday Cannon, Prism Cannon or Heat Ray, etc.

And then give Orks a proper "medium tank" chassis that isn't necessarily Looted.

 Yarium wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Meet the new Games Workshop. Same as the old Games Workshop.

Well, they have very good legal reasons for doing so. They have to protect their IP. However, what I think they should do is let you take any other vehicle, set its BS and WS to 5+, and pay the points/power for it as you normally would. It loses all abilities and any faction keywords it had and gains the Ork and <<Klan>> keywords, and gains the Ramshackle ability. This means you are still working entirely within their own IP, and gives the Orks some ridiculous stuff. They'll be paying a premium for this stuff though, and it'll often be worse than the regular version.

I can't decide between Looted Sammael and Looted Logan Grimnar.

Clearly you should go for Looted Asdrubael Vect, seeing as the Dais of Destruction is similarly missing from the rules or model range.

I'd love to see looted wagons make a comeback, they were my favorite unit, and one of the things I loved to much about orks to begin with - looting from the other faction, and using their things against them.

MagicJuggler has it right though; the rules should be for a general looted vehicle, instead of specific ones - that way you can take certain abilities/generic sounding weapons and hobble together vehicles of your own look (which may or may not use existing tanks as a base); this gives players personality in customizing their vehicles, and gives variety on and off the field.

I just want looting rules in some form to be back; I want to loot guns/tanks from other races and just because it's orky and fun (I don't even mind if they aren't top tier playable; as long as they're not 100% unplayable either, I'll be happy).

 Jambles wrote:

BunkhouseBuster wrote:I still like the idea of Looted Wagons appearing in the Ork Codex under a Narrative Play section that has rules for creating Looted Wagons

BrianDavion wrote:if GW was smart they'd release a series of rules for distinct looted vehicles.

like datacards for a "Looted Lemen Russ" "Looted Land Raider" "Looted Hellhound" "Looted Predator" etc.

These are both really solid ideas - I'm hesitantly hopeful that we will see something in the future codex. Especially if we push some of these ideas up to "New GW"

I definatly think it might be a good idea to push for rules for looted versions of distinct things, this gives GW a huuuge range of rule oppertunities, and a chance to open up their ranges to more players, well also preventing stuff like looted demon engines which is just, let's face it, kinda silly.

Orkz are supposed to be the silly faction. :p

Gone are the rules of old that really made the Orkz what they were ("Red onez go fasta'", etc), haha.

That's what I love(d) about the Ork faction, and what drew me to them initially - they kill as many of their own guys as they do of the enemies, have the silliest rules and abilities, and were just all around hilarious.