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 Runtherd musing about Warp travel and "negotiations" between Ork and Plantary Governor actually had me laughing out loud too!

The warp travel bit is one of my favourites too. I actually dragged my housemate out of the sitting room to read it.

After reading the Ork Boyz entry again I'm quite sure the Nob cannot get a power klaw if the unit is equipped with shootas. This is probably intentional too since that way shootas won't be a no-brainer for both footslogging AND mounted Ork units.

Doesn't matter what way you look at the rule. The entire mob either has sluggas and choppas, or shootas, and the Nob can only swap a choppa with a power klaw.


I don't usually try to enforce slowed rules but when you think of the consequences of applying the said rule they aren't so bad. All it means is that close combat units take sluggas and choppas like always before and then get klaws, and shoota boys focus on shooting.

If you're right, it's gonna make shoota boys pretty much obsolete. Or at least, they won't have any nobs with them. There'd be no point, as they can't take any upgrades.

I love this book.

Yes, it's strange of me to say something like that, but I really do love this Codex. Orks are back! They have character, and flair. They're funny again without being the punchline of the 40K universe.

Even the much-maligned wargear section - y'know, the bit that shows Jervis' son the difference between a Chainsword and a Land Raider - has funny comments about the weapons. Great stuff.

I have a feeling my review is going to be far more positive than my Chaos one.

BYE

Posted By Therion on 10/31/2007 4:32 PM
After reading the Ork Boyz entry again I'm quite sure the Nob cannot get a power klaw if the unit is equipped with shootas. This is probably intentional too since that way shootas won't be a no-brainer for both footslogging AND mounted Ork units.

Doesn't matter what way you look at the rule. The entire mob either has sluggas and choppas, or shootas, and the Nob can only swap a choppa with a power klaw.

Do I agree with it? No. Will I enforce it? No.

I don't usually try to enforce slowed rules but when you think of the consequences of applying the said rule they aren't so bad. All it means is that close combat units take sluggas and choppas like always before and then get klaws, and shoota boys focus on shooting.

You cant really grasp the concequences of taking the ability to field powerklaws out of every squad unless you have been playing orks for years.  It would absolutely make them bottom tier status.  Instead of imperial guard goons with superior heavy weapon options and a 5+ save, you would have toughness 4 orks with bs 2, a save every basic weapon in the game negates, and an extra attack in close combat-which wouldnt help against tyranid monstrous creatures with toughness 7, wraithlords, dreadnaughts, terminators, and any vehicle in the game you would auto fail to harm.  They would be so limited it would be pointless to field them at all, kind of like how 3rd ed slugga boys were the clear choice every time.

I don't think you could get more negative.  Now I really want to see this book.

What are you on about? Orks with sluggas and choppas can get klaws.

Posted By Therion on 10/31/2007 4:32 PM
After reading the Ork Boyz entry again I'm quite sure the Nob cannot get a power klaw if the unit is equipped with shootas. This is probably intentional too since that way shootas won't be a no-brainer for both footslogging AND mounted Ork units.

Doesn't matter what way you look at the rule. The entire mob either has sluggas and choppas, or shootas, and the Nob can only swap a choppa with a power klaw.

Do I agree with it? No. Will I enforce it? No.

I don't usually try to enforce slowed rules but when you think of the consequences of applying the said rule they aren't so bad. All it means is that close combat units take sluggas and choppas like always before and then get klaws, and shoota boys focus on shooting.

Most interesting, the plot thickens.

Dakka is notorious for tagging members with low post counts with a "this guy doesnt know crap" sticker.

Sometimes it takes Yak, Therion, or Mauleed, to chime in to enforce a point, it good to see that someone with some weight on this forum see's my point.  I wonder how many "followers" on this forum will change their tune now.  (probably not many now that I've mentioned it)

 Part of me totally agrees that shoota mobs should concentrate on shooting only...hence, no powerklaw.  The other part is sad at the prospect.  The whole issue is definatly a big deal and needs to be addressed for sure before people start going out and modeling 180 shoota boys led by Nobs with power klaws.  If this interpretation is correct, I may stick with slugga/choppa boys only.

Have you actually looked at the boyz entry on the PDF Yak?  It may change your mind.  What with the wording and all.

Therion, why can't I swap my Choppa for Power Klaw first, then swap the remaining Sluggas and Choppas for Shootas? There is no order of upgrading sequence.

As Yak said, imagine in a class some students have pens and pencils. The instructions say the whole class may swap their pens for pencils. As a result, pencil holders do nothing, and pen holders swap.

Posted By Zoned on 10/31/2007 5:23 PM
Therion, why can't I swap my Choppa for Power Klaw first, then swap the remaining Sluggas and Choppas for Shootas? There is no order of upgrading sequence.

As Yak said, imagine in a class some students have pens and pencils. The instructions say the whole class may swap their pens for pencils. As a result, pencil holders do nothing, and pen holders swap.

I remember having a similiar discussion a long time ago about order of upgrades - I initially thought order didn't matter but eventually decided that the options are meant to be done in order. e.g rough riders can't get squads with plasma and hunting lances as they have to choose hunting lances first, or ig hqs that give everyone bar 1 plasma then make a heavy weapon.

Not really thought much about it since then as in it isn't usually an issue anyway. But I think the shootas are PKless. I don't see an issue with it either, so you can't deal with T8+. Not exactly game breaking, neither can my more expensive gaunts.

The fact is that one of the setups will be extinct. If you can equip the mob with shootas and still get a klaw, you can start glueing rokkit packs to your Sluggaboyz.

Well this reminds me of the same logic that lead to some people believing that CSM who buy the icon of Tzeentch gain a 4+ invulnerable save. You read into a rule, apply it backwards and create the result you wanted. Deadshane already answered your question and I agreed with him. In your case the entire mob may not replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas for free since the entire mob does not have sluggas and choppas. When the mob can only do something as an entity called 'the entire mob' they also fail together, meaning that if one of them can't replace his weapon none of them will. Simple, really, but whatever keeps you warm at night.

As I pointed out earlier, a discerpency shows up when you look at what happens to the nob's slugga. By a strict, almost tortured reading, this is the flow:
1) upgrade boy to nob
2) Swap nob's choppa for claw
3) Swap entire mob's choppa/slugga for shoota....
4) Nob does not have a choppa and slugga, therefore does not swap.

Here's the question: does the upgrade process fail because the entire mob did not swap?

The reading a lot of us is making is that, since the "entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas." is that the Nob, as he does not have a slugga and choppa, does not participate.

Here's another alternative: the reading is simply that any and all sluggas and/or choppas must be swapped for sluggas. Read it like this: the entire mob may replace their choppas and their sluggas with a shoota. Meaning, any model with either or both gets a shoota, so the nob ends up with a Claw and a shoota. Not a horrible compromise, IMO.

to reuse the classroom analogy, let's say students are all issued pencils and notebooks. One swapped his pencil for a crayon. If the teacher said, everybody pass up your pencils and notebooks, you're all getting laptops, the student would keep his crayon, but had to give up his notebook for a laptop.

There's no "order" of buying things. If you pay the extra points, you get the klaw. If you don't, you get a shoota. It's that simple.

Posted By Polonius on 10/31/2007 2:12 PM
Except it's not the same. For BPs, the rules are pretty clear: no model that carries a rapid fire weapon my fire and then assault. It's dumb, but the RAW is clear that it can't be done.

Here, the rules aren't clear. You can upgrade a nob, give him a claw, and then replace slugga/choppas with shootas. What is interesting is what happens to the Nobs slugga: does it swap to a shoota, leaving the claw? Does he keep the slugga because you may only swap a "slugga and choppa" for a shoota?

Finally, even the languages "the entire mob may replace their..." is a little ambigous. Does it mean "you may have every model replace" or does it mean "any model in the mob may replace"?

I never understood the whole oil/water situation with shootas and sluggas in the first place. Trukk boys in the old dex could take both freely, and that option seems to have disappeared, unless the horrendously vague language really does mean you can mix and match. Personally, I think it'd be really sweet to have ~10 slugga boys at the front with another 10 shoota boys pouring fire behind them.

This repply does not contribute to the discussion per se, but I have to point out the flawed rules lawyering here.

SOME people will argue that a model who is carrying a slung bolter but fires his bolt pistol can not assault, because the rule states that a model carrying a rapid fire weapon can not assault, unless they choose not to shoot that is.

Well, the next paragraph states that models carrying a pistol weapon can fire them and assault.

See?  One says no, the next one contradicts it.

You carry a rapid fire weapon, you can't shoot and assault.

You also carry a pistol, you can fire the pistol and still assault.

This is why rules lawyers need to be put on a bus with real lawyers and sent into outerspace.


As for this ork situation, a nob is an upgrade, and upgrades are all the same, unless it is stated they are not.  You upgrade the mob to carry shootas, the mob is also upgraded, he loses his choppa, so he loses his ability to get a claw. 

Pretty straight forward to me.

Well lets all take the wording literally for the whole game then.  Lets see, you can only score glancing hits on skimmers.  So that means If I hit, its a glancing hit, no need to roll for penetration.  Every hit is a glance! So even IG with there lazguns can down falcons.  Sweet take that smeldar.  You can only score glancing hits on skimmers that move over 6 inches.  Man my games are going to be so much easier against eldar/tau now. 

Posted By Pariah Press on 10/31/2007 5:34 PM
There's no "order" of buying things. If you pay the extra points, you get the klaw. If you don't, you get a shoota. It's that simple.

Why wouldn't you follow the upgrade rules for a unit in order. Rules are generally read in order.

What does everyone think about a pair of warp-heads leading the army? You have above a 50% a chance to Waagh each turn in addition to the army waagh...Killing power would be with the PK nobs...

Throw in some Kans and you have a Tyranidic Ork list

Posted By Orock on 10/31/2007 5:46 PM
Well lets all take the wording literally for the whole game then.  Lets see, you can only score glancing hits on skimmers.  So that means If I hit, its a glancing hit, no need to roll for penetration.  Every hit is a glance! So even IG with there lazguns can down falcons.  Sweet take that smeldar.  You can only score glancing hits on skimmers that move over 6 inches.  Man my games are going to be so much easier against eldar/tau now. 

Exactly.  This type of nonsense is what ruined 40K in the first place.

Obviously, if armed wit ha BP and a bolter, the marine can shoot the damn BP and assault.

Rules lawyers just like to squeez as mush as they can out of the rules.


On topic:

The most important rule I am seeing that is gone, is the mob up rule.

ouch.

Posted By Slave on 10/31/2007 5:37 PM

See?  One says no, the next one contradicts it.

You carry a rapid fire weapon, you can't shoot and assault.

You also carry a pistol, you can fire the pistol and still assault.

This is why rules lawyers need to be put on a bus with real lawyers and sent into outerspace.


As for this ork situation, a nob is an upgrade, and upgrades are all the same, unless it is stated they are not.  You upgrade the mob to carry shootas, the mob is also upgraded, he loses his choppa, so he loses his ability to get a claw. 

Pretty straight forward to me

They do no contradict.

A speed limit sign says you can drive 50mph, but a stop sign says you must stop.  Do they contradict, or do you apply the negation first?

It's the same thing.  One rule says that pistols may shoot and assault.  Another says models with rapid fire weapons cannot assault if they shoot.  If a model with a pistol and a rapid fire weapon shoots, it cannot assault.  There are many reasons a model with a pistol might not be able to shoot and then assault (the unit is too far away, casualties make it too far away, the model doesn't roll high enough on it's difficult terrain, it fails a "The horror" check, etc.  Shoot at a model 11" with an infantry model with a pistol, and then tell your opponent you can assault because the rules let you.  You can't do it.

Is this rule unfair, unintend, and seldom enforced: yes, yes, and god I hope so.  But it's times like this that lawyers (both real and gaming) actually come in handy.  There is right and there is wrong.

The Ork situation is hairier and uglier, but I think you're putting rules into the text that aren't there. 

 

 

Posted By Slave on 10/31/2007 5:58 PM

Posted By Orock on 10/31/2007 5:46 PM
Well lets all take the wording literally for the whole game then.  Lets see, you can only score glancing hits on skimmers.  So that means If I hit, its a glancing hit, no need to roll for penetration.  Every hit is a glance! So even IG with there lazguns can down falcons.  Sweet take that smeldar.  You can only score glancing hits on skimmers that move over 6 inches.  Man my games are going to be so much easier against eldar/tau now. 

Exactly.  This type of nonsense is what ruined 40K in the first place.

Obviously, if armed wit ha BP and a bolter, the marine can shoot the damn BP and assault.

Rules lawyers just like to squeez as mush as they can out of the rules.


On topic:

The most important rule I am seeing that is gone, is the mob up rule.

ouch.

Look, I don't think you'll find too many people that'll actually prevent you from taking your BP shots and then assaulting, but calling people names isn't the answer to your anger.

You can't break tight rules, and loopholes only exist until official rulings are released.  Don't be mad because somebody with an eye for detail and a deep understanding of the rules pointed out that the designers either made a mistake, or intentionally made a unit less good than you would like.  Be mad at the designers, not for making a mistake, but for refusing to answer a simple bloody question.

I'm (really, really reluctantly) going to have to weigh in with the "shootas can't have a Power Claw Nob" brigade.
Which is very disappointing. I was looking forward to some actual versitility from my troop choices for a change.
Here's hoping this one gets FAQ'd. If not, I'll be running Sluggas.
If that was what the designer intended, I'm a bit dissapointed. Ah well.

The more I read it myself, the more I'm starting to think they meant to restrict PKs to slugga mobs as well. The language is very amibiguous, and I still think under RAW it'd be hard to deny a player from it. What's making this difficult is that if the weapons of a mob are different, and the nob can take different equiptment, why not simply have two entries, like before?

Previous codex entries, like Rough Riders, are amazingly clear about who can take what. Here's my main problem with the idea that intent was to not allow PKs: it's not made clear, and I think most players would assume that the Nob's weapon choices would stay the same regardless of mob choices.

Posted By Voodoo Boyz on 10/31/2007 4:21 AM

The great thing about Shootas vs. Sluggas is that Shootas are now 18" S4 AP6 Assault 2. They don't need to be in CC to start doing Decent damage to enemy units, and pose a pretty potent shooting threat, especially combined with Rokkits.

wow, that's pretty awesome about the shootas.  if i actually work on the army i have in my head i'll be going with shootas

that is what strikes me as odd about that entry. If you look at every entry in the book it goes down a list of what you can and can't have. I haven't found anything ambiguous yet, in fact everything seems to very explicit. If it allows for various entries it does. The nob is ambiguous. If you trade in choppas, you can't have one to upgrade to a pk. And even if you upgrade before, do you lose the stubba? It really only seems (imo) to make sense if you apply stuff in the order you read the list. A lot of other entries seem to follow that pattern. There are things later in the options that are nullified by taking things early in the option. It's not a fact, and it isn't defined in any way in the book, but it is truly the only way it makes sense in that entry. I know all of us are coming into this with the predisposed notion that they should and or could have it before, but blindly reading the list as is, that is the only way it truly makes sense. An interesting conundrum as far as taking a proper stance on it. This is what FAQs are made for, clearing up ambiguities. Intent could be taken either way. RAW only makes sense if you upgrade a nob before taking the PK, otherwise you can't. The only reasons why I would even see them writing rules that way would be:
A. They screwed up and it is ambiguous.
B. They meant that shoota mob nobs wouldn't have nasty CC weapons.

In both aspects I could see a studio intent. No PK in a shoota mob would make you choose between shoota and cc. Do we think they are that devious to do that? They might have just let one slip. Was this just one of the normal slip ups? How can they really limit CC weapons off of a nob?Doesn't make much sense to let you upgrade to a nob and not get any more powerful CC options as he isn't any better at shooting.

Posted By Toreador on 10/31/2007 7:37 PM


In both aspects I could see a studio intent. No PK in a shoota mob would make you choose between shoota and cc. Do we think they are that devious to do that? They might have just let one slip. Was this just one of the normal slip ups? How can they really limit CC weapons off of a nob?Doesn't make much sense to let you upgrade to a nob and not get any more powerful CC options as he isn't any better at shooting.

First, there is no other entry in the book where a character is an upgrade of the unit and the entire unit has the option to replace its basic weaponry with another option. I don't think you can look at the other entries in the book and then draw any sort of real conclusions about the Boyz mob situation.

It is also important to note that there are at least several major typos found in this PDF and some downright bizarre inclusions (like giving Grot slavers 'Waaagh!' when Grot mob units can't utilize the 'Waaagh!').

Hopefully many of these typos or uncertainties will be ironed out before the final book is released. This PDF is dated in September, so it seems like a distinct possibility that final editing may still have yet to be completed.

 

 

Lets break down the wording even more for the complete rules lawyering.

The entire mob MAY replace there sluggas and choppas with shootas for free.

MAY is capatalized because its the key word in this sentence.  My take on this meaning is you MAY choose to replace it, or not.  That can mean boy one may replace it, but chooses not to, however boy 2 would like to replace it, so he does.  So if we really really want to get down to the letter of the law, every boy in the mob may choose to or not individually.  So now we can have 5 slugga boyz and 5 shoota boyz all in the same mob.  If the nob upgrades to the power klaw he no longer has the same option, as he has no choppa to trade in.  It does not say if one boy trades it in then they all must.  So following these options strictly everyone can have what they want!  I would like to see the anti shoota mob klaw naysayers backpedal on there words now.

Actually I wouldnt, having a squad of 30 orks with 15 with shootas to remove as casualties leaving the 3 base attack slugga boyz to get into hth WITH the power klaw armed nob sounds grossly overpowered.  I think I will choose to interpret the writing this way.

Posted By Slave on 10/31/2007 5:58 PM

Posted By Orock on 10/31/2007 5:46 PM
Well lets all take the wording literally for the whole game then.  Lets see, you can only score glancing hits on skimmers.  So that means If I hit, its a glancing hit, no need to roll for penetration.  Every hit is a glance! So even IG with there lazguns can down falcons.  Sweet take that smeldar.  You can only score glancing hits on skimmers that move over 6 inches.  Man my games are going to be so much easier against eldar/tau now. 

Exactly.  This type of nonsense is what ruined 40K in the first place.

Obviously, if armed wit ha BP and a bolter, the marine can shoot the damn BP and assault.

Rules lawyers just like to squeez as mush as they can out of the rules.


On topic:

The most important rule I am seeing that is gone, is the mob up rule.

ouch.

Take the rule literally if you are going to, but when you do it, dont misquote the rule.

The example for skimmers above is hardly an accurate quote of the rules for damaging them. 

Learn to debate.

Posted By Polonius on 10/31/2007 5:58 PM

A speed limit sign says you can drive 50mph, but a stop sign says you must stop.  Do they contradict, or do you apply the negation first?

What do the laws of the road have to do with 40k?  I could be wrong, but I dont think GW came out with the current edition of "Driving"....we would have many more accidents.

Posted By Deadshane1 on 10/31/2007 8:03 PM

Posted By Slave on 10/31/2007 5:58 PM

Posted By Orock on 10/31/2007 5:46 PM
Well lets all take the wording literally for the whole game then.  Lets see, you can only score glancing hits on skimmers.  So that means If I hit, its a glancing hit, no need to roll for penetration.  Every hit is a glance! So even IG with there lazguns can down falcons.  Sweet take that smeldar.  You can only score glancing hits on skimmers that move over 6 inches.  Man my games are going to be so much easier against eldar/tau now. 

Exactly.  This type of nonsense is what ruined 40K in the first place.

Obviously, if armed wit ha BP and a bolter, the marine can shoot the damn BP and assault.

Rules lawyers just like to squeez as mush as they can out of the rules.


On topic:

The most important rule I am seeing that is gone, is the mob up rule.

ouch.

Take the rule literally if you are going to, but when you do it, dont misquote the rule.

The example for skimmers above is hardly an accurate quote of the rules for damaging them. 

Learn to debate.

That was just rambling.  My take on may take shootas above your post however is debate.