Ork rumours - First post updated 20th June

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.

**Murrdox**

Vankraken wrote:
Having a unit that is in the current rules, removing it from the new rules, and then selling it separately at the same time as the new rules is dirty business no matter how you slice it. I shouldn't have to pay extra to get the rules for hotels in monopoly 2.0. It's not new content but stripping existing entries to profiteer and exploit people who like or already have the model made. Almost every vehicle or giant nid MC is a potential looted wagon so don't say it doesn't have a model. It's the entry with the highest number of possible models in 40k.

Don't Panic.

The "Datasheet" for Looted Wagons could mean almost anything. Just because White Dwarf has the rules for them doesn't mean the codex will not.

My bet is that the White Dwarf will have full rules for the Looted Wagon, and that the "Datasheet" will be something along the lines of a formation of Looted Wagons and some of the other new Ork models such as the Mek Guns that can be taken as a formation of some kind.

I'm sure the rules for the Looted Wagon will still be in the codex.

**MajorWesJanson**

Kosake wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:
Orock wrote:
Its not pay if you want. Just like illegally downloaded movies and music aren't with options to pay. Its theft, if you do this your a thief period. It may be acceptable in society, but your still wrong.

It's not wrong, it's just against the law.

But we are wrong if we support this dlc-type system. Payment and piracy aside, I just dont want a system, where half my units are in the dex and half spread over WDW, dataslates, supplements, exclusive versions, mission books and whatever crude scheme GW comes up next with. Not counting Imperial Armour and FW free downloads, though the later are really the last of anyones concern and actually the way this should be.

Isn't that what 3rd Edition and part of 4th edition was like? Codex, WD Assault Rules, Index Astartes lists, Armageddon and Eye of Terror supplemental lists, ect?

**ciaflayed1**

nflagey wrote:
Delevarius wrote:
One more thing I found on facebook

Spoiler:

nothing about the Codex on that cover ... I guess it would be mentioned if it was to be released next week ...

Are those new Grot models, or just the ones from the new Mek Gunz kit?

**Bonde**

Well, I'm just glad that there are still rules for looted wagons. If the rules are in the codex, I might even buy it.

**Smuttbudgie**

ciaflayed1 wrote:
nflagey wrote:
Delevarius wrote:
One more thing I found on facebook

Spoiler:

nothing about the Codex on that cover ... I guess it would be mentioned if it was to be released next week ...

Are those new Grot models, or just the ones from the new Mek Gunz kit?

They look like the same ones from the Gunz kit

**loki old fart**

Bonde wrote:
Well, I'm just glad that there are still rules for looted wagons.

Me too

**lord_blackfang**

MajorWesJanson wrote:
Isn't that what 3rd Edition and part of 4th edition was like? Codex, WD Assault Rules, Index Astartes lists, Armageddon and Eye of Terror supplemental lists, ect?

Yeah. As a CSM player in mid-3rd, you were expected to carry: BBB (huge rulebook, no option for mini, even contained outdated get-you-by army lists for all factions), CSM Codex, WD with Trial Assault Rules, WD with Trial Vehicle rules, WD with Crux Terminatus, WD with Cult Terminators, WD with Putting The Tzzap Back Into Tzeentch (Thousand Sons were so weak even back then that they got a free WD buff) and WD with the Legion rules of your choice.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vankraken wrote:
Having a unit that is in the current rules, removing it from the new rules, and then selling it separately at the same time as the new rules is dirty business no matter how you slice it. I shouldn't have to pay extra to get the rules for hotels in monopoly 2.0. It's not new content but stripping existing entries to profiteer and exploit people who like or already have the model made. Almost every vehicle or giant nid MC is a potential looted wagon so don't say it doesn't have a model. It's the entry with the highest number of possible models in 40k.

GW might actually have learned this one from PP.

**Avian**

In what way, exactly?

**Orock**

MajorWesJanson wrote:
Kosake wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:
Orock wrote:
Its not pay if you want. Just like illegally downloaded movies and music aren't with options to pay. Its theft, if you do this your a thief period. It may be acceptable in society, but your still wrong.

It's not wrong, it's just against the law.

But we are wrong if we support this dlc-type system. Payment and piracy aside, I just dont want a system, where half my units are in the dex and half spread over WDW, dataslates, supplements, exclusive versions, mission books and whatever crude scheme GW comes up next with. Not counting Imperial Armour and FW free downloads, though the later are really the last of anyones concern and actually the way this should be.

Isn't that what 3rd Edition and part of 4th edition was like? Codex, WD Assault Rules, Index Astartes lists, Armageddon and Eye of Terror supplemental lists, ect?

You make an excellent point. And it was crap back then, like it is now. However we dident complain about it nearly as much as most of the stuff came in white dwarf magazines, which were really popular and fun back then. I still have my 95 to 2000 collection, and like to read thru for inspiration. Also at the games workshop where I played, they had a binder behind the desk with EVERY page of white dwarf ripped out that had errata and rules for anyone to use, one for fantasy, one for 40k. And if you made your own copy on a black and white printer, the guys at the store were told to let it go.

it was a lot more lax back then, about the only thing that is the same is that your models still have to be GW (most of it anyway) and they have to be painted (to put up a good face for kids shopping there)

Does White Dwarf being a good value change the sneakiness of it? No not really, but if the internet was near as popular then as today, they might have released them their for free, maybe not. But getting them in an excellent magazine like white dwarf took the sting away.

**Fango**

Not sure what you mean with the Privateer Press comment, the rules are all included on cards that accompany each model/unit when you buy it. PP have never once removed a model/unit from the game. Warcasters, 'Jacks, and units that were released when MK I first launched are still competitive. You simply need the core rules, and the cards that come with the models (and possibly a free FAQ printed out for a minor rules adjustment made for balance).

As far as excusing GW for spreading rules over multiple publications by comparing it to 3rd edition...are you serious? 3rd edition was all over the place because new/updated rules were added on over time....We are talking about a 7th Edition codex that has had units/characters (potentially) stripped out of the main book (that were included in the previous edition codex...for much less money) and sold in companion publications that are sold separately, but available at (close to) the same time. This isnt a matter of evolving and improving the army/rules over time. It's a DLC money grabbing scheme, designed to stick it to the players who want to use all available options, or who have invested in models they now cannot use unless they 'pony up' for said supplement.

**YourIntestines**

Murrdox wrote:
Vankraken wrote:
Having a unit that is in the current rules, removing it from the new rules, and then selling it separately at the same time as the new rules is dirty business no matter how you slice it. I shouldn't have to pay extra to get the rules for hotels in monopoly 2.0. It's not new content but stripping existing entries to profiteer and exploit people who like or already have the model made. Almost every vehicle or giant nid MC is a potential looted wagon so don't say it doesn't have a model. It's the entry with the highest number of possible models in 40k.

Don't Panic.

The "Datasheet" for Looted Wagons could mean almost anything. Just because White Dwarf has the rules for them doesn't mean the codex will not.

My bet is that the White Dwarf will have full rules for the Looted Wagon, and that the "Datasheet" will be something along the lines of a formation of Looted Wagons and some of the other new Ork models such as the Mek Guns that can be taken as a formation of some kind.

I'm sure the rules for the Looted Wagon will still be in the codex.

I've said that twice so far.

Don't expect anyone to listen to you.

They'd rather bicker.

**Vankraken**

Murrdox wrote:
Vankraken wrote:
Having a unit that is in the current rules, removing it from the new rules, and then selling it separately at the same time as the new rules is dirty business no matter how you slice it. I shouldn't have to pay extra to get the rules for hotels in monopoly 2.0. It's not new content but stripping existing entries to profiteer and exploit people who like or already have the model made. Almost every vehicle or giant nid MC is a potential looted wagon so don't say it doesn't have a model. It's the entry with the highest number of possible models in 40k.

Don't Panic.

The "Datasheet" for Looted Wagons could mean almost anything. Just because White Dwarf has the rules for them doesn't mean the codex will not.

My bet is that the White Dwarf will have full rules for the Looted Wagon, and that the "Datasheet" will be something along the lines of a formation of Looted Wagons and some of the other new Ork models such as the Mek Guns that can be taken as a formation of some kind.

I'm sure the rules for the Looted Wagon will still be in the codex.

I'm not panicking at all but I'm firm in my belief that it's a deplorable buisness practice to do. I hope GW maintains some integrity and keeps the rules in the main codex (tone doesn't translate into text on the internet very well

). If it's not then the rules need to be posted for free.

**Toburk**

If there are seven physic cards then we're getting an ork-only table, and presumably 'eadbanger isn't one of them (lol if it is).

What do you guys think about how orks are going to work with 7th's ruleset? Are we going to get locked into codex only power like nids with demonology just being a stop-gap for a few weeks?

**Billagio**

Preorder this sat huh? Thats good news I suppose. I wonder that the datsheet thing in the new codex means though

**lord_blackfang**

Fango wrote:
Not sure what you mean with the Privateer Press comment, the rules are all included on cards that accompany each model/unit when you buy it. PP have never once removed a model/unit from the game. Warcasters, 'Jacks, and units that were released when MK I first launched are still competitive. You simply need the core rules, and the cards that come with the models (and possibly a free FAQ printed out for a minor rules adjustment made for balance).

At least once, PP has actually changed a popular model's rules entirely, then copy pasted those old rules onto a brand new model, essentially making us buy a new model to keep the old (superior) rules.

**Orock**

Fango wrote:
Not sure what you mean with the Privateer Press comment, the rules are all included on cards that accompany each model/unit when you buy it. PP have never once removed a model/unit from the game. Warcasters, 'Jacks, and units that were released when MK I first launched are still competitive. You simply need the core rules, and the cards that come with the models (and possibly a free FAQ printed out for a minor rules adjustment made for balance).

As far as excusing GW for spreading rules over multiple publications by comparing it to 3rd edition...are you serious? 3rd edition was all over the place because new/updated rules were added on over time....We are talking about a 7th Edition codex that has had units/characters (potentially) stripped out of the main book (that were included in the previous edition codex...for much less money) and sold in companion publications that are sold separately, but available at (close to) the same time. This isnt a matter of evolving and improving the army/rules over time. It's a DLC money grabbing scheme, designed to stick it to the players who want to use all available options, or who have invested in models they now cannot use unless they 'pony up' for said supplement.

I think they mean when they release the book for the faction, and then all the books after have bits and pieces and units and fluff. But those are months usually after, not stuff made before the factions book is even released like the example were talking about here.

**ciaflayed1**

Smuttbudgie wrote:
ciaflayed1 wrote:
nflagey wrote:
Delevarius wrote:
One more thing I found on facebook

Spoiler:

nothing about the Codex on that cover ... I guess it would be mentioned if it was to be released next week ...

Are those new Grot models, or just the ones from the new Mek Gunz kit?

They look like the same ones from the Gunz kit

That's what it looked like to me too, but I was hoping for a sepperate Grot Crewman/tekkie kit. I've somehow misplaced all of the Grot Gun crew models I had, so I'd buy a Grot Crew kit.

**MajorWesJanson**

ciaflayed1 wrote:
Smuttbudgie wrote:
ciaflayed1 wrote:
nflagey wrote:
Delevarius wrote:
One more thing I found on facebook

Spoiler:

nothing about the Codex on that cover ... I guess it would be mentioned if it was to be released next week ...

Are those new Grot models, or just the ones from the new Mek Gunz kit?

They look like the same ones from the Gunz kit

That's what it looked like to me too, but I was hoping for a sepperate Grot Crewman/tekkie kit. I've somehow misplaced all of the Grot Gun crew models I had, so I'd buy a Grot Crew kit.

Try Forge World

**H.B.M.C.**

So now they're including units in WD only? Oh yeah. This is a trend we want to see continue.

**pretre**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
So now they're including units in WD only? Oh yeah. This is a trend we want to see continue.

Wait, so is it bad that they are going back to the old way of giving optional rules for units or good? DLC good or DLC bad? White dwarf good or white dwarf bad?

I get confused what we're supposed to be mad at now.

**nflagey**

pretre wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
So now they're including units in WD only? Oh yeah. This is a trend we want to see continue.

Wait, so is it bad that they are going back to the old way of giving optional rules for units or good? DLC good or DLC bad? White dwarf good or white dwarf bad?

I get confused what we're supposed to be mad at now.

Anything and everything!!
We're Orks after all!

**Orock**

pretre wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
So now they're including units in WD only? Oh yeah. This is a trend we want to see continue.

Wait, so is it bad that they are going back to the old way of giving optional rules for units or good? DLC good or DLC bad? White dwarf good or white dwarf bad?

I get confused what we're supposed to be mad at now.

If white dwarf was a good value, with all the old stuff that made it white dwarf, it would be good. As it is, its not. You are essentially buying the mag for the rules, and don't care about the rest. No battlereports, no hobby tips, no insight from devs and players, no golden demon or strategy corners about armies. Just advertisments for stuff you might not even care about.

**pretre**

Orock wrote:
pretre wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
So now they're including units in WD only? Oh yeah. This is a trend we want to see continue.

Wait, so is it bad that they are going back to the old way of giving optional rules for units or good? DLC good or DLC bad? White dwarf good or white dwarf bad?

I get confused what we're supposed to be mad at now.

If white dwarf was a good value, with all the old stuff that made it white dwarf, it would be good. As it is, its not. You are essentially buying the mag for the rules, and don't care about the rest. No battlereports, no hobby tips, no insight from devs and players, no golden demon or strategy corners about armies. Just advertisments for stuff you might not even care about.

That's pretty much all I bought it for in third edition.

Granted, it was cheaper back then, but so was everything else. With rare exceptions, I don't ever think that I thought 'oh that battle report was great' or 'here's an idea for a conversion I could use'. I said 'ooh, pretty' and 'Aha, that's the page I was looking for for the rules to use my army.'

More on point, however, is the fact that GW is releasing rules in WD again rather than just through Black Library. And yet we're still not happy.

**Brother Weasel**

pretre wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
So now they're including units in WD only? Oh yeah. This is a trend we want to see continue.

Wait, so is it bad that they are going back to the old way of giving optional rules for units or good? DLC good or DLC bad? White dwarf good or white dwarf bad?

I get confused what we're supposed to be mad at now.

it's simple... if games workshop does it, be mad at it. If games workshop doesn't do it, be mad at them for not doing it... remember, GW can do no good, they are evil, pure evil, like spam... they want to kill your babies and eat your cookies.

**UltraPrime**

Billagio wrote:
Preorder this sat huh? Thats good news I suppose. I wonder that the datsheet thing in the new codex means though

The way the new Ork units are presented in the WD, that is a Datasheet. So the codex will contain those for every unit, instead of the old 'unit entry' and 'army list'.

**pretre**

Brother Weasel wrote:
pretre wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
So now they're including units in WD only? Oh yeah. This is a trend we want to see continue.

Wait, so is it bad that they are going back to the old way of giving optional rules for units or good? DLC good or DLC bad? White dwarf good or white dwarf bad?

I get confused what we're supposed to be mad at now.

it's simple... if games workshop does it, be mad at it. If games workshop doesn't do it, be mad at them for not doing it... remember, GW can do no good, they are evil, pure evil, like spam... they want to kill your babies and eat your cookies.

I think that's a little over the top. There's a much more nuanced reality that you're missing.

That being said, my slightly silly original question was valid.

**Accolade**

Brother Weasel wrote:
pretre wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
So now they're including units in WD only? Oh yeah. This is a trend we want to see continue.

Wait, so is it bad that they are going back to the old way of giving optional rules for units or good? DLC good or DLC bad? White dwarf good or white dwarf bad?

I get confused what we're supposed to be mad at now.

it's simple... if games workshop does it, be mad at it. If games workshop doesn't do it, be mad at them for not doing it... remember, GW can do no good, they are evil, pure evil, like spam... they want to kill your babies and eat your cookies.

Yep, you got to the crux of the issue alright. We all hate GW no matter what they do...

I'm just going to post my previous comment again to explain why I am not the biggest fan of GW taking a unit out of a codex and reselling it:

I'm not too concerned about the Looted Wagon, but I suppose if I had to say the way I *wish* they did it, it would be that they left it in the Codex as-is, maybe tweaked the rules to make it more effective. Why exactly did GW have to pull a unit out of a codex that already existed?

GW does not have to pull units out of a codex because they haven't produced an official unit; if people like what GW is doing and like their releases, then they will buy their kits. They could put articles in WD with conversion ideas for Looted Wagons, or maybe they could make the rules for the Looted Wagon more like they were in 3rd edition, where you took existing kits and applied their points/cost to. Trying to stop people from buying a third party version simply by cutting the unit out of the codex is in effect punishing the customers for not being loyal enough, and that is not how a healthy company function. They could also just produce a Looted Wagon at some point in the future rather than waiting to new codices to produce them. There are a number of ways that this could be dealt with better.

WD could certainly have exclusive units ala the Chapter Approved stuff and I would be okay with that, but I won't be so thrilled about them taking units out of a codex to create this content. I don't even care about the $4, it just comes off as greedy, taking existing content and slapping on an additional price tag.

Just as an added bit, the argument that GW had to pull it out since it didn't have a unit doesn't hold water if they still release it in the WD, people could still theoretically buy a third party version. They might be more prone to as well if they had to buy the rules alone, who's to say.

**Bonzofever**

Here are the prices for the new releases in Euros (from http://astropate.blogspot.de/2014/06/nuovi-orki-la-lista-delle-uscite-del-21.html)

CODEX: ORKS €39,00
WH40K DATACARDS: ORKS €6,50
ORK MEK €17,00
ORK PAINBOY €20,00
FALL OF MACHARIUS (HARDBACK) €25,00
HH: ECHOES OF RUIN (AUDIOBOOK) €20,00
WHITE DWARF WEEKLY 22 (ENGLISH) €3,20

**Brother Weasel**

pretre wrote:
Brother Weasel wrote:
pretre wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
So now they're including units in WD only? Oh yeah. This is a trend we want to see continue.

Wait, so is it bad that they are going back to the old way of giving optional rules for units or good? DLC good or DLC bad? White dwarf good or white dwarf bad?

I get confused what we're supposed to be mad at now.

it's simple... if games workshop does it, be mad at it. If games workshop doesn't do it, be mad at them for not doing it... remember, GW can do no good, they are evil, pure evil, like spam... they want to kill your babies and eat your cookies.

I think that's a little over the top. There's a much more nuanced reality that you're missing.

That being said, my slightly silly original question was valid.

Its actualy really easy, be mad at whatever makes you mad...

I prefer to wait to see what happens before freeking out, I mean a few words on a cover could mean that looted wagons are exclusive tot he WD, the data sheet is exclusive.... the way GW words things in general exclusive could mean for the month... just not that big of a concern to me personaly...

people just like to be mad i think

**NamelessBard**

Orock wrote:
If white dwarf was a good value, with all the old stuff that made it white dwarf, it would be good. As it is, its not. You are essentially buying the mag for the rules, and don't care about the rest. No battlereports, no hobby tips, no insight from devs and players, no golden demon or strategy corners about armies. Just advertisments for stuff you might not even care about.

I don't think you've ever open one of these new ones. Just looking at Number 3...

"No battle reports" - Almost all of them have battle reports. There was one in 3.

"No hobby tips" - There is usually always a how-to painting section of the book, Paint Splatter (in number 3), also Sprues and Glue section also about the hobby.

"No insights from Devs" - There is usually (always) and article with the new rules from the one who wrote it. Vetock has an articile in number 3.

"No insights from players" - I believe the WD staff are players.

"No golden Demon" - Ragnar Blackmane is in number 3. There is usually a highlighted model.

"No strategy" - After reading in the 7th ed books that everyone was taking melee captains and no one taking psykers and that was what led to the development of the new psychic phase - I don't think you'd want strategy in there.

So, almost every single thing you said is factually incorrect.