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.

And more importantly, if they do take the BW as dedicated, can another unit start inside of it? say a mob of 20 boyz?

Nob bikers taking a transport? It answers that very clearly in their transport option.

And no, another unit cannot start in their dedicated transport. That's pretty much the only restriction there is on dedicated transports.
Another unit can embark onto it later in the game, just can't start there.

 Icculus wrote:
And more importantly, if they do take the BW as dedicated, can another unit start inside of it? say a mob of 20 boyz?

As stated in their codex, no they may not
And no you may not ever start a unit in a dedicated transport that was not purchased for them (but may embark after deployment)

They can buy a battle wagon, just not a trukk.

there are 2 reasons why they can.
1. the exception for bikers is only stated for trukks, and not for the battle wagon. alternatively does "they" mean bikers (yep). so bikers can't take trukks, alternatively they can take battle wagons.

2. you buy the nob mob, you buy the battle wagon, you then upgrade the nobs to bikers. if people want to quibble about the usage of "they" a common and accepted procedure in ork builds.

But no one else can start the game in it.

I would argue they still can't take a Battlewagon, "Alternatively" in the block about transports for nobs is in reference to "Alternative to a trukk".

they cannot, the rule is pretty clear about it.

sry man, but you are stretching it, the "alternatively" doesnt get around the (except nob bikers) bit.

as much as I wished it did...

Only the unit that is used to purchase a dedicated transport may be deployed inside of it. Turn 1, a different unit may use it provided they are within the rules/transport restrictions but they cannot start in it.

For example:
A nob mob purchases a battlewagon as a DT. 20 boyz cannot be deployed in it; however, they may embark onto it on Turn 1 if empty. If the Battlewagon was purchased as a Heavy Support (and not a DT) then the boyz could start in it.

Nob Bikes cannot be embarked on a battlewagon - this is explicitly stated in the BRB's transport section as to which unit types can be in transports. Any exceptions to this rule would be in the codex (i.e. Necron Night Scythes allow jet bikes to be embarked in them).

Nob Bikes CAN purchase a trukk or battlewagon as a Dedicated Transport even though they cannot embark into them. The DT is just deployed empty and treated as a normal vehicle (though still as a Dedicated transport and not Heavy Support in the case of Battlewagons for Big Gunz Never Tire).

It appears. Due to the way that it is worded.
That Nob bikers cannot take a trukk as a dedicated transport, but would be able to take a Battle Wagon.
That's a RAW argument and holds water.

I would never do it or play against anyone that did. It smells of cheese and lawyerliness.

This will probably change, just so as you guys know. Marine Command squads can take bikes and Drop Pods, so should you be able to.

sirlynchmob wrote:
They can buy a battle wagon, just not a trukk.

there are 2 reasons why they can.
1. the exception for bikers is only stated for trukks, and not for the battle wagon. alternatively does "they" mean bikers (yep). so bikers can't take trukks, alternatively they can take battle wagons.

2. you buy the nob mob, you buy the battle wagon, you then upgrade the nobs to bikers. if people want to quibble about the usage of "they" a common and accepted procedure in ork builds.

But no one else can start the game in it.

The rule is pretty clear. If your nobs are bikers they cannot take a Trukk (or, alternately, a battlewagon) as a dedicated transport. You can't use order of operations on this one either, sorry.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
This will probably change, just so as you guys know. Marine Command squads can take bikes and Drop Pods, so should you be able to.

It may change, however, the SM Command Squad has not had a restriction on them taking a DT if they are on bikes .. forever (afaik), while the Orks have.

Rorschach9 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
They can buy a battle wagon, just not a trukk.

there are 2 reasons why they can.
1. the exception for bikers is only stated for trukks, and not for the battle wagon. alternatively does "they" mean bikers (yep). so bikers can't take trukks, alternatively they can take battle wagons.

2. you buy the nob mob, you buy the battle wagon, you then upgrade the nobs to bikers. if people want to quibble about the usage of "they" a common and accepted procedure in ork builds.

But no one else can start the game in it.

The rule is pretty clear. If your nobs are bikers they cannot take a Trukk (or, alternately, a battlewagon) as a dedicated transport. You can't use order of operations on this one either, sorry.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
This will probably change, just so as you guys know. Marine Command squads can take bikes and Drop Pods, so should you be able to.

It may change, however, the SM Command Squad has not had a restriction on them taking a DT if they are on bikes .. forever (afaik), while the Orks have.

It all comes down (as most of these arguments do) to exceedingly poor grammar. And here I thought that these guys had some sort of University Degree in an English language derivative from a university in England!

I noticed that there is no punctuation before the capitalized word "Alternatively". So there should have been a period there denoting the end of the first sentence. That being said, the way that the sentence is structured the only thing that the Biker Nobz are restricted from taking is the Trukk. There is no restriction placed on Biker Nobz taking a dedicated transport, just a Trukk.

Now that is indeed, how it is written. It's terrible, urine stained use of language if they meant for it to be applied to all dedicated transports. Which they probably did. The unscrupulous will claim that is how they meant for it to be, while the rest of us will acknowledge that this is a "loop hole" due to poor wording and editing.

Ah, the assumption that they had editors....

JinxDragon wrote:
Ah, the assumption that they had editors....

I don't think they need editors, they need attorneys the way people rules-lawyer the books. I mean they have enough Intellectual Property attorneys on staff, you would think some of them would be familiar with contract law.

 Icculus wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Ah, the assumption that they had editors....

I don't think they need editors, they need attorneys the way people rules-lawyer the books. I mean they have enough Intellectual Property attorneys on staff, you would think some of them would be familiar with contract law.

Either attorneys or just decent rules writers. Other companies write tight rulesets (PP, FFG, Battlefront, mantic etc pp) without hiring attorneys. So it shouldnt be that hard for the top dog to do even better but apparently it is.

 Idolator wrote:

It all comes down (as most of these arguments do) to exceedingly poor grammar. And here I thought that these guys had some sort of University Degree in an English language derivative from a university in England!

I noticed that there is no punctuation before the capitalized word "Alternatively". So there should have been a period there denoting the end of the first sentence. That being said, the way that the sentence is structured the only thing that the Biker Nobz are restricted from taking is the Trukk. There is no restriction placed on Biker Nobz taking a dedicated transport, just a Trukk.

Now that is indeed, how it is written. It's terrible, urine stained use of language if they meant for it to be applied to all dedicated transports. Which they probably did. The unscrupulous will claim that is how they meant for it to be, while the rest of us will acknowledge that this is a "loop hole" due to poor wording and editing.

My copy has punctuation before Alternatively. The period denoting the end of the first sentence exists pretty clearly here.
So, when the "Alternatively" sentence reads "they may take", what "they" is being spoken of? "Nobz Mobs (except Nob Bikers)" of course.

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

It all comes down (as most of these arguments do) to exceedingly poor grammar. And here I thought that these guys had some sort of University Degree in an English language derivative from a university in England!

I noticed that there is no punctuation before the capitalized word "Alternatively". So there should have been a period there denoting the end of the first sentence. That being said, the way that the sentence is structured the only thing that the Biker Nobz are restricted from taking is the Trukk. There is no restriction placed on Biker Nobz taking a dedicated transport, just a Trukk.

Now that is indeed, how it is written. It's terrible, urine stained use of language if they meant for it to be applied to all dedicated transports. Which they probably did. The unscrupulous will claim that is how they meant for it to be, while the rest of us will acknowledge that this is a "loop hole" due to poor wording and editing.

My copy has punctuation before Alternatively. The period denoting the end of the first sentence exists pretty clearly here.
So, when the "Alternatively" sentence reads "they may take", what "they" is being spoken of? "Nobz Mobs (except Nob Bikers)" of course.

Mine doesn't have that punctuation, I don't know how to prove it to you......but wasn't relative to the point.
The point of it is. They state that a Nobz mob (except Nob Bikers) can take a trukk. They then state that "they' may take a battlewagon. Without the repeat of the restriction which was applied to trukks, no restriction exists.

Did they mean for it to apply to both, of course they did. I've stated that. Here, I'll even restate it in red.

Now that is indeed, how it is written. It's terrible, urine stained use of language if they meant for it to be applied to all dedicated transports. Which they probably did. The unscrupulous will claim that is how they meant for it to be, while the rest of us will acknowledge that this is a "loop hole" due to poor wording and editing.

The best way to have written the rule was to write it without parentheses and a final sentence that reads "Nob bikers cannot take a dedicated transport"

There is a difference between

Rules as Written
and
Rules as I can twist them if I squint and force things into an alternate reality.

debating how GW should have written the rule is irrelevant

since many of us don't have the Ork codex, but can read, what exactly does the entry say regarding transports in a Nob mob?

Nobz

Transport :

Nobz mobs (except Nob Bikers) may take a Trukk as a dedicated transport vehicle. Alternatively they may take a Battlewagon as a dedicated transport vehicle, though it may not have the killkannon upgrade.

"They" = ?
My contention is that They refers to the exact same they as in the first sentence; Nobz Mobs (except Nob Bikers)
*Edit : Why? Because Nob Bikers are no longer Nobs, they are now Nob Bikers. Nobz have the option to take a transport. Bikers are not. Trukk or Battlewagon, the only "They" is "Nobz Mobs (except Nob Bikers)". You either take the whole they, or you are being selective to bend rules imo.

Rorschach9 wrote:
Nobz

Transport :

Nobz mobs (except Nob Bikers) may take a Trukk as a dedicated transport vehicle. Alternatively they may take a Battlewagon as a dedicated transport vehicle, though it may not have the killkannon upgrade.

"They" = ?
My contention is that They refers to the exact same they as in the first sentence; Nobz Mobs (except Nob Bikers)

As I said, if I may be overly verbose, that rule writing is urine impoverished!

 Idolator wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
Nobz

Transport :

Nobz mobs (except Nob Bikers) may take a Trukk as a dedicated transport vehicle. Alternatively they may take a Battlewagon as a dedicated transport vehicle, though it may not have the killkannon upgrade.

"They" = ?
My contention is that They refers to the exact same they as in the first sentence; Nobz Mobs (except Nob Bikers)

As I said, if I may be overly verbose, that rule writing is urine impoverished!

.. yet it reads clear as day to me. Your opinion has been noted. I won't go around in circles.

it's not that it is written "pisspoor", it is a lack of reading comprehension and an over-eagerness to rules lawyer a moot point. the codex is pretty clear.

viewfinder wrote:
it's not that it is written "pisspoor", it is a lack of reading comprehension and an over-eagerness to rules lawyer a moot point. the codex is pretty clear.

She made cookies! Let's eat grandma.

Grandma is in for a rough day. Due to terrible grammar and sentence structure. RIP grandma.

Geez, you point out some poor and overly convoluted wording and folks lose their minds. There are half a dozen ways that rule could have been written better. As I said, they obviously meant for Bikers to not get a dedicated transport. Wrote it terribly.

PS. I don't think those kids wanted to eat grandma, either. They should have used a comma.

Yes, we get and understand your point. But it isn't an issue, everyone knows what is being said, even if a pedantic reading of it could try and twist it into meaning something else.

Again, there is a difference between reading the Rules as Written, and reading the Rules as They Can be Twisted.

We are proud of you for being able to find a way to twist an easy to understand rule into something contradictory... congrats.

coredump wrote:
Yes, we get and understand your point. But it isn't an issue, everyone knows what is being said, even if a pedantic reading of it could try and twist it into meaning something else.

Again, there is a difference between reading the Rules as Written, and reading the Rules as They Can be Twisted.

We are proud of you for being able to find a way to twist an easy to understand rule into something contradictory... congrats.

Actually it is very easy to understand. Nobs that have bikes can take BW's It probably was part of the whole speed freak concept.

We have always played it that way, here in our meta and when we travel. No one has questioned it before. Its nice to see a different perspective though in case it does come up in future games.

Nobz

Transport :

Nobz mobs (except Nob Bikers) may take a Trukk as a dedicated transport vehicle. Alternatively they may take a Battlewagon (unless a nob biker) as a dedicated transport vehicle, though it may not have the killkannon upgrade.

I added the rule needed to make Nob bikers not allowed to get BW