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.

This article is for the discussion of the Ork <clan> keyword introduced for all Ork units in 8th edition.

I personally think that it is pretty stupid. In the lore it's quite common to see multiple orks of different clans all being part of 1 tribe. now, while you can still technically do that, none of the units can benefit from each other. For instance, let's say i have a warboss that i decided to have be from the blood axes because i want him to be a warboss that employs actual tactics, a painboy from the snakebites who aesthetically uses more primitive ork medicines, a squad of choppa boys from the goffs for obvious reasons, a squad of shoota boys in a battlewagon from the bad moons because who else is gonna be able to get a battlewagon for boys, a squad of evil sunz warbikers for more obvious reasons, and a squad of deathskulls lootas for even more obvious reasons. Literally none of them could help each other. WHY THE NOT!? it makes no goddamn sense. (real thing btw, i was thinking of doing my orks up this way)

sorry if this came off as a little ranty, i just think it's stupid.

I don't know the Ork Index but if the Clan-keyword is explained as the legion-keyword for CSM, i.e. that it not only describes actual legions but also all the renegades and everything you can make up, you could easily make up Clan <a.c.a.b.> - all colors are beautiful - and take whatever units you like .

That's the way it could work for now, when the codex drops we'll probably see different rules for the clans which will make it useful to stick to one.

Is this a problem you have purely with orks, or the <keyword> system as a whole?

If you feel that the system is fine, EXCEPT for Orks, then I disagree. Why should orks be able to pull single units (and hint, you can - it just won't give you many command points) but a "proper" Guard army, which should have distinctions between different types of regiment (ie, 90% of the time, a Leman Russ is of a different regiment to the Infantry Squad next to it, who is different to the Basilisk behind them). Do you support that?

With Space Marines, it's perfectly possible to have a crusade of them working together, like Ziest or Armageddon - can I take an army built up from multiple keywords?

Personally, I think the keyword system is fine, and here's why:
1: You can still take your full army and still have them all with different keywords. They would just need to be in a variety of detatchments.
For example, instead of taking one big battalion detachment, you might need to take two patrol detachments and some of the ones that let you take one unit.
However, you would probably lose out heavily on command points if that happened.

2: The keyword system exists to prevent transport and ability abuse. Do you want to see a return of Skittari Drop Pod Taxt Service? How about Azeael's 4++ being used to protect a horde of Conscripts rather than his own Battle Brothers?

You can avoid this somewhat by making the transport of each respective unit correspond to their Clan - however, that would again limit your ability to pick up other units, but that is...

3: Fluffy. As I said, you can still field a mixed Clan army. However, it doesn't synergize well - which is exactly what an Ork army made up of so many disparate groups should react like. Yes, perhaps GW should have called it <Waaagh!> as opposed to <Clan>, but really, this isn't wrong.

If you have no real leader, one who can bash the ead's together and unite them under one cause (represented by your whole force having the same <Clan> ), then the Snakebites won't listen to "dem flashy Bad Moon gitz over there", the Deathskulls will stay in cover and hide for an ambush, and the Goffs will charge in headless of tactics. No self respecting Evil Suns driver would let a filthy Snakebite on his Trukk, and who would listen to the unorky Blood Axe Warboss with his camouflage and battle plans?

It makes complete sense that your guys wouldn't benefit eachother, like it would make fluffy sense that Conscripts would be terrible shots if they weren't guided by the hand of an experienced Officer.
If you want more synergy, perhaps try and create smaller detachments of each <Clan>, so you can actually get some Command Points, and choose which leaders you want buffing certain units.

Essentially, TL;DR, the system is fine, as it prevents transport/ability abuse, but is also fluffy, because an Ork army made up of such differing parts would lack all synergy and teamwork.

Alternatively, just count them all as the same <Clan>, before GW give the individual Clans their own rules, and then you'd have to try my idea possibly.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Is this a problem you have purely with orks, or the <keyword> system as a whole?

If you feel that the system is fine, EXCEPT for Orks, then I disagree. Why should orks be able to pull single units (and hint, you can - it just won't give you many command points) but a "proper" Guard army, which should have distinctions between different types of regiment (ie, 90% of the time, a Leman Russ is of a different regiment to the Infantry Squad next to it, who is different to the Basilisk behind them). Do you support that?

With Space Marines, it's perfectly possible to have a crusade of them working together, like Ziest or Armageddon - can I take an army built up from multiple keywords?

Personally, I think the keyword system is fine, and here's why:
1: You can still take your full army and still have them all with different keywords. They would just need to be in a variety of detatchments.
For example, instead of taking one big battalion detachment, you might need to take two patrol detachments and some of the ones that let you take one unit.
However, you would probably lose out heavily on command points if that happened.

2: The keyword system exists to prevent transport and ability abuse. Do you want to see a return of Skittari Drop Pod Taxt Service? How about Azeael's 4++ being used to protect a horde of Conscripts rather than his own Battle Brothers?

You can avoid this somewhat by making the transport of each respective unit correspond to their Clan - however, that would again limit your ability to pick up other units, but that is...

3: Fluffy. As I said, you can still field a mixed Clan army. However, it doesn't synergize well - which is exactly what an Ork army made up of so many disparate groups should react like. Yes, perhaps GW should have called it <Waaagh!> as opposed to <Clan>, but really, this isn't wrong.

If you have no real leader, one who can bash the ead's together and unite them under one cause (represented by your whole force having the same <Clan> ), then the Snakebites won't listen to "dem flashy Bad Moon gitz over there", the Deathskulls will stay in cover and hide for an ambush, and the Goffs will charge in headless of tactics. No self respecting Evil Suns driver would let a filthy Snakebite on his Trukk, and who would listen to the unorky Blood Axe Warboss with his camouflage and battle plans?

It makes complete sense that your guys wouldn't benefit eachother, like it would make fluffy sense that Conscripts would be terrible shots if they weren't guided by the hand of an experienced Officer.
If you want more synergy, perhaps try and create smaller detachments of each <Clan>, so you can actually get some Command Points, and choose which leaders you want buffing certain units.

Essentially, TL;DR, the system is fine, as it prevents transport/ability abuse, but is also fluffy, because an Ork army made up of such differing parts would lack all synergy and teamwork.

Alternatively, just count them all as the same <Clan>, before GW give the individual Clans their own rules, and then you'd have to try my idea possibly.

1. i can see how it would be a problem for other factions, but i feel like it is the biggest problem for orks. i feel like this could be easily solved by gw by just making it keyword <tribe> or <waaagh!>.

2. that could be solved by simply saying only things with keyword space marines can be in space marine vehicles, and only skitarii can be in skitarii vehicles

3. i can see some of your points, but ork society is definitely based on might makes right. if the biggest ork tells you to do something or else you get smashed, you do it. if the Warboss that's twice their size tells the evil sunz driver to let snakebites ride, then they would probably let them. (with a lot of complaining admittedly, but still) this applies elsewhere in your points as well, just using that as an example.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


3: Fluffy. As I said, you can still field a mixed Clan army. However, it doesn't synergize well - which is exactly what an Ork army made up of so many disparate groups should react like. Yes, perhaps GW should have called it <Waaagh!> as opposed to <Clan>, but really, this isn't wrong.
.

Oh god, please read ork's fluff, a tribu (basically like à sm chapter) is made of multiple clans, you will not have goff on bike, it's not fluff, it's like terminator on bike, à clan is not à chapter, it's more something you are depending on your weapons preferences, like are sm prefer to use are flâner or a bolter.

Oh for the sake of the Omnissiah, so treat it like it says <Waaagh> then. What. Difference. Does. It. Make? Exactly none at all. All your different clans can be a part of the same Waaagh, so call your "clan" The Rainbow Waaagh.

little-killer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


3: Fluffy. As I said, you can still field a mixed Clan army. However, it doesn't synergize well - which is exactly what an Ork army made up of so many disparate groups should react like. Yes, perhaps GW should have called it <Waaagh!> as opposed to <Clan>, but really, this isn't wrong.
.

Oh god, please read ork's fluff, a tribu (basically like à sm chapter) is made of multiple clans, you will not have goff on bike, it's not fluff, it's like terminator on bike, à clan is not à chapter, it's more something you are depending on your weapons preferences, like are sm prefer to use are flâner or a bolter.

Excuse me, but I've read Ork fluff first hand from 3rd Edition upwards, and I've not seen anything that supports what you suggest.

An Ork clan is their belief, the closest to a family unit. That does not determine your role on the battlefield. Goff bikers exist, and there's GW approved artwork to show it. There are Snakebite Tankbustas, Bad Moon grots, Blood Axe Warbikers - anything from any clan. Will certain clans prefer certain methods of warfare? Of course - many Blood Axes are Stormboyz or Kommandoes. Many Deathskulls and Bad Moons are Flash Gitz and Lootas. Does that mean all of them are that clan? Absolutely not, no more than "All Raven Guard are Assault Marines and Scouts" or "All White Scars are Bikers".

Your analogy of "it's like a Terminator on a Bike" is fundamentally wrong - it's more like an Imperial Fist on a Bike. Not the preferred method for that ideology, but certainly possible.

So, no, I fundamentally disagree with your logic, based from what I know from years of Ork fluff.. When I can, I'll cite codex and reference pages for you, if you want.

little-killer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


3: Fluffy. As I said, you can still field a mixed Clan army. However, it doesn't synergize well - which is exactly what an Ork army made up of so many disparate groups should react like. Yes, perhaps GW should have called it <Waaagh!> as opposed to <Clan>, but really, this isn't wrong.
.

Oh god, please read ork's fluff, a tribu (basically like à sm chapter) is made of multiple clans, you will not have goff on bike, it's not fluff, it's like terminator on bike, à clan is not à chapter, it's more something you are depending on your weapons preferences, like are sm prefer to use are flâner or a bolter.

How's so? Speed freaks aren't only orks with bikes. It's more like chapters. Speed freaks PREFER go fast and other clans arent' as big on fast vehicles but that doesn't mean there's no goff bikers any more than white scars means no tacticals(actually reverse there. Tacticals outnumber bikers by far).

little-killer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


3: Fluffy. As I said, you can still field a mixed Clan army. However, it doesn't synergize well - which is exactly what an Ork army made up of so many disparate groups should react like. Yes, perhaps GW should have called it <Waaagh!> as opposed to <Clan>, but really, this isn't wrong.
.

Oh god, please read ork's fluff, a tribu (basically like à sm chapter) is made of multiple clans, you will not have goff on bike, it's not fluff, it's like terminator on bike, à clan is not à chapter, it's more something you are depending on your weapons preferences, like are sm prefer to use are flâner or a bolter.

This.. This is so wrong it hurts given that there's actual physical differences between certain Clans. Bad Moonz actively grow their teeth out much faster and as a result they are able to purchase wargear at a faster rate then other clans as a result for example.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

little-killer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


3: Fluffy. As I said, you can still field a mixed Clan army. However, it doesn't synergize well - which is exactly what an Ork army made up of so many disparate groups should react like. Yes, perhaps GW should have called it <Waaagh!> as opposed to <Clan>, but really, this isn't wrong.
.

Oh god, please read ork's fluff, a tribu (basically like à sm chapter) is made of multiple clans, you will not have goff on bike, it's not fluff, it's like terminator on bike, à clan is not à chapter, it's more something you are depending on your weapons preferences, like are sm prefer to use are flâner or a bolter.

This.. This is so wrong it hurts given that there's actual physical differences between certain Clans. Bad Moonz actively grow their teeth out much faster and as a result they are able to purchase wargear at a faster rate then other clans as a result for example.

But doesn't mean only bad moons are able to wield battlewagons etc.

Again PREFERENCES. Just because clan A prefers Y doesn't mean clan B can't have it. Especially on 40k scale where basically anything is possible because forces represents so tiny part that even artirelly speed freak group is not impossibility.

I never said that they would be specific to X? There's preferences (Flash gitz to Bad Moonz, Kommandos to Blood Axes, Skar Boyz to Goffs etc.)

But that doesn't mean that they are restricted to X.

GW got their terminology backwards. Clans shouldn't be splitting off members to join tribes, it should be the other way around. Clans were a sub-division of tribal groups. Or maybe don't give a damn about nomenclature! Carry on

I think people are taking this much to seriously. The rules are designed so that buffs are limited. It is designed to prevent people from just taking whatever is "best" with no downside. That said, unless you are using multiple special characters just keyword all your stuff the same on your army list then paint them up however you want.

tneva82 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

little-killer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


3: Fluffy. As I said, you can still field a mixed Clan army. However, it doesn't synergize well - which is exactly what an Ork army made up of so many disparate groups should react like. Yes, perhaps GW should have called it <Waaagh!> as opposed to <Clan>, but really, this isn't wrong.
.

Oh god, please read ork's fluff, a tribu (basically like à sm chapter) is made of multiple clans, you will not have goff on bike, it's not fluff, it's like terminator on bike, à clan is not à chapter, it's more something you are depending on your weapons preferences, like are sm prefer to use are flâner or a bolter.

This.. This is so wrong it hurts given that there's actual physical differences between certain Clans. Bad Moonz actively grow their teeth out much faster and as a result they are able to purchase wargear at a faster rate then other clans as a result for example.

But doesn't mean only bad moons are able to wield battlewagons etc.

Again PREFERENCES. Just because clan A prefers Y doesn't mean clan B can't have it. Especially on 40k scale where basically anything is possible because forces represents so tiny part that even artirelly speed freak group is not impossibility.

No kidding? i was just trying to explain why you can't compare them to sm chapters that's all, of course there is more. But you can't compare clans to chapters for sm because a clan in a tribe is more like a specification in a chapter that's all.

Ive been painting my Ork army units in different Clan colors, having all of them represented in the collection. Red Trukk Boyz, blue Lootaz, some shiny gold Shoota boyz, Goff mega boss, snake bite wyrdboyz. I really wish they had used <Tribe> instead of clan, so in most instances that is what I will probably do instead. I've been calling them the Green Menace.

If this doesn't fit right... Then I guess I have lots of units with little overlap or synergy all from a color scheme.

As others have said, change the "Clan" keyword for "Da Destroyah Tribe!" and then paint your units as you like, so they are of different clans but of the same tribe.

Agreed that is restrictive, I also think it could be a WYSIWYG issue since the clan of a unit is now important in the rules.

Imagine the confusion when you tell your opponent that half of your army are technically Blood Axes, despite being painted all different clans, so that they can benefit from Snikrot buffs whilst the other half, also painted all different clans, are technically Goffs so you can benefit from Zagstukk buffs!

I can only see this getting worse with time. I think it is really cool to have clan keywords but it would have been nice if it was optional to select a clan keyword rather than mandatory.

As a side note:
I've always considered 'tribes' as mono-clan whilst 'warbands', essentially what a 40k army represents, can include multiple tribes and therefore multiple clans.

This ties in with stuff like the Red Waagh where Grukk is part of the 'Skulltakers' which are a tribe of Goffs and they fight the 'Split Grin' Bad Moon tribe etc.

Breng77 wrote:
I think people are taking this much to seriously. The rules are designed so that buffs are limited. It is designed to prevent people from just taking whatever is "best" with no downside. That said, unless you are using multiple special characters just keyword all your stuff the same on your army list then paint them up however you want.

Coming from Age of Sigmar, this is immediately obvious.

Easy solution: Make everything a Goff, and then Snikrot is the only problem unit. (Although if they come out with Codex: Goffs, Grotsnik and Badrukk/Flash Gitz in general might get the boot.) Paint 'em how you like. The way the buff auras are worded, you actually can mix <Clan> special characters quite safely, you just need to make sure all of your regular models are from the same <Clan>. Actually, if you did Blood Axes, you might be able to get away with taking everything and having it work out properly.

I can understand that not being entirely satisfying though. I played my Imperial Fists as Blood Angels for a while (I wanted some jump pack troops) and it felt vaguely icky. I didn't try too hard to correct people when they asked if they were Lamentors.

Hmm, Speed Freeks might work too, since most my units are in Trukks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Dok and Ghaz actually buff all friendly Ork units, not restricted to Clan like the generic bosses and pain boyz. So they're useful in all armies. Snikrot and his kommandos might as well be red Skulls anyway (a tribe, not clan mind you) so they fit in most armies too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kroem wrote:
Agreed that is restrictive, I also think it could be a WYSIWYG issue since the clan of a unit is now important in the rules.

Imagine the confusion when you tell your opponent that half of your army are technically Blood Axes, despite being painted all different clans, so that they can benefit from Snikrot buffs whilst the other half, also painted all different clans, are technically Goffs so you can benefit from Zagstukk buffs!

I can only see this getting worse with time. I think it is really cool to have clan keywords but it would have been nice if it was optional to select a clan keyword rather than mandatory.

As a side note:
I've always considered 'tribes' as mono-clan whilst 'warbands', essentially what a 40k army represents, can include multiple tribes and therefore multiple clans.

This ties in with stuff like the Red Waagh where Grukk is part of the 'Skulltakers' which are a tribe of Goffs and they fight the 'Split Grin' Bad Moon tribe etc.

Well, a Tribe is usually bigger than a Warband. In Space Marine Terms, a Tribe would be like the Chapter and a warband would be a Company. Clan would be almost like their Primogenitor Chapter.


Warboss is a Captain of the Warband. A Warlord is Chapter Master of the Tribe, and the Clan ideas are the founding primarchs gene traits.

It's getting sticky for me. My orks were painted and modeled to fit their clans in 7th and mixed together to resemble the tribe. The fluff fully supports a shoota boy squad of bad moons and death skulls or a choppa boy squad of snakebites, goffs, evil suns and death skulls. I've even got some boar riders for snakebites bikers mixed in with normal bikers.
And goffs in my stormboyz as supported in the fluff.

Imiduatly thought I'll just use a warband keyword.

They are supposed to be led by the beast of Armageddon himself so.......

Is there any rules difference? I don't have that Xenos codex.

 3orangewhips wrote:
Is there any rules difference? I don't have that Xenos codex.

Yeah and no, imagine you have a warboss badmoon, and boy goff, you will not have the aura bonus.

Warboss Kruk wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Is this a problem you have purely with orks, or the <keyword> system as a whole?

If you feel that the system is fine, EXCEPT for Orks, then I disagree. Why should orks be able to pull single units (and hint, you can - it just won't give you many command points) but a "proper" Guard army, which should have distinctions between different types of regiment (ie, 90% of the time, a Leman Russ is of a different regiment to the Infantry Squad next to it, who is different to the Basilisk behind them). Do you support that?

With Space Marines, it's perfectly possible to have a crusade of them working together, like Ziest or Armageddon - can I take an army built up from multiple keywords?

Personally, I think the keyword system is fine, and here's why:
1: You can still take your full army and still have them all with different keywords. They would just need to be in a variety of detatchments.
For example, instead of taking one big battalion detachment, you might need to take two patrol detachments and some of the ones that let you take one unit.
However, you would probably lose out heavily on command points if that happened.

2: The keyword system exists to prevent transport and ability abuse. Do you want to see a return of Skittari Drop Pod Taxt Service? How about Azeael's 4++ being used to protect a horde of Conscripts rather than his own Battle Brothers?

You can avoid this somewhat by making the transport of each respective unit correspond to their Clan - however, that would again limit your ability to pick up other units, but that is...

3: Fluffy. As I said, you can still field a mixed Clan army. However, it doesn't synergize well - which is exactly what an Ork army made up of so many disparate groups should react like. Yes, perhaps GW should have called it <Waaagh!> as opposed to <Clan>, but really, this isn't wrong.

If you have no real leader, one who can bash the ead's together and unite them under one cause (represented by your whole force having the same <Clan> ), then the Snakebites won't listen to "dem flashy Bad Moon gitz over there", the Deathskulls will stay in cover and hide for an ambush, and the Goffs will charge in headless of tactics. No self respecting Evil Suns driver would let a filthy Snakebite on his Trukk, and who would listen to the unorky Blood Axe Warboss with his camouflage and battle plans?

It makes complete sense that your guys wouldn't benefit eachother, like it would make fluffy sense that Conscripts would be terrible shots if they weren't guided by the hand of an experienced Officer.
If you want more synergy, perhaps try and create smaller detachments of each <Clan>, so you can actually get some Command Points, and choose which leaders you want buffing certain units.

Essentially, TL;DR, the system is fine, as it prevents transport/ability abuse, but is also fluffy, because an Ork army made up of such differing parts would lack all synergy and teamwork.

Alternatively, just count them all as the same <Clan>, before GW give the individual Clans their own rules, and then you'd have to try my idea possibly.

1. i can see how it would be a problem for other factions, but i feel like it is the biggest problem for orks. i feel like this could be easily solved by gw by just making it keyword <tribe> or <waaagh!>.

Agreed, I think this is a case of the keyword being an issue, but aside from Clan being just the placeholder name at the moment, it means absolutely nothing. In essence, there is no effective difference between that word being <Clan> or <Warband>. If GW do add certain Clan rules, then you just need to do as I said - take the clan units in mini-detachments of their own.

2. that could be solved by simply saying only things with keyword space marines can be in space marine vehicles, and only skitarii can be in skitarii vehicles

So it's okay for a Raven Guard to just hop into the transport of a White Scar? How about Marneus Calgar ordering Grey Knights with his buff aura, despite having no affiliation to them? Why not being able to take Yarrick, Creed, and Straken in one detachment?

They are for balance and for fluff - in the case of this, it is absolutely fluffy to have multiple Clans not trusting eachother. However, yes, I will agree that GW should have made it <Warband> or <Tribe>. For the moment however, there is no actual difference.

3. i can see some of your points, but ork society is definitely based on might makes right. if the biggest ork tells you to do something or else you get smashed, you do it. if the Warboss that's twice their size tells the evil sunz driver to let snakebites ride, then they would probably let them. (with a lot of complaining admittedly, but still) this applies elsewhere in your points as well, just using that as an example.

It should also apply beyond Orks. I mean, if a centuries old Space Marine Captain is telling Conscript Joe to fire properly (Rites of Battle), I think that Conscript would listen to the Space Marine.

In the scenario given, it's just as likely that the Snakebites would refuse to enter the trukk, or that they don't trust that sneaky Blood Axe warboss, because he isn't of their clan, and refuse to follow him if he doesn't krump some 'eads (which he can't represent in game).
Hence, fluffy.

Essentially, yes, GW should have said <Warband> instead of Clan, however, at the current moment, as <Clan> means nothing beyond building your detachments, you can count all your guys as being in one big Clan.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:I never said that they would be specific to X? There's preferences (Flash gitz to Bad Moonz, Kommandos to Blood Axes, Skar Boyz to Goffs etc.)

But that doesn't mean that they are restricted to X.

The person you agreed with, on the other hand, did. And I quote "you will not have goff on bike, it's not fluff, it's like terminator on bike", implying that Goffs NEVER go on bikes, and are therefore restricted.

I'm curious to see what they do with the Clan keywords. It could be really cool.

I have models of every clan and I think it's probably all going to be fine. Then again, I've always tended to think of the different clans in my ork horde as forming their own "detachments" anyway.