• Please note: In an effort to ensure that all of our users feel welcome on our forums, we’ve updated our forum rules. You can review the updated rules here: http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=5528.

    If a fellow Community member is not following the forum rules, please report the post by clicking the Report button (the red yield sign on the left) located on every post. This will notify the moderators directly. If you have any questions about these new rules, please contact support@wolflair.com.

    - The Lone Wolf Development Team

Ork looted vehicles

  • Thread starter Thread starter petark at ntlworld.com
  • Start date Start date
P

petark at ntlworld.com

Guest
Colen,

WD 251 contained an ork Q&A under chapter approved. One of the things
mentioned was that basilisks can indeed take the indirect fire option.
No big deal since the latest AB file allows this.

What is interesting though is that this directly contradicts previous
assertions regarding looted vehicles, namely that looted vehicles are
taken from the bookdex and not subsequent codices. The indirect fire is
an option from the IG codex and was not an option in the bookdex so it
would not be available if the bookdex version were to be used. I now
believe there is sufficient proof that the codices over rule the bookdex
versions for looted vehicles, something I had no concrete evidence to
support previously. The latest WD provides said evidence and as such I
wonder if you will be amending the ork looted vehicles to reflect the
codices and not the bookdex :)

Cheers

Grotfang, not so humble ork warlord.

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com.
It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business,
and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/16/_/36190/_/973132779/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
 
One fine day in the middle of the night, Versif <petark@ntlworld.com>
got up to write:

>Colen,
>
>WD 251 contained an ork Q&A under chapter approved. One of the things
>mentioned was that basilisks can indeed take the indirect fire option.
>No big deal since the latest AB file allows this.

Indeed.

>What is interesting though is that this directly contradicts previous
>assertions regarding looted vehicles, namely that looted vehicles are
>taken from the bookdex and not subsequent codices. The indirect fire is
>an option from the IG codex and was not an option in the bookdex so it
>would not be available if the bookdex version were to be used. I now
>believe there is sufficient proof that the codices over rule the bookdex
>versions for looted vehicles, something I had no concrete evidence to
>support previously. The latest WD provides said evidence and as such I
>wonder if you will be amending the ork looted vehicles to reflect the
>codices and not the bookdex :)

That's the exception, not the rule.

To say "Well, you can now take Indirect Fire on looted Basilisks, so
let's imagine that GW, despite not saying so when then would have been a
perfect opportunity, meant that you could now take *all* rulebook
vehicles" seems to me to be the worst form of imbecility.

I.e.: No. :)

--
'Not Colin' McAlister | License to Skrill
Email: demandred@skrill.org | Visit http://www.skrill.org/ today!
-----------------------------+------------------------------------
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" - Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/36190/_/973348836/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
 
Colin,

I have a question about looted vehicles for you. The reason I am asking
is your vast knowledge of the rules. I was looking at the lootat the
Deveastators to be exact now they may take a rhino And the way I see it
this would not count as a looted vehicle as it would be part of the D
squads equipment.

I may be way off track on this but I am not sure.

So if you would not mind thinking about this one and letting us know.

Thanks
Wes.

'Not Colin' McAlister & The Skrills wrote:

> One fine day in the middle of the night, Versif <petark@ntlworld.com>
> got up to write:
>
> >Colen,
> >
> >WD 251 contained an ork Q&A under chapter approved. One of the things
>
> >mentioned was that basilisks can indeed take the indirect fire
> option.
> >No big deal since the latest AB file allows this.
>
> Indeed.
>
> >What is interesting though is that this directly contradicts previous
>
> >assertions regarding looted vehicles, namely that looted vehicles are
>
> >taken from the bookdex and not subsequent codices. The indirect fire
> is
> >an option from the IG codex and was not an option in the bookdex so
> it
> >would not be available if the bookdex version were to be used. I now
>
> >believe there is sufficient proof that the codices over rule the
> bookdex
> >versions for looted vehicles, something I had no concrete evidence to
>
> >support previously. The latest WD provides said evidence and as such
> I
> >wonder if you will be amending the ork looted vehicles to reflect the
>
> >codices and not the bookdex :)
>
> That's the exception, not the rule.
>
> To say "Well, you can now take Indirect Fire on looted Basilisks, so
> let's imagine that GW, despite not saying so when then would have been
> a
> perfect opportunity, meant that you could now take *all* rulebook
> vehicles" seems to me to be the worst form of imbecility.
>
> I.e.: No. :)
>
> --
> 'Not Colin' McAlister | License to Skrill
> Email: demandred@skrill.org | Visit http://www.skrill.org/ today!
> -----------------------------+------------------------------------
> "Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" - Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time
>
> eGroups Sponsor

>
> To unsubscribe from this group, email
>
> armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/36190/_/973355538/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
 
In this article 'Not Colin' McAlister & The Skrills
<demandred@skrill.org> wrote
>To say "Well, you can now take Indirect Fire on looted Basilisks, so
>let's imagine that GW, despite not saying so when then would have been a
>perfect opportunity, meant that you could now take *all* rulebook
>vehicles" seems to me to be the worst form of imbecility.
>
>I.e.: No. :)
Fair enough, but there are lots of things that GW also didn't answer in
the Q&A so hardly imbecility, rather a reasonable question since it
shows they are using codex rather then bookdex for looted vehicles.
Rudeness to a reasonable question hardly becomes you.

Cheers

Grotfang, not so humble ork warlord.

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/36190/_/973361670/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
 
One fine day in the middle of the night, W.C. [Noel VH]
<noelvh@bigfoot.com> got up to write:

> Colin,
>
> I have a question about looted vehicles for you. The reason I am asking
>is your vast knowledge of the rules. I was looking at the lootat the
>Deveastators to be exact now they may take a rhino And the way I see it
>this would not count as a looted vehicle as it would be part of the D
>squads equipment.

The words are coming in, but I'm not making anything of them :(

What do you mean by the above?

--
'Not Colin' McAlister - License to Skrill
Email: demandred@skrill.org | Visit http://www.skrill.org/ today!
-----------------------------+------------------------------------
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" - Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/36190/_/973370493/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
 
One fine day in the middle of the night, Versif <petark@ntlworld.com>
got up to write:

>In this article 'Not Colin' McAlister & The Skrills
><demandred@skrill.org> wrote
>>To say "Well, you can now take Indirect Fire on looted Basilisks, so
>>let's imagine that GW, despite not saying so when then would have been a
>>perfect opportunity, meant that you could now take *all* rulebook
>>vehicles" seems to me to be the worst form of imbecility.
>>
>>I.e.: No. :)
>Fair enough, but there are lots of things that GW also didn't answer in
>the Q&A so hardly imbecility, rather a reasonable question since it
>shows they are using codex rather then bookdex for looted vehicles.

Yes, in one case. It would have been a perfect time to say that they
would extend this to other things, but they didn't.

>Rudeness to a reasonable question hardly becomes you.

*bow

If I appeared rude, good sir, you have my deepest apologies.

--
'Not Colin' McAlister - License to Skrill
Email: demandred@skrill.org | Visit http://www.skrill.org/ today!
-----------------------------+------------------------------------
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" - Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/36190/_/973370608/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
 
To sum up what I was trying to say.
If the rhino is equipment for a deveastator can you then say it dose not
count as a looted vehicle?

Wes.

'Not Colin' McAlister & The Skrills wrote:

> One fine day in the middle of the night, W.C. [Noel VH]
> <noelvh@bigfoot.com> got up to write:
>
> > Colin,
> >
> > I have a question about looted vehicles for you. The reason I am
> asking
> >is your vast knowledge of the rules. I was looking at the lootat the
> >Deveastators to be exact now they may take a rhino And the way I see
> it
> >this would not count as a looted vehicle as it would be part of the D
>
> >squads equipment.
>
> The words are coming in, but I'm not making anything of them :(
>
> What do you mean by the above?
>
> --
> 'Not Colin' McAlister - License to Skrill
> Email: demandred@skrill.org | Visit http://www.skrill.org/ today!
> -----------------------------+------------------------------------
> "Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" - Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time
>
> eGroups Sponsor

>
> To unsubscribe from this group, email
>
> armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/36190/_/973370878/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
 
> To sum up what I was trying to say.
> If the rhino is equipment for a deveastator can you then say it dose not
> count as a looted vehicle?

The Rhino is a transport option for a Dev squad - it isnt equipment as such.


Jimi

FREE 40k card buildings - http://www.crosswinds.net/~astronomican/

40k3 - http://www.egroups.com/group/40k3/info.html
40k Fluff - http://www.egroups.com/group/40k_fluff/info.html
Astartes - http://www.egroups.com/group/adeptus_astartes/info.html
40k Chaos - http://www.egroups.com/group/40k-chaos/info.html
Grey Knights - http://www.egroups.com/group/greyknightchapter/info.html
Imperial Guard - http://www.egroups.com/group/imperial-guard/info.html
Sons Of Russ - http://www.egroups.com/group/sons-of-russ/info.html
Unforgiven - http://www.egroups.com/group/unforgiven/info.html



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com.
It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business,
and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/1/_/36190/_/973371130/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
 
One fine day in the middle of the night, W.C. [Noel VH]
<noelvh@bigfoot.com> got up to write:

> To sum up what I was trying to say.
>If the rhino is equipment for a deveastator can you then say it dose not
>count as a looted vehicle?

Do you mean:

"Can I make my Lootas take the equipment of a Devastator squad,
including their Rhino, and have it not count as a looted vehicle"?

--
'Not Colin' McAlister - License to Skrill
Email: demandred@skrill.org | Visit http://www.skrill.org/ today!
-----------------------------+------------------------------------
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" - Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com.
It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business,
and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/1/_/36190/_/973371577/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
 
Yes! I could not find the words sorry.

Wes.

'Not Colin' McAlister & The Skrills wrote:

> One fine day in the middle of the night, W.C. [Noel VH]
> <noelvh@bigfoot.com> got up to write:
>
> > To sum up what I was trying to say.
> >If the rhino is equipment for a deveastator can you then say it dose
> not
> >count as a looted vehicle?
>
> Do you mean:
>
> "Can I make my Lootas take the equipment of a Devastator squad,
> including their Rhino, and have it not count as a looted vehicle"?
>
> --
> 'Not Colin' McAlister - License to Skrill
> Email: demandred@skrill.org | Visit http://www.skrill.org/ today!
> -----------------------------+------------------------------------
> "Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" - Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time
>
> eGroups Sponsor

>
> To unsubscribe from this group, email
>
> armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com.
It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business,
and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/1/_/36190/_/973372075/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
 
One fine day in the middle of the night, W.C. [Noel VH]
<noelvh@bigfoot.com> got up to write:

>> "Can I make my Lootas take the equipment of a Devastator squad,
>> including their Rhino, and have it not count as a looted vehicle"?

No, because it doesn't come out of the "Options" section. Sorry :)

--
'Not Colin' McAlister - License to Skrill
Email: demandred@skrill.org | Visit http://www.skrill.org/ today!
-----------------------------+------------------------------------
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" - Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com.
It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business,
and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/1/_/36190/_/973373596/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
 
In this article 'Not Colin' McAlister & The Skrills
<demandred@skrill.org> wrote
>If I appeared rude, good sir, you have my deepest apologies.

Thanks, apology gratefully received :) I have no particular gripe about
the looted vehicles, I could if I wished amend the files to reflect the
codices but I prefer to play with the "standard" created with your file.

My view on the Q&A was that

A) States may use indirect fire since it is an option not wargear.
B) That option only appears in the codex NOT the bookdex
C) Doesn't say that said option is an exception to the bookdex rule.

What it doesn't say

A) May use codex, but they may take that for granted given the above :)

In addition given that they admit they got the warboss entry wrong (0-1)
and the banna wava and that as a general rule the codices supecede the
bookdex when published the reference to bookdex may either be a mistake
(since I don't think orks was published first) or left over from editing
(similar errors have occurred in the new V6 whfb rule books, O&G
published second but written first).

So all in all a valid argument that codices may apply rather than
bookdex, but since I mainly play with either a looted leman russ or
basilisk this doesn't affect me too much. As it is until GW clarifies
this once and for all I'll stick with the "standard" and many thanks to
boot for all the hard work you put into it.

Cheers
Grotfang, not so humble ork warlord.

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Introducing SegaNet, the first online multi-player console gaming
network. Faster speeds and real-time chat let you humiliate any fools
punk enough to try you. Register here.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9571/1/_/36190/_/973435888/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
 
> A) May use codex, but they may take that for granted given the above :)
As I recall, Jervis has gone on record (though I cannot locate my
source at the moment: I had thought it was in the 40k Q&A, though it is
not, as far as I can see right now) stating that Orks may loot any
Imperial vehicle from any codex; it was simply a matter of example and
timing (ie Ork codex out before other Imperial ones) that put that
(imfamous?) list in the codex.
Of course, if it were that obvious, this wouldn't be an issue, would it?
Confirm or deny?

-Michael



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Introducing SegaNet, the first online multi-player console gaming
network. Faster speeds and real-time chat let you humiliate any fools
punk enough to try you. Register here.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9571/1/_/36190/_/973491123/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
 
One fine day in the middle of the night, Michael Nixon
<mnixon@macn.bc.ca> got up to write:

>> A) May use codex, but they may take that for granted given the above :)
> As I recall, Jervis has gone on record (though I cannot locate my
>source at the moment: I had thought it was in the 40k Q&A, though it is
>not, as far as I can see right now) stating that Orks may loot any
>Imperial vehicle from any codex; it was simply a matter of example and
>timing (ie Ork codex out before other Imperial ones) that put that
>(imfamous?) list in the codex.
> Of course, if it were that obvious, this wouldn't be an issue, would it?
>Confirm or deny?

rrrrrrraaaaaaaaarrrrrrr!&("* HULK ANGRY!(*&(*"%&"&(*% HULK WILL
SMASH!(*)&%(*"(*

Basing a game system on "on 2/12/99, Game Designer S. Krill said at a
convention 'oh yeah, you can do this'" is, to my mind, stupidity. Before
I go any further, apologies to everyone I just insulted there. :) If
it's published in Chapter Approved, it's added. If it's in a codex, it's
added. If it was GW's intent to let the Orks take any vehicle from any
Imperial Codex, WHY THE HELL DIDN'T THEY SAY THAT IN THE CODEX! Or at
least, put footnotes in said Imperial codex, "Note that any Ork army can
loot these vehicles". Or even put a thing in Chapter Approved!

This is one of the things that annoys me about Games Workshop. :P

--
'Not Colin' McAlister - License to Skrill
Email: demandred@skrill.org | Visit http://www.skrill.org/ today!
-----------------------------+------------------------------------
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" - Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Introducing SegaNet, the first online multi-player console gaming
network. Faster speeds and real-time chat let you humiliate any fools
punk enough to try you. Register here.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9571/1/_/36190/_/973531766/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
 
> I go any further, apologies to everyone I just insulted there. :) If
> it's published in Chapter Approved, it's added. If it's in a codex, it's
> added. If it was GW's intent to let the Orks take any vehicle from any
> Imperial Codex, WHY THE HELL DIDN'T THEY SAY THAT IN THE CODEX! Or at
> least, put footnotes in said Imperial codex, "Note that any Ork army can
> loot these vehicles". Or even put a thing in Chapter Approved!
Fair enough. I understand why you don't change your datafiles based on
things like this; you can't track them down, and shouldn't. I also wish
they'd make it that obvious.
Mostly just wondering if anyone else sighted the same thing.

-Michael


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com.
It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business,
and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/1/_/36190/_/973561805/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top