• 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

Orks - Lootas vehicle options

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

petark at ntlworld.com

Guest
Colen,

Devastator and tactical squad selections for lootas allows them to take
either rhinos or razorbacks. Under looted vehicle they are permitted
smoke launchers but not under the lootas option. Is there a reason for
this? I assume that if the smoke launchers are an option (like indirect
fire) that they can take it, especially as it appears under the looted
vehicle options.

Being a sad individual I can field any combination of the ork devastator
squad and it has been fun looking at my opponents face when his
landraider dies to them. A razorback with lascannon and TL plasma guns
should also help wipe the complacent smile off of his face :) Mind you
the twin heavy blotter is nice enough against lighter targets. Throw in
3 looted vanilla rhinos and I'll call it Ork marine. So two loot squads
with transports and 3 looted rhinos should be an amusing variant for my
opponent. Not cheap but amusing.

Cheers

Grotfang, not so humble ork warlord.
 
> Devastator and tactical squad selections for lootas allows them to take
> either rhinos or razorbacks. Under looted vehicle they are permitted
> smoke launchers but not under the lootas option. Is there a reason for
> this? I assume that if the smoke launchers are an option (like indirect
> fire) that they can take it, especially as it appears under the looted
> vehicle options.

Lootas can use the *options* from certain SM/IG squads - vehicles arent an
*option*. Look at the relevent entries in either C:SM or C:IG and see.


Jimi

FREE 40k card scenery - http://www.crosswinds.net/~astronomican/
My Ebay Auctions - http://members.ebay.co.uk/aboutme/astronomican/

40k3 - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/40k3/
40k Fluff - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/40k_fluff/
Astartes - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/adeptus_astartes/
Grey Knights - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greyknightchapter/
Imperial Guard - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/imperial-guard/
Sons Of Russ - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sons-of-russ/
Unforgiven - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unforgiven/
VDR - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gw-vdr/
 
--- In armybuilder@y..., "-= JIMI =-" <james.tubman@b...> wrote:
> Lootas can use the *options* from certain SM/IG squads - vehicles
arent an
> *option*. Look at the relevent entries in either C:SM or C:IG and
see.
>
>
> Jimi
>

>From the UK GT Clarifications:

"Lootas may take the transport option from a squad."

And from the online Q&A:

"Can Lootas take the transport option from a squad?
Yes they can."

Which is why Colen allows Lootas to take the squads vehicle options
in the 40K files.
 
> >From the UK GT Clarifications:
>
> "Lootas may take the transport option from a squad."

Only applies to the UKGT and not normal 40k play.

> And from the online Q&A:
>
> "Can Lootas take the transport option from a squad?
> Yes they can."

Has this been printed in a WD issue?? If not then I can safely ignore it as
a pile of crap.

> Which is why Colen allows Lootas to take the squads vehicle options
> in the 40K files.

AB datafiles follow the codex/rulebook and OFFICIAL clarifications. If it
aint official then it should be removed.


Jimi, another example of GW idiots not following their own rules

FREE 40k card scenery - http://www.crosswinds.net/~astronomican/
My Ebay Auctions - http://members.ebay.co.uk/aboutme/astronomican/

40k3 - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/40k3/
40k Fluff - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/40k_fluff/
Astartes - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/adeptus_astartes/
Grey Knights - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greyknightchapter/
Imperial Guard - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/imperial-guard/
Sons Of Russ - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sons-of-russ/
Unforgiven - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unforgiven/
VDR - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gw-vdr/
 
At 20:55 20/08/2001 +0100, you wrote:
> > Devastator and tactical squad selections for lootas allows them to take
> > either rhinos or razorbacks. Under looted vehicle they are permitted
> > smoke launchers but not under the lootas option. Is there a reason for
> > this? I assume that if the smoke launchers are an option (like indirect
> > fire) that they can take it, especially as it appears under the looted
> > vehicle options.
>
>Lootas can use the *options* from certain SM/IG squads - vehicles arent an
>*option*. Look at the relevent entries in either C:SM or C:IG and see.

It was specifically stated in a Q&A that transport vehicles are allowed, so
I've added them in. Since they're from the 'black codex' armies, they
should be allowed Smoke Launchers.


--
Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org
http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
1 = 2, for large values of 1.
 
At 13:35 21/08/2001 +0100, you wrote:

> > Which is why Colen allows Lootas to take the squads vehicle options
> > in the 40K files.
>
>AB datafiles follow the codex/rulebook and OFFICIAL clarifications. If it
>aint official then it should be removed.

Anything printed in the Q&A is also incorporated - for example, Chaos
Rhinos get Combi-Bolters instead of Storm Bolters because of this.


--
Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org
http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
1 = 2, for large values of 1.
 
> >AB datafiles follow the codex/rulebook and OFFICIAL clarifications. If it
> >aint official then it should be removed.
>
> Anything printed in the Q&A is also incorporated - for example, Chaos
> Rhinos get Combi-Bolters instead of Storm Bolters because of this.

IIRC, this was clarified in a White Dwarf issue and thus is official - 95%
of the online Q&A aint.


Jimi

FREE 40k card scenery - http://www.crosswinds.net/~astronomican/
My Ebay Auctions - http://members.ebay.co.uk/aboutme/astronomican/

40k3 - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/40k3/
40k Fluff - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/40k_fluff/
Astartes - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/adeptus_astartes/
Grey Knights - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greyknightchapter/
Imperial Guard - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/imperial-guard/
Sons Of Russ - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sons-of-russ/
Unforgiven - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unforgiven/
VDR - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gw-vdr/
 
> It was specifically stated in a Q&A that transport vehicles are allowed,
so
> I've added them in.

Is this the infamous online Q&A or a WD printed one??

> Since they're from the 'black codex' armies, they
> should be allowed Smoke Launchers.

'black codex'??


Jimi

FREE 40k card scenery - http://www.crosswinds.net/~astronomican/
My Ebay Auctions - http://members.ebay.co.uk/aboutme/astronomican/

40k3 - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/40k3/
40k Fluff - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/40k_fluff/
Astartes - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/adeptus_astartes/
Grey Knights - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greyknightchapter/
Imperial Guard - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/imperial-guard/
Sons Of Russ - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sons-of-russ/
Unforgiven - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unforgiven/
VDR - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gw-vdr/
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "-= JIMI =-" <james.tubman@btinternet.com>

> 'black codex'??

The "black codex" is the lists at the back of the main rulebook. The main
rulebook is black.

-Shawn
 
At 14:34 21/08/2001 +0100, you wrote:
> > It was specifically stated in a Q&A that transport vehicles are allowed,
>so
> > I've added them in.
>
>Is this the infamous online Q&A or a WD printed one??

The "infamous" online Q&A, I'm afraid. Why is it infamous?

> > Since they're from the 'black codex' armies, they
> > should be allowed Smoke Launchers.
>
>'black codex'??

Basic rulebook lists, i.e. not the codex.


--
Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org
http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
1 = 2, for large values of 1.


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
The Nissan Sentra
Everything but compact
http://NissanDriven.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/3vsIKC/txlCAA/ySSFAA/IMSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
 
> > 'black codex'??
>
> The "black codex" is the lists at the back of the main rulebook. The main
> rulebook is black.

A-ha - I see!! Arent those army lists in the rulebook redundant when the
relevent codex is available??

Because if they arent then the ability to upgraded a looted Basilisk with
Indirect Fire no longer exists as it only appears in the IG codex and not
the rulebook.

You cant have it both ways - either use the rulebook army lists or use the
codexes.


Jimi

FREE 40k card scenery - http://www.crosswinds.net/~astronomican/
My Ebay Auctions - http://members.ebay.co.uk/aboutme/astronomican/

40k3 - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/40k3/
40k Fluff - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/40k_fluff/
Astartes - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/adeptus_astartes/
Grey Knights - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greyknightchapter/
Imperial Guard - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/imperial-guard/
Sons Of Russ - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sons-of-russ/
Unforgiven - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unforgiven/
VDR - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gw-vdr/
 
At 14:30 21/08/2001 +0100, you wrote:
> > >AB datafiles follow the codex/rulebook and OFFICIAL clarifications. If it
> > >aint official then it should be removed.
> >
> > Anything printed in the Q&A is also incorporated - for example, Chaos
> > Rhinos get Combi-Bolters instead of Storm Bolters because of this.
>
>IIRC, this was clarified in a White Dwarf issue and thus is official - 95%
>of the online Q&A aint.

I don't RC, unfortunately. Which issue of WD was it clarified in?



--
Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org
http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
1 = 2, for large values of 1.
 
> The "infamous" online Q&A, I'm afraid. Why is it infamous?

Its 'infamous' because only those parts of the Q&A that have been published
in White Dwarf or similar magazine/book are considered official.


Jimi

FREE 40k card scenery - http://www.crosswinds.net/~astronomican/
My Ebay Auctions - http://members.ebay.co.uk/aboutme/astronomican/

40k3 - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/40k3/
40k Fluff - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/40k_fluff/
Astartes - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/adeptus_astartes/
Grey Knights - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greyknightchapter/
Imperial Guard - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/imperial-guard/
Sons Of Russ - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sons-of-russ/
Unforgiven - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unforgiven/
VDR - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gw-vdr/
 
In this article -= JIMI =- <james.tubman@btinternet.com> wrote
>A-ha - I see!! Arent those army lists in the rulebook redundant when the
>relevent codex is available??
>
>Because if they arent then the ability to upgraded a looted Basilisk with
>Indirect Fire no longer exists as it only appears in the IG codex and not
>the rulebook.
>
>You cant have it both ways - either use the rulebook army lists or use the
>codexes.

Now you're asking for consistency, which is the last thing we can expect
from GW :)

Strictly by the wording, lootas shouldn't be allowed to take the
vehicles since they are listed under the vehicle rather than options
section. On the other hand this presupposes that GW was using the phrase
'options' in a very strict sense whereas all evidence points to GW being
anything but precise :)

I argued in the past with Colen that the options referred to should be
the codex rather than the blackdex options and pointed to the indirect
fire rule as proof positive, but to no avail :) I think Colen came up
with a very cunning response that shot my argument down in flames,
albeit indirectly. (g) This would make the looted chimera cheaper, not
that I'd ever loot a chimera when their are better things to loot.

On a related note KOS ors can only ever take one looted rhino since the
mandatory addition of grot riggers takes them to 51+ points. I was
messing about creating a KOS army from the normal list by using 3 looted
rhinos when the smoke launcher discrepancy hit me. My rationale was this
was an ork warband in the throws of becoming a KOS but didn't benefit
from the KOS special rules but got mobbing up etc instead. In 1800
points I can take 93 models with 4 trukks, 3 Rhinos and 1 battlewagon.
And the rhinos have benefits over normal trukks. Just because I could.

Cheers

Grotfang, not so humble ork warlord.
 
> Now you're asking for consistency, which is the last thing we can expect
> from GW :)

Both Lootas and Looted Vehicles mention the rulebook - only AB allows you to
mix the rulebook and codex options, so it isnt GW at fault here (for once!!)

> Strictly by the wording, lootas shouldn't be allowed to take the
> vehicles since they are listed under the vehicle rather than options
> section.

Thats my take on it too.

> On the other hand this presupposes that GW was using the phrase
> 'options' in a very strict sense whereas all evidence points to GW being
> anything but precise :)

Hehehehe

> I argued in the past with Colen that the options referred to should be
> the codex rather than the blackdex options and pointed to the indirect
> fire rule as proof positive, but to no avail :)

I must have missed that thread - anyway, I'm with you on this one :-)

> On a related note KOS ors can only ever take one looted rhino since the
> mandatory addition of grot riggers takes them to 51+ points.

Arent Grot Riggers classed as a vehicle upgrade (albeit mandatory for KoS)
and not an inherent part of a Rhino?? Thus you should be able to take a
looted Rhino at 50pts but it automatically gets the riggers and changed to
52pts??


Jimi

FREE 40k card scenery - http://www.crosswinds.net/~astronomican/
My Ebay Auctions - http://members.ebay.co.uk/aboutme/astronomican/

40k3 - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/40k3/
40k Fluff - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/40k_fluff/
Astartes - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/adeptus_astartes/
Grey Knights - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greyknightchapter/
Imperial Guard - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/imperial-guard/
Sons Of Russ - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sons-of-russ/
Unforgiven - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unforgiven/
VDR - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gw-vdr/
 
In this article -= JIMI =- <james.tubman@btinternet.com> wrote
>> On a related note KOS ors can only ever take one looted rhino since the
>> mandatory addition of grot riggers takes them to 51+ points.
>
>Arent Grot Riggers classed as a vehicle upgrade (albeit mandatory for KoS)
>and not an inherent part of a Rhino?? Thus you should be able to take a
>looted Rhino at 50pts but it automatically gets the riggers and changed to
>52pts??

Indeed, so you can only take one in a KOS army since it is the cost of
the vehicle and any upgrades that count not the base price of the
vehicle.

Cheers

Grotfang, not so humble ork warlord.
 
> Indeed, so you can only take one in a KOS army since it is the cost of
> the vehicle and any upgrades that count not the base price of the
> vehicle.

IMO, the vehicle is bought as per the standard Looted Vehicle rules but
automatically get Grot Riggers as per Orky vehicle upgrades.


Jimi

FREE 40k card scenery - http://www.crosswinds.net/~astronomican/
My Ebay Auctions - http://members.ebay.co.uk/aboutme/astronomican/

40k3 - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/40k3/
40k Fluff - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/40k_fluff/
Astartes - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/adeptus_astartes/
Grey Knights - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greyknightchapter/
Imperial Guard - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/imperial-guard/
Sons Of Russ - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sons-of-russ/
Unforgiven - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unforgiven/
VDR - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gw-vdr/
 
At 18:25 21/08/2001 +0100, you wrote:
> > > 'black codex'??
> >
> > The "black codex" is the lists at the back of the main rulebook. The main
> > rulebook is black.
>
>A-ha - I see!! Arent those army lists in the rulebook redundant when the
>relevent codex is available??
>
>Because if they arent then the ability to upgraded a looted Basilisk with
>Indirect Fire no longer exists as it only appears in the IG codex and not
>the rulebook.
>
>You cant have it both ways - either use the rulebook army lists or use the
>codexes.

The Q&A specifically says they can use the Indirect Fire upgrade. That's a
good point, though; the looted vehicles shouldn't be able to take the Smoke
Launchers. The normal Loota unit still uses the black codex lists, because
it specifically states that the units should come from the "Warhammer
40,000" rulebook.


--
Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org
http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
1 = 2, for large values of 1.
 
> The Q&A specifically says they can use the Indirect Fire upgrade.

Thats because its refering to the codex entry, not the Black Codex entry.

> The normal Loota unit still uses the black codex lists, because
> it specifically states that the units should come from the "Warhammer
> 40,000" rulebook.

Whereas thats very true, GW do make the claim that rulebook army lists will
become invalid when codexes are released.


Jimi

FREE 40k card scenery - http://www.crosswinds.net/~astronomican/
My Ebay Auctions - http://members.ebay.co.uk/aboutme/astronomican/

40k3 - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/40k3/
40k Fluff - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/40k_fluff/
Astartes - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/adeptus_astartes/
Grey Knights - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greyknightchapter/
Imperial Guard - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/imperial-guard/
Sons Of Russ - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sons-of-russ/
Unforgiven - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unforgiven/
VDR - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gw-vdr/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top