PDA

View Full Version : Equiping Orcs Question



batai
24-11-2006, 13:38
I have a number of the 'older' orc minis that are holding two choppas each. So basically i have to pay for a second choppa unless i want to mutilate each of my minatures.

Is it possible to pay for both an extra choppa and shield? Furthermore, can i pick what to use during combat?

For example:
This turn my orcs will use a choppa and shield (giving them a better save), but next round/combat i'll use two choppas.....

Thanks.

Festus
24-11-2006, 14:38
Hi

That is perfectly acceptable.

Festus

Griefbringer
24-11-2006, 15:14
You can choose which weapon(s) to use at the beginning of every combat - however, once actually in combat you cannot change the weapons from round to round as long as the combat continues.

Rune of Death
24-11-2006, 16:13
You can choose which weapon(s) to use at the beginning of every combat - however, once actually in combat you cannot change the weapons from round to round as long as the combat continues.

that's the way i've understood and played it too.

Bortus
24-11-2006, 16:53
I agree. That is the rule. Choose one and that's what you'll use for the duration of the combat.

Festus
24-11-2006, 16:58
Hi

Yes, correct: BRB, p.54, left column

Festus

T10
26-11-2006, 18:16
I have a number of the 'older' orc minis that are holding two choppas each. So basically i have to pay for a second choppa unless i want to mutilate each of my minatures.


Note that it is allowed to buy a unit with one selection of options (e.g. additional choppa plus shield) and mix in differently armed models (e.g. spears or arrer boys). The majority of models in the unit needs to be equipped the way the unit is equipped.

This means that if you do not like the additional choppa option you can mix those models into your units of differently armed orcs.

-T10

Fredmans
26-11-2006, 20:21
I have a number of the 'older' orc minis that are holding two choppas each.

I am just curious about the "number". To add a shield sounds fairly expensive, ending up with 8 pts/model instead of the 6 pts/model that you actually want to field. In a 20-model unit, that is 40 points and 40 points in an O&G army could be better spent, it can give you another unit (troll/snotlings/pump wagon).

If the "number" of older orc minis is not too high, my suggestion would be, as someone else pointed out (T10), to use them to fill out your other units. Not "every" model needs to show the actual equipment, just the majority. If you play friends, you could even say at the start of the game: "Hey guys, these orcs carry choppa and shield, not two choppas".

The other solution, which I myself am toying with, is to field orc boys with additional choppas in numbers of 10 to stay in reserve. That is 70 points for a unit that could counter-charge enemy break-throughs, scare away fast cavalry, protect your war machines etc.

/Fredmans

mageith
26-11-2006, 21:39
For example:
This turn my orcs will use a choppa and shield (giving them a better save), but next round/combat i'll use two choppas.....

I think so, but as you can tell that's clearly a minority opinion.

First, its what the words say: "At the start of each combat, a unit of Black Orcs can choose to fight with .... [List of their weapon options]"

Most folks think its a reference to the BRB rule which reads: "At the start of the first turn of combat, each unit can choose which of their weapons to use...Whichever weapon they choose then must be used for the entire combat." (54)

The term "first turn" is not in the OG book. I think one can see its not the same rule. The BRB clearly refers to the first turn and the term "start" refers to or modifies first turn.

In the OG rule the term "start" refers to or modifies combat.

In addition, why would GW bother to allude to a rule and then change the wording of that rule and still, as the majority opinion goes, mean the same thing? Why wouldn't GW include the conclusive phrase "...then must be used for the entire combat." in the OG book.

If there was nothing mentioned about choosing weapons in the OG rule would anyone really think that Black Orcs would get to change weapons from turn to turn? Even I wouldn't think that.

In other words, if "Armed to da teef" simply loaded up the BO with weapons and said nothing more, everyone, including me would be very sure that BO, like every other unit, must choose and keep the same weapon until new turns combats came about.

To me it reads like a rule change allowing Black Orcs to switch weapons at the start of each turn of combat and not merely at the start of the FIRST TURN of combat.

kaldour
26-11-2006, 22:49
First, its what the words say: "At the start of each combat, a unit of Black Orcs can choose to fight with .... [List of their weapon options]"



I see where you're going, but your own quote shows the seperation between truth and wishful thinking. "At the start of each combat" means exactly that, at the start of a combat. Not at the start of a round of combat.

As for the argument that the wording is (slightly) different, two things come into play. First of all, Games Workshop seems to take an illicit pleasure in rephrasing specific rules text in slightly different ways... all meaning the same thing. That's their fault, but the core rules remain the same.

second, if the point of this very minor change in the phrasing of the rules were to create an exception for the Black Orcs, it would need to be explicitly stated that that is the case. Something along the lines of "...may change weapons each round.". I point you to the templating on the Braystaff in the Beasts of Chaos book page 19:
"A Braystaff can be used in one of two ways (nominate which at the start of each Close Combat round)."

mageith
26-11-2006, 23:16
I see where you're going, but your own quote shows the seperation between truth and wishful thinking.
Why would you assume any wishful thinking on my part? That's kind of insulting.

The key problem is the term "combat". What is it's definition? See page 32 for the description of combat. The unmodified term "each combat" on page 32 appears to me to refer to what happens in a single turn.


"Work out each combat one at a time.." (32)


The term "each combat" is there. It's not an airtight definition, sad to say, but its pretty clear to those who want to read the words without preconceived imaginations of the illicit pleasures of game designers.;)

So to turn "start of each combat" into "start of the first turn of a combat" is not warranted. It doesn't say the same thing and so it very likely doesn't mean the same thing.

Its more than a slight change. In fact, as I stated earlier, there is absolutely no reason to have any reference to the core rules if there is no change, is there? That fact that the words about choosing weapons are there at all indictes to me that's there a change coming.

Mage Ith

Festus
27-11-2006, 08:20
Hi

Even in your quote, *combat* refers to the engagement, which may span over a few turns. Just because you work out the combat in between doesn't make it a new combat next turn.

As it stands, BOs can change in every new combat, not in every combat phase or turn of combat.

Festus

Griefbringer
27-11-2006, 08:34
I'll support Festus here.

Besides, if combats could not be multi-turn in duration, then the "start of the first turn of combat" (as quoted by Mageith from BRB) would not actually make sense - as every round of a combat would be the first round and everyone could thus swap weapons between the rounds.

So it probably boils down to the author of the new O&G book either wanting to over-complicate things, or not bothering to check properly what was said in the BRB (or not checking the final version of 7th edition rules - there was probably some overlap with development of those and the new O&G book).

And the original question was probably about regular orcs, not black orcs.

mageith
27-11-2006, 14:16
Hi

Even in your quote, *combat* refers to the engagement, which may span over a few turns. Just because you work out the combat in between doesn't make it a new combat next turn.

The term "Combat" doesn't mean that all the time. Maybe never.

Page 32 refers to "combat" as what happens in each turn. It's the thing we work out and resolve.

I just don't think its as clear as you say, that's all.

In the, the examples of combat on page 33.1 there's no mention of combats lasting more that one turn. In other words, "each combat", without further modifying words refers to what happens inside a turn. The combat is both "worked out" and "resolve each combat". What does resolved mean? That the thing being resolved is over, no?

While we do know that units may fight for more than one turn, the only times I know of when "turns" of combat is mentioned is in the choice of weapon rule and some of the particular weapons. And that term is specfically NOT in the Black Orc Rule.

What exactly does the Armed to da teef rule do then? No rule is needed. GW could have simply changed the price of Black Orcs and under Wargear listed Great Weapon and Additional hand weapon and be done. The Armed to da teef rule doesn't do anything else, does it? It's just a ruse, not a rule--nothing is changed from normal play.

Griefbringer
27-11-2006, 14:31
What exactly does the Armed to da teef rule do then? No rule is needed. GW could have simply changed the price of Black Orcs and under Wargear listed Great Weapon and Additional hand weapon and be done. The Armed to da teef rule doesn't do anything else, does it? It's just a ruse, not a rule--nothing is changed from normal play.

Perhaps it was introduced there for the sake of WYSIWYG-fanatics, since the current BO models are armed either with great weapons or two choppas (but never with both great weapon and two choppas).

There are other similar rules telling that not all the models need to be armed exactly with what weapon the unit counts as having (such as Empire free company or warriors of Ulric).

Da GoBBo
27-11-2006, 19:05
Besides, if combats could not be multi-turn in duration, then the "start of the first turn of combat" (as quoted by Mageith from BRB) would not actually make sense - as every round of a combat would be the first round and everyone could thus swap weapons between the rounds.

Mageith, the above makes perfect sense. Some remark?


What exactly does the Armed to da teef rule do then? No rule is needed. GW could have simply changed the price of Black Orcs and under Wargear listed Great Weapon and Additional hand weapon and be done. The Armed to da teef rule doesn't do anything else, does it? It's just a ruse, not a rule--nothing is changed from normal play.

this makes sense too, but not as much Griefbringer making sense.

mageith
27-11-2006, 19:39
Besides, if combats could not be multi-turn in duration, then the "start of the first turn of combat" (as quoted by Mageith from BRB) would not actually make sense - as every round of a combat would be the first round and everyone could thus swap weapons between the rounds.

There's no doubt that units can be in combat more than one turn. My argument is that the term "each combat" doesn't refer to these multi-turn combats but to what happens in each turn.



So it probably boils down to the author of the new O&G book either wanting to over-complicate things, or not bothering to check properly what was said in the BRB (or not checking the final version of 7th edition rules - there was probably some overlap with development of those and the new O&G book).

Sure. I can live with that. Who knows what he really meant!

OTOH I don't think the weapon choice rule changed from 6th to 7th, did it?

The main reason I think mine is right (in addition to what I think the words actually say) is that the Armed to da teef rule doesn't make much sense if it isn't really a change to some rule. If the author didn't want to change things then why did he bother at all with re-writing the rule or even refering to it at all. It could have been as simple as 'Choose which weapon as normal.'

Mage Ith

Da GoBBo
27-11-2006, 19:46
Hmm, that would be one very poorly written rule, again. Don't dwarven slayers have armed to the teef rule as well? (thought i heared that somewhere) How does it work with them?

mageith
27-11-2006, 20:01
Hmm, that would be one very poorly written rule, again.

I'm not sure to what you are referring, but my point is that the Armed to da teef rule as its interpreted by the majority need not be there at all. We already know that a unit with two weapon choices must make its choice at the start of the first TURN of a combat. Lots of units have the choice of more than one weapon. In fact, any unit with anything more than a handweapon has/must make that choice.



Don't dwarven slayers have armed to the teef rule as well? (thought i heared that somewhere) How does it work with them?
Festooned with pistols? I think the pistols simply are used as hand weapons in the subsequent combats.

sever14
27-11-2006, 20:19
Dwarf slayers have the special rule called slayer axes.
Which means that at the beginning of combat they can choose to use two one handed weapons or a GW, but once they choose, they have to use it throughout the combat with the other unit.

Da GoBBo
27-11-2006, 20:54
Indeed. Another example of a rule that need not be there?

WLBjork
28-11-2006, 08:38
No, as IIRC Slayer axes simply states that Dwarf Slayers count as being armed with Two Hand weapons and Great Weapons, but does not restate the choice rule in any form.

Griefbringer
28-11-2006, 09:00
Don't forget the "Individuals" rule for Warriors of Ulric (as in the Cult of ulric and SoC Middenheim lists), which while very fluffy is totally pointless as a rule.

Da GoBBo
28-11-2006, 15:56
Ok, guess this kind of undermines Mageith's argument no?

mageith
29-11-2006, 01:55
No, as IIRC Slayer axes simply states that Dwarf Slayers count as being armed with Two Hand weapons and Great Weapons, but does not restate the choice rule in any form.

Actually its clearer than that. They definitely must choose which weapon to use at the start of the first turn of combat.

I'm not arguing that every unit that has more than one weapon gets to choose which weapon they want to use at the beginning of each (turn of) combat.

Nor is my argument based on that fact that GW doesn't write worthless or meaningless rules. They do. I don't think they set out to do that, but maybe they do.

Its based on the meaning of "each combat".

Anyway I've stated my case. Its clearly a very minority opinion.

For the record I don't play Orcs or Goblins but they are my most common opponent as three of the seven members of my league love the greenskins.

They all think the Black Orcs are pretty good using the conventional interpretation and are very willing to pay the extra point for the option to choose at the start of the first turn of combat. If Black Orcs could officially choose which weapon to use at the start of each turn of combat, they'd be giddy.

Mage Ith

Griefbringer
29-11-2006, 14:16
Its based on the meaning of "each combat".


And if I have not made my point of view clear enough yet, I would say that in the spirit of RAW, we should not try to interpret the term "combat" differently for black orcs than we do for everyone else.

mageith
29-11-2006, 14:46
And if I have not made my point of view clear enough yet, I would say that in the spirit of RAW, we should not try to interpret the term "combat" differently for black orcs than we do for everyone else.
"...the spirit of RAW"? :confused: In the spirit of the rules as written? That thought seems contradictory to me.

The term I am using is not "combat" but "each combat". The term "each combat" is a different term than used for everyone else. It is used on page 32 to denote what happens within each turn.

The term "each combat" is not used in the general rule on choosing weapons before turns of "a combat".

Either "at the start of each combat" (OG 20) means the same as "the start of the first turn of a combat" (54) or it doesn't. I think it means something signficantly different. Clearly you and the majority think its the same thing. I won't be changing my mind and I will be allowing my opponents to play that way if they choose. Since I don't play Orcs, I won't be able to take advantage of of my interpretation and won't be foisting it down anyone's throat.

So please don't try to convince me with such arguments as the "spirit of RAW". I believe in the spirit of the game and abide by the Rules as Written unless there is an agreed upon change. If I cannot convince my opponent in one shot with a reference to the written word I usually let it go his way.

Clearly my interpretation is NOT an agreed upon change. I can live with that.

Mage Ith

Doc Havoc
29-11-2006, 16:28
"At the start of each combat..."
That is how the 'Armed to da Teef' rule reads. Very straight forward. When you initiate combat with another unit you get to choose which weapons to use.

The 'Armed to da teef' rule is just there to let you know that Black Orks always have lots of weapons to choose from. It is not a special ablity that allows you to change weapons every turn, nor does it even hint that it might be.

Let's just look at the name of the rule... 'Armed to da Teef'... okay, they have lots of weapons. That's it, that's all.

It isn't 'Weapon Specialization' or 'Quick Draw' or 'Switch yer weapon every round of combat'.

Nothing to see here... move along.... move along...

Fredmans
29-11-2006, 18:33
The 'Armed to da teef' rule is just there to let you know that Black Orks always have lots of weapons to choose from. It is not a special ablity that allows you to change weapons every turn, nor does it even hint that it might be.


I totally agree with Doc. Sometimes the design studio for fairly obvious reasons oversee potential misreads, resulting in poor wording. If Armed to da Teef would allow Black orcs to switch weapon every round of combat, it would most likely be written in the same way that the Bretonnian virtue? ability? that allows their knights to switch from lance to other weapons. There is not one single allusion to Black Orcs being able to switch weapons in combat (a unique ability), just a poorly written rule with an ambigous way of defining "combat".

greenskin
30-11-2006, 22:03
Armed to Da Teef is probably a rule Development was experimenting with, perhaps allowing weapon swaps every turn of a combat, that didn't make it into the rulebook's final cut. The writer probably didn't even realize that it had become a pointless rule by the time the final revision came around. As was stated, they could have just listed the weapon choices available.