AB40k Maintainers

This bug ws reported months ago in February but nothing was done to fix it yet.

The ork supplement allows for multiple relics to be equipped, not just 1. The "only 1" limitation is only on the Codex: Orks relics.

Also if you want a primary detachment of the Waagh! Ghazghkull supplement and allied Codex: Orks detachment, it is impossible in the current form. You can do Codex Orks primary and allied supplement perfectly fine but the other way around it does not function according to AB.

You can make a Supplement list. Create an Ork list and under Choose Rules, select Waaagh Gazzy. Gifts is open for interpretation, the supplement can be read to replace the list but not the restriction.

Homer

Open for interpretation? We've had SEVERAL codices and supplements by now that are worded quite clearly.

Prior to the Ork Codex specifically saying only 1 item. The previous 'relics' in every other codex allowed multiple relics to be used that was the NORM.

If it doesn't specifically disallow it (as in the case of the supplement) then there is no problem the supplement relics completely replace the codex relics as is the case of EVERY SINGLE SUPPLEMENT EVER.

I would understand if this were the first time we see relics and had nothing else to compare it to. It would be nice if at the very least army builder didn't force their own 'interpretation' upon it's users. I choose to follow the set pattern unless it specifically says otherwise.

As for creating a supplement list army builder has the problem as i mentioned that it will NOT allow you to ally codex orks. If your initial army is Waagh! Ghagzhkull you can't go into your ally selection and choose 'codex orks' as an ally.

It seems to me that whoever worked on the Orks datafiles did a poor job compared to every other datafile done in AB. I've been using this for years and it just seems like laziness and forced interpretation. Yes i AM complaining about the 'free' work done, i truly believe if you are going to do something you should make every effort to have it done correctly. That's why i contribute to the bug reporting to do my bit in helping out with that.

Please fix the Orks datafile so that a primary detachment of the supplement can be able to ally with Codex Orks. But more importantly change the silly restriction on the relics of the supplement if it is 'open for interpretation' as you say then let it be an OPEN DECISION that the users make.

This is more clear cut than the whole 'swap a weapon for a chainsword and then swap that chainsword for a special weapon' debacle that was all the rage when the 6th edition codices came out.

Akaiyou wrote:Open for interpretation? We've had SEVERAL codices and supplements by now that are worded quite clearly.

Prior to the Ork Codex specifically saying only 1 item. The previous 'relics' in every other codex allowed multiple relics to be used that was the NORM.

If it doesn't specifically disallow it (as in the case of the supplement) then there is no problem the supplement relics completely replace the codex relics as is the case of EVERY SINGLE SUPPLEMENT EVER.

I would understand if this were the first time we see relics and had nothing else to compare it to. It would be nice if at the very least army builder didn't force their own 'interpretation' upon it's users. I choose to follow the set pattern unless it specifically says otherwise.

As for creating a supplement list army builder has the problem as i mentioned that it will NOT allow you to ally codex orks. If your initial army is Waagh! Ghagzhkull you can't go into your ally selection and choose 'codex orks' as an ally.

It seems to me that whoever worked on the Orks datafiles did a poor job compared to every other datafile done in AB. I've been using this for years and it just seems like laziness and forced interpretation. Yes i AM complaining about the 'free' work done, i truly believe if you are going to do something you should make every effort to have it done correctly. That's why i contribute to the bug reporting to do my bit in helping out with that.

Please fix the Orks datafile so that a primary detachment of the supplement can be able to ally with Codex Orks. But more importantly change the silly restriction on the relics of the supplement if it is 'open for interpretation' as you say then let it be an OPEN DECISION that the users make.

This is more clear cut than the whole 'swap a weapon for a chainsword and then swap that chainsword for a special weapon' debacle that was all the rage when the 6th edition codices came out.

I'm not going to touch the general tone of this email. As I understand it, 40K is a permissive ruleset, the rules must state what can be done. Please quote the exact rule that allows Waaagh Ghazghkull to ally with Orks. We looked for it and did not find it. These Supplements are silent on Allies, and therefore may not ally with the parent Codex, except as Formations:

Haemonculus Covens
Space Marines: Clan Raukaan
Space Marines: Sentinels of Terra
Champions of Fenris

These Supplements clearly describe Allies:

Black Legion: The Black Legion at War, Allies.
Crimson Slaughter: page 50, Allies.
Farsight Enclaves: The Army of the Farsight Enclaves, Allies

On the Relics thing, some Codices state clearly may take more than one, some say only take one. Orks says take one and Waaagh Ghazghkull states if you can choose Gifts, choose from Kustom Gubbinz instead. It does not say replace Gifts with Kustom Gubbinz.

Homer

1. Quote the exact rule that allows the supplement to ally with Codex Orks?

A: The entire section of CHOOSING YOUR ARMY in the rulebook. Specially the section of Allied Detachments as used by EVERY SINGLE OTHER ARMY IN THE GAME allowing you to bring ANY ally that you want as long as it is not the same faction as your primary detachment.

The supplements you reference are based on 6th edition ruleset. 7th Edition clearly updated that old ruleset to allow ANY ally including come the apocalypse allies as long as it is not the same faction as your primary.

It is clear cut and widely accepted by just about everyone that you can ally whoever you want. While you can't take an ally detachment of the same faction you can still do CAD of the same force with no problem. In the current AB rules for Orks however it is impossible to have a primary detachment of waagh ghazkull and then add Codex Orks as an allied detachment. and this is done for no good reason whatsoever.

2. Unbound armies are still allowed to take whatever you want without any restriction period.

3. You make a case for Instead versus Replace. They are synonyms. Just about every dictionary will agree that is a very poor distinction and as such you SHOULD go with the set pattern of supplement relics using their own ruleset and restrictions. Otherwise please make the same restrictions across the board.

The best example i can show is that in the codex weapon relics you get "replace bolt pistol/chainsword" for a weapon relic. There is NO SUCH WORDING in the supplements i can't think of a single supplement that has that wording on the weapon swaps, correct me if im wrong. Thus it has never been the case for supplement to follow the restrictions of the parent codex when it comes to relics it has NEVER been the case for whatever reason you decided Orks are the exception.

This is aggravating simply because it just seems to be done for no good reason considering how everythign else works and ive owned just about every army and used army builder extensively to build my lists and I have to leave them all 20 pts short and make a note for no good reason just seems like someone doesn't really like Orks or decided Orks have to draw the short end of the stick and everyone else has to suffer their interpretation. Even in a court of law things are decided with a strong reliance of precedence. I hope i have pointed to enough precedence to overturn this awful decision. Or at the very least paint every supplement with the same brush, don't single out Orks.
Definition of INSTEAD:
adverb
adverb: instead

as an alternative or substitute.
"do not use lotions, but put on a clean dressing instead"
synonyms: as an alternative, alternatively, alternately; More
on second thoughts, all things being equal
"instead, let's take the train"
as a substitute or alternative to; in place of.
"walk to work instead of going by car"
synonyms: as an alternative to, as a substitute for, as a replacement for, in place of, in lieu of, in preference to;

Definition of REPLACE:
re·place
rəˈplās/
verb
verb: replace; 3rd person present: replaces; past tense: replaced; past participle: replaced; gerund or present participle: replacing

1.
take the place of.
"Ian's smile was replaced by a frown"
provide or find a substitute for (something that is broken, old, or inoperative).
"the light bulb needs replacing"
synonyms: substitute, exchange, change, swap
"she replaced the spoon with a fork"
fill the role of (someone or something) with a substitute.
"the government dismissed 3,000 of its customs inspectors, replacing them with new recruits"
synonyms: take the place of, succeed, take over from, supersede; More
stand in for, substitute for, deputize for, cover for, relieve;
informalstep into someone's shoes/boots
"a new chairman came in to replace him"
2.
put (something) back in a previous place or position.
"he drained his glass and replaced it on the bar"
synonyms: put back, return, restore
"Eve replaced the receiver"

From Waaagh! Ghazghkull:
"Orkimedes' kustom Gubbinz: Any units from a detachment or formation presented in this book that can select gifts of gork and mork can not select from those listed in codex:orks, but can instead select from Orkimedes' Kustom Gubbinz...."

Gifts of Gork and Mork:
"only one of each of the following may be taken per army. A model can take one of the following:"

I have played a lot of games in my life, and I can't reach the conclusion that you can give characters more than 1 of these. You have to remember that GW writers are awful and it is widely accepted that this is a permissive rule set, that means that if it doesn't say that you can do something then you can't.

On the Ally thing I can easily create a CAD with an Allied Detatchment from Waaagh! Ghazghkull, so I am not sure what you are looking for there.

I have been discussing this all over the internets this morning, The general feeling all over the tournament scene, and most forums that I visited today, agree with Akaiyou's reading of the rule. While I agree with the reading of it that homer_s had, it is a cleaner reading of the rule in my opinion, but not how it appears most people are playing it.

Yes the great majority is following the established precedent of all supplements where they have been since the very beginning their own relics, including any restrictions. Even army builder followed this up until the Ork codex.

So all I am saying is why??

If you wish to uphold the restrictions of the codex (which are NOT mentioned in ANY of the supplements) then why don't you transfer the weapon restrictions aswell? These restrictions are nowhere on ANY of the supplements but they are in the codex and I don't see them being transferred, and if they are WHY??

40k is a permissive ruleset, however IF something tells you 'you may choose from these options' and does NOT point to any restrictions that does not mean they got some 'secret' intended restriction or whatnot. That is a poor assumption, added wording coming from your perspective.

As for the allied detachment. Try to do the following

Primary Army - Supplement Waagh! Ghagzkull
Allied Detachment - Codex: Orks

Let me know how that works out for you, because I am totally unable to do that. There is no option for Codex: Orks allies if you start off with the supplement as your primary.