Jump to content

Welcome to Da WAAAGH
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

Da Waaagh's Unoffishal Ork FAQ (and link to official FAQ)

* * * * * 1 votes

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
No replies to this topic



    He who was Snord

  • Nobz
  • 5,167 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hong Kong
  • Army Name:Da Greenmarines; Rotfang's Skroungas (still WiP)
This FAQ is intended to deal with the more common rules issues that have come up in the Goff Fortress. It's not official, and it's not definitive. Games Workshop have released an official FAQ on the Ork codex, and you should read this if you haven't already done so because it corrected a number of mistakes that caused confusion when the codex was released and clarified some uncertainties.

Here is the link to the 5th Edition FAQ for Orks:

February 2010 version of Ork codex FAQ

Unfortunately, the FAQ didn't deal with all the issues. The release of 5th Edition has also muddied the waters in some respects. Hopefully someone will corner Phil Kelly and bribe him with enough fungus beer to get him to answer these questions, but in the meantime here's the HQ's attempt to provide some more answers.

We have tried to avoid the 'it must be a mistake' or 'it must have been intended to work this way' approach in the first instance, although in some cases it's unavoidable. Each answer has been formulated by trying to apply the literal wording of the rules. In some cases, however, this doesn't provide an answer (because the rulebook isn't clear or the answer simply looks wrong), and then we've tried to suggest logical alternative approaches and left it to you to decide which one you prefer. Where available, we have also included the answers given by John Spencer, a Customer Service Specialist at Games Workshop US, as he has been providing generally consistent responses to rules enquiries and his views appear to be generally accepted. This does not mean that his answers are 'official' (although we happen to agree with most of them!).

We will continue to revise and expand this FAQ as new issues come up in the Goff Fortress (proppa issues though, not just stupid ones!). If people start threads that raise questions which are already covered in this FAQ, then (unless they contain something new) those threads will be closed. You can start a discussion about a new rules issue that you think ought to be FAQed in the FAQ sub-forum.

Da Management

:? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :?


Ork Special Rules

Q. How exactly does the Waaagh! rule work in 5th Edition? The codex says that for the duration of the turn in which the Waaagh is declared, all affected Ork units gain the 'fleet of foot' rule. In 4th Edition, 'fleet' meant an extra d6" move in the Shooting phase in lieu of shooting. However, in 5th Edition the Fleet rule means that a unit can assault in the same turn in which it had Run, so the Waaagh! rule no longer gives Ork units a movement bonus.

A: The Waaagh rule was was written for 4th Edition, and unfortunately in this case 5th Edition changed the underlying rules. Trying to apply the rules as written literally is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. :bang

In the Orks vs Beakies battle report in WD345, the commentary states that Phil Kelly declared a Waaagh! in the Shooting phase. He then rolled for the units that were affected (he rolled a '1' for one unit, and presumably saved the Wound, but the commentary doesn't state this explicitly). He then assaulted with the units that were within assault range.

We suggest that the easiest and most sportsmanlike manner to resolve a Waaagh! in 5th Edition is as follows:

-Declare the Waaagh in the Shooting phase before moving any units which you intend to Run then assault with. You do not have to declare the Waaagh at the start of the phase, and you may shoot/Run normally with any units you choose before declaring the Waaagh.

-When rolling the D6 for the 'Run' move after declaring a Waaagh, units that roll a '1' take a Wound as described in the Waaagh! rule. Any model which takes a Wound still can take its normal saving throw.

-In the Assault phase, only units that have Run after you declared a Waaagh! (or which didn't Run) may assault.

Q. For the purposes of determining the number of models in a Nobz mob in order to take advantage of Mob Rule!, do Nobz count as one or two models? In other words, does a unit of 5 Nobz count as Leadership 10?

A. The Mob Rule! rule says that a Ork unit may subsitute the number of Orks in the unit for their normal Leadership. So the Leadership is determined by the models present, not the amount of Wounds in the mob (a Nob is still only 1 Ork!).


Q. Are burnas, grabba stikks, grot prods, 'urty syringes and kustom mega blastas single-handed weapons or 2-handed weapons?

A: The new Codex did away with a wargear section, and the single-handed/2-handed catagorisation of different weapons went with it. It is impossible to state definitively whether any of these Ork weapons are single-handed. The only clue as to what should be treated as a 2-handed weapon is the comment on page 42 that "a model using a two-handed close combat weapon (such as a rifle's butt or two-handed axe) may not use it together with another weapon." This suggests that you look at how the weapon is modelled, but the official models aren't entirely consistent and we all know that Ork modellers like to be creative, so appearance isn't always going to be very helpful.

We recommend that all close combat weapons and pistols are considered to be single-handed, and all non-pistol shooting weapons are considered to be 2-handed, unless the rules expressly state otherwise in their description (e.g. the big choppa). Applying this approach, grabba stikks and grot prods are single-handed, and kustom mega blastas are 2-handed.

'Urty syringes are probably single-handed as well. This won't usually matter because normal Painboyz cannot take a second close combat weapon anyway, but Mad Doc Grotsnikk has a power klaw, slugga and 'urty syringe. We suggest that he can take the extra Attack if he is using the 'urty syringe and slugga, but obviously he does not get it if he uses the power klaw (because you now need 2 power klaws to get the extra Attack).

The burna also requires seperate consideration, as it's both a shooting weapon and a close combat weapon. Again, this should rarely be an issue, as only the Big Mek can carry both a burna and an additional close combat weapon (and that's not a common choice). As it is highy likely that both hands are needed to use the burna (it's invariably depicted as two-handed on official Ork miniatures), we recommend that you don't take the +1 Attack bonus for a Big Mek armed with a burna and a close combat weapon unless you and your opponent have agreed this beforehand.

Q. From where do you measure the area of effect of a kustom force field carried by a Big Mek who is in a vehicle?

A: Page 66 of the rulebook states, under 'Embarking', "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull." So, the range of the force field is measured from the hull.

This obviously means that transporting the Big Mek in a large vehicle (such as a Battlewagon or Skullhamma) will extend the area of effect of the kustom force field dramatically.

Q. Does the kustom force field give vehicles a 4+ or a 5+ cover save? Does a vehicle or unit need to be completely within the 6" of the model bearing the Kustom Force Field to benefit from it?

A. Page 62 of the rulebook states "If a special rule or piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the codex." We think that this applies to equipment such as the kustom force field (and, indeed, may have been written with the kustom force field in mind); the kustom force field rules state that it "gives all units within 6" of the Mek a 5+ cover save. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets" (codex at page 34). This means, incidentally, that where the vehicles are part of a squadron, only the vehicles within range of the kustom force field gain any benefit from it.

The kustom force field therefore confers a 5+ save on non-vehicles and a 4+ save on vehicles within 6". This is supported by Phil Kelly's comments in the Orks vs Beakies battle report in WD345, in which he refers to his Big Mek's kustom force field "effectively giving the Trukks a 4+ save from Matt's gun line". John Spencer has also indicated that it should be a 4+ save for vehicles.

The rules simply state that the vehicle (the hull) needs to be within 6" to benefit. For non-vehicle units, at least one model must be within 6" to benefit, similar to a tin'ead resurrection orb.

Other Equipment

Q. How do ammo runts work with Lobbas? The rules say that each ammo runt enables you to re-roll one 'to hit' roll. However, in 5th Edition Lobbas (which have become Barrage weapons) don't appear to use a 'to hit' roll.

A. The rulebook deal with re-rolls for Blast weapons on page 30. When firing a battery of Barrage weapons, you place the first blast marker, roll to scatter 2D6, then place the rest of the templates by rolling the scatter dice and placing them in contact with the original blast marker. So, when using an ammo runt for a re-roll, you have to re-roll the scatter dice *AND* the 2d6. For Barrages, you can use an ammo runt to re-roll each individual blast marker location, and you can't re-roll a re-roll(of course).

The best use of your ammo runts is therefore to make sure the first blast marker is on target, and save your remaining ammo runts for later turns to make sure that your first blast marker is on on target.

Q. Does an attack squig confer an additional power [fist] attack on a Warboss armed with a power klaw and equipped? Is it a power [fist] attack, or just a normal attack?

A. Page 42 of the rulebook says that "only a second power fist, thunder hammer or lightning claw can confer a bonus Attack on a model equipped with one of these weapons". The codex entry for the attack squig simply says that it confers +1 Attack, and does not state that it overrules the wording the the rulebook (although of course the codex was released before the 5th Edition rules).

One answer is that the literal wording of the rulebook prevails, and the Warboss will not get an extra Attack from the Attack Squig if he is equipped with a power klaw. It would follow that he does not get an extra Attack from charging either; this does not seem to be what was intended. :blush

The alternative view is that this wording is confined to extra Attacks conferred by additional close combat weapons, and does not preclude items of codex-specific equipment like attack squigs from conferring additional Attacks on models equipped with a power fist, thunder hammer or lightning claw. Special rules in codexes normally overrule general rules in the rulebook.

We think the second view is preferable. In support of this is the fact that it is impossible to equip a Warboss with more than 1 power klaw, and it seems likely that the attack squig is intended to give the Warboss an additional power klaw Attack if you pay the necessary points. The fact that the points cost of the attack squig is relatively high would support this interpretation. This interpretation has also been adopted by John Spencer.

Ork Vehicle Upgrades

Q. Can the deff rolla be used to attack vehicles? If so, what effect does it have on Ramming attacks?

A. YES! See the latest Ork FAQ in the link above. Note that although the codex says that it's used as when Tank Shocking (hence the previous confusion about whether it worked against vehicles), it's a Ram attack. The Battlewagon will have to move at full speed (i.e. 12" or 13" with a red paint job), however any embarked passengers will be able to disembark (and assault) after the Ram attack. This means you can potentially assault a unit after you've destroyed its transport with the deff rolla.

Q. If you equip a Trukk with a reinforced ram can the Trukk make a Ram attack?

A. The uncertainty arises by virtue of the wording of page 69 of the rulebook, which says "Ramming is a special kind of Tank Shock move and is executed the same way". It was unclear whether this mean Ramming was a separate rule from Tank Shocking. However, in the latest FAQ answer dealing with deff rollas, the following comment appears: "...as Ramming is just a type of Tank Shock." This means that anything which can Tank Shock can also Ram. So the answer is yes, Trukks with reinforced rams can make a Ram attack. (Apparently Phil Kelly confirmed in a Q&A session shortly after the current codex was released that Trukks with rams cannot Ram. He is reported as saying that Trukks are not built solidly enought to Ram (they would burst apart on contact), and that only Tanks are robust enough to successfully pull off a Ramming attack. It would appear that he changed his mind!)

Q. What kind of attack does a wreckin' ball make? Is it a ranged (shooting) attack, or a close combat attack? If it is a close combat attack, does this mean it can target a vehicle's rear armour?

A. It's not a shooting attack because it takes place in the Assault phase. We think that, because it has a 2" range, the vehicle carrying it won't be engaged, and the enemy canít possibly strike back, the wreckin' ball attack is not an assault (eg, against a Dreadnought it canít swing back, and infantry won't take a morale check or pile in). If itís not assault in these cases, then it follows that it's not an assault in all cases. That means it cannot hit the vehicle's rear armour (unless of course the rear armour is facing the wreckin' ball! - so position your vehicle carefully before you swing!). John Spencer has stated that the wreckin' ball attack is not a ranged attack, so it does not strike the enemy vehicle's rear armour.

Q. Can the deff rolla, reinforced ram or wreckin' ball be removed if the vehicle suffers a 'weapon destroyed' result? They appear in the 'vehicle upgrades' section of the codex, so they don't appear to be weapons.

A. The 'weapon destroyed' rule says that it includes "vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles"(rulebook page 61 - note that this is the same wording that was using in the 4th Edition rulebook). So the manner in which these upgrades are classified in the codex seems to be irrelevant. Unfortunately, there isn't much guidance on how to ascertain whether something functions as a weapon. Both examples given in the rulebook are upgrades which shoot. Page 27 of the rulebook (under 'Weapons') states that "every weapon has a profile that consists of several elements...", then gives an example of a stat line for a shooting weapon. Close combat weapons don't have stat lines, so it seems likely that they intended the weapon destroyed result to cover upgrades that have stat line i.e. essentially shooting weapons. None of the Ork vehicle upgrades have stat lines, so arguably they aren't intended to be treated as weapons, and we recommend this approach. There's some room for argument, however, because if you define 'weapon' more broadly (e.g. as an upgrade which causes damage to enemy units) then the deff rolla and the wreckin' ball would be treated as weapons (especially if you accept that deff rollas can be used to attack vehicles). This approach leads to a lot of uncertainty (what about reinforced rams?), which is another reason why we prefer the more restrictive interpretation.

Ghazghkull Thraka

Q. How does Ghazghkull's 'Prophet of the Waaagh!' special rule work?

A. As with the Waaagh! rule itself (see above), this rule has become unclear because of differences between the 4th and 5th Edition rules. We suggest that you adopt the approach proposed in relation to the Waaagh! rule, however all affected models count as if they have rolled a '6' for their Run move (this is also the approach recommended by John Spencer). Obviously the additional benefits mentioned in the codex (i.e. Ghazghkull's Invulnerable save and non-fleeing units becoming Fearless) will still apply.

Wazdakka Gutsmek

Q. Can Wazdakka Gutsmek fire his kustom mega-blasta in addition to his bike's guns?

A. No. See page 53 of the rulebook - bikes may fire with one weapon for each rider. The fact that Wazdakka is an independent character does not alter this.

Old Zogwort

Q. Old Zogwort can only use Zogwart's Curse against Independent Characters. Can this ability be used against Independent Characters who are fielded together with retinues?

A. Almost certainly not. Page 48 of the rulebook states that an Independent Character who has a retinue (i.e. a unit that they cannot leave during the game) 'counts as an Upgrade Character' until the retinue is killed, at which point it counts as an Independent Character again. It appears that it is possible to target an Independent Character who has joined another unit with Zogwort's Curse, because it will not cease to count as an Independent Character merely because it has joined that unit.

Remember that not all HQ single model units are Independent Characters, and not all Independent Characters are HQ units. Nor are all Monstrous Creatures Independent Characters. If in doubt, check the relevant codex.


Q. Can a Warboss who is equipped with mega armour upgrade his gun to a kombi weapon?

A. No. While this option is available for Meganobz, it is not available for the Warboss.

Big Mek

Q. Why does the Big Mek have 2 sets of options which begin with 'Replace slugga with one of the following:'?

A. There does not appear to be any logical reason for this, although the first group of 3 options are all variants of shoota. As the Big Mek can only replace his slugga once, he can only choose one of the 7 options available in total, so the fact that there are 2 sets of options is probably irrelevant. :rolleyes

Q. A Big Mek who replaces his choppa with a power klaw can still replace his slugga with mega-armour, as a result of which he will have 2 power klaws and a twin-linked shoota. Is this legal?

A. It is possible that this combination was not intended, but it does seem to be permitted by the wording of the codex and the 5th Edition rules don't restrict the number of weapons a model can have, so he can have 3 weapons. In any case, it's easy to imagine a Big Mek rigging up some way of firing the shoota while wielding 2 power klaws. Nor is it overpowered, as the points cost is the same as it is for a Warboss with mega-armour, and a Big Mek equipped this way won't be able to take a Kustom Force Field or Shokk Attack Gun. John Spencer has indicated that a Big Mek can take 2 power klaws.

Nobz mob

Q. If you equip a Nobz mob that includes a Painboy with 'eavy armour, does this mean that the Painboy must have 'eavy armour? Alternatively, is it permissible to equip a Painboy with 'eavy armour and/or a bosspole even though he's not a Nob?

A. It seems reasonably clear that only Nobz can have 'eavy armour or bosspoles, so if you upgrade a Nob to a Painboy those options are no longer available. While it might be argued that you could equip a Nob with 'eavy armour and a bosspole before upgrading him to a Painboy, the fact that the section headed 'Wargear' states that Painboyz have specific weapons (which replace the Nob's usual slugga and choppa) appears to rule this out. John Spencer has indicated that the Painboy does not get any of the Nob-specific options as he's no longer a Nob.

Q. When a Nobz mob is equipped with warbikes, do they get the "exhaust cloud" special rule?

A. Yes. It's clearly one of the special rules for warbikes (see page 46 of the codex).

Q. When you upgrade a Nob to a Painboy, can he keep his Nob equipment and gain the 'urty syringe?

A. No. The entry for the Painboy on page 98 of the codex says he 'replaces slugga and choppa with dok's tools and 'urty syringe'.


Q. Can a mob of Tankbustas which can see a vehicle which is out of range use the Run rule, or does it have to shoot at that vehicle?

A. The 'Glory Hog' rule states that Tankbustas have to 'shoot at and/or assault' a vehicle which is in line of sight, regardless of range. So the fact that the vehicle is out of range of their rokkits is immaterial as long as the Tankbustas can see it. The official FAQ says that the 'Glory Hog' rule applies "when shooting and in the Assault phase". Running takes place in the Shooting phase. The FAQ does not state explicitly that this rule applies during the Shooting phase, but it is likely that this is what was intended. The 'and/or' wording causes some confusion, but it seems clear that the Tankbustas will shoot whenever they can, and cannot forgo shooting in order to Run (even if Running will get them close enough to assault). So Tankbustas cannot Run instead of shooting if there is a vehicle in view. Phil Kelly has apparently confirmed this interpretation at a Games Day Q&A session.


Q. The entry for Gretchin states 'For every ten Gretchin you must take one Runtherd'. However, the unit composition summary states that the unit consists of '10-30 Gretchin and 1-3 Runtherds'. What is the minimum number of Runtherds that must be taken? Is it 1 for every block of 10 Grots? This seems a bit odd, as you'd only be required to pay the points for a 3rd Runtherd if you take the full 30 Grots, and you can avoid taking a 2nd Runtherd by fielding 19 Grots. Is it possible to take 3 Runtherds with 10 Grots?

A. The answer is that it's not clear, although this doesn't explain why this seems to be the most frequently debated entry in the codex! The wording in question is similar to the wording for weapon upgrades for Boyz mobs, where it is accepted that you can only take 1 shoota or rokkit launcha for every block of 10 Boyz in the mob (so you need 30 Boyz to take the 3rd weapon upgrade). In the case of Gretchin mobs, however, the Runtherd is compulsory, so it is arguable that the entry only states the minimum required and you can take more Runtherds if you want to. The unit composition summary seems to support this interpretation, and a ratio of 1 for 1-10, 2 for 11-20 and 3 for 21-30 seems sensible.

However, we think that it is more likely that the intention was that you must take 1 Runtherd for every block of 10 Grots, and you can't take any more i.e. 10-19 Grots get one Runtherd, 20-29 Grots get 2 Runtherds and 30 Grots get 3 Runtherds. We think that if it was intended that you could take more Runtherds, the entry would say 'For every ten Gretchin you must take at least one Runtherd'. Also, in the White Dwarf 348, Phil Kelly's army list (on page 69) includes a mob of 12 Grots with 1 Runtherd. This supports the argument that you only need an extra Runtherd for every block of 10 Grots. This does mean that a player looking to avoid paying the points for a second Runtherd will be able to legally field 19 Grots and 1 Runtherd, but given the fact we're talking about a weedy Grot mob this shouldn't be a big deal to any sensible opponent.

If you want to avoid any confusion and arguments over your army list (or you're facing a rules lawyer), we suggest that you purchase your Grot mobs in blocks of 10+1 Runtherds - either 10+1, 20+2, or 30+3. These combinations are acceptable under both interpretations.

Dedicated Transport Vehicles

Q. Can the passengers on a Trukk which has Rammed another vehicle and been destroyed engage in an assault in that turn?

A. In order to Ram, a vehicle must be a Tank. So a Trukk can only Ram if it has a reinforced ram AND you interpret the rules for the reinforced ram as allowing Trukks to Ram (see the answer to this question above). The attacking vehicle must also move at the highest speed it is capable of. Passengers cannot disembark from a Fast vehicle which has moved flat out (if you accept that Trukks can Ram, this will affect Trukks, but it will not affect Looted Wagons or Battlewagons because they are not Fast). If the vehicle is open-topped (i.e. it has not been equipped with the 'ard case upgrade), then passengers can assault after disembarking even if the vehicle has moved - the rules do not say that this disembarkation must be voluntary, so this presumably includes involuntary disembarkation as a result of the vehicle being destroyed (provided the passengers pass their Pinning test). It therefore appears that the passengers cannot assault after disembarking from a Trukk which has been destroyed after a Ram attack, but can assault after disembarking from a Battlewagon or Looted Wagon which has been destroyed after Ramming.

Remember that the passengers cannot disembark within 1" of an enemy unit, so if the target vehicle is still 'alive' the passengers cannot disembark within 1" of it; the same applies to any models that have disembarked from the target vehicle.

Q. Can the passengers on a Trukk fire their weapons if the Trukk has moved flat out? Can they disembark after it's moved flat out, then fire their weapons?

A. The rule for shooting out of fire points (page 66) says the passengers can't shoot if the vehicle "moved at cruising speed that turn" (which is more than 6", up to 12"). The fact that the transport is open-topped doesn't affect this (although all of the passengers can shoot from an open-topped vehicle). There is a specific sub-section dealing with Fast transports (page 70), but it only deals only with disembarking. If they'd intended passengers to be able to shoot out of Fast vehicles which are moving at cruising speed then it would be there. So passengers can only shoot if the vehicle is stationary or moves at combat speed (i.e. 6" or less).

The passengers can disembark from the Trukk provided it does not move flat out (i.e. provided it moves no more than 12"). They will count as having moved for the purposes of shooting attacks. This means if you want a unit of Shoota Boyz in a Trukk to be able to shoot after moving 6" or more they will have to disembark first.


Q. Are Boss Zagstruk and his Vulcha Squad able to Run as well as assult in the same turn in which they Deep Strike?

A. No. They can either Run or assault, but not both.


Q. The codex entry for Warbikers says that that Warbikers have a special rule called "exhaust cloud" which gives them a 4+ cover save. Page 46 of the 'Forces of the Orks' section says that Warbikes confer a 4+ armour save. Is this as a typo or are they 2 seperate rules, so that they have both a 4+ armour save in combat and a 4+ cover save for shooting?

A. They are 2 separate rules. You get a 4+ armor save, as well as the 'exhaust cloud' special rule. This means you get a 4+ armor save for anything that would negate cover, as well as a 4+ cover save for any ranged shooting that would negate your armor save.

"If you wants to understan' an enemy, you gotta walk a mile in his shoes. Den, if he's still your enemy, at least you're a mile away and he's got no shoes." Plateau, trollish philosopher