Topic: "For Every 10" rule interpretation

[Bishop46360]

...this applies to Grots and Boyz. The codex says "for every 10" you need either a Slaver or can take a special weapon. How are we handling groupings of 15? Do they get only one because they don't yet have 2 groupings of 10, or do they get two for having one complete grouping of 10 and another partial grouping of 10?

[Sobek]

They'd get one. It's one for every full count of 10.

[Mr.Vincent]

Agreed,it's one for every full block of 10.

[Gutstikk]

I'm waiting for a few more people to weigh in, but if this is the consensus, Grots are much less expensive than I previously thought and may actually be a valuable unit.

[Ollieb]

The way I read it is you need a full 10 Boyz to get the second weapon.  For Grots you need a Runtherder for every block of 10 you start filling so at 10 you need 1, for 11-20 you need 2 and so on. 

[Kristovich]

I'd go for the same approach as Ollieb.

[Rasmus]

The way the term is used in mathmatics are surprisngly straightforward.

1 for a group of 10
2 for a group of 20 (as they are two groups of 10)
3 for a group of 30

15 would get 1, as they are not 20.

[Jehoel]

I'm with Rasmus on this. One herder can handle 19 grots before he needs help. (hey, us teachers got it worse in our classrooms)

[EngeKomkommer]

The way I read it is you need a full 10 Boyz to get the second weapon.  For Grots you need a Runtherder for every block of 10 you start filling so at 10 you need 1, for 11-20 you need 2 and so on. 

Thats what I assumed at first, BUT...
They are both worded in the exact same way so either:
10-19 = at least 1 runtherd/upto 1 special weapon
Or
11-20 = at least 2 runtherds/upto 2 speical weapons

I'm starting to think the first, but since they are worded the same way, I doubt it's a mix of the two.

[Bishop46360]

...this still hasn't cleared anything up for me at all HAHHA.... FAAAAQ!

[Sobek]

Just go for 1 for every full block of 10. Keep it simple. At least until GW gets around to doing a much needed FAQ for the Codex.

[Badb Catha]

Everyone agrees that for boyz squads it's a simple (Number of Boyz) / 10, rounding down for special weapons.  But, if that's the case with grotz, why would you ever take 30 of them?  Why would the squad size be 10-30?  If it's that way, 29 grotz needs 2 runtherds, but to buy that one more grot costs you 13 pts. 

Also, they're not worded exactly the same.  You may take a special weapon for every 10 orks; you must take a runtherd for every then grotz.  I think RAW makes it out to they're both the same, but I think GW intended it to be interpreted the way Ollieb put it.

[Ollieb]

I look at it as 10 Grots are all a Runtherder can keep his eyes on.  With 11 he would loose control and would be in a situation where he is trying to herd cats.

[Fire Chicken]

The way the term is used in mathmatics are surprisngly straightforward.

1 for a group of 10
2 for a group of 20 (as they are two groups of 10)
3 for a group of 30

15 would get 1, as they are not 20.

As unusual as it may seem Rasmus, I think your conclusions are wrong based on the evidence you presented.

If you have 1-10 you need one herder.  If you have 11 that is one group of 10 plus 1 out of the second group of 10.  Each group of 10 needs 1 herder.  So 15 is 10/10 and 5/10 = 2 sets of x/10.  That may not be RAI but it is maths.  I think people are wishfully adding the term "full" to each group forgetting that incomplete groups are still groups.

[reallifejon]

I think Rasmus _is_ right on this.   Not only is the wording the same as with boys and heavy weapons, but the minimum squad size affects the decision in the same way.

Noone seems to be arguing over the boys to heavy weapons ratio.   If you want 3 heavy weapons, you really do have to pay for a full 30 orks.

I see it the same way with grots.   You _have_ to buy 10, and must have a runtherd.   As with boys, you can buy more.   But you can't just have a million cheap grots.   Once you have 20, you need a second runtherd.

Also, to say 11+ grots _needs_ 2 runtherds minimum is _almost_ to say that every grot mob must have 2 runtherds, as only the most minimal grot mob is going to have a meagre 10 grots.

BUT; as with heavy weapons, some people might want grot mobs for the runtherds rather than for the grots.   So, as with heavy weapons in boys mobs, if you _want_ to take 3, then you've got to take the full 30 grots.   I don't see it as being 'the 30th grot costs 13 points'.   If you're trying to take lots of grots, there's not a huge difference between 29 and 30.   If you are trying to take lots of runtherds, you can't just take a whole army of them without taking tons of grots to go with them.

So I'd say the maths works the same way for both units.   You need a full group of 10 for each weapon/slaver.   The only difference is that wheras with boyz' weapons, the upgrade is optional, with grots, it's compulsory.

[Fire Chicken]

There is a difference between a threshold # and a minimum.
Grots= Minimum.  1-10= 1 boss.  11-20 = 2 boss...
Heavy= Threshold.  If you have 10 or more then you can have x.  Then if you have 20 or more then you can have 2x

If was the same for space wolves.  750pts = 1 HQ.  So in an 800 pt. game you needed 2 HQ.

[Zomro]

There is a difference between a threshold # and a minimum.
Grots= Minimum.  1-10= 1 boss.  11-20 = 2 boss...
Heavy= Threshold.  If you have 10 or more then you can have x.  Then if you have 20 or more then you can have 2x

If was the same for space wolves.  750pts = 1 HQ.  So in an 800 pt. game you needed 2 HQ.

You are correct on the statement of the difference between a threshold and a minimum.  But, the issue is that both unit entries are either both a threshold or both a minimum.  With the same wording of "for every 10...", it's highly unlikely for one to be a minimum and the other to be a threshold.

Now, we all know that some of GW's rules can be ambiguous at best, but in this situation, it would've been very simple for them to have worded them differently if they intended one to be the minimum and one to be the threshold.  "For every grouping of 10..." or "for every block of 10..." would have been a much better conveyance of a minimum, I believe.  That shows that for every grouping of 10, no matter what number they're at, would open up either the option (boyz) or the cumpulsory (runtherds).

What I've seen so far is that people have been focusing on the optional vs. mandatory aspect of the ruling to justify the stance of how it works.  Doesn't matter what the rule is after the "for every 10...", because that's the important part.  Just because you must take a runtherd for every 10 gretchin doesn't change the requirement of what number of gretchin is required.

Now, we'd all be very happy for GW to just go ahead and FAQ this and just sort it all out, but we have no idea when it's going to happen.  Until then, the way the threshold is worded, "for every 10", it seems, to me at least, that it's either a treshold for both, or a minimum for both.

At least, that's my 2 cents on it.

[Banned Solorg]

Maybe it will be cleared up in the 5th Ed Ork Codex.

[Gutstikk]

I think I've got to agree with Rasmus' interpretation, due to reallifejohn's description and with Zomro's statement about the wording. The wording is virtually identical, and "for every ten" should be interpreted the same both times regardless. Nobody disputes a minimum of 20 boyz to get 2 big shootas. So I'm inclined to think this wording is correct. Additionally, as reallifejohn points out, some may just want the slavers more than the grotz.

Even though Ollieb's scenario is the one my imagination agrees with the most, I think it's gotta be the other way [15 grotz forces 1 and only 1 slaver to be taken].

[Deathklok]

I agree with realifejohn as well.

 Think of it like this, why would the first Slaver be able to handle 19 Grots, and the rest only 10?