Can we axiomatize Omnific Integers without the Surreal Number system? Omnific integers are the counterpart in the Surreal numbers of the integers. The surreal numbers are usually defined using set theory, and then the omnific integers are defined as a particular subset (or rather subclass) of them. My question is, does it have to be this way? Is it possible to give a first-order axiomatization of the Omnific integers and their arithmetic, without having to define the surreal numbers themselves? I know they form a proper class, so there is a risk that they may be "too big" to describe. But Tarksi gave a first-order axiomatization for the ordinal numbers, which also form a proper class, so at least we have some hope.
The reason I'm interested is because of this question I asked a while back, about finding a nonstandard model of (Robinson) arithmetic whose field of fractions forms a real closed field.  The Omnific integers form such a nonstandard model, so I want to find out whether we can axiomatize them. 
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank You in Advance.
EDIT: To be clear, I don't want an axiomatization of the Omnific Integers that's based on something else, like the real numbers, the surreal numbers, or set theory.  I want a theory along the lines of Peano Arithmetic.
EDIT 2: As Emil said, it seems that a recursive axiomatization of the Omnific integers is impossible.  So might we define them in some other way, without reference to the surreal numbers (or the real numbers)?
 A: Here’s a couple of observations from my comment above.
First, the theory of omnific integers is a complete extension of Robinson’s arithmetic, hence it is not recursively axiomatizable. This makes it rather unlikely that we can describe its full axiomatization in any reasonable way.
Surreal numbers No form a real-closed field, and omnific integers Oz are its subring, hence they make an ordered ring. In fact, it is known that Oz is an integer part of No (i.e., for any surreal number $r$ there exists a unique omnific integer $n$ such that $n\le r< n+1$), which—by a well-known result of Shepherdson—means that Oz is a model of IOpen (the theory of discretely ordered rings + induction for open formulas in the language of ordered rings). Moreover, the fraction field of Oz (namely, No) is real-closed; this can be expressed by a first-order axiom schema (let’s call it A), with one axiom for each degree. (This set of axioms can be simplified: in the presence of A, IOpen is equivalent to the theory of discretely ordered rings + division with remainder.)
On the other hand, Oz does not satisfy induction for larger classes such as $E_1$ (bounded existential formulas), nor does it satisfy algebraic axioms such as normality or gcd. The reason is that such axioms contradict A (or even its corollary that $\sqrt2$ is in the fraction field of Oz).
