Here's one way out there:

Are gretchen orks? No other ork unit is listed as 'ork' anywhere, and the whole book is listed as the 'ork' book. So is anything in it 'ork'?

If so, runtherdz have the mob rule. So they can replace their LD with the number of 'orks' in the unit.

So are 30 gretchen fearless?

I would say probably yea, i gotta look at it though. Its nicer in WHFB where they are all just greenskins.

Grots like orks and squigs are all fungal matter really. Waaagh that tail.

- G

Runtherdz have the Mob Rule, Gretchin do not. 30 Gretchin are not Fearless, and using their Runtherds' Mob Rule will give them, at maximum, Ld3.

Seriously, there's a thread in this forum where someone is claiming that Devilfish are not dedicated transports, and then you start this thread? What's up with you people?

if we're talking fluff I think gretchin are just little orks like nobs are big orks.

Maybe this is a question for the guys over at the WAAGH forums.

They are biologically similar to orks. However since they are weedier than a proppa ork they do not have the same mentality or disposition as orks and are denied access to the better things in the armory.

The WAAAAGH! rule makes the difference clear that grots are exceptions to all things orkish in warfare because they are weedy. Because of that they do not count as orks for puproses of Mob Rule.

Mauleed:

I don't think there is anything that explicity proves you wrong but the Ork codex has some real issues with units apparently being mislabeled with special rules they can't use.


Several units (such as Stormboyz and Deffkoptas) are listed as having 'Waaagh!' on their rules pages even though the power has no effect on them. Then you look in their army list entries and you see that there is no 'Waaagh!' listed.

Its just a hunch, but I think the same may be true of Runtherds and the 'Waaagh!' & 'mob rul' special rules. For example, the Runtherd in the Big Gunz unit (which references back to the same Runtherd entry in the rules pages) is not listed as having these special rules in the army list entry.

I'm thinking that if they ever do a FAQ or a typo re-print those rules will be removed.

But that's not going to help in the here and now.

After reading it several times, here's what I've come up with:

1. The runtherd has the mob rule, so he's LD whatever the unit size is. And if there are 11 models, he is fearless.
2. The mob itself doesn't have the rule, so it can't be fearless. And the runtherd's fearlessness is irrelevant.

That's the only way I see it working with the rules they have in place right now, though I don't doubt it will be FAQed away.

Anyone see any verbage to show I'm missing something?

Maybe if you showed what you were reading and how you were reading it, we could point out what you're missing, or what you got wrong, or certify one of your conclusions as correct.

mauleed wrote:But that's not going to help in the here and now.

After reading it several times, here's what I've come up with:

1. The runtherd has the mob rule, so he's LD whatever the unit size is. And if there are 11 models, he is fearless.
2. The mob itself doesn't have the rule, so it can't be fearless. And the runtherd's fearlessness is irrelevant.

That's the only way I see it working with the rules they have in place right now, though I don't doubt it will be FAQed away.

Anyone see any verbage to show I'm missing something?

"Ork mobs may always substitute the number of Orks in their mob for their normal Leadership value. If an Ork mob numbers 11 or more models, it has the Fearless special rule."

The first two words in the Gretchin unit entry are "Gretchin mob" so I'd say it's safe to say they aren't fearless. As far as substituting ld is concerned it says # of Orks so I guess they're stuck with their basic leadership value.

The get a re-roll from squig hounds. Statistically that probably puts their ld up to about ld9 I'd guess. (re-roll 7 ~ 9, re-roll 6 ~ 8)

Tacobake wrote:The first two words in the Gretchin unit entry are "Gretchin mob" so I'd say it's safe to say they aren't fearless. As far as substituting ld is concerned it says # of Orks so I guess they're stuck with their basic leadership value.

If that's the case then Nobz, Meganobz, burnaboyz, lootas, tankbustas, etc. don't get the benefit of the rule either, since only ork boyz are specifically listed as 'orks'.

mauleed wrote:

Tacobake wrote:The first two words in the Gretchin unit entry are "Gretchin mob" so I'd say it's safe to say they aren't fearless. As far as substituting ld is concerned it says # of Orks so I guess they're stuck with their basic leadership value.

If that's the case then Nobz, Meganobz, burnaboyz, lootas, tankbustas, etc. don't get the benefit of the rule either, since only ork boyz are specifically listed as 'orks'.

ah ic lemme come up with a snappy answer.

yeah I see what you're saying, let's assume the grots are Orks. Bascically if the gretchin were going to be fearless they would have to be fearless themselves, they couldn't get it from the Runtherd.

But meanwhile the Runtherd is ld 10 because of the size of the mob, assuming gretchin count as an Ork Mob. That would be more RAI, stopping at ld10.

So they're an Ork Mob but they don't have the mob rule so they're not fearless.

or

they're not an Ork Mob, period.

In a friendly game I would let my opponent count them as ld 10 just because they're so useless anyway. If he paints up 30 grots he deserves a chance to see them do something.

No one cares what happens in friendly games.

so then what's the answer? ld10?

or is it just a wait for FAQ issue.

'Bout the closest I can come to defining Gretchin as being distinct from Orks is on page 6.

Page 6 seems good enough to me. No LD 10 for the grots!

Yeah, while the gretchin are Orks (fluff wise), they're not orks (game rule wise).

The gretchin definatley don't have mob rulle, furious charge of waaagh!. Those rules are listed as "Special Rules (Runtherds)". The only special rule gretchin get are "Special Rules (Gretchin): It's a Grot's Life".

The thing I find interesting is that the Runtherd get's Mob Rule & he's supposed to keep the gretchin in line. Does this mean he can count the gretchin towards his Mob Rule?

I'd say no .... mainly because the 'mob rule' rule only mentions orks (which is a shame IMO).

The do have the option of taking a squig hound (re-roll morale tests) which I guess is better than nothin. Though it is odd that they would include a special rule that the mob can't use.

Since there is no definition of an Ork and the Waagh! rules if anything seem to define Gretchin as weedier Orks, I would be inclined to give you the Mob rule benefit if you wanted it (although I would still expect the eventual someday FAQ to rule otherwise if they address the question). However, any Warboss who advances the theory that something as weedy as a Grot is an equal to the Boyz should expect a corresponding amount of verbal harrauging for it.

Fluff or not, page 6 seems to pretty clear show that grots aren't orks.

mauleed wrote:Fluff or not, page 6 seems to pretty clear show that grots aren't orks.

How is it clear? Isn't P.6 of Codex: Orks background material?

Well, the mob could be fearless... in apocolypce.

Just get 30 grots + 3 slavers + 10 warbosses joining the mob. Now the mob is fearless. That wasn't that hard, right?

Yea, I'm not sure there is an amazing argument against it by a RAW point of view, but seriously, p. 6 shows fairly well how this doesn't work (except for example above).

Okay, so how does P.6 of Codex: Orks (presumably) show this?

"Gretchin have a similar physiology to the Orks, though they are not as strong or tough. . . . Sometimes known as Grots, Gretchin are more numerous than Orks. . . ."

The grammar here make it clear that Gretchin are not Orks. Of course, this is just a description, not a rule, so make of it what you will.

Nurglitch wrote:

mauleed wrote:Fluff or not, page 6 seems to pretty clear show that grots aren't orks.

How is it clear? Isn't P.6 of Codex: Orks background material?

There's no section that says 'these aren't rules, ignore this.'

Unfortunatley it doesn't come down to page 6 (as much as I like the idea of fluff as rules .... well that's a discussion for elsewhere.).

The relevant sections of the codex (pg 50 & 100) say that the gretchin don't have mob rule.

Even though the runtherd does have the Mob Rule, it's not clear if the gretchin count towards it? I'd have to say no on the basis that the gretchin don't have the rule. If we were talking about a group of 10 runtherds, or if gretchin had Mob Rule, it would be easy.

Ok, this may be genius or just stupid. Not having seen a copy of the codex I'll go for the later but...

Imagine a huge mob of grots on the battlefield babbling away, a few getting some shots of while the poor slave driver whips them slowly towards the enemy. The grots are so stupid they dont realy get whats going on and keep shooting in the direction of the enemy rather than at them, purly becuase it stops them getting whipped. As they get closer and see epople start to hack each other appart they panic and run away, leaving the bemused slaver on his own wondering what happens before he realises he's now along and in the s###, then he flees. To me that's how a grot mob would act on the battlefield.

Putting this in a game, I'd say that the mob rule could be used, but would only affect the leadership of the ORK, so the slavers ld goes up while the grots are too stupid to benefit from it - the orks is up becuase he's 'bigger' and his head swells up with biggness, that and he's also busy whipping the grots to concentrate on anything else. Now if he was an IC (or maybe has the ability for the mob to take ld tests at his ld - I' don't know this detail) than the mob will generally pass due to the high leadershiop representing them stupidly moving forward not knowing whats going on. As they take fire and casulaties the ld starts to drop - grots realise somethings going horribly wrong for them. Eventually they panic and flee.

just my interpretation even if a bit wierd, but hey they're grots - they are weird!

Mauleed wrote:There's no section that says 'these aren't rules, ignore this.'

And so without that section, the background is clearly understood to be rules?

shirou wrote:The grammar here make it clear that Gretchin are not Orks. Of course, this is just a description, not a rule, so make of it what you will.

Or, you know, make of it what will satisfy the truth of the matter. In this case I'm still unclear on the relevance of the background to the rules.

It's additional information, which when read in context with what it says on pages 50 & 100, seems to make the intention reasonably clear. GW’s editing is still an embarrassment, but it’s clear enough for my general play purposes.

Mannahnin: How is it additional information? How can we read rules in the context of something that is irrelevant to them? More to the point, how exactly is the writer's intention relevant to what the text of the rules state? It seems cut and dried that Gretchin do not benefit from the Mob Rule because they do not have the rule.

Nurglitch wrote:Mannahnin: How is it additional information?

If one part of the book, even if it’s predominantly a fluff section, states implicitly that Orks and Gretchen are different creatures, then that’s useful information when another part of the book says that Orks benefit from special rules, then fails to tell you what counts as an Ork (unlike the Necron dex, which clearly states which models count as Necrons).

Nurglitch wrote:How can we read rules in the context of something that is irrelevant to them?

Because it’s not entirely irrelevant? If the writers and editors fail to put useful information in the logical and intuitive place to look for it, we start look around to see if we can find it elsewhere.

Nurglitch wrote:More to the point, how exactly is the writer's intention relevant to what the text of the rules state?

Because if the rule isn’t clear, one possible route by which to decide how to play it is to deduce the designer’s intention. It’s no good for debate, but in terms of the practical matter of how to come to an agreement with an opponent, I’ve certainly seen it work.

Nurglitch wrote:It seems cut and dried that Gretchin do not benefit from the Mob Rule because they do not have the rule.

I agree that the most useful information is the unit info on p50 & 100, of which the biggest element is that gretchin themselves lack the rule. But snce some models in the unit do, and some others don’t, it’s not as cut & dried as I’d like. There's a little room there for people to get confused, so having this additional reference in the codex to show them could be helpful if it comes up in a game.

Mannahnin wrote:If one part of the book, even if it’s predominantly a fluff section, states implicitly that Orks and Gretchen are different creatures, then that’s useful information when another part of the book says that Orks benefit from special rules, then fails to tell you what counts as an Ork (unlike the Necron dex, which clearly states which models count as Necrons).

That just begs the question, in the colloquial sense. What makes that useful information?

Mannahnin wrote:Because it’s not entirely irrelevant? If the writers and editors fail to put useful information in the logical and intuitive place to look for it, we start look around to see if we can find it elsewhere.

But it is entirely irrelevant, and the writers and editors have put useful information in the logical and intuitive place as laid out by the scheme conveniently found in the book. By this schema we would expect to find the Ork Special Rules in both of two places, and we do not find in either place, either in the unit description or the army list entry, a citation o the Mob Rule.

Mannahnin wrote:Because if the rule isn’t clear, one possible route by which to decide how to play it is to deduce the designer’s intention. It’s no good for debate, but in terms of the practical matter of how to come to an agreement with an opponent, I’ve certainly seen it work.

Considering that it has been proven to be impossible to deduce a writer or designers intentions from a product then it seems that doing so is not a possible route to figuring out what the rules mean, nor a useful route to deciding how the particular players in the game at issue should play it. If you've seen this work then what you've basically done is confuse correlation with causation (clairvoyance is another example of something that many people have seen 'work', but is simply a correlation that occurs when other causal factors are at work).

Mannahnin wrote:I agree that the most useful information is the unit info on p50 & 100, of which the biggest element is that gretchin themselves lack the rule. But since some models in the unit do, and some others don’t, it’s not as cut & dried as I’d like. There's a little room there for people to get confused, so having this additional reference in the codex to show them could be helpful if it comes up in a game.

It's pretty cut and dried, if you pay attention to the Mob Rule and who has it in the unit. The Runtherds have the rule, the Gretchin don't. The Gretchin mob is an Ork unit, so the Gretchin mob may substitute its Ld for the number of Orks (those models with the Mob Rule) in the unit. If people take the time to work it out carefully, then they shouldn't get confused.

Your posts make baby jesus cry.

mauleed wrote:Your posts make baby jesus cry.

Beautiful Ed, just simply beautiful.

mauleed wrote:Your posts make baby jesus cry.

Seconded

mauleed wrote:Your posts make baby jesus cry.

Beast wrote:Beautiful Ed, just simply beautiful.

FearPeteySodes wrote:Seconded

Nice flaming.

Not flaming, just an observation. He really is crying if you listen.

They are just bitter, ignore them.

I wont get into the specifics of this issue cause I really just dont care or have the reference material to check it out, but I'd have to say that arguing about incomplete, and it IS incomplete from what everyone is saying, material and trying to put solid form to it based on that incomplete material is both difficult and will be at times impossible.
Example: While you can tell what an unfinished painting should be if enough of it is done, but you'll never know what was the rest of it. Not through intent or by design and prediction of the artists past drawings. The only way is to ask the artist to finish it.

I'm part of the group "everyone", and I say that the information is complete and sufficient.

DUDES DUDES DUDES AND DUDETTES!!! Orks and grots is fungal all.

- G(reeen!)

The Gretchin mob is an Ork unit, so the Gretchin mob may substitute its Ld for the number of Orks (those models with the Mob Rule) in the unit.

I think your are conflating Ork with "thing that has the mob rule." I don't have the codex so I might well be wrong, but I was unaware of any indication that limited Orks as being things with the Mob rule.
That being the case, by your logic the Gretchin wouldn't be fearless, but their runt herd would in fact be Ld10 as a possibility. That hinges on Gretchen being or not being "orks" with or without the mob rule.

Alternately, I notice that the unit's leadership becomes higher, not the models that make it up. That might be useful, but I don't see how now.

No, I'm not conflating Ork with "thing that has the Mob Rule". I'm saying that that Mob Rule only counts models that have it. By my logic, since the Gretchin do not have the Mob Rule, the best the unit could hope for by using that rule would be having three Runtherdz for Ld3.

I see. Your previous sentance did not make that clear I'm afraid.
I don't know that the rule only counts models that have it, but it might. I don't have it here to read.

I'm gonna have to visit one of the plagues on myself for saying this, but I think I agree with Nurglich. The codex entry for the gretchin only lists "It's a grot's life" as a special rule for them. I'm also inclined to think that without further clarification that only the runtherds benefit from each other's presence.

The only other comment I have to make is: Games workshop needs to seriously keep these things under the hood longer than they do. The !(*& that passes for finished publications in all manner of board and table top games is unacceptable.

I hope noone is insulting Canadians in this thread.

Have we agreed that Gretchin are not Orks? I think the whole point of Gretchin is that they're very cowardly; even a massive army of them would be a little on the skittish side I don't see them getting any strength in their numbers like Orks do.

tacobake wrote:Have we agreed that Gretchin are not Orks?

This is Dakka Dakka, if god published a rule book to the universe we could find every single ambiguity and argue them until god either smote us all or published a FAQ. Let's just all agree to disagree and then mutter under our breath about how we're right.

Wehrkind wrote:I see. Your previous sentance did not make that clear I'm afraid.

How was it not clear? I'm asking so I can be clear next time.

Wehrkind wrote:I don't know that the rule only counts models that have it, but it might. I don't have it here to read.

On the face of it, the rule does not state that it only counts models that have it. But we can assume that as a general rule for Special Rules and Wargear that their rules only count the models that have it. The fact that Runtherds have Sluggas does not permit Gretchin to use Sluggas instead of their Blastas, so the fact that the Runtherds have Mob Rule does not permit Gretchin to count towards the number of Orks when they do not have that rule.

Dr Phibes wrote:This is Dakka Dakka, if god published a rule book to the universe we could find every single ambiguity and argue them until god either smote us all or published a FAQ. Let's just all agree to disagree and then mutter under our breath about how we're right.

I disagree with the whole "agree to disagree" stuff. I agreed to disagree when I posted in this thread. That's sort of the point.

I agree with Nurglitch on this one... (baby jesus just started screaming...)

Maybe I need to think this through a bit more thoroughly... This can't be right...

Just kidding Nurgly... We all love you.

Nurglitch wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:I see. Your previous sentance did not make that clear I'm afraid.

How was it not clear? I'm asking so I can be clear next time.

Wehrkind wrote:I don't know that the rule only counts models that have it, but it might. I don't have it here to read.

On the face of it, the rule does not state that it only counts models that have it. But we can assume that as a general rule for Special Rules and Wargear that their rules only count the models that have it. The fact that Runtherds have Sluggas does not permit Gretchin to use Sluggas instead of their Blastas, so the fact that the Runtherds have Mob Rule does not permit Gretchin to count towards the number of Orks when they do not have that rule.

now hold on a minute, it doesn't say anywhere that you have to have the Mob Rule to be an Ork. It just says that someone with the Mob Rule, which Runt Herds do, has a leadership value dependant on the # of orks in the squad.

Tacobake wrote:
now hold on a minute, it doesn't say anywhere that you have to have the Mob Rule to be an Ork. It just says that someone with the Mob Rule, which Runt Herds do, has a leadership value dependant on the # of orks in the squad.

Yeah and that's the rub. Do grots count as orks for the purposes of mob rule checks for the herd? So far, it seems that the runtherder does not convey the Mob Rule ability onto his grots because the grots don't count as orks and therefore can't lend their weight of numbers to the check.

I'm not convinced yet though. More discussion is needed (at least for me). I will lurk on this one...

well, page 31 states "all friendly Ork infantry units have the 'fleet of foot' rule (not Gretchin units, they're far too weedy for a proper Waaagh!)

that specifically differentiates Ork units and Gretchin units, does it not?

so where does it specifically state they are the same?

Tacobake: No, it doesn't say anywhere that only Orks have the Mob Rule, that's just how Special Rules and Wargear work in 40k.

Nurglitch wrote:Tacobake: No, it doesn't say anywhere that only Orks have the Mob Rule, that's just how Special Rules and Wargear work in 40k.

it does actually. under the Mob Rule! description, again on 31.

"Because of this, Ork mobs may always"

it doesnt say "friendly units"
or "allies"
or "gretchin mobs" (which is listed two paragraphs above)
Ork mobs.

how did I mis-read that?

I'm not sure you did. "Ork Mobs" means all units in Codex: Orks.

Nurglitch wrote:I'm not sure you did. "Ork Mobs" means all units in Codex: Orks.

I'm going to call you on that one, just for the sake of argument. It doesn't necessarily say that.

Analogy.

Everything in the Tyranid Codex is a Tyranid.
Everything in the Eldar Codex is an Eldar.

but.

Not everything in the Imperial Guard Codex is an Imperial Guardsman.

So say if Guardsmen had a rule that said, "All guardsmen units in 12" could use the Officer's leadership." this rule wouldn't necessarily be applied to say Ogryns or Ratlings, and you could argue fluff-wise both ways. You could say that they're lacking in discipline so they don't, and you could say that they're intelligent enough (despite rules such as Git in Dere! or whatever) and have been trained soldiers long enough that they can use the leadership just fine.

And regardless of any other codex that doesn't necessarily apply to Codex: Orks anyway.

I'm not sure you did. "Ork Mobs" means all units in Codex: Orks.

That's a false assumption. Killa Kanz and Warbuggies come in units of up to 3. You would not classify them as Orks though. They are an ork unit, and an Ork Mob is a designation independent of being a unit in the codex.

From what it appears, the only things that classify as "Ork Mobz" are designated by having "Mob Rule" in their special rules.

Tacobake: Yes, Ork units are the units found in Codex: Orks, just like Eldar units are those found in Codex: Eldar, and Imperial Guard units are those found in Codex: Imperial Guard. Perhaps amusingly, although all units in Codex: Chaos Space Marines are Chaos Space Marines, there is a specific unit "Chaos Space Marines".

Famder: In Codex: Orks "unit" and "mob" are used interchangeably.

Nurglitch wrote:Tacobake: Yes, Ork units are the units found in Codex: Orks, just like Eldar units are those found in Codex: Eldar, and Imperial Guard units are those found in Codex: Imperial Guard. Perhaps amusingly, although all units in Codex: Chaos Space Marines are Chaos Space Marines, there is a specific unit "Chaos Space Marines".

So Generic Demons, Greater Demons, Chaos spawn created from an enemy and Predators are "Chaos Space Marines"?

Nope.

snooggums wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Tacobake: Yes, Ork units are the units found in Codex: Orks, just like Eldar units are those found in Codex: Eldar, and Imperial Guard units are those found in Codex: Imperial Guard. Perhaps amusingly, although all units in Codex: Chaos Space Marines are Chaos Space Marines, there is a specific unit "Chaos Space Marines".

So Generic Demons, Greater Demons, Chaos spawn created from an enemy and Predators are "Chaos Space Marines"?

Nope.

They aren't? I played a guy with a chaos space marine army the other day, and he had daemons, so......

The point is that it's ambiguous. Sometimes the name of the book means every unit in it, and sometimes not. The necron book is nice enough to clearify, the rest are not. So planting any flags and doing any dances of joy seems a little ridiculous, no matter which side of the argument you're on.

Nurglitch wrote:I'm not sure you did. "Ork Mobs" means all units in Codex: Orks.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Just because it's Codex: Orks doesn't mean that everything in it is an Ork.

snooggums, Tacobake: Please pay attention to what I'm saying. I'm not saying that because something is in Codex: Chaos Space Marine it is a Chaos Space Marine, or that because something is in Codex: Orks it is an Ork.

I'm saying that all units in Codex: Chaos Space Marines are Chaos Space Marine units (and some Chaos Space Marine units are units of Chaos Space Marines! Other Chaos Space Marine units are Lesser Daemons, Obliterators, Chaos Terminators, etc).

Likewise all units in Codex: Orks are Ork units.

I'm talking about units. Units in a particular book are [Insert Book Subject Here] units.

Confusing Orks with Ork units is not a result of ambiguity on the part of the codex. The "orks" in the Mob Rule are the models with that rule. So Gretchin are not Orks, Deff Dreads are not Orks, Warbuggies are not Orks, Battlewagons are not Orks, Trukks are not Orks, Wargear such as Ammo Grotz and Attack Squigs are not Orks, and so on.

snooggums? lol. gosh.

Look, this is what I don't understand, maybe you can explain it to me. As I pointed out on the first page.

pg. 31, under Mob Rule!
"Ork mobs may ..."

hense the reason for determining if a gretchin mob is an Ork Mob. If "Ork Mobs" means every unit in Codex: Orks as you asserted, then gretchin would be an ork mob, and their numbers would then contribute to the Runtherd's number of Orks in the mob. This is the ld10 argument, where the Runtherd gets ld10 from the gretchin but the gretchin don't benefit from fearless because they themselves are not. But they _can_ use the Runtherd's leadership via the normal leadership rules.

I do understand what you're trying to say with your RAI argument where Gretchin don't have the Mob Rule! What you don't seem to understand is that the whole point of discussing this in the first place is the ambiguity of combing Runtherds (obviously Orks) with Gretchin.

And so the question remains:

Are Gretchin 'Orks'?

"Snoogums."

Dr Phibes wrote:

tacobake wrote:Have we agreed that Gretchin are not Orks?

This is Dakka Dakka, if god published a rule book to the universe we could find every single ambiguity and argue them until god either smote us all or published a FAQ. Let's just all agree to disagree and then mutter under our breath about how we're right.

Dr. Phibes, your truth is as transcendental as it is entertaining.

Tacobake:

I was addressing you and the poster named "snooggums". Likewise I make neither RAW nor RAI arguments.

When a unit of Gretchin shoot at another unit the unit cannot choose to use Sluggas instead of Blastas. The models with the Sluggas use the Sluggas, the models with the Blastas use the Blastas, and the shooting for the entire unit is resolved.

Similarly when a Gretchin Mob makes a Morale test or Pinning test the unit can make use of the Mob Rule of some of its members. It is an Ork Mob, since it is a unit in Codex: Orks and 'units' is interchangeable' with "mobs", but it only counts the number of models with that rule. Just like you only count the members of the unit with Sluggas when resolving shooting attacks with Sluggas.

I certainly understand that this is considered ambiguous by some people, but being found ambiguous and actually being ambiguous are too different things. This is not ambiguous. It sure looked it, but then I gave it a second and more careful look. Third thoughts suggest the second look is correct.

Nurglitch wrote:I was addressing you and the poster named "snooggums". Likewise I make neither RAW nor RAI arguments.

When a unit of Gretchin shoot at another unit the unit cannot choose to use Sluggas instead of Blastas. The models with the Sluggas use the Sluggas, the models with the Blastas use the Blastas, and the shooting for the entire unit is resolved.

Similarly when a Gretchin Mob makes a Morale test or Pinning test the unit can make use of the Mob Rule of some of its members. It is an Ork Mob, since it is a unit in Codex: Orks and 'units' is interchangeable' with "mobs", but it only counts the number of models with that rule. Just like you only count the members of the unit with Sluggas when resolving shooting attacks with Sluggas.

I certainly understand that this is considered ambiguous by some people, but being found ambiguous and actually being ambiguous are too different things. This is not ambiguous. It sure looked it, but then I gave it a second and more careful look. Third thoughts suggest the second look is correct.

ah ok ic. Yes, sorry about the snooggums confusion I can be a little quick to get touchy

I say RAI because you're saying gretchin don't apply to Mob Rule! because they themselves don't have the rule. This is exactly what RAI is, it's not written down anyplace so we have to make a 'common sense' or a 'friendly game' decision. Your wargear comparison is a simple RAW situation.

It's like the difference between the philosophy of law and actually being a lawyer or judge.

You should think of gaming rules as being like a computer program, and we are the unthinking CPUs.

Tactics and strategy notwithstanding .

It's not a RAI argument because it refers strictly to the written materials in question. I'm not saying this: the rules are saying this.

Runtherds have the Mob Rule! and Gretchin do not. That is what is written.

Runtherds are counted for resolving Slugga shooting. Gretchin are not. Likewise Runtherdz are counted for resolving the Mob Rule! Gretchin are not.

Nurglitch wrote:Tacobake:

I was addressing you and the poster named "snooggums". Likewise I make neither RAW nor RAI arguments.

When a unit of Gretchin shoot at another unit the unit cannot choose to use Sluggas instead of Blastas. The models with the Sluggas use the Sluggas, the models with the Blastas use the Blastas, and the shooting for the entire unit is resolved.

Similarly when a Gretchin Mob makes a Morale test or Pinning test the unit can make use of the Mob Rule of some of its members. It is an Ork Mob, since it is a unit in Codex: Orks and 'units' is interchangeable' with "mobs", but it only counts the number of models with that rule. Just like you only count the members of the unit with Sluggas when resolving shooting attacks with Sluggas.

I certainly understand that this is considered ambiguous by some people, but being found ambiguous and actually being ambiguous are too different things. This is not ambiguous. It sure looked it, but then I gave it a second and more careful look. Third thoughts suggest the second look is correct.

wow, that is apparently reading a lot of words that never appear in my Codex.

never does it say that "mobs" and "units" are the same. they ARE used interchagably. that said, a "mob" as defined does need to be from the Codex: Ork. but that does not make it a mob of Orks. all Orks make mobs. this does not make all mobs Orks.

for a point of reference Codex:Tyranids:
Hive Tyrants and Tyrant guards are not, I repeat NOT listed as broods. Boneswords never affect them (unless the tyrant is actually weilding one) as they specifically target "BROODS" RAW

Gretchin/Grots are (as I mentioned previously in this thread) specifically differentiated from Orks in the text of the Codex (31). yet they are NEVER stated to be the same in the text I have read.

/shrug

Nurglitch wrote:It's not a RAI argument because it refers strictly to the written materials in question. I'm not saying this: the rules are saying this.

Runtherds have the Mob Rule! and Gretchin do not. That is what is written.

Runtherds are counted for resolving Slugga shooting. Gretchin are not. Likewise Runtherdz are counted for resolving the Mob Rule! Gretchin are not.

By RAW: Runtherds have Sluggas (or whatever they have), so that's what they do and they do it at BS 2.
By RAW: Gretchin have Grot Blasters (or whatever it's called now), so that's what they do and they do it at BS 3.

It's called RAW because the rules for shooting their weapons is spelled out in the rulebook.

Now on the other hand, the Mob Rule! rule is explained on page 31 of the Ork codex. But it doesn't actually SAY that a model HAS to also have the Mob Rule! to count as extra models towards the count to see if the Runtherds have the Mob Rule! rule. All it says is "Ork mobs may ...".

If it actually SAID that, it would be RAW and there would be no debate.

But unfortunately it doesn't and therefore it is a RAI issue and we are forced to come to our own conclusions. If it came up in a game and we couldn't agree we would be forced to
a) d6 it (recommended)
b) throw things at each other (better?)
c) consult a higher power eg at a tournament

If you want to get fussy about it, Runtherds don't form a "mob" on their own anyway. One to three guys standing around inside a larger group of skittish gretchin does not a mob make.

I want to make clear what we're discussing here.

You're saying that Gretchin don't count towards Mob Rule! because they themselves don't have the rule.

I'm saying that that is a RAI argument, it's not a RAW argument. If it was a RAW argument it would be written down somewhere eg in a FAQ. I'm not saying it doesn't make sense. But as Mauleed pointed out, "No one cares about friendly games."

The overriding argument in the rest of the thread is if Gretchin count towards "Ork mobs may ...", and it looks like we've agreed on "no"/ FAQ issue/ agree to disagree, other than this RAI and RAW issue.

Bascically I'm saying your argument is invalid because it's a RAI argument it's not RAW.

kirsanth: When "mob" and "unit" are used interchangeably, the text says they are synonymous. And as I pointed out this does make all mobs in the Codex Orks by dint of being in Codex: Orks.

Likewise in Codex: Tyranids a "brood" is a "unit".

On P.31, Waaagh!, Gretchin are specifically an exception to a rule that covers the category of Ork infantry units. That tells us that Gretchin are an Ork unit. Specifically, infantry.

Tacobake:

That's cool, because I'm not talking about RAW, as I pointed out. I'm talking about the information in the rulebooks. Runtherds have Sluggas and Mob Rule!, Gretchin have Blastas and don't have Mob Rule!

On P.31 of Codex: Orks it says: "Ork mobs may always choose to substitute the number of Orks in their mob for their normal Leadership value."

The question, of course, being: "What does the term "Ork" refer to?"

That's easy, because the Mob Rule refers to Orks, just like It's A Grot's Life refers to Gretchin. Orks have Mob Rule! and Gretchin have It's a Grot's Life. This is not about what the writers may have intended or anything as stupid as that. The information is there in black and white. This is about what the rules state.

What it comes to in a game is irrelevant. The players could agree that the mob does not get to use Mob Rule!, or they could allow it to use Mob Rule! counting the Runtherds as "Orks", or they could allow it to use Mob Rule! counting the Gretchin. The point is how it gets played is irrelevant to what the rule actually is, and here we are concerned with what the rule actually is.

hmm, interesting.

so despite the fact that the tyrant guard are not a brood,
a unit of them can be targeted as a brood because they are in the tyranid codex?

wow, good news for me and my reading too hard.

but it sure explains why grots can be claimed to be orks!

Here I thought RAW actually needed to be written.
I guess I must have missed that rule somewhere, but I shall look.
If you get the motivation would you point me in the right direction?

Nurglitch wrote:kirsanth: When "mob" and "unit" are used interchangeably, the text says they are synonymous. And as I pointed out this does make all mobs in the Codex Orks by dint of being in Codex: Orks.

Likewise in Codex: Tyranids a "brood" is a "unit".

can you show me page numbers, please?

Nurglitch wrote:
That's cool, because I'm not talking about RAW, as I pointed out. I'm talking about the information in the rulebooks.

So it is your posit that RAW and what you are referring to as "information in the rulebooks" are not the same thing? May I ask what you think RAW is an acronym for?

Nurglitch wrote:
On P.31 of Codex: Orks it says: "Ork mobs may always choose to substitute the number of Orks in their mob for their normal Leadership value."

The question, of course, being: "What does the term "Ork" refer to?"

That's easy, because the Mob Rule refers to Orks, just like It's A Grot's Life refers to Gretchin. Orks have Mob Rule! and Gretchin have It's a Grot's Life. This is not about what the writers may have intended or anything as stupid as that. The information is there in black and white. This is about what the rules state.

Please give me a page number that says "Orks have the Mob Rule!, Gretchin have It's A Grot's Life, and that's how you can tell," because I can't find it.

Do you have any kind of background in logic? I'm just asking. Because what you may not understand is that being an Ork and being a Gretchin is not necessarily mutually exclusive. An Ork can be an Ork and just an Ork but just because a Gretchin is a gretchin does not mean that it is _also_ not an Ork.

Nurglitch wrote:
What it comes to in a game is irrelevant. The players could agree that the mob does not get to use Mob Rule!, or they could allow it to use Mob Rule! counting the Runtherds as "Orks", or they could allow it to use Mob Rule! counting the Gretchin. The point is how it gets played is irrelevant to what the rule actually is, and here we are concerned with what the rule actually is.

I agree 100%.

I hope you can find page numbers for your posits because I'm afraid I will have a hard time taking you seriously unless you do.

Discussions like this beg a thought I've been having for a long long time. Why can't GW have some sort of interactive page for each of their codices where you submit a question to the computer and it compiles the top 5 questions of the month and adds them to some RSS feed page that is an official FAQ type feed. This would be sorta the reach around we get to make up for the buggering GW gives out every time you have to buy an elite unit that's only sold in metal blisters of 1 or 2.

Tacobake wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
That's cool, because I'm not talking about RAW, as I pointed out. I'm talking about the information in the rulebooks.

So it is your posit that RAW and what you are referring to as "information in the rulebooks" are not the same thing? May I ask what you think RAW is an acronym for?

Do you have any kind of background in logic? I'm just asking. Because what you may not understand is that being an Ork and being a Gretchin is not necessarily mutually exclusive. An Ork can be an Ork and just an Ork but just because a Gretchin is a gretchin does not mean that it is _also_ not an Ork.

Good points. Your first might explain a lot... Kidding. Your second is interesting to this discussion and I had not viewed it that way. I'm not sure if it is necessarily relevant in this case, but I am still totally open to all points of view. Thanks.

Tacobake:

In Codex: Tyranids it's P.34. In Codex: Orks it's P.100.

RAW and what is stated in the rulebooks is not the same. RAW (a.k.a.: "Rules as Written") would demand that every rule in the book correspond to a sentence expressing it. But that would be stupid because not all of the rules expressed in the rulebooks are explicitly stated in sentences. Some of the rules stated in the rulebooks are encoded with charts, diagrams, formatting, and layout. Some are encoded by groups of sentences, and some are encoded as interactions between groups of sentences. That's just a fact of expressing rules in a natural language such as English, rather than a regimented artificial language such as those employed by mathematicians, logicians, and computer scientists.

In the case of Orks and Gretchin, an inclusive disjunct applies for some uses of the terms, and other times an exlusive disjunct applies because unlike in a regimented formal language terms in the language used in the Warhammer 40k rules allows terms to denote more than one referent.

As I've explained there are Ork units and units with Ork models in them. Ork models have the Waaagh! rule, and count towards the number of 'Orks' specified in that rule when it is applied to Ork units.

As for my background in logic? I've done some graduate work in it but it's an area of interest, not my specialty. Currently I'm working on applying non-well-founded semantics to problems in decision theory and ethics.

Nurglitch wrote:It's not a RAI argument because it refers strictly to the written materials in question. I'm not saying this: the rules are saying this.

Runtherds have the Mob Rule! and Gretchin do not. That is what is written.

Runtherds are counted for resolving Slugga shooting. Gretchin are not. Likewise Runtherdz are counted for resolving the Mob Rule! Gretchin are not.

So you are makeing a RAW argument.

I agree that Gretchin don't count towards the "mob rule" because they don't have said rule. Therefore the gretchin may not use the number of runtherds to modify their leadership (I don't know why you would want to) again because they don't have the rule.

Tacobake wrote:Please give me a page number that says "Orks have the Mob Rule!, Gretchin have It's A Grot's Life, and that's how you can tell," because I can't find it.

page 50 & pg 100
Each mob has it's special rules listed seperatley in the sections labeled: Special Rules (Runtherds) & Special Rules (Gretchin)

Dr Phibes wrote:Discussions like this beg a thought I've been having for a long long time. Why can't GW have some sort of interactive page for each of their codices where you submit a question to the computer and it compiles the top 5 questions of the month and adds them to some RSS feed page that is an official FAQ type feed. This would be sorta the reach around we get to make up for the buggering GW gives out every time you have to buy an elite unit that's only sold in metal blisters of 1 or 2.

I have wondered the same thing myself many times. I also wonder why they don't update their FAQs more frequently.

A lot of dakkites have the attitude "nobody cares about friendly matches" ... it's starting to look like GW has the attitude "nobody cares about competative matches". It's almost like GW doesn't support competative play and wants to eliminate it as part of the hobby. This is very evident (to me) haveing read many of the recent Standard Bearers in the WD & have read alot of what GW has said about Apoc and the direction they're trying to take the hobby.

Not sure if they want to eliminate it from the hobby or not. They may not actively support and sponsor tourney play, but they won't be able to eliminate it without a complete destruct of the game as it is now. Why would they go to all that trouble.

I do agree with you though that they seem to be moving away from it. Probably because things are tight in GW-land and large-scale tourney seasons probably don't bring in any real profits for the effort that must go into them.

Meep357:

No. That is not a RAW argument. A RAW argument would be pointing to a sentence and saying that its literal reading solves the problem.

Nurglitch wrote:RAW and what is stated in the rulebooks is not the same. RAW (a.k.a.: "Rules as Written") would demand that every rule in the book correspond to a sentence expressing it. But that would be stupid because not all of the rules expressed in the rulebooks are explicitly stated in sentences. Some of the rules stated in the rulebooks are encoded with charts, diagrams, formatting, and layout. Some are encoded by groups of sentences, and some are encoded as interactions between groups of sentences. That's just a fact of expressing rules in a natural language such as English, rather than a regimented artificial language such as those employed by mathematicians, logicians, and computer scientists.

Nurgly- We don't really care what academia might define RAW should be (as you indicated from your statement). When we discuss RAW here, on Dakka YMDC, we are discussing what the rules in the BGB and the codeci say (including their interaction) and how the game must be played iaw with those rules as they are written. I'm surprised you really don't get that distinction.

I get that. It's just a stupid way of reading the rules.

Nurglitch wrote:I get that. It's just a stupid way of reading the rules.

Then why are you participating in the discussions? We are not in a classroom here. We don't care what academia might think of our hobby and how we conduct discussions about it. If you think it is stupid then start your own forum and do it how you like...

Nurglitch wrote:Tacobake:

In Codex: Tyranids it's P.34. In Codex: Orks it's P.100.

RAW and what is stated in the rulebooks is not the same. RAW (a.k.a.: "Rules as Written") would demand that every rule in the book correspond to a sentence expressing it. But that would be stupid because not all of the rules expressed in the rulebooks are explicitly stated in sentences.

Yes, that is what RAW is, and no it isn't stupid. They are the Rules As Written. If it's not expressed clearly it's not RAW, it's RAI and we're just guessing.

Nurglitch wrote:
Some of the rules stated in the rulebooks are encoded with charts, diagrams, formatting, and layout. Some are encoded by groups of sentences, and some are encoded as interactions between groups of sentences. That's just a fact of expressing rules in a natural language such as English, rather than a regimented artificial language such as those employed by mathematicians, logicians, and computer scientists.

OK true enough. How about this: Off topic, try and find me a rule that is explained solely via some other means than the semantics of the english language. Even a picture demonstrating LoS will have some kind of caption on it.

Nurglitch wrote:
In the case of Orks and Gretchin, an inclusive disjunct applies for some uses of the terms, and other times an exlusive disjunct applies because unlike in a regimented formal language terms in the language used in the Warhammer 40k rules allows terms to denote more than one referent.

Yes, this is what we're talking about. I'm assuming you're referring to the word, 'Ork'. In army list entries such as in an army builder program the terms 'ork' or 'gretchin' are labels. But we also have the expression, "Ork mob".

The problem is your misunderstanding of what RAW is. I'm not trying to be tiresome but the case at hand is the sentence, "All Ork mobs may ...". So via our inclusive disjunct gretchin can be considered an 'Ork mob' because they are a mob of infantry. Sorry if I gave you a hard time about it earlier, I was trying to find a fallacy in your logic, which was bugging me.

Nurglitch wrote:
Ork models have the Waaagh! rule

This is where the problem lies. It doesn't actually say under Mob Rule!, "Ork mobs may always choose to substitute the number of Orks in their mob that have the Mob Rule! rule for their normal Leadership value." It just says, "... choose to substitute the number of Orks ...".

So Gretchin don't have the Mob Rule! rule so they don't get any benefit from being in a mob. But the Runtherds do, and they may or may not benefit from the Gretchin, hence the debate.

What I'm trying to say is, and I know this sounds stupid. But you're shutting down the ld10 rule because you're trying to say that gretchin are exclusive from being Orks because they don't have the Mob Rule! rule. But the Mob Rule! rule doesn't say that the Orks within the mob have to have the Mob Rule! rule themselves. Hence it is a RAI issue, and not a RAW issue.

Beast:

I don't think academia cares about our hobby either. I've certainly learned they care very little about it and that I should keep my mouth shut about my involvement with it.

Regardless, I have an interest in my hobby, which just so happens to be our hobby. In particular I have an interest in how people conduct discussions about the rules because rules are my specialty, and how the community reads (or misreads) the rules affects my hobby experience. Since no one else seems to notice that RAW and RAI are stupid ways of reading the rules I speak out about it, and participate in discussions about it.

Nurglitch wrote:Beast:

I don't think academia cares about our hobby either. I've certainly learned they care very little about it and that I should keep my mouth shut about my involvement with it.

Regardless, I have an interest in my hobby, which just so happens to be our hobby. In particular I have an interest in how people conduct discussions about the rules because rules are my specialty, and how the community reads (or misreads) the rules affects my hobby experience. Since no one else seems to notice that RAW and RAI are stupid ways of reading the rules I speak out about it, and participate in discussions about it.

I understand your Billy Jack attitude towards the way we discuss things here on YMDC. You can speak out about it all you want, but you will have a hard time being taken seriously if you continue with your academia attitude towards this board and its practices. It comes across as very snobbish, arrogant and aloof. You may be an expert at 'rules' in academia, but the rest of us are not and don't want to be. We just want to understand and clarify how our hobby works. Applying academia-type rules disection is not what we do here. Trying to make us do that is the equivalent of jamming a square peg into a triangular hole... It just doesn't work- not to mention the fact that we see RAW as something very different than you (or academia). And you, the messenger of that effort, will continue to bear a lot of hostility. Or people will just start to ignore you...

Not being sarcastic so please don't take it that way. Just trying to enlighten you as to why a lot of people seem to be getting more and more hostile towards you.

Tacobake wrote:Yes, that is what RAW is, and no it isn't stupid. They are the Rules As Written. If it's not expressed clearly it's not RAW, it's RAI and we're just guessing.

No, RAW is only what is explicitly stated in the rules, rather than everything stated in the rules, as I've explained. RAW is asking for a sentence that states a rule, and reading that sentence literally. RAW and RAI are quite simply stupid theories of meaning that were abandoned decades ago by actual linguists.

Tacobake wrote:OK true enough. How about this: Off topic, try and find me a rule that is explained solely via some other means than the semantics of the english language. Even a picture demonstrating LoS will have some kind of caption on it.

The Warhammer 40k rules are poorly written, but not so poorly that any diagrams lack written explanations. They're just poorly written that not all written explanations have diagrams to reiterate their meaning more visually. The arrangement of falling back models in the fall back corridor is the closest thing you'll find as an answer to that request. My point is that the text does not exhaust the expression of the rules, and that their literal interpretation does not always suffice to state the rules of the game.

Tacobake wrote:This is where the problem lies. It doesn't actually say under Mob Rule!, "Ork mobs may always choose to substitute the number of Orks in their mob that have the Mob Rule! rule for their normal Leadership value." It just says, "... choose to substitute the number of Orks ...".

That's only a problem for RAW and a prime example of why RAW is stupid. That we would need the rules expressed in that manner in order for the rule to be stated clearly and unambiguously is false.

Tacobake wrote:So Gretchin don't have the Mob Rule! rule so they don't get any benefit from being in a mob. But the Runtherds do, and they may or may not benefit from the Gretchin, hence the debate.

Yes, I know that there's a debate and that people are debating this because they are confused about how, given that by RAW it's only clear when iterated in an English sentence (or several), the situation is resolved.

Tacobake wrote:What I'm trying to say is, and I know this sounds stupid. But you're shutting down the ld10 rule because you're trying to say that gretchin are exclusive from being Orks because they don't have the Mob Rule! rule. But the Mob Rule! rule doesn't say that the Orks within the mob have to have the Mob Rule! rule themselves. Hence it is a RAI issue, and not a RAW issue.

There's two reasons it sounds stupid, and that's (1) because my argument makes no reference to the intentions of the writers or what the rules should be, and (20 because my argument makes no reference to a sentence or sentences in English that state models with the Mob Rule! are "Orks" for the purposes of that rule and models without the Mob Rule! are not. It sounds stupid because you are applying a double-negative where no double-negative is applicable. RAW and RAI do not exhaust our options (or even begin our genuine options).

Take a mob of Ork Boyz, nine strong. Each model in that mob has the Mob Rule! Since the mob has the Mob Rule! they can replace their Leadership score with the number of Orks in the unit. That makes them Ld9.

This is the standard case. All models in the unit have the rule, yet there are no Orks in the unit. There are Boyz and there are Nobz, but no models labeled "Orks". Going by RAW would mean that there are no Orks in the unit and they could not use the Mob Rule! Going by RAI would mean any of a set of mutually inconsistent things. Both are equally bad ways of reading the rule.

That's telling it for sure. Now for a horse of a different color and such.

- G(reen)

Beast wrote:I understand your Billy Jack attitude towards the way we discuss things here on YMDC. You can speak out about it all you want, but you will have a hard time being taken seriously if you continue with your academia attitude towards this board and its practices. It comes across as very snobbish, arrogant and aloof.

And not taking my contribution seriously because of my perceived attitude is not in itself snobbish, arrogant, and aloof?

Beast wrote:You may be an expert at 'rules' in academia, but the rest of us are not and don't want to be.

Firstly I'm not an expert. Expertise would mean a PhD after my name and no time for posting on non-field related message boards. I'm a graduate student, and I'm applying what's taught in the very basic classes to undergraduates. All of it and more can be found on the Internet, and you can teach it to yourself far more easily than wasting time in a critical thinking or introductory logic class. This isn't 'high-falutin' stuff'. This is basic stuff you should already know because you can read and write.

Secondly, and I may be mistaken, this forum is about the rules of the Warhammer 40k game, what they are and what we do with them when we play. It is a given that insofar as the rules concerned, we do want to know what they are, and we want to be able to figure them out correctly. As you say, we want to understand and clarify how our hobby works.

As mentioned I am not employing academic "rules dissection" here. I am asking people to apply the basic reading skills they should have acquired in high school. Asking people to apply those skills to the task of figuring out what the rules are is entirely appropriate if people want to know what the rules are. Of course I'm not simply asking people to just apply these skills, I'm asking that they apply them methodically, with care, and with attention to detail. That is to say: productively.

If I generate hostility by doing this, then that's not my problem (although it is a problem for the disruption it causes to the forum and our discussions of the rules) and whoever is hostile approaching the rules this way has some growing up to do. As you say people can just ignore me, as they can ignore anyone trying to lend a helping hand. It's just stupid for them to do so, since it is counter-productive, and inconsiderate as well.

I understand why some people are getting more and more hostile to me. It's because they can't leave the personal stuff at home and deal with the subject at hand like adults. They have to construe everything I say as mean-spirited, nasty, acerbic, or whatever. Even in addressing this I've demonstrated that same stupidity when I should rightly ignore any and all references to me, what I think, what my education is, and what I've eaten for breakfast (and likewise treat everyone else as similarly irrelevant to the rules). We're here to talk about rules, yet some people have to make it about other posters, and I've let myself be trolled by it. It's shameful, counter-productive, and very much against what I've been trying to do here.

Okey dokey then...

Green Blow Fly wrote:That's telling it for sure. Now for a horse of a different color and such.

- G(reen)

Can we beat that one also sir?

Nurglitch wrote:
Regardless, I have an interest in my hobby, which just so happens to be our hobby. In particular I have an interest in how people conduct discussions about the rules because rules are my specialty, and how the community reads (or misreads) the rules affects my hobby experience. Since no one else seems to notice that RAW and RAI are stupid ways of reading the rules I speak out about it, and participate in discussions about it.

RAW and RAI aren't stupid ways of reading rules, because the purpose of having rules is so we can play the damn game. Part of GWs success is ... its success. Everywhere you go you can find someone to play GW games with. But you can't play a game unless you agree on the rules.

Look, I've had some of your other posts regarding RAI and RAW and game design on the back burner, I'll give them a look this weekend (game design is a theoretical interest of mine). Maybe if you're looking to continue this conversation it might be best to do it in a seperate thread or via PM.

Beast wrote:I understand your Billy Jack attitude towards the way we discuss things here on YMDC. You can speak out about it all you want, but you will have a hard time being taken seriously if you continue with your academia attitude towards this board and its practices. It comes across as very snobbish, arrogant and aloof. You may be an expert at 'rules' in academia, but the rest of us are not and don't want to be. We just want to understand and clarify how our hobby works. Applying academia-type rules disection is not what we do here. Trying to make us do that is the equivalent of jamming a square peg into a triangular hole... It just doesn't work- not to mention the fact that we see RAW as something very different than you (or academia). And you, the messenger of that effort, will continue to bear a lot of hostility. Or people will just start to ignore you...

Not being sarcastic so please don't take it that way. Just trying to enlighten you as to why a lot of people seem to be getting more and more hostile towards you.

OK, what an egotistical cry of "I want it my way!!!" that was. Beast, speak for yourself, but not for others. I enjoy Nurglitch's posts, especially in that he seeks to resolve a rules discrepancy to the point where it can no longer be mis-interpreted, which is a much more efficient and permanent method than the 'lets agree to disagree' or 'lets wait for FAQ' or 'well that's how we play it!' stuff you're used to.

Nurglitch, please keep posting and don't let those who are too intimidated by your lengthy posts to actually read them (and instead attack you like peasants trying to burn a witch for showing them how electricity works) bring you down. I for one find your outtake on classifying everything into RAI/RAW being stupid as interesting, because up until now I have to admit that I have been somewhat shackled by these defined methods of viewing the rules.

And you clearly missed the entire point and intention of that post Bombadidaloo.

Initially I, like many others, was very annoyed by Nurglitch's attitude and the way he classified the way we discuss things here as 'stupid' (that kind of statement will usually not endear yourself to people). But he is entitled to his opinion as much as anyone else. I was trying to let him know why so many people are being so harsh on him. I got past his attitude once I realized that he has a different idea of what RAW is. My post is not a whine for my way and I was most certainly not speaking for everyone (that truly would be arrogant). But if you read some of the other threads that Nurglitch has been posting in recently you will see that there were many, many people who were extremely annoyed with his attitude. I'm not annoyed with him, because I realized he just has a totally different idea of what RAW is than most other people. Your interpretation of my post shows how wrong (knee-jerk) people can be about the intentions of a post (as I was initially with his). If you actually read it and take it at face value instead of trying to assign some ulterior motive to my post you will see that I was just trying to give him some clarity to the anger he had engendered, not trying to speak for everyone else, nor am I trying to tell him to conform to any particualr way... Personally I don't think his method of academia-type rules dissection works vis-a-vis GW's rules. It is the square peg/triangular hole thing I mentioned IMHO. But if it helps him (or you) then fine... So why don't we all come down off the stacks of soap boxes we are all standing on, eh?

Beast, I do see after reviewing your posts throughout this thread that you've tried to be polite, but comments like calling Nurglitch's posting behavior as "very snobbish, arrogant, and aloof" because you disagree with it is something I can't stand, especially when he is trying to stay neutral and not flame you back. And you do sound like you're including many others on behalf of yourself with comments like "You may be an expert at 'rules' in academia, but the rest of us are not and don't want to be. We just want to understand and clarify how our hobby works." And that part the most made me decide to speak out as part of the "other side" in this little war of words.

Beast wrote:Personally I don't think his method of academia-type rules dissection works vis-a-vis GW's rules. It is the square peg/triangular hole thing I mentioned IMHO.

You're the one with the round hole. Just because you can't hold a square peg doesn't mean others can't. I know there are more "round holes" here that agree with you, but you have to realize this isn't recess at the playground; we're all adults, discussing the logistics of written language in the Games Workshop environment. I've become more and more sick of seeing your "gang" (namely Green Blow Fly) attack others on a personal level. So I guess I've chosen to defend others on a personal level. Whatever, I'd just much rather this be a friendly and sophisticated forum community than a backwater "we dun like yer kind around here" type I'm sadly used to seeing.

Wow, this is really heartwarming and all, but it completely fails to address the question: "Are gretchins orks?"

This is really the same argument as Fabius bile and the interpretation of Chaos space marines. As far as RAI goes it was meant only for the basic troop unit of the same name. But by RAW you can do it to anything because the whole codex is full of chaos space marines.

So by RAI Grots are Grots and are not effected by the mobrule, but by RAW with some fluff backing it up (which makes it less credible) Grots are Orks.

That leaves us with looking at both sides and seeing which is too powerful/broken/crap for the related cost.

RAI
30 Grots + 3 Runtherders have to lose 9 models before they must make a morale test on Ld7. If failed you may re-roll but lose D3 grots because of the squig.

RAW
You're Fearless until you have 10 models in the unit.

Conclusion:
The squig being there is evidence enough for me that Grots are NOT effected by the mob rule.

HI! here is the answer. if you look at the army list, or the entry for gretchin, note that they lack the words that every ork has, aka, Waaaagh, mob rule and furious assault. Also vehicles dont get these either. So because in their entry it doesnt say they have it, they dont.

JoeOrks wrote:HI! here is the answer. if you look at the army list, or the entry for gretchin, note that they lack the words that every ork has, aka, Waaaagh, mob rule and furious assault. Also vehicles dont get these either. So because in their entry it doesnt say they have it, they dont.

My understanding is that if it doesn't say you can't, then you can... am I thinking backwards? >.>

Mr. Bombadidaloo wrote:

JoeOrks wrote:HI! here is the answer. if you look at the army list, or the entry for gretchin, note that they lack the words that every ork has, aka, Waaaagh, mob rule and furious assault. Also vehicles dont get these either. So because in their entry it doesnt say they have it, they dont.

My understanding is that if it doesn't say you can't, then you can... am I thinking backwards? >.>

Yes, you are thinking backwards.

The rules don't say I can't declare myself the winner on turn 2 if I roll 3 6's at the same time. The rules might say I don't get a WAAAGH move for vehicles. They do say which units do get the WAAAGH rule in the Ork codex. The rules don't say I can't make a WAAGH role for Space Marines, because I don't have the option to start with.

The rules say what I can do, and might have "can't" restrictions from those base rules. You can normally charge after firing, so the Heavy weapons rule says that you can't charge after firing a heavy weapon as an exception to the general rule.

Right. stupid me.

Nurglitch, I vehemently disagree that hostility directed towards you is because people “can't leave the personal stuff at home.” People read and write in a colloquial manner. I think the hostility directed towards you is because you have a difficult time accepting that.

For example, if there’s a rule that creates a clearly absurd result, really breaks the game kind of thing, but in a colloquial sense could be reasonably susceptible to another meaning, the player community at large will adopt the other meaning, for the sake of the game. You, on the other hand, are a slave to the result of conceptual analysis, and would post up and down the forum about how you’re reading it correctly, and everyone else should too. That’s why you get hostility.

the book does label nobs and boys and all orks as "ork" read their entries and the page numbers you refered. "are Orks", "of all Orks", "the Orks who". Gretchin entry has this only for the herder.

also

the pages listed as examples fail to name the units we are actually talking about, nurglitch. 100 does not call gretchin either a"mob" or an "Ork". and page 34 does indeed let you know what to do with any information in the "brood" section of each tyranid - however, my point was this section DOES NOT EXIST for the tyrant or the tyrant guard. so why does this matter? it seems odd that the RAW is implying things, as you see it, whereas in all other cases it actually writes them.

I have never had the bonesword's catalyst hit the tyrant guard and only the tyrant if he is wielding it.

/shrug maybe I should post a thread on that, I hate to waste my potential to slay things.

why do you give me page numbers that have only my own points on them? or am I missing that too? those were the pages I was reading when I asked for page numbers. . . .

kirsanth wrote:the book does label nobs and boys and all orks as "ork" read their entries and the page numbers you refered. "are Orks", "of all Orks", "the Orks who". Gretchin entry has this only for the herder.

is this suitable reason for them to be declared 'not Orks'? Sounds like it to me.

Mr. Bombadidaloo wrote:Beast, I do see after reviewing your posts throughout this thread that you've tried to be polite, but comments like calling Nurglitch's posting behavior as "very snobbish, arrogant, and aloof" because you disagree with it is something I can't stand, especially when he is trying to stay neutral and not flame you back. And you do sound like you're including many others on behalf of yourself with comments like "You may be an expert at 'rules' in academia, but the rest of us are not and don't want to be. We just want to understand and clarify how our hobby works." And that part the most made me decide to speak out as part of the "other side" in this little war of words.

Fair enough, I should have said ..."but most of the rest of us..." As for him being snobbish, arrogant and aloof... well, since you went back and looked at all the previous posts in other threads he has been making, you will see that my characterization is not limited to just me... War of words... Yes indeed. Grrrr. Welcome to Dakka YMDC!

Mr. Bombadidaloo wrote:

Beast wrote:Personally I don't think his method of academia-type rules dissection works vis-a-vis GW's rules. It is the square peg/triangular hole thing I mentioned IMHO.

You're the one with the round hole. Just because you can't hold a square peg doesn't mean others can't. I know there are more "round holes" here that agree with you, but you have to realize this isn't recess at the playground; we're all adults, discussing the logistics of written language in the Games Workshop environment. I've become more and more sick of seeing your "gang" (namely Green Blow Fly) attack others on a personal level. So I guess I've chosen to defend others on a personal level. Whatever, I'd just much rather this be a friendly and sophisticated forum community than a backwater "we dun like yer kind around here" type I'm sadly used to seeing.

If you saw where he described what he considers RAW to be (in the Devilfish thread I think), then you will see that it is very different to what most of us here consider RAW to be... We (most of us) discuss things with this basic concept as our frame of reference. If you also don't see the distinction/problem inherent with two very different conceptual contexts in the same discussion, then you also have a square peg and the most of the rest of us are playing with triangular pegs/holes... That is my point... I fully realize this isn't recess (where did that come from?). If you have a problem with GreenBlowFly then address your problem to him. I don't always agree with him (or anyone else for that matter) on all issues so he isn't in my 'gang' (as if it is some sort of 'vast rightwing conspiracy'???). Friendly and sophisticated... Well, yes I agree with you in principle, but perhaps you should also look at the disclaimer/description of YMDC as you click to enter this forum and be prepared for the heat if you want to play in the kitchen...

As for the actual topic of this thread, it doesn't seem that anyone here has a definitive, air-tight case for or against grots being able to count as orks in mob rule checks. I hope someone has more insight, because I am at a loss. Although, as it stands,I think I would lean towards the less powerful interpretation that they can't lend their number to the check...

I too would go with the "less powerful" option of not counting them as orks, as it would prevent anyone in a tournament/serious game setting from accusing you of bending the rules to your advantage, which is an attack on character that we veterans to the hobby would rather do without ^^

ty for your friendly reply Beast (i'm not being sarcastic), I do realize I don't have as much background knowledge on others' posting behaviors as you do, and I should probably refrain from making such blunt remarks and actions in the future because my viewpoint is limited.

Anyway... *hug-tackles Beast* friends? ^^;;

(*hugs* @ Nurglitch too )

Friends? Of course. I don't know you personally (nor Nurglitch, GBF, yak, Meep357, etc) and probably have never been your opponent in a game. But just because we disagree or misinterpret a post here or there doesn't mean we can't be friendly or friends here the rest of the time. I certainly don't hold any kind of 'posting grudge' over this kind of stuff. That would really be pathetic...

Cheers!

Nurg:

The Gretchin mob is an Ork unit, so the Gretchin mob may substitute its Ld for the number of Orks (those models with the Mob Rule) in the unit.

Your use of a parenthetical after "Orks" is what caused my confusion. Using "which have the Mob Rule" instead would have cleared it up, since we were looking for "How do we know if it is classified as an Ork?" as opposed to "Who has the Mob Rule?"

Nurglitch wrote:Beast:

Regardless, I have an interest in my hobby, which just so happens to be our hobby. In particular I have an interest in how people conduct discussions about the rules because rules are my specialty,

I am sorry, but having read so many of your posts I would disagree with this sentence. Part of being able to discuss is to be able to do so in a many that your audience understands. You totally fail at this, and it seems to me that you are so intent on proving you are right (if ever nailed down to a particular opinion) that your writing can actually be indicipherable [spelling, cannot be bothered to dictionary.com it) to many people. That is a major failing of your long and arduous to read posts that sometimes actuallyseem to suck my willingness to live right out of my body. Often you are failing to communicate in the real world out side of skool

I have only read the first page so my points may already have been put in and been oposed, torn to shreds and been used to fetalize a barren ork rok.

All the same...

Orks and Gretchin are both of the same origin, they are separate subspicies in the same creation (yes orks and gretchin have been created, not evolved) they are both greenskins as the empire has named them based on the green fungi that is the part of their genetic makeup that makes them green.

The Mob rule refers to orks, not greenskins and as such the rule only counts actual ork models.

The gretchin mob is a unit in an ork army and thus can be called an ork mob but it is still made upp of a small number of ork runtherds and a large number of grechin "boyz".

To me only models that have the "Mob Rule" special rule benefit and contribute to this.
Thus a unit of 30 gretchin with 3 runtherds may substitute their normal Ld value for the number of orks on the unit if they wish, the number of orks being 3 meens they roll vs 3.

For those of you who ponder why the runtherd has the "Mob Rule"... it is actually briliant that its in there, this allowes the ork player to recieve a charge with their gretchin unit, naturally loose the close combat, choose to roll a Ld test vs Ld 1, 2 or 3 in place and run away leaving the charging unit open to fire and a clean ork countercharge.

Necro post deleted...thread very, very old!