6454
Post by: Cryonicleech
Same as above. Can you? Technically, I'd think you can.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
What do you mean? As in move 2D6?
If so then no, you cannot. Waaagh! gives Fleet and that is it. It does NOT grant any extra Dice of Movement.
6454
Post by: Cryonicleech
No, meaning I declare a run with my units of Ork Boyz separately from the WAAGH!
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Cryonicleech wrote:No, meaning I declare a run with my units of Ork Boyz separately from the WAAGH!
Well yes... but what benefit would it do? The waaagh doesn't give extra movement, it just lets you assault after running.
13655
Post by: combatmedic
WAAAAAAAAAAGH! Only gives you Fleet of Foot. And Fleet of foot lets you charge AFTER running.
Now I do see what your trying to say here.
Sense the codex says you declare it during your shooting phase. So what you want to do is run all your boyz, then declare the waaaagh, thus eliminating the risk of that 1 roll wound.
But Id say thats kinda un-orky to be honest.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
combatmedic wrote:WAAAAAAAAAAGH! Only gives you Fleet of Foot. And Fleet of foot lets you charge AFTER running.
Now I do see what your trying to say here.
Sense the codex says you declare it during your shooting phase. So what you want to do is run all your boyz, then declare the waaaagh, thus eliminating the risk of that 1 roll wound.
But Id say thats kinda un-orky to be honest.
Un orky but totaly legal. The INAT FAQ forbids it though, so if you're playiung by that FAQ you can't do it.
Coincidently Ghazguls Waaagh! Doesn't automatically let you move 6 either, but that can be house ruled if you really hate Playing Warhammer 40,000.
4308
Post by: coredump
As Gwar is saying...
Waagh gives Fleet
Waagh does not provide movement
Fleet does not provide movement.
Only Run provides movement (in this context)
12265
Post by: Gwar!
coredump wrote:As Gwar is saying...
Waagh gives Fleet
Waagh does not provide movement
Fleet does not provide movement.
Only Run provides movement (in this context)
In Fact RaW there is no Waaagh! movement anymore at all, so you can declare the Waaagh! and run 1" just fine. There is no way to actually suffer any wounds, according to Da Roolz.
Now, RaI in this case has to be extrapolated from how the rule worked in 4th edition. If that's how you wanna play, play it, but do not be annoyed if someone wants to play the actual rule. 
6454
Post by: Cryonicleech
Never mind. I think Gwar! is right in that I cannot move 2D6. What I'm saying is can I WAAGH AND run (meaning, in essence, 2D6 inches)
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Cryonicleech wrote:Never mind. I think Gwar! is right in that I cannot move 2D6. What I'm saying is can I WAAGH AND run (meaning, in essence, 2D6 inches)
No need to think I am right 
12056
Post by: Deffgob
Cryonicleech wrote:Never mind. I think Gwar! is right in that I cannot move 2D6. What I'm saying is can I WAAGH AND run (meaning, in essence, 2D6 inches)
No. Waaagh! just gives you fleet. fleet units can't run any more than regular units, they just get to assault after running.
However, there really never was any such thing as a "waaagh movement," it was always just a fleet movement. In 4th ed, waaagh gave FOF just like it does now, the difference is that back then you could not run unless you had fleet. But the codex defines(sort of) a waaagh movement as any movement made after you've declared the waaagh! (it explains how to use Waaagh! and then says If a unit rolls a 1 while making this waaagh movement...) So I would say that Ghaz's ability still works, but the whole thing is poorly worded for the change in addition, which is a bit disappointing since other bits in the codex were clearly written with 5e in mind.
6454
Post by: Cryonicleech
Gwar! wrote:Cryonicleech wrote:Never mind. I think Gwar! is right in that I cannot move 2D6. What I'm saying is can I WAAGH AND run (meaning, in essence, 2D6 inches)
No need to think I am right
If I said you were right, I might get in your sig......
10345
Post by: LunaHound
Cryonicleech wrote:Same as above. Can you? Technically, I'd think you can.
8471
Post by: olympia
No you cannot.
14996
Post by: Canonness Rory
You're an ork player.
You can do anything so long as you really believe you can.
In all seriousness, no.
Waagh gives you the fleet of foot rule.
Which allows you to run and then assault.
Meaning you could
a.) move 6"
b.) Run 1d6"
c.) Waagh
d.) assault 6"
Instead of:
a.) Move 6"
b.) run 1d6"
c.) twiddle your thumbs and wait until you get shot.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Gwar! wrote:
Coincidently Ghazguls Waaagh! Doesn't automatically let you move 6 either, but that can be house ruled if you really hate Playing Warhammer 40,000.
Huh?
For the duration of the Waaugh! all Ork infantry units automatically count as rolling a 6 for the Waaaugh! movement they wish to make.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Dashofpepper wrote:Gwar! wrote:
Coincidently Ghazguls Waaagh! Doesn't automatically let you move 6 either, but that can be house ruled if you really hate Playing Warhammer 40,000.
Huh?
For the duration of the Waaugh! all Ork infantry units automatically count as rolling a 6 for the Waaaugh! movement they wish to make.
Show me in the rulebook or the Ork Codex where it details what the Waaagh! movement is.
Nowhere. Waaagh! does not say you get to auto-6 to running does it?
8471
Post by: olympia
Gwar! wrote:Dashofpepper wrote:Gwar! wrote:
Coincidently Ghazguls Waaagh! Doesn't automatically let you move 6 either, but that can be house ruled if you really hate Playing Warhammer 40,000.
Huh?
For the duration of the Waaugh! all Ork infantry units automatically count as rolling a 6 for the Waaaugh! movement they wish to make.
Show me in the rulebook or the Ork Codex where it details what the Waaagh! movement is.
Nowhere. Waaagh! does not say you get to auto-6 to running does it?
p. 31 The remainder of this post deleted by the Modquisition as violated Rule #1: be polite.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
olympia wrote:p. 31 The remainder of this post deleted by the Modquisition as violated Rule #1: be polite.
Errrm... what? Page 31 details the Waaagh! Rules. The Waaagh! Rules say you get fleet. The Waaagh! rules do NOT say that running = Waaaagh! Movement.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Actually, Gwar is wrong this time.
P31 of the Ork codex specifically refers to the Waaaugh! movement as the movement you make while using fleet-of-foot during the shooting phase.
Under Ghazghkull's rule, he specifically grants an automatic 6 to the previously noted movement.
What movement do you make during the shooting phase? The only one I'm aware of is running. Is there a possible other one? If not, then we have a clear answer: The Waaugh! affects the movement you make during the shooting phase, which is running. Calling it moving instead of running doesn't make it not running, because they're referring to the same thing.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Dashofpepper wrote:P31 of the Ork codex specifically refers to the Waaaugh! movement as the movement you make while using fleet-of-foot during the shooting phase.
I'll stop you there.
Fleet does not give you any movement in the Shooting Phase anymore.
15211
Post by: Mars.Techpriest
Interestingly, you can't use Fleet of Foot during the shooting phase. It's an assault phase special rule now.
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
Fleet of Foot does not exist anymore. You can't add an automatic 6" to something that doesn't exist anymore.
If Ghaz's rule said add an auto 6" to Run then you would have an auto 6".
In 5th Edition Fleet only allows you to assault after running.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Brother Ramses wrote:Fleet of Foot does not exist anymore. You can't add and automatic 6" to something that doesn't exist anymore.
If Ghaz's rule said add an auto 6" to Run then you would have an auto 6".
In 5th Edition Fleet only allows you to assault after running.
Yup, and because GW have not errata'd it to say it means run, it doesn't.
12573
Post by: combo
I think this is one of the few times were id take rules as intended over rules as written, the only other situation I have were i'd take that is with Blood Angel Rhinos.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Okies, I didn't write that well, but Gwar is still wrong. =p
Declaring a Waaugh! during the shooting phase grants fleet of foot to the Ork army. The codex refers to movements made during the Waaugh! as the Waaugh! movement. If you run during a Waaugh!, that's the Waaugh! movement...there is no special "Waaaugh! movement" that could be something other than running.
Ghazghkull takes the movement you make during your Waaaugh! and makes it an auto-six. Again, there's no special movement that requires a D6, that's your run. I think you have to extrapolate *really* hard to come up with the idea that running during the shooting phase during a Waaaaugh! isn't the Waaaugh! movement.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Dashofpepper wrote:Okies, I didn't write that well, but Gwar is still wrong. =p
Declaring a Waaugh! during the shooting phase grants fleet of foot to the Ork army. The codex refers to movements made during the Waaugh! as the Waaugh! movement. If you run during a Waaugh!, that's the Waaugh! movement...there is no special "Waaaugh! movement" that could be something other than running.
Ghazghkull takes the movement you make during your Waaaugh! and makes it an auto-six. Again, there's no special movement that requires a D6, that's your run. I think you have to extrapolate *really* hard to come up with the idea that running during the shooting phase during a Waaaaugh! isn't the Waaaugh! movement.
Considering you can run and then waaaagh!, its pretty clear running is NOT the Waaagh! movement.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Yes, you can run and then Waaaugh.
However, they are not mutually exclusive. The Waaaugh! movement is inclusive of movements made after declaring the Waaaugh! up to the end of your turn.
If you declare a Waaaugh! and then run, then running is your Waaaugh! movement. If you run and then declare a Waaaugh!, then running is obviously NOT part of your Waaaugh! movement.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
So are you claiming that Ghazgul jets you roll a 6 for Difficult Terrain tests?
Not only is that ridiculous, it is not what the Rules Say.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Gwar, I like you and you *are* usually right, but that made no sense. :(
Ghazghkull jets? Assault infantry? I'm confused.
As for Difficult terrain tests, you don't make difficult terrain tests when you run. You roll a D6 and that's how far you go. If you declare a Waaugh! before running, then running is your Waaaugh! movement, in which case Ghazghkull's special powers let you auto-roll a six for that run.
Where does difficult terrain come into it? Dangerous terrain is another story of course, but....
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Dashofpepper wrote:Gwar, I like you and you *are* usually right, but that made no sense. :(
Ghazghkull jets? Assault infantry? I'm confused.
As for Difficult terrain tests, you don't make difficult terrain tests when you run. You roll a D6 and that's how far you go. If you declare a Waaugh! before running, then running is your Waaaugh! movement, in which case Ghazghkull's special powers let you auto-roll a six for that run.
Where does difficult terrain come into it? Dangerous terrain is another story of course, but....
You are claiming that the "Waaagh! movement is any movement after you declare it. Assault Move is movement
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Again, referring to the rules....
For the duration of the Waaagh! all Ork infantry units automatically count as rolling a 6 for the Waaaugh! movement they wish to make.
It refers to a single movement, not every movement. If the Waaaugh! encompasses moves you make until the end of your turn, and this rule allows you to select the movement that you get to make and call your Waaaugh! movement, then at best, you get to choose which movement to call your Waaaugh! movement and auto-roll 6s for.
However, given that unless you're assaulting through cover, assaulting is automatically 6 anyway, I can't imagine anyone wanting to use this for anything other than running.
Gwar, stop nit-picking; you just happen to have called it wrong this time.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Dashofpepper wrote:Gwar, stop nit-picking; you just happen to have called it wrong this time.
No, I do not. You have it wrong. Show me where it states the Waaagh! movement is Running, or in fact where it says what the Waaagh! movement is at all. It doesn't, because the rules have changed and changed the way the rules work. You can try and derail my argument by accusing me of nitpicking or whatever other personal attack you want to use, the fact is, I know what I am doing. I have the actual rules to back me up, and you do not.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Dashofpepper wrote:Again, referring to the rules....
For the duration of the Waaagh! all Ork infantry units automatically count as rolling a 6 for the Waaaugh! movement they wish to make.
It refers to a single movement, not every movement.
It specifically refers to WAAAGH! movement, and you quoted it.
That no longer exists.
Like Outnumbering in combat (See Thornback).
Or Targeting Priority (See Target Lock, or whatever that Tau wargear is that people whine should work despite the rules).
Et cetera (See 5e rules)
shrug
12265
Post by: Gwar!
kirsanth wrote:Dashofpepper wrote:Again, referring to the rules....
For the duration of the Waaagh! all Ork infantry units automatically count as rolling a 6 for the Waaaugh! movement they wish to make.
It refers to a single movement, not every movement.
It specifically refers to WAAAGH! movement, and you quoted it.
That no longer exists.
Like Outnumbering in combat (See Thornback).
Or Targeting Priority (See Target Lock, or whatever that Tau wargear is that people whine should work despite the rules).
Et cetera (See 5e rules)
shrug
kirsanth is 100% correct 
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Well, I don't have anything else to say at this point.
I've quoted all the relevant rules, proven how I'm right, even contextualized it, and you haven't countered anything I've said - you've just told me that I'm wrong and attempted to bring up loop-holes in my proof, which I've soundly closed. I'm not making personal attacks, just noting that instead of refuting my quotations of the rules and proof, you're nit-picking by looking for a loophole in the rules, which are quite clear.
*shrugs*
12573
Post by: combo
Exact wording of fleet is
"There are many variants of this rule. Fleet of foot, fleet of claw, even fleet of hoof. Title aside, all models with these abilities are treated the same. A unit with this rule may assault in the same turn its has run."
Ergo unfortunately unless the Waagh rule specifically states that it replaces normal running with a specific "Waaagh!" movement instead of run, or Ghazghulls Thraka's states "allows you to run six inch" then rules as written breaks down
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Dashofpepper wrote:Well, I don't have anything else to say at this point.
I've quoted all the relevant rules, proven how I'm right, even contextualized it, and you haven't countered anything I've said - you've just told me that I'm wrong and attempted to bring up loop-holes in my proof, which I've soundly closed. I'm not making personal attacks, just noting that instead of refuting my quotations of the rules and proof, you're nit-picking by looking for a loophole in the rules, which are quite clear.
I thought your first sentence made sense. I kind of lost you after that, especially when I read that first sentence again.
But. . .Loop holes?
You mean the text that the rules are written in?
Using the rules as written is a loophole?
I TOTALLY understand your point now.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Dashofpepper wrote:Well, I don't have anything else to say at this point.
I've quoted all the relevant rules, proven how I'm right, even contextualized it, and you haven't countered anything I've said - you've just told me that I'm wrong and attempted to bring up loop-holes in my proof, which I've soundly closed. I'm not making personal attacks, just noting that instead of refuting my quotations of the rules and proof, you're nit-picking by looking for a loophole in the rules, which are quite clear.
*shrugs*
I am not nit picking by playing by the rules, which you are not.
12573
Post by: combo
Just for the record, surely such a glaring error has been FAQ'd or Errata'd. My girlfriend bought the codex for Orks just two weeks ago, ill check whether it says run or waagh movement on her codex tomorrow.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
combo wrote:Just for the record, surely such a glaring error has been FAQ'd or Errata'd. My girlfriend bought the codex for Orks just two weeks ago, ill check whether it says run or waagh movement on her codex tomorrow.
It says Waaagh Movement, and what makes you think GW give two gaks about the players? The current state of their Codex releases and FAQ's show clearly that they don't.
99
Post by: insaniak
combo wrote:Just for the record, surely such a glaring error has been FAQ'd or Errata'd.
Indeed it has. The current rulebook FAQ tells us (last entry) if your published-before-5th-edition codex contains a rule that don't seem to do anything under the 5th edition rules, it should be just ignored.
Waaagh! grants the Ork unit Fleet. In 4th edition, Fleet actually gave the unit extra movement. So the Waaagh! movement referred to by the Waaagh! rule is the extra movement granted by Fleet.... and as such, does not exist under 5th edition, and so as per the FAQ, any mention to Waaagh! movement should be just ignored.
(That being said, I play that Waaagh! has to be declared at the start of the phase, and that the Run movement is then Waaagh! movement. It's not RAW, but it seems like the better way to play it, given that the codex was supposedly written with 5th edition rules in mind.)
12265
Post by: Gwar!
insaniak wrote:combo wrote:Just for the record, surely such a glaring error has been FAQ'd or Errata'd.
Indeed it has. The current rulebook FAQ tells us (last entry) if your published-before-5th-edition codex contains a rule that don't seem to do anything under the 5th edition rules, it should be just ignored. Waaagh! grants the Ork unit Fleet. In 4th edition, Fleet actually gave the unit extra movement. So the Waaagh! movement referred to by the Waaagh! rule is the extra movement granted by Fleet.... and as such, does not exist under 5th edition, and so as per the FAQ, any mention to Waaagh! movement should be just ignored.
Oh Snap! Go get the dishes cause you just got served! But seriously, he is right. Waaagh! movement does nothing in 5th ed now.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
cool!
BUT
how do you tell your opponent this in a game with out sounding like a jerk
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
You let them use it anyways?
You let them switch out Ghazgkull for a regular warboss and purchase something else with the leftover points?
14996
Post by: Canonness Rory
Trying to rules-lawyer like this would get you kicked out of any tournament.
The rules are pretty obvious.
You declare your waagh in the movement phase.
All orks in your army get fleet of foot, and can thus move, run, and then assault. Your waagh movement is running.
With ghazgull's special rule, your fleet of foot movement (also known as your waagh movement) is a 6.
I dare anyone to try to dispute that in a tourney. the TO will probably personally take your picture, put it on the wall of "do not allow to play" and then throw you out himself.
99
Post by: insaniak
frgsinwntr wrote:BUT how do you tell your opponent this in a game with out sounding like a jerk
You don't. You discuss it with them before the game, and come to an agreement as to how to play it.
15211
Post by: Mars.Techpriest
Say it before the game starts, when you look at his list. 'Ya know gazgul doesn't effect running right?" Or just let'em use it as 'House ROI Rule'. Which is what I'd actualy do.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Canonness Rory wrote:Trying to rules-lawyer like this would get you kicked out of any tournament.
Except, ya know, the ones run by TO's who follow the rules.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
I doubt there are very many tournaments run by TOs who you would consider to "follow the rules", Gwar!.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Orkeosaurus wrote:I doubt there are very many tournaments run by TOs who you would consider to "follow the rules", Gwar!.
Very True
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
I am a TO. I follow rules. As for putting up a picture and mocking someone? i believe there are rules about that? maybe harassment laws?
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
frgsinwntr wrote:As for putting up a picture and mocking someone? i believe there are rules about that? maybe harassment laws?
Maybe if the TO is following the player to his house or something? 
12265
Post by: Gwar!
frgsinwntr wrote:I am a TO. I follow rules. As for putting up a picture and mocking someone? i believe there are rules about that? maybe harassment laws?
No, harassment laws do not even come close. Where is Polonius when you need him!
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
http://www.letswrap.com/legal/harass.htm
Criminal harassment is defined as "engag(ing) in intentional conduct which the actor [harasser] knows or has reason to know would cause the victim, under the circumstances, to feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated; and causes this reaction on the part of the victim. (M.S. § 609.749, Subd. I).
kinda easy to prove you'd feel persecuted/oppressed or intimidated if there is a pic hanging up mocking you right?
but seriously. All it takes is for the TO to have a conversation with you about how they do things at their store
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
That appears to be a definition of terms, not a law. (Polonius correct me if I'm wrong here!)
609.749 HARASSMENT; STALKING; PENALTIES. wrote:Subdivision 1. Definition. As used in this section, "harass" means to engage in intentional
conduct which:
(1) the actor knows or has reason to know would cause the victim under the circumstances to
feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated; and
(2) causes this reaction on the part of the victim.
Subd. 1a. No proof of specific intent required. In a prosecution under this section, the state
is not required to prove that the actor intended to cause the victim to feel frightened, threatened,
oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated, or except as otherwise provided in subdivision 3, paragraph
(a), clause (4), or paragraph (b), that the actor intended to cause any other result.
Subd. 2. Harassment and stalking crimes. (a) A person who harasses another by
committing any of the following acts is guilty of a gross misdemeanor:
(1) directly or indirectly manifests a purpose or intent to injure the person, property, or rights
of another by the commission of an unlawful act;
(2) stalks, follows, monitors, or pursues another, whether in person or through technological
or other means;
(3) returns to the property of another if the actor is without claim of right to the property
or consent of one with authority to consent;
(4) repeatedly makes telephone calls, or induces a victim to make telephone calls to the actor,
whether or not conversation ensues;
(5) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring;
(6) repeatedly mails or delivers or causes the delivery by any means, including electronically,
of letters, telegrams, messages, packages, or other objects; or
(7) knowingly makes false allegations against a peace officer concerning the officer's
performance of official duties with intent to influence or tamper with the officer's performance of
official duties.
(b) The conduct described in paragraph (a), clauses (4) and (5), may be prosecuted at the
place where any call is either made or received or, additionally in the case of wireless or electronic
communication, where the actor or victim resides. The conduct described in paragraph (a), clause
(2), may be prosecuted where the actor or victim resides. The conduct described in paragraph
(a), clause (6), may be prosecuted where any letter, telegram, message, package, or other object
is either sent or received or, additionally in the case of wireless or electronic communication,
where the actor or victim resides.
(c) A peace officer may not make a warrantless, custodial arrest of any person for a violation
of paragraph (a), clause (7).
171
Post by: Lorek
Hey, remember when I said you guys should stop your threads one page sooner?
Stay on topic, folks.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
So lets try another tack -
If I'm in the final round of a GT, or at the final round of 'Ard Boyz...
GW runs it right?
Honest opinion here, how do you think they're going to draw this one? Because if someone actually *did* try telling me during a game that I couldn't use Ghazghkull, I actually *would* kick you in the nuts. That's not a figurative kick either.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
hmm i don't think anyone is saying you can't use ghazzie... just that his rules don't work the same way they used to in 4th ed (if they worked at all)
And... kicking in the nuts is a childish way to solve disputes. I prefer the more adult way of rational discussion
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Dashofpepper wrote:So lets try another tack -
If I'm in the final round of a GT, or at the final round of 'Ard Boyz...
GW runs it right?
Honest opinion here, how do you think they're going to draw this one? Because if someone actually *did* try telling me during a game that I couldn't use Ghazghkull, I actually *would* kick you in the nuts. That's not a figurative kick either.
And? GW runs it, they use GW rules. GW Rules state Ghazgulz Waaagh! Does nothing extra past a Normal Waaaagh!
8471
Post by: olympia
Fleet is in 5th edition. Ghaz gives fleet to all the orks and they roll a 6. Not too thick?
99
Post by: insaniak
olympia wrote:Ghaz gives fleet to all the orks and they roll a 6.
Ok. So you've just rolled a 6 for Fleet. What does that do for you, again? 
The answer is that you don't roll dice for Fleet any more. It's an outdated reference to a rule that has changed. It does nothing, and so by the FAQ should be ignored.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
olympia wrote:Fleet is in 5th edition. Ghaz gives fleet to all the orks and they roll a 6. Not too thick?
Errrm... no it doesn't. It gives them fleet and lets them count as rolling a 6 for a Waaagh! Movement. Where are the rules for the Waagh! movement? I see no mention of this Waaagh! movement anywhere in the Ork Codex or in the Fleet Rules.
99
Post by: insaniak
GAh!
Somebody put the Edit button where it belongs, please!
6454
Post by: Cryonicleech
Ok...this has gone waay farther than my original question. I now know that I cannot run and WAAGH because Fleet is, in essence, a run move that allows you to assault. I am not allowed to run twice, ergo, I cannot run and WAAGH!.
Ghazghkull's WAAAGH! RAW "Ghazghkull's WAAGH! lasts the remainder of that player turn and the following player turn. During this period Ghazghkull's save is invulnerable.
Furthermore, for the duration of the WAAGH! all Ork infantry units count as rolling a 6 for their WAAGH! movement they wish to make. All non-fleeing friendly units become Fearless for the duration of the WAAGH!"
also, you cannot move a full 6" through terrain due to Ghaz's WAAAGH! That is a run move, not a difficult terrain test.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok...this has gone waay farther than my original question. I now know that I cannot run and WAAGH because Fleet is, in essence, a run move that allows you to assault. I am not allowed to run twice, ergo, I cannot run and WAAGH!.
Ghazghkull's WAAAGH! RAW "Ghazghkull's WAAGH! lasts the remainder of that player turn and the following player turn. During this period Ghazghkull's save is invulnerable.
Furthermore, for the duration of the WAAGH! all Ork infantry units count as rolling a 6 for their WAAGH! movement they wish to make. All non-fleeing friendly units become Fearless for the duration of the WAAGH!"
also, you cannot move a full 6" through terrain due to Ghaz's WAAAGH! That is a run move, not a difficult terrain test.
8471
Post by: olympia
Waagh makes you fleet. Fleet allows you to run before you assault. Running requires you roll a d6. Ghaz gives you a 6" on that roll. As for you RAW fundamentalist--the 5TH EDITION ORK FAQ specifically addresses Ghaz's waagh--specifically that you must wait until T2 until you pop it. CLEARLY if it was meant to be ignored they wouldn't have addressed it specifically in a 5th edition FAQ.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
olympia wrote:Waagh makes you fleet. Fleet allows you to run after you assault. Running requires you roll a d6. Ghaz gives you a 6" on that roll. As for you RAW fundamentalist--the 5TH EDITION ORK FAQ specifically addresses Ghaz's waagh--specifically that you must wait until T2 until you pop it. CLEARLY if it was meant to be ignored they wouldn't have addressed it specifically in a 5th edition FAQ.
Christ all mighty do you read? We are not saying ignore the Waaagh! Rule! Its fine, it gives fleet. Fan  Tastic. Nowhere does it say you get to Run 6", Run being a specific thing defined in the rulebook. Fleet does not grant any extra movement, nor does the Waaagh! Rule. The mention of counting as 6 should be ignored as it no longer has any meaning in 5th edition.
8471
Post by: olympia
Gwar! wrote:olympia wrote:Waagh makes you fleet. Fleet allows you to run after you assault. Running requires you roll a d6. Ghaz gives you a 6" on that roll. As for you RAW fundamentalist--the 5TH EDITION ORK FAQ specifically addresses Ghaz's waagh--specifically that you must wait until T2 until you pop it. CLEARLY if it was meant to be ignored they wouldn't have addressed it specifically in a 5th edition FAQ.
Christ all mighty do you read? We are not saying ignore the Waaagh! Rule! Its fine, it gives fleet. Fan Tastic. Nowhere does it say you get to Run 6", Run being a specific thing defined in the rulebook.
Fleet does not grant any extra movement, nor does the Waaagh! Rule. The mention of counting as 6 should be ignored as it no longer has any meaning in 5th edition.
So your contention is that you don't roll a d6 when you run?
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Gwar is saying that Ghazghkull's Waaugh! doesn't give an automatic six to anything, because the Waaaugh! doesn't apply to running.
I can kind of understand the Deffrolla argument, people can play word games to avoid the rules and its specificity to try confusing the issue about whether ramming is a type of tank shock, blah, blah blah...
But this is just unreal. o.O
8471
Post by: olympia
Dashofpepper wrote:Gwar is saying that Ghazghkull's Waaugh! doesn't give an automatic six to anything, because the Waaaugh! doesn't apply to running.
I can kind of understand the Deffrolla argument, people can play word games to avoid the rules and its specificity to try confusing the issue about whether ramming is a type of tank shock, blah, blah blah...
But this is just unreal. o.O
The waagh applies to fleet. Fleet applies to running. It's not the hard.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Dashofpepper wrote:Gwar is saying that Ghazghkull's Waaugh! doesn't give an automatic six to anything, because the Waaaugh! doesn't apply to running.
I can kind of understand the Deffrolla argument, people can play word games to avoid the rules and its specificity to try confusing the issue about whether ramming is a type of tank shock, blah, blah blah...
But this is just unreal. o.O
Unreal but the rules. I find it unreal my Grey Hunters can't assault after firing their Bolters any more, as that is what True Grit was written in mind for, however for 2 and a half editions of the game, I have been unable to do that. I don't bitch my rule doesn't work anymore, why should you. Automatically Appended Next Post: olympia wrote:Dashofpepper wrote:Gwar is saying that Ghazghkull's Waaugh! doesn't give an automatic six to anything, because the Waaaugh! doesn't apply to running.
I can kind of understand the Deffrolla argument, people can play word games to avoid the rules and its specificity to try confusing the issue about whether ramming is a type of tank shock, blah, blah blah...
But this is just unreal. o.O
The waagh applies to fleet. Fleet applies to running. It's not the hard.
You still have not shown us the passage where it says "Waaagh! Movement is Running"
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Indeed. The Waaaugh! movement specifically refers to the movement made in the shooting phase. The movement made in the shooting phase is running. However, the Waaaugh! rule doesn't say "applies to running" specifically, and Gwar isn't willing to make the logical leap that running is the movement that happens during the shooting phase.
I'm not really worried about running into someone trying to argue it in real life.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Dashofpepper wrote:Indeed. The Waaaugh! movement specifically refers to the movement made in the shooting phase. The movement made in the shooting phase is running. However, the Waaaugh! rule doesn't say "applies to running" specifically, and Gwar isn't willing to make the logical leap that running is the movement that happens during the shooting phase.
I'm not really worried about running into someone trying to argue it in real life.
If they wanted it to apply to running, they would say it applies to running. They don't, so it doesn't.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Just like ramming/tank shock.
Ramming is a type of tank shock. You have to play word games to say that it isn't.
Running is the movement that happens during the shooting phase. They're still the same thing.
Calling something by two different names doesn't make it two different things. It makes it one thing with two names. You can call me a man or a male; they're the same thing. If you call me a man, it doesn't make me NOT a male, they're the same.
The movement that takes place during the shooting phase is running. Running is the movement that takes place during the shooting phase. Play word games as you like, but like I said; you're nit-picking, and the rules are clear - in this case, you're wrong.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
All Rams are tank Shocks. Not all Tank Shocks are Rams. Sorry but you are wrong. If the Waaagh! movement was meant to be running, it would say it is running.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
People are making this a lot more difficult than it really is.
G
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
First of all,
Run =/= Fleet
Notice that I capitalized them because they are in fact two separate USR in the BRB and people seem to be forgetting that in this thread.
1. Run: Is a mechanic of the shooting phase that allows movement in lieu of shooting. Determined by rolling a d6.
2. Fleet: Is a mechanic of the assault phase that allows assaulting despite having used the Run USR in the shooting phase.
Trying to bring in 4th Edition Fleet rule for an extra 6" is cheating, period. Until there is an errata or FAQ changing the wording of Ghaz's WAAGH from "fleet" to "run" then you don't take the auto 6 for anything.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Brother Ramses wrote:Trying to bring in 4th Edition Fleet rule for an extra 6" is cheating, period.
No it's not. Like every rules dispute, it can be resolved with
a) you and your opponent agreeing or
b) rolling a dice and getting a 4+
and the resolution is completely within the rules.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Orkeosaurus wrote:Brother Ramses wrote:Trying to bring in 4th Edition Fleet rule for an extra 6" is cheating, period.
No it's not. Like every rules dispute, it can be resolved with a) you and your opponent agreeing or b) rolling a dice and getting a 4+ and the resolution is completely within the rules.
It's also within the rules for me to insist we play by a house rule that says on a 1+ I Nuke from Orbit and win. The Purpose of this forum is to use the Rules as Written as a basis, not house rules.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Brother Ramses:
No one is trying to get an extra 6" of movement.
With Ghazghkull in your army, instead of rolling D6 to run, you presume 6" to run.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Gwar! wrote:Orkeosaurus wrote:Brother Ramses wrote:Trying to bring in 4th Edition Fleet rule for an extra 6" is cheating, period.
No it's not. Like every rules dispute, it can be resolved with a) you and your opponent agreeing or b) rolling a dice and getting a 4+ and the resolution is completely within the rules.
It's also within the rules for me to insist we play by a house rule that says on a 1+ I Nuke from Orbit and win.
Yeah, but on a 4+ that doesn't work. The Purpose of this forum is to use the Rules as Written as a basis, not house rules.
Hey, the 4+ and opponent agrees rules are both written down. They're not from my house.
1656
Post by: smart_alex
combatmedic wrote:
Now I do see what your trying to say here.
Sense the codex says you declare it during your shooting phase. So what you want to do is run all your boyz, then declare the waaaagh, thus eliminating the risk of that 1 roll wound.
I agree totally. The last time i played a tourney the guy threw a hissy fit that I did this. I Rolled a 1 for my RUN. Then at the end of the shooting phase I decrared Waagh. He kept insisting that I needed to remove 1 model. The ork codex was written BEFORE 5th ed when there was no such thing as run. So you HAD to declare waagh before throwing down the dice and if it was a 1 then you removed a model. As now EVERYONE gets that extra movement you can declare it after and hance it is not a WAAGH move it is just an assault after you run. That is my opinion. However the Ref took his side. Pst.
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
Dashofpepper wrote:Brother Ramses:
No one is trying to get an extra 6" of movement.
With Ghazghkull in your army, instead of rolling D6 to run, you presume 6" to FLEET.
Fixt!
When you use the right terminology as given in the BRB, it clears things up immensely. Since the ork codex specifically uses Fleet, you should use it as well. In the BRB, Fleet is the mechanic of the assault phase. So when you WAAAGH with Ghaz, go ahead and get an automatic 6" ASSAULT move. However when you do a regular WAAAGH, be sure and roll a d6 to see how far you can assault while having Fleet.
My mess up on adding the extra, I meant that you get the maximum 6".
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
olympia wrote:Waagh makes you fleet. Fleet allows you to run before you assault. Running requires you roll a d6. Ghaz gives you a 6" on that roll. As for you RAW fundamentalist--the 5TH EDITION ORK FAQ specifically addresses Ghaz's waagh--specifically that you must wait until T2 until you pop it. CLEARLY if it was meant to be ignored they wouldn't have addressed it specifically in a 5th edition FAQ.
1) waaagh makes you fleet. YUP!
2) Fleet allows you to run before you assault. YUP!
3) Running requires you roll a d6. YUP!
4) Ghaz gives you a 6" on that roll. NOPE! He gives you a 6" Waaagh move, not a 6" run move. WAAAGH=/=Run. Where does it say these are the same in the book? I can't find it.
5) yes the FAQ addresses the waaagh and restricts it to turn 2. You get a cookie. This has nothing to do with anything.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Thinking that Ghazzie's rule lets you take a 6" assault move with your army is ridiculous since everyone already gets a 6" assault move.
The Waaaugh! movement is SPECIFICALLY noted in the Waaaugh! rule on page 31 of the ork codex as happening before the assault move. If you roll a 1 during the Waaaugh! movement, you take a single wound, but you're stil allowed to move an inch, and THEN....and THEN....assault as normal. A normal assault is a 6" (or 2d6 if terrain is relevant). The move before the assault move that the Waaaugh! movement calls to...I don't care what you want to call that move, but as the Waaaugh! rule says, it happens during the shooting phase.
What movement can you make during the shooting phase that happens before the assault phase? I don't care if the word "run" is in the codex or not, its specifically outlined.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Dashofpepper wrote:What movement can you make during the shooting phase that happens before the assault phase? I don't care if the word "run" is in the codex or not, its specifically outlined.
If it were specifically outlined, it would say run. it doesn;t say run, so it does not refer to run.
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
Dashofpepper wrote:Thinking that Ghazzie's rule lets you take a 6" assault move with your army is ridiculous since everyone already gets a 6" assault move.
I would say almost as ridiculous of using 4th Edition Fleet rules in 5th Edition 40k.
The Waaaugh! movement is SPECIFICALLY noted in the Waaaugh! rule on page 31 of the ork codex as happening before the assault move. If you roll a 1 during the Waaaugh! movement, you take a single wound, but you're stil allowed to move an inch, and THEN....and THEN....assault as normal. A normal assault is a 6" (or 2d6 if terrain is relevant). The move before the assault move that the Waaaugh! movement calls to...I don't care what you want to call that move, but as the Waaaugh! rule says, it happens during the shooting phase.
The fact that you don't care what the move is called puts you in the RAI crowd instead of the RAW.
What movement can you make during the shooting phase that happens before the assault phase? I don't care if the word "run" is in the codex or not, its specifically outlined.
The movement is called Run. It is in the 5th Edition BRB under the USR. It isn't 4th Edition Fleet and it isn't WAAAGH movement. It is R-U-N! RAW is a isnt it?
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Doods...
The rulebook is a rulebook, not a legal document required to spell out every word relating to something.
Waaaugh! says that Ork infantry models are 'fleet of foot' for the rest of their turn. That means that they can run, then assault.
Waaaugh! says that Ork models roll a D6 to see how far that they go, and if they roll a 1, they take a wound but get to go 1" anyway.
Waaaugh! says that this all happens before the assault phase.
Waaaugh! says that regardless of what happens with your rolls, Ork units can still assault as normal.
Ghazghkull says that instead of rolling a D6, you move 6".
I don't need RAI, that's RAW. There's only one movement that happens between the movement phase and the assault phase, and its the run. I don't care what 4th edition said; I didn't play during 4th edition - I started 40k after 5th edition came out. The only rules I know are 5th edition, and the 5th edition Ork codex.
Its pretty clear what's going on, and you can keep referring to other editions if you like, but the rules say what they say.
You *DO* realize that whining that because the Waaaugh! rule doesn't have the word "run" in it they can't do it is...well, really lame?
--------------------------------------
Here's another tack:
Codexes supercede the rulebook for special rules when they're more specific. RUN is a USR that applies to everyone. Waaaugh! breaks that USR down into a specific Ork action.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Dashofpepper wrote:You *DO* realize that whining that because the Waaaugh! rule doesn't have the word "run" in it they can't do it is...well, really lame?
As lame as it is, it is the rules
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
Dashofpepper wrote: I don't care what 4th edition said; I didn't play during 4th edition - I started 40k after 5th edition came out. The only rules I know are 5th edition, and the 5th edition Ork codex.
And herein lies your problem.
The movement that happens during the shooting phase that the Ork codex refers to WAS called Fleet of Foot that was determined by a roll of d6. The very roll that Ghaz's auto 6 refers too. Now listen closely, FLEET OF FOOT NO LONGER EXISTS!!
Get it that time?
The NEW movement done during the shooting phase is called RUN. Everyone has it now. If Ghaz's WAAAGH!! was meant to be used with RUN, it would refer to run. Since the Ork codex came out before 5th Edition, there is no way it could. However there is a 5th Edition Ork FAQ and in that document it STILL does not tell you to use the WAAAAGH!! with RUN.
How is this not only RAW, but FAQ'ed RAW?!?!?!?
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Ah, I see the breakdown in communication now.
I'd say this: As I quoted above, the rules are very clear. A new edition of rules doesn't invalidate every codex. I can see what you mean about 4th edition moves here if there was a different way of doing it in 4th edition, but the BRB and the Ork codex are still pretty clear about what to do.
Pretend that 4th edition is irrelevant, because it is. Don't read into the rules as applying to something that isn't relevant, because the rules as written work just fine with 5th edition.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Dashofpepper wrote:Pretend that 4th edition is irrelevant, because it is. Don't read into the rules as applying to something that isn't relevant, because the rules as written work just fine with 5th edition.
Yes, everything apart from the reference to a "6 for the Waaagh! move", as the Waaagh! move no longer exists.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Brother Ramses wrote:Dashofpepper wrote: I don't care what 4th edition said; I didn't play during 4th edition - I started 40k after 5th edition came out. The only rules I know are 5th edition, and the 5th edition Ork codex.
And herein lies your problem.
The movement that happens during the shooting phase that the Ork codex refers to WAS called Fleet of Foot
Get it that time?
That's RAI. Don't read into it that its referring to fleet of foot, it only specifies movement that happens during the shooting phase. Apparently, both 4th and 5th edition have rules that let you move during the shooting phase. There's no break there. Its only referring to the move that happens during the shooting phase; even if it was written during a different edition, it still applies. There's a move that happens during the shooting phase, and its called the run.
The ork codex TELLS you what to do about the movement during the shooting phase.
Its circular logic.
"Use this during the move in the shooting phase."
"You can't use that move because it doesn't say that you're allowed to run."
"Running is the move in the shooting phase."
"But it doesn't SAY run."
"But run IS the move in the shooting phase."
"But it doesn't have the word RUN in the rule."
"But there's only one move during the shooting phase, and its referring to that one."
Yeah....around and around and around.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Gwar! wrote:Dashofpepper wrote:Pretend that 4th edition is irrelevant, because it is. Don't read into the rules as applying to something that isn't relevant, because the rules as written work just fine with 5th edition.
Yes, everything apart from the reference to a "6 for the Waaagh! move", as the Waaagh! move no longer exists.
The Waaaugh! move is whatever move happens before the assault phase, and during the shooting phase. What move is that? I'm pretty sure its the run.
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
Dashofpepper wrote:Brother Ramses wrote:Dashofpepper wrote: I don't care what 4th edition said; I didn't play during 4th edition - I started 40k after 5th edition came out. The only rules I know are 5th edition, and the 5th edition Ork codex.
And herein lies your problem.
The movement that happens during the shooting phase that the Ork codex refers to WAS called Fleet of Foot
Get it that time?
That's RAI. Don't read into it that its referring to fleet of foot, it only specifies movement that happens during the shooting phase. Apparently, both 4th and 5th edition have rules that let you move during the shooting phase. There's no break there. Its only referring to the move that happens during the shooting phase; even if it was written during a different edition, it still applies. There's a move that happens during the shooting phase, and its called the run.
The ork codex TELLS you what to do about the movement during the shooting phase.
Its circular logic.
"Use this during the move in the shooting phase."
"You can't use that move because it doesn't say that you're allowed to run."
"Running is the move in the shooting phase."
"But it doesn't SAY run."
"But run IS the move in the shooting phase."
"But it doesn't have the word RUN in the rule."
"But there's only one move during the shooting phase, and its referring to that one."
Yeah....around and around and around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gwar! wrote:Dashofpepper wrote:Pretend that 4th edition is irrelevant, because it is. Don't read into the rules as applying to something that isn't relevant, because the rules as written work just fine with 5th edition.
Yes, everything apart from the reference to a "6 for the Waaagh! move", as the Waaagh! move no longer exists.
The Waaaugh! move is whatever move happens before the assault phase, and during the shooting phase. What move is that? I'm pretty sure its the run.
Does WAAAGH specifically say Run or does it say Fleet?
You right, this will be a circular argument as long as you keep using 4th Edition rules in place of 5th Edition rules.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Waaaugh says neither run nor fleet. It confers the fleet special rule to Ork infantry units.
The rest just refers to your movement during the shooting phase. I don't care if it was written in 4th edition, because it jives just fine with 5th edition.
The BRB says that a codex with a rule more specialized than USRs take precedence. The Ork codex has one of those rules.
*shrugs again*
411
Post by: whitedragon
Brother Ramses wrote:The NEW movement done during the shooting phase is called RUN. Everyone has it now. If Ghaz's WAAAGH!! was meant to be used with RUN, it would refer to run. Since the Ork codex came out before 5th Edition, there is no way it could. However there is a 5th Edition Ork FAQ and in that document it STILL does not tell you to use the WAAAAGH!! with RUN.
How is this not only RAW, but FAQ'ed RAW?!?!?!?
The FAQ doesn't address that at all. It makes no mention of what to do with the 6 for Ghazzie. Maybe GW felt that it didn't need to be FAQ'ed because it was clear enough as it is.
Dashofpepper's argument is the best, relies only on 5th edition rules, and does not have to be inferred from previous editions.
6454
Post by: Cryonicleech
Ok, you've all completely lost me.
To you who said fleet does not exist, you are somewhat correct. Fleet is a run that allows someone to assault after the run.
What does Gwar! mean that Ghaz's WAAGH! does not give an auto 6 to anything? Not disagreeing, just want to know. And what do you mean that WAAGH move doesn't exist?
WAAGH does say fleet, Dash, I have my dex right here.
4817
Post by: Spetulhu
Cryonicleech wrote:What does Gwar! mean that Ghaz's WAAGH! does not give an auto 6 to anything? And what do you mean that WAAGH move doesn't exist?
Waagh! refers to 4th Edition Fleet of Foot rule that no longer exists . Ghazgkhull's automatic 6 is an automatic 6 on something that no longer exists. The orks never had a "Waagh! move", it's just the name of the rule that gave them FoF with some added spice.
Just do like my group does - declare Waagh! at the start of the shooting phase, run if you wish and assault as if you had 5th edition Fleet on units that benefit from Waagh! at all. It might not be RAW but it surely works nice.
6454
Post by: Cryonicleech
And what do you mean by that?
Fleet is a USR in my rulebook right now. reading, it says that fleet is essentially a run move that allows someone to assault.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Actualy, you're all fairly wrong on this - in 4th ed Waaagh! move did not specifically refer to anything either. In both editions you have been required to infer that Waaaagh! movement is either the Fleet! roll or the Run! roll. Both editions have required interpretation and inference in order to deduce what the rules mean.
Howveer this isn't a problem, as ALL the rules require interpretation - anything else is positivist rubbish. So you determine that the Waaaagh! movement, which occurs in shooting and before assault, can ONLY refer to run movement. It does not require the words "run" in there.
Ork Codex suffers from the designers needing to put it out before 5th ed, but having to write it so that the rules worked in both editions. They could NOT state that Waagh! movement = Run, as Gwar! wants, as that would have made no sense for 5 months, and would have led to confusion.
So waaaagh! movement == movement made in the shooting phase == run. Any other interpretation is logically flawed.
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
Cryonicleech wrote:And what do you mean by that?
Fleet is a USR in my rulebook right now. reading, it says that fleet is essentially a run move that allows someone to assault.
When the Ork codex was released, the 5th Edition rulebook was not yet out. The 4th Edition rulebook had a rule called Fleet of Foot that allowed d6 movement during the shooting phase. The Ork codex refers to this version of Fleet of Foot in terms of WAAAGH!.
In 5th Edition there is a new rule called Run that takes the place of the original Fleet of Foot. Fleet is now a mechanic of the assault phase that allows you to assault despite running during the shooting phase.
The problem that is arising right now is that there is one camp that wants to assume the intent of GW and say that the old version of Fleet of Foot has been replaced with the new version of Run and that Ghaz's special WAAAGH!! automatically gives them a 6" move on the Run roll.
However, since there has not been a GW FAQ or errata that says that the old Fleet of Foot is interchangable with the new Run or that it is even now Run, the other camp says that it is not legal to automatically get an automatic 6" on the WAAAGH using the new Run as if it was the old Fleet of Foot.
4560
Post by: Balzac
Further clarification:
4th edition has a rule called Fleet of Foot
5th edition has a rule called Fleet.
5th edition does not have a rule called Fleet of Foot
Fleet of Foot and Fleet do different things in different phases and really cannot be considered to be even remotely the same thing. References to the 4th edition rule Fleet of Foot cannot be considered to also refer to the 5th edition rule Fleet.
8471
Post by: olympia
Balzac wrote:Further clarification:
4th edition has a rule called Fleet of Foot
5th edition has a rule called Fleet.
5th edition does not have a rule called Fleet of Foot
Fleet of Foot and Fleet do different things in different phases and really cannot be considered to be even remotely the same thing. References to the 4th edition rule Fleet of Foot cannot be considered to also refer to the 5th edition rule Fleet.
From the 5th edition USR "Fleet" "There are many variants of this rule: Fleet of Foot, Fleet of Claw, even Fleet of Hoof. Title aside,, all models with these abilities are treated the same."
That sure as hell sounds like a 5th edition reference to my 4th edition Ork dex which has "Fleet of Foot" rule.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Indeed.
And folks, again - pretend that 4th edition doesn't exist. Apparently, this entire argument started because guys were comparing 4th edition to 5th edition not seeing something map out.
Gwar's camp: Waaaugh! refers to fleeting during the shooting round, and fleeting during the shooting round doesn't exist anymore, so Ghazghkull's effect on a non-existent move means nothing.
Me: Waaaugh! confers fleet for a turn, and describes how to move during the shooting phase. You roll a D6 and move that far, then assault as normal. It doesn't have the word run in it, it just describes what and when to do it and the description and time when you do it matches precisely to run. Therefore it is logical to assume this is the run. Therefore Ghazghkull affects your run, because the run is the movement you take during the shooting phase as described in the Waaaugh!
-----------------------------------------------
As I previously said, I didn't play 40k in 4th edition. Its rules are irrelevant to me, and also irrelevant to everyone else. Don't compare the Ork Codex to 4th edition and look for things that don't jive, apply it to 5th edition. I don't buy that the Ork Waaaugh! applies to something that is no longer in the game when the Waaaugh! meshes perfectly with the rules, and tells you to run. No, it doesn't say "During the run phase" it says, "Movement during the shooting phase."
They're the same.
99
Post by: insaniak
Dashofpepper wrote:Don't compare the Ork Codex to 4th edition and look for things that don't jive,
The problem with that idea is that there are items in various codexes that were written for 4th edition that no longer work in 5th. The FAQ entry I referenced earlier addresses this, telling us to ignore these items. Not to creatively interpret them to fit with rules that have fundamentally changed from their 4th edition incarnation.
This is one of the problems with GW's piecemeal codex release approach. We have codexes now spanning 3 different editions of the game, and people coming into the game now can get justifiably confused by it all.
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
olympia wrote:Balzac wrote:Further clarification:
4th edition has a rule called Fleet of Foot
5th edition has a rule called Fleet.
5th edition does not have a rule called Fleet of Foot
Fleet of Foot and Fleet do different things in different phases and really cannot be considered to be even remotely the same thing. References to the 4th edition rule Fleet of Foot cannot be considered to also refer to the 5th edition rule Fleet.
From the 5th edition USR "Fleet" "There are many variants of this rule: Fleet of Foot, Fleet of Claw, even Fleet of Hoof. Title aside,, all models with these abilities are treated the same."
That sure as hell sounds like a 5th edition reference to my 4th edition Ork dex which has "Fleet of Foot" rule.
Convenient of you to leave out the rest of the description of the 5th Ed. Fleet USR since it says nothing of rolling for movement or that it takes place during the Assault phase. All Fleet does is allow you to Assault after Running in the Shooting Phase. Nothing more.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Brother Ramses wrote:Convenient of you to leave out the rest of the description of the 5th Ed. Fleet USR since it says nothing of rolling for movement or that it takes place during the Assault phase. All Fleet does is allow you to Assault after Running in the Shooting Phase. Nothing more.
That's how people tend to argue "I want it this way" arguments, by leaving out the parts that would hurt them.
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
Dashofpepper wrote:Indeed.
And folks, again - pretend that 4th edition doesn't exist. Apparently, this entire argument started because guys were comparing 4th edition to 5th edition not seeing something map out.
Gwar's camp: Waaaugh! refers to fleeting during the shooting round, and fleeting during the shooting round doesn't exist anymore, so Ghazghkull's effect on a non-existent move means nothing.
Me: Waaaugh! confers fleet for a turn, and describes how to move during the shooting phase. You roll a D6 and move that far, then assault as normal. It doesn't have the word run in it, it just describes what and when to do it and the description and time when you do it matches precisely to run. Therefore it is logical to assume this is the run. Therefore Ghazghkull affects your run, because the run is the movement you take during the shooting phase as described in the Waaaugh!
-----------------------------------------------
As I previously said, I didn't play 40k in 4th edition. Its rules are irrelevant to me, and also irrelevant to everyone else. Don't compare the Ork Codex to 4th edition and look for things that don't jive, apply it to 5th edition. I don't buy that the Ork Waaaugh! applies to something that is no longer in the game when the Waaaugh! meshes perfectly with the rules, and tells you to run. No, it doesn't say "During the run phase" it says, "Movement during the shooting phase."
They're the same.
Continuing to think that the WAAAAGH movement now refers to the Run USR when the codex was written before the Run USR was ever released is straight up RAI. You are choosing to assume that GW placed the wording to allow for Fleet of Foot (4th Ed) to carry over to Run (5th Ed). The rules do not support that assumption.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
It has been said, but what here has not? So for those to . . . busy to go look here we go!
Games Workshop wrote:
Q. If my Codex includes some options (or other
rules) that seem to have no effect in the new
edition (like the Thornback biomorph, which
makes the model count as double the number of
models for the purposes of outnumbering the
enemy in combat resolution), are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something
else that does work?
A. No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no
effect, like in the case of the example above, it
simply does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just
leave it until the next edition of the Codex rather
than change its effects through an errata.
Carry on.
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
kirsanth wrote:It has been said, but what here has not? So for those to . . . busy to go look here we go!
Games Workshop wrote:
Q. If my Codex includes some options (or other
rules) that seem to have no effect in the new
edition (like the Thornback biomorph, which
makes the model count as double the number of
models for the purposes of outnumbering the
enemy in combat resolution), are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something
else that does work?
A. No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no
effect, like in the case of the example above, it
simply does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just
leave it until the next edition of the Codex rather
than change its effects through an errata.
Carry on.
Oh sick burn!
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
kirsanth wrote:It has been said, but what here has not? So for those to . . . busy to go look here we go!
Games Workshop wrote:
Q. If my Codex includes some options (or other
rules) that seem to have no effect in the new
edition (like the Thornback biomorph, which
makes the model count as double the number of
models for the purposes of outnumbering the
enemy in combat resolution), are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something
else that does work?
A. No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no
effect, like in the case of the example above, it
simply does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just
leave it until the next edition of the Codex rather
than change its effects through an errata.
Carry on.
The problem is that doesn't really add anything; it just says that if an ability clearly doesn't work, it doesn't work, and it's not going to be errata'd.
However, if it was clear that Ghazgkull's Waaagh didn't work it wouldn't be as contentious as it is.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
So you think its not clear that the words are different?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
I knew this would happen. "THE FAQ ONLY SAYS TO IGNORE CLEAR THINGS HURRRRRRRR! EVEN THOUGH IT IS CLEAR DURRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!" -Shakes head in t3h Shame -
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
If were clear, then the FAQ would be moot. There would be no argument to address with it.
:EDIT: Yep, circular logic's a bitch.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Orkeosaurus wrote:If were clear, then the FAQ would be moot. There would be no argument to address with it.
Wait. . . you really think that the words are the same?
Really?
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
kirsanth wrote:Orkeosaurus wrote:If were clear, then the FAQ would be moot. There would be no argument to address with it.
Wait. . . you really think that the words are the same?
Really?
As many times as fleet has been interchanged with run in this thread, I really think he does.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
I don't think it's universally clear that the rule no longer works. I think that the multiple people on this thread supporting it's continued validity is proof of that.
The FAQ doesn't say anything besides "if it doesn't do anything, it doesn't do anything". It's not proof of anything. It's circular logic. That FAQ is really only good for telling you that they don't plan to errata defect rules in the future, which is helpful, but not in this debate.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
No.
It is good for telling people that when an out of date rule is referenced, ignore said rule, it has no effect.
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't think it's universally clear that the rule no longer works. I think that the multiple people on this thread supporting it's continued validity is proof of that.
The FAQ doesn't say anything besides "if it doesn't do anything, it doesn't do anything". It's not proof of anything. It's circular logic. That FAQ is really only good for telling you that they don't plan to errata defect rules in the future, which is helpful, but not in this debate.
So you are not going to answer Kirsanth's question?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't think it's universally clear that the rule no longer works. I think that the multiple people on this thread supporting it's continued validity is proof of that.
No, it just proves people can't read.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
i disagree... I shows people who are fully able to read and are reading are misinterpreting something based on what used to be common language.
COmmon language used to be "i'm going ot fleet these guys" or "this unit will fleet" and more importantly "this unit will waaagh x inches"
however... this is not correct. The logic they SHOULD use is "this unit will run and becuase they have fleet they can assault"
A "waaagh move" is not Run because run is a key word that specifically refers to a D6 inch move instead of shooting. A waaagh move simply says the unit has Fleet which only mentions being able to assault after they run.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
If that were the case this thread would not be 5 pages long.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
kirsanth wrote:No.
It is good for telling people that when an out of date rule is referenced, ignore said rule, it has no effect.
It doesn't say that. It says that when a rule that clearly has no effect is referenced it has no effect. Unfortunately, if a rule clearly has no effect, it's clearly not going to do anything anyways. Now you just know it won't be errata'd.
You guys are going to think it's an old rule that has no effect in 5th edition and is thus negated by the FAQ, but you thought that before. People who think it's still a valid rule have no reason to change their position based on the FAQ.
Brother Ramses wrote:So you are not going to answer Kirsanth's question?
Concerning what I personally believe? I've never been an advocate of pure RAW. The GW studio doesn't seem to be, so it seems kind of bizarre to expect the game's players to be held to it.
The wording for Ghazghkull's Waaagh has changed with 5th edition, but it still uses mechanics that are present in 4th edition. As evidenced in this thread, even people with no experience in 5th edition concluded that his Waaagh works on his run move on the turn he calls a Waaagh. I see no reason for this to change, as it's not in any way incompatible with the new rules, only misworded. It also maintains the feel of Ghazghkull's Waagh as being exceptionally powerful, maintains the same level of power he had before 5th edition, and is the most intuitive ruling for most players.
I do think it would be hard to prove he retains the ability if you solely used RAW.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
kirsanth wrote:If that were the case this thread would not be 5 pages long.
Indeed. it is 5 Pages long because people refuse to stop using 4th edition rules to justify their stance. Yes, it worked in 4th, Woop de do. It doesn;t work in 5th. Simple isn't it? Automatically Appended Next Post: Orkeosaurus wrote:I've never been an advocate of pure RAW.
Newsflash, this forum is dedicated to sorting out what the RaW is. You do realise that you can just house rule it if you don't like it, just do not expect others to want to play that way.
RaW Ghazgulz Waaagh! does nothing beyond give Orks Fleet. End Of Discussion.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Orkeosaurus wrote:The wording for Ghazghkull's Waaagh has changed with 5th edition, but it still uses mechanics that are present in 4th edition.
No.
Actually the words are the same. And all mechanics used are 5th edition.
Fleet no longer gives you d6 bonus movement.
So ignore the rule that you get a 6 on that roll.
It is actually as simple as that.
Or apparently more related, it is as complex as that.
Really.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Newsflash: I only began posting here to say that the FAQ was invalid, which it is.
You guys asked what I thought about it personally. Multiple times, so I answered.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Orkeosaurus wrote:Newsflash: I only began posting here to say that the FAQ was invalid, which it is.
You guys asked what I thought about it personally. Multiple times, so I answered.
The FAQ is not invalid, as kirsanth has pointed out multiple times.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
kirsanth wrote:Actually the words are the same. And all mechanics used are 5th edition.
I think you must misunderstand me. I mean that 4th edition fleet has become partially subsumed into 5th edition, but the mechanics are still present; i.e. you still move a d6 worth of inches in the shooting phase.
Fleet no longer gives you d6 bonus movement.
So ignore the rule that you get a 6 on that roll.
But run gives you a bonus d6, so it can be easily switched out.
The rule only refers to "Waaagh movement" anyways. That's not even defined. Most people, though, are going to consider that to be the run move, as that's the move that is affected by the Waaagh. Hell, how do you know the extra movement conferred by the Waaagh in 5th edition was "Waaagh movement"? It's just a matter of interpreting the meaning of the author.
An ability that easily has the capacity to work not working because the wording of the rules concerning it have changed, while the mechanics for it's use remain in place, is anything but intuitive. Whether or not you consider it to be "simple", it's going to come out of the blue for a lot of people using that stupid Goff. Automatically Appended Next Post: Gwar! wrote:The FAQ is not invalid, as kirsanth has pointed out multiple times.
The FAQ is only valid if it's accepted that your argument is true, making it useless to your argument.
It can't help you unless you've already won, because if it clearly has no effect, then it's already a decided issue. I see everybody just keeps ignoring that fact, and instead tries to argue that it is a clear issue, despite the fact that arguing that is only proving my point.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Orkeosaurus wrote: ... so it can be easily switched out...
And there is your problem, spelled out for you in a convenient quote.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
kirsanth wrote:Orkeosaurus wrote: ... so it can be easily switched out...
And there is your problem, spelled out for you in a convenient quote.
If that can be switched out, I wanna start switching out rules so all my Grey Hunters are Monstrous Creatures with the Independent Character rule and 97 Lascannons!
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
It's not a problem for me. Hell, most people I know would switch them out without thinking about it. I've already said I don't operate on nothing but RAW. :EDIT: You can do that by RAW, Gwar!. Just roll a 4+.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Orkeosaurus wrote:It's not a problem for me. Hell, most people I know would switch them out without thinking about it.
I've already said I don't operate on nothing but RAW.
:EDIT: You can do that by RAW, Gwar!. Just roll a 4+.
Yup, but as I said, this forum is for dealing with RaW, not RaI and not " RaW you can change RaW". If we did nothing would ever get done and we would have to add disclaimers all the time
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Orkeosaurus wrote:It's not a problem for me. Hell, most people I know would switch them out without thinking about it.
I've already said I don't operate on nothing but RAW.
Ok, I meant the problem with your argument, not you personally. . . and yes people switch rules around a lot. That is one reason people come here to figure out what the rules really say.
As for the third sentence, I am sort of at a loss.
"don't operate on nothing but"
Meaning RAW is unrelated to how you play?
Ok, but can we at least involve it in our discussion of the rules?
Or am I confusing the negatives in there somehow. . .
11933
Post by: number9dream
frgsinwntr wrote:cool!
BUT
how do you tell your opponent this in a game with out sounding like a jerk
I think the more pressing concern is not getting punched in the face -_-
Seriously, it's sooo bloody clear what the ability is intended to do, that I hadn't even CONSIDERED it meaning anything else before reading threads like this on dakka.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Orkeosaurus wrote:kirsanth wrote:Actually the words are the same. And all mechanics used are 5th edition.
I think you must misunderstand me. I mean that 4th edition fleet has become partially subsumed into 5th edition, but the mechanics are still present; i.e. you still move a d6 worth of inches in the shooting phase.
Fleet no longer gives you d6 bonus movement.
So ignore the rule that you get a 6 on that roll.
But run gives you a bonus d6, so it can be easily switched out.
The rule only refers to "Waaagh movement" anyways. That's not even defined. Most people, though, are going to consider that to be the run move, as that's the move that is affected by the Waaagh. Hell, how do you know the extra movement conferred by the Waaagh in 5th edition was "Waaagh movement"? It's just a matter of interpreting the meaning of the author.
An ability that easily has the capacity to work not working because the wording of the rules concerning it have changed, while the mechanics for it's use remain in place, is anything but intuitive. Whether or not you consider it to be "simple", it's going to come out of the blue for a lot of people using that stupid Goff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gwar! wrote:The FAQ is not invalid, as kirsanth has pointed out multiple times.
The FAQ is only valid if it's accepted that your argument is true, making it useless to your argument.
It can't help you unless you've already won, because if it clearly has no effect, then it's already a decided issue. I see everybody just keeps ignoring that fact, and instead tries to argue that it is a clear issue, despite the fact that arguing that is only proving my point.
All of that is RaI with ZERO basis in RaW. I think you should add that disclaimer if you are gonna keep posting it  Automatically Appended Next Post: number9dream wrote:frgsinwntr wrote:cool!
BUT
how do you tell your opponent this in a game with out sounding like a jerk
I think the more pressing concern is not getting punched in the face -_-
Seriously, it's sooo bloody clear what the ability is intended to do, that I hadn't even CONSIDERED it meaning anything else before reading threads like this on dakka.
That's fine and dandy if you want to play Househammer 40k, but I play Warhammer 40k. I have a whole ton of stuff that doesn't work in my Space Wolf Codex anymore, am I just allowed to give it a different effect because I want to?
5873
Post by: kirsanth
number9dream wrote:frgsinwntr wrote:cool!
BUT
how do you tell your opponent this in a game with out sounding like a jerk
I think the more pressing concern is not getting punched in the face -_-
Seriously, it's sooo bloody clear what the ability is intended to do, that I hadn't even CONSIDERED it meaning anything else before reading threads like this on dakka.
I have a list of things I clarify with anyone I have never played before. I sometimes print it out with my army list.
With people I play regularly, I have related discussions often.
If you are trying to "surprise" anyone with rules, you are about TFG already.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
kirsanth wrote:If you are trying to "surprise" anyone with rules, you are about TFG already.
One of the reasons I go before the Game "Listen, We play by RaW" then list anything that might be relevent (If I'm playing orks I bring this up etc) Despite what others say about me, I am not TFG.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
kirsanth wrote:Ok, I meant the problem with your argument, not you personally. . . and yes people switch rules around a lot. That is one reason people come here to figure out what the rules really say.
That's fine. I do think it's good to hash out what the RAW is, as I do consider it in rules issues. Probably more than anything else, honestly, but still by it's lonesome.
As for the third sentence, I am sort of at a loss.
"don't operate on nothing but"
Meaning RAW is unrelated to how you play?
Ok, but can we at least involve it in our discussion of the rules?
No, I just take things besides the RAW into consideration as well. Things such as balance, designer's intent, precedence, fluff, realism, intuitiveness to gamer who doesn't research such things, etc. I use RAW for the vast majority of the game's rules, as I'm sure nearly everyone does, but I don't see it as the end-all be-all of resolving rules disputes. I think the lack of support the design studio has for RAW, the 4+ mechanic to "keep the game going smoothly", the fact that many RAW "issues" never come to mind until someone starts to announce them, and GWs evident dislike for useful FAQs and Errata, are evidence enough that RAW is flawed in many ways. I'd like to be able to play a game with well-understood, balanced, non-conflicting rules as much as anyone, but I don't think RAW is a realistic method for trying to attain that. Not with GW, at any rate, I know there are some games that are a lot tighter.
I understand that such philosophies aren't at the core of YMTC, as Gwar! seems rather obsessed with noting, so I'll continue to let you guys hash it out amongst yourselves.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
I prefer to be able to show my opponent why I am playing the way I am. That way, when I play someone new, we can be playing the same game. Sure it takes some discussion before the game starts, but being that I am going to be hanging out with someone for the next few hours, a short conversation is really not a problem.
shrug
11933
Post by: number9dream
Gwar! wrote:kirsanth wrote:If you are trying to "surprise" anyone with rules, you are about TFG already.
One of the reasons I go before the Game "Listen, We play by RaW" then list anything that might be relevent (If I'm playing orks I bring this up etc)
Despite what others say about me, I am not TFG.
If I had Ghaz, I don't think I would play anyone who tried to tell me his waaagh doesn't confer a 6" run move.
They wrote the bloody rules just months before 5th was released, why would they include something that's not going to bloody do ANYTHING in just a few months? I know GW aren't known for their amazing foresight but come on!
Possibly by the strictest RAW I could be inclined to agree that "it does nothing", but I think that's taking RAW to the point of looking for loopholes.
As for Gwar's space wolves, I have no idea what rules they've lost so I couldn't say anything about that.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
kirsanth wrote:I prefer to be able to show my opponent why I am playing the way I am. That way, when I play someone new, we can be playing the same game. Sure it takes some discussion before the game starts, but being that I am going to be hanging out with someone for the next few hours, a short conversation is really not a problem.
shrug
Well, discussing how you want to play before the game is definitely a good idea, no matter where you stand.
I think to be "playing the same game" is what most people want.
8471
Post by: olympia
Gwar! wrote:
Despite what others say about me, I am not TFG.
At least you are aware of how people perceive you and what they say about you.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
Nice personal attack. Stick to attacking arguments chief
8471
Post by: olympia
frgsinwntr wrote:Nice personal attack. Stick to attacking arguments chief
I addressed and refuted Gwar and the other RAW fundamentalists two pages ago.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
olympia wrote:frgsinwntr wrote:Nice personal attack. Stick to attacking arguments chief
I addressed and refuted Gwar and the other RAW fundamentalists two pages ago.
No Excuse to begin personal attacks.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Both sides seem to think that neither side is addressing the other side; the humor rolls on.
Now that I understand what was happening in 4th edition, I think that the arguments against Ghazghkull are even more ludicrous.
Waaugh used to tell you that you could move during the shooting phase, and then assault afterwards, while Ghazghkull let you move a full 6" during the shooting phase move.
As a previous poster mentioned, they couldn't put "run" into the Ork codex because 5th edition hadn't been released yet, and referring to a rule that hasn't been released yet would cause confusion, so they stuck to referring to the movement in the shooting phase.
NOW...Waaaugh! still tells you to move during the shooting phase, and then assault afterwards, while Ghazghkull lets you move a full 6" during the shooting phase move.
Nothing has changed, except for the fact that now everyone gets a movement during the shooting phase if they want it.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Dashofpepper wrote:Nothing has changed, except for the fact that now everyone gets a movement during the shooting phase if they want it.
yes, because the fact that Fleet no longer gives extra movement means nothing has changed.
You can rant and rave all you want, Ghazgulz Waaagh! does not reference the Run Move, so you don't get to count as rolling a 6 for it.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
hehe I'm just waiting for someone to come in and say "John spencer says this! it must be true!"
12265
Post by: Gwar!
frgsinwntr wrote:hehe I'm just waiting for someone to come in and say "John spencer says this! it must be true!"
To which people with a Clue will reply:
"John Spencer says this! It must be the other way!"
5873
Post by: kirsanth
"WAAAGH!" is not "run".
People can complain that it SHOULD be.
Heck, I can even agree with them sometimes.
However, the real point is, if this comes up in a game (or before a game!) and someone tells you "No, here is the rules explaining why you are wrong" you need to have rules to explain why you are right.
Saying "Well, it used to work this way!" means less than nothing to most people. In fact, if you play with someone that never played 4e, they will probably think you are simply trying to cheat. Because knowing the rules ACTUALLY say one thing, but playing another can really be construed that way.
TFG can also be the one arguing RAI (and honestly is most of the time, from my experience).
12265
Post by: Gwar!
kirsanth wrote:TFG is always the one arguing RAI
Fix'd.
TFG argues rules to make sure they benefit him. I argue rules to be played as written.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Gwar! wrote:kirsanth wrote:TFG is always the one arguing RAI
Fix'd.
TFG argues rules to make sure they benefit him. I argue rules to be played as written.
In all fairness I almost wrote that.
I can think of a couple of people that fall outside that though. One is simply mistaken rather often.
99
Post by: insaniak
number9dream wrote:They wrote the bloody rules just months before 5th was released, why would they include something that's not going to bloody do ANYTHING in just a few months?
Poor planning?
(Although if you ask anyone who bought the 2nd Edition Sisters of Battle codex, which was released a couple of months before 3rd edition came along and invalidated every single codex, they'd probably tell you that GW do it deliberately just to drive people up the wall...)
Possibly by the strictest RAW I could be inclined to agree that "it does nothing", but I think that's taking RAW to the point of looking for loopholes.
The fact that you can see the opposing side at least argues for it to be something to discuss with your opponent pre-game, rather than just assuming that everyone will agree it works the way you think it does.
6454
Post by: Cryonicleech
Isn't WAAGH a run move?
In the 5th ed. Rulebook, Fleet states that it is a run move that allows someone to assault. It also says that the rule may be called Fleet of Foot, Hoof, Claw etc.
A WAAGH is essentially a run that allows someone to assault. This being because Fleet of Foot is a Run move (at least this is what it says in my book) that allows someone to assault, whereas the regular Run does not.
Run, in essence, somewhat replaced fleet. But in the Rulebook, Fleet is a Run move, so therefore I would like to think that a WAAGH is a run move that I can assault with.
Once again, feel free to disagree, or point out why I am wrong. I am simply confused and trying to get an answer.
Edit: Ok, I think I get it. Some people say that WAAGH does not exist as Fleet of Foot was a 4th ed. Rule.
Though, I don't see how Fleet of Foot disappeared. Reading the Rulebook, Fleet is a RUN move that allows me to assault. someone kindly explain the difference, please.
I'd also like to thank people for keeping this relatively polite.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
Cryonicleech
Edit:
1) Run allows a D6 movement instead of shooting
2) Fleet is a rule that says you can assault if you ran. No mention of how running works in this rule.
3) Waaagh does not say anything about running, only gaining fleet.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Cryonicleech wrote:Though, I don't see how Fleet of Foot disappeared. Reading the Rulebook, Fleet is a RUN move that allows me to assault. someone kindly explain the difference, please.
Fleet is not a Move in any shape or form. All Fleet does is allow you to Assault after running.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
I have it wrong?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
frgsinwntr wrote:I have it wrong?
No you have it correct, Cryonicleech has it wrong. Sorry, my bad 
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
phew! I was confused and rechecking my logic!
6454
Post by: Cryonicleech
Gwar! wrote:frgsinwntr wrote:Cryonicleech
Edit:
1) Run allows a D6 movement instead of shooting
2) Fleet is a rule that says you can assault if you ran. No mention of how running works in this rule.
3) Waaagh does not say anything about running, only gaining fleet.
Seems to me someone is stuck playing 4th edition.
But yes, please quote the three rules asked or acknowledge that you have it horribly wrong. Cryonicleech wrote:Though, I don't see how Fleet of Foot disappeared. Reading the Rulebook, Fleet is a RUN move that allows me to assault. someone kindly explain the difference, please.
Man this made me laugh. YMTC sure has some funny people today. Fleet is not a Move in any shape or form. All Fleet does is allow you to Assault after running. If you had read the rulebook you would know that.
I really don't see the need to insult me on this. I'm asking a question. If I have it wrong, I'm sorry. No need to degrade me over it.
99
Post by: insaniak
Cryonicleech wrote:Isn't WAAGH a run move?
No.
Waaagh! is an ability that grants Ork infantry Fleet.
In the 5th ed. Rulebook, Fleet states that it is a run move that allows someone to assault. It also says that the rule may be called Fleet of Foot, Hoof, Claw etc.
It does not say that Fleet is a run move. Fleet is not a move at all. It's an abilty that allows a unit to charge in the assault phase even if it ran in the shooting phase.
A WAAGH is essentially a run that allows someone to assault.
A Waaagh! move, as defined by the codex, is the movement granted by the Fleet rule, which in 4th edition was D6" and in 5th edition is nil.
Run, in essence, somewhat replaced fleet.
That's true.
But in the Rulebook, Fleet is a Run move,
That's not. Again, Fleet is not a move at all. It's an ability that allows you to assault.
Edit: Ok, I think I get it. Some people say that WAAGH does not exist as Fleet of Foot was a 4th ed. Rule. Though, I don't see how Fleet of Foot disappeared. Reading the Rulebook, Fleet is a RUN move that allows me to assault. someone kindly explain the difference, please.
Fleet of Foot was a 4th edition rule that granted D6" movement in the shooting phase.
Fleet is a completely different 5th edition rule that grants the ability to charge in the assault phase, even if the model ran.
Two completely different rules that just share a similar name.
6454
Post by: Cryonicleech
Alrighty then. I think I get it.
Thanks, Insaniak
Edit: just to make absolutely sure.
Fleet is not a move: This I understand now
Ghaz does not give an auto 6 to anything: This too I understand.
6846
Post by: solkan
Cryonicleech wrote:Alrighty then. I think I get it.
Thanks, Insaniak
Edit: just to make absolutely sure.
Fleet is not a move: This I understand now
Ghaz does not give an auto 6 to anything: This too I understand.
And more importantly:
If Ghaz doesn't give an auto 6 to anything, then Ork units don't suffer a wound on a '1' for their run movement, since it isn't 'Waagh! movement', either.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
solkan wrote:Cryonicleech wrote:Alrighty then. I think I get it.
Thanks, Insaniak
Edit: just to make absolutely sure.
Fleet is not a move: This I understand now
Ghaz does not give an auto 6 to anything: This too I understand.
And more importantly:
If Ghaz doesn't give an auto 6 to anything, then Ork units don't suffer a wound on a '1' for their run movement, since it isn't 'Waagh! movement', either.
Yup! agreed
12265
Post by: Gwar!
solkan wrote:And more importantly:
If Ghaz doesn't give an auto 6 to anything, then Ork units don't suffer a wound on a '1' for their run movement, since it isn't 'Waagh! movement', either.
Yup, totally correct there. Once of the changes 5th edition brought around.
8471
Post by: olympia
You RAW fundies are so clueless. Oh look, there's a GW tactica article on Ghazghkull
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=cat210004&categoryId=600005&aId=3400051
Perhaps the most dangerous thing about Ghazghkull, though, is his Prophet of the Waaagh! rule. On the turn this ability is used, all Ork infantry units become Fearless (provided they aren't running away like scaredy-squigs) and can move an extra 6" as they Fleet of Foot. This extra movement ignores difficult terrain, and your opponent will soon find his battle lines overwhelmed by mobz of angry Boyz charging in (with Furious Charge to boot). Ghazghkull also becomes all but invulnerable on this turn; just the trick if you are about to barrel into a squad of Terminators.
buh buh buh you RAW fundies will say, that tactica is from 4th edition they've just left it posted on there website all this time...buh buh buh...
buh buh buh....it's not an official FAQ or Errata...buh buh buh...
12265
Post by: Gwar!
olympia wrote:You RAW fundies are so clueless. Oh look, there's a GW tactica article on Ghazghkull http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=cat210004&categoryId=600005&aId=3400051 Perhaps the most dangerous thing about Ghazghkull, though, is his Prophet of the Waaagh! rule. On the turn this ability is used, all Ork infantry units become Fearless (provided they aren't running away like scaredy-squigs) and can move an extra 6" as they Fleet of Foot. This extra movement ignores difficult terrain, and your opponent will soon find his battle lines overwhelmed by mobz of angry Boyz charging in (with Furious Charge to boot). Ghazghkull also becomes all but invulnerable on this turn; just the trick if you are about to barrel into a squad of Terminators. buh buh buh you RAW fundies will say, that tactica is from 4th edition they've just left it posted on there website all this time...buh buh buh... buh buh buh....it's not an official FAQ or Errata...buh buh buh...
"That tactica is from 4th edition they've just left it posted on their website. It is neither official, nor Errata, nor FAQ." Spelling is fun. Also, if you want to accept Random Web sites as rules then I shall make a website that makes me King of The Moon. Doesn't make it true though.
99
Post by: insaniak
olympia wrote:buh buh buh you RAW fundies will say, that tactica is from 4th edition they've just left it posted on there website all this time...buh buh buh...
Actually, going by the article ID numbers, it is a 4th edition article. Or at least, it appears to have been posted quite some time before the 5th edition update articles.
But seriously, I'm puzzled as to what you expect from this discussion.
We're talking about the rules. You can post as many links as you like to articles suggesting that GW intended for it to work a certain way, and it won't make a lick of difference to what the rules actually say.
Nor will it change how people actually play it. I personally don't have the slightest problem with Waaagh! movement not actually existing under 5th edition, because it has no effect on my own games. As I mentioned earlier, I play my Orks with the Waaagh! having to be declared at the start of the phase, and with the Run counting as the Waaagh! movement. I do this because it is, to me, the better way to play it and the way I suspect GW intended it to go when they wrote the book so close to the 5th edition release.
But I don't pretend that it's what the book actually says to do, and I'm not going to get upset with anyone who points out that the way I play it isn't how the rules actually say to do it.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
insaniak wrote:But I don't pretend that it's what the book actually says to do, and I'm not going to get upset with anyone who points out that the way I play it isn't how the rules actually say to do it.
QFT x 9001
If you were playing me and brought this up, I would more than likely have no issue with letting you do it this way, provided you were not an donkey-cave about it or tried to force me into playing your way and as long as you realised that you are using a house rule.
Come up to me and go "OMFG J00! GHAZGUL IZ RUUNE NAO!" I'd tell you to kindly RTFM and GTFO.
12821
Post by: RustyKnight
Gwar! wrote:
RTFM
What does that acronym mean?
I'd be fine with letting my opponent's use Ghaz's WAAAAGH!, assuming they're willing to let Lictor's ignore Dangerous Terrain when they DS, etc.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
RustyKnight wrote:Gwar! wrote:
RTFM
What does that acronym mean?
I'd be fine with letting my opponent's use Ghaz's WAAAAGH!, assuming they're willing to let Lictor's ignore Dangerous Terrain when they DS, etc.
Read The Manual
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
*sigh*
You can say RTFM and GTFO, except that I'd be inclined to do the same. If you and I are playing a game, and you tell me that I don't get a Waaaugh! movement and Ghazghkull's ability, I'm going to call the TO over.
I'm going to show them my codex, which describes how Orks get the fleet ability, then goes on to describe how to move during the shooting phase.
You're going to tell the TO that the Waaaugh! description was written during 4th edition and doesn't apply anymore.
I'm going to show them the run USR and compare it to the Waaaugh! rule, which both describe the same action happening, albeit with an extra caveat of receiving a wound for rolling a 1.
You're going to whine to the TO that it doesn't actually have the word run in the description, so its nothing.
I'm going to remind the TO that the BRB defers to a codex when a codex has a more specific rule.
The TO is going to agree with me, and I'm going to continue using Waaaugh! as normal. I don't *need* to be in a game with you and make a concession that I'm using a house rule, because I'm not. I need only look at the rules, and they're absolutely clear on what actions to take during my turn. The Ork codex jives just fine with 5th edition. You can try making inferences back to other editions to try explaining that a rule is only supposed to be for another scenario, but I'm willing to believe that GW wrote the Waaaugh! unit the way that it did specifically so that it would stand through 5th edition.
As a previous poster noted, and as you users keep ignoring....since the Ork codex was written before 5th edition, they couldn't refer to the run USR in it - instead, they just described the run movement, and how to move during the run phase without attaching a rule name to it.
So keep plugging your ears and going "lalalala" because your argument isn't valid; plopping the rules down in front of a TO organizer will be sufficient to show that.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Dashofpepper wrote:So keep plugging your ears and going "lalalala" because your argument isn't valid; plopping the rules down in front of a TO organizer will be sufficient to show that.
This line just shows you have no clue about the rules. I have proven to you time and time again. Show me where it says the Waagh! Movement is Run. Show me, please, point to the Sentence "Waaagh! movement = Run" in the ork Codex. It is that simple, if the Ork Codex does not say Waaaagh! Move = Run, then it does not. I just hope you DO go to a tournament one day (I doubt it considering your rules knowledge) and get smacked in the face by the TO.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
olympia wrote:You RAW fundies are so clueless. Oh look, there's a GW tactica article on Ghazghkull
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=cat210004&categoryId=600005&aId=3400051
Perhaps the most dangerous thing about Ghazghkull, though, is his Prophet of the Waaagh! rule. On the turn this ability is used, all Ork infantry units become Fearless (provided they aren't running away like scaredy-squigs) and can move an extra 6" as they Fleet of Foot. This extra movement ignores difficult terrain, and your opponent will soon find his battle lines overwhelmed by mobz of angry Boyz charging in (with Furious Charge to boot). Ghazghkull also becomes all but invulnerable on this turn; just the trick if you are about to barrel into a squad of Terminators.
buh buh buh you RAW fundies will say, that tactica is from 4th edition they've just left it posted on there website all this time...buh buh buh...
buh buh buh....it's not an official FAQ or Errata...buh buh buh...
LOL GW making a mistake in a tactica or battle report?? man! what is the world coming too! there are typically 4-5 mistakes per WD battle report! Yay call us fundies!
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Gwar, you have selective attention, and conveniently ignore a lot of things.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Dashofpepper wrote:Gwar, you have selective attention, and conveniently ignore a lot of things.
As do you, namely the fact that we now play 5th edition, and as such the functionality of the Waaagh! rule has changed, meaning that a roll of 1 no longer results in a wound, you may run first and then Call the Waaagh! and the fact that Ghazguls "six" special rule no longer functions.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
Dashofpepper wrote:*sigh*
You're going to whine to the TO that it doesn't actually have the word run in the description, so its nothing.
there really isn't any whining going on. Just intellectual debate on how a certain rule is working or if it actually doesn't work and everyone plays it like it does.
99
Post by: insaniak
Dashofpepper wrote:You can say RTFM and GTFO, except that I'd be inclined to do the same. If you and I are playing a game, and you tell me that I don't get a Waaaugh! movement and Ghazghkull's ability, I'm going to call the TO over.
It would seem from this statement that you're still not following the actual argument.
You still get exactly the same amount of movement when the Waaagh! is called as you did last edition.
The problem is simply that this movement is now coming from the Run rule instead of from the Fleet rule.
So rather than 'whining' to the TO, your opponent would need only to point out that Fleet no longer confers movement, which means that the reference to Fleet-induced movement is an artefact of last edition... a rule that causes 'x' effect when Fleet-induced movement occurs can have no effect on the current ruleset, because there is no Fleet movement.
And the Rulebook FAQ tells us what to do with such artefacts.
Of course, the TO would be well within their rights to rule in your favour. They'd be equally within their rights to rule the other way, or to make up another rule on the spot to cover the situation.
And none of those rulings would have the slightest impact on what the rules actually say... which is what is under discussion.
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
Dash, what your scenario relies on to come down in your favor is for the TO to make the same RAI interpretation that you have been arguing for this whole thread.
TO come down on the side of RAW far more then RAI. Good luck with that.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
I'm pretty sure that I follow the argument...
Gwar believes that Ghazghkull's special rule that grants an automatic six to movement you make during the shooting phase doesn't apply to running.
I believe that Ghazghkull's special rule that grants an automatic six to movement made during the running phase does apply to running.
Gwar believes that since the Waaaugh! rule doesn't specifically reference running during the shooting phase, it doesn't apply to running.
I believe that since the Waaaugh! rule doesn't specifically reference running during the shooting phase (since running didn't exist when the rule was written), and instead is worded to cover any movement made, that is inclusive of running.
---------------------------
In short, I believe that referencing movement made during the shooting phase is an inclusive statement that covers running.
Gwar believes that since that rule doesn't have the word "run" in it, it is exclusive, and doesn't cover running.
---------------------------
In other words, this argument boils down to this: if I say "Bring me all the fruit in your refrigerator" and you don't bring me the oranges and say, "You didn't say bring me oranges..." I'm going to smack you for not following directions. This is the exact, EXACT same thing. Running is part of moving during the shooting phase. I don't care if it says running or not, its inclusive of any movement in the shooting phase.
THAT'S why I say that Gwar and company have selective hearing/reading skills and are conscientiously ignoring anything relevant to the rules.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Dashofpepper wrote:I'm pretty sure that I follow the argument...
Gwar believes that Ghazghkull's special rule that grants an automatic six to movement you make during the shooting phase doesn't apply to running.
I believe that Ghazghkull's special rule that grants an automatic six to movement made during the running phase does apply to running.
Gwar believes that since the Waaaugh! rule doesn't specifically reference running during the shooting phase, it doesn't apply to running.
I believe that since the Waaaugh! rule doesn't specifically reference running during the shooting phase (since running didn't exist when the rule was written), and instead is worded to cover any movement made, that is inclusive of running.
---------------------------
In short, I believe that referencing movement made during the shooting phase is an inclusive statement that covers running.
Gwar believes that since that rule doesn't have the word "run" in it, it is exclusive, and doesn't cover running.
---------------------------
In other words, this argument boils down to this: if I say "Bring me all the fruit in your refrigerator" and you don't bring me the oranges and say, "You didn't say bring me oranges..." I'm going to smack you for not following directions. This is the exact, EXACT same thing. Running is part of moving during the shooting phase. I don't care if it says running or not, its inclusive of any movement in the shooting phase.
THAT'S why I say that Gwar and company have selective hearing/reading skills and are conscientiously ignoring anything relevant to the rules.
Translated: Dashofpepper wrote:I'm pretty sure that I follow the argument...
The rules say believes that Ghazghkull's special rule that grants an automatic six to movement you make during the shooting phase doesn't apply to running.
I believe that Ghazghkull's special rule has some sort of magical power to ignore the rules.
I fixed it for you! Seriously, that is all you are saying. Just so you know, nothing in the Waaagh! rule mentions movement in the Shooting phase, it just mentions a "Waaagh! movement" which does not exist any more, as I must have pointed out a thousand times. yes you declare a Waaagh! in the shooting phase, but nowhere does it say that this waaagh! movement happsn in the shooting phase at all. In fact, the rule the Waaagh! grants does not give any sort of movement at all, so the mention of a Waaagh! movement is just a rule that has no meaning. Also, running phase? Since when did 40k have a Running Phase?
12821
Post by: RustyKnight
Gwar! wrote:
Just so you know, nothing in the Waaagh! rule mentions movement in the Shooting phase, it just mentions a "Waaagh! movement" which does not exist any more, as I must have pointed out a thousand times. yes you declare a Waaagh! in the shooting phase, but nowhere does it say that this waaagh! movement happsn in the shooting phase at all. In fact, the rule the Waaagh! grants does not give any sort of movement at all, so the mention of a Waaagh! movement is just a rule that has no meaning.
Also, running phase? Since when did 40k have a Running Phase?
Just curious, could the assault move be the new Waaaagh! move? With the new Fleet rule, the assault move that you make after running could be consdered to by movement caused by Fleet. Practically worthless, but it could give Ghazkul a use ("what? I payed 225 points to six inch assault through cover?".
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Gwar, continuously nitpicking.
The Waaaugh! is declared at the start of the shooting phase, and your Waaaugh! movement happens sometime between that moment and before the assault phase. That *is* in the Waaaugh! rule.
Please, continue to selectively decide what to talk about and ignore the rest. I think on your next post, I'm going to pick the word "the" in whatever you post and just focus on that.
At the end of the day, I *am* right. The rules say that I'm right. Your link to 4th edition and what the codex meant then is irrelevant. We're not playing 4th edition.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Dashofpepper wrote:Gwar, continuously nitpicking.
I do my best. Dashofpepper wrote:The Waaaugh! is declared at the start of the shooting phase, and your Waaaugh! movement happens sometime between that moment and before the assault phase. That *is* in the Waaaugh! rule.
Nowhere does it mention Movement At all. Waaaaagh! just says all friendly units have Fleet of Foot. Nothing about movement at all. It mentions movement afterwards, but that is a reference to how Fleet of Foot Worked in 4th edition, not Run of 5th edition, nor Fleet of 5th Edition. Dashofpepper wrote:Please, continue to selectively decide what to talk about and ignore the rest. I think on your next post, I'm going to pick the word "the" in whatever you post and just focus on that.
At the end of the day, I *am* right. The rules say that I'm right. Your link to 4th edition and what the codex meant then is irrelevant. We're not playing 4th edition.
No, you are not right, I have shown many times you are not right. I am not selectively deciding anything. You are using 4th edition rules to justify your position. I am not. Now, you were about to nitpick?
4560
Post by: Balzac
RustyKnight wrote:Just curious, could the assault move be the new Waaaagh! move? With the new Fleet rule, the assault move that you make after running could be considered to by movement caused by Fleet. Practically worthless, but it could give Ghazkul a use ("what? I payed 225 points to six inch assault through cover?".
I could see some support to this argument, as the Orks only get to assault after running due to the Waaaagh rule, so it could be argued that the assault is the Waaaagh move. However, it would also mean that the orks could take wounds by making the assault move. But it's a causal link at best, not a direct language/terminology link.
12821
Post by: RustyKnight
Gwar! wrote:
Now, you were about to nitpick?
Well, you didn't write "the", so I guess you foiled his plot.
99
Post by: insaniak
Dashofpepper wrote:Gwar believes that since the Waaaugh! rule doesn't specifically reference running during the shooting phase, it doesn't apply to running.
Again (speaking of selective reading ) it's not just that the rule doesn't refer to running... there's also the problem that the rule refers specifically to the movement granted by fleet of foot.
Here's the relevant part of the entry:
"... For the duration of that turn, all friendly Ork units have the 'fleet of foot' rule ..."
"If a unit rolls a 1 when making this Waaagh! movement, the Orks start fighting before they get to the enemy..."
Now, nowhere in the Waaagh! rules do they define 'Waaagh! movement'. So we're left to devine what it is by context. The fact that the entry refers to ' this Waaagh! movement' directly after mentioning that the Orks gain fleet of foot (which at the time the codex was printed granted extra movement) tells us that 'Waaagh! movement is 'movement granted by having the fleet of foot rule'
That's what that passage is telling us. It doesn't mentioning running, as you say, because it couldn't. But that doesn't mean that we can simply substitute 'run' for 'fleet of foot' in the rules. That's fine to do as a house rule, but to make it the actual rule would take an errata.
So, in 5th edition, the passage still reads that 'Waaagh! movement' is the movement granted by having fleet of foot. But fleet of foot doesn't grant movement... which means that 'Waaagh! movement doesn't exist.
The unit can still run, because everybody can do so. But that running isn't Waaagh! movement.
Waaagh! movement doesn't exist under 5th edition. It's a rule that, due to the 5th edition changes, has no effect. And so should be ignored.
In other words, this argument boils down to this: if I say "Bring me all the fruit in your refrigerator" and you don't bring me the oranges and say, "You didn't say bring me oranges..." I'm going to smack you for not following directions. This is the exact, EXACT same thing.
It's really not.
The exact same thing would be if you said 'Bring me the fruitbowl in the refrigerator, and then take the oranges out of it' when the oranges had just been put into a different bowl entirely.
There's no oranges there, because they don't get put in the fruitbowl any more...
Running is part of moving during the shooting phase.
But it's not movement granted by the unit having the fleet of foot ability.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Balzac wrote:RustyKnight wrote:Just curious, could the assault move be the new Waaaagh! move? With the new Fleet rule, the assault move that you make after running could be considered to by movement caused by Fleet. Practically worthless, but it could give Ghazkul a use ("what? I payed 225 points to six inch assault through cover?".
I could see some support to this argument, as the Orks only get to assault after running due to the Waaaagh rule, so it could be argued that the assault is the Waaaagh move. However, it would also mean that the orks could take wounds by making the assault move. But it's a causal link at best, not a direct language/terminology link.
It's also Monkey Grade bananas. The Waaagh! movement is an obsolete reference to a rule that no longer exsists (Fleet of Foot). Instead, the Waaagh! grants Fleet, which lets you assault after running. Automatically Appended Next Post: insaniak wrote:THAT'S why I say that Gwar and company have selective hearing/reading skills and are conscientiously ignoring anything relevant to the rules.
I see what you did there.
'ave a cook'e 'umie
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Gwar, here's your problem:
The codex doesn't call out 4th, 5th, or any other edition. You choose to interpret the rule to only work with 4th edition. You're adding your own flair to the codex instead of just accepting what's written.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Dashofpepper wrote:Gwar, here's your problem:
The codex doesn't call out 4th, 5th, or any other edition. You choose to interpret the rule to only work with 4th edition. You're adding your own flair to the codex instead of just accepting what's written.
That made less sense than the Bible. And I would know, I've read the damn thing. (Being born into a Jewish Family and going to a Catholic school does wonders for the Knowledge of religion ) Show me where it defines what the Waaagh! movement is? Nowehere. Back in 4th it referred to the movement caused by the fleet of foot rule. Now it refers to something hat does not exist, ergo the rule doesn't refer to anything any more. If GW wanted it to refer to run, they would have made it refer to run, either by a second printing or an errata. As GW have done neither, it is clear that the part about the Waaagh! movement causing a wound on a roll of 1 and Ghazgulz auto 6 do not work any more, much like the Thornback Biomorph for Tyranids and a number of items in the Space Wolf Codex and Tau Codex.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
the problem was the codex came out just before 5th, so they tried to write "waaagh! movement" rather than directly state Fleet or Run.
The solution on warseer was that, as strict RAW is impossible (positivist nonsense) given *all* rules require interpretation, you have to interpret the rule the same way you did in 4th.
Waaaagh! movement therefore is == to movement made in shooting phase. This was fleet and is now run, however it was both times the same movement at the same time.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
nosferatu1001 wrote:the problem was the codex came out just before 5th, so they tried to write "waaagh! movement" rather than directly state Fleet or Run.
I was unaware you wrote the codex. Oh wait...
nosferatu1001 wrote:The solution on warseer was that, as strict RAW is impossible (positivist nonsense) given *all* rules require interpretation, you have to interpret the rule the same way you did in 4th.
Warseer is hardly reliable. Also, what they are suggesting is a House rule, not RaW
nosferatu1001 wrote:Waaaagh! movement therefore is == to movement made in shooting phase. This was fleet and is now run, however it was both times the same movement at the same time.
According to a house rule, not RaW
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
Why can certain people not admit that the way they want to play is not what is written in the rules? Especially when it's due to ruleset changes? If this topic was about "is it reasonable to create a houserule that waagh movement = run?" then there'd be no controversy at all.
By strict RAW, Waaggh does not grant movement and Ghazgul's ability is gone. However, the risk associated with a roll of 1 is gone also.
If you want to treat the run as the waaggh movement then it's an easy and obvious houserule. But it is still a houserule (something I have no problem with as long as it's not passed off as RAW)
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Scott-S6 wrote:Why can certain people not admit that the way they want to play is not what is written in the rules? Especially when it's due to ruleset changes? If this topic was about "is it reasonable to create a houserule that waagh movement = run?" then there'd be no controversy at all.
By strict RAW, Waaggh does not grant movement and Ghazgul's ability is gone. However, the risk associated with a roll of 1 is gone also.
If you want to treat the run as the waaggh movement then it's an easy and obvious houserule. But it is still a houserule (something I have no problem with as long as it's not passed off as RAW)
QFT. Even I don't insist on someone playing it that way (If I am in a good mood anyway), I ask them to do it as it used to work, Roll of 1 = Wound etc and all that jazz. I just point out that it is not how it actually works.
11933
Post by: number9dream
insaniak wrote:number9dream wrote:They wrote the bloody rules just months before 5th was released, why would they include something that's not going to bloody do ANYTHING in just a few months?
Poor planning?
(Although if you ask anyone who bought the 2nd Edition Sisters of Battle codex, which was released a couple of months before 3rd edition came along and invalidated every single codex, they'd probably tell you that GW do it deliberately just to drive people up the wall...)
Possibly by the strictest RAW I could be inclined to agree that "it does nothing", but I think that's taking RAW to the point of looking for loopholes.
The fact that you can see the opposing side at least argues for it to be something to discuss with your opponent pre-game, rather than just assuming that everyone will agree it works the way you think it does.
Before this thread, I wouldn't have even considered it an issue, but after this thread, yes I can see bringing it up with your opponent being a good idea.
8471
Post by: olympia
From the 5th Edition Ork FAQ
Q. Are saves allowed against wounds caused by
rolling a ‘1’ for the ‘Waaagh!’ fleet roll? Or by a
Bosspole’s re-roll?
A. Armour and invulnerable saves are allowed.
These are just the same as wounds suffered in
close combat from a normal weapon (actually, a
big green fist…).
What do we learn from this? We learn that all of you who said a roll of "1" no longer wounds were wrong. You were wrong, regardless of how many testimonials your sig boasts--you were wrong.
Queue RAW fundamnetalist response.
buh buh buh....FAQs are not official...buh buh buh
12265
Post by: Gwar!
olympia wrote:From the 5th Edition Ork FAQ
Q. Are saves allowed against wounds caused by
rolling a ‘1’ for the ‘Waaagh!’ fleet roll? Or by a
Bosspole’s re-roll?
A. Armour and invulnerable saves are allowed.
These are just the same as wounds suffered in
close combat from a normal weapon (actually, a
big green fist…).
What do we learn from this? We learn that all of you who said a roll of "1" no longer wounds were wrong. You were wrong, regardless of how many testimonials your sig boasts--you were wrong.
Queue RAW fundamnetalist response.
buh buh buh....FAQs are not official...buh buh buh
FAQ's are not official, they are GW in house House Rules. Also that is just a Copypaste from the 4th edition FAQ without checking to see if it is relevant.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
olympia wrote:From the 5th Edition Ork FAQ
Q. Are saves allowed against wounds caused by
rolling a ‘1’ for the ‘Waaagh!’ fleet roll? Or by a
Bosspole’s re-roll?
A. Armour and invulnerable saves are allowed.
These are just the same as wounds suffered in
close combat from a normal weapon (actually, a
big green fist…).
What do we learn from this? We learn that all of you who said a roll of "1" no longer wounds were wrong. You were wrong, regardless of how many testimonials your sig boasts--you were wrong.
Queue RAW fundamnetalist response.
buh buh buh....FAQs are not official...buh buh buh
Whats a fleet roll? sorry... fleet rolls still don't exist.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Modquisition on:
This thread has been reported several times and is closed pending review.
|
|
